|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking as a queer woman, I am generally pretty damn happy to fight against homophobes or sexists in my games! It's amazingly liberating to play a badass warrior who can pick up the guy cat-calling her or questioning her strength and throw him into a wall. Or turn the homophobe into a toad, or curse the rapist to feel pain in his nether regions if he ever thinks about sex again.
But I would not EVER want to play in a game where women are expected to be home-makers or gay bashing is a common thing, especially if your characters can't immediately do something about these injustices. Real life is too depressing to deal with that crap on a frequent basis in my fantasy games.
|
|
Why is sexuality important in a fantasy roleplaying game? It seems this thread was made to push people's buttons, and if you need to have homosexuals in your d&d game you can do so without making a big pointless thread about it.
You are being reasonable. that's not allowed in this thread. Cries of "bigotry" in 1, 2, 3 ....
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is sexuality important in a fantasy roleplaying game? It seems this thread was made to push people's buttons, and if you need to have homosexuals in your d&d game you can do so without making a big pointless thread about it.You are being reasonable. that's not allowed in this thread. Cries of "bigotry" in 1, 2, 3 ....
The thread was actually created to comment on the fact that the depiction to date was biased towards lesbianism and to request further information on attitudes to homosexuality elsewhere in Golarion. I really don't see that as 'button pushing'.
If it really does push a persons buttons, I'd have to ask why they have read through two and a half thousand posts on a topic they dislike?
It's good to have this stuff in the game. It provokes discussion. Otherwise we'd still be battling comments like:
Why is race important in a fantasy roleplaying game? It seems this thread was made to push people's buttons, and if you need to have blacks in your d&d game you can do so without making a big pointless thread about it.
It's a lot better to have Golarion in a state where some people have to take a black marker to their books and censor bits, as someone elsewhere on the boards has done with pictures in the bestiary, than it is for Golarion be limited to the intersection of the sets of topics found to be non-offensive by all people world-wide. Because that would make for a really thin book.
|
Wasn't there a Society scenario that had a relationship between a half-elf male prostitute and a male pathfinder, aged up about 50-60 years? Seemed straight out of a yaoi.And the problem with this is? If you have minors at your table, you need not dwell extensively on the prurient aspects of the relationship, nor on sex workers.
If you have adults at your table, presumably they can be adults. I'm not seeing any material difference between this depiction and some of the heterosexual relationships shown in other popular media.
On the contrary, it was an interesting twist. I collaborate with my friend on several of her webcomics, one is basically a yaoi, the other has so many same sex relationships I have trouble keeping it straight sometimes
Heh, straight.
Anyway, I'm just saying, rugged pathfinder returns to his demure, damaged, half-elf lover? That's pretty much a yaoi.
|
Why is sexuality important in a fantasy roleplaying game? It seems this thread was made to push people's buttons, and if you need to have homosexuals in your d&d game you can do so without making a big pointless thread about it.You are being reasonable. that's not allowed in this thread. Cries of "bigotry" in 1, 2, 3 ....
Why do you keep covering up your comments with aliases? Can you not take responsibility for your statements?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you keep covering up your comments with aliases? Can you not take responsibility for your statements?Why is sexuality important in a fantasy roleplaying game? It seems this thread was made to push people's buttons, and if you need to have homosexuals in your d&d game you can do so without making a big pointless thread about it.You are being reasonable. that's not allowed in this thread. Cries of "bigotry" in 1, 2, 3 ....
He's probably posting in character - likely Garesh One Tusk the Half-Orc Barbarian has different views than the actual person of Cory Stafford. For example, I personally don't feel strongly about dancing but the character Humphrey Boggard is wildly enthusiastic about the subject.
Why do you keep covering up your comments with aliases? Can you not take responsibility for your statements?Why is sexuality important in a fantasy roleplaying game? It seems this thread was made to push people's buttons, and if you need to have homosexuals in your d&d game you can do so without making a big pointless thread about it.You are being reasonable. that's not allowed in this thread. Cries of "bigotry" in 1, 2, 3 ....
Posting under aliases is fun.
|
|
He's probably posting in character - likely Garesh One Tusk the Half-Orc Barbarian has different views than the actual person of Cory Stafford. For example, I personally don't feel strongly about dancing but the character Humphrey Boggard is wildly enthusiastic about the subject.Why do you keep covering up your comments with aliases? Can you not take responsibility for your statements?Why is sexuality important in a fantasy roleplaying game? It seems this thread was made to push people's buttons, and if you need to have homosexuals in your d&d game you can do so without making a big pointless thread about it.You are being reasonable. that's not allowed in this thread. Cries of "bigotry" in 1, 2, 3 ....
Except he has a long history on this thread of posting under aliases to make statements Paizo staffers have repeatedly told him to refrain from.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is sexuality important in a fantasy roleplaying game? It seems this thread was made to push people's buttons, and if you need to have homosexuals in your d&d game you can do so without making a big pointless thread about it.You are being reasonable. that's not allowed in this thread. Cries of "bigotry" in 1, 2, 3 ....
*headdesk*
Cory, you were told to take it elsewhere. Your repeated use of your aliases as sock-puppet accounts and refusal to do so is really looking like deliberate trolling.
And worse, it's just really rude.
|
Production Specialist
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the contrary, it was an interesting twist. I collaborate with my friend on several of her webcomics, one is basically a yaoi, the other has so many same sex relationships I have trouble keeping it straight sometimes
Heh, straight.
Anyway, I'm just saying, rugged pathfinder returns to his demure, damaged, half-elf lover? That's pretty much a yaoi.
Jane Austen, actually. I've never actually read much manga. The Midnight Mauler was basically a sequel to a Jane Austen novella, set thirty years down the line, with werewolves.
And neither of them is especially demure or especially rugged; they're both men of nobility who've lead exciting, multifaceted lives. I've never liked the insistence that in a gay relationship, one participant has to be "the man" and the other has to be "the woman". My wife and I both have masculine and feminine features; She's works as a programmer, and I know how to fix my car. She loves to cook and I like ballet. Vonran and Markov are the same way: Markov is not a shrinking violet, nor is Vonran a hulking brute. They're just two men with broken hearts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually like how Golarion assumption of sexual diversity being no big deal. It really allows you to make the characters and the stories you like.
Any attempt at making the athiest philosophy of Rahadoum palatable is refuted, with it being insisted that they are 'really more LE than LN,' and their anti-thiest textual description being widely expanded to an anti-divine-spellcaster (even anti-*atheist* divine spellcaster!) stance that just makes the nation even more unsuitable for use by a much larger swath of classes and roles. I've attempted on several occasions to suggest ways in which various characters and roles could come from Rahadoum, for instance, only to be told that, no, Rahadoum is *less* playable than the text states, and that I shouldn't even try to use the text as justification for a non-theist Adept or non-theist Ranger to be a viable character choice. The goalposts were changed *despite what the text states* to make such options unplayable.
Wait, what? Rahadoum is rad! We published a novel where the hero is Rahadoumi! People are welcome to disagree, but as one of the staffers (if not THE staffer) most concerned with Rahdaoum, I certainly don't see that nation as a land of evil folk. There are tons of good people in Rahadoum, who have very good reasons for believing what they do. You can certainly argue with various governmental policies, but that's a different story.
As with a lot of our more controversial nations, the point isn't to say that everyone there is neutral, but rather to emphasize the wide range of characters (and alignments) that can grow and flourish within all levels of that society. One gamer's LG is another gamer's LN (or even LE), and that's how it should be. We don't all agree in real life--why would our characters?
/end threadjack
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I may add though...
Based on the write up of Erastil, wouldn't a Paladin to Ol' Deadeye hold up the holiness of matrimony?
First of all, a quick distraction...
** spoiler omitted **
That all said... to Erastil, matrimony IS a very holy thing. And of ALL our deities, he, as a god of families and community, is the one who likely holds matrimony in the HIGHEST regard. Shelyn might be a close second, but she's more about love than matrimony.
To Erastil's faith, matrimony means, at its simplest, "two people who are married with the primary purpose of raising a family and to work together to support their community." While interpretations of that basic tenet can vary from region to region and church to church, that's the basic. It doesn't matter if those two people are male/female, male/male, female/female, hermaphrodite/male, hermaphrodite/female, or whatever.
As long as they join in that sacred holy union in order to raise a family and promote the overall health of their community... that's what's important to Erastil.
I have to say, the spoiler-ed part here makes me exceptionally sad. I can understand WHY JJ wants to ret-con Erastil, but I can't say that I agree with it. Maybe I just take a different tack on Erastil's particular foibles than others, but I consider his inclusion of a dated or backwards teaching as interesting and provocative (in a good way) on a number of different levels.
It fits in with the idea of an aging, dated, stodgy, and paternalistic all-father. It provides a fault among the celestial choir that is in keeping with the warty bits of other all-fathers like Odin and Zeus. It hearkens back to classical stereo-tropes of the damsel in distress and other less-than-perfectly-PC foundations of fantasy literature which have drawn many of us to the game. It provides a point of inter-party friction without necessarily being so combative as to threaten to derail a game, and a chance for role play perspectives and character growths as some of their chauvinistic beliefs are challenged by strong, capable, independent people of all genders and sexualities.
On a larger level, it also demonstrates that good is not necessarily any more monolithic than is evil. It can demonstrate that different people can have different ideas of what is good, and how to achieve it. It allows for subtle variances in the philosophy of the clergy and adherents of a particular faith that are reflected in our own world.
To me, it makes the world of Golarion a deeper and more interesting place. But perhaps I should take this to a different thread.
The Wrasslin match is probably two males fighting. Squirrels are big into playing hard to get. A female squirrel in heat attracts males - usually 3-5 and then she runs as fast as she can jumping over barriers and from tree branch to tree branch. The males chase her and try and knock their competitors off the roof or bite their tails. Fastest male squirrel gets to mate. Makes a lot of sense really, speed is an important survival trait in squirrels and this mating method rewards speed.In the wild, what does consent have to do with sex? Watching a nature show, does the lioness tell the lion, "Sure I'm in the mood." No, consent is a non-factor in the wild, and morality based on it may also be a non-factor.Although rape does occur in the animal world, don't many species wait for their heat cycles? I'll agree about amorality. Squirrels hit that @#$% like they're angry at it. Right and wrong hold no dominion in an upper-bough wrasslin' match.
Unless you watch the fat squirrel from the Sword in the Stone. :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I may add though...
Based on the write up of Erastil, wouldn't a Paladin to Ol' Deadeye hold up the holiness of matrimony?
First of all, a quick distraction...
** spoiler omitted **
That all said... to Erastil, matrimony IS a very holy thing. And of ALL our deities, he, as a god of families and community, is the one who likely holds matrimony in the HIGHEST regard. Shelyn might be a close second, but she's more about love than matrimony.
To Erastil's faith, matrimony means, at its simplest, "two people who are married with the primary purpose of raising a family and to work together to support their community." While interpretations of that basic tenet can vary from region to region and church to church, that's the basic. It doesn't matter if those two people are male/female, male/male, female/female, hermaphrodite/male, hermaphrodite/female, or whatever.
As long as they join in that sacred holy union in order to raise a family and promote the overall health of their community... that's what's important to Erastil.
I have to say, the spoiler-ed part here makes me exceptionally sad. I can understand WHY JJ wants to ret-con Erastil, but I can't say that I agree with it. Maybe I just take a different tack on Erastil's particular foibles than others, but I consider his inclusion of a dated or backwards teaching as interesting and provocative (in a good way) on a number of different levels.
It fits in with the idea of an aging, dated, stodgy, and paternalistic all-father. It provides a fault among the celestial choir that is in keeping with the warty bits of other all-fathers like Odin and Zeus. It hearkens back to classical stereo-tropes of the damsel in distress and other less-than-perfectly-PC foundations of fantasy literature which have drawn many of us to the game. It provides a point of inter-party friction without necessarily being so combative as to threaten to derail a game, and a chance for role play...
One thing that might be happening here also is that there's simply just a bit of talking past each other where Erastil is involved. I'll admit, some aspects of the guy would bug me, but where some see him as "grumbling cranky grandpa", some interpreted him as "Handmaid's Tale". And there have been a full range of interpretations both here and at various tables, and that can make it difficult to get on the same page. Two people with nearly identical values can easily wind up strongly disagreeing over whether Erastil is really good or not depending on how he's been presented to them so far.
I have to admit, if my first exposure to Erastil was the grimdark sexual dystopia that some have interpreted him as pushing, I wouldn't take him seriously at all as a good-aligned god.* Luckily my first exposure was a sort of Red Forman-type who really loved The Waltons and had a deer for a head.
And while he may be grating at times, I can't stay mad at that guy.
*I save that for Torag!
I've always interpreted Erastil as the bigoted elderly uncle that you still love with all your heart, but are embarrassed about when he starts telling your girlfriend that she dresses like a slut. He comes from an era where the gender norms were considerably more rigid than they are now, and it's not that he's even actively trying to perpetuate those norms; he just can't conceive of anything different. So you try to interpret what he said after the fact to be less hostile, and try to look at his intent as separate from gender politics, and make a bunch of excuses.
On top of this is the cognitive dissonance that, as his family member, you know he's a good guy, so sometimes you end up taking his side even though you know he's wrong just for the purpose of defending him from people whom you believe misunderstand his intent for his politics. Muddy his homophobic and sexist messages with legitimately relevant and effective life lessons about standing up to bullies and learning from your mistakes, and you get a very complex deity who still deserves the Lawful Good alignment even though he's got some really backwards worldview.
|
Vonran and Markov are the same way: Markov is not a shrinking violet, nor is Vonran a hulking brute. They're just two men with broken hearts.
Crystal, just wanted to mention how much I loved that adventure. And in the 9 times I ran it, whether it was at GenCon or at a small con in Guelph Ontario, I never had any negative responses to that couple. Some surprised/clueless ones (usually assuming Markov is female), but never anything overtly negative.
Thanks.
I get that and it's an interesting character for a God. But he doesn't come from "an era where the gender norms were considerably more rigid than they are now." As far as I know, there wasn't one in Golarion's history. That's not part of the world view. Several of the Rune Lords were female. There's no evidence I know of that the Azlanti were misogynistic. Do aboleths even have sex?
It's not a bad concept, I just don't see how it fits.
I've always interpreted it as a "desperate times" response, both after Earthfall and by many small communities even in the current campaign setting. Nominally--no comment on the efficacy, which is another discussion--many such norms are intended for homestead defense and the continuation of one's genetic line (think having a bunch of kids because statistically speaking most will die), and I can see how that could still be viewed as a necessity by the hillfolk who have to deal with evil fey and rampaging ogres in addition to more mundane disasters. There's a reason why Erastil isn't a city god.
|
|
I get that and it's an interesting character for a God. But he doesn't come from "an era where the gender norms were considerably more rigid than they are now." As far as I know, there wasn't one in Golarion's history. That's not part of the world view. Several of the Rune Lords were female. There's no evidence I know of that the Azlanti were misogynistic. Do aboleths even have sex?
It's not a bad concept, I just don't see how it fits.
I guess I don't see it so much as an epoch focused on the rise of one civilization or another that you could pin down as the "good old days," if you will, of his world view, but rather his world view is that of the-time-between civilizations.
He's not Abadar- he doesn't go in for big cities. He's a frontier God, a rural God, a God of the places where people hew their lives from the forest or drag it from the earth. It's a hard place to live- there's not much margin for error either way. Such are places where children are the font of life, women are the bearers and nurturers of children (by nature, not by fiat), and the men see their duties as being to provide for and protect those that make their existence worthwhile.
|
If anything, Golarion seems like it was *less* gender-role-defined in the 'good old days.'
Erastil's church is rumored to have a female led branch that has fallen out of favor, and even out of memory, in the present day.
The ascension of Asmodeus' more misogynistic faith to dominate one of the larger nations (whose influence spreads as far south as Sargava and as far east as Korvosa), once following Aroden strongly (who seemed to have no problem with women in positions of authority / martial leadership, given his relationships with Arazni and Iomedae) is another example of a section of the Inner Sea having been more egalitarian 'in the good old days' than it is currently.
In any event, the quaint 'both genders should settle down and make babies' lifestyle coaching of Erastil seems pretty tame, if a tad antithetical to the 'adventuring' life.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This said, the manga/yaoi convention is not usually as much about who is masculine or feminine as 'uke and seme', leader and follower. It's more of a dominance/submission thing, which is in a whole different ballpark from gender roles.
Actually... this is kind of true and kind of false. :)
Yaoi (or Boys Love/BL as it's more commonly called in Japan) is a genre that is primarily written by women, for women. It takes a lot of inspiration from shoujo manga (comics aimed at younger/teenaged girls) which is very often romantic in nature, hence why BL is often filled with sappy corny romance as well. It's often viewed as a way for young women to explore their sexuality in a society that very much forces them to repress it. (Japan has a big thing with purity.)
But the characters in BL are really not... men. I mean, they are physically, but the genre has so many conventions that come directly from heterosexual relationships (as depicted in shoujo manga) that I would honestly say that it IS very much about masculinity/femininity. "Masculinity" is inherently connected to "dominance", while "femininity" is inherently connected to "submission". It's a common trope in shoujo manga for even the stubborn/self-reliant girls to be protected by/fall submissive to the guy... which is why it's a super common trope in BL manga.
So, yeah. I would honestly claim that BL manga is much closer to heterosexual relationships than it is gay relationships in many ways.
Interestingly, yuri (the girl-on-girl version), while also coming out of shoujo manga and ALSO being written primarily by women for women (straight women!) has wound up quite different to BL. I personally think this is because the cultish old-school BL writers were all women projecting their fantasies out there (and thus having it wind up depicting what is effectively a heterosexual relationship), early yuri was much more about the purity and heartbreak of two women who cannot be together like a man and a woman can (Rose of Versailles, anyone?) and also the beauty of close friendship between women. It's moved far beyond that in modern times, but it's caused a very different development for the genre as a whole.
As always, add an IMO to the end of every sentence!
|
|
in an effort to avoid derailing what has been an excellent thread, I have resurrected this equally interesting thread, so we can take the discussion there.
|
|
I've always interpreted Erastil as the bigoted elderly uncle that you still love with all your heart, but are embarrassed about when he starts telling your girlfriend that she dresses like a slut. He comes from an era where the gender norms were considerably more rigid than they are now, and it's not that he's even actively trying to perpetuate those norms; he just can't conceive of anything different. So you try to interpret what he said after the fact to be less hostile, and try to look at his intent as separate from gender politics, and make a bunch of excuses.
On top of this is the cognitive dissonance that, as his family member, you know he's a good guy, so sometimes you end up taking his side even though you know he's wrong just for the purpose of defending him from people whom you believe misunderstand his intent for his politics. Muddy his homophobic and sexist messages with legitimately relevant and effective life lessons about standing up to bullies and learning from your mistakes, and you get a very complex deity who still deserves the Lawful Good alignment even though he's got some really backwards worldview.
Erastil really works well more like the grandfather that seemed wierd, but turns out to be extremely wise in the end, and on your side even though you couldn't see it. Understanding enough of people to let them learn that what they are doing is wrong on their own, but there to help you fix it before you lose everything. The father that will warn you before you even start doing something dumb, but there for you as your world is sinking. The greatness of patriarchy, whose seen everything and been there, knows what is right and what is wrong, but also knows to allow people that need it to discover it for themselves. In the end, it isn't him that has the backwards worldview, but rather the scope and fortitude to go beyond the pettiness, indifference, and vice of what so many view as a new, different world. They guy that understands the difference, and more importantly the why of intelligence vs wisdom. The father that will let you fall or fail, but so you can learn to pick yourself up, to be truely strong. To take the hard road rather than the easier one so you will grow and help others to grow. The brother that will plant seeds so that you and your's will have something, not now like you think you need, but later when it all depends on it. The son who does the right thing, not for glory or prestige, not for fame or recognition, but because someone has to do it and everyone else is so worried about meaningless crap.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're confusing "patriarchy" with "patriarch," Beckett. One is an evil and oppressive system that promotes inequality between the genders, and the other is a man in a position of authority, who can -- as can all humans -- be wise or foolish as he skews as an individual.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any attempt at making the athiest philosophy of Rahadoum palatable is refuted, with it being insisted that they are 'really more LE than LN,' and their anti-thiest textual description being widely expanded to an anti-divine-spellcaster (even anti-*atheist* divine spellcaster!) stance that just makes the nation even more unsuitable for use by a much larger swath of classes and roles. I've attempted on several occasions to suggest ways in which various characters and roles could come from Rahadoum, for instance, only to be told that, no, Rahadoum is *less* playable than the text states, and that I shouldn't even try to use the text as justification for a non-theist Adept or non-theist Ranger to be a viable character choice. The goalposts were changed *despite what the text states* to make such options unplayable.
Wait, what? Rahadoum is rad! We published a novel where the hero is Rahadoumi! People are welcome to disagree, but as one of the staffers (if not THE staffer) most concerned with Rahdaoum, I certainly don't see that nation as a land of evil folk. There are tons of good people in Rahadoum, who have very good reasons for believing what they do. You can certainly argue with various governmental policies, but that's a different story.
As with a lot of our more controversial nations, the point isn't to say that everyone there is neutral, but rather to emphasize the wide range of characters (and alignments) that can grow and flourish within all levels of that society. One gamer's LG is another gamer's LN (or even LE), and that's how it should be. We don't all agree in real life--why would our characters?
/end threadjack
I think the issue is that your vrsion of Rahadoum is, not wrong per se, but ignors a lot of the truely vile and cruel belief's and practices that the country and it's believers do. It doesn't help that a lot of the published material of the setting portray Rahadoum a little different (softer) than the actual intent of the country. They are not enlightened philosophers, but rather very nazi-like in their hatred/fear/bigotry against anyone that holds faith in a deity.
Rahadoum isn't intended to be an "enlightened atheism" at all. It's intended to be the exact opposite—a close-minded group of prejudiced antagonists. If I were to make lists of "good guy nations" and "bad guy nations" of the Inner Sea, I wouldn't think twice about putting Rahadoum on the bad guy nation list.
There's not really a land of enlightened atheism at all in the Inner Sea Region.
|
|
Regarding Erastil's "old ways" not seeming to come from the history of the setting, maybe it's something more regional. He's a god with Ulfen roots, and the only places in-setting that really seem to have a history of patriarchy is the Land of the Linnorm Kings(where White Estrid is a bit of a rebel) and the Six-Bears tribe. The neighboring cultures of the Varisians and Shoanti don't seem to have any of that baggage in their roots.
On the flipside, I do hope the matriarchy in Qadira gets a bit more attention. That cultural detail shifts a lot of gears that haven't been fully explored yet.
If anything, Golarion seems like it was *less* gender-role-defined in the 'good old days.'
Erastil's church is rumored to have a female led branch that has fallen out of favor, and even out of memory, in the present day.
The ascension of Asmodeus' more misogynistic faith to dominate one of the larger nations (whose influence spreads as far south as Sargava and as far east as Korvosa), once following Aroden strongly (who seemed to have no problem with women in positions of authority / martial leadership, given his relationships with Arazni and Iomedae) is another example of a section of the Inner Sea having been more egalitarian 'in the good old days' than it is currently.
In any event, the quaint 'both genders should settle down and make babies' lifestyle coaching of Erastil seems pretty tame, if a tad antithetical to the 'adventuring' life.
For a twist... Maybe Erastil's misogyny is not his inherent trait but recent addition? Maybe some force unknown slowly corrupts the Old Deadeye...
|
|
I think you're confusing "patriarchy" with "patriarch," Beckett. One is an evil and oppressive system that promotes inequality between the genders, and the other is a man in a position of authority, who can -- as can all humans -- be wise or foolish as he skews as an individual.
Not at all. A great deal of feminism postulates that male, fatherhood, and especially patriarchy are bad/evil, just because, while ignoring all the good they do. I actually specifically went out of my way to use all male analogies with Eratil in that example.
|
Production Specialist
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not at all. A great deal of feminism postulates that male, fatherhood, and especially patriarchy are bad/evil, just because, while ignoring all the good they do. I actually specifically went out of my way to use all male analogies with Eratil in that example.
No, radical feminists (who are a very small, angry, unstable fringe part of feminism) believe that males, fatherhood, and patriarchs are bad/evil. The vast majority of feminists (myself included) love men, and want them to have just as much freedom to express themselves, whether that be through sports or baking, as a doctor, or a farmer, or a stay-at-home-dad.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I think you're confusing "patriarchy" with "patriarch," Beckett. One is an evil and oppressive system that promotes inequality between the genders, and the other is a man in a position of authority, who can -- as can all humans -- be wise or foolish as he skews as an individual.
And what makes a 'patriarchy' inherently evil? Any more than a matriachy/
|
Production Specialist
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're confusing "patriarchy" with "patriarch," Beckett. One is an evil and oppressive system that promotes inequality between the genders, and the other is a man in a position of authority, who can -- as can all humans -- be wise or foolish as he skews as an individual.And what makes a 'patriarchy' inherently evil? Any more than a matriachy/
Nothing. Jessica never said anything about a matriarchy being good, or even superior to patriarchy. She said that any social system where one group was considered inferior and the property or another is inherently evil.
|
|
I think you're confusing "patriarchy" with "patriarch," Beckett. One is an evil and oppressive system that promotes inequality between the genders, and the other is a man in a position of authority, who can -- as can all humans -- be wise or foolish as he skews as an individual.And what makes a 'patriarchy' inherently evil? Any more than a matriachy/
That's exactly my point. :) In the same sentence the idea that patriarchy is evil bashes male and then states that all people are both wise or foolish not based on gender. "The Patriarchy" isn't the intolerent one that boosts the few at the expense of the many. It's the on that forces everyone to live by the same rules and laws, regardless of their gender, and to work for what the individual wants to earn it. It's got issues, but not the ones that people attribute to it as the new great evil, basically "the man".
I think you're confusing "patriarchy" with "patriarch," Beckett. One is an evil and oppressive system that promotes inequality between the genders, and the other is a man in a position of authority, who can -- as can all humans -- be wise or foolish as he skews as an individual.And what makes a 'patriarchy' inherently evil? Any more than a matriachy/
I don't recall saying that a matriarchy would be good, anywhere. :-)
Determining whether people should be allowed to hold positions of power based on something as arbitrary and meaningless as XX chromosomes vs XY chromosomes is wrong. End of story.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's exactly my point. :) In the same sentence the idea that patriarchy is evil bashes male and then states that all people are both wise or foolish not based on gender. "The Patriarchy" isn't the intolerent one that boosts the few at the expense of the many. It's the on that forces everyone to live by the same rules and laws, regardless of their gender, and to work for what the individual wants to earn it. It's got issues, but not the ones that people attribute to it as the new great evil, basically "the man".I think you're confusing "patriarchy" with "patriarch," Beckett. One is an evil and oppressive system that promotes inequality between the genders, and the other is a man in a position of authority, who can -- as can all humans -- be wise or foolish as he skews as an individual.And what makes a 'patriarchy' inherently evil? Any more than a matriachy/
I suggest you reread what I wrote. I didn't say that men were evil. I said a system that views men as inherently superior to women and the only ones suited to leadership (that is what patriarchy is), is evil.
But honestly, as you're twisting what I say pretty hard in an attempt to make it male-bashing, rather than opposition to institutional sexism, I'm done discussing it with you.
|
|
I don't recall saying that a matriarchy would be good, anywhere. :-)
Determining whether people should be allowed to hold positions of power based on something as arbitrary and meaningless as XX chromosomes vs XY chromosomes is wrong. End of story.
Also agree. But I want to point out that is exactly what feminism does and the exact opposite of patriarchy. One states that the best person for the job takes the position, based on the needs, and also desires of the many, while the other states that regardless of apptitude or talent, skill or training, it is better to prevent someone better at a task based on gender alone.
|
|
I think you're confusing "patriarchy" with "patriarch," Beckett. One is an evil and oppressive system that promotes inequality between the genders, and the other is a man in a position of authority, who can -- as can all humans -- be wise or foolish as he skews as an individual.Not at all. A great deal of feminism postulates that male, fatherhood, and especially patriarchy are bad/evil, just because, while ignoring all the good they do. I actually specifically went out of my way to use all male analogies with Eratil in that example.
Whilst praising matriarchy even if oppressive and doing bad
|
|
I think you're confusing "patriarchy" with "patriarch," Beckett. One is an evil and oppressive system that promotes inequality between the genders, and the other is a man in a position of authority, who can -- as can all humans -- be wise or foolish as he skews as an individual.And what makes a 'patriarchy' inherently evil? Any more than a matriachy/I don't recall saying that a matriarchy would be good, anywhere. :-)
Determining whether people should be allowed to hold positions of power based on something as arbitrary and meaningless as XX chromosomes vs XY chromosomes is wrong. End of story.
Uh oh. Sounds like every nation in Golarion not ruled by Democracy is evil.
Or do their leaders not hold positions of power based on something as arbitrary as their genes?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the issue is that your vrsion of Rahadoum is, not wrong per se, but ignors a lot of the truely vile and cruel belief's and practices that the country and it's believers do. It doesn't help that a lot of the published material of the setting portray Rahadoum a little different (softer) than the actual intent of the country. They are not enlightened philosophers, but rather very nazi-like in their hatred/fear/bigotry against anyone that holds faith in a deity.
Rahadoum isn't intended to be an "enlightened atheism" at all. It's intended to be the exact opposite—a close-minded group of prejudiced antagonists. If I were to make lists of "good guy nations" and "bad guy nations" of the Inner Sea, I wouldn't think twice about putting Rahadoum on the bad guy nation list.There's not really a land of enlightened atheism at all in the Inner Sea Region.
Sadly, this represents the downside of the messageboards. While it's lovely that any single staff member can pop in and answer a question, it automatically seems as if that person's personal opinion is the opinion of all Paizo, which is not necessarily the case--even if that person is the Creative Director. Paizo is a team effort, which is why all of the books we publish are vetted by many different employees before they leave the building. None of what any of us say is gospel until it's been through development.
Which is not to say that Jacobs' opinion of Rahadoum is wrong, but rather that it's simply his opinion, and NOT official canon. I happen to disagree with it strongly, as do some other staff members. Pigeonholing Rahadoum as a nation full of evildoers effectively kills the thing that makes it so interesting. To me, a better answer would be that Rahadoum is home to both enlightened atheism AND prejudiced violence. It's the home of atheism in the Inner Sea, for both better and worse. If the negative aspects have been overemphasized in some of our products... well, adventures often deal with the negative parts of society. I can only hope that we'll balance that out with more positive portrayals of Rahadoumi citizens as well.
In short: I'd advise that you continue to interpret it however you like for your home game, secure in the fact that as long as you're having fun, you're doing it "right"!