1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Oh, Those Erebusian Women

Discussion in 'Fall from Heaven Lore' started by loocas, May 31, 2008.

  1. it-ogo

    it-ogo Hedgehog

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    589
    If you say that my data is biased and outdated then I expect something more.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".

    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.

    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.
     
  2. Blackmantle

    Blackmantle Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    897
    Location:
    Berlin, Europe
    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.
     
  3. Darksaber1

    Darksaber1 Secret Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,220
    Location:
    Where you least expect me
    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.
     
  4. it-ogo

    it-ogo Hedgehog

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    589
    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
     
  5. Blackmantle

    Blackmantle Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    897
    Location:
    Berlin, Europe
    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.
     
  6. loocas

    loocas Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    439
    Location:
    Seattle
    Can we swing this conversation back toward exploring the civilizations? This is starting to have that ping-pong feel to it.
     
  7. Darksaber1

    Darksaber1 Secret Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,220
    Location:
    Where you least expect me
    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?
     
  8. loocas

    loocas Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    439
    Location:
    Seattle
    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.
     
  9. KillerClowns

    KillerClowns Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,139
    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.
     
  10. Darksaber1

    Darksaber1 Secret Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,220
    Location:
    Where you least expect me
    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.
     
  11. it-ogo

    it-ogo Hedgehog

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    589
    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.
     
  12. Darksaber1

    Darksaber1 Secret Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,220
    Location:
    Where you least expect me
    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
     
  13. roguetroopr1981

    roguetroopr1981 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7
    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.
     

Share This Page