Homosexuality in Golarion

[Crystal Frasier]

Beckett wrote:

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".

What you have described has literally nothing to do with the political or social definition of patriarchy, or the definition used in feminist culture. What you've described is some sort of fantasy ideal of, I don't know... democracy or maybe meritocracy?

The definition most feminists and sociologists work off of for patriarchy is a social situation where power rests with men. In our western culture, this means not only that men get the best jobs and get paid better, educated better, and are assumed to be more competent than their female counterparts, it also certain narratives and presents them as the absolute truth (ie: women are mothers, more socially competent, and weaker). Sometimes those stereotypes negatively affect men (like women winning custody battles, because women are mothers) but more often than not it means women are given a very narrow box that they are allowed to operate in without suffering a little or a lot of social stigma.

I can't say for sure if a matriarchy would have the same problems. I assume it would, since women are human, too.

Being against patriarchy means you're against our current system where men are assumed to be superior and get to make the rules, and reject the basic ideas that men must be like X and women must be like Y.

[Mikaze]

Guys, srsly with the twisting what other people are saying around. Let's keep this thread a nice thing, eh?

James Sutter wrote:

If the negative aspects have been overemphasized in some of our products... well, adventures often deal...

I think pushing more Ezren and less Rupert Raim might help remedy some of that. :)

I'd consider Rupert Raim horrifically evil for the same reasons I'd consider an Iomedaean who purposefully enables the murders of both living atheists and whatever outsiders they become in the afterlife equally evil. That particular example was really jarring.

[James Jacobs]

James Sutter wrote:

Beckett wrote:

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.

James Jacobs wrote:

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...

Also... Sutter and I have a long and proud tradition about disagreeing on how alignments work and what a good guy can get away with without being evil. ;-)

[Set]

Beckett wrote:

Thank you Beckett for locating that thread. It's been a long time and I forgot where it was.

Yeah. Any attempt to make Rahadoum playable for the half-dozen atheist classes that use divine magic was shot down with great enthusiasm, and any attempt to define the nation as Lawful Neutral or remotely 'enlightened' or even non-evil was outright forbidden.

They're bad-guys, and, contrary to the in-game description of Lawful Neutral, zealots.

If your gods-worshipper-hating atheist Ranger with favored enemy (cleric) hits 4th level, his own family will immediately recognize that his magic is divine with their special super-power of always on arcane sight (the only in-game means of telling arcane magic from divine magic) as a 1st level Rahadoumi racial trait and straight up murderdeathkill him.

[Andrew R]

Crystal Frasier wrote:

Beckett wrote:

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".

What you have described has literally nothing to do with the political or social definition of patriarchy, or the definition used in feminist culture. What you've described is some sort of fantasy ideal of, I don't know... democracy or maybe meritocracy?

The definition most feminists and sociologists work off of for patriarchy is a social situation where power rests with men. In our western culture, this means not only that men get the best jobs and get paid better, educated better, and are assumed to be more competent than their female counterparts, it also certain narratives and presents them as the absolute truth (ie: women are mothers, more socially competent, and weaker). Sometimes those stereotypes negatively affect men (like women winning custody battles, because women are mothers) but more often than not it means women are given a very narrow box that they are allowed to operate in without suffering a little or a lot of social stigma.

I can't say for sure if a matriarchy would have the same problems. I assume it would, since women are human, too.

Being against patriarchy means you're against our current system where men are assumed to be superior and get to make the rules, and reject the basic ideas that men must be like X and women must be like Y.

I think the opposite is true, women can do what they want and how dare anyone question it but men are expected to be men. no emotion, no nurturing, no liking girly things. just not accepted. Female sports fans do not get seen as less female. male fans of my little pony are not seen as men. We have an issue with gender roles and what good/bad come from them is not as clear cut and only negativity effecting women as so many women like to think

[TanithT]

Beckett wrote:

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.

I guess that depends on how you define 'evil'.

Let's take this example of an alien race. Some are Reds and some are Blues. The race is about evenly divided. In some of their cultures, we have a Red-archy, where only Reds are allowed to hold positions of power, get advancement in their job fields (or have jobs at all), or decide who they get to marry.

If you are born a Blue, the right to have sex with you can be sold or given without your consent, even if you are very young and you are scared of the idea of having sex with anybody. You can never walk the streets freely without realistically fearing that you will be the victim of assault by someone who feels entitled to catcall you or touch you and may take violent offense if you say no. Even if you dream of being a starship pilot, you will be told firmly that only Reds get to be pilots and Blues must stay home to lay the eggs and raise the larvae.

Based on these observations of this alien culture, Blues are obviously not free and equal members of this society. It would not be unreasonable to characterize a Red-archy as evil for effectively enslaving or at least severely oppressing half their members and taking away their rights and choices, even the most basic ones over their own bodies. Reverse the situation and a Blue-archy isn't any different in terms of alignment.

Substitute patriarchy for Red-archy and the picture still paints the same. Yes, it is evil to take away an entire group of people's choices and rights over their bodies and their lives.

It is very easy to say stuff like, "Patriarchy isn't evil, it is good" if you are not in the class that is personally impacted by it. But frankly, it makes you look like an ass if you are speaking from a position of privilege and complaining that the folks who don't get the same privileges as you should just be quiet and recognize how good they have it.

No, patriarchies are not good in any way, shape or form. I don't think it is possible for any system that overprivileges one group and underprivileges another group to be good. They do a lot of harm to a lot of people.

That harm may be invisible to you. If you happen to be one of the privileged people, it doesn't look much like harm at all. It probably looks quite comfortable and nice, since it's certainly not cramping your style any. It is the water you were born in, the cultural matrix you swim in, and you are as likely to be as unconscious of it as a fish does not know that the ocean is wet and salt. To a fish whose birth grants the privilege of breathing freely in this environment, it is neither. To someone who does not have the same automatic privilege, it can be a constant struggle not to drown.

I could add a few choice four letter words about folks who blithely announce that it is "good" in any way to give privileges to their own class while denying them to another, but I won't. I will content myself with saying that people who have this point of view are demonstrating a very deep ignorance of what it's actually like to not be one of the privileged.

[Alice Margatroid]

I wish every discussion of feminism didn't bring up radfems... Ugh.

"Feminism" as a political movement has spread over many decades and involved many generations who have suffered many different things. That makes it a great, lumbering, multi-faceted beast--much like the gay movement, or any other political movement, in fact. You do the movement an enormous disservice to paint it all with one brush.

In modern dialogue, the stereotypical man-hating political lesbian is entirely a strawman argument. Yes, there are a minority of feminists who believe in some pretty out-there things. No, they do not represent the majority of feminist thought. Bringing it up as if they do is like trying to claim that the entirety of the Republican party and their supporters agree with the "legitimate rape" idea. Radicals do not represent mainstream views.

[Alice Margatroid]

Andrew R wrote:

I think the opposite is true, women can do what they want and how dare anyone question it but men are expected to be men. no emotion, no nurturing, no liking girly things. just not accepted. Female sports fans do not get seen as less female. male fans of my little pony are not seen as men. We have an issue with gender roles and what good/bad come from them is not as clear cut and only negativity effecting women as so many women like to think

Do you not realise that feminism fights against this, too?

At its core, feminism is about allowing people to live and express themselves without fear of discrimination based on their gender. It is helping men as much as it is helping women.

[Beckett]

A patriarchy is simply a culture whose roots can be traced to a single father, either literally or as a founding figure.

A quick search shows

this:

Although the term patriarchy is loosely used to stand for 'male domination', as has been pointed out above, it more crucially means - as others have stated here: "The rule of The Father" or "The responsibility of The Father." So patriarchy does not refer to a simple binary pattern of male power over women, but power exerted more complexly by age as well as gender, and by older men over women, children, and younger men. . .

All are subject, even fathers are bound by its strictures.

and

this:

Most forms of feminism characterize patriarchy as an unjust social system that is oppressive to women. As feminist and political theorist Carole Pateman writes, "The patriarchal construction of the difference between masculinity and femininity is the political difference between freedom and subjection." In feminist theory the concept of patriarchy often includes all the social mechanisms that reproduce and exert male dominance over women. Feminist theory typically characterizes patriarchy as a social construction, which can be overcome by revealing and critically analyzing its manifestations.

[James Sutter]

James Jacobs wrote:

Also... Sutter and I have a long and proud tradition about disagreeing on how alignments work and what a good guy can get away with without being evil. ;-)

It's true! What's more, conflicting opinions between staff members isn't necessarily a bad thing--it helps make Golarion way more interesting and vibrant than it would be if a single person was designing everything.

And besides, can you really put two gamers in a room and NOT have a disagreement about alignment? :D

[Jessica Price]

James Sutter wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Also... Sutter and I have a long and proud tradition about disagreeing on how alignments work and what a good guy can get away with without being evil. ;-)

It's true! What's more, conflicting opinions between staff members isn't necessarily a bad thing--it helps make Golarion way more interesting and vibrant than it would be if a single person was designing everything.

And besides, can you really put two gamers in a room and NOT have a disagreement about alignment? :D

You can if one of them is gagged.

*whistles innocently*

[Andrew R]

Alice Margatroid wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

I think the opposite is true, women can do what they want and how dare anyone question it but men are expected to be men. no emotion, no nurturing, no liking girly things. just not accepted. Female sports fans do not get seen as less female. male fans of my little pony are not seen as men. We have an issue with gender roles and what good/bad come from them is not as clear cut and only negativity effecting women as so many women like to think

Do you not realise that feminism fights against this, too?

At its core, feminism is about allowing people to live and express themselves without fear of discrimination based on their gender. It is helping men as much as it is helping women.

Not from anything i have ever seen.

[Crystal Frasier]

This is not worth the aggregation. I acknowledge flat-out that patriarchy causes problems for men as well, but overwhelmingly hurts women in a very real practical sense. If you can look at the incidence of wealth distribution, the number of female presidents we've had, the number of female CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, the number of female senators and representatives we have, or the amount of legislation being pushed right now to control how a woman can use her won body, and take away the impression that "women are in charge," then you're not worth my time.

[Alice Margatroid]

Andrew R wrote:

Not from anything i have ever seen.

Then, frankly, you probably do not know much about feminism.

[Andrew R]

Jessica Price wrote:

James Sutter wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Also... Sutter and I have a long and proud tradition about disagreeing on how alignments work and what a good guy can get away with without being evil. ;-)

It's true! What's more, conflicting opinions between staff members isn't necessarily a bad thing--it helps make Golarion way more interesting and vibrant than it would be if a single person was designing everything.

And besides, can you really put two gamers in a room and NOT have a disagreement about alignment? :D

You can if one of them is gagged.

*whistles innocently*

I've seen gamers argue without a second person, have to gag them all.

[Beckett]

James Jacobs wrote:

James Sutter wrote:

Beckett wrote:

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.

James Jacobs wrote:

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

...

I think the issue is that the few published adventures and scenarios that show Rahadoum or feature typical individuals from that nation fully show just how evil and crual, how intolerant they are, or on the other hand present the "good guys" as individuals that gave up everything to escape it. It isn't the messageboards as much as that evidence showing one thing kind outweighs different views hinted at.

[TriOmegaZero]

Quote:

patriarchy |ˈpātrēˌärkē|

noun ( pl. -archies)
a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.
• a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.
• a society or community organized in this way.
ORIGIN mid 17th cent.: via medieval Latin from Greek patriarkhia, from patriarkhēs ‘ruling father’ (see patriarch ).

[Andrew R]

Crystal Frasier wrote:

This is not worth the aggregation. I acknowledge flat-out that patriarchy causes problems for men as well, but overwhelmingly hurts women in a very real practical sense. If you can look at the incidence of wealth distribution, the number of female presidents we've had, the number of female CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, the number of female senators and representatives we have, or the amount of legislation being pushed right now to control how a woman can use her won body, and take away the impression that "women are in charge," then you're not worth my time.

I do not think that either is in charge. men might have more money on average and over all political power but i think that is a relic of old policies that is dying off. More women are getting educated, more is done to help get them started. soon women will be equal there.

[Andrew R]

Alice Margatroid wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

Not from anything i have ever seen.

Then, frankly, you probably do not know much about feminism.

It seems to run a lot like the race groups, self interest only and often very much against anything but those that lock step agree.

[Azaelas Fayth]

My party has only once had an Alignment Arguement. It was the Normal 6 of us versus the new guy playing the Lawful Dumb*** Paladin.

Yes, He took Lawful Stupid to Super Saiyan II.

[Alice Margatroid]

Wow! Words have different meanings in different contexts! More news at 11! :p

Andrew R wrote:

I do not think that either is in charge. men might have more money on average and over all political power but i think that is a relic of old policies that is dying off. More women are getting educated, more is done to help get them started. soon women will be equal there.

Do you know why women are able to become educated? Feminism. Feminists fought for the right for women to go to higher education.

Do you know why old policies are dying off? Feminism. From the suffrages that allowed women the vote through to more modern day protests against abortion laws and campaigns against rape.

Women will eventually gain equality. I wholeheartedly believe this. But it will not happen without more struggle to get there.

Andrew R wrote:

It seems to run a lot like the race groups, self interest only and often very much against anything but those that lock step agree.

Considering the gross problems in both PoC communities and the inequalities between men and women, you might be able to understand why groups such as these focus on things like rape of women, abortion laws, education and health of black people, and equalising the pay gap - things that drastically affect people on a daily basis - rather than trying to cover every single problem there is at once.

I promise you, if you come to a feminist organisation with honest dialogue (not simply trying to question every motive and demand WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ?!?! at every step) you will find honest conversation and willing to debate the specifics.

[Jessica Price]

Alice Margatroid wrote:

TanithT: Too bad the Goddess of Fertility (from the Dragon Empires at least) is suggested to be in a lesbian relationship with the Goddess of Agriculture. ^_~ Although I'm sure those pushing this kind of regime would probably deny such a thing...

I think it's a fair point to say that a goddess of fertility might have an issue with people who don't produce offspring. I just think that reproduction can be thought of separately from love. From that perspective, by extension, you could say that such a deity would likely have a problem with people having only a few children, or even people having children with only one person (better gene spread and potential chance of survival!).

So I could see such a deity mandating reproduction. I just don't see that it needs to matter who you actually *love*, and in a world with magic, gender doesn't seem like a barrier to reproduction. If Lamashtu can turn your babies into monster babies, surely a fertility deity can get around the gender thing in some way.

[Andrew R]

Alice Margatroid wrote:

Wow! Words have different meanings in different contexts! More news at 11! :p

Andrew R wrote:

I do not think that either is in charge. men might have more money on average and over all political power but i think that is a relic of old policies that is dying off. More women are getting educated, more is done to help get them started. soon women will be equal there.

Do you know why women are able to become educated? Feminism. Feminists fought for the right for women to go to higher education.

Do you know why old policies are dying off? Feminism. From the suffrages that allowed women the vote through to more modern day protests against abortion laws and campaigns against rape.

Women will eventually gain equality. I wholeheartedly believe this. But it will not happen without more struggle to get there.

The problem is when the fight for equality (a good thing) becomes "more for me and mine" (a bad thing) and both gender and race equality are close to that tipping point. they want all of the good things they can get but rarely do i hear women call to make it harder to screw over men in divorce or harder for them to just assume custody of children. True equality is a good goal but i do not really think for many it IS the goal.

[Andrew R]

Jessica Price wrote:

Alice Margatroid wrote:

TanithT: Too bad the Goddess of Fertility (from the Dragon Empires at least) is suggested to be in a lesbian relationship with the Goddess of Agriculture. ^_~ Although I'm sure those pushing this kind of regime would probably deny such a thing...

I think it's a fair point to say that a goddess of fertility might have an issue with people who don't produce offspring. I just think that reproduction can be thought of separately from love. From that perspective, by extension, you could say that such a deity would likely have a problem with people having only a few children, or even people having children with only one person (better gene spread and potential chance of survival!).

So I could see such a deity mandating reproduction. I just don't see that it needs to matter who you actually *love*, and in a world with magic, gender doesn't seem like a barrier to reproduction. If Lamashtu can turn your babies into monster babies, surely a fertility deity can get around the gender thing in some way.

Good point. maybe even encouraging gay male couples and female couples to do a "trade" so children are born and raised by loving parents

[Beckett]

Crystal Frasier wrote:

This is not worth the aggregation. I acknowledge flat-out that patriarchy causes problems for men as well, but overwhelmingly hurts women in a very real practical sense. If you can look at the incidence of wealth distribution, the number of female presidents we've had, the number of female CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, the number of female senators and representatives we have, or the amount of legislation being pushed right now to control how a woman can use her won body, and take away the impression that "women are in charge," then you're not worth my time.

You do not seem to understand how insulting it is that your implying that because I'm a male, I somehow do not love my daughter or want her to succeed, or even am willing to sacrifice to make sure she does, because she doesn't have a penis. Or that I somehow want to master my wife, keep her from helping herself, or us to grow and get better. That's part of the patriarchy and my responsibility as a male and a father. What you are suggesting paints me as, because I have some form of responcibilty, I can only, will, and must use it to grind them down, which is not the case.

You do understand that America has recently had two potentual female presidents, and that the majority of voters (which is female by the by) actively voted against both? There has been legislation for centuries that have straight up dictated how a man can and will use not only his body, but his entire life, and that in general, both males and females prefere to work for men rather than women? Also, largly, people tend to prefere to hire men over women as men tend to work longer and harder, take less time off? There are exceptions, and it is usually those exceptions that really stand above and beyond. And I am sorry that by challenging your world view I am now not worth your time. I really am.

[TanithT]

Jessica Price wrote:

So I could see such a deity mandating reproduction. I just don't see that it needs to matter who you actually *love*, and in a world with magic, gender doesn't seem like a barrier to reproduction. If Lamashtu can turn your babies into monster babies, surely a fertility deity can get around the gender thing in some way.

I could be inspired to design a Wondrous Item that could be, er, strapped on for exactly such a purpose, but I don't think it would get past the censors. Sort of like a girdle of gender change, only not a girdle, and it can also affect other people.

Would be extra cool to wear it on the outside of your armor. Bonus to intimidation checks for sure.

:D

[Mikaze]

Jessica Price wrote:

Alice Margatroid wrote:

TanithT: Too bad the Goddess of Fertility (from the Dragon Empires at least) is suggested to be in a lesbian relationship with the Goddess of Agriculture. ^_~ Although I'm sure those pushing this kind of regime would probably deny such a thing...

I think it's a fair point to say that a goddess of fertility might have an issue with people who don't produce offspring. I just think that reproduction can be thought of separately from love. From that perspective, by extension, you could say that such a deity would likely have a problem with people having only a few children, or even people having children with only one person (better gene spread and potential chance of survival!).

So I could see such a deity mandating reproduction. I just don't see that it needs to matter who you actually *love*, and in a world with magic, gender doesn't seem like a barrier to reproduction. If Lamashtu can turn your babies into monster babies, surely a fertility deity can get around the gender thing in some way.

Now's as good a time as any to point out that Blood of Angels introduced a new possibility for aasimar origins: "miracle babies" born to couples otherwise incapable of having children. Same-sex couples are explicitly noted alongside couples dealing with sterility or infertility.

[Jessica Price]

TanithT wrote:

Jessica Price wrote:

So I could see such a deity mandating reproduction. I just don't see that it needs to matter who you actually *love*, and in a world with magic, gender doesn't seem like a barrier to reproduction. If Lamashtu can turn your babies into monster babies, surely a fertility deity can get around the gender thing in some way.

I could be inspired to design a Wondrous Item that could be, er, strapped on for exactly such a purpose, but I don't think it would get past the censors. Sort of like a girdle of gender change, only not a girdle, and it can also affect other people.

Would be extra cool to wear it on the outside of your armor. Bonus to intimidation checks for sure.

:D

Hilarious. :-D

[StrangePackage]

StrangePackage wrote:

Jessica Price wrote:

Matthew Morris wrote:

Jessica Price wrote:

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?

So anyone going to touch this? Aside from Nirmathas and Andoran, how is any Monarchy or Oligarchy in which power is hereditary not evil?

[spalding]

Indeed, I think people get sex tangled up with love a bit too much over all.

While the two can easily go together they don't nearly as much as our society seems to think they should.

[TanithT]

Andrew R wrote:

The problem is when the fight for equality (a good thing) becomes "more for me and mine" (a bad thing) and both gender and race equality are close to that tipping point. they want all of the good things they can get but rarely do i hear women call to make it harder to screw over men in divorce or harder for them to just assume custody of children. True equality is a good goal but i do not really think for many it IS the goal.

I dare you to go to an NAACP meeting and say the same thing about black people. Let us know how that works out for you.

If you are part of a group that has been marginalized and unfairly denied privileges that cisgendered white males take for granted, how likely are you to be super concerned about carefully watching out for the rights of what basically amount to your former plantation owners?

White males are usually very good at actively defending their own rights and privileges and complaining loudly about people who threaten a status quo that is (no surprise) very comfortable to them and which seems just fine to them. I'm not saying it is right to try to make things unfair for anyone - it's definitely not - but I don't think an already privileged group needs a ton of extra help from the less privileged group to make sure they have their 'equal' rights.

One of the classic whines about feminism is guys who derail every mention of a real and serious problem with 'BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ? WE IS OPPRESSED TOO! IS NO FAIR! SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE MENZ! WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT OUR FEELINGS AND WE PAY TOO MUCH MONEYS!"

Yes, you have legitimate concerns. None of this crap should be happening to anybody. But just maybe you can be a decent enough human being to give folks with comparatively minor little problems, like child rape and battery and honor killings and basic human rights over our own bodies, some respectful space to focus on our own issues before we work on yours.

[Alice Margatroid]

GIRDLE OF FERTILITY

Aura faint transmutation; CL 3rd
Slot belt; Price 2,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.

DESCRIPTION

This girdle is made of soft, black leather and is decorated with words from well-known rites of fertility. It adjusts itself to fit perfectly around any wearer's lower waist.

The belt's wearer can impregnate a willing target that the wearer undertakes sexual intercourse with. The belt does not affect unwilling targets. The wearer and target need not be able to naturally fertilise one another for the belt to have an effect.

CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS

Craft Wondrous Item, alter self; Cost 1,000 gp.

Terribly written, but there ya go. I figured "girdle" was nicer than "strap on". :P

[Azaelas Fayth]

I actually watch a Black Guy do that in a NAACP meeting... It was kinda funny that they kicked him out.

[TanithT]

StrangePackage wrote:

So anyone going to touch this? Aside from Nirmathas and Andoran, how is any Monarchy or Oligarchy in which power is hereditary not evil?

Any hereditary government which does not allow representation from its people in its process of law making runs the risk of being oppressive to the point of evil. However, it doesn't have to be. You can have a lawful good leader of either gender who is conscientious about making sure everyone is treated equally and by merit, even if they themselves have inherited their position.

A monarchy isn't automatically the same as a government that systematically denies one or more entire groups power, privilege and the ability to make basic life choices for themselves. It can be, but it's not an automatic conflation.

[Adam Daigle]

I don't want to be a wet blanket, but most of the last 2 pages of this thread have been about many things, but those things have not been homosexuality in Golarion. Other topics and real-world discussions have different threads and sections of our messageboards.

[Beckett]

Alice Margatroid wrote:

Do you know why women are able to become educated? Feminism. Feminists fought for the right for women to go to higher education.

I'm sorry, but that is a blatant lie. Feminism has had 0 effect on women getting educated, except to actely close down or prevent men from it. It's made it policy to allow female-only organizations, but not male-only. It has also heavily restricted male educators to favor female ones (what about gender roles being bad?). But we know for a fact that there where educated women in the roman ear, the victorian era, the colonial era, and the 19th and 20th century way before the feminist movement. How many of the classic athors are female, and not a few males wrote under female names to be taken seriously. I think your mixing up the idea that few people where educated with the idea that women somehow never where at all.

Alice Margatroid wrote:

Do you know why old policies are dying off? Feminism. From the suffrages that allowed women the vote through to more modern day protests against abortion laws and campaigns against rape.

Not everyone, especially amongst women view this as a good thing.

Alice Margatroid wrote:

Women will eventually gain equality. I wholeheartedly believe this. But it will not happen without more struggle to get there.

Considering the gross problems in both PoC communities and the inequalities between men and women, you might be able to understand why groups such as these focus on things like rape of women, abortion laws, education and health of black people, and equalising the pay gap - things that drastically affect people on a daily basis - rather than trying to cover every single problem there is at once.

There is no pay gap. It's a lie. What it really comes down to is that men work more hours than women at the same job. Women in all actuality tend to get something like a .04% higher pay than men, but because men will generally work an average of 15+ more hours in the same full time work catagory, are more often willing to work through lunch breaks and decline time off, do work they do not enjoy or is more dangerous, work away from home more often, they do earn more money in total, but if you compair dollar to dollar, nearly the exact pay for same work.

Alice Margatroid wrote:

I promise you, if you come to a feminist organisation with honest dialogue (not simply trying to question every motive and demand WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ?!?! at every step) you will find honest conversation and willing to debate the specifics.

Not in my experience. Also, so it's okay to be about equality, but only for one gender?

[StrangePackage]

TanithT wrote:

StrangePackage wrote:

So anyone going to touch this? Aside from Nirmathas and Andoran, how is any Monarchy or Oligarchy in which power is hereditary not evil?

Any hereditary government which does not allow representation from its people in its process of law making runs the risk of being oppressive to the point of evil. However, it doesn't have to be. You can have a lawful good leader of either gender who is conscientious about making sure everyone is treated equally and by merit, even if they themselves have inherited their position.

A monarchy isn't automatically the same as a government that systematically denies one or more entire groups power, privilege and the ability to make basic life choices for themselves. It can be, but it's not an automatic conflation.

So I'm clear, "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."

BUT

"Determining whether people should be allowed to hold positions of power based on something as arbitrary and meaningless as descending from a specific genetic stock is not necessarily wrong. That totally depends."

Do I have this right?

[TanithT]

Alice Margatroid wrote:

GIRDLE OF FERTILITY

Aura faint transmutation; CL 3rd
Slot belt; Price 2,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.

This is totally showing up in one of my campaigns. *evil grin*

[Azaelas Fayth]

Adam Daigle wrote:

I don't want to be a wet blanket, but most of the last 2 pages of this thread have been about many things, but those things have not been homosexuality in Golarion. Other topics and real-world discussions have different threads and sections of our messageboards.

I agree...

Though it has helped my setting out by giving me somethings to add in.

[The Fox]

Beckett wrote:

...largly, people tend to prefere to hire men over women as men tend to work longer and harder, take less time off? ...

You can console your daughter with this sage wisdom when a man is hired for the job that she wants and is highly qualified for.

"Sorry Honey. Men work harder."

LOL!

[Alice Margatroid]

Beckett, if you seriously believe that feminism has done NOTHING, there is no pay gap, and you don't want rape and abortion laws to continue down the track that they have been going, I have to conclude you are extremely ignorant (whether wilfully or otherwise) and have no desire to continue a discussion about feminism in good faith. Feel free to believe such things, but I will not respect your input into this discussion any further.

Anyway, I agree with the flumph that we should drag this back on course. My apologies. People making completely incorrect claims about feminism yanks my chain way too hard.

[thejeff]

TanithT wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

The problem is when the fight for equality (a good thing) becomes "more for me and mine" (a bad thing) and both gender and race equality are close to that tipping point. they want all of the good things they can get but rarely do i hear women call to make it harder to screw over men in divorce or harder for them to just assume custody of children. True equality is a good goal but i do not really think for many it IS the goal.

I dare you to go to an NAACP meeting and say the same thing about black people. Let us know how that works out for you.

And that would just be more proof of how evil and biased such race based groups are. And how hard it is to be a white man today.

There's no winning here.

[Beckett]

The Fox wrote:

You can console your daughter with this sage wisdom when a man is hired for the job that she wants and is highly qualified for.

"Sorry Honey. Men work harder."

LOL!

I was actually thinking more along the lines of helping her to work for what he wants and not give up, buy hey. :)

Adam Daigle wrote:

I don't want to be a wet blanket, but most of the last 2 pages of this thread have been about many things, but those things have not been homosexuality in Golarion. Other topics and real-world discussions have different threads and sections of our messageboards.

Your right, and I'll take some blame for that. We could probably all take a minute to back off and breath, absorb, and whatnot.

[Ambrosia Slaad]

Andrew R wrote:

Crystal Frasier wrote:

This is not worth the aggregation. I acknowledge flat-out that patriarchy causes problems for men as well, but overwhelmingly hurts women in a very real practical sense. If you can look at the incidence of wealth distribution, the number of female presidents we've had, the number of female CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, the number of female senators and representatives we have, or the amount of legislation being pushed right now to control how a woman can use her won body, and take away the impression that "women are in charge," then you're not worth my time.

I do not think that either is in charge. men might have more money on average and over all political power but i think that is a relic of old policies that is dying off. More women are getting educated, more is done to help get them started. soon women will be equal there.

Yep, soon, like "flying cars soon." I guess you also consider racism stick-a-fork-in-it dead too?

Beckett wrote:

You do not seem to understand how insulting...

You are trying to put a lot of words into Crystal's mouth. I think what she (and others here) are trying to convey, is that you still mostly see the world though your straight white male privilege. I'm gonna ignore your pro-male/anti-feminism arguments/baiting until you can give some cites.

[Jessica Price]

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

I'm gonna ignore your pro-male arguments/baiting until you can give some cites.

Rather than getting cites, let's try to get the thread back on topic. Adam's right -- it's drifted quite a bit.

[Andrew R]

The Fox wrote:

Beckett wrote:

...largly, people tend to prefere to hire men over women as men tend to work longer and harder, take less time off? ...

You can console your daughter with this sage wisdom when a man is hired for the job that she wants and is highly qualified for.

"Sorry Honey. Men work harder."

LOL!

So what do you tell your son when a potential job flat out says they will not hire men? And yes that has happened to me.

[Andrew R]

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

Crystal Frasier wrote:

This is not worth the aggregation. I acknowledge flat-out that patriarchy causes problems for men as well, but overwhelmingly hurts women in a very real practical sense. If you can look at the incidence of wealth distribution, the number of female presidents we've had, the number of female CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, the number of female senators and representatives we have, or the amount of legislation being pushed right now to control how a woman can use her won body, and take away the impression that "women are in charge," then you're not worth my time.

I do not think that either is in charge. men might have more money on average and over all political power but i think that is a relic of old policies that is dying off. More women are getting educated, more is done to help get them started. soon women will be equal there.

Yep, soon, like "flying cars soon." I guess you also consider racism stick-a-fork-in-it dead too?

Beckett wrote:

You do not seem to understand how insulting...

You are trying to put a lot of words into Crystal's mouth. I think what she (and others here) are trying to convey, is that you still mostly see the world though your straight white male privilege. I'm gonna ignore your pro-male/anti-feminism arguments/baiting until you can give some cites.

Prove to me what i gain for nothing other than being white and male.

[TanithT]

StrangePackage wrote:

So I'm clear, "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."

I'm fundamentally a pragmatist and a Social Darwinist. Life isn't always fair. But not fair comes in a pretty wide range, from 'well this sucks' to 'slavery' to 'genocide'.

It sucks if you don't get to be born into a ruling family and you have to work for a living.

It is evil if the people who were born into the ruling family make sure it is impossible for you to work for a living except as a chained brothel prostitute.

Quote:

"Determining whether people should be allowed to hold positions of power based on something as arbitrary and meaningless as descending from a specific genetic stock is not necessarily wrong. That totally depends."

Depends on your definition of wrong. It's awfully easy to do something like this wrong. Literally insane Roman Emperors with absolute power come to mind, for starters. Can it be done in a way that causes the least harm and the most good to that society as a whole? Can. It's not impossible. You could easily argue that it's unlikely, or at least a hell of a lot less likely than a government that has better checks and balances built in.

That doesn't really address the question of 'doing it wrong', but I'm not sure that even can be addressed. I'm more looking at it from a 'reduction of harm' model in terms of the likely net effect on the people who live under that government, including people of all genders, races and orientations.

Institutionalized oppression and denial of privilege based on birth traits is always evil and will always do a lot of harm to the minorities who are being denied rights and choices. Institutionalized power and privilege for one family is not *fair*, and is reasonably likely to result in harm, but the actual end result depends very much on what laws they actually pass and how they determine people should be treated.

[Ambrosia Slaad]

Andrew R wrote:

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

You are trying to put a lot of words into Crystal's mouth. I think what she (and others here) are trying to convey, is that you still mostly see the world though your straight white male privilege. I'm gonna ignore your pro-male/anti-feminism arguments/baiting until you can give some cites.

Prove to me what i gain for nothing other than being white and male.

If you won't even read a single simple article that I link to, why would you read anything else I offer up? Oh, right, I keep forgetting your real motive.

[TanithT]

thejeff wrote:

And that would just be more proof of how evil and biased such race based groups are. And how hard it is to be a white man today.

Yeah. Them ungrateful folk just don't know how good they have it. We white mens are the ones who are really being oppressed. They are just evil and biased for complaining. They should just shut up and be grateful and happy the way things are, and quit rocking the boat.

Yes, massuh. Whatever you say, massuh. I just be over here shining yo shoes.