I had an e-mail exchange with a good friend tonight. He had shared the special text that I have been working on in secret that is a new graphic design presentation to teach people RPGs with his better half. She was intrigued. Especially with the idea of a female dominant society that Novarium puts forward. She had lots of questions about how the social structure has changed with women on top of the food chain.
Of course, I have thought about this a LOT. However, I haven't written a lot yet, because I have been working on more important things. Like you know... the actual ruleset. :)
Anyway, the idea of someone intrigued to know more has got me thinking in this area and will probably drive some writing in the near future.
To boost the signal, let me crowd-source you a bit. I would love to hear any thoughts you have on what aspects of female gender subjugation would be easily ported over to males.
Some of the things I have already thought of and worked into my draft text:
- Property rights can only be held by women, direct inversion of traditional system. Need another name for Dowager though. Men are excluded from holding offices in the church as well. Considering this is a feudal system, this means no political rights. Demi-humans (regardless of gender) also lack these rights.
- A man's testimony is worth less than a woman's, thus you need two male witnesses in a legal proceeding to counter the testimony of a single female.
- Exclusion from skilled professions due to inability to get apprenticeship, guild memberships, etc.
- Men are subject to domestic violence from their spouse and this is almost always impossible to resolve with a legal solution. It must simply be borne by the man.
- Matriarchs are responsible for the moral rectitude of their house and they wield the same kind of social controls domestically that men have done with their daughters in history.
- Men are treated as inherently irresponsible, incapable of rational thought, having poor judgement, having terrible money management, having a lack of frugality, and so on.
- Relegation to household maintenance as primary responsibility, only this version is worse than women because men are also leaned upon for strength-intensive tasks as well such as construction and farming.
- Powerful women keep men as concubines (should I change this word? it doesn't sound as bad as dowager at least) purely for sexual purposes. Due to the inability to prove parentage of the father, this also allows infertile husbands to be bypassed, thus ensuring the survival of the lineage.
- Women are capable of adopting other females as legitimate children, even if their parent is alive, very much like in the Roman tradition. There is no such thing as a "bastard". Men can only be adopted if their natural parent is dead and they are treated as if natural born as well, though this does them no favors.
- Finally, this is not something from actual history but it does blend in serfdom. I think it is a nice unique add-on of my own. Large land-holding elites (of course, females) may take on large numbers of singular male tenants in a form of indenture where the elite maintains title on the land and rents it to the male that works it in a manner similar to serfdom. However, the elite also maintains social control of the males and it responsible for their moral rectitude as if their mother. They must approve any marriage that is entered into, the men becoming kind of like the female child from history that is used as a bargaining chip to secure political alliances and treaties. These men are referred to as the noble's "stallions" to differentiate them from actual children of the female.
So, how can I go beyond this? Hit me with your creativity, folks.
I think the ideas are at their strongest when they aren't just revesing real history and real life. I wonder then if your world would be more engaging and realistically imagined if true power and rights belong with your female only magic-users, and considering the implications rather than reversing everything. So it is possible inheritance is for women only but perhaps only noble titles are past from one spell casting woman to another. The men might still be used as fighters.
ReplyDeleteI think you might get away with rules stating only women are spell casters and noble land owners and then leave it to the GM to outline this effect on their world. It is less limiting or off putting this way, and since you can run more than one character allows a great deal of freedom.
These are just counter thoughts Greg, to make you either more convinced of your choices or provide stimulus for more.
One (controversial) note regarding domestic violence: Domestic violence with a male victim (in the real world)is much rarer than domestic violence with a female victim. Partly because the average male tends to be stronger and more physically intimidating that the average female*.
ReplyDeleteHOWEVER:
In your society there would probably be strict penalties for a man striking a woman in a domestic context.
Also, in your society, there's a good chance the woman can throw the man around the room with her magic.
So incidents of domestic violence with a male victim might be more common in your magical society that you might think.
At least, working on the principle that women are dominant your society because (at least some) of them have access to magic and men don't.
*Yes social factors such as the legacy of a formerly male-dominated society are important when considering why male victims of domestic violence are rarer than female in real life. but we're talking in a fantasy context.
Interestingly, as real-world society has become a more equal playing field, incidents of male victims of Domestic Violence are on the rise- though it's hard to say whether this is because it happens more often these days, or if victims are simply now more likely to come forward.
Other things you'd probably find happening in your world would be
Inheritance through the female line.
Family names derived from that of the mother.
An emphasis on intelligence, magic-strength and empathy as a socialy praise-worthy traits rather than strength and courage.
And (another controversial one) fewer but bloodier wars and deadly political intrigue. Not because theres actually any real world evidence to support that female rulers are less likely to go to war(just witness Maggie Thatcher, Empress Maude and Eleanor of Aquitaine for example) but because it would thematically fit the politics of your setting.
Just suggestions based on items in your post:
ReplyDelete* Property (as a concept) is interlocked with social and legislative recognition of a woman's presence. The base unit that the law recognizes is (what we would call) a household. Old tradition ties this to the presence of a matron (i.e. a household that doesn't provide home to at least one woman is dissolved in the eyes of the law)
* A man's testimony doesn't need to be worth less than a woman's - the legal system might only accept the testimony of a male that is corroborated by a woman.
* Professional exclusion would run into a wall, in my opinion. Much more useful to the culture at large to have gender-based selection of profession. There would be no guilds or unions of any kind - strictly outlawed.
* Domestic violence - I'm not sure that this (as we recognize it) occurs in all cultures. A female focused culture would probably have evolved a means of 'trading' males between households. Perhaps just as a 'property' requires the presence of a woman, the base unit of wealth is a male (that can do labor).
* Moral rectitude - This is also problematic, as the concept of morality is a convention that is not universal. As above, an 'untradable' male is probably the lowest social 'state' a male could be in.
* Male irrationality - rational judgment, management of resources, might not be seen in this light: it might be seen as 'impersonating a female' and carry a more harsh response.
* 'Relegation'? Why would keeping a household be seen as beneath other duties? If 'household' duties and agricultural labor and construction were all in the same set of expectations for males, then the term 'stewardship' might be a very holy thing indeed. These would all represent simple paths for a male to increase his inherent value!
* Concubinage? Too complicated - need a simpler treatment. In this culture, the glyph for the word 'guarantee' is comprised of three glyphs for the word 'man'. A household *must* maintain a female presence or be dissolved, so the ruling 'queen' would definitely have a 'stable' of males with the goal of siring a female child. Sexual contact would be highly ritualized around provable paternity: a female would want *certainty* that a particular male was responsible for a female child and the males would garner *significant* prestige for fathering females.
* With the base unit of a 'household', no bastards would be tolerated. Continuity of lineage would need to be provable.
* Manorism: If, as above, no guilds or unions are tolerated, a certain 'ratio' of females to males within a household could raise suspicion and lower social status.
Minor biological changes could have massive impact on such a structure (i.e. ovulation during intercourse like felines, 40 day menstrual cycles as opposed to 28, etc.) so it may be worth resolving those details before fleshing out the cultural development around them.
There may be two 'languages' running parallel - one female oriented one for official matters, and a separate one for males more focused on tasks and goals.
Males and females who couldn't 'fit' into such an order may be yet a third 'sliver' of society - maintaining frontiers and defense. If not, then adjustments would have to be made to the above with overall survival and response to adversity in mind.
Awesome comments guys. Wow
ReplyDeleteMight have already been suggested, but unequal access to education. Women are taught how to be the thinkers and decision makers, and men are given roles as the only thing they are good at: hard labor.
ReplyDelete:)
Interesting concept. Curious to see where you go with it.
Looks like good stuff, I'll throw in a few more.
ReplyDeleteIf all women are magic users, I would suspect it seriously degrades the value of any "unspecialized" labor, since you can probably magic it done faster and with less hassle than having someone do it. Likewise though, very skilled and specialized labor becomes extremely valueable, regardless of the field its in.
Skilled labor and tasks would be its own specialized education, coupled on Danielles comments.
I don't think I'd necessairly crunch down too much on the value of agriculture or and housekeeping tasks. The former despite how "low" anyone wants to make it is incredible important, without food we all die in relatively short order. It's a keystone. The latter would fit into the specialized labor I was talking about above, people who can really manage the purse strings (as lots of women did in Europe) are worth some serious money just on being able to manage a power base.
As for the DV comments, it cuts both ways (And always has, it's just never really been reported by guys.. nothing good ever comes of it.) Being able to deal magically levels the playing field and makes Gregs idea really "work" persay.
Dowry, hasn't been mentioned that I saw but no further explanation needed.
The varying languages Scottz mentioned is some hot shit, I would definetely go with that. Maybe it's handled more telepathically though.
I'd personally add that all Scottz suggestions are hot shit -and everyone else's are damn good as well.
ReplyDelete@D. Brian: Many thanks!
ReplyDelete@Grey: Telepathy... damn, that's cool. A matron/queen can brag about how 'silent' her house is. Only a man's work should be heard - not the man! Imagine the females in power 'breeding in' psionics into the male 'steward' class. A whole new layer of intrigue and competition/warfare among the 'drones' of the households!
There would be subtle things, too. General entertainment would not be geared towards the general populace, but towards women. Only certain books, plays, or songs would be for men, and since women would completely dominate the arts, men's entertainment would only deal with the issues that women think men are concerned about. You know, like catching a woman, or getting the crops harvested on time.
ReplyDeleteAny medium created for the general public would actually be written for a female audience. It would be rare for any play, for example, to be written for a male audience, and the ones that were would be specifically advertised as a "man's play," something in which women would not be interested in.
A couple of points. First, domestic violence is statistically nearly a dead heat between men and women as far as victim/assaulter. Second, what you are describing is similar to several real societies and most have the same problems.
ReplyDeleteWhen men are disenfranchised, they do not become subservient and meek, they also do not become useful producers. Men in those low-return societies tend to become low-investment.
Given a lack of control over their children they neglect their children. Given a lack of return on their work, they work just as little as they can. Make men objects of lustful desire rather than sources of support for wives and children and they will primp and preen like peacocks for attention. Take away men's ability to control their own actions and they will cede that authority to others acting like ungovernable teenagers when they are not under direct control.
The odd part of this is that the men who are frequently out of control must be kept in check by other men. A force of men will be needed to keep the average man in check and a set of checks and balances used to maintain control over both groups. A good analogy is that you need prison guards to control the inmates but then you must have checks on the guards' authority or they wind up running the prison for their own benefit.
Some societies have solved this problem by having the young men turn their aggressions elsewhere or by providing them with other young men to take out their aggressions on. Still other societies give the young men young women of low status but provide sustenance level support for the women.
So instead of inverting the male/female paradigm you get something else entirely. Male does not equal female and vice versa any more than you would get the same results if you used the bulls for milking and the cows (oxen) for plowing.
To be continued,
Don
Part Deux,
ReplyDeleteSome concrete suggestions,
1. With absolutely no certainty of paternity men would give their support and time to their sisters' children. This has occurred in many societies most notably Native American. If they are denied this they will simply give less/no willing support to their own children.
2. Men will turn to other men for emotional support and will use very low status females or other males for sexual needs. There may even be a subset of male society that is overtly transvestite and willingly or unwillingly homosexual. Again this has happened in many societies.
3. Men will be seen as lazy, gossipy, vain, untrustworthy and manipulative. Thus the point about not being able to own property or give testimony in court. Perhaps a lesser inheritance would go to sons, widowed husbands, etc.
4. Men will commit more crimes, cause more problems, and fights between each other. This is especially true if there is no outlet for male aggression. This will either require that either; a: 'Boys will be boys' type of attitude with an understanding that men are going to engage in some 'mischief'. This can still include penalties but it is considered out of their true control, or b: A strict enforcement system with severe penalties for getting caught.
5. Men will focus their attentions on the immediate gain and hedonism to the extent that is possible. This is another place where inverting men/women simply does not produce similar results. Men cannot be certain of their mate's offspring being their own in the best of circumstances thus the stronger penalties associated with female than male infidelity in a traditional society. Men will invest very little time and effort into their children. They will become very promiscuous, as above this might be with low status females or males forced into these roles. Women do not behave these ways when they are in the same positions.
6. Men will have no thought for the future, will not save, money and avoid owning property that can be taken away. Thus they will not save money or put any proprietary care into their possessions other than jewelery, clothing, and self decoration (often ostentatious or made from ostentatious and perishable material like feathers, paints, wood, etc.).
The military will be 'neutered' in effectiveness/influence. Do not fall into the Xena 'Warrior Princess' trap. Some societies do have women warriors but they are a very small minority of the women. And a military can be very 'showy' without being effective or having influence. If they go with a showy ostentatious military, they can allow the young men to get out their aggressions against other young men without having any real gain or consequence.
If it is a high energy/time investment farming area (European style), groups of men will work the fields as little as possible. Women will employ other men to oversee the men. If it is a low investment/energy farming they will do as little as possible and spend the rest of the day as indolently as they can manage (African style).
Men will regard their wives as not their 'true' family but will consider their birth family their true family. Most men will be considered untrustworthy for watching small children. Boys between 8-10 might even be sent away or to the men's quarters. In these situations the boys are often groomed, sexualized, and abused.
Just a few things that occur in societies that are either matriarchal, matrilineal, matrilocal and/or low father investment/responsibility.
There are few other things but this is long enough.
Don
NSFW
ReplyDeleteBEWARE NSFW
You guys might want to check out this site for a humorous look at the subjugation of men.
Warning- As if I hadn't done this already but NSFW
http://oglaf.com/badfalcon/1/
No, I am not going to link directly. Somebody might click on it by accident!
Hi. I am here because you added me on Google+, and I was trying to figure out who you are. Then I saw this post. Awhile back, I read a really good blog post about how matriarchies are done wrong in scifi/fantasy, so I figured I'd link it. Many of the comments are also worth reading.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I want to say, what Kurthl33t said, times a billion.
And to add my own (tiny) idea: There's this meme in internet feminist culture, "the Patriarchy hurts men too." Mainly, as far as I can tell, through gender policing. Feminine pursuits are considered to be less valuable, so men are strongly discouraged (by other men) from engaging in those activities. Adding this sort of thing could make your setting more complex and believable, I think. Just because most of the power is centered on women, doesn't mean there aren't bad things about the society for women. (I think some other commenters vaguely touched on this, anyway, but I thought I'd put it out there explicitly.)
Oh Darla, I read that post already and YOU WERE A MAJOR INSPIRATION TO ME ON THIS! YOU ROCK!
ReplyDeleteOh wait, I thought you were saying you wrote that article. But that's not what you said. oops.
ReplyDeleteWell, you still rock. And that post was still a huge inspiration to me.
Have you given any thought to what happens to a sterile female in this society? I am making the assumption here that one source of a woman's pride is the girl-children she bears to continue the family line (she's a matriarch of a large clan).
ReplyDeleteWhat of the woman sterilized through accident or illness? Because she carries a horrible genetic trait? Would she become cast-off from the female society? Is she used for 'relief' for the males?
For that matter, what's the justice system like? Is there an underclass of 'non-persons' that have lost the right to be women? Burned out mages?
Just throwing some things out there.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete