Just how sexist is Glorantha?

From: Jane Williams <janewilliams20_at_...>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:58:16 +0000 (GMT)


> >The irony is, after all, that whatever the reasons
> for their >invasion and whatever the obvious
> atricities and blunders of their >occupation, the
> Lunars really do offer a much more equal role for
> >women...
>
> Within my Red Cow game (we are at end 1605) the
> narrator characters within the clan who have 'turned
> to the Moon' within the last year have been women,
> attracted by the promise of 'We are all us' that the
> goddess offers, and the escape from poor domestic
> situations or hitting a 'glass ceiling' in
> advancement. Remember that many Heortling clans are
> patriachal.

And this looks like more evidence that Glorantha is sliding away from being a fun place to game in, back to "all historical RW societies we know of are sexist, therefore so is this one". Which is a terrible idea, and seems to be happening without people noticing. Trying out the interesting new experience of living in a sexist society - isn't. Unless you're male, presumably. Let's not wreck the place for gaming in unless there's a reason to do so.

Look at what Glorantha is really like. Sun County, the almost proverbially sexist place - but women can serve in the armed forces, and in the front line at that. Sure, it's unusual, but it's possible. Sun County, of all places, is less sexist than Britain was up until very recently.

Now Sartar, and Orlanthi society in general, is well-known for being comparatively equalitarian. There's no *reason* for the irrational medieval Christian hang-ups about "controlling" women (and their fertility). Sure, only 15% of people move outside standard gender roles, but that's again far more than we get in the current, free, equal RW. (Looks round the office full of programmers, trying to spot another woman). What you've got isn't "men and women are different, so men rule", it's "men and women are different, isn't that great?".

Any "glass ceiling" for people in non-standard gender roles will apply just as much to the 15% of men who take roles that are traditionally female. The swap goes both ways. If you use that as a justification for women being socially down-trodden, it goes both ways. We don't have occupations that are regarded as low-class *because* they're traditionally female, so ambition will be just as strong in both directions.

And there's still no reason for any glass ceiling at all. The argument seems to be that people in general won't accept anything out of the ordinary - but 15% isn't that out of the ordinary! If it was "female warrior, never heard of one of them", then maybe. But "female warrior, yes, out of the 20 warriors I know, 3 are female" - well, that's hardly something to get worried about, is it? And of the 20 weavers we know, 3 are male, too.                 



Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. Enter now. http://www.yahoo.co.uk/blackberry

Powered by hypermail