>Me> I don't see why this should be so. The Tsars of Russia recruited large
> > numbers of serfs into their army yet the forces that overthrew them came
> > from another sector of society.
>I think this depends on the appreciation of certain factors in Esrolian
>society. Was Russia different? Take the interaction between the serfs'
>social ethos and the Russian hierarchy.
Take the example of the interaction between men's social ethos and the Esrolian hierarchy. They are conditioned to believe that women are superior just as Russian serfs were conditioned to believe their masters were superior.
>A variety of factors, including supersition, religion
Is it your contention that the Esrolian men are not subject to superstition or religion in their view of women?
>and a lack of education bred a form of social
>consciousness that effectively stunted the formation of dissent.
Quite a few serfs were well educated as their masters made them learn fine crafts and other arts to decorate their palaces.
>They were
>oppressed, but was there clear realisation of the fact, and upset caused
>therefrom?
Do the Esrolian men clearly recognize they are oppressed? Did medieval women clearly recognize they were oppressed?
>Many readily recognised the Tsar as their annointed ruler, chosen
>and supported by God, a recognizance reinforced by their peity and the
>Russian Orthodox church.
So why can't the Esrolian men recognize the women as the best rulers and have their faith buttress this recognition?
>Does the Esrolian system, where there is a clearer and more present everyday
>dichotomy between citizens based on sex breed the same effectual
>aquiescence? In Esrolia the classes 'apart' are far more socially entwined
>than in Russia.
Get out "Gosford Park" to appreciate the intense social interaction that occurs between classes in a classed society.
>Is any male contempt diffusively aimed at local oppressive
>matriarchal institutions, rather than the system, the Queens and the Earth
>Goddess as a whole?
What male contempt would this be? What makes you think the matriarchy is oppressive? Their restrictions on men are no worse than what many societies (both real and gloranthan) impose upon the women.
>Clearly some feel they were oppressed by the general system e.g. the
>Porthomekans.
Who are no longer Esrolians.
>I don't argue that a matriarchal system would breed universal discontent
>amongst the male populace, but that given the character of men (and these
>are pretty stubborn fellows) and the culture they dwell in, the
>peculiarities of military service could easily exacerbate any discontent,
>and offer an avenue for action.
Again there's a large number of unspoken assumptions that I simply don't understand the reason for. Why should military service transform men into violent social revolutionaries given that most armies in history (including incompetent ones) didn't?
>Gloranthan religion also enters into the
>fray; the opportunity for the development of 'outside' masculine cults
>within the army (or the perversion of the 'consortial' cults),
Why should the army worship "outside" masculine cults? To make them fight better? They have elite women's regiments for that. Any inferiority that the men have viz-a-viz their neighbours is more than made up for by the numbers. Given that their favourite tactics are to sit out a siege, there is very little incentive for the men to be heroic types.
> > Likewise look at the arming of trollkin - does anybody seriously suggest
> > that they will overthrow the trolls?
>Ummm... in fairness Peter, arming Trollkin against strapping Uzuz, Uzdo and
>Uzko is perhaps a different threat level! :o)
Why? Because the trollkin are physcially and mentally inferior to the trolls? What prevents the Esrolian men from making a similar comparison between themselves and the women?
--Peter Metcalfe
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail