162 réponses à ce sujet

[maxernst]

tmp7704 wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

*dislikes discomfort with teenagers ending up with much older men being called stupid*

No, i was rather thinking it'd be pretty stupid for people to take offense at what happens in a fictional universe modeled after medieval settings. Especially since going this route they should be equally up in arms about presence of slavery and number of other topics which aren't up to our current society standards.

Unless the point of the game is to make some sort of statement about historical accuracy which it isn't and isn't actually touched upon at all then why would they add something so needlessly controversial? 

Well, you look at it as adding something unnecessary for the sake of needless controversy. I look at it as airbrushing/sanitizing the settings when it should not be necessary in the first place -- i'd like to think people could be smart enough to recognize what's simply a fictional depiction of their own practices from the past. Much like that mentioned slavery, crusades, literal racism, feudal systems with people devoid of rights and number of other topics.

Judging from some of the discussions I've seen online of R. Scott Bakker's novels, I'd guess that many  people are not smart enough to do that.  Though to be fair, Bakkeris so far from the sanitized feudalism of a lot of Tolkienesque fantasies that he rubs our noses in the most disagreeable aspects of the era. 

I remember when I was writing a backstory for a character for a Neverwinter Nights 2 persistent world, I had originally had my PC running away from home and being on the streets at 13, but I changed it to 15 to make it a bit more palatable, as much to me as to any readers.  The lower age would have fit with the very gritty setting and not been too out of the ordinary from what I've read about male prostitution in renaissance Florence, but it was just too troubling.  There wasn't anything very explicit in the story but when I'm writing, I still am sort of imagining it in my head.

[ejoslin]

tmp7704 wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

I can't think of a single society where girls were married as soon as they reached menarche where many of them were in the military or independent in other ways. Instead, they were the property of their father until they became the property of their husband.  That does not seem to be the case here.

This is a country which only 30 years earlier managed to regain independence, and then spent another few years getting rid of remaining Orlesians. There's bound to be plenty orphans who don't have fathers treating them as their property, and few men will want to marry a woman who can't bring any dowry when they can get one who's better off, instead. In addition, all that fighting is likely to have additional effect on the military -- as they run out of men who can fight they get quite less picky about who can actually serve. These factors combined can be one (obviously, one of many) possible explanations for what we get to see.

But it's not something that was happening in medieval Europe, even when the population was devastated by war and by disease and by church-led purges. 

Ferelden in its treatment of women is just completely different than medieval Europe.  So it's fair to extrapolate that to marrying age as well.

Edit: Yes, cut out an additional point regarding the changes to society after WW2.  It's really not relevant to medieval anything.

Modifié par ejoslin, 19 juin 2010 - 03:01 .

[tmp7704]

ejoslin wrote...

But it's not something that was happening in medieval Europe, even when the population was devastated by war and by disease and by church-led purges. You must know what normally happened to orphans and young women who were without male protection.

Ferelden in its treatment of women is just completely different than medieval Europe.  So it's fair to extrapolate that to marrying age as well.

But then it is also fair to use your argument as it's own counter -- if Ferelden isn't like medieval Europe at all, then the point how the line of events i suggested doesn't match closely said medieval Europe kind of loses its strength..?

And regarding what was actually happening in medieval Europe... heck, desperate times would call for desperate measures even there. Like letting a 17 year old peasant girl who claimed to have visions from God lead armies and eventually declaring her national heroine and a saint. And that was in our equivalent of Orlais. So if Ferelden is supposed to have more relaxed attitude towards women taking leadership roles then, welp.

[ejoslin]

But I didn't say Ferelden isn't like medieval Europe at all -- I said it was completely different in its treatment of women.

But Joan of Arc is not a good example of how women were treated -- she was a woman, not women in general, and very much an exception.  And look how it ended for her anyway.

Edit: Being burned at the stake for being a witch was unfortunately not the most uncommon of experiences for women who were viewed as leaders.

Modifié par ejoslin, 19 juin 2010 - 03:24 .

[tmp7704]

ejoslin wrote...

But I didn't say Ferelden isn't like medieval Europe at all -- I said it was completely different in its treatment of women.

Yes, but since we're talking specifically about attitude towards women and how it could possibly affect their eligibility for army service if they weren't in position (or interested) to get married like normally expected... this argument of completely different treatment does apply and can work both ways.

[ejoslin]

I'm not sure I follow your logic (I'm tired, I'm sure it's me).



The most telling difference, really, and probably why women are viewed differently is the church/chantry. In Medieval Europe, the Church was run by men, period. The Chantry is run by women, period.



That alone gives women a power and influence that even today many women in their communities don't have.

[SusanStoHelit]

Well said, ejoslin. And, of course, Andraste was a woman too: a leader, a general and warrior, a prophet, the bride of the Maker, the saviour of all those enslaved by the Tevinter Imperium, etc etc - and a woman.

That's a pretty impressive role model, right there.

[Edited for grammar.]

Modifié par SusanStoHelit, 19 juin 2010 - 05:50 .

[nos_astra]

ejoslin wrote...
The most telling difference, really, and probably why women are viewed differently is the church/chantry. In Medieval Europe, the Church was run by men, period. The Chantry is run by women, period.

That alone gives women a power and influence that even today many women in their communities don't have.

It does but that doesn't mean those women are using their power to enforce equality of men and women in a modern sense. Being a soldier is obviously an option for women but women are physically "weaker" and the fighting style is very physical, so it still might be not that usual.
With women leading the Chantry there might be no need for feminism, so people may simply go with what seems like a natural order. Women bear children and raise them, they need to marry to do so because this is expected. If necessary they add to the family income or they don't marry at all and become soldiers or priests.

It makes it easier for women to stray from the "natural order of things" but without restrictions there just might not be the efforts to change anything.

Modifié par klarabella, 19 juin 2010 - 07:03 .

[ejoslin]

Who said anything about feminism? There are similarities to Ferelden and medieval England, but there are very important differences as well. A woman's role apparently is one of them.



The mothers don't have to use their position to affect change or enforce equality -- women simply are viewed differently. They seem to inherit property and even the nobility are not pushed into marriage (or raped into it as was a practice at least in the early middle ages).

[nos_astra]

ejoslin wrote...
Who said anything about feminism?

Please don't be nitpicky about my choice of words, sometimes I struggle with the language. I simply thought your insistence that woman have a completely different role than in history might go into this direction. If this makes no sense, please ignore it. I feel incapable of making my point.

ejoslin wrote...
There are similarities to Ferelden and medieval England, but there are very important differences as well. A woman's role apparently is one of them.

There are differences but the question is if these differences are important parts of the lore or simply convenient for gameplay reasons. I think, the latter is more likely and prefer to think Ferelden closer to medieval England, no legal age, no high literacy, no complete equality. You prefer to think it closer to modern times, I can accept that.

I have to admit, I won't change my mind about this because the roughness and darkness and the uncomfortable implications are part of the appeal of this world.

ejoslin wrote...
The mothers don't have to use their position to affect change or enforce equality -- women simply are viewed differently. They seem to inherit property and even the nobility are not pushed into marriage (or raped into it as was a practice at least in the early middle ages).

I'm sorry, I haven't played a male human noble yet, but for my females the mother seemed concerened about marriage. Does she talk about marriage for males, too?

Modifié par klarabella, 19 juin 2010 - 03:58 .

[ejoslin]

klarabella wrote...

ejoslin wrote...
Who said anything about feminism?

Please don't be nitpicky about my choice of words, sometimes I struggle with the language. I simply thought your insistence that woman have a completely different role than in history might go into this direction. If this makes no sense, please ignore it. I feel incapable of making my point.

ejoslin wrote...
There are similarities to Ferelden and medieval England, but there are very important differences as well. A woman's role apparently is one of them.

There are differences but the question is if these differences are important parts of the lore or simply convenient for gameplay reasons. I think, the latter is more likely and prefer to think Ferelden closer to medieval England, no legal age, no high literacy, no complete equality. You prefer to think it closer to modern times, I can accept that.

I have to admit, I won't change my mind about this because the roughness and darkness and the uncomfortable implications are part of the appeal of this world.

ejoslin wrote...
The mothers don't have to use their position to affect change or enforce equality -- women simply are viewed differently. They seem to inherit property and even the nobility are not pushed into marriage (or raped into it as was a practice at least in the early middle ages).

I'm sorry, I haven't played a male human noble yet, but for my females the mother seemed concerened about marriage. Does she talk about marriage for males, too?

I mean the Revered Mothers, not moms.  I wasn't clear about that, my apologies. I also wasn't trying to be nitpicky.  I was not trying to imply feminism, equal rights, or fighting for change or anything and wanted to make that very clear.  Things just simply ARE different.

And actually, women being treated as something other than chattel is not just a modern thing.  There have been other societies where the religion is lead by women, ancient ones, where women were treated as equals.  Genders still had defined roles, yes, but it was not like the middle ages for women.

 If you choose to think that a society where women hold some of the most powerful positions (including the equivalent of Pope, which in the middle ages was probably the most powerful position of all until Henry VIII), and not just barely (as may have happened when a woman without a son or a son of age and no brothers was widowed for instance) doesn't have an influence on how women are viewed and treated, then there is no point of further discussion.

Edit: There is a difference between a defined role, and a lesser role.  Families, however, for the most part, don't seem to be very large in Ferelden.  Goldanna is the only one who seems to have more than two children that you hear about.  Maybe there's high infant mortality or maybe low fertility.  Or maybe you just don't hear too much about it.

A woman NOT working, however, and helping support her family has always been a luxury for the very rich.  Women have always worked, and worked hard.

Modifié par ejoslin, 19 juin 2010 - 04:28 .

[metalcraze33]

well in those times people had romances much younger so I don't see the big deal

[tmp7704]

ejoslin wrote...

I'm not sure I follow your logic (I'm tired, I'm sure it's me).

Hmm let's see if i can backtrack it. It went something like this

- you said the very fact women are shown serving in Ferelden military suggests they weren't expected to marry young,

- i argued this is not necessarily true because we don't know just how 'normal' it is for these women to be present there, nor anything about their social situation (we just presume they aren't actually already married, but it's quite a double standard when certainly a number of the men in that army is married yet still serving) Or in other words, there may well still be expectation for women to marry young, but Ferelden being practical nation and one that's been between rock and hard place for a while, they can be more open to the idea some women wouldn't be able (or would choose not to) conform to such social norm.

The big reason why i don't think it's very likely the women aren't expected to marry early was mentioned by someone else earlier in the thread -- there is no practical reason for them to delay the marriage. There is no educational system which takes decades to complete, the average lifespan is considerably shorter, the mortality is higher and short of maybe the noble families no one can really afford freeloader of either gender to spend years eating the supplies and contributing less than they could be contributing. So there's given to be social pressure on the young ones to either work or start a family as early as they can, and preferably both of these things.

Our current 'standards' of "get married whenever you want or don't at all, your choice" are based in the idea of individual freedom, but this is pretty fresh concept and quite nebulous in the setting based on feudal system where most people have little freedom at all (beyond choosing who they pledge their allegiance to, if that)

Modifié par tmp7704, 19 juin 2010 - 04:47 .

[ejoslin]

tmp7704 wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

I'm not sure I follow your logic (I'm tired, I'm sure it's me).

Hmm let's see if i can backtrack it. It went something like this

- you said the very fact women are shown serving in Ferelden military suggests they weren't expected to marry young,

- i argued this is not necessarily true because we don't know just how 'normal' it is for these women to be present there, nor anything about their social situation (we just presume they aren't actually already married, but it's quite a double standard when certainly a number of the men in that army is married yet still serving) Or in other words, there may well still be expectation for women to marry young, but Ferelden being practical nation and one that's been between rock and hard place for a while, they can be more open to the idea some women wouldn't be able (or would choose not to) conform to such social norm.

The big reason why i don't think it's very likely the women aren't expected to marry early was mentioned by someone else earlier in the thread -- there is no practical reason for them to delay the marriage. There is no educational system which takes decades to complete, the average lifespan is considerably shorter, the mortality is higher and short of maybe the noble families no one can really afford freeloader of either gender to spend years eating the supplies and contributing less than they could be contributing. So there's given to be social pressure on the young ones to either work or start a family as early as they can, and preferably both of these things.

Our current 'standards' of "get married whenever you want or don't at all, your choice" are based in the idea of individual freedom, but this is pretty fresh concept and quite nebulous in the setting based on feudal system where most people have little freedom at all (beyond choosing who they pledge their allegiance to, if that)

No, I did not say that, not exactly.  I said the fact that they served in the military shows that they were viewed differently than women in medieval times were.  So having the marrying age be older is not necessarily "airbrushing" to prevent offending people.

Why would an unmarried woman be a freeloader?  Women work in Ferelden.  The poor work as servants for the most part it seems, but they definitely work.  In non-farming households, a lot of children is more of a hardship than just a couple of children.  That actually would be a reason to delay marriage and childbirth -- children are expensive and you lose one source of income for awhile, and perhaps permanently as childbirth is risky.

[old book]

Way off topic now, but that's thread drift for you.

I'd say Ferelden has to be treated as its own, fictional society. It's influenced by a sanitized, modern, mostly North American view of life in England in the Middle Ages, but it's not period England. Just something to keep in mind as you look at it.

Magic is real. Women can be Mages, which means a certain small percentage can paralyze you, control your mind, freeze you, set you on fire, etc. This is bound to make some difference in the way the "natural" power imbalance between men and women is percieved.

The difference in upper body strength between men and women in Ferelden seems to be considerably less than in the real world (and even in the real world there were plenty of historical great female martial artists in Asia, and legends of great female warriors in Europe). Ser Cauthien is probably the best hand to hand fighter in the game other than a minmaxed PC (though she's also clearly chugged quite a few potions before fighting you the first time, as she loses a lot of power the second time you meet). Powerful female warriors / shield maidens / guards / knights have to have made a difference in the way women are percieved.

The Church is female dominated, which means aspects of community organization are going to be female dominated as compared to historical England / Europe. The Church also has a standing army (the Templars).

We see at least one female pirate captain, a few female guards, knights & templars, and many female spellcasters. We also see female merchants (well, one) and nobles. So, women do have positions of power outside the Chantry.

Women in Ferelden have something close to equal rights, whatever else may be true.

As to Consent and Age of Consent, well, no one other than the Elves seems particularly shocked or angry over young Noblemen stealing girls from the Alienage to rape. No one seems upset over a fifteen or more year age difference between a nobleman and his bride (and that, historically, really wouldn't have shocked anyone; today, Hollywood is full of forty-something year old men dating twenty-something year old women, and no one much cares). If a Noble or wealthy merchant goes to a Ferelden brothel and asks for a girl in her teens, I can't see many in Ferelden caring. It may be creepy in our eyes; it isn't in theirs.

[tmp7704]

Incidentally, this topic and in particular the part "oh if they had reality-based ages for characters in it, this would be such a scandal" part reminded me of something.

There's a game "The Guild" ( http://en.wikipedia....iki/Europa_1400 ) published a few years back. It is basically sort of a sims game set in medieval Europe, where the player tries to create a succesful family which spans generation, developing businesses and climbing social ladder. The family part is a large factor since characters age (and can die) normally, and the game can only last and continue as long as there's a viable heir to pick up where their father/mother left.

The interesting part --one that i somehow overlooked until this topic popped up-- was, the game being largely a simulation it was using historical model of the marriage. That meant if the player wanted their character to get married, they'd have start to focus on picking their bride-to-be early, as early as her being in 13-15 y.o. range if i remember right because the courtship process could take couple of years to complete and wasn't guaranteed to be successful at all.

The thing is, i don't recall this game making any big news based on that, and it's not exactly an obscure game after all as it got number of expansions and a sequel. So maybe the "zomgfoxnewsscandal" factor is bit overrated, here?

[tmp7704]

ejoslin wrote...

Why would an unmarried woman be a freeloader?  Women work in Ferelden.  The poor work as servants for the most part it seems, but they definitely work.  In non-farming households, a lot of children is more of a hardship than just a couple of children.

That's why i said they would likely be expected to 'either work or marry early and preferably both'. But please note, this would mean there is actual social pressure on getting married (in the 'either this or that' sense) just like there's one on getting the work.

That actually would be a reason to delay marriage and childbirth -- children are expensive and you lose one source of income for awhile, and perhaps permanently as childbirth is risky.

Children are expensive in our modern world where you're expected to pamper them and cover their every need and whim for 20+ years it seems. Back then? Not so much when they could and would be put to work as early as 8-10 y.o. while being provided with little. Plus, you are forgetting that a woman who gets married stops being expense to her own family, and instead it becomes the duty of her husband to provide both for her and their children. This is a big incentive to ship them off soon if they can't (or don't want to) find a work which could finance their existence.

[ejoslin]

Except DAO did get the "zomgfoxnewsscandal" because of the inclusion of homosexual relationships.



But if that's not the reason, perhaps the writers just didn't want women that young getting married?

[ejoslin]

tmp7704 wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

Why would an unmarried woman be a freeloader?  Women work in Ferelden.  The poor work as servants for the most part it seems, but they definitely work.  In non-farming households, a lot of children is more of a hardship than just a couple of children.

That's why i said they would likely be expected to 'either work or marry early and preferably both'. But please note, this would mean there is actual social pressure on getting married (in the 'either this or that' sense) just like there's one on getting the work.

That actually would be a reason to delay marriage and childbirth -- children are expensive and you lose one source of income for awhile, and perhaps permanently as childbirth is risky.

Children are expensive in our modern world where you're expected to pamper them and cover their every need and whim for 20+ years it seems. Back then? Not so much when they could and would be put to work as early as 8-10 y.o. while being provided with little. Plus, you are forgetting that a woman who gets married stops being expense to her own family, and instead it becomes the duty of her husband to provide both for her and their children. This is a big incentive to ship them off soon if they can't (or don't want to) find a work which could finance their existence.

Oh, i would think children are put to work younger than 8-10.  They'd have to be.  Still, back in the middle ages, many children were sold because their families could not afford to feed them.

And I"m not forgetting that a woman who gets married stops being an expense or contributor to her family's income.  You're assuming that a woman would be an expense.  If she works, she is contributing to the family income, not taking from it.

[Addai]

ejoslin wrote...

I'm not sure I follow your logic (I'm tired, I'm sure it's me).

The most telling difference, really, and probably why women are viewed differently is the church/chantry. In Medieval Europe, the Church was run by men, period. The Chantry is run by women, period.

There are quite a few medieval abbesses who would have been surprised to hear so.  Women were more influential in the church than they were in larger society, though both noblewomen and tradeswomen had influence in their sphere.  The lot of women regressed a great deal in the early modern era.  Medieval women enjoyed a parity that in some ways we are only now regaining in late modernity.  They could own property and inherit, they often shared their husbands' businesses, etc.  The idea of "paterfamilias" having complete sway over a family was a later development.

I haven't read the entire thread, but I also gather people are going on the assumption that most people married quite young in the medieval era.  That, too, is more myth than reality.  Nobles might have contracted marriages early, but the working class usually had to complete apprenticeships which took time.  Most people married in their 20s, men might marry even later, and teenage marriage was unusual (see, for instance, The Ties That Bound: Peasant Families In Medieval England by Barbara Hanwalt).  Many assumptions people make about the medieval era are based on later industrial Europe and agricultural America with a bit of Victorian sentiment mixed in.

[Addai]

ejoslin wrote...

Oh, i would think children are put to work younger than 8-10.  They'd have to be.  Still, back in the middle ages, many children were sold because their families could not afford to feed them.

!!!  Slavery was outlawed by the medieval church.  Even so, I'm not sure where you get the idea that people sold their children?  If some did so, it is hardly "many."

[ejoslin]

Addai67 wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

I'm not sure I follow your logic (I'm tired, I'm sure it's me).

The most telling difference, really, and probably why women are viewed differently is the church/chantry. In Medieval Europe, the Church was run by men, period. The Chantry is run by women, period.

There are quite a few medieval abbesses who would have been surprised to hear so.  Women were more influential in the church than they were in larger society, though both noblewomen and tradeswomen had influence in their sphere.  The lot of women regressed a great deal in the early modern era.  Medieval women enjoyed a parity that in some ways we are only now regaining in late modernity.  They could own property and inherit, they often shared their husbands' businesses, etc.  The idea of "paterfamilias" having complete sway over a family was a later development.

I haven't read the entire thread, but I also gather people are going on the assumption that most people married quite young in the medieval era.  That, too, is more myth than reality.  Nobles might have contracted marriages early, but the working class usually had to complete apprenticeships which took time.  Most people married in their 20s, men might marry even later, and teenage marriage was unusual (see, for instance, The Ties That Bound: Peasant Families In Medieval England by Barbara Hanwalt).  Many assumptions people make about the medieval era are based on later industrial Europe and agricultural America with a bit of Victorian sentiment mixed in.

Now, history is not my field, but weren't abbesses over nunneries?  They weren't over churches, over priests, etc.  Now, some may have had more power than others, but they definitely did not have the same power as men in the churches did.

But I definitely learned quite a bit from your post.  Thank you!

[tmp7704]

ejoslin wrote...

And I"m not forgetting that a woman who gets married stops being an expense or contributor to her family's income.  You're assuming that a woman would be an expense.  If she works, she is contributing to the family income, not taking from it.

Yes, hence the " This is a big incentive to ship them off soon if they can't (or don't want to) find a work which could finance their existence." part  We don't exactly know how easy it  is to get a reasonable work in Ferelden but i'd presume since this isn't perfect world there is going to be some unemployment, which would result in generating this kind of social pressure towards the marriage as the alternative, at least. Plus, i don't think they're likely to have guaranteed minimum wages either, so even having work doesn't need to mean one is able to fully provide for themselves... at least in some cases this can be just good enough to reduce the expenses.

[tmp7704]

Addai67 wrote...

I haven't read the entire thread, but I also gather people are going on the assumption that most people married quite young in the medieval era.  That, too, is more myth than reality.  Nobles might have contracted marriages early, but the working class usually had to complete apprenticeships which took time.  Most people married in their 20s, men might marry even later, and teenage marriage was unusual (see, for instance, The Ties That Bound: Peasant Families In Medieval England by Barbara Hanwalt).  Many assumptions people make about the medieval era are based on later industrial Europe and agricultural America with a bit of Victorian sentiment mixed in.

Well, don't really know about that, since it'd seem to be bit of a dynamic process than fixed "this is the way it was"...

http://en.wikipedia....ieval_household

The households of medieval peasant families were naturally smaller than those of the aristocracy, and as such resembled modern households more. The patterns of marriage fluctuated greatly over the course of the Middle Ages. Even though most of the available evidence concerns the higher classes, and the source material for southern Europe is richer than for the rest, it is still possible to make some rough generalisations.[33] It seems clear that the average age of marriage during the Early Middle Ages was relatively high, and quite equal for men and women. The reason for this can be found in traditions brought forward from the Germanic tribes, but equally in the fact that habitation was confined to small areas, a factor that enforced restrictions on population growth.[34] As more land was won for cultivation, this trend changed. During the High and Late Middle Ages, girls were increasingly married away in their teens, leading to higher birth rates.[35] While women would be married once they reached reproductive age, men had to possess independent means of sustenance – to be able to provide for a family – before entering into marriage.[36] For this reason, the average age of marriage for men remained high, in the mid- to late twenties.[37]

edit: this part about "traditions brought forward from Germanic tribes" could be actually explanation for Ferelden habits -- the country is pretty much supposed to be loose coalition of barbarians after all (at least viewed by other countries) so it's possible that's the source for their practiced equality of the sexes and perhaps to a degree, also an argument to support this idea they'd indeed allow women to marry later than it's considered 'normal' for the later Middle Ages?

Modifié par tmp7704, 19 juin 2010 - 05:48 .