Ruminating on "What is a Doviello City?" and BCalchet's musings on Sheaim society (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=274551), I've been wondering what it is like for women living in different societies around Erebus. If their history is anything like ours, then women across the civilizations have probably put up with some dumb-assed things. How do you imagine the role of sex in certain societies? Where is sex not even an issue? Are there any dwarven women? I'm interested to see this explored. TheWyrm, I'm especially anxious to hear from you about the Balseraphs, being their ambassador to Real Life and all.

I got here by thinking about Mahala, and what it must be like to be a Doviellan woman. Here's what I jotted down at work:

An abrupt hush fell over the tundra. The warriors stood stunned, some overtaken by fear, but most by hate. They had always assumed that there were no rules on the battlefield, but now they realized that there was at least one, and it was being broken. It was something none of them had ever imagined, let alone seen. There was a woman in the ranks.

“Are you lost, doe?” a man yelled over the silence. The air lightened as their anger turned to mockery of a similar degree of malice.

“You’re missing some weaponry!”

“That’s an axe, not a babe!”

“Would you like to hold my javelin instead?”

Mahala didn’t move. She didn’t smile or sneer, and made eye contact with no one. The men glared at her as hard as they could. They had never been so full of adrenaline and not currently killing anybody.

“Sow, what are you doing here?!” shouted a battlemaster.

“Maybe her fields are fallow!” The men roared with laughter after every insult, but quickly quieted up in expectation of some response from the misplaced woman. War was for men. Sometimes a woman would be allowed to scout for food, but only if she could serve no purpose in the tents.

She turned slowly, changing the horde’s focus to the small village down the hill. The villagers had cowered into their homes as soon as the army topped the hill, and they were no doubt very confused about still being alive. One man cautiously opened his door and peered out. He walked into his yard, staring up at the stationary group. He glanced back at his home, gestured to someone, shook his head, and shrugged his shoulders.

Mahala, with her back straight and her shoulders square, walked to the nearest javelin thrower and took his weapon from him. The man gave a stark look, but grinned when he realized that she could only embarrass herself. She faced the village, then burst into a run. With natural athleticism she launched the javelin into the sky. All heads watched as it fell, pinning the curious villager to the ground through his gut.

She turned to her fellow marauders and with a wild leer she declared: “First blood.” Grabbing her axe, she ran down the hill to fulfill the villagers’ expectations. The men behind her did all they could to keep up.

A simple view of women--for them, and for me to write about. Maybe it will whet your appetite for her promised entry. I can't wait to find out who she is.

Very nice - I like it :goodjob:

:mischief: waiting for Talia Gosam story :goodjob::crazyeye:

There are dwarven women, with equal rights to men. They just all have beards. Most of courtship is finding out your partner's gender. My theory on with there is no Arthus Thorne 'pedia entry:
She's a woman!

there is no Arthus Thorne 'pedia entry:

Bit behind on the times, huh?

Oops, I just looked at that thread. Nice writing.

That is a nice story. But Doviello society is one of the least misoginistic on Erebus. They wouldn't question a female warrior or a female leader. Its all about practical concerns and there is little, if any, propriety or cultural values driving their actions.

The female recon units for the doviello was meant to represent this fact (that you will meet their women as well as their men on the battlefield) in a way that made that line visually recognizable.

The most likely civs to have female equality (in order by the most equal) are:

Svartalfar (female dominated society)
Doviello
Calabim (where the repression of their society is class based, not gender)
Sidar
Bannor
Sheaim
Hippus
Amurites (in the mage line which is their primary focus)
Luchurip (where no one wants to fight directly anyway)
Ljosalfar (in the archer line, which is their focus)

Most of the "enlightened" societies have some sort of misogany and a belief that women should be protected rather than do the protecting. That removes women from war which degrades their role in a society that lives under the threat of battle. So in a society lead by military concerns (as many are in erebus) they dont achieve the same level of respect since they aren't sharing their blood on the battlefield.

The Illians are also fairly misoginistic, but it has less to do with propiety and more to do with the threat of extinction and trying to keep the "breeders" alive.

@ loocas: As long as i know wolf packs are even rather a bit matriarchal (even though the alpha males are also very important.) and a clear divide in the hirarchy (i belive they have two hirarchies. One for male and one for female wolves.). So if they go after the wolves that should answer which way they are leaning (if any). Kael has allready stated his stance.

Don't belive any tales which are projected on animals, without double-checking. ;) Dovioello are men leaning to wolves (albeit a much darker representation of wolves as it fits the dark background.) in behavior not the other way around.

I whould picture Mahla as a dominant alpha-female leading the pack. (And chosing falamar ("alpha-male of " a "pack") if the occasion arrises as it would be a wolfs nature. ;))

Oh and you won't want to speak up against the alpha will you?
No matter if you are part of the pack or not.
You may very well end up cast out in the cold wastes alone, or end up as the packs next meal...
Unless of course you aim beeing the alpha after an hard battle (and the alpha has most experience in these fights since he / she is used to defending her stature in possibly even mortal combat. So expect a hard trial) in which case ceremonial rules for change of leadership are to be followed.
(in case of whichs loss you probably are even left alive and more or less unharmed. And as a new alpha you whould be rather dumb to finish off one of the most able members of then "your" pack. Those deaths are rather "accidental". At least if doviello are really imitating the behavior of wolves. If a member of the pack dies the pack as a whole gets weaker.)
But thats not some random spout of disorder like the one depicted above.

Another possibility of change of leadership whould be the going of the old leader. (which whould be challenged as time goes by and age takes its toll. If wolves grow really old without dying prematurely they leave the pack to die alone. Alphas as well i think.). Don't know how the pack behaves about leadership then.

That is a nice story. But Doviello society is one of the least misoginistic on Erebus. They wouldn't question a female warrior or a female leader. Its all about practical concerns and there is little, if any, propriety or cultural values driving their actions.

The female recon units for the doviello was meant to represent this fact (that you will meet their women as well as their men on the battlefield) in a way that made that line visually recognizable.

Thanks for explaining. That makes sense. I like it your way much better :)

The most likely civs to have female equality (in order by the most equal) are:

Svartalfar (female dominated society)
Doviello
Calabim (where the repression of their society is class based, not gender)
Sidar
Bannor
Sheaim
Hippus
Amurites (in the mage line which is their primary focus)
Luchurip (where no one wants to fight directly anyway)
Ljosalfar (in the archer line, which is their focus)

Svartalfar are female dominated, yet also the most equal? I can understand that, but want to make sure that's what you meant. Are men equal to the women there?

Most of the "enlightened" societies have some sort of misogany and a belief that women should be protected rather than do the protecting. That removes women from war which degrades their role in a society that lives under the threat of battle. So in a society lead by military concerns (as many are in erebus) they dont achieve the same level of respect since they aren't sharing their blood on the battlefield.

Well put. Another speck of gray in what it means to be good or evil. It all depends on what the society's highest values are, and as you said with most its war. With ours it's success, which is along the same lines. I wonder what those "enlightened" men really think the women need protection from: the actual threat of death and harm, or straying from what they believe makes them feminine.

I know the Bannor women are explained quite a bit, and they're more exempt from the above, as your list suggests. They've had some special circumstances anyway, and wouldn't be around if the women didn't pick up swords. The first thing I noticed from the list was the number of evil ("evil") civs, and make note on who's missing. Malakim for one; what do their women do, and is it Varn's view of them or the society's? Could it be Varn's attitude towards women that led Talia away? For me the larger question is, What the hell does anyone do in the desert?

Sand castles man, sand castles.

And what about the Elohim? They may not send their women on the battlefield (as do many countries), but I thought Ethne was their leader, which means that they're ready to let them into the buttons room.

Svartalfar are female dominated, yet also the most equal? I can understand that, but want to make sure that's what you meant. Are men equal to the women there?

I put them first because the women recieve the most power in that soceity, more traditional gender roles are reversed. It isn't like the Drow in D&D where its a complete matriarchy, but they do carry most of the power in the civilization.

So in typical "gender equality" terms they are okay but not great. They are just backwards of the normal prejudices.

@Sofista- the Elohim are more traditional in their distinctions between men and women. Meaning there are certain roles that women are expected to fulfill and those for men. Ethne's pedia entry alludes to the barrier between her and the realities of the world as maintained by her civilization. Its good that they would accept a female leader, but she is a queen during a peaceful time focused on philosophy and enlightenment. She is loved by her people, much like the queen of england, but that doesnt mean her people are all that good at gender equality.

Hannah is another exception of a powerful female leader in a gender biased civilization. She gets her way through force of personality and a well earned reputation of brutality and almost superhuman ability. The seas favor Hannah, and the Lanun aren't stupid enough to question that.

Remember that in our own world, in the present-day there are still many countries where women are still legally second-class citizens. Indeed the idea of gender equality is a very recent one to catch on, on any sort of large scale, even in the West.

Remember that in our own world, in the present-day there are still many countries where women are still legally second-class citizens. Indeed the idea of gender equality is a very recent one to catch on, on any sort of large scale, even in the West.

Not nessesarily. Their were ancient civilizations that were more gendar equal than the ones we have today. It isn't an area we make strict advancement on, but one that differs with time and individual cultures.

To start, it was very hard to write about Balseraph women specificly without going into detail about their society in whole, but I have tried to stay on topic. Also, I have limited myself to discussing Balseraph citizens and not slaves who have a much, much worse go of it in this society than any other.

The Balseraph live by the philosophy of Hedonism and self indulgent decadence wich states that pleasure is the highest good, or the source of moral values. Or to break it down to it's most simple aspect "if it feels good, do it."

Just like any society, Balseraph people run the entire spectrum, even if their spectrum is full of colors no one else can see. The average man will have been raised in a society where he recieves no recompense whatsover for simply having his way with any female he is able to seduce, con, or overpower into his bed.

Also, Balseraph women are raised in a society where their "virtue" is meaningless. Why hold off on intercourse? It feels good. Their entire existence is predicated upon this concept. A Balseraph female would no more resist having sex with an atractive man (or woman) as she would refuse a well cooked steak by a master chef.

Now, let's take a closer look at the reasons a Balseraph woman will think this way.

Single Parents: It is so rare as to be almost unheard of that any Balseraph citizen would know who their father is short of some kind of magic or because you were born to a harem girl kept locked in a dungeon. So while this means no stigma is placed on being a bastard, it also means children are raised by whoever decide to care for them. An entire society who have no clue what the concept of "family" is would produce strange offspring indeed.

Abuse: Most girls lose their virginity at a shockingly early age. The desires for the flesh are just too strong and too prevalent here for them to last any longer than age 12 before someone decides to take them. Patterns of sexual/physical/mental abuse will take their toll on her psyche until she comes to either accept she must use her body as a weapon or go mad. Or both. Often, so very often, it's both.

Pleasure: Ever notice how in our society a man who engages in endless acts of sexuality is a "player" but a girl who does it is a "slut?" Yeah the Balseraph make no distinctions. Here they are all players, and the game is called "what feels good today?" Pleasure is a game to them. It is because of this "game" type attitude that I fully believe that when it comes to adults, rape is actually much less common in Balseraph lands than you would imagine. Most Balseraph men would find a lot more pleasure in managing to out-seduce all the other men to sleep with the prettiest girls. Why take by force what you can get with good old fashioned cunning?

All of these things put together show us that the average female in Balseraph lands could actually have a "better" life than some of their contemporaries. Think about it, no familial ties to things like land or title means that EVERYONE makes it on their own. If a woman proves cunning enough there is nothing to stop her from amassing enough wealth and slaves to be able to dictate her pleasures upon whomever she pleases. It may not be the norm, but it is far from being rare. After all, the second most powerful person in their society is a woman.

I've said a mouthful, and I am afraid I may be rambling at this point so I think I'll stop. Man we could go on and on over this stuff for days!

I'm totally accepting your title of Balseraph "Ambassador to Real Life" Loocas! That was awesome.

the second most powerful person in their society is a woman.
Can't you consider perp a man and a woman because he has a copy of the mind of everyone he met? And since he changes bodies when the current one runs out of juice, who's to say he won't take a female body?

Can't you consider perp a man and a woman because he has a copy of the mind of everyone he met? And since he changes bodies when the current one runs out of juice, who's to say he won't take a female body?

I don't doubt this to be true. However, I get the feeling that even while in the body of a female the unmistakable "maleness" of Perpentach would be unmissable. He has a force of magnitism that would be difficult to mistake. Also, having so many female minds inside him gives him a unique perspective when it comes to the battle of the sexes.

I imagine he's probably had more dealings with men than women...in his pedia entry the only woman there is his mother...this would probably just be a natural consequence of the presence of women in Erebus's society.

Thanks thewyrm. If I may add something: Sex and gender would be nonexistent during the revelries, which could very well be all the time. My guess is that the Balseraph people tend to reduce themselves down to archetypes, as all masqueraders do. I think, for the sake of this discussion, it's hard to tell what's societal tradition and what's just revelry.

Pleasure: Ever notice how in our society a man who engages in endless acts of sexuality is a "player" but a girl who does it is a "slut?" Yeah the Balseraph make no distinctions. Here they are all players, and the game is called "what feels good today?" Pleasure is a game to them. It is because of this "game" type attitude that I fully believe that when it comes to adults, rape is actually much less common in Balseraph lands than you would imagine. Most Balseraph men would find a lot more pleasure in managing to out-seduce all the other men to sleep with the prettiest girls. Why take by force what you can get with good old fashioned cunning?

All of these things put together show us that the average female in Balseraph lands could actually have a "better" life than some of their contemporaries. Think about it, no familial ties to things like land or title means that EVERYONE makes it on their own. If a woman proves cunning enough there is nothing to stop her from amassing enough wealth and slaves to be able to dictate her pleasures upon whomever she pleases. It may not be the norm, but it is far from being rare. After all, the second most powerful person in their society is a woman.

One of the most infuriating things in our culture is how women are blamed for men's lust. It happens in movies and in the courts. I really like these last two paragraphs.

Svartalfar are female dominated, yet also the most equal?


The wording actually reminds me of an Orwell quote...

All pigs are created equal, but some are more equal than others..."

It's a deliberate play on the words - you can't be "more equal" than the thing you're equal to - it implies that the "equality"... isn't.

Loocas obviously meant to say egalitarian.

I feel like Balseraph women would be more equal to men, but the lives of both would be degraded equally... It's not that they aren't objectified as much, it's just that everyone is. Imagining a country were first sexual experiences happen in that fashion as the norm blows my mind... suicide rates would be through the roof... Makes sense for a evil civ though

I feel like Balseraph women would be more equal to men, but the lives of both would be degraded equally... It's not that they aren't objectified as much, it's just that everyone is. Imagining a country were first sexual experiences happen in that fashion as the norm blows my mind... suicide rates would be through the roof... Makes sense for a evil civ though

Possibly. Yet those who survive their early experiences are raised within this culture and would see this as the norm. Imagine how mind bogglingly boring an Elohim party would be to the average Balseraph.

Think about this. A Bannor raid "liberates" a Balseraph city and "rescues" the women from the lecherous ways of the Balseraph culture. How could a Balseraph woman who has lived her entire life believing that not only is pleasure not something to be shunned, it is actually the single most important "virtue" that humanity can strive to exemplify. How could she possibly ever fit in amongst other societies who would try to fix something in her pattern of thought that she doesn't believe was ever wrong.

First, I'm assuming that Doviello is four syllables, "Do", "vi", "el", "lo". If I'm mispronouncing it, the scansion will be off.

Second, the scansion is a little awkward in places; the tune is fast and the original lyrics are simple, which does not leave me a lot of wiggle room for new lyrics.

Third, picture Guybrush Threepwood singing this to entertain shipmates or drinking companions. He's a sailor, and they've a girl in every port, so he's pretty knowledgable about the women of Erebus.

And now, without further ado ...

Doviello Girls
(After California Girls, by the Beach Boys.)

Well, Bannor girls are hip,
I dig their metal underwear,
And the Lanun girls with the way they squawk,
They thrill me with the way they swear,

The madcap jester's daughter really makes you burn all night,
And the Dark Elf chicks with their leather bits,
They really do fan-service right.

I wish they all could be Doviello,
I wish they all could be Doviello,
I wish they all could be Doviello,
I wish they all could be Doviello girls.

The tundra has the blizzards,
And the girls all get so bland,
I dig a furry parka on arctic circle dolls by an igloo on the strand.

I sailed all o'er this great big world,
And I seen all kinds of girls,
Yeah, but I couldn't wait to get back on the floes,
Back to the coldest girls in the world.

I wish they all could be Doviello,
I wish they all could be Doviello,
I wish they all could be Doviello girls.

I wish they all could be Doviello,
(girls, girls, girls yeah I dig the)
I wish they all could be Doviello,
(girls, girls, girls yeah I dig the)
I wish they all could be Doviello,
(girls, girls, girls yeah I dig the)
I wish they all could be Doviello,
(girls, girls, girls yeah I dig the)

*Claps loudly* That was amazing.

I feel like Balseraph women would be more equal to men, but the lives of both would be degraded equally... It's not that they aren't objectified as much, it's just that everyone is. Imagining a country were first sexual experiences happen in that fashion as the norm blows my mind... suicide rates would be through the roof... Makes sense for a evil civ though

I don't think suicide would be any different if what we're describing is the norm. It's impossible for me to imagine what a victimized girl goes through, but to narrow a delicate subject extremely, social ostracism and damage to identity would be strong factors in her trauma. Considering the Balseraphs and what are normal experiences for a young girl, as well their views of personal identity, I think they'd be ready to accept what happened to them. Of course, that doesn't mean life is easy, but the wine, dancing, and being able to violate other people at will may help them deal with that.

@A_Hamster: You rule.

Thats awesome hamster! :lol:

Congratulations, Hamster. You quite literally made me laugh out loud, and I had struggle to not actually start singing!
I wish they all could be Doviello...
EDIT: "Makes you burn all night." Why do I suspect a fire elemental is involved in making this happen?

Great stuff, hamster! I could just hear the Beach Boys chorus in the background. And Wyrm (and everyone else): love your take on Balseraph women. It's depraved, but it makes sense.

Thank you! I'm glad you all enjoyed the filk!

Oh, Loocas, thanks for the inspiration. I was reading the thread, and the thread title just seemed like a song cue. "Erebusian Women ... reminds me of a song ... Ha! California Girls!" Then ideas started falling into place.

Since I was thinking about the Beach Boys after that, I thought about "Help Me, Roanna" about someone trying to hire the Hippus, but Roanna is three syllables, and Rhonda is two, so that won't work. Roanna does scan to "Maria" though ...

Now if you'd like to see and hear the work of a real filker, here's a website (http://www.khaosworks.org/filk/index.html) that combines the Lovecraft Mythos with ABBA. Some of the lyrics could fit the Sheaim as well as the OO.

Congratulations, Hamster. You quite literally made me laugh out loud, and I had struggle to not actually start singing!
I wish they all could be Doviello...
EDIT: "Makes you burn all night." Why do I suspect a fire elemental is involved in making this happen?Heh. Isn't innunedo wonderful? "Burn all night" could be a good thing, or it could be a very bad thing, but 'what happens in Jubilee, stays in Jubilee.' :D

Speaking of innunedo ... "When I'm good, I'm good, but when I'm bad, I'm better." Could be a good line for Faeryl, but again, it may not be what you really want ...

Ya, pretty good A Hamster

Think about this. A Bannor raid "liberates" a Balseraph city and "rescues" the women from the lecherous ways of the Balseraph culture.

If I understand the Bannor correctly and, now, the Balseraph as you articulatly explained, I do not think there would be any liberating or rescuing. I envision a Confessor leisurely strolling before the captives and then quickly ordering them put to the sword. Spending a little time trapped in Hell will make you merciless to what you perceive as evil.

Spending a little time trapped in Hell

Only, like, the leaders and the original settler/warrior group did that. By the time the various empires are mature enough to be fighting full wars, there's no way any of the Bannor who actually spent time in hell are still alive.

Only, like, the leaders and the original settler/warrior group did that. By the time the various empires are mature enough to be fighting full wars, there's no way any of the Bannor who actually spent time in hell are still alive.

Donal Lugh? Capria?

Actually, in Donal Lughs entry, by the time he comes out of hell, Capria has aged considerably, in fact the pedia entry says that 70 years had passed. If she was in her 20s, she would have been in her 90s, maybe early hundreds by then, a very old woman. Although apparently pretty fit for a woman that age. Unless she aged slower for some reason.

It's not really clear whether Donal Lugh never aged all that time or he is the same age as Capria, or older.

I envision the original Bannor as somewhat akin to Numenoreans, aging significantly slower than their later (and watered-down) kin.

wilboman : I envision the original Bannor as somewhat akin to Numenoreans, aging significantly slower than their later (and watered-down) kin.

In this case the Bannor would be a very racistic society as well, as they would see themselves as superiour, having survived hell and all.

Therefore Bannors 'liberating' a foreign can be imagined in three different ways.

1) The Benigh Colonalism: In this approach the Bannor would see others as inferiour and weak because of mental, physical and educationary underdevelopment. But their conclusion would be that they have to take extra responsibilities for the weak and therefore unite the world under their rule to protect the people from the evil and the hell.
If Bannor would conquer an evil cities they would exterminate all leading people, but they would deliberately spare the common people. Their goal would be to teach the 'Natives' the Bannor way in order to bring them "into the light"

(this would be most similiar with the attitude of the Soviets towards their neighbours (especially their Asian neighours) and of the Colonial Powers in the 19th Century towards the natives in their Colonies)

2) The Islam Way: In this case the Bannor would see themselves as following a superiour way of life and religion (Order). They would conclude that it is their responsibility to spread the (their) truth among the world, but they would use sword and speech to convert newly conquered citizen their course. However the Bannor would also tolerate pockets of other cultures within their borders (as long as the same swear an oath to Bannor and pay taxes).

(The early caliphate of Bagdad is certainly the best example for this kind of state)

3) The Nazi Way: In this interpretation the Bannor would understand themselves as a Master Race thanks to their longetivity and history.
They would therefore forcefully brainwash 'good' and 'neutral' citizen of conquered territory, but merciless extinguish all 'evil' people. They would not distinguish between the nature of a state and its inhabitants. For the Bannor the citizen of evil states are corrupted entirely and can only be cleansed by fire. This is certainly the most extreme interpretation of Bannor Society.

(Nazi Germany or Spain during the time of the Inquisition is the best way to envision this kind of society)

Most probably there might be all three movements present in the Bannor society and all them trying to receive an upper hand in the state and to influence the rulers to follow their philosophy. So Bannor policy might differ from time to time dependent on which movement has the ears of the rulers at a given time.

That is a nice story. But Doviello society is one of the least misoginistic on Erebus. They wouldn't question a female warrior or a female leader.

Does that mean they would question a female warrior or a female leader in the same way as a male one? Those are very questionable positions.

Suffragist Doviello. Hm... In the case of savage anarchy you can speak about "equal possibilities" from psychological point of view. Those who behave in certain way can become a leader no matter of sex. OK. But what does mean "to behave in certain way" in this case? It means regular fighting for the leadership. And in most cases fighting should not spend best fighters in the pack because if there are always someone is killed or maimed then pack is lost soon. So to be effective leader you should know and feel when to start fighting and when to stop and allow the beaten opponent to keep some respect. Male human instincts provide the feeling of this process. Female human instincts are different: usually female try to avoid fighting whenever possible and when she is forced to fight, she fights to death. That is completely inacceptable for fighting leader. (I don't know about Svartalfar, Drow, Dunmer etc. but Doviello are stated to be humans. No?) So to become a leader of such pack human female should not only be very strong but also go against her instincts. And that would make Doviello female fighting leader extremely rare fenomenon.

Moreover if men concider women as potential fighting leaders they wiil beat women regularly to verify their relative social positions. Nothing personal, just regular hierarchial rotation contest. For the most women (which are occasionally not superior fighters) it means very poor social position and very incomfortable existance. That is why savage anarchy is the worst society for most women. Patriarchal traditions are not only prevent woman to be a leader but also protect her from the violence. A simple thing which if often forgotten.

So one Mahala precedent can be a real disaster for many-many Doviello women.

IMO the very idea of male-female equality (and, accordingly, misogyny as social fenomenon) is a product of the contemporary informational society where men and women are functionally the same. While in more "savage" societies with severe life they are functionally different no matter if it is matriarchy or patriarchy or anarchy. And the function is determined by the biology rather then by the law, tradition and religion.

In this case the Bannor would be a very racistic society as well, as they would see themselves as superiour, having survived hell and all.

Therefore Bannors 'liberating' a foreign can be imagined in three different ways.

1) The Benigh Colonalism: In this approach the Bannor would see others as inferiour and weak because of mental, physical and educationary underdevelopment. But their conclusion would be that they have to take extra responsibilities for the weak and therefore unite the world under their rule to protect the people from the evil and the hell.
If Bannor would conquer an evil cities they would exterminate all leading people, but they would deliberately spare the common people. Their goal would be to teach the 'Natives' the Bannor way in order to bring them "into the light"

(this would be most similiar with the attitude of the Soviets towards their neighbours (especially their Asian neighours) and of the Colonial Powers in the 19th Century towards the natives in their Colonies)

2) The Islam Way: In this case the Bannor would see themselves as following a superiour way of life and religion (Order). They would conclude that it is their responsibility to spread the (their) truth among the world, but they would use sword and speech to convert newly conquered citizen their course. However the Bannor would also tolerate pockets of other cultures within their borders (as long as the same swear an oath to Bannor and pay taxes).

(The early caliphate of Bagdad is certainly the best example for this kind of state)

3) The Nazi Way: In this interpretation the Bannor would understand themselves as a Master Race thanks to their longetivity and history.
They would therefore forcefully brainwash 'good' and 'neutral' citizen of conquered territory, but merciless extinguish all 'evil' people. They would not distinguish between the nature of a state and its inhabitants. For the Bannor the citizen of evil states are corrupted entirely and can only be cleansed by fire. This is certainly the most extreme interpretation of Bannor Society.

(Nazi Germany or Spain during the time of the Inquisition is the best way to envision this kind of society)

Most probably there might be all three movements present in the Bannor society and all them trying to receive an upper hand in the state and to influence the rulers to follow their philosophy. So Bannor policy might differ from time to time dependent on which movement has the ears of the rulers at a given time.

Number 2 sounds more like the malakim then the bannor.

to address it-ogo, about the doviello i think Kael means that they don't care who their leader is if they bring in killing pillaging and such.

I'm pretty sure that all pre-Ice Age men would be comparable to the Numenorians in lifespan, intelligence, etc. This isn't entirely because of the Ice Age, as Mankind (and Dwarfkind) has been slowly degenerating from its beginning. The original Bannor who escaped from Hell would probably be genetically at about the level they were at when Bhall fell. Thus, they are a few centuries less degenerated than most men in Erebus. That probably wouldn't mean they would live centuries longer, but they might be physically fit for an extra decade or two. I'd probably guess though that they would still be more degenerated than the Amurites, whose recent descent from the ageless Kyorlin places them several generations closer to Nemed than those who lived just before Bhalls fall.



Don't be confused by the references to "truth" in scenario number 2. Lugus is not the type to condone violence to force others to accept the truth. That scenario is much closer to The Order

Rod's scenario #3 is how I role-play the Bannor. They are so good, they become evil? Dark fantasy at it's best.

@Monkeyfinger, It depends on how long you consider a turn. Kael stated the reason that the date was removed from the upper right corner was because it didn't make sense to have a 250 year old Rantine. I hope I quoted him correctly.

@ It-Ogo: The Svartalfar would probably take a female battle-leader more readilie then the Doviello, sense the Svartalfar are all about assassins and betrayel which, (don't beat me as a sexist or whatever) are used more (and more rationaly) by females than males, and when doing assassination, you don't want the slightes compasion.

@ It-Ogo: The Svartalfar would probably take a female battle-leader more readilie then the Doviello, sense the Svartalfar are all about assassins and betrayel which, (don't beat me as a sexist or whatever) are used more (and more rationaly) by females than males, and when doing assassination, you don't want the slightes compasion.

The Svartalfar would take a female leader because they are matriarchal.

Does that mean they would question a female warrior or a female leader in the same way as a male one? Those are very questionable positions.

Suffragist Doviello. Hm... In the case of savage anarchy you can speak about "equal possibilities" from psychological point of view. Those who behave in certain way can become a leader no matter of sex. OK. But what does mean "to behave in certain way" in this case? It means regular fighting for the leadership. And in most cases fighting should not spend best fighters in the pack because if there are always someone is killed or maimed then pack is lost soon. So to be effective leader you should know and feel when to start fighting and when to stop and allow the beaten opponent to keep some respect. Male human instincts provide the feeling of this process. Female human instincts are different: usually female try to avoid fighting whenever possible and when she is forced to fight, she fights to death. That is completely inacceptable for fighting leader. (I don't know about Svartalfar, Drow, Dunmer etc. but Doviello are stated to be humans. No?) So to become a leader of such pack human female should not only be very strong but also go against her instincts. And that would make Doviello female fighting leader extremely rare fenomenon.

Moreover if men concider women as potential fighting leaders they wiil beat women regularly to verify their relative social positions. Nothing personal, just regular hierarchial rotation contest. For the most women (which are occasionally not superior fighters) it means very poor social position and very incomfortable existance. That is why savage anarchy is the worst society for most women. Patriarchal traditions are not only prevent woman to be a leader but also protect her from the violence. A simple thing which if often forgotten.

So one Mahala precedent can be a real disaster for many-many Doviello women.

IMO the very idea of male-female equality (and, accordingly, misogyny as social fenomenon) is a product of the contemporary informational society where men and women are functionally the same. While in more "savage" societies with severe life they are functionally different no matter if it is matriarchy or patriarchy or anarchy. And the function is determined by the biology rather then by the law, tradition and religion.

I buy your point about a savage-anarchy having no societal constructions of gender, but I don't think a female leader's instincts would go against the grain so much. The society as a whole would reflect hers. In the society Kael's described, the men wouldn't view the women as competition, or as inferior. I think one of the assumptions we're making here is that leadership is a male role, and thus a woman must deny her instincts or upbringing in order to fulfill that role. If "function" is determined by biology, but the Doviello have no societal constructions because they are savage-anarchist, then female leadership would have no conflicts with female instincts.

The Svartalfar would take a female leader because they are matriarchal.
Oh, ya, umm...Well anyway, if they weren't then I think that my reson would have its validity:blush:(Inventing Excuses for slip of attention)

Oh, ya, umm...Well anyway, if they weren't then I think that my reson would have its validity:blush:(Inventing Excuses for slip of attention)

Yeah, I wasn't trying to invalidate you, there was just a more prominent reason for that. In fact, that offers an explanation to why the Svartalfar are matriarchal, but the more prominent reason may be that all the elves are matriarchal.

It makes me wonder if there's something in the elves' history that makes them matriarchal, or is it just in their nature (puns always intended). Is Arendel the only queen we know of? Why is she Good? I almost get the feeling that for the summer elves, their government is secondary to their religion. Are the religious leaders also women?

Ya, now that I go back over it, even the Ljosalfar are matriarcal, which I never noticed. My real point was that women tend to think more rationaly( see Thessa's entry), but when provoced can be much more viscious than men, and that style better suits the Svartalfar then the Doviello. Of course, women also tend to hold grudges more(after all, read Arendel Phaedra's entry then Faeryl Viconia's entry), and this more leans toward genocide in an evil(or fanatical) leader, and the Doviello probable arn't so interestd in genocide, since, if you kill everyone, then they can't repoduce, gain more goods then be raided again;).

I would imagine the dwarven society to be very discriminating of females. They aren't even mentioned in any FFH2 lore, and that's a sign of low status. The xenophobia certainly "helps" locking them up.

With dwarves it isn't so much as females are discriminated against, it's just that it's very hard to tell them apart from the males... The first step in courting is politely finding out your partners gender

They aren't even mentioned in any FFH2 lore, and that's a sign of low status.

That's just because they look the same, so nobody can tell them apart from each other. :lol:

I think one of the assumptions we're making here is that leadership is a male role, and thus a woman must deny her instincts or upbringing in order to fulfill that role. If "function" is determined by biology, but the Doviello have no societal constructions because they are savage-anarchist, then female leadership would have no conflicts with female instincts.

There are different kinds of leadership. Sometimes (enough often) woman can be a leader even in a very patriarchal society. Remember e.g. British and Russian empires with their great queens-empresses. They were very natural. Even islamic Pakistan few years ago had female head of the government (prime minister?). :)

I used the term "fighting leader" i.e. combnation of leader and warrior. Alpha-person in hierarchy based on strength. That is what against female instincts and biology IMO. And that is natural for Doviello as I understand. No?

There are some male-specific ways of leadersip and female-specific ones. And if someone follows the way of opposite specificity (s)he would hardly succeed.

@ It-ogo: Hardly. Their society emulates wolf-packs (read chardarons entry for hints of why).
And wolf-packs have split hirarchies for male and female with both gender-alphas about equal in power (might have got that one wrong though.) or even with a slight edge for the female alpha. But clearly both genders go on hunt (Or into battle in case of doviello society) together. Hence the term pack hunt not male-pack-hunt. (They do it because its the most efficient and offers most sucess in hunting. Which is even more necessary in a very harsh world like erebus is.)

Natural Order isn't all that simple and in tenacity / long-term survivability vs. raw and short-term bursts of strength females have the clear edge. (With us males "just" an invention for genetic diversity according to the concensus as it stands now [which for sure might be just wrong in one way or another though :p]. Early life pre sex was "female" only more or less. As far as you can call that gender whatsoever.)
Can also be seen on average lifespan males vs. females (for humans. I doubt other species have been evaluated on that point far enough to give any verdict.). Women live longer on average.

And instincts i belive are hardly understood fully enough to give basis such far reaching assumptions (might have completely different sources than gender-hormones).
Maybe that was concensus 50 or a hundred years ago. But that has changed. To project human society (which is by raw design still largely patriarchal in most countries (if to a rather small degree in countries that promote gender equality) / societies unlike it is said to have been at the early ages of men (which might be wrong just like all the other aforementioned assumptions).) on animal / non-human behavior might be quite some feat of walking on very thin ice.

So your assumptions may stem from a not so valid base.
More accurate might be: science is not far enough to give a clear verdict on "what is male nature / behavior" and "what is female nature / behavior" on a global all encompassing level.
That might be largely biased (anyone is after all, we just now can't take a non-human perspective. What a surprise :p) and coincidential.

@ It-ogo: Hardly. Their society emulates wolf-packs

Emulates eh? You know, biological difference between human and wolf is bigger then between man and woman. :) So wolfs are bad analogy if we are speaking about differences between human sexes.

I did already remark that all I say appliable only to human society. I am not an ethologist of wolf packs :) still I have a feeling that:
1. Wolfs (pure predators) have much stronger instinctive feelings of strength-based hierarchy than primates humans.
2. She-wolfs are much more protected from he-wolfs by instincts than she-humans from he-humans.

And then there are some anatomical differences. You know, human anatomy is much not so perfect than wolf one. Human big brain provides an enormous number of problems to our specie. (Sic!) Here I mean anatomy of cause. :) As a result to produce one child for a woman is more difficult and dangerous task than for she-wolf to produce a dozen of pups. Then human baby without contemporary medicine has less chances to be born healthy and survive than pup. Much less. And needs much more care along the childhood. So reproduction of specie is much, much bigger problem for homo than for lupus.

Not to say that it is just or politically correct but it is a fact. To our regret. Thats what we are. And therefore wolf recipes are not so good for humans.

(With us males "just" an invention for genetic diversity according to the concensus as it stands now [which for sure might be just wrong in one way or another though :p].

Some info. Males genetically are much more variative then females. Natural selection (i mean darvinism) works mainly through males while females provide genetical stability. It means that males are naturally programmed for dangerous tasks rather then females. BTW also it means that extraordinary person (e.g. best or worst fighter, genius or idiot) will more likely be male. Again politically incorrect? Sorry.

Early life pre sex was "female" only more or less.
You mean unicellulars? It depends on formulation. If females are those who produce babies then early life was male only because they have no babies at all. :)

As far as you can call that gender whatsoever.)
:old: Gender is a social concept. :old:
:D

Can also be seen on average lifespan males vs. females (for humans. I doubt other species have been evaluated on that point far enough to give any verdict.). Women live longer on average.

Oh! Human lifespan is a separate big topic. Very few animals live long after their reproductive period is over. Human is different... Well, no matter. ;)

science is not far enough to give a clear verdict on "what is male nature / behavior" and "what is female nature / behavior" on a global all encompassing level.

Don't generalize so much. Such questions "on a global all encompassing level" is a subject of religion rather then natural science. Still correctness of a given social models can be a subject of our amateur science. :)

The starting point was that I feel Doviello pastorale suffragist concept is wrong and tried to reason my feeling according to my knowledge and ideas.

Some info. Males genetically are much more variative then females. Natural selection (i mean darvinism) works mainly through males while females provide genetical stability. It means that males are naturally programmed for dangerous tasks rather then females. BTW also it means that extraordinary person (e.g. best or worst fighter, genius or idiot) will more likely be male. Again politically incorrect? Sorry.

You know, I'm not a biologist. None of my knowledge of genetics goes beyond high school (and entry-level college courses that deal with it in passing). Yet as far as I know, all the differences between males and females lie in a single chromosome. I've never heard anything about males being more genetically diverse than females, and it quite frankly makes no intuitive sense. Do you have a link to back that up?

You mean unicellulars? It depends on formulation. If females are those who produce babies then early life was male only because they have no babies at all. :)

I recall hearing somewhere that asexual organisms are all considered female, since every member of the species is capable of giving birth.

The only genetic difference between males and females is that males have a Y chromosome instead of a second X chromosome. The Y chromosome is much smaller, and contains far fewer genes. I'm not really sure if it actually has genes on it that aren't also on the X. Sometimes an individual actually has one X and no Y or 2 X and 1 Y chromosomes. XXY have hermaphroditic qualities, and X are somewhat less females that don't really develop at puberty (or even go through it)(this is relatively common among professional gymnasts)


That XY system is true for most mammals, including humans. Birds, some fish, and some insects (moths, butterflies) reverse this mammalian pattern; male birds are ZZ while females are ZW. The W chromosome is larger than the Z, but neither one corresponds to an X or Y chromosome, suggesting the similar system arose independently. Apparently, a Platypus's chromosomes are all sex chromosomes, including a pair that correspond to XY and another pair that correspond to ZW. Some insects have haplods males and diploid females, and others have males who differ only by having but 1 X chromosome. Some reptiles have their sex determined b the temperature at which their eggs were incubated. Some arthropods only become male if infected by a certain bacteria. Some animals change gender as they mature, or under certain social conditions. Socially dominant clownfish males turn females, and socially dominate seahorse females turn male.



They say that until a certain point in our development that a a fetus is always female. Of course, female organs aren't exactly formed by then (although nipples have), so it might be better to say we are asexual until then. At a certain point, the Y chromosome causes the fetus's developing gonads to create more testosterone, which changes the way the body develops after that. I believe that there have been experiments that managed to use hormones to causes genetically a genetically female fetus develop physically as a male, and vice versa.

You know, I'm not a biologist. None of my knowledge of genetics goes beyond high school (and entry-level college courses that deal with it in passing). Yet as far as I know, all the differences between males and females lie in a single chromosome. I've never heard anything about males being more genetically diverse than females, and it quite frankly makes no intuitive sense. Do you have a link to back that up?
Not in English. :( I am not biologist too (well I am here to have a rest not to prolong my job :) ) but AFAIK the point is that a system of two X chromosomes is more stable then a system of unique one. First it has some additional data recovery mechanism (as i remember). Second the duplicated system can collect mutations keeping them inactive (without expressing them in outward). For example there are a number of genetical diseases (like haemophilia) which are passed by women but affect men only.

I recall hearing somewhere that asexual organisms are all considered female, since every member of the species is capable of giving birth.

Yeah, that is terminology. Convention.

They say that until a certain point in our development that a a fetus is always female. Of course, female organs aren't exactly formed by then (although nipples have), so it might be better to say we are asexual until then.

"We are asexual"? My god! Your respect to ancestors results in self-identification with animalculars? A plague on darvinism! :D

There was "child reproduction" without sex. coincides with natures invention of clear "death by age" if i recollect rightly. No splitting (sorry if i missed that one, im not english native-speaker hope you get the meaning. ;)). of monocellular life.
Some simple multicellular organisms are belived to have had that first (belive that was some form of simple algae or something like that forming their offspring inside their own husk and releasing them on death / dying on birth).

Anatomical differences between species is no parallel to gender preference in power (there might! be implications but i doubt that anything is clear enough to give a verdict standing up to scientific evaluation). Otherwise all human societies whould have been patriarchal (since humans have genetically / anatomically not changed dramatically since the dawn of mankind).
Which they aint (most very early societies are belived to be a bit matriarchal on base of newer probes.).
Society seems to have the larger impact here.
But not even in roughly comparable social circumstances the rulership by male gender seems to be set into stone and surely not equal (even in very comparable developed and culturally close societies (like some contries in middle, northern, and western Europe) the levels of "patriarchy" differ greathly (to the point of being near nonexist in some northern european countries. But that is secondhand knowledge on my part. Not firsthand experience. So could be much wrong.).).


And those things are not so much about beeing politically correct or incorrect. You seem to miss my point. Its about that those things are simply not known enough to give any clear basis for calling things "right" or "wrong".
Your assumptions seem at least in part to stem from derived "knowledge" by observation (which can be wrong, "like earth being flat" and "earth beeing middle of universe" have been. The assumption that males are destined to lead and male qualities qualify for leadership by nature seems to fit into that lot. Might be wrong. Might be right. That said not all derived "knowledge" has proven wrong though.)
as well as outdated sientific opinion ("We know how and why power is distributed between genders the way it is" ).
Only valid statement on current scientific basis whould be: We don't know. Everything else seems much like pretending to know something which we simply don't.
(and thats for human society only. I doubt in respect to most animals, especially nonmamals there is even extensive observation to derive concensus from. Heck, most species on our planet are belived to be unknown. So there it is: We haven't even seen / researched. So we can't know.)
Science has developed a bit last years to not anymore pretending at every possibility to be knowing things instead of guessing and derivating observations to "knowledge on base of concensus".

And thats not enough to give base for such statements.
You might feel that what is depicted here doesn't fit but that doesn't make it valid.
For calling something just misrepresented or wrong you need to know what is right. Which is not known (i doubt even remotely). Full stop.



Besides: Keal has created Erebus. What he states about Erebus is right and he can change reality there in a whim if he choses so (as seen by summoners spontaneously ceasing to exist coinciding with mages spontaneuously beeing able to summon things for example. :p).
And since Kael has explicitly spoken here (saying doviello genders are more or less equal in power in their society and Doviello women found on the battlefield alongside men) theres not much point in arguing with him. Is there?
Don't mess with powers more powerful than "The One" himself.
So in that case of in-game logic your statement seems very wrong by all accounts. ;) :D

Ya know, I haven't seen anyone adress a basic observation that I have noticed. In birds and several types of fish, reptiale and mammals(not wolves, thought) the female is much more bland then the males in color. This is to help them(and their offspring) remain concialed. The males, however, are much more vibrant in color, so that they attract mates, but, also put themselves in much more damger(they are mare easily spotted). Also, in most types of deer, only the males have antlers, so that they can fight to protect their females from both predators and other stags. Thats not to say the females can't fight, just to say that they're less well suited for it, but still fight to protect their offspring. Of course, humans don't nessicarely fite the same catagory as birds, but are much like deer. Males are heavyer and stroger(usually, but not always) then females, so that they could protect their mates. Of course is isn't so valiade in western sociay anymore, but in Erebus, sure.
Edit: of course, Kael already said Doviello are abour equal in strength and power, but the social effects could still be there.

:sarcasm:
I'm sorry, did my overly simple non-genetics answer put everyone out.

...
All of these sounds like very-very general phylosophy appliable at any point in any discussion. Yeah, absolute knowledge is approachless. And anybody at any point can be wrong... from some point of view. And sensoric experience is different than "ding an sich". And everything is in the mind of Buddha. :D So what? If you had some particular point on my topic i missed it. :( Poor English of both of us. :(

And why do you mention science? No science provide any salvation from phylosophy. ;)

And yeah, Kael have made the game. So why can't we discuss it or even something else starting from it? Kael used word "humans" not something like "erebusean sims" so I started from that.

P.S. Any social consensus on any idea is always a profanation. If the idea is particularly interesting for you, you should build your own opinion, not to use received one. And the more efforts you put for it the farther will be your ideas from the consensus. Not necessarily opposite but different: deeper.

@ Darksaber1: I guess you got that one wrong. Kael explicitly said that in Doviello society both Genders carry an about equal ammount of social! power (as in gender equality not customs and habits). Not strength of body.
And whom protects whom doesn't say anything about social power per se. (Men could be socially inferior and still protecting their mates. Does that really sound that arkward or unthinkable?)

Here a little requoute to back it up:

That is a nice story. But Doviello society is one of the least misoginistic on Erebus. They wouldn't question a female warrior or a female leader. Its all about practical concerns and there is little, if any, propriety or cultural values driving their actions.

The female recon units for the doviello was meant to represent this fact (that you will meet their women as well as their men on the battlefield) in a way that made that line visually recognizable.

The most likely civs to have female equality (in order by the most equal) are:

Svartalfar (female dominated society)
Doviello
Calabim (where the repression of their society is class based, not gender)
Sidar
Bannor
Sheaim
Hippus
Amurites (in the mage line which is their primary focus)
Luchurip (where no one wants to fight directly anyway)
Ljosalfar (in the archer line, which is their focus)

Most of the "enlightened" societies have some sort of misogany and a belief that women should be protected rather than do the protecting. That removes women from war which degrades their role in a society that lives under the threat of battle. So in a society lead by military concerns (as many are in erebus) they dont achieve the same level of respect since they aren't sharing their blood on the battlefield.

The Illians are also fairly misoginistic, but it has less to do with propiety and more to do with the threat of extinction and trying to keep the "breeders" alive.





@ It-ogo: Your last sentence sounds very fine with me. But leeds to the point of discussion about the whole thing beeing rater pointless since then since its not anymore a discussion of arguments to find concensus but a statement of opinion and own world-view (and an exchange of those).
Thats very fine with me.
Then i have to say that on that level i see the whole thing rather differently.
But i won't press that point since its my opinion only and woeing opinions is a very tendious task without much fun involved for my part (and as you allready stated we are not here to earn our living but to spend our free time as we chose), if you want to go down that route better don't demand validity for your opinion then or try to "prove" your opinion on biased and outdated science since there is no point / need in proving it at all. Your opinion is your opinion. Mine is mine.

Different experience and social context yields different opinion, which by no means needs to be right and is by definition the most biased piece of information you can find.

Also you have the "problem" that social concensus (which by no means needs to be equal to scientific concensus) is indeed shaping society (imo to a much larger extent than the "laws of nature" which are rather interpreted the way it fits said society instead of the other way around. From a society point of view: Who cares what the real "laws of nature" are as long as what we say about it fits our world-view / agenda and societies opinion / habits / customs?
As seen in earth beeing seen as flat and earth beeing said to be center of the universe for many centuries) and by no means right, unbiased or without at times rather severe implications.

But taking an individual "deeper" stance of opinion and only stating that opinion doesn't bring one forward in a discussion that has social or scientific concensus as a base. (Imo it is very improtant nontheless and the implications usually are rather much less severe than anything societies concensus yields.) You also just have to use given opinion (that doesn't mean you have to belive it) at times to be understood at all in a discussion. (try speaking chinese with a group of people who don't understand that language. Then you'll get what i mean. ;))
On an individual level its very much useful.

There you have to decide wether you want to indulge in discussion about what is known and agreed from a science / society point of view (and accept things which have been agreed on to be false or just biased derivated knowledge as well as what is simply not known and cannot be known on base of current knowledge) or if you want to just state your opinion.

Im not argueing what is social concensus since this is an international forum and we don't have one global society really (yet perhaps. Who knows what is to come in the next decades? :p) and social concensus varies wildly from country to county or even from region to region (I for one am not a strong beliver in social superiority so won't strongly advocate one scociety over another per se to the point of exusing bad / any action. Not said that i don't prefer some things over others and do have ideas in what kind of society i rather want to live in naturally.)

And i take science as a base since unlike society its a point of discussion where agreement is in any meaningful way (as of now) possible since the base is roughly agreed on no matter where you come from. That doesn't mean it dosn't fail or can't fail. Its just a good base (read here: tool) to discuss things (independently of the outcome). At least as long as concensus or compromise is aimed for.



On Kael and his game: Why argue with someone who in the games context is right because what he states is reality?
You cant win that argument really. No matter how hard you try. ;)
You say humans are / should rather be behaving .... .
He says doviello humans / scociety are ...
What will determine how erebus is like? Your opinion or what Kael said?
In Erebus Kael really is right without a measure of failure involved (until he changes his opinion. :p). Full Stop.
That whould boil down to: If you don't like it modmod it to give the doviello the entry you like and share it if you think it helps others. :D (Independently of the rest of the discussion naturally where no one knows for sure.)

Sure you can discuss it (here you seem to put to much into what i said.), its just not very useful to lecture Kael on Erebus where he has stated clearly what is. But by all means if you can draw something from it feel free to :p. Im not here to tell you what to do. ;) Thats if anything is what the board admins are for.


PS: I belive my english isn't all that poor, its just that don't know the correct english term for "monocellular splitting for reprodution".
So i wanted to make clear that it might mean something different should it make no sense to the reader (which i don't know) and since the base of our discussion was sciencentific concensus (from my point of view at least) i didn't want to transfer false terms.

...
If you say that my data is biased and outdated then I expect something more. You can say, for example, which facts are incorrect, give your facts and say how correct facts can be interpreted in "non-biased" way. To say "everybody knows that it is not true" is not enough for discussion. That was my point.

BTW I did not oppose the "social consensus".

Also you have the "problem" that social concensus (which by no means needs to be equal to scientific concensus)

Look, scientific and social consensi are very different things. They have different subjects. Science provides some rational models and defines the range of their adequate application. That is all. Then society can use it to make some generalizations, to agree what is good and bad, right and wrong. Build some viewpoints and dogmas. For example science can try to prognose if given social phenomenon can exist under the given conditions or not. That is what i tried to do. Then society can try to agree who is superior, who is minor and who is "equal". ;) That is what I did not try to do. I don't see any conflict with science in any of my statements.

And science can not have consensus concerning the "equality" of men and women because it is a subject of jurisprudence and/or ideology, not of natural science.

On Kael and his game: Why argue with someone who in the games context is right because what he states is reality?
You cant win that argument really. No matter how hard you try. ;)

Err... Well... If there is an error in the program code guys on forum say: "here is an error!" and Kael changes the game, no? Or sometimes he can say: it is not bug but feature... ;) That is the function of this forum.

The problem with getting more explicit facts that is that its very time consuming. :p
Perhaps ill take the time to do so. Won't give you warranty on that one though.
As long as i don't or someone else does back it up a bit your point sure stands. (could be turned on you as well though since you have done nothing to scientifically back up your arguments or give any evidence. So we are more or less even here.)
But at least it helps to make you take note that it might be not the way you think and make you look on your own. (if you like. ;) Could very well understand if thats to tendious for you.) Might be you are inclined to look and check your opinion.


On social concensus: Well I do. :p (I don't even see a point to argue with that base at all in an international forum. Since i am (one is) very likely to encounter people coming from a very different "social concensus" which was the main point of my post. That boils down to stating opinions all to fast. Again: There is no real worldwide "social concensus" agreed on even beyond the borders of ones country or even region.)

In that context the "you" was not directed to you in person but to "the one who makes an argument in a discussion" (could have used that word wrongly. Another possible language problem.
Although i do belive that it is ok to write it like that.). That passage uses the word "you" non-personalized. I confess that this one might be quite hard to get and very well might be language mis-use on my part ("one has the problem" instead of "you have the problem" might have been more appropriate and easier to understand i gues).
But thats not for the whole post, just for some paragraphs of it which could lead to further confusion. Given.


You are free to discuss that social concensus and its prognosis about scientific "evidence" which to my knowledge is nonexist in that regard (there are some thesis and perhaps even some theories but nothing! in the frame of modern scientific concensus to back up a prognosis from about why our societies are often patriarchal at all. Or why a given society is patriarchal / matriarchal at all.)
Prove me wrong with evidence if you can.
Also science doesn't dabble in prognosis of complex systems beyond its understanding anymore although it has done so in the past. Only moddeling anyomre (which fixes the parameters and evaluates the outcome on base of set fixed parameters).
Social concensus dabbles in prognosis. And alot. Another stark difference
(i for one dislike it the second the implications become rather severe and! no one! (or only a very tiny minority which i don't belong to :p) gets anything! positive out ouf it on net.
Which is very much the case with: "Males are destined to lead by nature" argument or any argument trying to justify structures in gender inequality (no matter which way ;)) beyond that the society itself wants the structures to be like that.
And in dire misrepresentation of what scientific concensus offers. It fact this one is completely made up by "society" on assumptions + derivating biased observation to "knowledge" and science can't back that one up. At all.
Which does a lot of harm and helps no one! male or female but a "small clique of leaders" out there.
Oh and in adition its very offensive to many people. Especially women.
And i don't take joy in deliberately harming people. And no, "society" isn't always right. Even remotely.).

I very probably won't take part in that kind of discussion at all. Might do. Will see. Agree i won't, for sure.



Problem with the situation presented here from a scientific base: The "given parameters" for Doviello society are not known to a sufficient extent for you or me so theres nothing to base a model on for you and me.
Since no one has made a scientific investigation into how do the Doviello live. :p
But Kael knows the full extent (or at least a lot more than we do) and the result (what we are presented with) is that its a rather gender-equal society.
(so if anything we have to start from that outcome and have to ask: Why is it a gender equal society? If Kaels statements don't explain that enough for you more information is required on your part. But that doesnt change the reality of Erebus)
But the result is set.
Also remember Erebus is a world of fantasy and follows different rules. (So that a human from Erebus equals a human from our world is a very far fetched assumption. Even though they are not called "erebus sims"
Plants exist in Erebus as well as on Earth. But there they have no photosynthesis on Erebus (which is what makes them plants on our world in the first place. Lifeforms that don't do photosynthesis don't qualify as plants here if im not mistaken.). Now thats what i whould call a stark difference.)


Only that Kael stated very early in the discussion that it is exactly "a feature" (unfitting word here imo) and explained the way he saw it / why it was that way.
I belive we might agree that there is a difference between hard coding and world background, so an "error in the coding / bug" doesn't really apply here. Might we?
And the function of this section of the forum is not to report bugs but to inform oneself and discuss FFH lore (and at rare times Kael drops by and hands us some Lore to discuss.). As seen by the description of the subforum.

Well, I wasn't specificly targeting the Doviello with my statement anymore than the last few post, which where un-specified arguments about genetics, not specificlly the Doviello. And I did say I knew the Doviello where equal in power, just that there might be a sub-conius social mindset from the cultures of the people that became Doviallo years ago, or even simply the thought pattern of tribes that have more dealings non-Doviello.

...
I have more and more problems understanding you. Language problems I think. Sorry if abused or something like that: had no intention.

P.S. In my country men and women are not equal in law. :blush: For example women are not conscripted to the Army and have a preference to get a child when divorced... Seems outdated? :p

First: law and reality on the ground are again two very different things. (Law sure can help but it needn't)
Also there is a stark difference again between leadership (which given is not completely equal to gender equality in its full) and most of the rest of society.
Most western + american societies seem very equal in gender for wider society but top-level ledership (even for mid-level ledership that is clearly not true anymore) is largely reserved for men (or women with which behave "like men") on the ground.

And i didn't say your society is outdated (how could I? I won't even start to make a judgment on that let alone critisize. Even though on those two points its the same here and the preference for one parent to "get the child" (no matter which of the two) indeed seems outdated (from a scientific point of view) and (even if still widely practiced) is largely critisized here. Childs contact to both parents in upbringing is important and should not be lightly severed. But thats a different matter altogether.. But they have other points where they are disadvantaged (on the ground) so not all that biased in favor of women. :p) but what you asume to be scientific concensus (if you dabble in scientific concensus at all. I might have got that one wrong and you are speaking largely / only about social concensus all the time.) seems to me like it is outdated.
So this one you got wrong for sure.

Again: Just for that reason i don't dabble in social concensus. And won't discuss that here for mentioned reasons.
Again in short: Unlike you i do have a problem with social consensus and its misuse of percived "scienctific concensus" (and scientific concensus is nonexist in that regard) to back up its customs, rules and habits with impunity if the implications are harmful. Which is the case with gender inequality and justification of it.

Can we swing this conversation back toward exploring the civilizations? This is starting to have that ping-pong feel to it.

Let's just say, men usually fight in the Doviello army, while women don't normally. Without Kael stepping in and saying why this is, be it subconscious behavior or what, the reason is unknowable.
Please can we agree on this? This thread is starting to rather aggressive.:scared:
On a new footing, are the Kuriotate as accepting of gender as they are as accepting of other species, or not?

We're not here to agree, we're here to discuss. :)

Kael said, "Its all about practical concerns and there is little, if any, propriety or cultural values driving their actions." That's good enough, unless you want him to explain what societal reifications led them to have no societal reifications.

As for the Kuriotates, I'd say probably, but I haven't given it much thought yet.

On a new footing, are the Kuriotate as accepting of gender as they are as accepting of other species, or not?

Probably, they put tolerance of culture above liberties... let's say, for example, the Centaurs are hardcore patriarchs. The Kuriotates would make no effort to change this, instead accepting the Centaur ways. This would remain the same if the Centaurs were egalitarians with perfect gender equality; the Kurioates would not change this to match their own beliefs. So it would depend on the species. (In the case of the Centaurs, I imagine the former, patriarchy, to be more likely, though I'm not sure why.)
I can imagine the Kuriotate humans, however, would be only a few decades behind Western culture, if that, in terms of gender equality. Women could hold any job a man could, legally, but there would be a strong cultural tendency for men and women to go into certain jobs. Those who broke those cultural norms would have to stand out to avoid ridicule. A woman could, for instance, join the Kuriotate military, but she'd be subject to, at best, harrassment and derision that would be technically against the rules, but ignored by superiors.

I can imagine the Kuriotate humans, however, would be only a few decades behind Western culture, if that, in terms of gender equality. Women could hold any job a man could, legally, but there would be a strong cultural tendency for men and women to go into certain jobs. Those who broke those cultural norms would have to stand out to avoid ridicule. A woman could, for instance, join the Kuriotate military, but she'd be subject to, at best, harrassment and derision that would be technically against the rules, but ignored by superiors.
Ya, that sounds true to me. Of course only Kael can say for ceirtan, but his idea probably wouldn't be to diffrent, unless way off in our guesses.

A woman could, for instance, join the Kuriotate military, but she'd be subject to, at best, harrassment and derision that would be technically against the rules, but ignored by superiors.

In most armies before the New Age (and sometimes even after) harassment (not sexual) is a necessary part of the system. Newcomer (or those who is suspected to be weak) is always strongly harassed untill he proves by his actions that he is strong. Or goes. Or sometimes even dies. To survive he shoud become aggressive and despiteous i.e. good fighter. Now, with contemporary weaponry a soldier is enough to be disciplined so the situation in most cases is different.

Edit: For example, as I remember (maybe i am wrong) in British army fightings between the soldiers in free time were not against the rules (and even encouraged) until the middle of XX century.

Ya, I know how in the 19th century, the British military whould hold huge army vs. navey "football"* matchs, which sometimes left people dead, and often could only be ended by the marines or dragoons forcable breaking it up. Of course, in some places even civilianze wound-up involved in the fighting. This and prize fighting where encouraged, because it keep the soldier fit to fight, and meant the sailors and infantry were constantly thrying to be beater than the other.
*huge inter service fights

Until quite recently (last ten/fifteen years) if two individuals in the British Army had a serious grievance with each other, they could take their argument into a boxing ring. So long as the proper conventions of an amateur match were observed, ie refereed by a professionally qualified ref, round limits etc, and so long as it was not an enlisted man vs an officer (and officer vs officer was frowned upon), it was considered entirely above board.

In selection for the Parachute Regiment, soldiers participate in 'milling' or boxing to build up aggression and tolerance for pain. Unlike the above, there are no rank restrictions on milling as the officers have to prove themselves as tough or tougher than their men. Female soldiers cannot (or have yet to) attend P company.

And of course, British soldiers and sailors have never been shy of settling their differences violently in their own time, frequently after the consumption of alcohol....

The appearance of significant numbers of female soldiers (outside of infantry and armour units) in recent years has done nothing to change this, although the annual Army/Navy rugby match is a lot less violent off the pitch then you might think.