Sparta was a lot more equal between genders than Athens, for example. There's also contradictory information about how they handled homosexuality.
Well, and this is my personal take, not Golarion canon:
Cheliax: Doesn't much care one way or the other about female-female relationships if the participants are people without any real power, or if it's a noblewoman indulging herself with a servant on the side, as long as everyone keeps to their place. I tend to assume there's a misogynistic aspect to Chelish culture because of Asmodeus, but it's not a central part of their culture, and it's more new/fashionable than it is deeply ingrained. So I picture it as being sort of Victorian -- you have a female ruler, and a penchant for perversion, and an upper class that's free to do pretty much whatever they want, as long as no one noble feels like calling another noble on it. (And scandal is titillating, and in its way, fashionable as well.) But if you DO make a powerful enemy, the same stuff that made you a scandalous public darling can be turned against you (e.g. Oscar Wilde). Given the emphasis on nobility, there's also an emphasis on carrying on the family line, so heterosexuality is privileged from that standpoint, but it's assumed everyone's coming up with clever ways to cheat, nepotism for one's paramours (het or non) is rampant, and everyone's looking for something to gossip about. When one falls from public esteem, all that stuff might come back to bite one.
And at the same time, ironically, there's also a strain of misogyny among the anti-Thrune contingents, because the current Thrune is a queen.
That irony makes Asmodeus really happy, I'd imagine.
So, male-male relationships = cool, as long as you make sure to provide an heir. Female-female relationships = unacknowledged, largely.
Drow: Drow think men are disposable brutes, and fairly useless without strict direction. Largely an inversion of Greek society -- the public sphere belongs to women, except that instead of men's sphere being home and hearth, it's the barracks. Drow think men are very much controlled by their impulses, except in drow society, men not being able...
This subject matter is very interesting, as a suggestion would it be possible that Paizo might publish a book on society and culture, because this topic often comes up in our games. And the Gamemastery Guide and Ultimate Campaign don't cover these areas in close detail.
From memory, Towns of the Inner Sea is the only book that goes more in depth about class structure and politics. Really great book.
As one can see from my previous post we had trouble establishing judgment about homosexual dwarves, but there are also things like laws (and how they vary from nation-to-nation, my gaming group is really in the dark about that one), traditions, particularly barbaric traditions like trial by combat and outlawed ancient rituals.
We end up looking at historical cases, and from your comments the culture of Golarion is quite differently from our own world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the RPG line (the rules hardcover) is intentionally setting agnostic -- you're not going to find anything about how societies in Golarion work.
As far as publishing books on society and culture, that's what much of the Campaign Setting line is. :-) (There's also a lot in the APs.)
So the RPG line (the rules hardcover) is intentionally setting agnostic -- you're not going to find anything about how societies in Golarion work.
As far as publishing books on society and culture, that's what much of the Campaign Setting line is. :-) (There's also a lot in the APs.)
Paizo does a fantastic job, no complaints here.
Just really a comment (not criticism) about the broad brush over the fine detailed brush, sometimes our gaming group is after specifics (how do different countries and cultures interact with each other as the campaign setting line tend to be really focused on a particular part of Golarion).
From my experience, yes the APs do have more social/cultural interaction in relation to the NPCs, Ameiko and her father's Japanese influenced glassworks business (in a foreign nation) and her unique family dynamic comes to mind.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, one of my favorite topics of conversation in Golarion is the impact of the Elixir of Sex Shift and Reincarnate on perceptions of individuals, particularly Reincarnate, as it removes any choice in the matter.
Part of real world issues involving transsexuals (and the sexuality of transexuals) is the genetic makeup of the individuals. Both the Elixir and the Spell rewrite this genetic makeup, so what are the consequences of that rewrite?
For a base example; we have a standard heterosexual Chelish couple. The man dies, and the woman scrapes together enough money to get a Reincarnate cast. He comes back as a female elf.
Is the elf now homosexual?
Is the elf now transexual?
Does the elf become sexually attracted to men (as they were heterosexual originally and now are a woman).
The list of questions ranges on!
Does the human still love the elf, even though the elf is not the same body as before? Is this where love-born half-orcs come from?
Does the human still love the elf, even though the elf is not the same sex as before? If she does, does this make her homosexual?
How do the Gods themselves view such transitions?
Does Asmodeus view women who shift into men with the same favor he views men (as per shedding your female weakness)?
Does Urgathoa potentially transform a shifted man into a Daughter (a rite reserved for her favored priestesses) upon death?
Does Erastil approve of individuals who shift so that they can raise a family (such as if one of two same-sex lovers shifts so that they can have children together (which I can totally see two gnomes who fell in love with eachother's minds doing)).
Does Lamashtu encourage members to become female so that they can give birth to her offspring?
Then there are questions about the world at large.
Are there transexuals who refuse to use magic to shift to their identified gender (and sex)?
Are there transexuals who shift sex, only to find themselves still ill-at-ease in the body they inhabit?
If a particular society has a problem with homosexual relationships, do they have a problem with gender-shifting as a work around?
Honestly, you would think that in a world with a magical solution to a problem there'd be fewer questions, but if anything, there are more...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of your questions answer themselves if you stop assuming that one's genital configuration determines one's gender, the gender(s) to which one is attracted, etc.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aw, well, I'm flattered, but I don't really need a whole shrine or anything, just the occasional chocolate offering and I'm happy. ;-)
Assistant Developer
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, one of my favorite topics of conversation in Golarion is the impact of the Elixir of Sex Shift and Reincarnate on perceptions of individuals, particularly Reincarnate, as it removes any choice in the matter.
Well, first of all the reincarnate spell does not change your gender, just your race, and the elixir of sex shift calls out that you transform into the sex you want, so it can't be effectively used on an unwilling target. But there are circumstances (like a cursed belt) that do change your sex unwillingly, so some of this still stands.
Part of real world issues involving transsexuals (and the sexuality of transexuals) is the genetic makeup of the individuals. Both the Elixir and the Spell rewrite this genetic makeup, so what are the consequences of that rewrite?
Genetics doesn't really have much to do with it; trans and intersex conditions are almost universally caused by biochemical issues during fetal development rather than any genetic markers. Likewise, most research seems to indicate that there isn't a real "gay gene," so odds are a magical transformation wouldn't rewrite your own sense of your gender or rewire your sexuality.
That said, as a trans woman I can say that shifting how you interact with the world does make you more comfortable with expressing attractions you wouldn't before. So a woman who has always presumed she was straight but is sex-shifted into a man would be more willing to entertain bisexual inclinations she had previously ignored.
For a base example; we have a standard heterosexual Chelish couple. The man dies, and the woman scrapes together enough money to get a Reincarnate cast. He comes back as a female elf.
- Is the elf now homosexual? - The elf is probably still attracted to women if he was before.
- Is the elf now transexual? - "Transsexual" isn't the right word here, but said elf is probably uncomfortable with the new social roles, hormones, and expectations
- Does the elf become sexually attracted to men (as they were heterosexual originally and now are a woman). - Almost certainly not unless, as mentioned before, he already had some bisexual leanings he wasn't paying attention to.
- Does the human still love the elf, even though the elf is not the same body as before? If she does, does this make her homosexual?
- This is actually a huge point of debate in the trans community. Some couples do survive transition (often thanks to those previously-mentioned unexplored bisexual leanings), while others remain in-love, but not physically compatible. Other times, a transition leads to deep resentment and a bitter break-up. In this case, it would depend entirely on who these specific people were, rather than a blanket rule.
- Is this where love-born half-orcs come from? Love-born half-orcs come from many other situations more common than one half of a couple randomly being transformed into an orc or half-orc. Some human communities are equally survivalist and strength-focused and have relatively amicable relations with orc neighbors. In addition, half-orcs have been around since the Age of Darkness and breed true, so many modern half-orcs are actually the children of other half-orcs.
- How do the Gods themselves view such transitions? - Given that most of the gods are beyond physical sex and can manifest as whatever sex they like, most gods likely have no strong opinion on magical transitions
- Does Asmodeus view women who shift into men with the same favor he views men (as per shedding your female weakness)? - Asmodeus would likely smile on such a naked power-grab and manipulation of the system, and given his unique relationship with Holomog, he would probably view it as fair turnabout.
- Does Urgathoa potentially transform a shifted man into a Daughter (a rite reserved for her favored priestesses) upon death? - Probably not, as that sort of undead transformation is more an aspect of the soul than the physical condition of the body. She would likely be fine transforming transgender women and nonbinary clerics into Daughters, though.
- Does Erastil approve of individuals who shift so that they can raise a family (such as if one of two same-sex lovers shifts so that they can have children together (which I can totally see two gnomes who fell in love with eachother's minds doing)). - No. Erastil hates fun.
- Does Lamashtu encourage members to become female so that they can give birth to her offspring? - I doubt she encourages it, but I can see impregnation (either via sex-shifting or by other magical means) as an important part of becoming a priest or raising above a certain position.
- Are there transexuals who refuse to use magic to shift to their identified gender (and sex)? - Absolutely! Not all trans people necessarily want to change their genitals. More importantly, magical transformations like the elixir of sex shift cost a small fortune in-world and aren't available to the general populace, so many trans people in Golarion rely on nonmagical solutions rather than a magical quick-fix.
- Are there transexuals who shift sex, only to find themselves still ill-at-ease in the body they inhabit? - Possibly. There are trans people who don't feel comfortable with a strict gender binary, and if raised in a culture that emphasizes that binary, they may think swapping from one specific gender role to another specific gender role will make them happy when, in reality, neither narrow category fits them.
- If a particular society has a problem with homosexual relationships, do they have a problem with gender-shifting as a work around? - Historically, most societies have had complicated relationships between same-sex attraction and gender variance. Sometimes gender-variance is fine, so long as those citizens are asexual or adhere to strict rules governing their sexuality (such as the Gallae, transgender priestesses on Cybele who were generally expected to castrate themselves and be celibate). Other societies may be fine with homosexuality, but see gender variance or transition as disgusting or unnatural.
Contributor
|
Does Erastil approve of individuals who shift so that they can raise a family (such as if one of two same-sex lovers shifts so that they can have children together (which I can totally see two gnomes who fell in love with eachother's minds doing)). - No. Erastil hates fun.
This is the funniest thing I've seen all day, especially in the middle of an otherwise-serious post.
(I found the rest of your post very interesting, too. ^_^)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Um, have you met the guy?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to give my completely non-official, unrelated to anyone associated with Paizo, opinion on this, just because I can.
For a base example; we have a standard heterosexual Chelish couple. The man dies, and the woman scrapes together enough money to get a Reincarnate cast. He comes back as a female elf.
Is the elf now homosexual?
Well, we're clearly in the realm of house rules to begin with, since as Crystal notes upthread, the reincarnate spell doesn't normally change gender. If this were a PC, I would only do this if the player wanted to, and I would ask the player how they wanted to play the character. If they wanted, I'd be happy to roll percentile dice to randomize it, in keeping with the spirit of the reincarnate spell. It's certainly the case that one's biology has a strong effect on how you view your gender and one's sexual attraction to other people. If it were an NPC, I'd decide what story I wanted to tell, and make a decision based on that.
Is the elf now transexual?
The usual term would be simply 'trans' as 'transsexual' has fallen out of favor. That would depend. It is entirely plausible to imagine that the structure of the brain that influences gender identity matches the body that brain now appears in. So the soul may now find itself feeling feminine instead of masculine. If so, she would not be trans, as her body would match her gender identity.
On the other hand, it may be that the soul retains the gender identity it had previously, in which case he would be a trans man.
Does the elf become sexually attracted to men (as they were heterosexual originally and now are a woman).
See above. It depends on whether you think the seat of sexual orientation is in the brain or the soul.
The list of questions ranges on!
Does the human still love the elf, even though the elf is not the same body as before? Is this where love-born half-orcs come from?
Does the human still love the elf, even though the elf is not the same sex as before? If she does, does this make her homosexual?
This happens in real life, actually. People in a truely loving marriage sometimes come to realize that they are trans and undergo transition. Their spouses, previously ostensibly straight in an opposite-sex marriage, now are faced with the choice of divorce and abandoning the person they love, or attempting to come to see the person of the same gender as themselves as an object of love and/or sexual attraction. There are women who married people who they thought were, and who thought themselves to be, straight or bi men. These women may never thought of themselves as anything other than straight. But then their spouses came out as trans women, and in some cases their wives stayed with them, supported them through transition, and came to see themselves as bi (or straight with a single important exception) women in a lesbian relationship. I would not be surprised if in some of these cases, the woman found herself still loving her spouse, but not sexually attracted to her, and then made an arrangement enabling them to pursue sexual partners outside of the marriage while remaining married.
So, again, it depends on what the player wants to play, if a PC, or what story you want to tell, if an NPC.
How do the Gods themselves view such transitions?
Absolutely depends on the god, of course.
Does Asmodeus view women who shift into men with the same favor he views men (as per shedding your female weakness)?
I don't think Asmodeus really sees females as weakness. He just uses sexism as a tool when useful to oppress mortals.
Does Urgathoa potentially transform a shifted man into a Daughter (a rite reserved for her favored priestesses) upon death?
If the person identifies as a woman, I think Urgathoa would see her soul as female.
Does Erastil approve of individuals who shift so that they can raise a family (such as if one of two same-sex lovers shifts so that they can have children together (which I can totally see two gnomes who fell in love with eachother's minds doing)).
I have to disagree with Crystal here. The relevant point is So they can raise a family. Erastil will approve of many different things if that's the purpose.
Does Lamashtu encourage members to become female so that they can give birth to her offspring?
Absolutely. She's also into magically-mediated male pregnancy, because she's a freaky-scary demon goddess of fertility.
Then there are questions about the world at large.
Are there transexuals who refuse to use magic to shift to their identified gender (and sex)?
Shardra, the dwarf iconic shaman uses alchemical mixtures instead, similar to real-life HRT.
Are there transexuals who shift sex, only to find themselves still ill-at-ease in the body they inhabit?
Probably -- there are people in real life who identify as bigender, agender, third gender, etc. who may have identified as trans before finding out more about their identity.
If a particular society has a problem with homosexual relationships, do they have a problem with gender-shifting as a work around?
Probably -- and even if they don't, there's still the goal of providing heirs, which is very important to feudal societies.
By the way, my apologies to Crystal and any other trans folk involved in this if I have inadvertantly gotten some aspect of real-world trans experience wrong. I know a lot of trans people but I am not trans myself, so there you go.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Um, have you met the guy?He can't be that bad.
Nope, he's worse.
Nope, he's worse.Um, have you met the guy?He can't be that bad.
Yeah, he's so tragically Lawful and unforgivably dull.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, he's worse.Um, have you met the guy?He can't be that bad.
You know what? Enough is enough. We shouldn't have to put up with his nonsense any more! I'ma write him a letter.
Deer Erastil,...
I personally don't actually know much about the preferances (sp?) of my characters.
Voren might be asexual, but I'm not really sure. I do know he's the only one of my characters that wouldn't really care if he was cursed by a girdle of opposite gender.
I think Vors is attracted to ladies, but I don't have much evidence to go on.
I feel I should also note that Toshiro's parents are both women.
That's basically how much my Pathfinder play is affected by the contents of this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally don't actually know much about the preferances (sp?) of my characters.
Voren might be asexual, but I'm not really sure. I do know he's the only one of my characters that wouldn't really care if he was cursed by a girdle of opposite gender.
I think Vors is attracted to ladies, but I don't have much evidence to go on.
I feel I should also note that Toshiro's parents are both women.That's basically how much my Pathfinder play is affected by the contents of this thread.
Playing RPGs (mostly D&D and now Pathfinder) for over 3 decades let me to the conclusion that player characters need an extensive character background so they can make judgments on pretty much everything including sexual preference and relationships.
Usually my characters have a 8 page character background, kind of like a mini-thesis.
Otherwise you are really left with alignment (that is generic in nature, which leads to tropes, instead of reinvention of existing tropes that make for more interesting characters ) to make judgment calls on who your character is and how they feel about something.
Edit: IMO the process of writing helps me figure things out (about my character) or leads characterisation and identity in exciting new directions.
I would say that dowries being a thing is a sign that dwarves have a slightly sexist culture (the basic consequences of dowries aren't exactly obscure). That's the most I can see, though, and it's not necessarily as harmful as it tends to be in real life. The dowry seems to just be a custom they stick to, avoiding most of the other baggage. Exile was for her causing her homeland trouble, not for her transgenderedness or for her being a woman (which is a somewhat confusing distinction to make, but you get what I mean).
Okay, I have re-read Shardra's background.
Dowries and the caste system have a history of direct association and in Crystal Frasier's writings this is implied "But the mines and refinery of Xolgrit fed the war machine of Rolgrimmdur far above, and militant efficiency demanded all citizen-soldiers accept and excel in their roles, no matter how miserable."
The dowry and caste system is both very misogynistic and discriminatory. Oppressive acts against class and gender and oppression is oppression, I don't think you can have 'acceptable levels of oppression,' or "wait your oppression is not as bad as mine" its all bad.
Furthermore "Guided Xolgrit's miners to rich new veins of ore and long-lost treasure troves. Shardra's confidence, skills, and womanhood blossomed, and eventually clans from Xolgrit and beyond offered handsome brideprices."
This is de-humanising turning Shadra into a commodity, her worth is defined by how much money she can make the other clans as well as improving the financial status of her own clan.
I like Shardra's story, it's a powerful tale, stories of greed and politics often breeds memorable protagonists
|
Assistant Developer
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I deeply disagree with literally every interpretation you have on Shardra's backstory.
Dowries and brideprices aren't inherently misogynistic in a fictional setting. They're part of how dwarven families make their available children more attractive to better marriages. You want your child to marry better than they have now, so you sweeten the pot so a family of a higher social class will okay the marriage. Is that necessarily progressive? No, but dwarves don't generally marry for love so much as to secure family lineages and political alliances. Dwarves do this for both their male and female children, and they have different words for each because the story was written in English and English uses two different words for this.
Likewise, a caste system isn't immediately oppressive; just because a society has clearly delineated roles and expects each person in their role to know the rules, work towards a better whole, and excel in their role doesn't automatically mean they are chained to that role for life. Dwarves are pragmatic and like things to run like clockwork; their natural urge is to categorize and organize. But the fact that Shardra moves castes when she develops a new skills demonstrates there's plenty of room within dwarf culture for individuals to find their excellence. Yes, Xolgrit and its protectorates do lean more towards Lawful Neutral than Lawful Good, and people tend to be worked harder than they might prefer to meet quotas set by the military, and their is a certain amount of corruption and self-interest screwing things up for everyone (which is why Shardra's backstory is a little more bleak than it would be if she were born in Highhelm), but even here there's room for people to grow and find themselves.
I'm not sure why you're so invested in dwarves being monstrous oppressors, but they're just people. They're people who like the world to run on a schedule, but they're also a people who generally want everyone to be safe and happy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I deeply disagree with literally every interpretation you have on Shardra's backstory.
Dowries and brideprices aren't inherently misogynistic in a fictional setting. They're part of how dwarven families make their available children more attractive to better marriages. You want your child to marry better than they have now, so you sweeten the pot so a family of a higher social class will okay the marriage. Is that necessarily progressive? No, but dwarves don't generally marry for love so much as to secure family lineages and political alliances. Dwarves do this for both their male and female children, and they have different words for each because the story was written in English and English uses two different words for this.
Likewise, a caste system isn't immediately oppressive; just because a society has clearly delineated roles and expects each person in their role to know the rules, work towards a better whole, and excel in their role doesn't automatically mean they are chained to that role for life. Dwarves are pragmatic and like things to run like clockwork; their natural urge is to categorize and organize. But the fact that Shardra moves castes when she develops a new skills demonstrates there's plenty of room within dwarf culture for individuals to find their excellence. Yes, Xolgrit and its protectorates do lean more towards Lawful Neutral than Lawful Good, and people tend to be worked harder than they might prefer to meet quotas set by the military, and their is a certain amount of corruption and self-interest screwing things up for everyone (which is why Shardra's backstory is a little more bleak than it would be if she were born in Highhelm), but even here there's room for people to grow and find themselves.
I'm not sure why you're so invested in dwarves being monstrous oppressors, but they're just people. They're people who like the world to run on a schedule, but they're also a people who generally want everyone to be safe and happy.
You are talking about a class system not a caste system, a caste system is an immobile stratification system. Historically and how it applies to fiction and yes it is oppressive.
And as you know a class system can be oppressive (less opportunities, discrimination) but has positive aspects like mobility (that you mention in your post), you can shift social classes, limited or unlimited depending on government like an Aristocracy would create limited mobility.
Dowries and bridepieces are loaded words, and the context they were used in was gender specific, and if they aren't inherently misogynistic I haven't seen evidence otherwise. The backstory Harsk the dwarven ranger iconic doesn't even discuss marriage let alone dowries.
Pathfinder Iconic back stories are only 300 words if even that, this is why they are open to interpretation, if i was going to write one myself, I'm pretty sure other people would interpret it differently. In my post I specifically used the word 'implied' because there wasn't enough text for a positive definition. 'Citizen-soldiers' could be interpreted in many different ways.
Lots of things in fantasy literature is oppressive or there is a sacrifice of personal freedom, knight orders, the demands of being a wizard, fealty to a despot king (or not), corruption and greed and these things can happen in any culture it's not unique among dwarves and I never claimed otherwise.
Edit: I'm not throwing around the word 'oppressive' as a negative thing, as a narrative device it creates the right environment for strong characters to flourish, to understand the deplorable consequences of injustice, George R.R Martin's characters Loras Tyrell and Brienne of Tarth comes to mind as likely candidates.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dowries and brideprices aren't inherently misogynistic in a fictional setting. They're part of how dwarven families make their available children more attractive to better marriages. You want your child to marry better than they have now, so you sweeten the pot so a family of a higher social class will okay the marriage. Is that necessarily progressive? No, but dwarves don't generally marry for love so much as to secure family lineages and political alliances. Dwarves do this for both their male and female children, and they have different words for each because the story was written in English and English uses two different words for this.
Then the source of Morzadin's interpretation is that you used wrong word. Bride price is different from dowry in that it is given to parents as compensation for the daughter and is rather misogynist (or at least was in cultures that expected actual worth of woman, instead of symbolic, but even then it was symbol of passing the authority from parents to husband).
Likewise, a caste system isn't immediately oppressive; just because a society has clearly delineated roles and expects each person in their role to know the rules, work towards a better whole, and excel in their role doesn't automatically mean they are chained to that role for life.
It would be subject to rather complex discussion, but merely "having clearly delineated roles and expecting person in their role to know the rules" is far from having a caste system. High degree of rigidity and very restricted (if possible at all) social movement is strongly implied part when using term "caste system".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dowries and bridepieces are loaded words, and the context they were used in was gender specific, and if they aren't inherently misogynistic I haven't seen evidence otherwise. The backstory Harsk the dwarven ranger iconic doesn't even discuss marriage let alone dowries.
With the explanation made by Crystal in the post above, that by bride price she actually meant a male equivalent of dowry, indeed the dowry could be (pardon the pun) divorced from misogyny - if parents of both bride and groom are expected to invest comparable* amount of wealth into the newly wed couple, or if both male and female are expected to provide comparable amount of wealth before entering marriage.
In the same vein it could be possible to present dwarven birde/groom price as exchange of gifts between the parents/clans of both instead of being gift traded for woman.
*And comparable could be either having close absolute value, or being expressed as certain percentage of the family's wealth, meaning that richer family would be expected to give bigger dowry.
EDIT: Now I imagined a wed-gild, dwarven marriage equivalent to weregild, where one's amount of wealth required to be owned by prospective suitor is based on dwarf's status, skills, and accomplishments, where matchmaking would require careful balancing of wed-gilds and wealth of both dwarves.
Dowries and bridepieces are loaded words, and the context they were used in was gender specific, and if they aren't inherently misogynistic I haven't seen evidence otherwise. The backstory Harsk the dwarven ranger iconic doesn't even discuss marriage let alone dowries.With the explanation made by Crystal in the post above, that by bride price she actually meant a male equivalent of dowry, indeed the dowry could be (pardon the pun) divorced from misogyny - if parents of both bride and groom are expected to invest comparable* amount of wealth into the newly wed couple, or if both male and female are expected to provide comparable amount of wealth before entering marriage.
In the same vein it could be possible to present dwarven birde/groom price as exchange of gifts between the parents/clans of both instead of being gift traded for woman.
Yes I agree,
However both words Dowry and Bride Price have specific meanings and interpreting these words for what they are is of no fault of the reader, if no alternative exposition is provided.
Dowries and bridepieces are loaded words, and the context they were used in was gender specific, and if they aren't inherently misogynistic I haven't seen evidence otherwise. The backstory Harsk the dwarven ranger iconic doesn't even discuss marriage let alone dowries.With the explanation made by Crystal in the post above, that by bride price she actually meant a male equivalent of dowry, indeed the dowry could be (pardon the pun) divorced from misogyny - if parents of both bride and groom are expected to invest comparable* amount of wealth into the newly wed couple, or if both male and female are expected to provide comparable amount of wealth before entering marriage.
In the same vein it could be possible to present dwarven birde/groom price as exchange of gifts between the parents/clans of both instead of being gift traded for woman.
Yes I agree,
However both words Dowry and Bride Price have specific meanings and interpreting these words for what they are is of no fault of the reader, if no alternative exposition is provided.
this is part of the reason I go in the flowery/made-up language direction for such topics.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You realize you could just ask Crystal what she meant, instead of going back and forth about it?
Actually, it sounded like it was intended to be one or the other, depending on the status of the families involved - paying to marry up the social ladder.Dowries and bridepieces are loaded words, and the context they were used in was gender specific, and if they aren't inherently misogynistic I haven't seen evidence otherwise. The backstory Harsk the dwarven ranger iconic doesn't even discuss marriage let alone dowries.With the explanation made by Crystal in the post above, that by bride price she actually meant a male equivalent of dowry, indeed the dowry could be (pardon the pun) divorced from misogyny - if parents of both bride and groom are expected to invest comparable* amount of wealth into the newly wed couple, or if both male and female are expected to provide comparable amount of wealth before entering marriage.
In the same vein it could be possible to present dwarven birde/groom price as exchange of gifts between the parents/clans of both instead of being gift traded for woman.
I understood Crystal's sentence "Dwarves do this for both their male and female children, and they have different words for each because the story was written in English and English uses two different words for this." as expressing that the dowry and bride price were intended to mean the same for different genders. I see nothing in her final post that would support real word meaning of bride price as payment to parents.
Also, with wealth as social standing, paying to marry up the social ladder would be a bit strange, because the bigger wealth means being on a higher rung of a social ladder. Giving away wealth would mean dropping down the ladder instead of raising...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, it sounded like it was intended to be one or the other, depending on the status of the families involved - paying to marry up the social ladder.Dowries and bridepieces are loaded words, and the context they were used in was gender specific, and if they aren't inherently misogynistic I haven't seen evidence otherwise. The backstory Harsk the dwarven ranger iconic doesn't even discuss marriage let alone dowries.With the explanation made by Crystal in the post above, that by bride price she actually meant a male equivalent of dowry, indeed the dowry could be (pardon the pun) divorced from misogyny - if parents of both bride and groom are expected to invest comparable* amount of wealth into the newly wed couple, or if both male and female are expected to provide comparable amount of wealth before entering marriage.
In the same vein it could be possible to present dwarven birde/groom price as exchange of gifts between the parents/clans of both instead of being gift traded for woman.
Yup. And just because a dowry is mentioned for a woman doesn't preclude there being an equivalent for men.
E.g.:
Bride price = spouse's family pays for a woman to marry in (because the woman's family is higher up the social ladder; recompense for the status she is losing).
Dowry = bride's family pays for a woman to marry in (because the spouse's family is higher up the social ladder; fee for the status she is gaining).
Groom price = spouse's family pays for a man to marry in (because the man's family is higher up the social ladder; recompense for the status he is losing).
Dower = groom's family pays for a man to marry in (because the spouse's family is higher up the social ladder; fee for the status he is gaining).
Who pays might just as easily be determined when the marriage is arranged, and based on which spouse will be relocating and which clan their children will belong to, rather than strictly by gender.
Shardra's parents could be lamenting the loss of a son and the addition of another dowry not because sons are preferred and all daughters have dowries, but because they'd already arranged a marriage for her (as a son) with a young woman from a lower-status family who might pay a nice groom-price for her or bring a nice dowry, and now they've got to find a different marriage for her, and the available unmarried men who might be interested are from higher-status clans, which means instead of getting paid for marrying off a son, they might have to pay to marry off a daughter.
As it turns out, however, her skill in locating ore makes her family a bunch of money, and suddenly Shardra's higher-status/more wealthy than many of her suitors' families. So now if they want her to marry into their families (which, presumably, they would, so that they can claim her ore-finding abilities for their own clan), they have to pay the Geltls rather than the Geltls paying to marry their daughter into a higher-status clan.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They should just rename it "dwarves and sexuality, a handy guide to doing it underground":-)
Or maybe we can talk about Elves, long lifespans and single generation adaptability and whether factors other then environment can help spur change, such as inner happiness :-)
Seems like fertile ground to till up :-)
You realize you could just ask Crystal what she meant, instead of going back and forth about it?
That's why my first post was directed to Crystal. The second one was more general comment about Morzadin's comment (which was written while I was composing the first post).
E.g.:
Bride price = spouse's family pays for a woman to marry in (because the woman's family is higher up the social ladder; recompense for the status she is losing).
Dowry = bride's family pays for a woman to marry in (because the spouse's family is higher up the social ladder; fee for the status she is gaining).Groom price = spouse's family pays for a man to marry in (because the man's family is higher up the social ladder; recompense for the status he is losing).
Dower = groom's family pays for a man to marry in (because the spouse's family is higher up the social ladder; fee for the status he is gaining).
How it is determined who will gain the status and who will lose it because it changes who will pay bride/groom price and who will pay dowry/dower. Or is the other way around, and it is the one who offers to pay the dowry gaining the status?
How it is determined who will gain the status and who will lose it because it changes who will pay bride/groom price and who will pay dowry/dower. Or is the other way around, and it is the one who offers to pay the dowry gaining the status?E.g.:
Bride price = spouse's family pays for a woman to marry in (because the woman's family is higher up the social ladder; recompense for the status she is losing).
Dowry = bride's family pays for a woman to marry in (because the spouse's family is higher up the social ladder; fee for the status she is gaining).Groom price = spouse's family pays for a man to marry in (because the man's family is higher up the social ladder; recompense for the status he is losing).
Dower = groom's family pays for a man to marry in (because the spouse's family is higher up the social ladder; fee for the status he is gaining).
Who pays might just as easily be determined when the marriage is arranged, and based on which spouse will be relocating and which clan their children will belong to, rather than strictly by gender.
How it is determined who will gain the status and who will lose it because it changes who will pay bride/groom price and who will pay dowry/dower. Or is the other way around, and it is the one who offers to pay the dowry gaining the status?E.g.:
Bride price = spouse's family pays for a woman to marry in (because the woman's family is higher up the social ladder; recompense for the status she is losing).
Dowry = bride's family pays for a woman to marry in (because the spouse's family is higher up the social ladder; fee for the status she is gaining).Groom price = spouse's family pays for a man to marry in (because the man's family is higher up the social ladder; recompense for the status he is losing).
Dower = groom's family pays for a man to marry in (because the spouse's family is higher up the social ladder; fee for the status he is gaining).Who pays might just as easily be determined when the marriage is arranged, and based on which spouse will be relocating and which clan their children will belong to, rather than strictly by gender.
Uh. I think I am getting blind(er). Sorry.
Uh. I think I am getting blind. Sorry.How it is determined who will gain the status and who will lose it because it changes who will pay bride/groom price and who will pay dowry/dower. Or is the other way around, and it is the one who offers to pay the dowry gaining the status?E.g.:
Bride price = spouse's family pays for a woman to marry in (because the woman's family is higher up the social ladder; recompense for the status she is losing).
Dowry = bride's family pays for a woman to marry in (because the spouse's family is higher up the social ladder; fee for the status she is gaining).Groom price = spouse's family pays for a man to marry in (because the man's family is higher up the social ladder; recompense for the status he is losing).
Dower = groom's family pays for a man to marry in (because the spouse's family is higher up the social ladder; fee for the status he is gaining).Who pays might just as easily be determined when the marriage is arranged, and based on which spouse will be relocating and which clan their children will belong to, rather than strictly by gender.
No worries. It's a long post. :-)
I really do wish there was a Golarion specific guide to this sort of thing. I would love this sort of intrigue when it comes to gender and sexuality. I mean it is a huge part of everyones identity. (And yes asexuality included). This sort of intrigue is important, and the views of each society in golarion on the topic is important. It really helps you to really get immersed in the cultures. I know this kind of product is unlikely to happen, but I'm just saying it would be awesome.
So you understood and are just arguing about her using the wrong words? Fine.
I just said that I understood it differently than you say it was meant to because of:
Dowries and brideprices aren't inherently misogynistic in a fictional setting. They're part of how dwarven families make their available children more attractive to better marriages. You want your child to marry better than they have now, so you sweeten the pot so a family of a higher social class will okay the marriage. Is that necessarily progressive? No, but dwarves don't generally marry for love so much as to secure family lineages and political alliances. Dwarves do this for both their male and female children, and they have different words for each because the story was written in English and English uses two different words for this.
The bold word refers to singular object, or so I was always taught. Because Crystal used "this" in her conclusion when speaking about use of two different words in English implying that she meant single concept with two names instead of two different concepts. The two words the paragraph was speaking were respectively "dowries" and "brideprices". Ergo, my grammatically and logically justified (mis)understanding.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This kind of thing might be included in a 'Romance of the Inner Sea' book -- which could include marriage customs among the various human and non-human nations. Forum denizens mention that possibility a lot, but I suspect Paizo is skeptical about how well it will sell to the general customer base.
Who pays might just as easily be determined when the marriage is arranged, and based on which spouse will be relocating and which clan their children will belong to, rather than strictly by gender.
Sooo... If we are speaking about this - would it be that the the spouses acquire status of the clan the move to and become part of (more likely), or do they bring the other spouse's status to the clan they move to, thus increasing the receiving clan overall prestige? The second one could lead to interesting inter-clan politics allowing for balancing prestige gained through other means by "sharing" the higher status of successful clan with other allied clans by marring the successful clan's children into them.
This kind of thing might be included in a 'Romance of the Inner Sea' book -- which could include marriage customs among the various human and non-human nations. Forum denizens mention that possibility a lot, but I suspect Paizo is skeptical about how well it will sell to the general customer base.
Well, when I was writing abstract about fictional nomad culture for my Pathfinder party, it contained eight short paragraphs about sex, sexuality, marriage, and family life. And I even omitted the (mentioned on session) references to recognition between physical, spiritual, and social gender (because these ideas weren't fully finalized).
And it was only small cultural group of less than 10 thousands members total.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, it sounded like it was intended to be one or the other, depending on the status of the families involved - paying to marry up the social ladder.Dowries and bridepieces are loaded words, and the context they were used in was gender specific, and if they aren't inherently misogynistic I haven't seen evidence otherwise. The backstory Harsk the dwarven ranger iconic doesn't even discuss marriage let alone dowries.With the explanation made by Crystal in the post above, that by bride price she actually meant a male equivalent of dowry, indeed the dowry could be (pardon the pun) divorced from misogyny - if parents of both bride and groom are expected to invest comparable* amount of wealth into the newly wed couple, or if both male and female are expected to provide comparable amount of wealth before entering marriage.
In the same vein it could be possible to present dwarven birde/groom price as exchange of gifts between the parents/clans of both instead of being gift traded for woman.
Yup. And just because a dowry is mentioned for a woman doesn't preclude there being an equivalent for men.
E.g.:
Bride price = spouse's family pays for a woman to marry in (because the woman's family is higher up the social ladder; recompense for the status she is losing).
Dowry = bride's family pays for a woman to marry in (because the spouse's family is higher up the social ladder; fee for the status she is gaining).Groom price = spouse's family pays for a man to marry in (because the man's family is higher up the social ladder; recompense for the status he is losing).
Dower = groom's family pays for a man to marry in (because the spouse's family is higher up the social ladder; fee for the status he is gaining).Who pays might just as easily be determined when the marriage is arranged, and based on which spouse will be relocating and which clan their children will belong to, rather than strictly by gender....
Interesting. Very interesting.
This said, doesn't Shardra's entry kinda imply that paying for a kid's engagement is pretty much a bride-focused thing? Since the family is initially annoyed about being saddled with handling another dowry?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This kind of thing might be included in a 'Romance of the Inner Sea' book -- which could include marriage customs among the various human and non-human nations. Forum denizens mention that possibility a lot, but I suspect Paizo is skeptical about how well it will sell to the general customer base.
I would pay good money for such a book.
Good. Money.