Nietzschean Matriarchy: Multi-Husbanding? QueenTiye Artificial Intelligence Well! The Honorable Tyrant Matriarch bobDylanite made allusion to the idea that Ashley Miller said at a convention that Nietzschean women can have multiple husbands. Tyrant Alpha Rovinsky clarified to say that what was actually said was that Nietzschean women could and would sleep with any males in their compound who weren't relatives - and that the "true husbands" wouldn't take revenge. This shocking revelation occurs here: http://www.slipstreambbs.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/011101.html O.k. So what's the point? Why would Nietzschean women do any of that? All answers welcome! QT Thundersinger Magog OOOPPPPSS! Your Majesty, I have altered my thread to be a "chat" by the ladies of the Slipstream rather than the scholarly discussions held in these august forums.. If you would prefer I can have a mod take my thread down since yours was started before mine. Just let me know. sincerely, Thundersinger Caitriona Nietzschean Well, Well, Well....... QT I'll have to give this some thought. I'll get back to you, I promise. This will take some comtemplation. If this is in fact the way it would operate (and I am not conceding that it is),one question comes to mind; Do the women have a way of guaranteeing that they do not become pregnant from these liasions? There would be no reason for a man to ever accept a marriage offer if he could remain single and still generate offsrping. And my gut instinct is that if this were permissible there would be considerable problems with the marriages in this culture. Why get married at all? And if he can sneak a child in my such a liasion, I'm quickly going to change my mind about how much I like Nietzscheans. There would be no way to sustain the honor of "husband and father" in this culture, if a male could achieve his progeny by simply impregnating a lonely/ovulating woman. Like I said, I have to give this one some thought. Once again, my knee jerk reaction is some male fanatsies have intervened here along with some RL cultural bias. But I really have to give this some thought. Apparentley, they want the women to be just breeders exactly as Lil suggested.... [Tyr]I'm not pleased[Tyr] ~ Cait Dylanite Magog Yup. I'm not pleased either. Lil QueenTiye Artificial Intelligence Cait, Lil Let me third that total displeasure! Given the traditional roles that women in this culture have been portrayed as having - the ONLY way to ensure women's power is to ensure that they do not dilute their power of choice in this most crucial aspects of life...in short - I can think of no realistic way for this to be handled. I am asking - what honor is there in being husband if this is the case? Are we missing something about men, due to RL bias? I'm hoping some men chime in here to tell us what honor a man might find in being called husband to a woman who otherwise will sleep and possibly breed for other men... and if women can have these trysts as they see fit -how does it serve them to become co-wives with other women? AND... if we are talking about multiple husbands rather than trysts (Rov put on his billiards face when relaying that info about trysts...I don't know what that means!), how do women succeed in managing these harems of men, and why do some women join harems??? QT Delvo2 Nietzschean quote: my knee jerk reaction is some male fanatsies have intervened here Actually, I was just thinking that this is another sign that the real ultimate goal of Nietzschean society is to make sure that the males lead the most tortured, miserable life possible. Just what part of a system in which women have no ties to their men at all is supposed to be good for the men? Do you think having one's instincts for jealousy constantly set off by infidelity feels good? Do you think it's pleasant to be expected, by a marriage of convenience, to invest in raising another man's children by the woman who's trapped you in this arrangement, and to only be dispassionately used for resources (leeched) instead of really desired, while you are put on display as inferior to the whole world? And how in the world can you contort this idea into something that implies that females are seen as just breeders? If anything, it implies that that's all males are, not the other way around. I don't believe that a multi-husband system would work for Nietzscheans, especially given the short supply of males living anywhere near the females because they're too busy running around finding enemies to kill and be killed by. A woman might be able to have more than one husband without violating cultural rules, but there would still be consequences; the men involved could react in any number of ways that aren't good for her and her children at all, and you can't tell me they wouldn't just because it's not a part of the culture. Any woman who tried it, I would suspect of trying to set the men up against each other in order to eliminate one and get the superior one; a way of getting out of one marriage and into another. At the very least, the men could be expected to leave and find a wife who would be all theirs instead of shared. In short, it sounds like it would be the same as for men: take as many spouses as you can get and believe you can sustain. But for women, I'd expect that to be 1 the vast majority of the time anyway, whether they're allowed more or not. But, for a woman whose husband is one of those who runs around the galaxies making enemies, "cheating" is sensible. Those men aren't in a position to be good fathers or even to mate very often, and the fact that they are in the inferior position by Nietzschean standards (out there where the women aren't and the risks to life are) means they must be inferior anyway, supposedly. A marriage to one of them could even be seen, in a self-serving Nietzschean way, as a temporary arrangement the woman goes into just to have a kid or two in the meantime while she's in the process of finding a better husband and father with whom to "really" marry. Tarandus Makra So, a Nietzschean woman marries the best, the most superior, man she can find. These is no reason why she should marry a second one if he's less good than the first one, and if he's better, why stick with the first? She can only carry one child at the time anyway, and she want the best man around to be father to that one. Multiple husbands at the same time makes no sense to me. I would however expect her to divorce and marry a new guy if whe thinks he's superior to her present husband, so I would expect multiple husbands in succession so to speak. Which makes me wonder, after a divorce who gets the children. I would guess the father. Delvo2 Nietzschean quote: Multiple husbands at the same time makes no sense to me. I would however expect her to divorce and marry a new guy if whe thinks he's superior to her present husband, so I would expect multiple husbands in succession so to speak. If there were no emotions involved... and if the children she'd already had by the first one were old enough to take care of themselves, since she'd have to expect this new guy not to help with them. QueenTiye Artificial Intelligence Well... I'll chime in. First, Delvo thank you for a male perspective... it is certainly helpful, and gives some new thinking to the question. As to Tarandus question, I would have to argue that the children in question would stay with the mother, and I further argue that the reason we don't see women out and about most of the time, is because they have some sort of communal arrangements that secure the interests of children even in absence of a father. Certainly, Tamerlane was about to be put in that situation - and Dimitri was claiming the child as his own - perhaps because he was demented, perhaps because he was just bluffing, but also perhaps because he knew that to get next to Freya he had to take an active interest in her child. In a world where female selection is so highly prized, I think a man would be foolish to mistreat children of a woman who is overthrowing her husband in your favor. QT Tarandus Makra quote: Originally posted by Delvo2: If there were no emotions involved... and if the children she'd already had by the first one were old enough to take care of themselves, since she'd have to expect this new guy not to help with them. Which is why I was guessing for children staying with the father. And emotions... Bah, love is just a trick our genes play on us... BTW, I agree with what you said in your other post. bobdylanite Purple Pixie Instead of repeating what I said in another thread on the issue, I'll just link to it... http://www.slipstreambbs.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/011104.html Just so you know where I was coming from when I opened up this can of worms. QueenTiye Artificial Intelligence Well, bob, that certainly muddies the water some...(I hope Jamie lets you post the rest!) So, we essentially have women who are without power of divorce, unless they have the permission of the matriarch and first wife (if we are talking marriage). Or, we have women who are mated to men who never quite get around to them...and therefore in order to ensure their reproduction, can choose a lover. O.k. this second scenario helps somewhat - it means that the Alpha male or other high ranking males are obligated to marry certain women - Cait I think you'll have some thoughts here... perhaps women who lose their husbands wind up under the protection of the Alpha - or someone like him. They choose, but the male has the honor of carrying the title - it is a responsibility that carries prestige in the pride... And a low ranking male may be able to get lucky if he is the woman's choice of breeding partner, but he doesn't rise in ranks through acquisition of wives... I'm struggling with it... but it's starting to have some symmetry! QT Caitriona Nietzschean Delvo2 originally said: quote: Just what part of a system in which women have no ties to their men at all is supposed to be good for the men? Do you think having one's instincts for jealousy constantly set off by infidelity feels good? Do you think it's pleasant to be expected, by a marriage of convenience, to invest in raising another man's children by the woman who's trapped you in this arrangement, and to only be dispassionately used for resources (leeched) instead of really desired, while you are put on display as inferior to the whole world? Well, first let me say, that I stated I was having a knee jerk reaction... from your heated and passionate response on this subject I can only assume you had one as well. (And justifiably so, you state your passions and your reasoning well) That said, I don't see how any of this would favor men or women for that matter. I agree with almost every statement in the above quote from you. I don't believe that a culture could survive without a degree of pair bonding to ensure the survival of offspring. I don't believe that the men would be able to refrain from jealous conduct any more than I am of the opinion that all wives would get along in polygamous marriages. I think given this new information that men would suffer an enormous amount of jealousy and outright fear that their wives were forming alliances with other men in the Pride, not only for mating privileges (to reproduce actual offspring) but for all the social and political reasons anyone forms alliance. However, I am of two opinions regarding whether or not men are trapped into raising the children of another man. I've always been of the opinion that the men in a woman's line would care for offspring in lieu of the biological father (meaning in his absence) because the men in her line have a vested interest in ensuring that those children and their line survives. (They are of the same line) It is contrary to everything we know about Nietzscehans to think that a man completely unrelated to these children would foster them. Their interests lie in their own lines and their own offspring. That said, with this new information, I can also see that a husband who is available and is home could also be struck raising the children of another man... or at least live in fear that his wife or wives could reproduce with other men. If this were the case, I can see no advantage in marrying at all for the men. Even with DNA testing and the advanced technology Nietzscheans must employ to ensure their lines of descent remain accurate, it would be almost a nightmare existence (IMHO) for all concerned, especially the children. I doubt men would allow themselves to bond with their children because of this and that goes against the canon we actually do have on the show. (Meaning husband and father are the greatest Honor) I also quite agree on the 'displayed as inferior' to the whole world part. I hesitate to add that this in fact might happen regardless of multiple partners for women due to the fact that it is an effective way to keep men competing for mating privileges. (Am I proud that it is effective as a strategy? No! But it is effective nevertheless) I don't want to get into a conversation about why women would be so manipulative and why they would resort to such conniving, because we'll quickly devolve into a gender-bashing match. Let's please just agree that each gender manipulates the other and employs certain strategies in order to obtain, maintain, and increase their power over the other gender. Both have in the past, do now, and will continue to consider the opposite sex the enemy. Of course this does not mean all men and all women are ruthless in RL or in our fictional setting. But I would be foolish (and Cait is not foolish) to think that women have not used every imaginable method to maintain some sort of power over the men in their lives. Because I know they have! quote: And how in the world can you contort this idea into something that implies that females are seen as just breeders? If anything, it implies that that's all males are, not the other way around. I conclude this (albeit hurriedly) because it means that women have no real power other than their bodies. And the only way to obtain any power would be to offer up their bodies to any available man. I understand your concerns in this I honestly do; I can see it from your POV. You've expressed it quite well. But from a female POV, a cultural OK to mate indiscriminately only means one thing-that the focus of her life is completely on mating and child rearing and that her only means of advancement is through bed-hopping to somehow better her position. How is this beneficial to a woman? How is it beneficial for a woman (who does not have the physical strength to defend herself} to anger her chosen husband in this manner? I conclude this because it implies that women would be unable to control their mating urges even when pregnancy was not an option. I conclude this because in any culture while it is very nice to talk about equality when it comes to reproductive rights; it is not! Men can employ a mating strategy of multiple partners basically because there is very little in the way of a deterrent. Women do not subjugate men in this arena, women are not the ones that statically will kill a husband for cheating, women are not the ones with the strength to voice their violent jealousies in such cases...Men are! Men can by their mere size and strength dominate women, subjugate them, and kill them in a jealous rage. I conclude this because in effect it makes all women fair game. Not even marriage protects them from the advances of other men, and please don't tell me that men would not make advances, they would! Like it or not these are real concerns if you are a woman, and if I were a woman in Post-Fall CW, it would be a major concern. While I agree that women can and would form alliances with OTHER men to gain whatever advantage they desire and that women are no less ruthless in these arenas than men. What is different is the ability to enforce ones will and to seek justice. Both sexes can be ruthless.. I would never present any argument to the contrary and I do not think that one is worse than the other. I mean this in all sincerity. But What women cannot do is defend themselves against men as well as men can defend themselves against women. I say this because of stark biological factors, but cultural ones exist as well. quote: A woman might be able to have more than one husband without violating cultural rules, but there would still be consequences; the men involved could react in any number of ways that aren't good for her and her children at all, and you can't tell me they wouldn't just because it's not a part of the culture. I couldn't agree more! Should any man step outside of culturally acceptable behavior she would be cooked, literally! So there would be no advantage in such behavior, and as a matter of fact there might be a distinct advantage in behaving in the opposite manner- with complete fidelity-this could ensure her position as a wife. But this strategy would create a caste system among the women very similar to the one that exists in RL. Men (and probably women) would create value judgments on behavior not on moral grounds but on a sort of consequence-driven grounds. Women who caused no trouble would be seen as desirable and women who created all the problems you have described would be labeled as troublemakers. And that means women have no power other than the power the culture itself bestows on them for 'good' behavior'. Now, add to this that the entire premise of Nietzscheans is to exercise one's own will and by extension one's morality-Cultural behavior would not be a constant. There would likely be very few rules as matter of fact. None of this is good for women and their children, none of it! The question for me always has been, how could a Nietzschean woman obtain and maintain any power? Merely being allowed by the culture to mate anyone is a lure, but it is not real power. However it certainly does serve their interests of men now doesn't it? Putting all your arguments aside for just a second, the men who are chosen to mate outside of marriage certainly could attest to the advantages now couldn't they? Just stating that it isn't done or felt, isn't good enough IMHO, because it would happen. Jealousies would occur, and men would react more violently that any of the women could predict. What good is a convention that allows women to act in this manner, when in practice it could get you killed? None that I can see! One last point, when I said 'male fantasies' I meant in the writers minds. Not in the minds of the viewer. From writing POV, there is much that could be made of this; it just wouldn't make any sense given what we have already been lead to believe. Although we have both come at this from a different POV, we actually agree on why it wouldn't work. I can't remember the last time I engaged in such a lively and passionate non-disagreement. I admire your passions and your reasoning BTW! ~ Cait QueenTiye Artificial Intelligence quote: Originally posted by Delvo2: But, for a woman whose husband is one of those who runs around the galaxies making enemies, "cheating" is sensible. Those men aren't in a position to be good fathers or even to mate very often, and the fact that they are in the inferior position by Nietzschean standards (out there where the women aren't and the risks to life are) means they must be inferior anyway, supposedly. A marriage to one of them could even be seen, in a self-serving Nietzschean way, as a temporary arrangement the woman goes into just to have a kid or two in the meantime while she's in the process of finding a better husband and father with whom to "really" marry. Delvo, This is very appropos to the new info provided by bobdylanite in the link above. I have to agree - that a husband's first wife and the matriarch could make these decision to allow the junior wives (and we must now admit that we do in fact have junior wives - first wife is an office) out of the family either on loan or permanently (it isn't clear which). As it shapes up in my mind, I do believe that we are starting to understand how prides are formed - a first wife is absolutely critical to the process... Cait... thank you for your eloquent explanation of how terribly disadvantaged this bedhopping process is for women AND for reminding us that it simply can't work for men... it removes the honor of the title "husband," and in the context of the Nietzschean Matriarchy discussion, we have been tried to take into account this concept of honor... It is quite a new twist on the Matriarchy idea... QT QueenTiye Artificial Intelligence quote: Originally posted by Caitriona: Now, add to this that the entire premise of Nietzscheans is to exercise one's own will and by extension one's morality-Cultural behavior would not be a constant. There would likely be very few rules as matter of fact. None of this is good for women and their children, none of it! The question for me always has been, how could a Nietzschean woman obtain and maintain any power? Merely being allowed by the culture to mate anyone is a lure, but it is not real power. However it certainly does serve their interests of men now doesn't it? Putting all your arguments aside for just a second, the men who are chosen to mate outside of marriage certainly could attest to the advantages now couldn't they? Quite right! We have yet to see how women exercise their will to power on the universe... and this undermines the entire premise. quote: Although we have both come at this from a different POV, we actually agree on why it wouldn't work. I can't remember the last time I engaged in such a lively and passionate non-disagreement. I admire your passions and your reasoning BTW! ~ Cait LOL!! And so, my two favorite people meet again... I have to admit, I couldn't be happier... Dylanite Magog quote: I conclude this because in any culture while it is very nice to talk about equality when it comes to reproductive rights; it is not! Men can employ a mating strategy of multiple partners basically because there is very little in the way of a deterrent. Women do not subjugate men in this arena, women are not the ones that statically will kill a husband for cheating, women are not the ones with the strength to voice their violent jealousies in such cases...Men are! Men can by their mere size and strength dominate women, subjugate them, and kill them in a jealous rage. I conclude this because in effect it makes all women fair game. Not even marriage protects them from the advances of other men, and please don't tell me that men would not make advances, they would! Like it or not these are real concerns if you are a woman, and if I were a woman in Post-Fall CW, it would be a major concern. *Long loud enthusastic applause* Cait, BEAUTIFULLY said!!!! Lil Delvo2 Nietzschean What's so wrong with men's "advances" that women need "protection" from them? Is this some code for something that's not really being said? D'Monix Artificial Intelligence In light of the significance placed upon the double helix in nietzcehan culture, if the allowance for any female to procreate with any male of her choosing, married or not, were allowed then why have the double helix at all? To a nietzchean male, the greatest thing that can be achieved is the status of husband and father, to found a family lineage, a genetic dynasty. This also comes with the implied responsibility to his wives and children. His ability to fulfill his responsibilities to his family and work to further his family standing, and that of the pride, is a determining factor in the female's choice of him to be her husband and father to their offspring. In the giving of the helix, in her choice of him as husband and father the female is saying that this male is the best in her view for the continuing of her genetic legacy and for the founding of a family. It is a privledge that not all nietzchean males enjoy. The system already empowers women in this as they choose who can mate and found families and who cannot. And those who cannot, well, they are looked down upon by their brethren. Now if the female is allowed to mate with whomever she pleases, only asking the required permissions, that implies that the Helix has no real significance at least in my view. Think about it, A female chooses a husband and has children by him, founding a family, later tho she sees another male, also married, and decides to have children by him as well. To the nietzchean male, whose overriding goal is to be husband and father, would this not indicate to him that she chose to become pregnant by this other male because she must have obvious have found his genes to be inferior? Where then, to this husband and father, does the responsibility lies with those children, they are not genetically his, but another's, and possibly a rival's children at that. Does the father take responsibility then or does the mother? Where then is the significance of the double helix, the symbol of husband and father? It's value is lost, as obviously the male in question's genes were not good enough for the female who chose him above all others to be her husband. It confuses and devalues the essence of the double helix. It is, in my view, a woman's commitment to the male she believes, as stated above, to be the best in her view at furthering their genetic line and founding a family destined for greatness. The chosen husband has been granted the greatest gift a nietzchean male can receive, and will do his utmost to uphold his responsibilities because of it if he is any kind of real nietzchean male at all. The helix symbolizes that committment, it embodies it, it is IMO the core of the nietzchean people. If the male in question fails or somehow shames the family, she could opt to leave him, in essence placing a black mark upon his genetic legacy that can most likely never be expunged. D' Delvo2 Nietzschean quote: Quite right! We have yet to see how women exercise their will to power on the universe... and this undermines the entire premise. Making the practice too widespread would undermine the premise of women excercising power in general. But, they didn't say this is the way things are normally done, they just said there's no enforced policy against it. And it looks like women really excercising their will on the universe would not choose to take this option the vast majority of the time, which makes it a risk like any other to Nietzscheans, from being a mercenary to working on a fishing boat: your decision, your reaping of rewards, your suffering from your mistakes. Curufea Pyrian There is an evolutionary old instinct in men to protect women. Part of the logic of survival. So much so that battlefields with mixed sex combatants have led to males defending the corpses of women in the heat of battle (although I can't cite the case as I do not remember where it comes from). Husband and father leads to an established home, defended. A good measure of security and survivability. "Sowing wild oats" is more like throwing them to the wind and hoping some will survive - a desperate thing for a Neitz and most likely a last resort only. If all females are married in a clan or if there are less females than males and they wish to not create internal conflicts - there could be reasons for unmarried males to be given a chance to mate. if a female of a particularly good genetic heritage wishes to reward a good male or as a bargaining point (possibly the only way other prides can get really good DNA) - she may use mating. I can see why the husbands would not get revenge - it's counter-productive. They'd be starting trouble their leader wouldn't like - the "damage" has already been done - and their wife might take offense and never bear them any further offspring. I think the husbands would be offended if their firstborn was not their own - that'd just be rude Dylanite Magog I agree with D'Monix. What's the point of the Double Helix? which leaves me back where I started (i.e. my distaste at the very harem like set up in Nietz culture). Lil Caitriona Nietzschean quote: Originally posted by Delvo2: What's so wrong with men's "advances" that women need "protection" from them? Is this some code for something that's not really being said? NO it's no secret code or anything. I just believe that under the circumstances described, men would not pair bond with their wives; the risk would be too great emotionally, socially and economically. And bonding is necessary to the survival of women and by extension their children. I believe husbands would maintain a detachment from their wives and as a result husbands would not offer up the kinds of protection and security that women need in order to raise children to maturity. Thus leaving women open to advances from other men. By advances I mean that in most cases, men are careful about their behavior around married women (whether in RL or in fiction) somewhat because they fear the consequences from her husband or kin. Take those consequences away and you have what I am referring to. If a husband could take no revenge in these kinds of matters, what is to prevent any man from just 'taking' the woman he desires? In fact, it leaves women more vulnerable to uninvited advances than under any other kind of mating ritual. And, if a woman were to have no protection from her mate, why get married at all? She could maintain her own wealth and security by staying in her own home with her own family and simply reproducing with a chosen breeding partner. In so many ways this one concept undermines the entire premise of this culture. It appears easy to say 'hey the women can mate with whomever they please' (with the proper permission, and please don't get me started on that one!) but the resulting effects on the culture are far reaching. Men would not see any honor in this kind of arrangement. I just can't see how they would? If I'm missing something please let me know, but I can't see how they would take it as an honor to further another man's line and/or remain uncertain about his own line, children and wives. What reason would he really have to be a husband and father, let alone consider it the highest honor he could attatin? AND I see absolutely no advantage for women to be giving up the only power they have--their choice-- to gain the ability to mate at will. There is too much to lose with this and too little to actually gain from it. That said, I could see that this might be permissible, yet not done to any great extent. The disadvantages far outweigh the advantages IMHO and these people are pragmatic in the extreme.. So perhaps this is a moot point, but I still don't like it.. It messes with the only thing these people had going for them, and outright reverence for procreation, family and lineage. They were overtly sexual but in the most sacred of ways-to reproduce and continue a family or establish one. There was nothing lascivious or immoral about them, they simply represented their natures directly instead of clouding the issues surrounding pair bonding and mating. These men were honorable (Yes, I said it!) in their devotion to their wives and children and it was refreshing see an entire people portrayed in this way.. I remember in MOADD Tyr saying that it was a man's responsibility to stay alive if he were a husband and father. How do we reconcile this statement with multiple husbands and/or breeding partners? ~ Cait Delvo2 Nietzschean quote: what is to prevent any man from just 'taking' the woman he desires? In fact, it leaves women more vulnerable to uninvited advances than under any other kind of mating ritual. So it WAS a code! "Advances" meant "rapes". Women ... speaking in code so much of your lives you don't even notice when you're doing it... But what you were really saying without saying it was true enough. This practice would make random promiscuity and rapes the only hope that the men had of living up to Nietzschean procreative ideals, and such a disorderly society would never have amounted to anything in the galaxies. quote: In so many ways this one concept undermines the entire premise of this culture. Well, there is an escape hatch. Note another post I made a bit farther up: the Nietzscheans themselves would conclude that doing this is a bad idea, so it generally wouldn't happen, whether it was technically allowed or not. Caitriona Nietzschean quote: Originally posted by Delvo2: So it WAS a code! "Advances" meant "rapes". Women ... speaking in code so much of your lives you don't even notice when you're doing it... But what you were really saying without saying it was true enough. This practice would make random promiscuity and rapes the only hope that the men had of living up to Nietzschean procreative ideals, and such a disorderly society would never have amounted to anything in the galaxies. Well, there is an escape hatch. Note another post I made a bit farther up: the Nietzscheans themselves would conclude that doing this is a bad idea, so it generally wouldn't happen, whether it was technically allowed or not. Down boy! One of the meanings of 'Advances' meant rapes, but it is not the only defintion. I never meant to limit the use of the word by merely identifying rape as a possible reason--it was merely the most obvious and it made my point nicely. I don't think that 'advances' was that obsure and while I will concede to differing context for the words both genders use, I will not agree that it is an outright code to keep the other gender in the dark. "Advances" means all forms of aggression and/or catastrophy that women might be subjected to by other men were they not protected by husbands--Rape was merely the most easily understood and accepted example. If men do not bond with their families they will not protect and other considerations aside, I wouldn't want to leave my safety up to some natural instinct in men to 'protect and defend'women in general. Which leads me to the part I absolutely agree with..... It may be permissable to do this so that mating can occur in sepecific circumstances, but I would have to agree that as a stragety it would be abandoned by both sexes as having more of a downside that up. ~ Cait Delvo2 Nietzschean quote: "Advances" means all forms of aggression and/or catastrophy that women might be subjected to by other men Do you realize that, to most people, who don't have something seriously against men, "advances" just means showing signs of attraction to find out if the attraction is mutual... which, to most people, who don't have something seriously against men, is not the same thing as aggression and causing catastrophes?! Dylanite Magog I hesitate to get between...but I wonder if you guys aren't having a disconnect as to the word "advances"... I wonder if Cait doesn't mean it only in a negative way and perhaps she meant something more like "initiative" (More like "making a move") which doesn't have to be negative. I suppose my question is whether this doesn't ascribe to the assumption that men are supposed to make the first move (which to me seems not to be the case with Nietzscheans and also *to me* is antiquated).... sorry if I misunderstood... Lil Caitriona Nietzschean quote: Originally posted by Delvo2: Do you realize that, to most people, who don't have something seriously against men, "advances" just means showing signs of attraction to find out if the attraction is mutual... which, to most people, who don't have something seriously against men, is not the same thing as aggression and causing catastrophes?! Well, I'm going to assume you're not meaning to say that because I used a word you happen take exception to, that I have something seriously against men. Why am I going to do this, because I don't have the time or energy to engage in that discussion and it takes us way off topic. Rather I am just going to bow out of the discussion and let you have your point about my talking in code. It's not worth the effort at this point and it adds nothing to the discussion. ~ Cait D'Monix Artificial Intelligence *lights a candle in mourning for the thread* Caitriona Nietzschean quote: Originally posted by D'Monix: *lights a candle in mourning for the thread* D' don't make me laugh, I was being soooooo serious.. couldn't you tell..?? OK, OK....the thread can survive, I will attend the festivities and speak my mind...... lets the games continue.. ~ Cait D'Monix Artificial Intelligence {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{Cait}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} D' Thundersinger Magog Lets look at this from a different angle.. How do you men handle multiple wives? There are only so many hours in a day,so much man to go around... Is not one of the big probelms in RL relationiships the lack of time spent together? Example: An Alpha with five wives...He has a Pride to run ( Yes he has the Matrarch as co head but still that is a LOT of work) How does he have the time to spend time with five wives? The time to spend with his children? Do Nietzschean women just not need time with their husbands? Are Niet males some sort of superman that can go with out sleep, or somehow be in two places at once? If women are just brood mares, then the men are just stallions at stud? You can't have a family with out bonding, but if the men are there for the women to get pregnant by.... Where is the bonding, the family in that? Curufea Pyrian I'd always thought it would be impossible to - a) forcibley have intercourse with a Neit - male or female b) forcibley fertilise a female Neit. I imagined that aside from prodigious strength, martial ability, control of their own fertility and strength of will - they possibly possessed unseen modifications, like the visible bone blades. (The Firvulag in the Many Coloured Land series by Julian May spring to mind - or the YT's little helper in Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson) The male Neitz have no control over reproduction other than bargaining with female Neitz. G-man Nietzschean I think you all are over-thinking this a bit. This isn't a license to promiscuity on the woman's part, it is another tool she can use to keep the husband in line and make sure he doesn't rest on his laurels. IOW he has to continually prove himself superior to all the competition and that he remains worthy of the title of husband and father. As long as he does this, the woman won't stray, but when he begins to fail in this regard while the woman is still desireable and fertile, she can reconsider her decision and look around. The double-helix is not a vow of fidelity, it is an acknowledgement of one's worth to breed. And as such, not only can it be bestowed, it can be taken away. This intermediary step can be viewed as a warning to the spouse to get his act together before she divorces him in favor of another. /s/ Gloriosus the G-man Himself who knew that there had to be a first-wife, junior wives set up in that harem arrangement. G-man Nietzschean OK, as to the idea of females having multiple husbands in addition to the males having multiple wives ... OY ... that is simply begging for inbreeding to occur, especially in the smaller prides. And while you might be able to breed for attributes, the defects would ... of course, that would account for the presence of sterility in the Nietzschean Prides (Dmitri was rumored to be sterile, Parvati Quetzua was sterile). /s/ Gloriosus the G-man Himself Tarandus Makra quote: Originally posted by D'Monix: In light of the significance placed upon the double helix in nietzcehan culture, if the allowance for any female to procreate with any male of her choosing, married or not, were allowed then why have the double helix at all? I agree completely. Would the Nietzschean family structure really be stable if there was frequent "infidelity", known or suspected. However G-man I don't see how it would cause more inbreeding. The contrary rather I would say. The more combinations of men and women, the more different gene combinations would get passed on. Or am I not thinking straight here? QueenTiye Artificial Intelligence quote: Originally posted by Delvo2: What's so wrong with men's "advances" that women need "protection" from them? Is this some code for something that's not really being said? I believe this was a colloquialism. It was not intended to incorporate the entire spectrum of what the word "advances" means. I believe that it was intended specifically to refer to men approaching women who are known to be married. While it is true in most cases that this approach will be no different than an approach to an unmarried woman - as you say -"showing signs of attraction to find out if the attraction is mutual" - the fact that a woman is married normally discourages this behavior. It normally does so for two reasons - one, it can be assumed that the woman would not welcome it, and two, it can also be assumed that her husband would not welcome it. In the multi-husbanding scenario as originally stated, we have removed this dynamic altogether - there can be no assumptions of anyone's intent. So essentially such a female must be approached as you would any other single female. Only, this female is not single. She is married. All of the marital conditions apply - she may not be welcoming because she may be satisfied with her mate. But the approaching male may also be insane - in which case her rejection may trigger violence, including rape. In the case of rape - the husband cannot assume that it was uninvited attention - so unless she is severely physically damaged, the woman is raped and her recourse is not assured. Or, the approaching male may simply use the fact of his approach to make it appear that a liaison exists where none in fact does. However, all of this is done away with by the permissioning system described by bobdylanite, in which a woman does not accept advances at all, but rather initiates conversation with the first wife and the matriarch about a particular male, and then approaches HIM. So, I'd like to take the concept of advances to married women off the table. It is not done. However, the permissioning system persists in being a problem... QT G-man Nietzschean quote: Originally posted by Tarandus: I agree completely. Would the Nietzschean family structure really be stable if there was frequent "infidelity", known or suspected. However G-man I don't see how it would cause more inbreeding. The contrary rather I would say. The more combinations of men and women, the more different gene combinations would get passed on. Or am I not thinking straight here? Half-brothers and half-sisters. You'd have that many more children running around that would share a mother or a father, who would end up being mated to each other. And if you stretch the tree out to the first cousins, imagine how many potential mates would have been sharing a grandmother or grandfather. After a point, you get diminishing returns as everyone in the pride would be either a full or half relation to everyone they would have to select for a mate. There are only so many combinations that you can achieve in a given group, and the generation that sprang from it are left with only themselves to draw a mate from, and if too much multi-partner breeding occured, then you will have cousins and siblings; half-cousins and quarter-cousins; half-siblings and quarter-siblings breeding with each other (half = shares a parent; quarter = shares a grandparent). This would be why the mating has to be approved by the matriarch to try to limit how much actual inbreeding there is. /s/ Gloriosus the G-man Himself Tarandus Makra Any isolated pride will end up with inbreeding sooner or later. My thought was that it must be better if your maternal grandmother and your paternal grandfather are half siblings than if they are full siblings. But my brain is on overload and I haven't thought about how it would come out in the long run. It might not matter as long as the same number of individuals are involved. However I can tell you a lot about the population genetics of Arabidopsis thaliana... Caitriona Nietzschean QueenTiye Originally said: quote: However, the permissioning system persists in being a problem... Yes, it does! This carries with it a lot of social and cultural baggage. Consider the lives of these women when each and every choice they might what to make, has to be approved. While the approval of the Matriarch might be tolerable, it is her responsibility to ensure the quality of the mating. And I'm sure we can add in here it would be her responsibility to see that genetic diversity was maintained. The approval of the First Wife brings up more questions than it answers. I went looking for what I wrote on this topic on KHC but could not find it. My main concern here is this: If the power of the First Wife is so great, then all women (with any ambition and a healthy lack of appreciation for others telling her what to do) would seek to be a First Wife. While this breeds competition in amongst the women for these top spots, eventually it leads to monogamy. It would lead to every man worthy or not being given the chance to procreate because there was power to be obtained in assuming the position of First Wife. This strategy would lead to monogamy. In fact what this top spot in a family does if she is NOT a First Wife is take a woman from house where her mother ruled to another where the first wife rules... Ultimately it leaves the individual woman with no choices at all other than she can submit a candidate for mating for others to approve of. As grim as that is, it contradicts the premise that Nietzscheans (both men and women) would try to impose their will on their universe. It does not contribute to the strength of women nor does it allow for their 'will to power'. I had a long essay on this that I just cannot locate, but this was the gist of it.. ~ Cait QueenTiye Artificial Intelligence Cait, I drafted this before you posted, but didn't post it... so I'll go ahead and put it here, then come back to your points... quote: Originally posted by bobdylanite: She uses the wording 'mating', that females may mate with someone other than her husband, as long as she has permission from the Matriarch, and her husband's first wife. I took 'mating' to mean marry, not just sleep with for procreation, but I may be wrong. I tend to work better when listing things (it helps me see what we are talking about), so please bear with me while I restate this information for my own clarity. 1.Females may mate with someone other than her husband This implies that we are specifically talking about married women, not single women. As stated, it is not clear that this is talking about husbands or lovers. However, series usage has mate meaning marry to a Nietzschean, I tend to lean in that direction. 2.as long as she has permission from the Matriarch This is standard mating procedure. Approval of mating comes from the Matriarch. No new information. 3. and her husband's first wife. The implications here are very important to note in context of the discussion of Nietzschean matriarchy. I'll list them: The first wife has importance above all subsequent wives. This opens up a whole new can of worms, because we have to study how this helps or hurts the matriarchal power structure. The loss of a first wife must be a huge stain on a man - more than the loss of any other wife. First wives control the right of a woman to divorce and remarry. First wives have governing control over the harem. This means that divorce is much more difficult for women than we ever thought it was. This may also put junior wives (as they now must be called) into the precarious position of being farmed out for political purposes - it doesn't do the first wife any good to support her junior wife's alliance with a rival of her husband. From an altruistic level, this system may suggest that having multiple wives is a charity to women to ensure that they continue to be able to maximize thier reproductive years... hence a "great man" (as Guderian was called) having 12 wives, could mean that he was great because of them, but his having 12 wives could be a symptom of his greatness - i.e., his ability to care for these women who might not have otherwise been mated, or who lost husbands in battle, etc. Hence, Alpha status may be conferred on the man willing to father other men's children, as well as protect the pride... I'll take a break here - and hope someone chimes in with more thoughts... Dylanite Magog The power structure you are describing sounds more and more and more like what I'd expect in a harem. There is a number one woman who exerts control over all other women, while the man continues to be able to marry whoever he wants. Lil G-man Nietzschean I'd argue that just because a harem has a first wife that this would necessarily lead to monogamy. This was the whole context of Freya's comment to Tyr, why settle for being the 13th wife of an acknowledged Great Man, when she could be a first wife of a potentially great man. There is status, and it is an acknowledgement of the woman who first saw the potential in the male. Otherwise, the harem would fall subject to the "favorite" of the male, who might just be the most recently added wife. In which case attractiveness, skill in bed, and the ability to produce children become of paramount importance in the family. The first wife's fidelity would count for nothing, and her experience would be of marginal value to her present husband. In fact this might encourage a first wife to seek out the second husband, because she had been displaced in her husband's affections by the newcomer. And it would be a truly "great man" not to only have his favorite, but to appease all his other wives so they didn't leave him. Why does there have to be a pecking order among the wives, instead of an equal power-share within the family? Quite simply, the competition comes to trying to improve the lot of their respective children with their respective Father. After all, wouldn't a woman's proof of worth not only be the number of healthy women she bore, but the influence she wields over her husband, and indirectly on the clan? Now, the only other scenario I could think of is that each woman maintains her own house, and the male, acting as stud, would visit when invited. And if the children remain with the mother (as suggested in THE ANCIENT'S BREATH), the Fathers and Husbands would only need look after their own get, the others remain out of sight in a back chamber during his visit, whereas the mother would look after them all. The Wife being the mistress of her own house and property once she mates. (scratches head) This last needs thinking on. /s/ Gloriosus the G-man Himself QueenTiye Artificial Intelligence quote: Originally posted by Caitriona: The approval of the First Wife brings up more questions than it answers. I went looking for what I wrote on this topic on KHC but could not find it. My main concern here is this: If the power of the First Wife is so great, then all women (with any ambition and a healthy lack of appreciation for others telling her what to do) would seek to be a First Wife. While this breeds competition in amongst the women for these top spots, eventually it leads to monogamy. It would lead to every man worthy or not being given the chance to procreate because there was power to be obtained in assuming the position of First Wife. This strategy would lead to monogamy. Well... in fact it has to mean that (I remember the essay! I think it was a thread that Rov started, or it was in the main Nietzschean Matriarchy thread.). Which is problematic from a lot of standpoints, but in that same essay, I argued that it might not be as easy as we think for women to choose to become first wives. Here are some potential obstacles: 1. The Matriarch might not approve. She may simply decide against a particular woman having that much power and responsibility. 2. The risk might be too great. I argued this before - that being a first wife is a very entrepreneurial venture - choosing the right man to back is like choosing a thoroughbred - tough to choose, and tougher to maximize on your choice. Other women can ride your success or scorn your failure, but may never want to be the first. QueenTiye Artificial Intelligence quote: Originally posted by D'Monix: In the giving of the helix, in her choice of him as husband and father the female is saying that this male is the best in her view for the continuing of her genetic legacy and for the founding of a family. It is a privledge that not all nietzchean males enjoy. The system already empowers women in this as they choose who can mate and found families and who cannot. And those who cannot, well, they are looked down upon by their brethren. Very eloquently stated! Which is why... quote: Now if the female is allowed to mate with whomever she pleases, only asking the required permissions, that implies that the Helix has no real significance at least in my view. This can't be the right interpretation. Indeed, a woman has no real interest in bedhopping in this culture. She is nearly 100% fertile - why would she waste her genetic potential on someone she hasn't evaluated as worthy of it? Why would she jeopardize the wellbeing of her current offspring? Caitriona Nietzschean quote: but may never want to be the first. You would never want to NOT be first IMHO. How else could a woman exert her power? While it would be strategic to wait and see if a man were worthy or not, by doing so you miss your chance to establish your own power base. The risk is negligible if you choose correctly compared to the power lost in becoming a junior wife. Think about it, a lifetime of never being able to make another choice without the approval of the First Wife and the Matriarch? I'd leave the Pride entirely.. I wouldn't do it and I'm not even Nietzschean! (Although I have a friend who says they used me as a model for these women, but he is biased~ g~) I think I argued that this would be fine for women who seek a safe spot in a family. But then the genetic worth of the woman comes into issue. What woman worth her genetic salt would opt to live a lifetime of being controlled by a First Wife in addition to the Matriarch? I just can't reconcile myself to it. Unless there are lots of inferior Nietzschean women who wouldn't mind never being in control of their lives. Then I suppose it would work. In the same manner that inferior men are denied the benefits of Nietzschean life, so inferior women are relegated to junior roles and are bargained with as the women in power see fit. Grim but I can see that... But I still cannot help but think that women would compete for top spots and that unravels the whole power of their choice where men are concerned. All any single man of any worth would then have to do is wait for the competition to end and sort of the fittest female. And come to think of it, it might be exactly how it operates. Hummmmm back to the drawing board. But this does not change my mind on the competition that would take place for these spots. It would be intense IMO. It only would pay to wait, if you could muster a power base equal to the First Wife regardless of the order in which you became a wife. If you could still acquire and maintain a power base (It is a given that she would have to have the abilities to do so regardless of order) regardless of order then it would be a wise strategy to wait and see. But we're now saying that there is almost no way excepting by assassination (joke here-sort of) to gain power then waiting becomes too risky. Unless you're allowed to step over the dead bodies of your co-wives that is... Which I strongly doubt. ~ Cait QueenTiye Artificial Intelligence Holy Toledo, Cait! Guess what? We're back! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! QT Dylanite Magog How can a society where men can marry as many women as will have them, where women only get to marry one man, and where only the first wives and the "matriarch", be considered a matriarchy? Most women *aren't* first wives (at least this is the impression I've gotten) and they have no power. Caitriona Nietzschean quote: Originally posted by QueenTiye: Holy Toledo, Cait! Guess what? We're back! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! QT QT, I was thinking the very same thought... It just took off and we're on for the whole ride aren't we? Had another thought which we had never considered in the Matriarchy thread. The Matriarcy may only be about the rule of women by women. The Alpha may in fact only rule the men. These people may live gender seperate lives, each having their own power structure. When it comes to combined interests, Sex and secruity, each gender rules that which is their forte. Women rule sex and procreation while men rule defence and secruity. It maximizes each gender's strength and seperates power when it is gender specific. So, there would be no need for women to secure their power over men, because they have none, except the choice for mate. The Matriarchy is only about the rule of women by women and men are ruled by men... Very grim in my opinion, but it ties all of these loose ends together in some sort of semblence. Just a thought! ~ Cait QueenTiye Artificial Intelligence Cait - look around you today. In a capitalist country, the best way to get rich is to start a business - in other words - to have a product, produce it and sell it. The way to get rich is not to produce for others. And yet - people do it. All the time. Most people, in fact. Industrialized nations can't run on EVERYBODY starting a business and nobody working for it! There are some people who don't have that opportunity, some people who had it but failed, and some who never wanted it. This is an important distinction. We have to make a point of allowing that women and men have varied ways of imposing their will on the universe - and thier will may not include dominating others, but rather, being able to negotiate effectively under someone else's leadership. QT Caitriona Nietzschean ^^ I can allow for this. I think I was somewhat misunderstood however. I wasn't talking so much about dominating others; I was speaking to the issue of being dominated. While many people , women included do not aspire to dominance over others as a method of obtaining power, most consider their freedom to determine their own destinies as a loss of power. This is what I am talking about. There is a world of difference, in my opinion. One is concerned with exerting ones will over others; the other is about remaining free of influence (at least from other sentients). While I agree that different people would choose differing strategies, I still believe that women would balk at the idea of always being under the influence of another women. Except for first wives, no woman has any freedom of choice. (If these are indeed the circumstances present with Nietzscheans) I can see that some women might choose exactly as you have described, as a matter of fact many might choose this way... But over the long haul and given that there are probably more women than men, I can see trouble down the line for strong women. And this could defeat the reproductive agendas of a Pride. Although I can also see that this competition amongst strong women would also create the circumstances that might have been deliberately placed into this culture right along with the competition among men for mating privillages. So I'm not altogether certain that it is not this way, just that it would produce competition and also make women seek mates outside of a given Pride if no suitable single men were available. But this might have been the plan all along. It has it's up side to long term lineage. But it would produce competition among women, of that I am sure! ~ Cait QueenTiye Artificial Intelligence quote: Originally posted by Caitriona: Had another thought which we had never considered in the Matriarchy thread. The Matriarcy may only be about the rule of women by women. The Alpha may in fact only rule the men. ~ Cait And a good one, but I do think we will wind up rejecting it. Here are my immediate reactions: The matriarch holds sway in some areas, not others... how does she maintain this right without the power of the sword, so to speak? The matriarch approves the new alpha... or does she? Tyr said he'd TAKE the alphaship, and I can't imagine that Dimitri was Olma's choice of Alpha. A lot to think about - and judging by how much all over the map we are, we'll be here for a little while... QT Curufea Pyrian Hmm - female Neitz may mate with whomever they wish. Male Neitz may not. Fairly straight forward powerbase there. Double Helix - In exchange for the male's protection, that male gets the right to mate with her whenever he wishes (bringing that male to the same level of power as the female, but only with regard to that female). XxTyrxX Artificial Intelligence OK, first off, I don't normally frequent this forum but this thread was pointed out to me and I just had to read it! (Thanks Thundersinger. ) I read all the posts to make sure that I got the most opinions that I could and I had to think about my opinions in this matter as well. I have to admit that my feelings and thoughts on this matter lay with D'. I agree with him when I say that I feel that a wife having multiple mates makes the giving of the double helix insignificant. From all we have seen, it is the woman who has the douoble helix. So, she is the one who has to decide on what man is worthy of being the one to mate with her. Once given, this is a MAJOR thing. So, if she decides to just go off with another male, suddenly, getting the helix is not such a big thing. Hell, why do I need to get her to choose me to be her mate if all I have to do is catch her interest enough to allow me to mate with her in any case? In regards to the Matriarchy... the more I read, the more I am inclined to believe in the earlier stated comment about a split ruling system, both a Matriarchy and a Patriarchy. From what we have been told, I have been convince that there is just no way for the omen to have had as much power as we may have previously believed. What I have come to believe is that the women do have COMPLETE power when it comes to the decisions pertaining to family and mating. They choose who or who is not worthy. They decide when to mate with that person. Also, if necessary, they decide whether or not to keep said child if something goes wrong, i.e. Freya's choice in keeping Tyr's child or not. The men tend to handle all things defensive, and procuring the neccessary supplies... IMHO. Now, my main problems in coming to any reasonable conclusions in this matter is that we have all been shown far too LITTLE of the Niet culture to make truly accurate assessments about it. I feel that we have been given too much contridicting info and cannot get anyone to sit down and fully explain it to us. We get answers like, more will be revealed in the shows but more often than not, we get more questions than answers. G-man Nietzschean quote: Originally posted by Caitriona: You would never want to NOT be first IMHO. How else could a woman exert her power? While it would be strategic to wait and see if a man were worthy or not, by doing so you miss your chance to establish your own power base. The risk is negligible if you choose correctly compared to the power lost in becoming a junior wife. Think about it, a lifetime of never being able to make another choice without the approval of the First Wife and the Matriarch? ~ Cait Ummm ... Cait? It's not about being first to exert your power over other women. It is about having access to a superior male's Genetic Material. Heck, we see this in today's society with mistresses, and women who desire what other women have. So it is, only amplified, within Nietzschean Society. Now, as I said, the matter is problematical, and unless the women keep their own houses that the man frequents as a stud, then most of the problems are relegated. If a disagreement should occur between two wives of a husband, who should judge? A man worth his salt isn't even going to attempt to arbitrate the matter because he's going to lose no matter how he decides. So the matter has to be left to someone within that circle, and that someone would have to be the first wife, the first to recognize the man's value. This is where her power comes in, and how much influence she has in her husband's affairs. It is not her dominating the other wives into subservience, but rather acting as a referee over any domestic dispute. Thus, each woman has a chance to exert their will and not be dominated, but will have to accept, if they chose a mate who already has a wife, then they agree to abide by that woman's decision should a quarrel arise. However, within the wife's own house, SHE gets to decide how it is run, and how her children are raised, allowing the sire visiting rights as it suits her. It is SHE who decides with whom else she should mate, not the First Wife, as the matter doesn't concern her. /s/ Gloriosus the G-man Himself QueenTiye Artificial Intelligence quote: Originally posted by G-man: This was the whole context of Freya's comment to Tyr, why settle for being the 13th wife of an acknowledged Great Man, when she could be a first wife of a potentially great man. There is status, and it is an acknowledgement of the woman who first saw the potential in the male. Agreed. But... how many women would therefore be incentivised to make similar choices? It certainly will have a tendency to keep harem numbers small - at minimum. It is hard for me to understand Tyr's grandfather with his 22 wives, second only to the Alpha in number of wives... quote: Otherwise, the harem would fall subject to the "favorite" of the male, who might just be the most recently added wife. In which case attractiveness, skill in bed, and the ability to produce children become of paramount importance in the family. The first wife's fidelity would count for nothing, and her experience would be of marginal value to her present husband. In fact this might encourage a first wife to seek out the second husband, because she had been displaced in her husband's affections by the newcomer. And it would be a truly "great man" not to only have his favorite, but to appease all his other wives so they didn't leave him. I agree with all of this, G, but the problem here is that we are therefore talking about men's power, not women's. The problem here is that all of a sudden, with this dynamic - it is men who must be pleased in order to secure status in the harem. This is a good argument you are making against female competition... that DOESN'T go away when the object of the competition changes from these dynamics to the ones you describe below: quote: Why does there have to be a pecking order among the wives, instead of an equal power-share within the family? Quite simply, the competition comes to trying to improve the lot of their respective children with their respective Father. After all, wouldn't a woman's proof of worth not only be the number of healthy women she bore, but the influence she wields over her husband, and indirectly on the clan? It is the indirect influence on the clan that is the problem. You are effectively talking about patriarchy. If we are to accept that first wives have this potent influence and status, then we have to find some other way to MINIMIZE competition amongst women - there has to be some reason other than competition for women to want to be first wives, and some reason why most women wouldn't care a fiddle about it... in short, this first wife's authority would have to be severely limited - even though she has this higher ranked status. Women have to be able to prove their worth through other means than just their husbands, and they have to be able to influence the pride directly, not indirectly, in order for us to be talking about a matriarchy. quote: Now, the only other scenario I could think of is that each woman maintains her own house, and the male, acting as stud, would visit when invited. And if the children remain with the mother (as suggested in THE ANCIENT'S BREATH), the Fathers and Husbands would only need look after their own get, the others remain out of sight in a back chamber during his visit, whereas the mother would look after them all. The Wife being the mistress of her own house and property once she mates. I can't imagine a society where women are in fact in control, where they spend their lives hiding different sets of children away from their husbands. Its totally unreasonable to expect that women would set up society in a way that inconveniences and disadvantages themselves so much. Early in the matriarchy topic discussion I made the following point. I keep repeating it, because I think it bears note: In our society, childbirth and childrearing are inconveniences put on women. Women who bear children are excluded from other activities. Social structures do not readily accommodate child-caretakers. Daycare is a major women in the workforce issue, for instance. The key factor here, is that the power structure of society was built for men to operate with women operating outside of it. Any matriarchal society would do this differently. The power structure would be organized so that the activities of women were incorporated into the power structure. Daycare, to stay with that example, would not be an afterthought to be imposed on the system to accommodate women, but rather, would be integral parts of the system. It is even possible that some accommodations might have to be made for men - soldiers, for instance, might have little to no access to political power without certain accommodations. QT QueenTiye Artificial Intelligence quote: Originally posted by Dylanite: The power structure you are describing sounds more and more and more like what I'd expect in a harem. There is a number one woman who exerts control over all other women, while the man continues to be able to marry whoever he wants. Lil Well, I wouldn't go that far - the man cannot marry whoever he wants - he can only marry whoever wants him. That hasn't changed. BUT...the more I think about it, the more I realize that the first wife cannot possibly have as much power as I'm reading into the situation. For all the reasons stated, the first wife's authority over junior wives has to be minimal. QT QueenTiye Artificial Intelligence quote: Originally posted by Curufea: Hmm - female Neitz may mate with whomever they wish. Male Neitz may not. Fairly straight forward powerbase there. Double Helix - In exchange for the male's protection, that male gets the right to mate with her whenever he wishes (bringing that male to the same level of power as the female, but only with regard to that female). Yes! Curufea, thank you for reiterating this point. I think it got lost somewhere in the midst of this conversation - that female choice remains sacrosanct. But, the power that you refer to is substantially limited - and being able to step outside the marriage sounds like a benefit to females, but in fact, it dilutes the impact of thier choice. I come back to the possibility we aren't considering - that we aren't talking at all about dailiances - rather, we are talking about marriages. QT G-man Nietzschean quote: Originally posted by QueenTiye: I can't imagine a society where women are in fact in control, where they spend their lives hiding different sets of children away from their husbands. Its totally unreasonable to expect that women would set up society in a way that inconveniences and disadvantages themselves so much. Early in the matriarchy topic discussion I made the following point. I keep repeating it, because I think it bears note: In our society, childbirth and childrearing are inconveniences put on women. Women who bear children are excluded from other activities. Social structures do not readily accommodate child-caretakers. Daycare is a major women in the workforce issue, for instance. The key factor here, is that the power structure of society was built for men to operate with women operating outside of it. Any matriarchal society would do this differently. The power structure would be organized so that the activities of women were incorporated into the power structure. Daycare, to stay with that example, would not be an afterthought to be imposed on the system to accommodate women, but rather, would be integral parts of the system. It is even possible that some accommodations might have to be made for men - soldiers, for instance, might have little to no access to political power without certain accommodations. QT But in USV, we have Pavarti Quetzua's own comment about not wanting to be trapped in some house raising rugrats for some posturing Alpha-wannabe. This gives me the impression that Childrearing has once again devolved to the female, and it is not something that is put off for a career, or considered an inconvenience. This would be considered the female's primary goal in life. As the poet once said: "Man is for woman a means, the end is always a child." (UtN) The Nietzschean Prides are a complex construct about which they've only provided glimpses. We know that it is the Women who choose who they would sleep with, not the man, and that even the Alpha must bow to the Matriarch in terms of mate selection. (DH) We know that on the one hand Nietzschean's will destroy off-spring who prove to be incapable of contributing to the Pride. (DMZ) But they will not kill those defective specimens (re: Sterile) simply because they are inferior. (USV) We know that many Nietzschean Prides practice slavery (MOADD, tHO, BH), and that they love their children. Everything else is supposition. We know it is the females who decide who can or cannot reproduce, I believe that it is also the women who stand to inherit, and it's the combination of these rights that secures their powerbase. Nietzschean Society is inherently competitive, not cooperative, so I do not see how the women can avoid this little aspect. As "junior wives" join a family, they gain access to the genetic material of the male, and share in the prestige, power and property that he has managed to acquire. When he dies, his property is then divided up among the wives. Whereas with the first wife, she doesn't know what her chosen will bring in terms of prestige or property and has to wait for the proof. All she can go on is her belief. The fact that he has a wife will cause the other women to watch him to see what he does. And once he starts proving himself superior, then and only then will they decide to mate with him because he has proven himself a good provider and protector. Thus, they'd have to consider is can the man provide enough that it is worth their having to deal with the first wife in order to gain access to his DNA. /s/ Gloriosus the G-man Himself QueenTiye Artificial Intelligence quote: Originally posted by G-man: But in USV, we have Pavarti Quetzua's own comment about not wanting to be trapped in some house raising rugrats for some posturing Alpha-wannabe. This gives me the impression that Childrearing has once again devolved to the female, and it is not something that is put off for a career, or considered an inconvenience. This would be considered the female's primary goal in life. I agree that this responsibility is devolved to women, and is in fact her source of power. My point was, if it is a female controlled society - that would not become an inconvenience to the woman. She cannot be about the business of hiding her children from men. She's got them, as any woman worth her salt should. This isn't something to be hidden, its something to be flaunted, and if another man wants in... he d@mned well better be nice to those kids. It would have to be her first evaluation of that man. Pervarti Quechua's disposition is the exception, not the rule - she is outside the power structure of her society,and therefore is a little embittered about it. Her career choices were limited - she was out being a soldier - basically trying to prove her worth. Her career choices, had she been a fertile female should have been wider, not narrower, because her worth would already be established. Just mho. QT Edited to add: quote: Nietzschean Society is inherently competitive, not cooperative, so I do not see how the women can avoid this little aspect. As "junior wives" join a family, they gain access to the genetic material of the male, and share in the prestige, power and property that he has managed to acquire. I agree that Nietzschean women are competitive. What I am protesting is the idea that they are competing FOR men. It is men who have to compete for women. As you say, competition between women has to exist, and if we assume that all women are doing is raising children, then I agree. But I don't know if that is true. Elsbett is certainly doing more than raising children - and she is both a mother, and a duchess. I know she is the exception (as a fighter), but I doubt that she is the exception as a woman with careers that include their families. What is the governing structure of society? How do laws get passed? Who makes clothing? Who sells them? How is agriculture managed? Who manufactures double-helix armbands??? As others have said, we've seen really very little of Nietzschean society. But we know that these things go on, so I tend to believe that women are involved in these aspects of life. It seems to me that any industry that can be managed and/or influenced from the home complex, and the entire political structure should be managed and/or influenced by women if we are calling it a matriarchy. Which gives them plenty of room to be competitive, and which may in fact, be how the Matriarch decides who gets to be a first wife... QT Caitriona Nietzschean quote: It's not about being first to exert your power over other women. It is about having access to a superior male's Genetic Material. You have just got to be kidding here, since when is a big deal to merely have access to a man's Genetic Material, even a superior man's. I mean if this were the ONLY consideration a Nietzschean woman had, there would be no marriages at all, they would simply mate at will and be done with it. We're not simply talking about genetic material, we're talking about having a superior man as a husband AND a father to one's children. There is a lot more here that just having access to genetic material. A man could merely donate his material and impregnate all the women in a Pride if that were the case. OR do it the old fashion way! I thought I made myself clear but let me try once again... it is not about exerting one's influence over other women necessarily, (you are quite right in this) but it is ALL ABOUT NOT HAVING ANOTHER WOMAN EXERT HER INFLUENCE OVER YOU. If First Wife has such power inherently, then it becomes a desirable spot due to the fact that it is relatively free from the influences of anyone else--WHICH MEANS FREEDOM OF CHOICE!! That's my point!.. The First Wife becomes the one with the most freedom and that means that it is desirable. Although I am sure there would be women who desired to control and dominate the other wives, that would boil down to personality. Generally speaking I can't see how women in this particular culture would bind themselves to the rule of another woman when she could have both if she can find a single man of worth. AND this is my major point-- Any woman worth her genetic salt would want both. Think about it, although it is certainly a risky decision for the Frist Wife, it also has quite an incentive plan now doesn't it? And it this incentive that almost negates all the risk involved, although I do see that it is a risk. But these people are all about exerting their will against the universe, isn't that all about risk as well. And if all of this is true, (and I don't claim to have cornered the market on truth on this subject).. then a situation comes into play where women are in fact competiting for men, because it is advantageous to have the first spot. And if this is true then the men do not need to compete as much. All any man would have to do is wait because there will always be more women than men around due to death in war and such. It's the way of things. all in all, I just think that it wouldn't work to have every first wife automatically exert that kind of control over junior wives. These are Nietzscheans, not desperate women who will be considered an old maid if they aren't pregnant by the time they are 12. Why would a woman give up so much just to have one man. Over all it is a poor stragety. I can see choosing an already married man if there were no suitable single men available. But that means they would still be looking for single men first.. and all of that still produces competition among women for men, when we already have evidence that it is supposed to be the other way around. ~ Cait Dylanite Magog I disagree with the implication that Pavarti Quecua's pov is entitled to less weight because she is outside the Prides power structure. That logic would lead to disregarding Tyr's pov because he too, only much more so, is outside the power structure of Nietzschean society. Pavarti's pov, one that suggests that women are expected to be breeders and don't have much of a choice about this is borne out by what we saw of Elsbett. Even in her extreme situation, it was SO important that her eggs not be "wasted" that they were removed from her. I've said it before and I'll repeat it here: the issue is choice. Women don't have one. They are breeders or they are defective (or suicidal assasins in extraordinary circumstances). A breeder from all evidence doesn't get to choose to be a fighter pilot. And Cait before you say it *g* it doesn't MATTER to me whether she'd be likely to choose that course the point is that the choice is made for her. That's no matriarchy in my book. Lil QueenTiye Artificial Intelligence quote: Originally posted by Dylanite: I disagree with the implication that Pavarti Quecua's pov is entitled to less weight because she is outside the Prides power structure. Lil, I never suggested that we disregard her pov. We just have to put it in context. As you say, we have to look at Tyr's outlook in the same context as well. We can't expect that all Nietzschean males are acting and thinking like Tyr. We rather have to expect that most are not. quote: Pavarti's pov, one that suggests that women are expected to be breeders and don't have much of a choice about this is borne out by what we saw of Elsbett. Again, I disagree. Women are expected to have babies. Whether or not they have a choice is something altogether different. Ellsbett is the exception for the reasons she stated already. And, may I also point out that in Ellsbett's case - the removal of her eggs had to be considered an incentive TO her... Nietzschean spirituality says that you live, i.e., achieve immortality, in your genes. Wrap your thinking around that for a minute, and then think about the fact that Ellsbett was an unwed woman going on a suicide mission. The fact is, it was Pervarti that didn't have a choice. She COULDN'T breed. She had no options. I don't know if we know that women who can breed don't, out of choice. I'd argue that most do, and that most WANT to - but that doesn't mean that all want to. And we have seen no examples of women being forced to breed, except Ellsbett, who I think again, we all acknowledge was the exception, not the rule. Quechua's attitude of not wanting to be a 3rd wife of a wannabe alpha is all fine and dandy. But it doesn't mean that all women feel like her, and it doesn't mean that her assessment is correct. As far as her choosing to be a fighter pilot, thems the breaks! There are other things to be besides fighter pilots. And if the only thing a fertile woman can't be is a soldier - then, every society establishes its norms and limits. That doesn't make or break it's power structure. For a while, a man couldn't decide to be a nurse... it was looked down on and ridiculed. Does that make this any less a patriarchy? Caitriona Nietzschean Lil, Not a word from me, with this latest info/rumor..... I'm being seduced to the Lil-Side of the coin ... I know, I know..... I never thought I would ever say that on this particular subject...... But now it is a matter of choice for me as well....How can any Neitzschean woman exert her will to power under these circumstances? Hard for me to see right now... Cait leaves the thread for the moment pondering how small the universe really is and how she is really only one small part of a greater consciousness.... and that Lil is part of it as well..... It's a small world after all.. QueenTiye Artificial Intelligence ^^ Et tu, Cait??? LOL! I see I need to rally the troops... Let me remind you of one thing that we always held as a fundamental principle in this thread - we are trying to make it work... We've already done wonders with contradictory info - this is just one more example (and I'm closing in on it, I think...) QT Caitriona Nietzschean quote: Originally posted by QueenTiye: ^^ Et tu, Cait??? LOL! I see I need to rally the troops... Let me remind you of one thing that we always held as a fundamental principle in this thread - we are trying to make it work... We've already done wonders with contradictory info - this is just one more example (and I'm closing in on it, I think...) QT I'm thinking on it as well, but it is easier for me now to see Lil's POV, although we have different complaints-- they run along the same lines-- Choice! You and I have spent a long time on this subject, but that makes us the ones who can see how one little datum could the the pebble that sends ripples throughout the entire system. That's what I am reacting to more than anything. I can see how far-reaching this would be, because we have already been there and done that... That said, I have not given up.. and regardless of the outcome for Nietzscheans, our Matriarchy discussion is not for naught.. It can always be the bible for a series we write that does have a powerful Matriarchy.. So I am encouraged that we did it the right way regardless of how this turns out. ~ Cait Gaiate Perseid Consider me the troops . . .er . . . troop. Seriously though, I think QT has a good point in that we really haven't seen anything that would say that Nietzschean women have no choice, simply that it's generally expected in the culture. Elsbett, like QT said, is much more than just a "homebody," as Pavarti put it. She was leading the Sabra-Jaguar fleet (until Dylan put his foot down, sort of). She was the exception in THO, but there's nothing to say that she was still an exception by BH (other than her being a duchess of course. Not everyone can be royalty. ) How do we know that at least some Nietzschean women do not have children and then go out and perform other duties and tasks? --Te Dylanite Magog quote: Originally posted by Caitriona: But now it is a matter of choice for me as well....How can any Neitzschean woman exert her will to power under these circumstances? Hard for me to see right now... Ditto! Lil Delvo2 Nietzschean The solution to this dilemma is simple. Ignore the silly nonsensical stuff that you know can't work. (BTW, about teh validity of Pavarti's POV: Tyr's is not equivalent, because he was raised normally and only got separated from his people later on... not that it matters, since this whole wrench in the works never happened as far as I'm concerned...) Caitriona Nietzschean quote: Originally posted by Delvo2: The solution to this dilemma is simple. Ignore the silly nonsensical stuff that you know can't work. (BTW, about teh validity of Pavarti's POV: Tyr's is not equivalent, because he was raised normally and only got separated from his people later on... not that it matters, since this whole wrench in the works never happened as far as I'm concerned...) Yes, this is true, Tyr was almost grown by the time he was disconnected from his Pride. Pavariti was outside of Pride life and most of its benefits from birth because she was sterile. The comparisions are not valid. AND throwing out anything that simply doesn't work is exactly my plan, regardless of what is presented to be true. Some things are simply not workable and I just toss them aside.. But sometimes it is worth the effort to see if all factors can be reconciled into something workable. Not because it is important in any true sense, but because it is just a nice mental excercise... ~ Cait QueenTiye Artificial Intelligence quote: Originally posted by Caitriona: It can always be the bible for a series we write that does have a powerful Matriarchy.. So I am encouraged that we did it the right way regardless of how this turns out. ~ Cait LOL!!! {{{{{{{{[Cait}}}}}}}}}}}} That is a REALLY good idea...LOL!!! Caitriona Nietzschean quote: Originally posted by QueenTiye: LOL!!! {{{{{{{{Cait}}}}}}}}}}}} That is a REALLY good idea...LOL!!! I thought so, we did all the work, we wrote the bible so to speak and I see no reason not to consider all the possibilities that life might have to offer..... While the Nietzschean Matriarchy may not be all it should be, WE are certainly not limited by that.. We can do anything we want with the work, it's ours! ~ Cait QueenTiye Artificial Intelligence quote: Originally posted by Delvo2: The solution to this dilemma is simple. Ignore the silly nonsensical stuff that you know can't work. (BTW, about the validity of Pavarti's POV: Tyr's is not equivalent, because he was raised normally and only got separated from his people later on... not that it matters, since this whole wrench in the works never happened as far as I'm concerned...) {{{{{{{{{{Delvo}}}}}}}}}} Thank you for that correction on Tyr. And yes... if there's no way to make this work, then out the door it goes - especially since we haven't seen it on t.v. I think we can say that the only things we really HAVE to make fit is what's onscreen... But I still think I might be able to make it fit. Just a little WD40... LOL! QT XxTyrxX Artificial Intelligence I just have a comment to make... I can certainly see where Lil and Cait would be seeing this from their own personal POV but the main thing is that we all have to consider that we are looking at this matter from our own society's POV. I think it is important to understand the Niet mindset which we haven't fully done. Some of us are refusing to see it from their way of thinking and insisting on imposing our own values on them. Now, I am not saying this to put anyone down but to maybe offer some insight. PLEASE remember this. One thing I think we have to keep in mind about the women AND men is that mating and having a family is a GENETIC IMPERATIVE. Therefore, because the men are driven to want families, the larger the better, I think that this gives the women a great deal of power within the Niet prides. It is my opinion that this is where the 2 sides are having a problem with there being a Matriarchy... whether of not being a "breeder" is really power. I think that to the Niets, it truly is. Thundersinger Magog Genetic Imperative or Cultural Imperative. Survival is genetic..but I can not say that having a Family is genetic. One can breed with out having a Family... QueenTiye Artificial Intelligence quote: Originally posted by Thundersinger: Genetic Imperative or Cultural Imperative. Survival is genetic..but I can not say that having a Family is genetic. One can breed with out having a Family... Saw an opportunity to be #74, so I took it... You are right - it is cultural. But in Niet Culture, we are said that it is a BIG part of the culture - for men their highest honor. QT Rangie Nietzschean And in my grand glorious tradition (?!) of How To Kill The Momentum Of A Thread Without Really Meaning To Do So... [Puts on Moderator hat] Closing down this thread due to length. Discussion may be continued in this thread. [Removes Moderator hat] ------------------ Triangulum Descendant: Bogus Hermitage Class Motto: "Oh yeah? Well, Slipstream this, buddy!"