Misandrists in the setting?


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

151 to 200 of 310 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Not at all, as I said, I would attribute the EXACT same to a patriarchal society that was listed the same way.

Whenever you have a society where one sex are the only rulers and the other sex aren't then you are going to have, especially over years and years and years, a degree of misogyny/misandry and there is no way to help that.

You also don't have to be of evil alignment to be a misogynist/misandrist. If, for example, a male Lashunta can't be a lizard-rider that is, period, misandry because it is discrimination. If a common Lashunta mind-set is, "Women are politicans, men aren't suited for it." that IS misandry. That doesn't make someone evil necessarily.

Uh...it's debatably sexism, and discrimination, but misandry is a bit worse than sexism alone. Additionally, where are you getting your info?

Every Lashunta write-up I can find mentions both becoming warriors, and none seem to say the men don't contribute.

HWalsh wrote:

If I told you:

"Women are more emotional than men, and therefor aren't suited to positions of leadership."

That would be misogynist as all heck and it is the exact same as saying:

"Men tend to have a slightly lower Charisma and Wisdom score than women, and because of that they aren't suited to positions of leadership."

And here we come to the heart of the problem with complaining about the Lashunta in this context: The Lashunta are strongly sexually dimorphic.

Humans are not strongly sexually dimorphic (particularly, we're almost identical mentally) and thus your latter statement is both factually incorrect and a statement of prejudice. The Lashunta, however, are another matter. Their capabilities actually do vary in a statistically significant fashion. By quite a bit.

These are not equivalent situations and cannot be treated as such.

I think a better comparison for the lashunta social structures would actually be society's accomodation of the differently-abled, really, rather than gender. "We should have ramps for people in wheelchairs" isn't some sort of weird "separate but equal" bigotry, it's a practical concern. For this reason, the lashunta divide is not really applicable to talks about gender—at least not proportionately.

Project Manager

4 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Jessica Price wrote:
Hags.

Harpies.

But I think when you get to a species of only women using males of other species to reproduce you're talking something more basic than misandry.

Harpies don't necessarily hate men--they're just all female.

Hags explicitly hate men--and, I mean, everyone else, but they eat their male children.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
KarlBob wrote:
A novel that specifically explores different approaches to marriage is Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. The version I remember most clearly is known as a line marriage. Under this system, every man in the line is married to every woman in the line. This type of marriage evolved in a penal colony, to avoid legal wrangles over inheritance. If the entire line owns property, then the death of the oldest members of the family doesn't open up the property to "reclamation" by the colonial government/wardens.

Heinlein explored a number of different forms of marriage (and other relationships) in his books.

Unfortunately, it often seemed mostly a kind of creepy way of having his characters have lots of inappropriate sex. I just reread Glory Road a little while back and that one scene was a lot creepier than I remembered it being. Different perspective than when I read it in my youth.

Sometimes Heinlein clearly used unusual sex to provoke and shock his audience (All You Zombies). Other times it seemed more like what you said, especially in his later years (To Sail Beyond the Sunset).


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Uh...no. A +2 to a stat means quite a bit, especially at low levels. And the vast majority of characters are of low levels.

It also makes, statistically, high numbers way less common and low numbers way more common. Which makes quite a difference.

Assuming 3d6 rolls for stats (as you do for non-heroic NPCs), 10% of Lashunta men have Wis 4 or less, and 62.7% have a 9 or less. Only 1.9% of Lashunta women have a 4 or less in Wis, and only 37.7% have Wis 9 or less. On the other end of things, 4.7% of Lashunta men have a Wis of 14+, while 16.3% of Lashunta women have the same.

So...men are almost twice as likely as women to have a below average Wisdom, and only a third as likely to have a Wisdom most people would consider 'high'. That's not a small or insignificant difference.

The situation with Charisma is similar, though the numbers would all be two higher for that distribution.

My info comes from the write ups that specifically state:

Quote:

The primary humanoid inhabitants of Castrovel are the Lashunta, an educated, civilized matriarchal society.

The beautiful Lashunta women are constantly plotting and maneuvering for political positions within their city-states. The protection of their settlements also falls to them and bands of lizard-mounted Lashunta women are constantly fighting back rampaging fauna that encroaches on their civilization.

Lashunta men are a stark contrast to their powerful, shapely women. They stand barely half the height of their female counterparts and are nearly twice as broad and are covered in hair. Their rugged appearance and skill in battle might be deceiving, however, as they are just as intelligent as Lashunta women and have an insatiable thirst for knowledge.

All Lashunta see the pursuit of mental perfection as an admirable goal which has, over the generations, developed into keen psionic powers and telepathy in many if not most of the members of this austere race.

-------

Bolding is mine. In the Lashunta society Women *are* the Politicians and Defenders. Men become warriors, but that doesn't mean they are allowed to hold positions as such in their society.

Now, since you called up ability scores:

First of all... We are going to discount your outlying stats because they are irrelevant. Why? Because they are irrelevant.

The average median is the important factor.

Lashunta have the following average scores: (Women/Men)

Strength: 5-20 (avg: 12.5)/3-18 (avg: 10.5)
Constitution: 3-18 (avg:10.5)/1-15 (avg: 8.5)
Wisdom: 1-15 (avg: 8.5)/3-18 (avg: 10.5)
Intelligence: 5-20 (avg: 12.5)/5-20 (avg: 12.5)
Charisma: 3-18 (avg: 10.5)/5-20 (avg: 12.5)

Those are the medians by math (assuming a die roll of 3-4-3) and yes there will be outliers, but they will hardly be significant enough to skew an ENTIRE society.

Now... Let's put the real numbers to the test at low levels.

Let's assume that a level 2 Male and a level 1 Female both have the same ranks in diplomacy and that it is a class skill and that they have the average for their type:

Female: 3+1+1 = +5
Male: 3+1+0 = +4

On a DC 16 check the female is likely to succeed 50% of the time (a roll of 11-20) the male is likely to succeed 45% of the time (a roll of 12-20) this is barely significant.

So that is one of the hallmarks of leadership...

Huh... Interesting, not much of a difference... And we also start seeing a problem... The Women are the protectors of their society? If they were a meritocracy that doesn't make sense. By your own logic, they have low scores in the 2 most important stats for a Fighter.

In melee combat the male has the advantage in pretty much every category. He's going to hit harder, hit more often, and be able to take a hit better.

In ranged combat the male and female have the same stats for attack but the male is more likely to be able to use a higher damage bow, so he has the advantage there, and he's going to take more damage to be put down.

So, on a meritocracy the Men would be the Warriors of the Culture and the Women wouldn't be seen as "fit for it" based on the meritocracy claims. Yet the women, who are clearly inferior as front line combatants, are stated to be the primary protectors and primary politicians?

When the logic states that the men should be the primary protectors based on their racial stat development.

The answer? Discrimination and preconceived notions. Heck, even your own statement regarding the stats being a big deal. I mathematically showed how, all things being equal, the males would only be 5% less effective. This is even more amusing as the traits for leadership actually aren't all wisdom based.

Does this mean that there would be *less* male politicians? Yes. Does this mean no? Of course not. The best politicians will skew high in both stats, taking the best and brightest (or at least the most charasmatic) and so, at low levels especially, you'd see someone with a +9 and a +8 from both parties... That is so statistically irrelevant at that point it is laughable as a concept. Much like I do feel someone with 1 less attack and 1 less damage and 1 less HP are the same, its statistically irrelevant.

So we are forced to conclude in Lashunta society there is undue and unjust discrimination, or at least discouragement, for men to enter politics and/or there is a disproportionate number of women warriors based on potential merit.

Liberty's Edge

HWalsh wrote:
My info comes from the write ups that specifically state:

Yeah, I got that. You quoted it before. I was asking where it was from, though.

But you know what, I figured it out. See below.

HWalsh wrote:
Bolding is mine. In the Lashunta society Women *are* the Politicians and Defenders. Men become warriors, but that doesn't mean they are allowed to hold positions as such in their society.

The bolded part doesn't exist. You got it from the wiki, right? It's a wiki and you should know to take those with a grain of salt.

I actually went and looked at all the books cited in the wiki. The bolded section? Does not exist. Anywhere. I did word searches in seacrhable PDFs for it, and then read through all the setions on Lashunta (not an impressive feat, there are like 5 pages total). It's not canonical for Golarion, and was written by no professional writer at any point.

Now, lizard mounted lashunta women are absolutely canon. The part about it 'also falling to them to defend their civilization'? Nope. Not a thing. Not anywhere close to in that phrasing, or with the implication the men couldn't also defend their civilization.

Not. A. Thing.

Which was why I was asking for your source, BTW. I'd read those before and didn't remember that bit. I was curious if you had information I didn't. And then I thought to check the wiki.

I'll respond to the rest of your post in another of my own, since that's a whole separate thing.

Liberty's Edge

HWalsh wrote:

Now, since you called up ability scores:

First of all... We are going to discount your outlying stats because they are irrelevant. Why? Because they are irrelevant.

Uh...the percentage of people with a 9 or less and the percentage with a 14+ are both super-relevant. On a rather profound level. I'll discuss why below.

HWalsh wrote:

The average median is the important factor.

Lashunta have the following average scores: (Women/Men)

Strength: 5-20 (avg: 12.5)/3-18 (avg: 10.5)
Constitution: 3-18 (avg:10.5)/1-15 (avg: 8.5)
Wisdom: 1-15 (avg: 8.5)/3-18 (avg: 10.5)
Intelligence: 5-20 (avg: 12.5)/5-20 (avg: 12.5)
Charisma: 3-18 (avg: 10.5)/5-20 (avg: 12.5)

Those are the medians by math (assuming a die roll of 3-4-3) and yes there will be outliers, but they will hardly be significant enough to skew an ENTIRE society.

A score of 10-11 on 3d6 occurs 25% of the time. 75% thus have scores above or below that. 75% of the population is not 'outliers'. That's...not how numbers work. Which makes 'outliers' actually super relevant.

HWalsh wrote:

Now... Let's put the real numbers to the test at low levels.

Let's assume that a level 2 Male and a level 1 Female both have the same ranks in diplomacy and that it is a class skill and that they have the average for their type:

Female: 3+1+1 = +5
Male: 3+1+0 = +4

On a DC 16 check the female is likely to succeed 50% of the time (a roll of 11-20) the male is likely to succeed 45% of the time (a roll of 12-20) this is barely significant.

So that is one of the hallmarks of leadership...

This assumes you pick random people to be your diplomats and leaders. That's...not how societies work. You pick people who are good at the job, generally speaking. In a community with an average Cha of 12, call it 16+ (since that's where the difference starts really being noticeable). those people have a 10% increase in their odds over the general populace (which, if they succeed at thgings 60% instead of 50% is actually more like a 20% increase in odds of success, since they succeed literally 20% more often...math is interesting) and that's notable.

16.3% of Lashunta women have Cha 16+. Contrariwise, only 4.7% of men have a 16+. In a pure meritocracy, that would likely put 3/4 of diplomats and leaders as female.

Except, of course, that you actually want decent Wis in your diplomats and leaders as well (for Sense Motive, and good judgement). Say...a 10+. That should be easy enough. Of course, as mentioned previously only 37.8% of men have Wis scores at that level, while 62.8% of women do.

That places it at more like a bit south of 2% of men who meet those qualifications, while an easy 10% of women do. Or a 5 to 1 ratio. Again, in a pure meritocracy.

Now, they don't seem to have a 5 to 1 ratio, and thus some in-built sexism is indeed likely. But not to nearly the degree you're implying.

HWalsh wrote:

Huh... Interesting, not much of a difference... And we also start seeing a problem... The Women are the protectors of their society? If they were a meritocracy that doesn't make sense. By your own logic, they have low scores in the 2 most important stats for a Fighter.

In melee combat the male has the advantage in pretty much every category. He's going to hit harder, hit more often, and be able to take a hit better.

In ranged combat the male and female have the same stats for attack but the male is more likely to be able to use a higher damage bow, so he has the advantage there, and he's going to take more damage to be put down.

So, on a meritocracy the Men would be the Warriors of the Culture and the Women wouldn't be seen as "fit for it" based on the meritocracy claims. Yet the women, who are clearly inferior as front line combatants, are stated to be the primary protectors and primary politicians?

When the logic states that the men should be the primary protectors based on their racial stat development.

Actually...there is a reference to only the Lashunta women being able to bond with their giant lizard mounts. So there's a good reason why the women might participate as fighters, since giant lizard mounts are both cool and useful.

In fact...I can't find any reference to Lashunta warrior women except as cavalry. Which means the infantry are almost certainly predominantly male. Which matches their abilities to a tee. How nice.

HWalsh wrote:

The answer? Discrimination and preconceived notions. Heck, even your own statement regarding the stats being a big deal. I mathematically showed how, all things being equal, the males would only be 5% less effective. This is even more amusing as the traits for leadership actually aren't all wisdom based.

Does this mean that there would be *less* male politicians? Yes. Does this mean no? Of course not. The best politicians will skew high in both stats, taking the best and brightest (or at least the most charasmatic) and so, at low levels especially, you'd see someone with a +9 and a +8 from both parties... That is so statistically irrelevant at that point it is laughable as a concept. Much like I do feel someone with 1 less attack and 1 less damage and 1 less HP are the same, its statistically irrelevant.

So we are forced to conclude in Lashunta society there is undue and unjust discrimination, or at least discouragement, for men to enter politics and/or there is a disproportionate number of women warriors based on potential merit.

A lot of this follows from the false premise you're operating under that I detailed in my previous post. To reiterate: The Lashunta are absolutely matriarchal, but both sexes provide warriors.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
A lot of this follows from the false premise you're operating under that I detailed in my previous post. To reiterate: The Lashunta are absolutely matriarchal, but both sexes provide warriors.

By your own reasoning then the Lashunta would only make up 20% of the warriors and the males would make up 80% because, as you stated, 5:1 ratio.

The Women then would be cavalry only, with virtually no rank and file. So instead, if there wasn't a massive amount of discrimination among the Lashunta, the write up would look more like:

-----

The women constantly vie for political power within the society while the bulk of the men are responsible for the defense of the settlements supported by small numbers of female Lizard-riders that serve as cavalry.

-----

They don't.

The PDF does have different text, but here is the PDF version:

-----

"From the backs of their terrible lizard steeds, the breathtakingly beautiful women of the Lashunta city-states maneuver for political position while banding together to keep the hordes of dangerous fauna away from their settlements."

-----

Again, doesn't mention men, and only mentions the women banding together to keep the hordes of dangerous fauna away from their settlements.

Also while it mentions the men being rugged in battle it in no way says that they can become warriors for the Lashunta, again. The book actually doesn't give them any role within Lashunta society.

We know that both sexes become warriors and adventurers but we have nothing to say that men are allowed to serve in a military capacity which you are implying, whereas we have direct implication that women serve and are as the text from the book actually says:

while banding together to keep the hordes of dangerous fauna away from their settlements.

Honestly I don't see why you are refuting the comment I initially made about them being like to have misandry within their society. Even you admit to discrimination and sexism. Which automatically means that there is some misandry somewhere. Guess what? There is also probably some misogyny too as I bet there is more than 1 male Lashunta who's angry that he's not allowed to become a politician simply because he's a man.

Heck, the men even look like hairy brutes in comparison, which would create even more antagonistic feelings between the two sexes.

Tie that with also the assertion that only Lashunta women can bond with the lizards and you get a situation of a society where basically:

The ruling caste are all women, are all beautiful, who can bond with powerful lizard steeds and the men are soldiers at best who are considered, at least as far as wisdom is concerned, inferior.

If that doesn't breed some amount of contempt between the two sexes NOTHING will.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Heck, the men even look like hairy brutes in comparison...

There is a disconnect on this, between the description and the artwork of the male Lashunta from Inner Sea Races. I could see the pictured one as a bit shorter than the women, perhaps (difficult without a direct comparison at the same aspect), and he's definitely muscled, but half the height? Twice as broad? Covered in hair? Yeah, no.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

The ruling caste are all women, are all beautiful, who can bond with powerful lizard steeds and the men are soldiers at best who are considered, at least as far as wisdom is concerned, inferior.

If that doesn't breed some amount of contempt between the two sexes NOTHING will.

Presumably the women look beautiful to humans, but since the purpose of beauty is to say "Look at the DNA i'm packing over here!" the men probably look handsome to the women of their species.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

The ruling caste are all women, are all beautiful, who can bond with powerful lizard steeds and the men are soldiers at best who are considered, at least as far as wisdom is concerned, inferior.

If that doesn't breed some amount of contempt between the two sexes NOTHING will.

Presumably the women look beautiful to humans, but since the purpose of beauty is to say "Look at the DNA i'm packing over here!" the men probably look handsome to the women of their species.

Though in the pulp inspirations for such races, that doesn't seem to be true.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

The ruling caste are all women, are all beautiful, who can bond with powerful lizard steeds and the men are soldiers at best who are considered, at least as far as wisdom is concerned, inferior.

If that doesn't breed some amount of contempt between the two sexes NOTHING will.

Presumably the women look beautiful to humans, but since the purpose of beauty is to say "Look at the DNA i'm packing over here!" the men probably look handsome to the women of their species.
Though in the pulp inspirations for such races, that doesn't seem to be true.

Well the protagonist is of course the most beautiful person of all no matter WHERE they go. Just ask Captain Kirk....

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

For context, Inner Sea Races (the most recent word on the subject) had this to say:

Inner Sea Races wrote:

Yet for all their external differences, lashunta of both genders are united by a deep and abiding love of knowledge, believing that unlocking the mind’s full potential is the greatest achievement to which a mortal can aspire. Female lashunta are able to form empathic bonds with powerful saurian mounts, and practitioners of psychic magic are common among both genders—for more information on the occult traditions pursued by lashunta, see Pathfinder RPG Occult Adventures.

Lashunta society is matriarchal, though not categorically so: men of particular achievement are welcome to rise to positions of prominence, but most lashunta point to their women’s level-headed persuasiveness as better suited to leadership than the men’s brash violence. Similarly, while men are often seen as innately suited to physical combat, both genders are well represented among soldiers and adventurers. To a lashunta, gender may predispose, but it never prescribes.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Alleran wrote:
Quote:
Heck, the men even look like hairy brutes in comparison...
There is a disconnect on this, between the description and the artwork of the male Lashunta from Inner Sea Races. I could see the pictured one as a bit shorter than the women, perhaps (difficult without a direct comparison at the same aspect), and he's definitely muscled, but half the height? Twice as broad? Covered in hair? Yeah, no.

The art in People of the Stars is about the same in that regard, and I believe those are the only two art pieces of male lashunta in Pathfinder history. (By contrast, art of female lashunta has grown far more modest in recent publications.)

A lot of stuff from Mr. Sutter's original piece in Children of the Void appears to have gotten a soft-retcon. ^_^

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kalindlara wrote:
Alleran wrote:
Quote:
Heck, the men even look like hairy brutes in comparison...
There is a disconnect on this, between the description and the artwork of the male Lashunta from Inner Sea Races. I could see the pictured one as a bit shorter than the women, perhaps (difficult without a direct comparison at the same aspect), and he's definitely muscled, but half the height? Twice as broad? Covered in hair? Yeah, no.

The art in People of the Stars is about the same in that regard, and I believe those are the only two art pieces of male lashunta in Pathfinder history. (By contrast, art of female lashunta has grown far more modest in recent publications.)

A lot of stuff from Mr. Sutter's original piece in Children of the Void appears to have gotten a soft-retcon. ^_^

From my little understanding of it, aren't the females supposed to look like elves and the males dwarves?


Kalindlara wrote:

For context, Inner Sea Races (the most recent word on the subject) had this to say:

Inner Sea Races wrote:

Yet for all their external differences, lashunta of both genders are united by a deep and abiding love of knowledge, believing that unlocking the mind’s full potential is the greatest achievement to which a mortal can aspire. Female lashunta are able to form empathic bonds with powerful saurian mounts, and practitioners of psychic magic are common among both genders—for more information on the occult traditions pursued by lashunta, see Pathfinder RPG Occult Adventures.

Lashunta society is matriarchal, though not categorically so: men of particular achievement are welcome to rise to positions of prominence, but most lashunta point to their women’s level-headed persuasiveness as better suited to leadership than the men’s brash violence. Similarly, while men are often seen as innately suited to physical combat, both genders are well represented among soldiers and adventurers. To a lashunta, gender may predispose, but it never prescribes.

You don't think, if someone said:

"most point to their men’s level-headed persuasiveness as better suited to leadership than the women’s emotional behavior."

That there wouldn't be calls for that guy's head on a plate followed by (well-deserved) cries of misogyny?

I stand by my statement. You divide people up along lines like gender, race, religion, etc. and it's going to breed contempt on both sides.

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

I'm not sure why you've taken issue with my post, but I believed that adding relevant information to the debate was a neutral action, and not an attack on your position. I apologize for causing offense.

From my point of view, I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing; merely informing.


Kalindlara wrote:

I'm not sure why you've taken issue with my post, but I believed that adding relevant information to the debate was a neutral action, and not an attack on your position. I apologize for causing offense.

From my point of view, I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing; merely informing.

I didn't take issue with it at all. I was just debating. It seemed to me that you were just making a counter point and then I counter pointed that counter point.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.

"As more detail emerges, our understanding of Lashunta society becomes more complex and nuanced." Some Golarian Scholar
Soft retcon handwaved.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

For context, Inner Sea Races (the most recent word on the subject) had this to say:

Inner Sea Races wrote:

Yet for all their external differences, lashunta of both genders are united by a deep and abiding love of knowledge, believing that unlocking the mind’s full potential is the greatest achievement to which a mortal can aspire. Female lashunta are able to form empathic bonds with powerful saurian mounts, and practitioners of psychic magic are common among both genders—for more information on the occult traditions pursued by lashunta, see Pathfinder RPG Occult Adventures.

Lashunta society is matriarchal, though not categorically so: men of particular achievement are welcome to rise to positions of prominence, but most lashunta point to their women’s level-headed persuasiveness as better suited to leadership than the men’s brash violence. Similarly, while men are often seen as innately suited to physical combat, both genders are well represented among soldiers and adventurers. To a lashunta, gender may predispose, but it never prescribes.

You don't think, if someone said:

"most point to their men’s level-headed persuasiveness as better suited to leadership than the women’s emotional behavior."

That there wouldn't be calls for that guy's head on a plate followed by (well-deserved) cries of misogyny?

I stand by my statement. You divide people up along lines like gender, race, religion, etc. and it's going to breed contempt on both sides.

I wonder how it would work in a race with an even stronger biological gender divide. Is there a point at which it stops being prejudice and contempt and just starts being reality?

Are Formians misandrist, for example?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

By your own reasoning then the Lashunta would only make up 20% of the warriors and the males would make up 80% because, as you stated, 5:1 ratio.

The Women then would be cavalry only, with virtually no rank and file. So instead, if there wasn't a massive amount of discrimination among the Lashunta, the write up would look more like:

They don't.

You're reading a whole lot into one sentence that's from a completely different edition of the game and deals exclusively with the women. The sentences immediately following it deal with the men.

And who says that women aren't only 20% to 35% of the military? I don't think anyone ever specified percentages. Heck, given the usual Cavalry to Infantry ratio in most armies and the Lashunta's female soldiers being exclusively referred to as lizard riders (there are probably some who aren't, but the lion's share seem to be), that's actually a solid assumption to operate under.

HWalsh wrote:

The PDF does have different text, but here is the PDF version:

Again, doesn't mention men, and only mentions the women banding together to keep the hordes of dangerous fauna away from their settlements.

From the same article

"Barely half the height of their female counterparts and twice as broad, the rugged men of Castrovel are hairy and fierce, their prowess in battle matched only by their keen intellect and thirst for knowledge. Both sexes see the pursuit of mental perfection, the unlocking of the brain’s utmost potential, as the most noble of goals, and as a result Castrovel is a fertile breeding ground for psions and telepaths."

So...they have great prowess in battle and are great scholars. The latter being seen as the highest goal in Lashunta society.

HWalsh wrote:
Also while it mentions the men being rugged in battle it in no way says that they can become warriors for the Lashunta, again. The book actually doesn't give them any role within Lashunta society.

Uh...it specifies they often become great scholars. And display great prowess in battle. As I just quoted.

I'm not even sure what 'displaying great prowess in battle' entails in a society where you're banned from serving in the military. That would be one of the weirdest and most awkward phrasings I've ever heard of.

In short, the assumption that they can't serve in the military is deeply unwarranted based on the actual text. I don't think anyone else parsed that paragraph that way, and I'm sorry that you did, but there's no evidence that doing so was the author's intent. And, indeed, as Kalindlara notes, a wealth of evidence that it wasn't exists given that no subsequent book has repeated that phrasing.

You're assuming facts not in evidence and basing conclusions on them. Stop that.

HWalsh wrote:
Honestly I don't see why you are refuting the comment I initially made about them being like to have misandry within their society. Even you admit to discrimination and sexism. Which automatically means that there is some misandry somewhere. Guess what? There is also probably some misogyny too as I bet there is more than 1 male Lashunta who's angry that he's not allowed to become a politician simply because he's a man.

There's a bit of a difference between a society with some sexism and one that is 'misandrist'. Also, from the bit Kalindlara quoted, I was wrong. They specify that men can achieve political power in Inner Sea Races (which I'd actually missed...it's not a big section), so given that I'm not seeing any evidence of actual sexism at all.

HWalsh wrote:
Heck, the men even look like hairy brutes in comparison, which would create even more antagonistic feelings between the two sexes.

Uh...they're sexually dimorphic...do you actually have any understanding of those words? They mean the genders look different. They do not mean that one finds the other unattractive, and indeed, in order for such a difference to persist, the females must find the males fairly attractive. So the women presumably find short hairy men more attractive than tall lithe ones. That's how sexual dimorphism works.

Or to put it another way: Lashunta women trapped on Golarion are more likely to date Dwarves than Elves. On the basis of physical attractiveness, anyway.

HWalsh wrote:

Tie that with also the assertion that only Lashunta women can bond with the lizards and you get a situation of a society where basically:

The ruling caste are all women, are all beautiful, who can bond with powerful lizard steeds and the men are soldiers at best who are considered, at least as far as wisdom is concerned, inferior.

If that doesn't breed some amount of contempt between the two sexes NOTHING will.

That sort of ignores that men indisputably indulge in scholarly pursuits on an equal basis with the women and that Lashunta culture explicitly views scholarly and intellectual pursuits as the most important and valued thing. Plus there's Kalindlara's quoted passage that says they can do anything, even lead.

HWalsh wrote:

You don't think, if someone said:

"most point to their men’s level-headed persuasiveness as better suited to leadership than the women’s emotional behavior."

That there wouldn't be calls for that guy's head on a plate followed by (well-deserved) cries of misogyny?

In humans? Absolutely. In a sexually dimorphic species (say, one based on hyenas) with men who are literally more charming and level headed? No.

Acknowledging reality is not prejudice. Especially if you're willing to also acknowledge deviations from the norm. Which they apparently are, given that men can rise to positions of leadership, it's just rarer.

HWalsh wrote:
I stand by my statement. You divide people up along lines like gender, race, religion, etc. and it's going to breed contempt on both sides.

Not if they're literally divided in capability. I have high-functioning autism. I'm super good at some stuff due to that...and not so good at other stuff. Society making accommodations to that (which it does, for the record) is not being prejudiced, nor would society acknowledging the advantages that it provides. That's a far closer analogy to the situation than actual human gender differences.


thejeff wrote:

I wonder how it would work in a race with an even stronger biological gender divide. Is there a point at which it stops being prejudice and contempt and just starts being reality?

Are Formians misandrist, for example?

There is, but you have to be way more extreme than a +2 ability score bonus.

Even then it'd breed contempt no matter what.

You'd need some kind of disability that couldn't be overcome and that limited the person in an excessive manner.

Like, if all men/women of X race rolled only 1d6+2 for Wisdom and Charisma. At that point you'd have a situation where the wisest and most charismatic of that sex was still slightly below the average of the other gender.

There would have to be a sharp enough divide that it simply wasn't possible to make it up.

Using the above example, like I said, take the Lashunta...

Barry decides to make a Lashunta, he rolls the following:

Str 11
Dex 9
Con 12
Int 11
Wis 16
Cha 15

If he makes a Male his stats look like this:

Str 13 (+1)
Dex 9 (-1)
Con 14 (+2)
Int 13 (+1)
Wis 14 (+2)
Cha 15 (+2)

If he makes a Female:

Str 11 (+0)
Dex 9 (-1)
Con 12 (+1)
Int 13 (+1)
Wis 16 (+3)
Cha 17 (+3)

The difference, on a skill check, between the 2 characters is a +1. A 5% difference. Amusingly the funny thing is he makes a slightly less good politician, but it's so small if you did 100 rolls, 1d20+5 and 1d20+6 I bet the numbers would be within the margin of error. IE a +1 is statistically irrelevant long term.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
You're assuming facts not in evidence and basing conclusions on them. Stop that.

*buzzer*

I quoted the PDF and nowhere does it say they can become leaders. It says they can be soldiers.

It states that they can raise to positions of prominance. Prominance does not mean leadership.

You're the one assuming facts and basing conclusions on them and you should stop it.

What we know:

Women are leaders but it's possible for men to attain prominance. Women are considered responsible for the protections of the settlements. Men are considered less able to be level headed. Men can become soldiers.

Can men become leaders? The sources don't say yes. Prominent doesn't mean leader.

Based on what is written I'd say the Lashunta are at a social development level of the USA in the mid 1960's with Women and Men having their "accepted" political roles and "accepted" competence roles reversed.

Just as that time was misogynist for us, it's misandrist for them. Especially since there is a grand total of a 5% difference in maximum competence.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

There is, but you have to be way more extreme than a +2 ability score bonus.

Even then it'd breed contempt no matter what.

You'd need some kind of disability that couldn't be overcome and that limited the person in an excessive manner.

Extreme contempt is in no way mandated by two groups being different. Even in base capabilities.

It can certainly result, depending on what the culture values, but it's not inevitable. And Lashunta value scholarship (something men and women are equally good at) above all things. And seem to value battle prowess at least as much as political prowess.

So...why would women being (on average) better leaders create any more contempt than men being flatly physically superior? Neither are the main trait their society values and both are valuable to them.

HWalsh wrote:

Like, if all men/women of X race rolled only 1d6+2 for Wisdom and Charisma. At that point you'd have a situation where the wisest and most charismatic of that sex was still slightly below the average of the other gender.

There would have to be a sharp enough divide that it simply wasn't possible to make it up.

To ban them from a task, sure. But, as I've stated repeatedly, a +2 matters a lot more at the very high end of capability, which means that the percentage of male leaders goes way down if they have -2 in both relevant stats. Which they do.

HWalsh wrote:
The difference, on a skill check, between the 2 characters is a +1. A 5% difference. Amusingly the funny thing is he makes a slightly less good politician, but it's so small if you did 100 rolls, 1d20+5 and 1d20+6 I bet the numbers would be within the margin of error. IE a +1 is statistically irrelevant long term.

This is true to some degree, and on any individual character, but it ignores the increasing unlikelihood of rolling higher stats. A 15 is an exceptionally good roll. A 16 even better. A man who rolled those could absolutely be a leader in Lashunta society, being notably better at both than average for even a female.

But he's the exception, not the rule. Indeed, less than .9% (or less than one in 100) male Lashunta have scores of 14+ in both those stats. Contrariwise, over 6% of female Lashunta have similarly high stats.

If talking about individuals, the percentages I'm talking don't matter...but we're talking about whole populations here. In a pure meritocracy where women are nearly seven times as likely as men to have social stats in that range, most of your leaders are gonna wind up being female just because of how that works.

And, frankly, a society where 7/8 leaders (or even 3/4) are women is gonna get called a matriarchy even if men can reach all the same leadership positions as women.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
You're assuming facts not in evidence and basing conclusions on them. Stop that.

*buzzer*

I quoted the PDF and nowhere does it say they can become leaders. It says they can be soldiers.

It states that they can raise to positions of prominance. Prominance does not mean leadership.

You're the one assuming facts and basing conclusions on them and you should stop it.

What we know:

Women are leaders but it's possible for men to attain prominance. Women are considered responsible for the protections of the settlements. Men are considered less able to be level headed. Men can become soldiers.

Can men become leaders? The sources don't say yes. Prominent doesn't mean leader.

Based on what is written I'd say the Lashunta are at a social development level of the USA in the mid 1960's with Women and Men having their "accepted" political roles and "accepted" competence roles reversed.

Just as that time was misogynist for us, it's misandrist for them. Especially since there is a grand total of a 5% difference in maximum competence.

Are you ignoring the excerpt from Inner Sea Races that Kalindlara found?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

As sort of an aside, getting more sucked into the Lashunta discussion than I really care about:

Quote:
From the backs of their terrible lizard steeds, the breathtakingly beautiful women of the Lashunta city-states maneuver for political position while banding together to keep the hordes of dangerous fauna away from their settlements."

It's quite possible to take that, along with the other comments about battle and war-like, to mean that the (all or mostly) female cavalry is relegated to dealing with animals while for actually fighting wars, they turn (mostly) to the more war-like males.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
You're assuming facts not in evidence and basing conclusions on them. Stop that.

*buzzer*

I quoted the PDF and nowhere does it say they can become leaders. It says they can be soldiers.

It states that they can raise to positions of prominance. Prominance does not mean leadership.

In that sentence, in normal English, yes it does.

HWalsh wrote:
You're the one assuming facts and basing conclusions on them and you should stop it.

No, not based on an understanding of how a sentence is constructed. Let's examine the sentences in question, piece by piece:

"Lashunta society is matriarchal, though not categorically so:"

So. A categorically matriarchal society has only women in charge. A non-categorically matriarchal society does not have only women in charge. That's just how the language works.

"men of particular achievement are welcome to rise to positions of prominence, but most lashunta point to their women’s level-headed persuasiveness as better suited to leadership than the men’s brash violence. "

This portion, after a colon, and in regards to the society not being categorically matriarchal, can't really have any other meaning than male leaders existing. There's...not actually another way to read that in conversational English.

"Similarly, while men are often seen as innately suited to physical combat, both genders are well represented among soldiers and adventurers."

And this following sentence starts with 'Similarly' which means that the situation in physical combat must be pretty similar only reversed. Which is strong supporting evidence.

And finally, and most definitively:

"To a lashunta, gender may predispose, but it never prescribes."

Never prescribing definitionally means that either gender of Lashunta can achieve any position. That's just what those words in that order mean. There is not another interpretation there in actual English.

HWalsh wrote:

What we know:

Women are leaders but it's possible for men to attain prominance. Women are considered responsible for the protections of the settlements. Men are considered less able to be level headed. Men can become soldiers.

We actually also know that the situation with women becoming soldiers is very similar to that of men becoming politicians. So there's that, too. Which sorta means men must be able to become politicians since the women can be warriors.

HWalsh wrote:
Can men become leaders? The sources don't say yes. Prominent doesn't mean leader.

It does in that sentence.

HWalsh wrote:
Based on what is written I'd say the Lashunta are at a social development level of the USA in the mid 1960's with Women and Men having their "accepted" political roles and "accepted" competence roles reversed.

Uh...no. That's not what we know at all. In the 1960s there were absolutely jobs that were prescribed by one's gender, since the Lashunta don't do that...

Also, and once again, humans are not sexually dimorphic on anywhere close to the level of the Lashunta, which makes comparing their society's gender roles to ours really and legitimately not appropriate.

HWalsh wrote:
Just as that time was misogynist for us, it's misandrist for them. Especially since there is a grand total of a 5% difference in maximum competence.

Nope. Not actually how it works. Yes, there's a 5% difference in maximum competence, but that results in only a tiny fraction of one gender reaching high levels of competence in that area as compared to the other.

To reiterate, assuming 14+ as high levels of competence, 16.3% of women have high levels of competence in Wisdom to 4.7% of men, and 37.6% of women have high levels of competence in Charisma to men's 16.3%.

So, that's more than double the number who are notably good at Charisma, and more than triple in Wisdom. Likewise, men are more than twice as likely to be good at Str and three times as likely to be good at Con.

Those are significant numbers of a full population. Like,seriously significant.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
To reiterate, assuming 14+ as high levels of competence, 16.3% of women have high levels of competence in Wisdom to 4.7% of men, and 37.6% of women have high levels of competence in Charisma to men's 16.3%.

It's significant population-wise, not significant within the potential leadership pool.

You're looking at only a 3:1/4:1 ratio there.

So 20-25% give or take of the leadership would be men. That's not exactly matriarchal.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
To reiterate, assuming 14+ as high levels of competence, 16.3% of women have high levels of competence in Wisdom to 4.7% of men, and 37.6% of women have high levels of competence in Charisma to men's 16.3%.

It's significant population-wise, not significant within the potential leadership pool.

You're looking at only a 3:1/4:1 ratio there.

So 20-25% give or take of the leadership would be men. That's not exactly matriarchal.

A ratio of 3:1 or 4:1 (and it's closer to 4:1 if you assume, say, Wis 10 and Cha 14 as a minimum for a leader, which seems a reasonable minimum) is almost certainly gonna get called matriarchal.

I'd certainly call a culture with that leadership ratio in favor of men 'primarily patriarchal'. And yes, that includes much of current Western culture.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't understand the big fuss. Generally, the lashunta men are a tiny bit gamier and stringier than the women, but I treat them both the same: a well-flavored basic marinade and slow roasting. Comes out pretty darn tasty.

Given a choice though, I'd much rather have a full bucket of original recipe KFS (Kortos fried shotalashu). Mmm-mmm, that's digit-licking good!


12 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:


Are Formians misandrist, for example?

I think they're . . .

. . . misantrist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Incidantly, I'm curious as to how formians are with other issues of civil rights, like same-sex couplings. Would a formian colony be cool with a "miss ant tryst"? I imagine if you're a formian, eusocialize with a lot of differant sorts of people from all walks of hive. I bet they'd come around to accepting such things, assuming everyone involved was rechiton each others' feelings.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Didn't they make movie about that. Called Ants


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Uh, it's Antz, with a z. What are you, some kind of 80's kid?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

How does competent spelling peg me as an 80s kid. At what age am I supposed to put a z at the end of everything.

Isn't it enough that I'm hella phat dawg.

Fo shizzle.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You ready to hang ten to Lollapalooza KC.

Hopefully The Jesus and Mary Chain are still together...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fake 90's kid

Poser

unrad


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You're just jellin' because I can pullz it off betterz. :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Fake 90's kid

Poser

unrad

For the record I was born in the late seventies, so my teen years were the early ninetiez :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And I was born even earlier, because I come from a generation that still considers spelling correctly a thing.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
And I was born even earlier, because I come from a generation that still considers spelling correctly a thing.

And I'm ancient.

"tis a pore mynd that can only think of one wai to spel a wurd"


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

For the record, just because my post is getting quoted a lot there, I don't think matriarchal means misandrist inherently.

I think matriarchal + Evil generally does, though.

#notallevilcreatures

We kobolds don't have these silly gender divides. We support male kobolds' rights to be spiritual leaders and hatchling watchers should they so choose, as well as female kobolds' rights to be chieftains, warriors, and trapbuilders. Kobolds who don't identify as either gender are free to choose whichever duties they are best-suited for (kobolds don't have gendered pronouns—we pretty much just call everyone "Hey, you"). Perfect equality has been achieved by the glorious kobold culture for all good kobolds within it.

They all die at roughly the same rate.

Some die at more same rates than others.

I read somewhere that a significant number of the Kobold Population is intersex... but I forget what book that was

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Mavrickindigo wrote:
I read somewhere that a significant number of the Kobold Population is intersex... but I forget what book that was

That would be Inner Sea Races. ^_^

Inner Sea Races wrote:
Little differentiates adult kobold men and women, other than that the women are slightly larger, and for the most part, their society has little need to distinguish the sexes. Intersex kobolds are common and usually celebrated by their communities, as they are often also blessed with additional draconic features or magical gifts.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

So, Kobolds are the new Dwarves. :-D

Edit: because in Forgotten Realms, all dwarves had beards and were fairly asexual.


captain yesterday wrote:

So, Kobolds are the new Dwarves. :-D

Edit: because in Forgotten Realms, all dwarves had beards and were fairly asexual.

... I... I don't remember this at all... (though I think something like one picture of a bearded dwarven woman was in one Setting Neutral 3.5 book).

I know that dwarves and elves could create children in older FR works, which was indicated to be... dwarves. Do you remember where that was?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

It was either in the grey box set, R.A. Salvatore, 3.5 edition book, or my own foggy unreliable memory.

If you can't find it, it's most likely a construction of my brain. :-)

By asexual, I mean they just don't dig it, I'm not feeling very good, so my brain crapped out hours ago. Or so it would seem.

tips obligatory cow in apology.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Man, if you'd told me a thread called "Misandrists in the setting?" would result in any conversations worth having, I would have called you a nut and probably begun to avoid you as a rule.

I hope this lasts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

Or even older European cultures. Weren't a lot of the Gallic and Germanic much more egalitarian than the Roman conquerors? Or the Christian influence that followed?

Or even fairly modern European cultures.

Welsh Mam - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/wales/entries/f47cdfaa-06c1-3edf-9750-c6002f6daa 55


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

To be fair, some of the ways the Lashunta are most visible can seem sexist. One example is that most/all of the lashunta NPCs thus-far are female (to my memory right now) and the lashunta themselves are based off the pulpy sci-fi "space babes on dinosaurs" of the 60s and 70s. Kind of naturally lends itself to questions of that nature, but there is a post on the forums by one of the guys that put them in pathfinder about how they're supposed to be a very not-problematic race.

One thing that I'm surprised no one has mentioned about the Drow (in Golarion specifically) is that the male drow, when turned into driders, are explicitly stated to turn monstrous and have bug faces, while the females remain beautiful from the waist up. This is stated in whatever book has the hideous driders on the cover, for those who like to look stuff up. Imo that rather tips the scale towards the "drow are explicitly something" route, whether misandry or otherwise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
xeose4 wrote:

To be fair, some of the ways the Lashunta are most visible can seem sexist. One example is that most/all of the lashunta NPCs thus-far are female (to my memory right now) and the lashunta themselves are based off the pulpy sci-fi "space babes on dinosaurs" of the 60s and 70s. Kind of naturally lends itself to questions of that nature, but there is a post on the forums by one of the guys that put them in pathfinder about how they're supposed to be a very not-problematic race.

What Lashunta NPCs are there, really?

In the Divinity Drive, there's a village (lead by a half-elf weredinosaur), which has three women witches and something like 5 male guards of level, but even the witches only have last names.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
xeose4 wrote:

To be fair, some of the ways the Lashunta are most visible can seem sexist. One example is that most/all of the lashunta NPCs thus-far are female (to my memory right now) and the lashunta themselves are based off the pulpy sci-fi "space babes on dinosaurs" of the 60s and 70s. Kind of naturally lends itself to questions of that nature, but there is a post on the forums by one of the guys that put them in pathfinder about how they're supposed to be a very not-problematic race.

One thing that I'm surprised no one has mentioned about the Drow (in Golarion specifically) is that the male drow, when turned into driders, are explicitly stated to turn monstrous and have bug faces, while the females remain beautiful from the waist up. This is stated in whatever book has the hideous driders on the cover, for those who like to look stuff up. Imo that rather tips the scale towards the "drow are explicitly something" route, whether misandry or otherwise.

Personally, I consider both of those to examples less of the cultures/societies described being either Misandrist or Misogynist & the devs having some potentially problematic ideas. Okay, maybe not the devs so much as, the original concepts inherent were pretty seriously questionable to begin with.

151 to 200 of 310 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / Misandrists in the setting? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.