Thanks for the thoughts. I should highlight a cardinal point of my position in this discussion, which Joe picked up on yesterday: there is a difference between the imposition of a danger, no matter how small, and the ultimate followthrough of this case to its most violent end. Just because I argue hypothetical potential until I'm blue in the face doesn't mean I uphold the undeniable manifestation of the extremities of each case.
A quick thanks to <Ian> for his informative thoughts on male acceptance of the matriarchal system. <Stephen> also commented on the position of men in the societal system, and made some good points on their probable conscious aversion to rebellion at same, and the necessary criteria which might forment subversive action. I am coming more and more around to the position of a harmonious society (I was in the mid-ground before), and this obviously this affects 'social template' I spoke of.
I would add another factor into the fray, in addition to Stephen's points. The factors promoting revolution vary from setting to setting, but there are some which are more common and easily evidenced than others, including, prominently, the abundance of food. I have travelled to Cameroon for a while in the past, and have several friends over there, in the anglophone town of Buea. There is considerable social injustice, corruption and a breakdown in democracy. But no real will to public unrest, violent or otherwise. The reason for this is that food is relatively abundant, and the basic functions of familiar life tick along.
In Esrolia, the fact that the wealth and health of the land is a direct function of the benificence of the Earth Goddess and her matriarchal minions is the single greatest promoter of the matriarchal system, stability and happiness I can see, perhaps beyond social convention (which it kind of reinforces, anyway...). So in addition to Stephen's 'conscious oppression' and 'idea', for Esrolia in particular I would add 'famine', however so caused. You could argue that this is the same as 'idea', being the 'spark'.
<Peter>
If I had an immovable position on the issue, or thought such was uniform across Esrolia, then I wouldn't have posted it as questions in the first place. Sure, I have my own ideas, but I'm happy to see a wide conceptual framework, with possibilities for a variety of viewpoints. However, open postulations on some of these are being extremified, queries crystallized into positions. So I'll desist from arguing much of this further.
With regard to the point of Porthomeka, I use it as a case study to show the thoughts of a society who had previously lived under the matriarchal system, and now have the vocality to express their thoughts on such - so it is relevant. The question, however, is whether you see their answer as a realistic social commentary, or a bigoted answer forged by their new system? YGMV ad infinitum...
One of the points of my development of the Russia and Esrolia was to comment on the reactions to the system dependent on its structure. On average, a man in Esrolia comes into contact with his social betters far more frequently than the Russian serf does his. Does this frequency of contact reinforce his acceptance or happiness of his position, or stoke greater contempt for it? I certainly can't promulgate a rapid answer, but am interested in thoughts.
A few comments...
> Is it your contention that the Esrolian men are not subject to
superstition
> or religion in their view of women?... So why can't the Esrolian men
recognize the women as the best > rulers and have their faith buttress this
recognition?
I don't disagree in the slightest; I see this as the single greatest preservator of the system. See for example my comments re: Stephen's mail. My comment re: Russia was meant to reference the position of the serfs, and leave it open for argument with reference to Esrolia... on several levels.
> Why should the army worship "outside" masculine cults? To make them
> fight better? They have elite women's regiments for that...
Troops are less concerned in times of war about their position in the greater Esrolian doctrine... rather more their own personal safety. In general Esrolian society, there is little need for martial theism amongst the male population. Therefore the question develops into how the mobilised men seek to gain the favour of the gods in times of war? Not Babeester Gor, that is clear. A subcult of Ernalda, possibly and 'earthised' Vinga is certainly a possibility. Is there a masculine Esrolian subcult of Ernalda, the loyal male spearman farmer? Entirely probable. But I'd also argue that, serving in the Holy Country army, fighting outside forces, using mercenaries, what have you, there is the avenue for development of other theistic practises, which then factor into the equation. No, not the propagation of the worship of Shargash, but there are other options.
I wrote: "...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?
Peter, this is an example in point. I wrote 'could', Peter writes 'should'. I argue recognizable potential, not the procession to fact. As to the answer, I'll be brief, but the general thoughts behind this are that women have sundered men from the positions of rule, due to their violent, intemperate and imprudent natures. Yes, military service teaches subservience, but it also encourages (for a great part, anyway!) a common bond and loyalty between the rank and file, develops protective feelings for those around you and teaches you to develop and focus your aggression - in developing this masculine clique you are giving voice, albeit in a matriarchially controlled manner, to 'qualities' which you might otherwise seek to repress. Similarly, in the military, men exist in a greater concentration than they might elsewhere, even in the fields.
This is where I think the situation in Esrolia has less parallel with our own real life corps. It is not purely the arming of the 'oppressed' that I see as potentially dangerous (for they could use such against their oppressors), but the principle that in military mobilisation you are giving voice to core sexually derived concepts and emotions amongst men that are the antithesis of certain Esrolian beliefs. And yes, I do see this as a danger to the Esrolian system. But I concede there are points against this. Militaristic cultures that were socially suppressed in North West India, be they Pakhtuns, Doggras or Sikhs, were positively encouraged and focused in their martiality in the Indian Army. Would men, allowed to display their proud, warlike tendencies under the Goddess, be happy in serving her thus?
All this varies on the character of the male forces themselves... How we all argue this will vary, dependent on our characterisation of such (my initial position, prior to seeing Pete's mail, was 'open'). Large scale spear musters, or inpermanent institutions that see a quick muster of men on the heath every seventh day, will promote little in the way of common or military feeling. Smaller groups of men, more highly trained for longer periods of time, will. So, no, an inexpert force raised quickly and temporally for a given threat will not develop any greater bellicosity. More permanent musters raised in response to Solanthi and Ditali raids and garrisoning would comprise a martial social construct which could be quite open to such developments.
This leads me on well to the last comment:
<Donald> wrote:
> I would suggest that the structure and culture of Esrolian society
> prevents this being a problem. For example I think the vast majority
> of officers in the army are women - a man has to be both competent
> and cooperative to get promoted above Sergeant. Women are routinely
> appointed as junior officers straight out of military college (which
> men don't attend). This will be justified on the grounds that men
> are too inclined to violence while leadership requires more thought.
> Secondly the elite units will be all women who will be more than
> ready to supress any revolts...
The sexual structure of the Esrolian army is an interesting topic, Donald. Greater female control over the rank and file would better eliminate potential problems (if you see them). Apart from for a select few malcontents, who through incitement and that bossy female Windsor Davies of a drill instructor may just tip Esrolia into open rebellion! :o)
There are further options open regarding the nature of the Esrolian army, structurally. As reference to the Samurai (e.g. Takeda) armies of Sengoku Jidai era-Japan, you could have a situation where elite women warriors (probably not the axe-maidens!), mounted or otherwise, are accompanied by a corps of favoured retainers in battle, in addition to the standard male spearmen, reminiscent of the Ashigaru.
All the best,
Stu.
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail