Sexism in your campaign settings

[Drifter Bob]

Voodoo is a syncretic religion; it's a melding of traditional West African religions and Catholicism.

What do you think medieval and early christianity was? Why do you think nearly every early church is built on a pagan shrine? For that matter, christian missionaries throughout the 20th century and to this day do largely the same thing.

The peasants of Europe may have feared fairy-hills and worshipped old gods dressed as saints, but they thought of themselves as Christian, not pagan, by the Middle Ages. (There were exceptions during transitional periods--there is supposedly a Viking myth in which a drunken Thor challenged Jesus to a wrestling match.) The 'witches,' primarily but not always women, burned for witchcraft believed themselves to have been led astray by Satan, not the Triune Goddess.

It's hard to know what they actually believed, but what they meant by or thought of as satan may not have been exactly what you think of it, or what modern christians think of it. If you consider the remnants of paganism in modern christianity, everything from the maypole to the easter bunny to faerie legends and the rest of it, try to imagine it in the 15th century.

Looking at history with a modern slant is not something that only politically correct liberals do...

There's a reason it's called the Spanish Inquisition in most texts; there were large and small Inquistions, by both Catholic and Protestant bodies, depending on the country and principality.

Obviously it's more nuanced than even the above.

DB

 

[mythago]

Looking at history with a modern slant is not something that only politically correct liberals do...

As you say, Bob, we're drifting well into no-no territory here, and if you really want more back and forth I'd be happy to take it off-line. But I'd appreciate it if you refrained from suggesting that people who disagree with you are simply clueless modernists, or ignorant about the 'real' history of religion.

as I recall from my very limited Conan reading, and my extensive Ffard and the Grey Mouser reading, sexism is one of the genre's defining characteristics; female characters were generally either nude and nubile slave girls, old crones, or seductive princesses but their primary role was to sleep with and titillate the main characters

What's interesting about the grand old man of sword and sorcery, Robert E. Howard, is that he wrote women as characters rather than props. Of course his central characters were men, but he also wrote about strong, interesting women who were worthy to attract the attention of Conan (who himself was rather clever, not a muscle-bound goon).

 

[Drifter Bob]

Oops...

 

[Drifter Bob]

That's a pretty dubious contention. The Greece of Homer and Hesiod is certainly different from the Greece of Plato and Aristotle and that is different from the Greece of Phillip and Alexander, which, of course is different from the Greece of Polycarp, Eusebius, and the early church fathers.
(snip)
, I see no reason to believe that he represents an older "more egalitarian" form of life.

In any event, the idea that Zeus and Apollo "replaced" Aphrodite, Demeter, and Artemis doesn't seem to fit any of the evidence I'm aware of.

As far as I can tell, Greek religious practice remained relatively stable for quite a while as did the male dominance and the worship of the godesses in their society. I see very little

You are correct in all of this, my point is indeed that the precursors of Greek religion go way, way back. One specific very strong influence appears to be the so called "minoan" society of Crete and Thera which ended around 14th century BC. This society was very influential on Mycenian society, itself the precursor of the Greece we know so well. Many greek gods including for example poseidon and bacchus are traced to Crete by quite sober historians. It is also widely recognized in academia that something much closer to a gender equality than you saw in Greece. (maybe thats why they appear to have been comfortable enough to walk around topless )

Similarly, barbarian cultures to the north and west of Greece were much more egalitarian between sexes (and in other ways) including the Celts and Scythians, both of whom had well documented female warriors.

As if neither the Athenians nor the Spartans would have considered their independence worth fighting for without the Oracle? I'm sure the Oracle and her priesthood were influential. However, you seem to be really pushing the boundaries of plausibility here.

According to Herodotus, succumbing to Persian overlordship was not considered as bad is it may sound to modern ears. Many formerly powerful greek islands and cities had been under nominal Persian control for years, and in fact the bulk of the Persian navy at Salamis was Greek.

Many historians also point out that the idea of Greece as a unified society let alone a state was foreign at the time. Generally the Greeks hated each other at least as much as any outsider.

Finally, Herodutus is not the only ancient historian who seems to feel that the issue was definately up in the air, and that it was a difficult decision.

What this demonstrates is not that the Greeks were a sexually egalitarian society. They weren't. Nor does it support the thesis that the greeks were in transition from some mythical egalitarian society to immediately pre-Christian Greece. (The battle of Salamis would have to be rather late in this development--hundreds of years after Homer and Hesiod). What it demonstrates is that monolithic patiarchy is a myth.

I agree 100%

Getting back onto topic, this should demonstrate that it's not necessary to sacrifice historical credibility on the altar of PC gender equality

if you had any idea who you were discussing this with you would know I'm about the furthest thing possible from PC. PC and bogus historical revisionism is not only the egalitarian liberal variety, incidentally (I hate every form, right or left wing)

in order to create a game with opportunities for female PCs. It may well interfere with the pulp Sword and Sorcery feel of any particular game (as I recall from my very limited Conan reading, and my extensive Ffard and the Grey Mouser reading, sexism is one of the genre's defining characteristics; female characters were generally either nude and nubile slave girls, old crones, or seductive princesses but their primary role was to sleep with and titillate the main characters). However, that particular aspect of the Sword and Sorcery genre probably isn't worth keeping.

Actually, I remember at least one Fafhred and Gray Mouser story, I think it was called "The best thieves in lankhmar" where they were totally scammed and duped by a pair of rival thieves, who were females...

DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

As you say, Bob, we're drifting well into no-no territory here, and if you really want more back and forth I'd be happy to take it off-line. But I'd appreciate it if you refrained from suggesting that people who disagree with you are simply clueless modernists, or ignorant about the 'real' history of religion.

I wasn't casting direct aspersions upon you, I was simply reacting to the repeated claim of "PC egalitarianism" throughout this thread. I merely wish to remind folks that that type of thing works both ways.

DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

Very very true. Women in medieval society could wield incredible power. Eleanor of Acquitaine, for example. In pre-medieval societies as well; look at the Roman world, women like Livia for example, who used marriage, politics, and poison to insure her son's place on the imperial throne.

So incredible power, yes. Equality no. What it means is that in a realistic pseudo-medieval setting, women could do a lot of things (and as some people pointed out here, might be wizards or clerics depending on how those things were handled in the specific setting). What they were not, was "Just the same as men". They could not do the same things in the same ways. And when they tried (Jean D'arc as a classic example), they usually came to a bad end.

Nisarg

That is true in a general sense, but my point is that this actually varied quite a bit from one geographical / administrative area to another, and one part of society to another.

DB

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

You are correct in all of this, my point is indeed that the precursors of Greek religion go way, way back. One specific very strong influence appears to be the so called "minoan" society of Crete and Thera which ended around 14th century BC. This society was very influential on Mycenian society, itself the precursor of the Greece we know so well. Many greek gods including for example poseidon and bacchus are traced to Crete by quite sober historians. It is also widely recognized in academia that something much closer to a gender equality than you saw in Greece. (maybe thats why they appear to have been comfortable enough to walk around topless)

Closer to gender equality doesn't necessarily mean much. The question is what their practices were and how they influenced Mycenian society. That the Minoans may have exported Poseidon and Bacchus to Greece doesn't immediately indicate that the Mycenians had a greater level of gender equality than the later Greeks. (And, if it did, it would run directly counter to the thesis that godess worship leads to more gender equality than the worship of gods since both Poseidon and Bacchus are male).

According to Herodotus, succumbing to Persian overlordship was not considered as bad is it may sound to modern ears. Many formerly powerful greek islands and cities had been under nominal Persian control for years, and in fact the bulk of the Persian navy at Salamis was Greek.

Many historians also point out that the idea of Greece as a unified society let alone a state was foreign at the time. Generally the Greeks hated each other at least as much as any outsider.

Finally, Herodutus is not the only ancient historian who seems to feel that the issue was definately up in the air, and that it was a difficult decision.

OK, it may have been a difficult decision and the Greeks may have needed a lot of prodding and diplomacy to get them to come together. However, I doubt that Herodotus tells us that it was all the work of the Oracle and her spies. I imagine King Leonidas and the other Spartan king as well as the leaders of Athens (Pericles would be one of the contemporary influences) had something to do with the decision as well and did so for reasons in addition to "the oracle at Delphi wants us to."

If the oracle at Delphi's influence was necessary in order for the Greeks to fight at Thermopylae and Marathon and Salamis, that doesn't mean that the influence was sufficient. For another example, America's contribution in World War II was probably necessary in order to defeat the axis powers. That doesn't mean that America's contribution was sufficient to do so. Without the contributions of the soviets and the British empire, the axis powers might well have prevailed. My point is that your retelling of the story--the oracle pushed Athens and Sparta into fighting the war--makes it seems like the oracle forced or manipulated them to do something against their will.

if you had any idea who you were discussing this with you would know I'm about the furthest thing possible from PC. PC and bogus historical revisionism is not only the egalitarian liberal variety, incidentally (I hate every form, right or left wing)

Uh huh. If you had any idea who you're discussing this with... oh well, forget it. This is an online forum and neither of us know the other from Adam. (For all I know, Drifter Bob is just a screen name and you're an Indian actress posting on from her Bollywood dressing room). So, it's nice that you hate bogus historical revisionism, but saying so doesn't make your perspective any more credible than your elucidations of that perspective make it.

And it's my experience that the people who shout the loudest about how unbiased they are are generally the most blind to their own prejudices. Cf. Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, and Bill O'Reilly, all of whom insist that they're utterly unbiased. Consequently, hyperventilating about your unbiasedness is only going to make me more suspicious of bias rather than less.

Actually, I remember at least one Fafhred and Gray Mouser story, I think it was called "The best thieves in lankhmar" where they were totally scammed and duped by a pair of rival thieves, who were females...

And I can remember one where they rape a female "ghoul." (Really a human with transparent skin). I'm sure most people will understand that the latter makes more of an impression than the former.

 

[StalkingBlue]

Hey, can you guys get off real-life religion history and politics and leave this thread to what it is about?

If you need to get a thread closed I suggest someone start a new one and take it there.

 

[mythago]

Ok, this isn't exactly how I see it...

Fair enough, but the question is how your players see it. And one of them has already posted that it seems the male players dominate the game. This may be personality type, but honestly, it's also generally a gender thing--in conversation, men are more likely to ignore and interrupt women. I'm not saying they're doing it on purpose. They're probably not even aware of it. But you have players who are not having fun, and are complaining publicly.

It's easy as a GM to respond to the kid who's always got his hand up, but you really have to develop a habit of saying "Hold that thought, Bob. Alice, what are you doing this round?" if it gets out of hand.

 

[StalkingBlue]

What we think is unimportant.

What your players think is what's important.



I handled it by banning female players.




Okay, maybe not.

Thanks for the laugh.