Turakian: Indusharan and women - typo / errata?

[arcady]

I've found two references to women in the Indusharan culture that seeem to be in conflict with each other....

Turakians Age, page 130, second paragraph under the 'Society' heading notes:

"Like the other Indusharan realms, the Halroans follow the Indusharan interpretation of the High Church, which a few Ardunans regard as blasphemous or scandalous. Among other things, their faith allows a man to have up to six wives, depending on his shattri ([see text box on caste system]) and ability to support them. A woman of independant means may, likewise, have up to six husbands if she chooses."

Compare the part in bold to page 170, the section on women, second column:

"In Khoria, Thun, Indushara, Vuran, and Talarshand, women are essentially regarded as property. Daughter belong to their fathers until marriage, and thereafter to their husbands. A woman generally cannot own anything other than personal property ... and has virtually no legal rights. A woman cannot travel without the accompaniment of a man (usually a relative) ... Women who defy the laws or customs usually find themselves scorned and shunned (at best), whipped, or even stoned to death."

etc...

Of course, other than the travel restriction and the whipped or stoned to death, this second quote is identical to women in the USA and UK before the 1920s.


However, either way, the two passages seem on the face of them to be in conflict.

How should we read this? Is one of them a typo, do they mesh in some way we should try to explain, or is there some other interpretation for this?

I should note that one of the three Indusharan kingdoms is ruled by a woman who siezed the throne when her husband died and has not, as yet, been deposed. Nothing in the races section hints either way on this, although Indusharan women dress in a manner more revealing than most. Nothing in the nations other than what I quoted seemed to hint at it either way.

On the other hand, I may have missed something, having found this at 1:30 am last night right before going to bed...

Thoughts?

[Koshka]

Without doing a full reread of the book ...

There's plenty of examples of titles/wealth passing through the female line in real-world history, and the caste system of the Indusharans should limit the options for marrying off a heiress. Yes, the king can "promote" someone to a higher caste, but is he going to do that every single time one of his nobles dies without a male heir so he can wed that noble's daughter off to someone born at a lower rank? Personally, I doubt it; check the background of Magna Carta.

Possibly what's going on here is a heiress situation. She's marrying as low as she can get away with so she maintains control over the money (the first quote seems to imply that the woman is supporting her husbands), but because she's married she's OK on a social level.

Or, the Indusharan culture has simply gotten more conservative over time. Maybe a few thousand years ago Indusharan women had more options for supporting themselves (and their husbands); and while those options have gradually eroded away the church laws haven't been changed because it wouldn't be appropriate to change them. ( [Tevye voice] Tradition! [/Tevye voice] )

[arcady]

The note with the woman who took charge of a kingdom was just that - she did it of her own volition through a declaration that she would be the regent of the former King's unborn child within her womb. When it was revealed that she was in fact not pregnant, while there may have been scandal, her rulership was not challenged, and she simply declared that she was now Queen.

The date for that was set to xx96, and the CY is suppossedly 00, so she's been ruler for 5 years in peace.

She's just an example that the Indusharans might not be as sexist as 170 claims.

170 mentions the Indusharans as sexist, but within the text of the Indusharan culture and the Indusharan kingdoms, nothing ever repeats that, and there are in fact a number of counter examples.

That makes me wonder if some other culture was supposed to be typed on page 170 where the word Indusharan shows up (twice, in single word references each time within a larger list), or if several sections within the culture and the kingdoms need to instead be put into some kind of 'context'.

This might perhaps even be a question for Steve Long... ?

In short:
Do the Indusharans appear on the list by mistake, belonging instead in one of the other lists on that page?

Or;
Should the notes in the Indusharan culture and kingdoms be instead filtered through an understanding of which list they appeared in on page 170 (namely, the 'repressive list')?

If the answer is the second option, at that point we have a community discussion over how to best do that filtering - discussing just what results. :p

[bblackmoor]

Among other things, their faith allows a man to have up to six wives, depending on his shattri ([see text box on caste system]) and ability to support them. A woman of independant means may, likewise, have up to six husbands if she chooses.

That's going to make for some very complicated family trees.

Personally, I'd opt for the Indusharans being less oppressive. There are enough other countries where women are property, after all.

[SirViss]

...
She's just an example that the Indusharans might not be as sexist as 170 claims.
...

It could just be that the woman that took control of the Kingdom is a singularly exceptional woman, like Hatshepsut. I beleive that the ancient Egyptians would probably be concidered sexist by us, but she managed to hold the throne the Kingdom for quite a while, and it prospered under her reign.

But it never hurts to ask if a mistake might not have been made. :D

[arcady]

Tibet had one woman to a group of related husbands in the more rural (by their standards) parts. It was a situation where brothers would share a wife, and I forget if it was from poverty or female survival issues or some third factor - info is probably online.

In many cultures lineage is traced in a more logical method than the west uses - through the mother. A woman always knows who her children are after all. But the Indusharans allow men to have multiple wives also, so another form of lineage complication would arise. That said, Hebrews in the ancient world had multiple wives, and that is a culture that still traces lineage in the sensible way - matrilenially. :p So if we've got any jewish scholars on board here, they might be able to answer how this worked 'in the old days of a few thousand years ago'.

I'd call the queen an exception, save that when combined with the multiple husbands, the casual fashions, and the lack of mention outside of page 170 for any negative status for women, it made me wonder.

Perhaps a counter to my concern, I couldn't find anything for the other kingdoms in the list either in their entries, however unlike the Indusharans the other entries had nothing indicating any empowering roles for women either - so it could counter my concern, or it could back it by having the exceptions that none of the others do.

-shrug-


While I can easily fit in a woman Queen in a male dominated society in my mind, it is a little harder when the women are just property, and harder when they can have harems of men. The unusual fashions of the women hint at more liberty for them, but could possibly go either way. On those exceptions, I'm not sure how to visualize this culture anymore.

[Hermit]

Pardon a siderail
I suppose I should have started a new thread as this is a different area, but as the contridiction does involve the ladies...

On page 223 in TA, the fourth tenant of the Hargashite faith that differs from the High Church teachings is that "There are no only Hargeshite priestesses, only priests..."

and yet, in the Haresite Empire of Vashkor itself, on page 102's sidebar, mention is made of Ebistan Tarthu "The only isolated temple willing to train priestesses."

So, I wonder what gives? Could there be a hersey within a small section of the faith itself that's doomed to be wiped out or lead to reform?