From: Sven *Erik Sievrin (erisie@utu.fi)
Date: Thu 03 Nov 1994 - 00:17:13 EET
Pam had some thoughts on Esrolia:
> ESROLIA
>
> I've been following all the Esrolia discussion with great interest. Two
> points come to my mind.
>
> 1) I picture Esrolia as clannish, because female primates on earth are very
> concerned with kinship. Within a kin-group, they are usually more
> co-operative than competative. Erik's (or Mike's?) clan system sounds good
> - although different clans might compete economically, or bicker about
> land-rights.
The sytem was "mine" but is really just a variant of the common Orlanthi
clan/tribe system. Note that I SAID clans DID compete economically,
although I did not state anything about land-rights - the thought is a
good one, though.
Still, Esrolia has held its own against more warlike
> neighbors because its clans are very willing to work together against
> outsiders. Whereas the Lunars can pit one Sartarite clan against another,
> and the Grazers steal each others' herds, Esrolian clans stick together like
> earthworks.
Then , what about the Red Alliance?
> Erik notes: - but as you say later, we can't just swap male and female
> roles.
>
> That's it! That's what's been bugging me. I think a female dominated
> society would be extraordinarily different - if you could even get a bunch
> of women *interested* in dominating anything.
>
I assume Pam is a woman... I hope I am not wrong.... I think women may be
perfectly well interested in dominating others, but I do not think that
they would do it in a male way. For some strange reason, I have spent all
my time since I started to study at university level as a member of a
minority, being male. I have spent most of my time in classes etc where
there are many women and very few men, and socialized with groups of
women - and as an aside, never being in any way a partner of any of them
or trying to become a partner, believe it or not. Why this personal
waddle...? Well, I can assure you these women - all strong and
self-reliant - certainly tried to "dominate" others sometimes.
This may be all do to prejudices on my part, of course....
Which brings me to my main topic:
When "constructing" a fictional society, we tend to forget that we are
not only trying to "logically" piece something together, but we also have
intentions. I, for once, do not like feministic, pastoral utopias, and
swore I would not make Esrolia into one. For some reason, I do not think
that women are "better" than men morally, in the same way that I do not
think men are "better" than women. I'm a deeply pessimistic individual
who holds rather low opinions on humanity in general...... But this may
just stem from me being self-conscious for the fact that we men have
messed up, mostly, all of human history, and is in no way "rational" or
"correct". Another example of this: Mike stated in one of our letters
that he felt a pleasure in "emasculating" the pompous Yelm and the
boasting Orlanth, and I get the idea that one of the intents with HIS
Esrolia is to sort of let the men suffer a little, to put the
preconceptions of the players on the head, maybe shock them into thinking
of the male-female relationships in a different way. A noble purpose. So
his Esrolia may be different than mine.
What I'm trying to say is that all these fcitious societies that this
daily is about our own views of the world. You may have some sort of
message, or you may just like one idea because it seems fun, exciting or
whatever, and you turn things over so that that idea or message fits.
> Consider marraige: (pump up those flame-throwers...) Marraige performs two
> roles in (most) societies: it ensures males that they have sole access to
> their wives, and that the children are their own. It also ensures females
> that they will have committed economic help raising their offspring. But if
> you eliminate male dominance and increase females' economic productivity (by
> giving them a monopoly on land ownership and control of the energy sources -
> male manual labor, cult magics), the need for marraige disappears.
>
> Esrolians might have a large, all-female family, living with their mothers
> and sisters for their whole lives. Men would be affiliated with their
> households, and hold different ranks: slaves (rare, due to Orlanthi
> influences), indentured men, free hired men, blood family members (sons,
> brothers, uncles), and even a few husbands. A noble woman might marry a
> much-trusted man to give him esteem and more legal rights, so he can handle
> business affairs in her absence, or have some legal influence over his
> children if she dies. A poor woman might marry as a way of keeping a man
> around indefinately, for free. (And, heck, a woman might even fall for a
> guy...) Many women might never marry at all, preferring temporary sexual
> partners. (After all, Ernalda never seemed to limit her opportunities.)
> Women might even share men. I'm not sure the phrase "no shortage of single
> women" has much meaning in Esrolia.
>
> Multiple husbands would be rare, I think, and would be as terrible a
> punishment as having multiple wives in Dara Happa! She can still have only
> one child at a time, so more husbands don't increase her number of children.
> (Lending her husband to her unmarried sister would, though.) More husbands
> would provide more labor, but so would more servants, and servants are far
> more flexible.
>
> Marraige would still be important for forming political alliances, because
> powerful women would try to marry their sons to other clans. Legally a
> husband, her son might then have some ability to influence things for the
> good of his mother's clan.
For the reason of what I said about preconceptions etc above, I will not
criticise Pam's ideas in any way, just say that they A, seem perfectly
reasonable and good but B, I do not want Esrolia to be like this.
>
> Of all the ideas posted, I like Nick's the best: men aren't really
> oppressed, they just work hard, as do the women, and the women run most
> business, because Esrolia is a theocracy inspired by a very female goddess.
> The women don't feel the need to oppress men, because the cult ensures
> that women already control the means of production, (and reproduction).
> Esrolia is actually a fairly egalitarian society, but it looks oppressive
> to foreign men, who are used to doing only 35% of their society's work....
Your Esrolia isn't, my is, in that males are oppressed in the same way
that not women, but CHILDREN are "oppressed" in our society: it is
generally assumed that the parents know better than their children what
is the best for them, and in my Esrolia men are not assumed to
know what is best for them - legally, that is. Nothing hinders an
Esrolian woman to let her son/brother/husband do almost whatever he
wants. Many probably do, but most don't. The men, like the
children of today and the women of yesterday (well, sometimes of
today too, what the heck) are not so much oppressed as patronized
- or should that be "matronized"? There has been thought of gods,
societies etc as "mega-parents". Well, my Esrolia is a loving, but
slightly neurotic mother.
> There. Now you've all had Gloria Steinhem's View of Esrolia. But being RQ
> scholars, I figured y'all could handle it.
Well, I hope I handled it......
Two notes:
1, I could not help but say this: agree 100% on the rarity of multiple
husbands. I think this is a status symbol - Ernalda herself has it, mind
you, and to me is mostly a sytem of being a member of the Earth Queen
subcult of the Four Corners of the Earth - which means you're noble.
2, Why not let the child be children, without the usual problems that
follows a multiple birth?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:37:32 EEST