Re: Vinga chiseler?

From: Jeff Richard <richaje_at_x137lwnwh9bxrmG9TP0ZpxPfysJKQN82osh5SdhvtJeHP4E_1CsqQXZlr7rmPgCrPoeV>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:26:30 -0000

> Thank god for YGWV! I have read up on this hitherto unknown version
> of Vinga being somewhat like an inverse Nandan. What a load of old
> shit. That explanation would have a gone down like a Thanatari pole
> dancer at a Uroxi convention with just about every female who ever
> played in my Glorantha. Vinga is a socially acceptable outlet for
> women warriors. To insist that they must be some kind of 'geezer-
> bird' is dolorous. I aint got nothing against lezzie Vingans, I'd
> rent that movie any day of the week, but I just don't see the point.

And here is the difference between "popular Glorantha" and "mythic Glorantha" that got Jane so pissed off. Needing a "socially acceptable outlet for women warriors" is a game construct. Folk want to play Xena with red hair.

Fine. The game rules allow that. But don't be surprised if the underlying mythology doesn't match up with the game construct.

> One of the things that I like about Iron age Celtic society (I am not
> a historian, this is the impression I have developed over the years)
> is that it was remarkable in that women could be warriors, kings
> (Queens of course) and leaders, and that the female role was not
> necessarily seen as a lesser role.

Few actual historians would agree with your impression. Iron age Celtic society did not have women warriors - they had a mythic archetype of a warrior goddess (as did the Greeks). Queen Mebd, Cartimandua, and Boudica - none were described as having actually ever fought in combat. The Romans described the Gaullic women as being present at battles, but not as combatants. And so on.

Jeff