Cults and Gender

[PhilHibbs]

41 minutes ago, Imryn said:

"matriarchy is patriarchy with inverted gender roles".. If you want to describe a society with a different structure you have to use a different word to describe it.

Proscription in language never works. People will continue to use words in the vernacular even if they have a different, specific technical meaning. I would suggest using phrases like "true matriarchy" or "matriarchal governing system" for what you describe, dictionaries often define "matriarchy" to be more broad than that.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/matriarchy

1: a family, group, or state governed by a matriarch

2: a system of social organization in which descent and inheritance are traced through the female line

[Imryn]

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

Proscription in language never works. People will continue to use words in the vernacular even if they have a different, specific technical meaning. I would suggest using phrases like "true matriarchy" or "matriarchal governing system" for what you describe, dictionaries often define "matriarchy" to be more broad than that.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/matriarchy

1: a family, group, or state governed by a matriarch

2: a system of social organization in which descent and inheritance are traced through the female line

That is a really terrible definition as It is confusing "matriarchal" and "matrilineal". I would suggest getting a better dictionary, but they all seem to have taken up this horrible trend of altering the definition of words based on current "popular" usage. The English language is being steadily debased by ill-educated morons who misuse words.

The answer? Get hold of a printed dictionary from about 1950 or 60 - the good old days when academics were complete snobs and didn't pander to the ignorant unwashed masses

[Imryn]

It might be useful if I present what I think these two words mean. I don't want to get into a discussion about whether I am right or wrong, but would like to present them as a starting point for the rest of you to use in this interesting discussion

Matriarchy: A social structure where the majority of positions of power are occupied by women. There may be a few areas where men can hold positions of power but these would be limited and there would be a pronounced prejudice, and probably laws, against men gaining power outside these niches.

Matrilineal: Tracing ones ancestry through the female line only. More common in ancient times when the only parent that was certain was the mother, and the identity of a child's father was based on trust and wishful thinking. Probably less accurate in magical Glorantha than it is in the real world.

[PhilHibbs]

2 hours ago, Imryn said:

Matriarchy: A social structure where the majority of positions of power are occupied by women. There may be a few areas where men can hold positions of power but these would be limited and there would be a pronounced prejudice, and probably laws, against men gaining power outside these niches.

The problem with that definition in a real-world context is, as has recently been asserted, it never happened. So the word will inevitably be used to refer to something that did happen.

So whilst it might be useful to reserve the word "matriarchy" in fantasy gaming to refer to true, strict matriarchies, the real world vernacular usage will inevitably get in the way.

it's like "atheist" vs "agnostic", some people insist on a strict absolutist definition of "atheist" that that in practice covers almost nobody. But that's so far off topic that if anyone's interested in taking it up, please tag me in a thread in the inn.

[Qizilbashwoman]

Real-life matriarchies tend to be the opposite of patriarchies in that instead of men controlling everything, women control territory and play a central role in running lives, as in Esrolia, but men are appointed by men and affirmed by women's councils to operate in the marginal spaces. In other words, men have their own spaces on the margins.

This should be familiar to North Americans from the Longhouse cultures of the North American Northeast, including the Wabanaki or Dawnland Confederacy of what is now the Maritimes and Northern New England, the Haudenosaunee or "Iroquois Confederacy" (which heavily influenced the American ideas of democracy), the Huron Confederacy and others.

This pattern is also familiar from many other places around the globe, from East Africa and Southeast Asia. One such society developed in Han-speaking South China in the 6th and 7th centuries when the wealth provided by silk production, strictly women's work, meant that women no longer needed to marry to survive; a fun survival of that era is a large number of terms that refer to lesbian sex.

One of the difficulties is that in real life, matriarchal societies rarely browbeat men into slave status; there is no equivalent to the violence of patriarchy. This is not a feminist talking point, this is just anthropological fact. Men still have power, they just no longer have power over women, and usually require agreement with women, who control reproduction and land, to declare war. One of the more famous matriarchal societies is in Sumatra and is a Muslim community, the Minangkabau.

Esrolia is only unrealistic because in a "real world equivalent" of it, there'd be titles and stuff for men, and they'd live in men's houses when they weren't engaged in marriages with women. Men would spend their time "overseas" trying to make money and fame in places where men get respect, then come back and impress ladies so they could try to get some children out of it. This is what the Minangkabau men do!

3 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

it's like "atheist" vs "agnostic"

In fantasy games, the appropriate term is generally dystheist, because gods exist, you just hate them and think they bad.

Edited July 31, 2019 by Qizilbashwoman

[Shiningbrow]

11 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Proscription in language never works....

Precisely the thought I had reading the previous post!!

 

What's a dragon? Does China have dragons (in stories, not RL)? Because, dragons have wings... Oh, wait....

What about vampires? Do all cultures have them? Yes... And no... And even in our own culture(s), have they stayed the same?

 

So, it's foolish to put up a label to something, and expect the world to conform to it... rather than the other way around.

[Shiningbrow]

9 hours ago, Imryn said:

It might be useful if I present what I think these two words mean. I don't want to get into a discussion about whether I am right or wrong, but would like to present them as a starting point for the rest of you to use in this interesting discussion

Matriarchy: A social structure where the majority of positions of power are occupied by women. There may be a few areas where men can hold positions of power but these would be limited and there would be a pronounced prejudice, and probably laws, against men gaining power outside these niches.

Matrilineal: Tracing ones ancestry through the female line only. More common in ancient times when the only parent that was certain was the mother, and the identity of a child's father was based on trust and wishful thinking. Probably less accurate in magical Glorantha than it is in the real world.

The examples cited have most of the elements of the first (without the strong limitations and prejudicial laws), as well as the second.

[styopa]

10 hours ago, Imryn said:

Matriarchy: A social structure where the majority of positions of power are occupied by women. There may be a few areas where men can hold positions of power but these would be limited and there would be a pronounced prejudice, and probably laws, against men gaining power outside these niches.

Except that depends ENTIRELY on your definition of what a "position of power" IS, doesn't it?  Why, for example, are you assuming a female society would be as exclusionary of males as primitive male ones are of females?  Sorry, but your model sounds more like "government by men with mammaries and vaginas" than actual women.  Read the wiki that's been linked; many feminist scholars defend the argument that the "opposite" of a patriarchy is an egalitarian society because that's what women tend to. (IMO, I think that's a wee bit idealizing women as being somehow morally superior...not sure I'd go that far.)

Man sits on throne, is ostensibly king.  Woman make all his decisions, and decides unilaterally what woman will marry his son, so that she knows someone competent will be making his decisions.  Man literally just parrots the orders she gives him: "matriarchy"?  The women have all the power and control, but don't wear the vestments of power.  Meaningful?

As I said previously, to me it's pretty simplistic to believe that the only possible 'valid' model of matriarchy is some weird negative-mirror-image of male structures.  Presumably where women are the generals and wave the swords around?

I hope I'm not offending anyone to say: that's simply not how most women seem to work, collaborate, or build power structures.  Women are intrinsically different; they are far more verbal than physical, far more collaborative than competitive, more manipulative of social orders than outright violent, more likely to kill with poison than a club to the head in a stand-up fight.

There's literally no reason (except to defend this strawman argument we're having) to presume that societies in which women have control would be in any way structured like men's.

cf: female forms of power and the myth of male dominance: a model of female/male interaction in peasant society

https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/ae.1975.2.4.02a00090

Quote

On the other hand, within the context of peasant society, women control at least the major portion of important resources and decisions. In other words, if we limit our investigation to the relative actual power of peasant men and women, eliminating for the moment those sources of power from the outside world which are beyond the reach of either peasant men or women, women appear to be generally more powerful.

or

https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1521&context=cmc_theses

 

Edited August 1, 2019 by styopa

[jeffjerwin]

In the realm of mythology, matriarchal societies like the Kingdom of Women in the Himalayas (visited by Monkey in the Journey to the West, but based on ancient South Asian legends), and the Amazons do exhibit the sort of dominating behavior that men see in their own societies, but admittedly, this is because these stories are been written or shaped by men. The Kingdom of Women has harems of males for their Queen (into which the monk being accompanied by Monkey is imprisoned), and the Amazons are of course quite violent and xenophobic.

However, there are legends like the 'Land/Island of Women' found in Celtic legend - the Celts being generally less misogynistic and viewed with suspicion by the Romans because of the freedom of their women - where there is simply a peaceful and frankly idyllic land ruled by women, sometimes with magical powers, who occasionally entertain sailors.

[davecake]

Discussion on gender roles within the Malkioni

On 7/30/2019 at 10:10 PM, Joerg said:

From its original concept, Malkioni society is patriarchal - Malkion the founder has various wives from whom the leaders of the tribes and castes are descended. The names of the mothers are mostly forgotten, except for Malkion's mother Warera.

Sort of, though I suspect some Brithini ancients might blink in confusion at the idea that Eranschula etc are innately gendered in the way mortals understand and try to explain the philosophical errors that result from an overly literal extrapolation of explanations of magical genealogies (in which several land goddesses etc appear). 

 (and might secretly mock the Rokari for such an overly literal understanding)

I think there probably are strict rules about lineage, birth, etc in the Old Law of Zzabur. They used to guarantee immortality. But like all the Old Law, no longer applies - modern humanity are too impure for them to work (even the Secret Keeper Lineages etc). This doesn't stop the Rokari futilely trying, but the Irensavalists, and many other sects, regard this as just another example of the Rokari trying to recreate a past that they never can, and their understanding of the Menena caste is just another example. 

On 7/30/2019 at 10:10 PM, Joerg said:

Other known female Malkioni include his daughter Menena, Hrestol's mother Xemela and sister Fenela, and the most astounding Lady Gwelenor who obtained one of the islands of Kanthor's Forest back for human habitation. We have the name of Guilmarn's primary wife, and the Seshnegi King List offers an occasional outstanding female, but other than in the Serpent King dynasty dying out, there isn't a single female ruler of Seshnela.

I cannot name any Malkioni sorceress.

I rather tend to think you just HAVE named some Malkioni sorceresses. Xemela is known for magical acts, and an entire school of sorcery is named after her, presumably as its founder. Fenela, while mostly known for marrying a god, manages to marry a god - and on her terms. Which sounds rather more like a mighty heroquest than being a passive bride (much as that might be how the story gets retold among barbarians). Gwelenor is a Xemelite, I think, and so a sorcerer. Another daughter of Froalar we know about is Nebrola, who is a daughter of, and High Priestess of, Seshna Likita. 

It is certainly the case that no women are recorded as rulers of Seshnela, except as 'regent' in early dynasties. I think this may be more about the First Age Seshnelan sacred marriage though - the first age rulers are referred to as Sacred Lord, and I think have to re-enact the marriage with Seshna Likita, so it is about that position not rulership per se. By the time the Serpent Kings die out, the kingship traditions and rituals all assume a male King. The Rokari come along nearly a thousand years later and think the traditions of First Age Seshnela reflect the traditions of Brithos and so must be sacred - and besides, their talar caste are essentially barbarian conquerers to whom a hereditary male is natural. The Brithini of Arolanit can tell them it's somewhat false, but they also reject the validity of the entire Seshnelan Talar caste at that point so are ignored. Note, though, that the last Sacred Lord (Mimtak) actually tries to appoint his sister to reign in his place, and she is followed by another woman ruler - the Sacred Lords seem to have understood that while they must be male, it is due to their relationship with Seshna Likita rather than a true Malkioni tradition. But then opposition to a woman as leader is tied up with the suppression of the Seshna cult and the conservative usurpation of Neeilin, and the Seshnelans return to male Kingship. 

Another way to look at the same cultural process, is that under the First Age Seshnelans, the magical duties became somewhat divided with women of primary importance as priestesses of the Earth goddess and also Underworld goddesses (note the rulership of the city of Fralos, always an unmarried talar caste woman even still), and actually incredibly significant - the Goddess received tithes of 25% of the wealth of the Kingdom! The Men-Of-All at this time included woman analogous to the Babeester Gor cult. Then when the worship of Seshna is suppressed by Neeilin, the power of women (as magicians, but also generally) is largely destroyed at the same time, as female power has become strongly associated with pagan practice. The Rokari later take the post-Neeilin orthodoxy as ancient orthodox Malkioni orthodoxy (even though it is far from it) and built their society around it. 

That said, I don't think there is anything that says that Rokari Zzaburi are exclusively male, and they are an exception to the normal caste rules in other ways. There may well be Zzaburi women. The general sexist nature of Rokari society in recognising female talent might reduce their number, and I expect they would be gender segregated, but they presumably exist. 

On 7/30/2019 at 10:10 PM, Joerg said:

The Loskalmi give females access to their meritocratic caste system, true.

Absolutely. And I think this extends right to the top. 

On 7/30/2019 at 10:10 PM, Joerg said:

None of the leaders is female, though - it's a lot like our modern "parity" when it comes to boards of corporations. There are no rules against females in such a position, but there is hardly any female found in such a position.

I tend to think this is an artifact of the history of writing about Glorantha. Much of the names of important Loskalmi notables comes from Snodals saga and other very early sources, and the House of Snodal are over-represented in the . The Loskalmi were not well understood then. If we came to write it now, more women would be included in the senior hierarchy. And indeed, notable women of Loskalm are mentioned - Penthea is one of the greatest Men-Of-All in the Kingdom, and Amlaria the Priestess is a notable hero of the late Snodal era. I would encourage future writings about Loskalm to presume more representation of women. 

My theory about the Loskalmi theory of gender roles is that Menena is regarded as a caste that is tied to duties such as childbirth, education and maintenance of the home, but their ideals of caste apply to it. So a woman who marries and gives birth may be regarded as part of the Menena caste, but it is not mandatory to women. Thus there is a still a degree of sexism - motherhood takes you out of the caste progression, at least for nearly a couple of decades - but it is practical and structural, the ideals of New Hrestolism deny it. 

(and New Hrestolism seems to deny hereditary leadership in principle, but revere the line of Snodal enough they dominate leadership, which skews things a bit)

On 7/30/2019 at 10:10 PM, Joerg said:

The Rokari (at least the Talar caste) are quite indulgent sexually, and their only moral concern appears to be to keep it inside the caste.

I think keeping it inside the caste is probably more in theory than actuality. All of Guilmarn's (and other Talars) wives will be of the Talar caste, but I do not think this is necessarily true of his concubines, and affairs will occur. Talars having lovers who are not wives is an ancient tradition (though these need not be female).

On 7/30/2019 at 10:10 PM, Joerg said:

And woe to the Dronari men or women who would dare to bare her torso to exalted nobles...

In the Seshnelan art direction, both Talars and Dronari are said to be bare chested, Dronari at work often wearing little more than a loin cloth. It is possible Dronari women wear more, but I don't think it is mandatory - I suspect it is considered reasonable for Dronari to strip down for comfort as appropriate for activity, and for Talari to wear very little except jewelry. Horali should be armoured when performing their duties (but disrobe at other times, it is only the Zzaburi who are stuck with robes and hats most of the time. 

On 7/30/2019 at 10:10 PM, Joerg said:

There is no mention of public baths, or whether those have caste-restrictions for certain areas or practices.

There is mention of the baths at the healing springs of Pleasant View, and also baths being built as public works in the city of Wallburg, I would tend to assume public baths in Loskalm. It also fits with the general Loskalmi lack of nudity taboo, and enthusiasm for cleanliness (one of their most sacred texts is largely a hygiene manual). I'm not sure about Seshnela etc. There may well be caste-restrictions for some practices, though. 

[Loskalm again]

On 7/30/2019 at 10:10 PM, Joerg said:

They certainly live in a region and climate where saunas would be natural.

I think also spaces for bathing, and also spaces for exercise, including athletic competition. If they are segregated (which they may not be in general), it would be buy caste not sex, but I suspect default is communal, though the Men-Of-All, Nobility etc may have their private spaces in practice. 

[davecake]

On 7/30/2019 at 11:24 PM, scott-martin said:

I suspect that the suppression of the menenas as co-equal caste prompted the dudes to allocate the female role across all the caste daughters,

The whole idea that the role of the Menena caste is in dispute across Malkionism implies to me that the Brithini practices are less simplistic and more ambiguous than we presume to me. It may well be one of those things were the differences between ancient mythic Danmalastan and the reality of post-Ice Age Brithini life differ rather more than the Brithini really want to talk about. 

But I think the Seshnelans definitely had a couple of historical points where they changed attitudes to women, particularly around the end of the Serpent Lords. 

On 7/30/2019 at 11:24 PM, scott-martin said:

with talars as "princesses" or objects of dynastic desire while peasants and others default to "earth witch" within the Serpent King system.

In First Age Seshnela, multiple goddess roles across the castes. 

[Imryn]

The word "Matriarchy" was created as the inverse of a "Patriarchy". It was not created to represent some other different structure or way of doing things. It is not based on any real world example, although the ancient Amazon's were probably of some influence (and there is precious little evidence that they even existed and even less on their social structure).

The word carries all of the same baggage as the word "Patriarchy" but with the gender roles reversed.

Having a powerful woman controlling a male king from behind the scenes is not a matriarchy. Having leadership by consensus is not a matriarchy. Having equal opportunities for both genders is not a matriarchy. Each of these scenarios have their own word to describe them.

The post feminist vision of how a society run by women would function, is charming and terribly idealistic. Leadership by consensus , with everyone's views being heard and no decisions being made until everyone is in agreement is utterly unworkable, even in a fantasy world.

Anyone who has worked for a female CEO can tell you that there is not much difference between men and women in positions of power. The females might not chase the secretaries quite as much, and they might be a bit less aggressive in the way they deal with people, but at the end of the day they are in charge and expect to be obeyed.

[PhilHibbs]

1 hour ago, Imryn said:

The word "Matriarchy" was created as the inverse of a "Patriarchy". It was not created to represent some other different structure or way of doing things. It is not based on any real world example, although the ancient Amazon's were probably of some influence (and there is precious little evidence that they even existed and even less on their social structure).

The word carries all of the same baggage as the word "Patriarchy" but with the gender roles reversed.

I'm just going to say "I disagree" and leave it at that.

[Imryn]

9 hours ago, styopa said:

Except that depends ENTIRELY on your definition of what a "position of power" IS, doesn't it?  Why, for example, are you assuming a female society would be as exclusionary of males as primitive male ones are of females?  Sorry, but your model sounds more like "government by men with mammaries and vaginas" than actual women.  Read the wiki that's been linked; many feminist scholars defend the argument that the "opposite" of a patriarchy is an egalitarian society because that's what women tend to. (IMO, I think that's a wee bit idealizing women as being somehow morally superior...not sure I'd go that far.)

The word "matriarchy" is the inverse of a "patriarchy" with the gender roles reversed. Everything else is implicit in that statement.

I am making no assumptions about a female society; use of the word "matriarchy" to describe a society carries all of the assumptions with it. If you don't like the assumptions you should use a word that better describes the society you are describing.

9 hours ago, styopa said:

Man sits on throne, is ostensibly king.  Woman make all his decisions, and decides unilaterally what woman will marry his son, so that she knows someone competent will be making his decisions.  Man literally just parrots the orders she gives him: "matriarchy"?  The women have all the power and control, but don't wear the vestments of power.  Meaningful?

Not a matriarchy.

1. The woman is not in a position of power. The power belongs to the man. The woman is in a position of influence, not power.

2. A matriarchy requires most positions of power be occupied by women, not just one.

Is the UK under Queen Elizabeth a matriarchy? Or with Theresa May as PM? No of course it isn't.

9 hours ago, styopa said:

As I said previously, to me it's pretty simplistic to believe that the only possible 'valid' model of matriarchy is some weird negative-mirror-image of male structures.  Presumably where women are the generals and wave the swords around?

I hope I'm not offending anyone to say: that's simply not how most women seem to work, collaborate, or build power structures.  Women are intrinsically different; they are far more verbal than physical, far more collaborative than competitive, more manipulative of social orders than outright violent, more likely to kill with poison than a club to the head in a stand-up fight.

There's literally no reason (except to defend this strawman argument we're having) to presume that societies in which women have control would be in any way structured like men's.

There is only one valid model of a "Matriarchy". There are many possible social structures for societies with women in positions of power, its just that only one of them is called a Matriarchy. If you want to describe a different social structure use a word that correctly describes it, don't use a word that describes something different and insist that it now means what you want it to mean.

[styopa]

4 hours ago, Imryn said:

The word "Matriarchy" was created as the inverse of a "Patriarchy". It was not created to represent some other different structure or way of doing things.

I'm not sure we necessarily agree on what a fact is, but I'm pretty sure you don't get to completely make crap up.  

You might want to look up Dunning-Kruger effect.

[Qizilbashwoman]

On 7/29/2019 at 10:46 AM, styopa said:

why wouldn't then male god-talkers of Ernalda wear shiny golden faux-breast pectorals as well

well you're assuming that is identified as a major identifier for Ernaldans; maybe it is? Lhankorian faux-beards are an imitation of the god's notorious beard, Vingan dye of her hair, so it's entirely possible Ernaldan godhi wear false-breast pectorals. But not gold, that's the sun-metal! Copper is the Earth-metal.

On 7/31/2019 at 9:25 AM, Imryn said:

The English language is being steadily debased by ill-educated morons who misuse words.

The answer? Get hold of a printed dictionary from about 1950 or 60 - the good old days when academics were complete snobs and didn't pander to the ignorant unwashed masses 

I'm a linguist and I also do anthropology and sociology and I cannot begin to explain the ways you are just entirely crashing the plane into the ground in this thread. I mean I could, but this board is not about disabusing people of basic facts about language, nor about classism, racism, and basic civility, which you seem free to want to pull the pin on and just throw directly into the crowd.

Do you think maybe we could not do that as I feel like this is enough of a hellworld that I don't need to come into a Glorantha discussion and see someone clearly backhanding Englishes that aren't Oxford/Ohio Broadcaster?

Because honestly it's pretty clear what you mean by that, and it's beyond ugly. It's not a dogwhistle at this point, it's a foghorn.

Edited August 1, 2019 by Qizilbashwoman

[g33k]

1 minute ago, Qizilbashwoman said:

well you're assuming that is identified as a major identifier for Ernaldans; maybe it is? Lhankorian faux-beards are an imitation of the god's notorious beard, Vingan dye of her hair, so it's entirely possible Ernaldan godhi wear false-breast pectorals. But not gold, that's the sun-metal! Copper is the Earth-metal.

*IF* it's held as an important feature (which seems likely(?) to me, it's usually taken as a fertility-signifier in iconography) then there may be a requirement for men to wear "falsies;" might the same apply to less-endowed women?  OTOH, it seems unattested in Gloranthan "canon" (unlike the beards & red hair), so likely not(?).

It's worth noting that this topic strays close to some idealized & even fetishized modern-era attitudes & habits...

I recall a discussion a while ago on these boards, concluding that "sacred dress" would somewhat conform to locality.  Esrolia takes a lot of cues from Crete & Minos, and bare-breasted priestesses are a thing in Esrolia, so if "showing the breast" is expected in those temples, copper (good point!) pectorals would seem likely there.  In colder climes, that would differ.

[Qizilbashwoman]

24 minutes ago, g33k said:

OTOH, it seems unattested in Gloranthan "canon"

idk where you're looking, there's SO MUCH TIDDY in Glorantha. It's not specifically lewd except in the designs of certain deities, it's just "welcome to the Bronze Age, I am a fertility priestess". Player characters of Earth Goddesses (not the Death Rune kind) are portrayed with Minoan buxom clothing, including in recent publications. I think the latest Runequest has quite a few if I'm remembering correctly.

But I'm 100% sure you're not gonna find it in colder climates, for sure. This is summer wear for Orlanthings - Esrolia, Prax, Kerofinela, Aggar, and so forth.

Other Orlanthings are dressed for their roles as well: merchants are in merchant clothing: rich clothing in cities, travel wear for the road. Women who ride horses or are in cold climates are in pants, sometimes with overlaying skirts or wrapped dresses atop them if they are wealthy and urban.

It's interesting to note that many Orlanthi cultists dress only in blue dye (woad) and maybe footwear and a hat. They are buck naked like Orlanth. So bodily exposure isn't limited to women!

[styopa]

(spoilers)

24 minutes ago, Qizilbashwoman said:

 there's SO MUCH TIDDY in Glorantha. It's not specifically lewd except in the designs of certain deities, it's just "welcome to the Bronze Age, I am a fertility priestess". Player characters of Earth Goddesses (not the Death Rune kind) are portrayed with Minoan buxom clothing, including in recent publications. I think the latest Runequest has quite a few if I'm remembering correctly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hell, the quickstart is pretty much about 

[Qizilbashwoman]

51 minutes ago, styopa said:

Hell, the quickstart is pretty much about 

all art is political

the best explanation to date of this art IMHO is "woman looking down at her own body" because uh that's what you see. that's not what you see looking at someone else, it's what you see looking down

(source: me looking down versus me looking in a mirror, where I look like, you know, a fairly average human being)

[g33k]

1 hour ago, Qizilbashwoman said:

idk where you're looking, there's SO MUCH TIDDY in Glorantha. It's not specifically lewd except in the designs of certain deities, it's just "welcome to the Bronze Age, I am a fertility priestess". Player characters of Earth Goddesses (not the Death Rune kind) are portrayed with Minoan buxom clothing, including in recent publications. I think the latest Runequest has quite a few if I'm remembering correctly.

Reading, more than looking:  yeah, the Minoan-cued outfits in Esrolia & adjacent areas are an obvious thing in the art.  But is it in the TEXT?

We know about "beards" on the LM and "red hair" for Vinga not just from the pix, but from the texts.

Without any textual... uh, context... I'm semi-inclined to say that the Minoan cues in the art are at least as much Esrolian-Cultural as Ernaldan-Religious (admittedly, they may be more than a bit entwined there...).  Except, of course, that whole RW/anthropological  "welcome to the Bronze Age, I am a fertility priestess" thing.

On the one hand, I find the lack of textual attestation (or have I missed something?) significant; OTOH, the ancient-era RW (which we know OFTEN cues the Gloranthan) has this VERY well attested.

So I am waffling a bit.

[gochie]

Wew, this thread went off-roading in the mud real hard... And I'm not even sure anyone actually answered the initial question. 

My take is this: I think they (Chaosium) want Orlanthi culture to be super progressive (which is probably a fairly recent change as a by-product of our increasingly progressive environment IRL), but didn't think to change the specific cult rules on gender from the older versions of the game.

 

Tldr: they rushed into the idea of progressivism without changing everything it might affect--maybe 😊.

[Qizilbashwoman]

3 hours ago, gochie said:

My take is this: I think they (Chaosium) want Orlanthi culture to be super progressive (which is probably a fairly recent change as a by-product of our increasingly progressive environment IRL), but didn't think to change the specific cult rules on gender from the older versions of the game.

They had a lot to work through. HeroQuest has Orlanthi women essentially all having Earth runes and Orlanthi men having Wind runes in the first (elemental) slot; Solar Pantheon folk only change this by having men having Fire runes! (Vingans are women with Wind runes.)

Also the whole "six genders four sexes" thing is definitely 100% not thought through at all. It's at least there so it's canon that Glorantha gives two fingers to Western Ideas, but it's not presented at all in the text. What do they mean by sex versus gender? That's not really how it works and two minutes with someone who understood sex-gender would have saved them a lot of confused players.

I think Glorantha was always progressive - I mean, the plot of the Lunar Way is an exploration of patriarchy, matriarchy, and rebellion-fusion-, it's just that there was a lot of cultural change in the last decade in particular around sex and gender so there was a lot to shift!

[Bill the barbarian]

1 hour ago, Qizilbashwoman said:

I think Glorantha was always progressive - I mean, the plot of the Lunar Way is an exploration of patriarchy, matriarchy, and rebellion-fusion-, it's just that there was a lot of cultural change in the last decade in particular around sex and gender so there was a lot to shift!

True enough, and change is finally beginning though the shift can be scary. 

We are at the beginning of the forth wave of feminism, or the end of the third, so one can expect and hope for better but with but 170 years out of our 4-10,000 years of patriarchy (or more depending on who ya talk to) since the early days of the suffragette movement and all those brave women of the first wave, the dangerous, convoluted, groovy middle of the last century when NOW, Gloria Steinem, et al and the ERA rattled windows and shook down the walls (the 2nd wave) right up to yesterday—the early 90's when the riot grrl movement kicked out the jams and let  us know that women STILL wanted in with the third wave!

We aren't where we need to be yet, but Chaosium does a great job for a corporation of trying. 

Cheers

Edited August 2, 2019 by Bill the barbarian

[Shiningbrow]

9 hours ago, Qizilbashwoman said:

all art is political

the best explanation to date of this art IMHO is "woman looking down at her own body" because uh that's what you see. that's not what you see looking at someone else, it's what you see looking down

(source: me looking down versus me looking in a mirror, where I look like, you know, a fairly average human being)

Body posture trance position.