Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Draco18s]

quote:Originally posted by Xombie:
<STRONG>-Females are Military and Hunters(and males are not or less likely to be).</STRONG>

Why does this need to be true?

[Othob Rithol]

Better question:

How does the debate over the existence of a matriarchy in earth history have any relevance to deciding if it should be included in a fantasy game or not?

I scoured the net trying to find a concise definition of matriarchy. Guess what? NONE EXISTS. If the professional scholars cannot come to some sort of agreement, what makes you think you can here?  

I for one suggest this idea as a bloat. Definitely not necessary, but would improve the world depth. Are you really telling me that because the female households of the Yakut are in turn answerable to a male dominated tribe/clan that DF should not have amazons?

[Javis]

quote:Originally posted by Draco18s:
<STRONG>
   * The traditional Nair community in Kerala, South India fits the new definition of 'matrifocality'. (Nowadays this system is rarely practiced. The members of the Nair community now live in nuclear families). A traditional Nair matrifocal family is called a Tarawad or Marumakkathayam family. A traditional Nair Tarawad consists of a mother and her children living together with their mother's eldest surviving brother or the eldest surviving maternal uncle, who is called Karanavan. The Karnavan exercises full powers over the affairs of the family. Until recently, the main significance of this system was that the heirs to the property were the women in the family and the men were only allowed to enjoy the benefits during their lifetime, not being able to pass any property as a posession. The naming system of the Nair community had the prefix of their mother's 'family name' and they adopted the maternal uncle’s surname. The Marumakkathayam system of Kerala was a legal right which determined inheritance through the female line. Thus if a family property was to be partitioned all female members would receive one share and all male members who were their direct offspring would receive one share. Thus a brother might receive only one share while his sister and her children (and grandchildren by her daughters) would each receive a share.</STRONG>

I learned something new today.  This sounds a lot like it inspired the post-apocalyptic society in Heinlein's novel 'Farnham's Freehold".

[Xombie]

quote:Originally posted by Draco18s:
<STRONG>

Why does this need to be true?</STRONG>

Because army is a *real* power, my friend, and it's practically impossible to make army of males with females on officer and general positions. If army if fully female, our ancient civilisation suffers from serious demographic and social problems. That's becomes even worse if there is some war. Men don't breed themselves. And since females is generally weaker they would lose most wars anyway.
Today situation with females and army is somewhat different, but because of other reasons(mostly hi-tech).

And hunters, well, this part can be ignored if we speak of society with agriculture, but before that they provided important resources and could choose the music.

And i think it's time to end this offtopic.

[Yourself]

quote: Because army is a *real* power, my friend, and it's practically impossible to make army of males with females on officer and general positions. If army if fully female, our ancient civilisation suffers from serious demographic and social problems.

If, as you say, such a thing has never existed, what evidence do you have to support your hypothesis that such a military wouldn't work?

Also, on a somewhat unrelated note, are you familiar with words?

[Dorten]

quote:Originally posted by Xombie:
<STRONG>
DF is a fantasy and maybe it doesn't matter, but [MATRIACHY] never existed anywhere in history, only in fiction stories.</STRONG>

You are absolutely right: IT DOESN'T MATTER. DF is not a real world. If you want to discuss real world do it in PM!

Back to the issue: I'm for it. Just a cosmetics but still could add a lot. Concider female rulers refusing to give quests to male adventurers, or just disregard them as lower beings and vice-versa

[Xombie]

It's a idio.. er... sexism. Shame on you.

[Dorten]

It's not me, who acts that way. But imagined NPCs from a computer game. I want the sexism to be implemented in a game, because I think it would fit into fantasy setting. I'm not for it in real world. Stop mixing these two together!

[JT]

I'm all for matriarchic societies and patriarchic societies.  They would both add additonal points of contention for the armies to fight over.  Matriarchies would be at odds with patriarchies and equal societies, patriarchies with matriarchies and equal societies, and equal societies would think of patriarchies and matriarchies as moronic.

As long as there are patriarchies, matriarchies, and equal societies, the game isn't making a political statement; all it's doing is diversifying the game world.  Anything to do that is a good thing, as long as it doesn't make the game impossible to understand.

[Awayfarer]

I think this would just cause headaches. A big, big aspect of "-archy's" is division of labor and that would likely mean...

1: 50% of your population is unavailable for military service. You'll actually have to find work for those cheesemakers and dyers that aren't
2: 50% of your population may be unavailable for any given job. This will suck if you need, say, a brewer and the only one with that skill is of the inappropriate gender.

And if we're not talking about division of labor, and if this doesn't have any impact on the game other than adding a tag or just making it such that rulers/nobles can only be of certain genders, whats the point?

I think you might be better off adding the matriarchy/patriarchy idea here http://www.dwarffortresswiki.net/index.php/Challenge_Builds

[ April 16, 2008: Message edited by: Awayfarer ]

[JT]

I imagine it'd be more along the lines of nobility.  The commoners could be whatever.  Nobles would all be male in a patriarchy, or female in a matriarchy, and you couldn't assign a female sheriff or broker or whatever in a patriarchy.

Division of labour is unlikely, but military and peace office is a form of power in a society; I could see restrictions on entering military service for the wrong gender.  It wouldn't be a hard restriction, just a noble requirement.  If your military has 50 men and 5 women in a matriarchic society, your mayor is going to be very upset, but it doesn't prevent you from doing it if it's the best thing to do.  In my opinion, this would do more good than bad because it would encourage you to diversify your industries.

[Mikademus]

quote:Originally posted by JT:
<STRONG>I'm all for matriarchic societies and patriarchic societies.  They would both add additonal points of contention for the armies to fight over.  Matriarchies would be at odds with patriarchies and equal societies, patriarchies with matriarchies and equal societies, and equal societies would think of patriarchies and matriarchies as moronic.

As long as there are patriarchies, matriarchies, and equal societies, the game isn't making a political statement; all it's doing is diversifying the game world.  Anything to do that is a good thing, as long as it doesn't make the game impossible to understand.</STRONG>

In addition, I want Eunucharchies, Transsexualarchies, Genderconfusedarchies and Neutrumarchies!

[Arkose]

quote:Originally posted by Mikademus:
<STRONG>In addition, I want Eunucharchies, Transsexualarchies, Genderconfusedarchies and Neutrumarchies!</STRONG>

And Gender-Confused Transsexual Eunucharchies, in unending conflict with the Matri-Patri-Neutrumarchy Trifecta!

[JT]

Eunucharchy actually does sound like an interesting concept for a culture -- figures in a certain voluntary position could be required to forego sex the hard way...

However, that'd be so incredibly rare that making it a civ option in Dwarf Fortress would probably make it occur far too often.

[ April 18, 2008: Message edited by: JT ]

[briktal]

I guess you could use a nice set of tags for inheritance law in the civ though as a bloat.