Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Al-Qadim, Campaign Guide: Zakhara, and Cultural Sensitivity
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8663533" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Why would you need "a private area only the men of the household can retreat to in order to get away from the dangers of the world"?</p><p></p><p>Like...you keep acting like the inclusion of "male harems" would somehow balance the scales. It wouldn't. It would just create a thing with no reason whatsoever to exist. Harems, the actual real-world practice of maintaining a whole wing of the household where only women (and the man of the house) were allowed to go, arose from two goals. First, and most obviously, to give the man of the house control over the women in his life, particularly his wives and daughters. Secondly, but more fundamentally, these places were legitimately meant to <em>safeguard</em> the women of the house from (unfortunately, often very real) threats, such as bandits or sexual assault by guests. If you have brought in gender equality such that women are recognized as economic, political, and (perhaps most importantly) <em>combat</em> equals, and have avoided (as most people would...) the whole sexual assault thing, then there is <em>no reason to have harems in the first place</em>.</p><p></p><p>You will have removed the control aspect, <em>and</em> removed any need for the protection aspect. Your "male harems" would be, quite simply, ridiculous on its face, actively pissing on the cultural concepts of the Arab world. It really, honestly seems <em>more</em> fitting to simply not have harems at all. Because, as I have repeatedly told you yet you have seemingly ignored, <em>plenty of actual Arabic people in history never had a harem at all</em>. It's extremely expensive to be able to afford a whole separate staff of female-only servants and a whole separate wing of the house where women can live without contact with male guests. The vast majority of actual Arabic, North African, and Al-Andalusian residents never had a harem or even the <em>thought</em> of a harem. It really isn't much of a stretch to say, "well, if this society treats men and women equally....most people just wouldn't have a harem because it'd be incredibly expensive for <em>no reason</em>."</p><p></p><p>How can you have a culture of "secluding the men" and also a culture of "secluding the women" and have <em>any </em>form of actual social structure? It makes no sense. A male merchant couldn't meet with a female merchant because they would both need to be secluded from one another!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8663533, member: 6790260"] Why would you need "a private area only the men of the household can retreat to in order to get away from the dangers of the world"? Like...you keep acting like the inclusion of "male harems" would somehow balance the scales. It wouldn't. It would just create a thing with no reason whatsoever to exist. Harems, the actual real-world practice of maintaining a whole wing of the household where only women (and the man of the house) were allowed to go, arose from two goals. First, and most obviously, to give the man of the house control over the women in his life, particularly his wives and daughters. Secondly, but more fundamentally, these places were legitimately meant to [I]safeguard[/I] the women of the house from (unfortunately, often very real) threats, such as bandits or sexual assault by guests. If you have brought in gender equality such that women are recognized as economic, political, and (perhaps most importantly) [I]combat[/I] equals, and have avoided (as most people would...) the whole sexual assault thing, then there is [I]no reason to have harems in the first place[/I]. You will have removed the control aspect, [I]and[/I] removed any need for the protection aspect. Your "male harems" would be, quite simply, ridiculous on its face, actively pissing on the cultural concepts of the Arab world. It really, honestly seems [I]more[/I] fitting to simply not have harems at all. Because, as I have repeatedly told you yet you have seemingly ignored, [I]plenty of actual Arabic people in history never had a harem at all[/I]. It's extremely expensive to be able to afford a whole separate staff of female-only servants and a whole separate wing of the house where women can live without contact with male guests. The vast majority of actual Arabic, North African, and Al-Andalusian residents never had a harem or even the [I]thought[/I] of a harem. It really isn't much of a stretch to say, "well, if this society treats men and women equally....most people just wouldn't have a harem because it'd be incredibly expensive for [I]no reason[/I]." How can you have a culture of "secluding the men" and also a culture of "secluding the women" and have [I]any [/I]form of actual social structure? It makes no sense. A male merchant couldn't meet with a female merchant because they would both need to be secluded from one another! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Al-Qadim, Campaign Guide: Zakhara, and Cultural Sensitivity
Top