|
Point 1: Funny you should say this, because it is my impression that 'a little' is what you know about adult women. And, citing that bastion of maleness, James Bond, pretty much shows me where you get your ideas about them. Your concern over 'chivalry' and the title of the topic also shows me a LOT about how you view women.
Point 2: I have serious doubt as to how much you understand the differentiation in power: the 'rich' woman you cited early influences policy through her money alone. You have not yet dealt with the other ways in which women have power. I wonder how much you intend to try and teach people, and how successful you will be with it. Perhaps if you created the world, and then learned from watching how your players play, you could learn and teach at the same time.
Point 3: Only my impression of your grasp of "womens' power" was slightly different after the re-read. I noticed you DID include a RICH woman, who uses her economic position for political influence. That is why I give you credit for understanding it 'on some level,' but that level STILL is an economic and political level, rather than an emotional and personal level. Furthermore, my initial response offered long-term 'goal' positions that a female player could grow into, which you blew off as 'oh, even these were male dominated,' and then went on to misconstrue and negate the rest of my post as 'knee-jerk.' I had intended to offer you some abstract suggestions that you could springboard off, and I had hoped you would take them and see that they were the kinds of things you could incorporate as 'long term rewards' for female players. You chose to view them as merely limitations. I was not trying to imply there had ever been matriarchial societies, rather, I was attempting to show you that womens' lives had been lived where the women living them grew into respected community positions. I also wrote that these enculturated inequalities still exist, in many forms. You would do better if you read and comprehended what is written, rather than assuming I was on a Feminazi High Horse. I really wasn't. I was only trying to offer suggestions, not make a case for the historical matriarchial society theory. Nor was I trying to imply that sufferage should be included in your world.
Point 4: If you give women the possibility of growing into something great, whether they are tracked into it from birth/character creation or whether it can be earned within the locality where they live out their peasant lives, they will accept all the limitations that come with it. That 'something great' could be variances of my High Priestesses, town gossips, brothel madams, or women's council who discuss matters pertaining to religion or town standards or whatever, or EVEN a mother with successful children, and a content husband. Women will enjoy playing these roles, so long as there is a social stratus to climb, and men to influence. Plus, if you build the world, leave some room for your female players to fill out the social strata. That's what they do best. Leave it open-ended, and SEE what they seem to want to become. Then, let them become it. *THAT* is true equality... giving women the _opportunity_ to become what they want to become. They're not going to destroy your accuracy, they will simply grow into the roles they choose there. It really MIGHT be better to 'procrastinate' this process, and see if it actually BECOMES a problem, rather than assuming it will.
|