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]

Re: Turakian: Indusharan and women - typo / errata?

 

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]

Re: Turakian: Indusharan and women - typo / errata?

 

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:

1. Do the Indusharans appear on the list by mistake, belonging instead in one of the other lists on that page?
    
   Or;
   
2. 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.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Turakian: Indusharan and women - typo / errata?

 

Among other things' date=' 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]

Re: Turakian: Indusharan and women - typo / errata?

 

...

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.

[arcady]

Re: Turakian: Indusharan and women - typo / errata?

 

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. 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]

Re: Turakian: Indusharan and women - typo / errata?

 

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?

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Turakian: Indusharan and women - typo / errata?

 

I apologise for the thread necromancy, but I've recently been studying The Turakian Age in detail, and find discussions of the setting interesting, especially if I feel I now have something to contribute.

 

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?

 

If I felt the need to reconcile these points, I would probably start by focussing on the statement, "A woman generally cannot own anything other than personal property..." as implying exceptions. I think the Indusharan concept of shattri, or social caste, could be the distinguishing factor here. While among the lower shattri women may indeed amount to chattel, those few of high shattri (which "a woman of independent means" would pretty much have to be by Indusharan definition) may have far greater freedoms and legal rights.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Turakian: Indusharan and women - typo / errata?

 

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?

 

Well, this is "the only isolated temple willing to train priestesses," so it's already exceptional. Note that Ebistan Tarthu is also described as "one of the Empire's most important outposts in the north-eastern frontier." Often the standards in the heartland of a country differ or are more relaxed on the frontier.

 

Ebistan Tarthu reportedly trains many of the Hargeshite missionaries to foreign countries. Perhaps a certain number of women priests among the missionaries are seen as making the faith more palatable and persuasive in countries where women are treated more liberally. OTOH the tactic could be a way to move more radical clerics, including feminists, out to the fringes of Vashkor, and even out of the Empire altogether.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Turakian: Indusharan and women - typo / errata?

 

Of course' date=' 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.[/quote']

Well that certainly isn't true. Women had all the same rights as men except for one - the right to vote. At least in the US.

[Yansuf]

Re: Turakian: Indusharan and women - typo / errata?

 

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.

 

Out of curiosity, whatever gave you the idea that women were considered property in the US until 1920?

Because it is NOT true.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Turakian: Indusharan and women - typo / errata?

 

arcady hasn't posted here in about a year and a half -- I wouldn't count on questions addressed to him receiving a response any time soon.

 

You can blame me for reviving the thread.

[Markdoc]

Re: Turakian: Indusharan and women - typo / errata?

 

Well that certainly isn't true. Women had all the same rights as men except for one - the right to vote. At least in the US.

 

Out of curiosity, whatever gave you the idea that women were considered property in the US until 1920?

Because it is NOT true.

 

It's not true that women were considered property in the US of the 1920's, - or any period apart from the unfortunates condemned to slavery - but it's also not true that they otherwise had the same legal rights as men up until that point. It was not until 1900 that married women were allowed to own property, not until 1947 that they received the right to sit on juries or represent at law, not until the 1950's that they received the right to sign contracts and take bank loans and not until the late '60's that legal restrictions on employment were removed.

 

There were thousands of laws reducing women's legal rights including some bizarre ones - until 1968, any women convicted of a felony in Pennsylvania automatically received the maximum possible penalty, in many states women were not allowed to work at night, or to take a job if their husband had one - all kinds of stuff like that. Growing up in more enlightened times, it's hard to recall that much of this stuff was only recently repealed.

 

cheers, Mark

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Turakian: Indusharan and women - typo / errata?

 

It was not until 1900 that married women were allowed to own property' date='[/quote']

The rights and responsibilities of both men and women changed when they got married, and still do. People took marriage a little more seriously then. And unmarried women were always allowed to own property, so it's not just a simple matter of them being women.

 

not until 1947 that they received the right to sit on juries or represent at law,

Being a juror I wouldn't call a "right" but an obligation. Most people would rather not have to, if they had the choice. By "represent at law" I assume you mean be lawyers. Being a lawyer is not a right, but a privelege, and I'm sure women could have been lawyers at any time after 1920, if they had started to make efforts to become lawyers at that time.

 

not until the 1950's that they received the right to sign contracts and take bank loans

This is the first I've ever heard of that. Where do you get that info?

 

and not until the late '60's that legal restrictions on employment were removed.

Some restrictions still exist, but it's a pretty minor thing. It wasn't until around the '60s that women even started to express any interest in pursuing traditionally male jobs. And I'm sure that in the few exceptions pre-60s, the laws were probably not enforced.

 

The big rights - freedom of speech, religion, the press, assembly, bearing arms, etc., were always granted to women.

[Markdoc]

Re: Turakian: Indusharan and women - typo / errata?

 

The rights and responsibilities of both men and women changed when they got married' date=' and still do. People took marriage a little more seriously then. And unmarried women were always allowed to own property, so it's not just a simple matter of them being women.[/quote']

 

You understate the case. Up until 1900, a woman could - quite legally - lose property she owned, when she married. essentially the man gained control of her assets, whether she wanted to share them or not. The reverse was not true.

 

Being a juror I wouldn't call a "right" but an obligation. Most people would rather not have to' date=' if they had the choice. By "represent at law" I assume you mean be lawyers. Being a lawyer is not a right, but a privelege, and I'm sure women could have been lawyers at any time after 1920, if they had started to make efforts to become lawyers at that time.[/quote']

 

People fought and died for the right to sit in judgement on their peers and their right to have a jury of their peers. It's one thing to choose not to accept jury duty. It's another to be told you may not be a juror. It's quite another thing again, to be told that your peers - in this case, people of your gender - are not permitted to be jurors in your case. Think about it: how well did it go down when only white men were permitted to be jurors? How would an African-american feel under those circumstances? We know how well they actually fared ...

 

How would you feel if only women could be jurors and judges? How would you fare if you were hauled into court on false charges pressed by a woman?

 

No, the right to the jury of your peers is a pretty important one, as far as I am concerned.

 

As for the lawyer thing, women started to become lawyers long before 1920 - Myra Bradwell passed her legal bar exams in 1859 - with distinction - and thus qualified to become a lawyer - but was turned down on the grounds "Women can't be lawyers".

 

Women tried to be many things and often fulfilled the legal requirements, but were then told they could not practice "because they were women". If that's not abridgement of rights, I have no idea what it is.

 

This is the first I've ever heard of that. Where do you get that info?

 

Read up on the background to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. It wasn't until then (1974!) that the practice of requiring a woman to have a male co-signer on a loan or contract was outlawed. This practice was repeatedly challenged in court - and allowed to persist. It wasn't until the postwar period that it started to ease. In the 19th and early 20th century many women-run businesses only survived because they had a friendly male who could co-sign for them.

 

Some restrictions still exist' date=' but it's a pretty minor thing. It wasn't until around the '60s that women even started to express any interest in pursuing traditionally male jobs. And I'm sure that in the few exceptions pre-60s, the laws were probably not enforced.[/quote']

 

Garbage. Utter and complete untruth. Women had expressed strong interest in many male jobs for more than a century before that and held a convention in 1848 on women's rights, which among other things specifically condemned the restrictions on work. It's always been an issue, since work means economic freedom. The first female medical college was established in 1850, because many women wanted to practice medicine but were barred from attending college. The National labor Union took up the issue in 1868, and the issue of of equal pay for equal work first came before congress in 1872. Many states responded with laws specifically forbidding women from moving into areas considered men's work - for example Bradwell v. Illinois: the Supreme Court affirmed that states can restrict women from the practice of any profession "to uphold the law of the Creator" - which would hardly have been fought all the way to SCOTUS if women had not been trying to move into male dominated jobs. In 1941, when jobs in industry opened up to women, over 7 million signed up. In 1945, when the war ended, they lost those jobs - though surveys indicated that 80% of the women wanted to retain them.

As for laws not being enforced, laws like The National Economy Act (Section 213) from 1932 were passed prohibiting more than one family member from working for the Civil Service. It was enforced as soon as it passed, throwing thousands of women out of work.

There are a lot more cases like that, but I'm guessing it's not a subject you've read up on. You should, IMO. A lot of complaints from the women's movement a few decades back start to make a lot more sense when you realise how pervasive legalised discrimination was and how recently (relatively speaking) it changed.

 

cheers, Mark

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Turakian: Indusharan and women - typo / errata?

 

No' date=' the right to the jury of your peers is a pretty important one, as far as I am concerned.[/quote']

I completely agree, but it doesn't address what I said.

 

Read up on the background to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. It wasn't until then (1974!) that the practice of requiring a woman to have a male co-signer on a loan or contract was outlawed. This practice was repeatedly challenged in court - and allowed to persist. It wasn't until the postwar period that it started to ease. In the 19th and early 20th century many women-run businesses only survived because they had a friendly male who could co-sign for them.

That's certainly unfortunate, but a bank loan is not a right. IMO, a private business (such as a bank) should be allowed to choose whom they do business with based on any criteria they like. If those criteria happen to involve unjust discrimination, then they'll lose money and reputation and public goodwill until they fail.

 

Garbage. Utter and complete untruth.

OK, I overstated my case. But there were practicing women doctors and all sorts of other professions long before 1920, whether it was technically legal in the area or not.

[Markdoc]

Re: Turakian: Indusharan and women - typo / errata?

 

I completely agree' date=' but it doesn't address what I said.[/quote']

 

Sure it does. You said that women had the same rights as men prior to 1920. You agree here that the right to a trial by a jury of your peers is an important one. The latter is right women were denied, which is why they fought for the right to sit on juries. You can either have the first statement or the second, but not both, as they are mutually exclusive.

 

That's certainly unfortunate' date=' but a bank loan is not a right. IMO, a private business (such as a bank) should be allowed to choose whom they do business with based on any criteria they like. If those criteria happen to involve unjust discrimination, then they'll lose money and reputation and public goodwill until they fail.[/quote']

 

"It's a privilege, not a right!" was one of the rallying calls of those who sought to deny the right to vote to women and Non-whites as well. Again, women were denied the ability to participate economicaly - even when they easily qualified financially - purely on the basis of gender. That's a pretty clear example of them not having a right that men had.

 

According to you the right to open your own bank account, to have a driver's licence, to drive a car, to be able to buy property ... these things are not actually rights? Then I guess women in Saudia Arabia have the same rights as men. Huh, who'da thunk.

 

OK' date=' I overstated my case. But there were practicing women doctors and all sorts of other professions long before 1920, whether it was technically legal in the area or not.[/quote']

 

Yep, and prior to 1920 women repeatedly tried to vote, only to have their votes disregarded. A right which enjoys no protection under the law is in fact, not a right.

 

cheers, Mark

[Yansuf]

Re: Turakian: Indusharan and women - typo / errata?

 

It's not true that women were considered property in the US of the 1920's, - or any period apart from the unfortunates condemned to slavery - but it's also not true that they otherwise had the same legal rights as men up until that point. It was not until 1900 that married women were allowed to own property, not until 1947 that they received the right to sit on juries or represent at law, not until the 1950's that they received the right to sign contracts and take bank loans and not until the late '60's that legal restrictions on employment were removed.

 

There were thousands of laws reducing women's legal rights including some bizarre ones - until 1968, any women convicted of a felony in Pennsylvania automatically received the maximum possible penalty, in many states women were not allowed to work at night, or to take a job if their husband had one - all kinds of stuff like that. Growing up in more enlightened times, it's hard to recall that much of this stuff was only recently repealed.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Well, to some extent you are right; but to another you are completely wrong.

 

The problem with saying what the law is in the US is, unless you are specifically referring to federal law, which prior to WWII was rarely relevant to most peoples lives, is that there were 48 (now 50) different states with different laws, not to count territories with their own laws!

 

Women sat on juries, voted in state and local elections, and were judges as well as mayors and other elected officials in many states and territories in the 19th century; just not all of them.

I know that in some states restrictions on women's rights lasted longer, but not in most, and I doubt the more severe restrictions (like the maximum sentence one) were followed for many years before their overturning.

For example, there are still laws from the colonial era on the books in many states, that haven't been enforced in over a century.

[Markdoc]

Re: Turakian: Indusharan and women - typo / errata?

 

I know that in some states restrictions on women's rights lasted longer' date=' but not in most, and I doubt the more severe restrictions (like the maximum sentence one) were followed for many years before their overturning.[/quote']

 

Well, that one was around nearly 60 years and since it was mandatory, it's not like it wasn't enforced.

 

You are right that focusing on oddball instances like that doesn't tell the whole story. OTOH, once you start digging into this area, it's astounding (at least to me) how stacked the rules were against women and how recently that changed.

 

cheers, Mark

[Vondy]

Re: Turakian: Indusharan and women - typo / errata?

 

I note the reference to a plurality of spouses says its dependent on shattri (and wealth). The other reference is stated in the form of a (very) general rule. As such, it could be that this statement provides an exception to a general rule. A woman of great wealth and sufficiently distinguished caste (I'm assuming that's the rough translation) might be able to have multiple husbands while women of lower shattris, or even the same shattri but not enough wealth (esp. if wealth equates to influence and power), might not be able to get away with it. This could, of couse, be entirely wrong, but its one possible textual interpretation that reconciles the two seemingly conflicting statements without being overly forced or spinning it too hard.

[Yansuf]

Re: Turakian: Indusharan and women - typo / errata?

 

Well' date=' that one was around nearly 60 years and since it was [i']mandatory[/i], it's not like it wasn't enforced.

 

You are right that focusing on oddball instances like that doesn't tell the whole story. OTOH, once you start digging into this area, it's astounding (at least to me) how stacked the rules were against women and how recently that changed.

 

cheers, Mark

 

What is your source for the PA law?

[Vondy]

Re: Turakian: Indusharan and women - typo / errata?

 

 

OK, I overstated my case. But there were practicing women doctors and all sorts of other professions long before 1920, whether it was technically legal in the area or not.

 

Elizabeth Blackwell became the first female physician to graduate medical school in the United States in 1849. The Women's Medical College of Pennsylvania was founded in 1850. While Blackwell appears exceptional, female physicians proliferated between 1860 and 1920. In fact, the number of female physicians dropped from 1920 to 1950 - after being given sufferage.

 

Alice Stebbin Wells became the first female police officer with full powers in 1910 (LAPD), but that's if you don't take into account Deputy Marshal Carnut, the first female United States Marshal's Service Deputy, who was appointed in the Oklahoma Territory in 1893. She also had "full powers" but she was technically not in the "United States" because Oklahoma wasn't a state yet.

[Markdoc]

Re: Turakian: Indusharan and women - typo / errata?

 

What is your source for the PA law?

 

Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia, of all places. You can get an excerpt containing a description here in user-friendly format or a detailed discussion of the overturning of gender-based sentencing (which references the pennsylvania law) by the courts in 1968 here.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Turakian: Indusharan and women - typo / errata?

 

Elizabeth Blackwell became the first female physician to graduate medical school in the United States in 1849. The Women's Medical College of Pennsylvania was founded in 1850. While Blackwell appears exceptional' date=' female physicians proliferated between 1860 and 1920. In fact, the number of female physicians dropped from 1920 to 1950 - after being given sufferage. [/quote']

 

Yeah. It seems counterintuitive, but post-enfranchisement, women in other professional fields such as law also decreased in number. In part this was social pressure, but in other cases, it was the passage of laws like The National Economy Act (Section 213) cited above, which aimed to protect working men in the face of soaring unemployment ... and did so by preventing women from working. It only applied to Federal jobs, but it had a major effect since the Fed.s had been fairly proactive in female professional employment. Of course, this was the depression, so people were losing jobs everywhere, but it hit women particularly hard.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Turakian: Indusharan and women - typo / errata?

 

What is your source for the PA law?

 

Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia, of all places. You can get an excerpt containing a description here in user-friendly format or a detailed discussion of the overturning of gender-based sentencing (which references the pennsylvania law) by the courts in 1968 here.

 

cheers, Mark