>
>
> Even the split between patriarchal and matriarchal clans is overly
> simplistic.
I completely agree, I wanted to just point out that this varies on a clan by clan basis. Which gives us roleplaying opportunities - after all if a storyline requires sexism we can always introduce a sexist clan to our game world. Which does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that the players characters have to come from such a clan if they do not want to because we do not have to assume that this is commonplace.
If anyone wants to do a more detailed breakdown I suspect the digest is the place for it.
>
> >I do not see how sexism would last on an overt level - few would
> >marry into a clan that treated the lesser sex (whichever it was)
> >too badly and the clan would die out.
>
> Assuming a completely free choice, possibly. However most clans
> have only a limited choice of other clans for marriage partners.
> Maybe four or five within easy travelling distance and they will
> have feuds with some. You could easily have a choice between
> marrying into a sexist clan or spending years and much cattle to
> resolve a feud with a less sexist one. After all there are
> Yelmalian clans, they haven't died out and you can't get much
> more sexist than that by Heortling standards.
>
Do the Yelmalians still intermarry with their historical neighbours? They have relocated, changed religion and are not really the same clans as they were 100 years before. I would have thought they would be reluctant to take on stroppy Heortling wives who don't know their place anyway.
-- Nic
Powered by hypermail