.
..
...
....
.....
Weird..
..I always thought/figured men-folk opened the door for lady-folk because doors are generally heavy and men are generally stronger...
o_o
Just seemed to make sense - like standing up on a bus to let an old person sit. Young person's legs = stronger than old persons legs. Young and vital etc.... ..can tolerate the stress better...
No? o_o Carrying a weaker person's bags if you are stronger makes sense, right?
@_@
I guess I'm being physiologicalist >_<
..and granted, I know a fair few men-folk who don't look after themselves and their partners are the strong ones but I wouldn't say they were 'the norm'.
Gah, 'the norm'.. now I'm generalising!?! Ye gads, that's like sexism, ageism, sizeism, racism and treeism all bundled together!
AGHGGHH! O_O
Granted, holding an automatic door open is just weird >.>
I think I know what the problem is. Women DO need to be protected. Here's why. Historically, a higher percentage of women give birth than men. I know, I didn't really believe it at first either, so I looked it up. Now, no one can agree on the numbers, but women are about 73% MORE likely to give birth than a man in their age group. Also, if a woman is pregnant and her husband dies, there's something like a 44% chance that she loses the baby. If a woman if pregnant, however, and SHE dies, the chance is much higher (about 73% higher!) Women are protected because, now follow me, THEY HAVE THE BABIES
** spoiler omitted **
Holy s$#@ dude! Soda points for you.
I think I know what the problem is. Women DO need to be protected. Here's why. Historically, a higher percentage of women give birth than men. I know, I didn't really believe it at first either, so I looked it up. Now, no one can agree on the numbers, but women are about 73% MORE likely to give birth than a man in their age group. Also, if a woman is pregnant and her husband dies, there's something like a 44% chance that she loses the baby. If a woman if pregnant, however, and SHE dies, the chance is much higher (about 73% higher!) Women are protected because, now follow me, THEY HAVE THE BABIES
** spoiler omitted **
Excuse me, are you telling me I can't have babies?
It's because I'm a man, isn't it?
Sexist pig!
Ah, give it time and with sufficient genetics I'm sure gender will become interchangeable. I'm sure people will still hold doors for each other and fetch chairs for those who are pregnant, though.
Sexism, racism and other horrible things aren't nice. Then again, neither are goblins and zombies, so if they are appropriate to include in a game without offending the players (as opposed to their characters) then include them.
Ah, give it time and with sufficient genetics I'm sure gender will become interchangeable. I'm sure people will still hold doors for each other and fetch chairs for those who are pregnant, though.
Sexism, racism and other horrible things aren't nice. Then again, neither are goblins and zombies, so if they are appropriate to include in a game without offending the players (as opposed to their characters) then include them.
But sexism and racism don't have stats, so we can't kill them! :-(
You forgot polarism, YOU RIGHT HAND FACISTS!!!!! :P
But sexism and racism don't have stats, so we can't kill them! :-(
Sexists and racists do, though ... <starts sharpening an axe> ... after all, murder doesn't have stats ... it's murderers you bring justice to.
|
Opening the door for women shows an apreciation for us Females. We thank you for this, it is more etiquette then sexism in my book. A women is more than capable of doing this herself. However if Im with my significant other and he gets the door for me (Car door, Exterior door) it shows a caring respectfull attitude.
Its like Men getting the chair for his lady as she sits at the table, or when they stand up when a lady leaves and comes to the table. Its again more ettiquette then it is a sign of the weaker species... and yes females are as a whole weaker... Although there are some squimish funny men walking around the planet Im sure that I could put my 4' stilletto heels into very nicely!
Yeah.. there should be sexism in a game.. racism etc.. It makes it more believable.. for instance... a Female Half Orc in a Human populated town may be looked at with suspicion, maybe even ridiculed, but the common farmer wont say crap to her for fear of getting possibly smacked around like a rag doll. Sometimes you can show sexism.. sometimes its better to leave it alone.
Ok, about the opening doors and the whole "chivalry" business. I do my best to hold open doors for everyone I can, male, female, intersex, whatever. It's the polite thing to do.
That's rather the point, isn't it? When it's done as a matter of courtesy to anyone rather than because of the sex of the person you're holding the door for, then it's clearly not sexism. That's the whole point of any kind of discrimination - if the discrimination is based on appropriate criteria (things like opportunity and convenience for the one holding the door, whether the person the door is held open for could use the help because their hands are full or they're herding children) then you can't really make a negative out of it. The choices made are for the right reasons. It's when the discrimination criteria has nothing to do with the situation - holding a door open for women but not anybody else whether they need the door held or not - that it becomes a negative.
And yes, holding doors open for women because they're women I have come to see is a negative. When it comes to door-holding etiquette, among the rudest at it, in my experience, are older women - women who probably learned to expect to have doors opened for them but not open them for anyone else. Despite having arms loaded with large boxes, wriggling children, strollers, what-have-you, I get more older (50+) women letting doors close in my face than younger women, younger men, and older men (who are usually so well-trained to open doors for their women-folk that they do it for anybody). These old gals will look at you with a smile on their faces because you're a father with small children and then let you struggle with the door they just let close right in front of you. They're the ones who won't step aside on the sidewalk when you're carrying a large and unwieldy box while their husbands politely step off the curb to get our of your way.
So, while the sexist behavior may not seem negative at first glance, think about the lessons being taught by it. It may have an effect that reaches farther than you realize.
In one of the nations I'm working on, the issue of "why are the commonfolk so forward thinking / empowered for an essentially early renaissance/high middle ages european-esque society?" arose. The answer for radical social change took root, as it so often does, in a war. A war against an invasion of a rogue colony of drow from the underground went very badly and depopulated parts of the nation. In addition, the King ordered the Royal Army to withdraw from the field and defend the capital. As a result, the army that a member of the nobility raised to meet the drow in battle was made of commoners, not gentleman-warriors, and a large percentage were women, simply because that was all that was available. When this group attained victory, they used it to increase their freedoms - the abolition of serfdom, the right to sell crops directly at market or to merchants, instead of appointed brokers or reeves, inheritance rights, etc. As a result, while the people of this nation consider themselves to be free and relatively equal, other nations consider the commonfolk to be "uppity" and the nobles "spineless, for not showing the peasants their place."
For my settings it varies depending on the society. In barbaric cultures I try to use what I know about early mythology, with women sometimes being revered for their ability to create life. In some cultures women hav less rights, in others women may actually fill a strict societal role (like Spartan society where women did most of the work aside from war). It depends on the kind of culture I'm trying to create. I even have separate factions in my societies, even the small ones. For my Dwarven culture the worker class actually has a rebel faction trying to break rule from the king that is growing in number thanks to some outside influence. The dwarves are kind of closer to a sexist society, with women doing less risky work than the men. This isn't due to some kind of biological need, but instead is behavioral, because ancient dwarves would commonly suffer cave-ins, and dwarven women dying would cut down their numbers in the next generation.
If you’re looking for a way to work sexism into your pathfinder game an encounter with a cleric of Erastil would work. Just read the Erastil entry in King Maker, turns out the God of communities wants women to stay their asses at home and raise the kids. Even goes on to say he thinks Iomedae needs a man in her life to guide her. Needless to say it goes on to mention there are very few female clerics of Erastil.
If you’re looking for a way to work sexism into your pathfinder game an encounter with a cleric of Erastil would work. Just read the Erastil entry in King Maker, turns out the God of communities wants women to stay their asses at home and raise the kids. Even goes on to say he thinks Iomedae needs a man in her life to guide her. Needless to say it goes on to mention there are very few female clerics of Erastil.
He says the same thing about men, too, though. He thinks Cayden Cailean needs a woman to bring him down.
Erastil just wants everyone to stay home in their communities and be nice and have kids and be farmers. That's...sort of his thing.
If you’re looking for a way to work sexism into your pathfinder game an encounter with a cleric of Erastil would work. Just read the Erastil entry in King Maker, turns out the God of communities wants women to stay their asses at home and raise the kids. Even goes on to say he thinks Iomedae needs a man in her life to guide her. Needless to say it goes on to mention there are very few female clerics of Erastil.He says the same thing about men, too, though. He thinks Cayden Cailean needs a woman to bring him down.
Erastil just wants everyone to stay home in their communities and be nice and have kids and be farmers. That's...sort of his thing.
“He believes the strength of a man’s will makes him the center of a household, and while women can be strong, they should defer to and support their husbands, as their role is to look after the house and raise strong children (consequently, there are few female priests in his church). Independent-minded women, he believes, can be disruptive to communities, and it is best to marry them off quickly so their duties as wife and mother command their attention.”
I dunno, seems pretty sexist to me. Not in that he hates women, but that he thinks they should all be subservient to a man.
This isn't divine writ. He just thinks people should stay at home, with women being mothers and wives, and men being husbands and fathers. He also dislikes men running around doing whatever they please.
He doesn't tell his clerics to go out and punish people who do otherwise or force women/men into this situation.
He's like a kindly old dad who reminds you every time you visit that, boy, it sure would be nice to have some grandkids running around here, wouldn't it? Say how about the neighbor's boy, Johnny, he's a nice kid and would make an excellent husband, don't you think?
|
If you’re looking for a way to work sexism into your pathfinder game an encounter with a cleric of Erastil would work. Just read the Erastil entry in King Maker, turns out the God of communities wants women to stay their asses at home and raise the kids. Even goes on to say he thinks Iomedae needs a man in her life to guide her. Needless to say it goes on to mention there are very few female clerics of Erastil.He says the same thing about men, too, though. He thinks Cayden Cailean needs a woman to bring him down.
Erastil just wants everyone to stay home in their communities and be nice and have kids and be farmers. That's...sort of his thing.
“He believes the strength of a man’s will makes him the center of a household, and while women can be strong, they should defer to and support their husbands, as their role is to look after the house and raise strong children (consequently, there are few female priests in his church). Independent-minded women, he believes, can be disruptive to communities, and it is best to marry them off quickly so their duties as wife and mother command their attention.”
I dunno, seems pretty sexist to me. Not in that he hates women, but that he thinks they should all be subservient to a man.
And does that make him a terrible person-er, god? He could smite the vile, depraved bra-burning feminists with his Chauvinist Bow +9. That he chooses not to suggests something to me.
Women are suposed to defer to their husbands because their husbands are putting themselves in danger. Logging is dangerous. Soldiering is dangerous. Hunting? Dangerous! City guard? Dangerous! Bouncer? Dangerous? Cooking? Not so dangerous? Cleaning? Only at my house. Raising children? Not so dangerous. Sewing? Not! See where I'm going? Were I putting my life on the line daily for someone, I'd rather like it if they did what I wanted with minimal complaint. Wouldn't you?
Exccept that majority of those people would be farmers. And so would their wives. So only when the orcs or gnolls or whatever attack would they be putting themselves in any more danger, and chances are, they're gonna get cut down and their wives will be in danger anyway.
Also, there's a difference between "would like it" and "supposed to". For example, just talking for myself, "honey, will you please make my favorite meal tonight? I almost died when those orcs attacked, and it's made me appreciate your stew all the more" would almost certainly be greeted with "of course, dear - I'm so glad you're alright! Thank the gods you're safe. I already started the stew since I know it's your favorite." On the other hand... "you're supposed to defer to me woman, because my dangly bits give me POWAH! Now go make me my stew!" would be met more with... "here it is, dear *dumps boiling stew on, then stabs with chef's knife*".
and then he would get beeched slapped ...... if he was lucky, castrated if he wasnt....
Women are suposed to defer to their husbands because their husbands are putting themselves in danger. Logging is dangerous. Soldiering is dangerous. Hunting? Dangerous! City guard? Dangerous! Bouncer? Dangerous? Cooking? Not so dangerous? Cleaning? Only at my house. Raising children? Not so dangerous. Sewing? Not! See where I'm going? Were I putting my life on the line daily for someone, I'd rather like it if they did what I wanted with minimal complaint. Wouldn't you?
Having children? Dangerous. In fact, VERY dangerous at the level of techniology we are talking about. Therefore, as women have to undergo the danger of childbirth in order to bear the man's children, it is equally logical that men should have to defer to women. After all, he MAY have to risk his life defending your family, but his wife WILL have to risk her life for him to actually HAVE a family.
Women are suposed to defer to their husbands because their husbands are putting themselves in danger. Logging is dangerous. Soldiering is dangerous. Hunting? Dangerous! City guard? Dangerous! Bouncer? Dangerous? Cooking? Not so dangerous? Cleaning? Only at my house. Raising children? Not so dangerous. Sewing? Not! See where I'm going? Were I putting my life on the line daily for someone, I'd rather like it if they did what I wanted with minimal complaint. Wouldn't you?Having children? Dangerous. In fact, VERY dangerous at the level of techniology we are talking about. Therefore, as women have to undergo the danger of childbirth in order to bear the man's children, it is equally logical that men should have to defer to women. After all, he MAY have to risk his life defending your family, but his wife WILL have to risk her life for him to actually HAVE a family.er..what level of technology are we talking about? A 1st level Cleric can heal a 1st level peasant on death's door to full health in less than a minute.
Compared to today's technology, that's light years ahead of us.
How common are first level clerics, and would cure light wounds be relevant? Childbirth itself is not an illness or an injury, although it can look like one and damage like the other.
Even if so, any argument you can make for healing a woman in childbirth can be made for healing her husband on the battlefield. The risk is still equivelant.
You said having children is dangerous. Childbirth, itself, isn't dangerous. Childbirth can have complications which are dangerous. They are dangerous because they create or can create injuries - such injuries being curable with magic.
Agriculture is dangerous work - constantly. Childbirth is likely to happen maybe seven times in the woman's life. Workplace injuries can happen at any time. Childbirth injuries happen during childbirth (so, you can often plan ahead to ensure a cleric is available). No, the dangers aren't comparable, because the frequency isn't comparable.
Even in the real world, men have lived statistically shorter lives than women largely due to the fact that the work place has traditionally been far less safe for men.
Unless you take away basic obstetric care. Then women go soaring past men in terms of early death, and the mortality rate among newborns is likewise high. Also bear in mind that in an agrarian society, women are also working in the fields, so the dangers of the workplace apply to them also.
Interesting Norse custom was to pay the bride's family a weregild - that is, the worth of a person in gold. Normally this was paid to the grieved in the event of murder, but in this case it was because of the risk to a woman's life when a man lay with her.
You said having children is dangerous. Childbirth, itself, isn't dangerous. Childbirth can have complications which are dangerous. They are dangerous because they create or can create injuries - such injuries being curable with magic.
Agriculture is dangerous work - constantly. Childbirth is likely to happen maybe seven times in the woman's life. Workplace injuries can happen at any time. Childbirth injuries happen during childbirth (so, you can often plan ahead to ensure a cleric is available). No, the dangers aren't comparable, because the frequency isn't comparable.
Even in the real world, men have lived statistically shorter lives than women largely due to the fact that the work place has traditionally been far less safe for men.
You're right the dangers aren't compatible. They're a lot worse for pregnancy and childbirth, or at least historically have been. Until the 20th century, demographics have usually shown women's life spans being no longer than men's. No significant longevity advantage appeared until childbirth/pregnancy mortality dropped after about 1900. In fact, there are sources that put the mortality rate for child-bearing age women higher than men of the same age.
So, you better believe the risks aren't the same. Pregnancy and childbirth has historically been more dangerous than farming.
Hmm... I didn't get my point across clearly enough. The patriarchal conceit that because they do all of the dangerous work and hold all of the wealth earns men the expectation "that women show difference to their husbands is not extreme" IS the insidious part."Advocating that women show difference to their husbands is not extreme" only sounds un-extreme to someone in a position of power. Ask that to a woman and it's horribly extreme.
If you have a systemic power imbalance in a society, the people who lack the power have an uphill battle in having their perspective heard and measured in what is reasonable.
Whether expecting a woman to defer to a man is extreme depends on why that expectation is there. Holding all the wealth is a pretty stupid reason, in general, and holding all the wealth (historically) probably grows more out of sexual inequalities that are already there rather than drives them. But if it grows out of a reasonable division of labor, is it really so extreme?
Think of it this way: If women are more often kept close to a home base because of pregnancy and childbirth, what does that imply? They become a relatively efficient nurturer of the other offspring, who should also probably be kept reasonably close to the home base, compounding the reason they're kept close at home. That leave the men to range about doing other work, tending the more distant fields, clearing the forestland, going hunting. Does that sound reasonable?
Now, what reasonably grows out of that division of labor? The partner moving around probably has more capacity to make rational decisions outside the home because of broader experiences, has more time and ability to make the contacts necessary to wield political power in the community. It's a very short step from there to expecting that same person to be the one to wield the final word in the home as well. At the very least, it facilitates the practices of the home being in tune with the external practices and politics.
From that point of view, expecting a woman to defer to a man isn't that extreme a position to hold. It's got nothing to do with performing risky work or holding wealth. It simply grows out of a division of labor driven by biology. Once the biological needs are sufficiently taken care of, as happens with larger and more complex societies, then the division of labor no longer becomes necessary (and that's when you see the insidious rationalizations that we see even now with our modern, post-industrial economy). But in Erastil's case, he's a very old god and a conservative one, so his ideas of sexual roles haven't really changed. I don't think they're insidious at all because I think they can flow naturally out of a basic division of labor. They're just really old views.
You're right the dangers aren't compatible. They're a lot worse for pregnancy and childbirth, or at least historically have been. Until the 20th century, demographics have usually shown women's life spans being no longer than men's. No significant longevity advantage appeared until childbirth/pregnancy mortality dropped after about 1900. In fact, there are sources that put the mortality rate for child-bearing age women higher than men of the same age.
So, you better believe the risks aren't the same. Pregnancy and childbirth has historically been more dangerous than farming.
I'd like to see the statistics for that.
For the sake of the argument, I'll assume you're right. So, what was signficant about the 20th century? Presumably, improved health care.
Clerics, however, provide better health care than we can get even with today's medicine. So, again, women would have longer lifespans then men.
Does a cure light wounds provide an automatic Caesarian section? Does it cause a woman who cannot dilate to dilate? Does it tell you the reason that a woman who suddenly went all pale and collapsed has had a uterine abruption? It takes a LOT more than just being able to cure injuries to deal with the complications of childbirth that can otherwise kill mother and child.
Even if you can provide all of that ... you still have only reached parity with the man on the battlefield, not exceeded it. You have not changed the fact that a woman is still risking her life as much as a man if not more so.
On top of all of that, life expectancy owes as much to contraception as to obstetrics: a woman who has borne fourteen children without a hitch will still die younger than a man, because bearing children is hard.
If you allow The Gleaner (NPC class), you get the Blessed Birth spell (or just allow the spell).
Does a cure light wounds provide an automatic Caesarian section? Does it cause a woman who cannot dilate to dilate? Does it tell you the reason that a woman who suddenly went all pale and collapsed has had a uterine abruption? It takes a LOT more than just being able to cure injuries to deal with the complications of childbirth that can otherwise kill mother and child.
I would say it does all these things as much as it heals collapsed lungs, pierced kidneys, ruptured spleens, and even serious head injuries. Which if you looked at what "hit point damage" represents, or even "ability score damage/drain" represents, it would be all these things.
So yes, I actually would say that as much as the Cure and Restoration series of spells (amongst other curative spells) heals those very difficult to manage organ injuries, they would also be able to handle injuries and complications of childbirth.
You would need Heal checks to know exactly what was wrong, but midwifery is a pretty ancient art, and likely the divine healer brought to assist the birth would likely also have ranks in the skill.
I was going to back out of this conversation as it's getting rather extreme, but I didn't have quite the willpower to let this one go. Injury is very abstracted in this game system; you can grow your arm back or restore brain matter with a spell, so thinking the same system can't help a woman dilate or deal with uterine hemorrhaging is just silly.
Back to the original topic at hand--I think it comes down to this:
It's not about "Sexism" in the game world. It's all about sexism (and other discrimination) at the table (which this whole topic just exposes brilliantly and gloriously, though some will never see it). In character attitudes and out of character attitudes are different; let the latter influence the game play in whatever way, and someone--no matter who they are--will end up being uncomfortable and the fun will stop. Unfortunately, the most disrespectful people will never see themselves as doing anything wrong, but the best thing to do when in a situation is just get the hell out and find a more mature player group (which will undoubtedly be able to portray controversial character attitudes without making a player feel out of place).
You would need Heal checks to know exactly what was wrong, but midwifery is a pretty ancient art, and likely the divine healer brought to assist the birth would likely also have ranks in the skill.
I agree with you there, your midwife is likely an adept who knows what she is doing at the least - if she is there. My point, though, is that the woman is taking as much a risk with her life giving birth as the man going into battle. He is also going to have healers on call, but that doesn't mean they will be there when the crunch comes, and things can always go wrong.
At the end of the day, the church of Erastil is a good example of how the best of intentions can lead to an (apparent) sexist attitude.
|
|
You would need Heal checks to know exactly what was wrong, but midwifery is a pretty ancient art, and likely the divine healer brought to assist the birth would likely also have ranks in the skill.I agree with you there, your midwife is likely an adept who knows what she is doing at the least - if she is there. My point, though, is that the woman is taking as much a risk with her life giving birth as the man going into battle. He is also going to have healers on call, but that doesn't mean they will be there when the crunch comes, and things can always go wrong.
At the end of the day, the church of Erastil is a good example of how the best of intentions can lead to an (apparent) sexist attitude.
Or how people have thin skin.
Or how people have thin skin.
Only after the cleric of Zon-Kuthon is well into the sandpaper torture process. ;P
Y'know, I don't know why the shorter lifespan thing even came up, but that sounds like a really good reason for the women to have the power in a house (or country or whatever). Less chance that the "leader" is going to die in battle and leave the household/country/etc. without its leader.
You would need Heal checks to know exactly what was wrong, but midwifery is a pretty ancient art, and likely the divine healer brought to assist the birth would likely also have ranks in the skill.I agree with you there, your midwife is likely an adept who knows what she is doing at the least - if she is there. My point, though, is that the woman is taking as much a risk with her life giving birth as the man going into battle. He is also going to have healers on call, but that doesn't mean they will be there when the crunch comes, and things can always go wrong.
At the end of the day, the church of Erastil is a good example of how the best of intentions can lead to an (apparent) sexist attitude.
You are asserting that a woman going into childbirth with top notch medical care is taking as much of a risk with her life as a man who goes into battle. Is making an assertion without backing it up actually "a point"?
At the end of the day, even with women having medical care not as good as in this fantasy world, men still have statistically shorter lifespans. So, it would be nice if you had something which supports your assertion.
No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that in both cases you will have medical assistance of the same calibre and the same availability. In battles, things go wrong in spite of having the medical there you have to get it to injured men before the enemy finish them off, true. Then again, babies do not arrive according to a timetable (unless you are scheduling a c-section in a modern hospital and I don't think fantasy medical care is likely to be THAT advanced). In short, the care is "there" in both cases, when the woman enters labour, someone has to fetch the midwife, when the warrior is injured he has to retire or else be fetched back to the healers. In both cases, the person could be alone, things could go awry before they reach care or care reaches them.
Now while the chances of death are greater in battle, what if there is peace in the land? The warrior does not have to fight - but the women still have babies. So if there is a lot of strife, the men are taking the greater risks, and in peacetime, the women are. Take that over time, and I think the that the risks to both are comparable.