I, too, rather like the idea of the Nandani. I think they make perfect sense, have parallels in many RW societies, and have a certain mystical elegance to them.
What I find interesting about the discomfort on the list with them is that there is no evident discomfort with the opposite phenomenon, namely women taking on male roles. The idea of Vingas and Babeester Gori wearing men's clothes, engaging in such RW masculine activities as being warriors, potentially in engaging in lesbian behavior (not that it's been discussed a lot) and generally departing from RW conventions about women doesn't seem to upset anyone. But the idea that men might violate real world conventions about men apparently strikes some as silly, pointless, a joke, or simply unnecessary. I'm not trying to be politically correct here, or to point a finger at anyone on the list, but the reason that so many gays demand 'inclusiveness' is that they are so routinely excluded just on the assumption that their lives are irrelevant.
However, having said that, this whole debate looks on the verge of becoming a flame war. Let us learn from the great Red Emperor debate, the Great Gian debate, and many other episodes and put the emotions aside. Some of us like Nandani, some of us don't. Everybody dislikes something about Glorantha, be it ducks, Nandani, or Greg Stafford. There's room for all our viewpoints on this list. Remember, no one can force you to discuss Nandani.
Andrew E. Larsen
>
> "I think in some effective way atleast,
> so therefore in some effective sense I am."
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 21:15:28 GMT
> From: donald_at_grove.demon.co.uk (Donald R. Oddy)
> Subject: RE: Marriage and steads
>
> In message <200009191845.LAA32727_at_chaosium.com>
> owner-glorantha-digest_at_chaosium.com (The Glorantha Digest) writes:
>
> From: "Hughes, John (NAT)" <JohnP.Hughes_at_dva.gov.au>
>
>> This makes good sense, but top down and legal perspectives become less >> relevant in situations like this. Obviously we have to know the particular >> context: the history of the two clans interactions, the exact reason for the >> current feud*, the status of the woman in her husband's clan, the nature of >> her social network, her cult allegiances, status of her children and birth >> family, her own temperament etc.
>> I'm uncertain that daddy would sit down and write out an itemised last will >> and testament al la C20 westerners - its just as likely that the household >> would divide the goods after death according to a broad understanding of his >> wishes. I'm open to counter arguments on this - I know that Anglo-Saxon >> wills were common among the rich and landed, but A-S society was more >> centralised, literate and far less clannish and communal than the >> Heortlings. (for the vast majority of Heortlings, we're talking herds and >> personal possessions and obligation networks, not land or buildings). I also >> understand that wills among the non-landed A-S were far less common. (Looks >> askew to Andrew, raises quizzical eyebrow).
Powered by hypermail