NationStates Jolt Archive

Please have a look at the following, tell me what you think - this is a first draft. I have a full version of the oath if anyone needs/wants more information.


A proposal to increase human rights

Whereas there are many conservative and religious nations within NationStates and

Whereas these nations seek to restrict the rights of women, and impose a large set of social constraints upon the behaviour of women,

Shee City proposes that all nations over 500 million inhabitants allow the presence within their borders of one guild house of the Oath-Bound Renunciates, to be bought, furnished and maintained by the Guild.

Also: that all nations so affected allow free passage and free communication between guild houses.

Further information
The Guild of Oath-Bound Renunciates (the nation "The Renunciates") was formed to give women an alternative to living within a patriarchal society.
On joining, a woman swears
- to renounce her family, owing allegiance only to the guild
- to renounce the right to marry
- to be known only as the daughter of her mother
- to renounce the protection of men
- that she will never be a concubine or prostitute
- that she alone will choose whose child she will bear, and that child's fostering
- to protect herself by force if attacked by force
- to obey the laws of the land, and any lawful command of an employer for the season of that employment.

A woman may not join until she reaches majority.
The guild provisions guild houses, where guild members may live, and provides teaching and health care. The guild house at Arilinn also trains midwives. No male over the age of 5 years may live in the guild house. Daughters of renunciates may live in the guild house but may not join the order until they reach majority.

If a woman's oath or behaviour stands in question, she will be tried by her guild mother; if a woman breaks her oath or betrays secrets of the guild, she will be cast out, and her life is forfeit if the rules of the nation so allow.

This proposal introduces an unwelcome foreign element into our culture.

Our tribes each handle gender equity issues in their own unique way.

If enacted, this Guild would destroy this delicate balance and impose bureaucratic uniformity.

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint notices this proposal mandates the presence of the guild house and free communications and passage between houses, but says absolutely nothing about allowing our female citizens access to your whacked out idea of a feminine refuge.

We would not oppose this proposal, inasmuch as it doesn't really affect our citizenry in the slightest, and we've got a wonderful plot of land in a marshy area near the mouth of the San Jacinto River that we can let ya purchase for your house, at a stiff markup from its appraised value.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs
Greenspoint

This proposal introduces an unwelcome foreign element into our culture.

Our tribes each handle gender equity issues in their own unique way.

If enacted, this Guild would destroy this delicate balance and impose bureaucratic uniformity.

How so? All it's doing is providing refuge for any woman who feels she isn't being catered to by her tribe, provided she's brave enough to do something about it. The guild houses as such have to obey the laws of the land, and would hold themselves apart rather than seek to interfere in tribal matters.

SC

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint notices this proposal mandates the presence of the guild house and free communications and passage between houses, but says absolutely nothing about allowing our female citizens access to your whacked out idea of a feminine refuge.
Hmm... I'd kind of thought that was implied, but I can specify it. :)

By the way, it's Marion Zimmer Bradley's whacked out idea, not mine - based on a women's commune in the Berkeley area of California in the 60s, I believe. As she points out in one of her books, "a restrictive society can remain so much longer if honourable escapes are allowed" - the example she used was the medieval Catholic church providing nunneries for those women not willing to be wives or prostitutes.


SC

Hmm... I'd kind of thought that was implied, but I can specify it. :)

Pardon me a second, Shee City, while I get up on my soapbox. This is not aimed solely at you, please take it in the spirit in which it's given:


This is the type of thinking that has led to so many poor resolutions lately. You may not, can not, MUST not rely on implications, assumptions or innuendos to carry your point across. Just as I did with this proposal, there are always going to be people that will look for ways to twist the words of any law or resolution to fit their best interests. A resolution has got to be defined down to a gnat's hair, or it's going to end up being something different than what the author intended.


My apologies for any offense from that.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs
Greenspoint

My apologies for any offense from that.
None taken :)

SC

When exactly does a woman reach "majority"? Surely you mean maturity?

There is no place for this kind of post-feminist ideaology in the UN. Segregationist solutions to oppresion are decidedly unsavoury and are most unwelcome in my region. This idea of a guild of women only is quite patently sexist and cannot and does not offer a route to equality.

In the words of a leading post-modernist;

"The deobjectification of the utero-centric subject-position is achieved by the initialisation of the objectification of the phallo-centric subject-position".

good chat :)

Excellent! The responses so far certainly indicate the need for the Sisterhood.

May I say I told you so--unnecessary, of course.

Take a look at your first responder's national animal!

When exactly does a woman reach "majority"? Surely you mean maturity?
Nope, maturity is subjective. Majority is when you reach the age your government classes as 'adult'. This is 15 for Darkover; 18 for the real-life UK; 33 for hobbits, etc.

There is no place for this kind of post-feminist ideaology in the UN.
You're wrong, on two counts:
1) this is feminist ideology, which you're approaching from the point of post-modernism; and
2) there is clearly a place for it when so many member nations seek to deny women their basic human rights.

Segregationist solutions to oppresion are decidedly unsavoury
Indeed so - but this is not a solution, it's a work-around to try and increase the human rights of women in repressive societies. There is no current UN resolution giving women rights as full citizens, and I imagine if anyone were to write one, it wouldn't get to quorum, much less pass the vote.

This idea of a guild of women only is quite patently sexist and cannot and does not offer a route to equality.
See my previous remarks; that's not what it's for. It's an 'honorable escape' for women in repressive societies whose lives would otherwise be unendurable.

Interestingly enough, I've seen post-feminists say "men and women are inherently different, therefore need different institutions" and go on to use this as an argument for single-gender institutions.

"The deobjectification of the utero-centric subject-position is achieved by the initialisation of the objectification of the phallo-centric subject-position".
(Do you realise you've just said "for women to stop being sex objects, they have to make men into sex objects"? This effectively says a woman has to act like a man in order to be treated as a human being, which is all the argument you need that feminism has by no means outlived its usefulness.)

Post-modernism - the emperor's new idea. Having read a fair amount about it, it seems very much like pre-modernist colonial, patriarchal conservatism.

Or to put it in the words of one feminist, "I'll be a post-feminist in post-patriarchy". :)

SC

May I say I told you so--unnecessary, of course.
Indeed - I knew it before I started. :)

Though I'm thinking perhaps I should've made this a guild-house per region that contains a UN member?

SC

Nope, maturity is subjective. Majority is when you reach the age your government classes as 'adult'. This is 15 for Darkover; 18 for the real-life UK; 33 for hobbits, etc.


Whatever, you can use you strange terminology if you like.


You're wrong, on two counts:
1) this is feminist ideology, which you're approaching from the point of post-modernism; and
2) there is clearly a place for it when so many member nations seek to deny women their basic human rights.


1) IMHO it is post-feminist as it is an envisualisation of a post-feminist ideal - that is - life without men. We could argue all day about where feminism ends and post-feminism begins, neither of us would be totally correct.

2) Facts and figures please (for THIS UN).


Indeed so - but this is not a solution, it's a work-around to try and increase the human rights of women in repressive societies. There is no current UN resolution giving women rights as full citizens, and I imagine if anyone were to write one, it wouldn't get to quorum, much less pass the vote.


You are so sure? Why the defeatist attitude? I for one would vote for a resolution of this sort.


See my previous remarks; that's not what it's for. It's an 'honorable escape' for women in repressive societies whose lives would otherwise be unendurable.


So rather than trying to deconstruct the patriarchy, you allow its existance, and actually ape it in a matriarchy, which is just as bad AND you expect support for this????? Why should we support the setting up of a society that excludes men?



Interestingly enough, I've seen post-feminists say "men and women are inherently different, therefore need different institutions" and go on to use this as an argument for single-gender institutions.


Which just goes to prove that post-feminists don't really know what they are talking about.


(Do you realise you've just said "for women to stop being sex objects, they have to make men into sex objects"? This effectively says a woman has to act like a man in order to be treated as a human being, which is all the argument you need that feminism has by no means outlived its usefulness.)


I said nothing of the sort, it was a quote. You have interpreted it one way, but another, equally valid interpretation is that we have to accept some objectivism to reduce unequal objectivism.


Post-modernism - the emperor's new idea. Having read a fair amount about it, it seems very much like pre-modernist colonial, patriarchal conservatism.

Or to put it in the words of one feminist, "I'll be a post-feminist in post-patriarchy". :)

SC

Many academics and scholars would disagree with you there, I can only suggest that your reading (or recollection of reading) is rather selective. Post-modernism is a looking glass, it allows you to see, but doesn't change what is there or the person looking.

Darkover may be interesting fantasy, but as a socio-political commentary it's full of holes. This is a national issue, not an international one.

In Frisbeeteria's corporate oligarcy, those who WON'T work are the ones being abused and spat upon. Will you build shelters of protection for them as well? Will you tax us to pay for the privilege of protecting those among us who don't support our national way of life?

NationStates is a huge world, and there are plenty of nations that would welcome women who wish to escape repressive societies. Let them throw off their chains and move, or if they prefer, foment revolution in their home countries demanding better treatment.

Keep this issue out of the UN.



strange terminology
Majority is a standard term for "the state or status of being of the age of legal responsibility". It's entirely appropriate here.

Nope, maturity is subjective. Majority is when you reach the age your government classes as 'adult'. This is 15 for Darkover; 18 for the real-life UK; 33 for hobbits, etc.
Whatever, you can use you strange terminology if you like.
"The condition of being of full age, or authorized by law to manage one's own affairs." - Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, &copy 1996.

1) IMHO it is post-feminist as it is an envisualisation of a post-feminist ideal - that is - life without men.
Since when was that a post-feminist ideal? A radical lesbian feminist ideal, maybe. From the amounts of post-feminism I've been able to force myself to read through, I wouldn't class post-feminists as feminists at all - I see a bunch of women (and I'm including the likes of Radcliffe-Richards here, not just the more mainstream like de Paglia) claiming that feminism is dead, was never needed as biological determinism is correct, and as masochism is a valid life choice could someone smack them in the face and send them back to the kitchen. And I don't see any post-modernist men arguing with them. [minor rant over, normal service will now be resumed.]

We could argue all day about where feminism ends and post-feminism begins, neither of us would be totally correct.
As I understand it, the role of post-feminists is to deconstruct feminism, in the same way post-modernists deconstruct modernism. Unfortunately, in both cases the end result seems to be old-fashioned-conservatism-to-the-nines.

2) Facts and figures please (for THIS UN).
Since when did THIS UN worry about facts and figures? :D
Seriously, good point, I'm going from a number of countries I've looked at (plus regional boards read) and by what I see on the forums. (Interesting point on the forums - there's a lot talked about abortion (ie. control over women) and there have been a number of extremely sexist UN proposals, but precious little about rights of women. I may stick a poll up about how people view their nation's stance on this, just for interest.)


Indeed so - but this is not a solution, it's a work-around to try and increase the human rights of women in repressive societies. There is no current UN resolution giving women rights as full citizens, and I imagine if anyone were to write one, it wouldn't get to quorum, much less pass the vote.

You are so sure? Why the defeatist attitude?
There were a couple of well-written proposals put forward recently, dealing with things like honour-killings and stonings, neither of which reached quorum; if you can't get a vote on even the most extreme examples of prejudice (ie. women shouldn't be treated worse than animals) then there isn't much hope of a full-blown UN resolution (ie. women are full human beings and should have rights as such).

I for one would vote for a resolution of this sort.
I may draft one, just to see how many votes it does get.

So rather than trying to deconstruct the patriarchy, you allow its existance, and actually ape it in a matriarchy
1) Women can't deconstruct patriarchy from the inside. They've tried numerous times and failed. They're unlikely to change it from the outside - our own society shows the problems there. The only way things change is if the people with power want to change, and do so. Bear in mind this proposal is aimed primarily at nations where women have very little rights as is, and no alternatives within the current system.

2)a) Matriarchy (in general terms) does not equal patriarchy reversed. It is not about the subjection of men. It is simply 'mother-based' rather than 'father-based' and it's been speculated that this would result in a system that's co-operative rather than competitive, nurturing rather than aggressive, life-affirming rather than war-mongering [note: this isn't necessarily my view, just a commonly-held view]
b) Generally, the more conservative the society, the less rights women have, and the greater the prevalence of rape and violence toward women. So women escaping from that kind of society would tend to want to live apart from men, as women who would be attracted by 'power over' men would be more likely to work within the confines of the current system.

Why should we support the setting up of a society that excludes men?
Perhaps because, in the nations which would be most affected by this, the main part of society excludes women.

The other argument being, of course, that in a stable society it doesn't actually matter whether you have exclusive clubs, as they cause no problems anyway. (IC: Just out of interest, would you allow a Freemasons' Lodge to be set up in your nation? If so, why? If not, why not?)

Many academics and scholars would disagree with you there, I can only suggest that your reading (or recollection of reading) is rather selective.
Sadly, no; but then I never was one for believing hype. And it has to be said that there's a lot of difference between philosophical theory and practise. I can think of no other reason why something that looks like it should be forward-thinking and useful results (most visibly) in a bunch of middle-class middle-aged white men giving us reasons for why patriarchy, classism and (in at least one case) racism are such a good idea.

I agree I know more about post-feminism than post-modernism, and everything I've seen so far I've been able to blast out of the water. I'd completely contrast it to your 'looking glass' image (you do realise those things show you your image back-to-front, don't you? :) ), it seems most post-feminist thought depends very much on being highly selective on where you chose to start your argument, and ignoring anything that doesn't fit.

<Phew> That was hard work! I don't come here to work, you know! :D

SC

Leaving aside the fact that NationStates is itself a fantasy (and a bizarre one at that, to judge by some of the RP)...

Darkover may be interesting fantasy, but as a socio-political commentary it's full of holes.
Ooh, I can feel a debate coming on... wanna start a new thread? :)

This is a national issue, not an international one.
Women's rights a national issue, not an international one?

In Frisbeeteria's corporate oligarcy, those who WON'T work are the ones being abused and spat upon. Will you build shelters of protection for them as well?
There's a very important implication of choice there. Now, if you were to DENY those people a job, would you still spit on them because they weren't working? (Not a rhetorical question - genuinely interested.)

Will you tax us to pay for the privilege of protecting those among us who don't support our national way of life?
1) You're not being taxed. As there's no means to enforce a resolution, there can be no cost associated with doing so, and the proposal specifies that associated costs are met by the guild, not the nation.
2) The "national way of life" cuts no more ice than the "sovereignty" argument - for example, there may be UN nations out there for whom gay-bashing used to be a national sport, they are now still held subject to the Gay Rights resolution of 3rd May 2003.

Let them throw off their chains and move, or if they prefer, foment revolution in their home countries demanding better treatment.
Let me re-iterate (again): the nations most needing this would be those where the women had least power and least ability to change their lives if they so desired.

And to take up your first point, if we bear in mind this is all fantasy, then what's actually being decided on is whether or not it would be a good idea for a UN proposal with no economic hit to moderately raise Human Rights. Of course, those people who think women aren't entirely human (or shouldn't be treated as such) will never make the link anyway.


SC

strange terminology
Majority is a standard term for "the state or status of being of the age of legal responsibility". It's entirely appropriate here.

It's a legal term, as has been said. That's why folks that are under this age, or 'underage' are known as Minors.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs
Greenspoint

[quote="Jumbo Sausage n Chips"][quote=Shee City]

"The condition of being of full age, or authorized by law to manage one's own affairs." - Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996.



Fair enough



As I understand it, the role of post-feminists is to deconstruct feminism, in the same way post-modernists deconstruct modernism. Unfortunately, in both cases the end result seems to be old-fashioned-conservatism-to-the-nines.


You are entitled to your interpretation


Since when did THIS UN worry about facts and figures? :D
Seriously, good point, I'm going from a number of countries I've looked at (plus regional boards read) and by what I see on the forums. (Interesting point on the forums - there's a lot talked about abortion (ie. control over women) and there have been a number of extremely sexist UN proposals, but precious little about rights of women. I may stick a poll up about how people view their nation's stance on this, just for interest.)


Please give examples of the sexist proposals you are refering to. If you are really bothered about rights of women then propose stuff that will actually obtain equality.


There were a couple of well-written proposals put forward recently, dealing with things like honour-killings and stonings, neither of which reached quorum; if you can't get a vote on even the most extreme examples of prejudice (ie. women shouldn't be treated worse than animals) then there isn't much hope of a full-blown UN resolution (ie. women are full human beings and should have rights as such).


Well it is a shame, but it is easy to understand (coming from a nation where I give men and women equal rights, well that is total subservience to me as supreme ruler, but never mind) the apathetic non-voters in this case, even if it is not easy to accept their shirking of moral responsibility.



1) Women can't deconstruct patriarchy from the inside. They've tried numerous times and failed. They're unlikely to change it from the outside - our own society shows the problems there. The only way things change is if the people with power want to change, and do so. Bear in mind this proposal is aimed primarily at nations where women have very little rights as is, and no alternatives within the current system.


i.e the very nations that will ignore the resolution. Also using the word "can't" is very definate and I'm not sure you can be that definate.


2)a) Matriarchy (in general terms) does not equal patriarchy reversed. It is not about the subjection of men. It is simply 'mother-based' rather than 'father-based' and it's been speculated that this would result in a system that's co-operative rather than competitive, nurturing rather than aggressive, life-affirming rather than war-mongering [note: this isn't necessarily my view, just a commonly-held view]


Unfortunately it is not my view, basing a society on one gender-type over another is equally unfair regardless of which gender it is. How about if I reverse the comparisons for the sake of argument, matriachal society would also be stationary rather than progressive, over-protective rather than liberal, passive rather than pro-active. It is quite easy to compare and contrast the supposed benefits of one gender with the obvious flaws of another and say that one is better than the other. Personally I think it is all just stereotypical nonsense at the end of the day women can be just as evil as men and men just as good as women.


b) Generally, the more conservative the society, the less rights women have, and the greater the prevalence of rape and violence toward women. So women escaping from that kind of society would tend to want to live apart from men, as women who would be attracted by 'power over' men would be more likely to work within the confines of the current system.


I'm not sure the rape and violence can be proved to be 'more prevalent' certainly these societies tolerate it much than we do. I look at the amount of rape and violence against women that occurs in my society and in the US and all the emancipation in the world doesn't seem to cut it down.

I guess that comes down to my fundamental belief that is better to try and change a society by social reform than it is to create exits and loopholes that allow oppresed members of the society to leave, thus reinforcing the views of the oppresors.


Perhaps because, in the nations which would be most affected by this, the main part of society excludes women.


That still doesn't answer my question as to why a gender-equal society like mine should support the setting up of a gender exclusive society with no real chance of supporting social reform.


The other argument being, of course, that in a stable society it doesn't actually matter whether you have exclusive clubs, as they cause no problems anyway. (IC: Just out of interest, would you allow a Freemasons' Lodge to be set up in your nation? If so, why? If not, why not?)


But this is not a 'club' this is a social experiment-like commune, very different.


Sadly, no; but then I never was one for believing hype. And it has to be said that there's a lot of difference between philosophical theory and practise. I can think of no other reason why something that looks like it should be forward-thinking and useful results (most visibly) in a bunch of middle-class middle-aged white men giving us reasons for why patriarchy, classism and (in at least one case) racism are such a good idea.


So we should negate philosophical thoery in favour of pragmatic doggedness? I still believe post-modernism is a tool and it can only be used to express and explore viewpoints, not change them.


I agree I know more about post-feminism than post-modernism, and everything I've seen so far I've been able to blast out of the water. I'd completely contrast it to your 'looking glass' image (you do realise those things show you your image back-to-front, don't you? :) ), it seems most post-feminist thought depends very much on being highly selective on where you chose to start your argument, and ignoring anything that doesn't fit.


I agree you probably know more about post-modernism/feminism than I do (as a scientist I read this stuff for fun!!), but I think you are being a bit over confident, especially as I have had to revisit at least one of my key questions which you failed to answer. Also the looking glass was refering to post-modernism not post-feminsim as you seem to have implied.

A non-repressive nation in which the sexes already enjoy equal rights would find the concept of the Guild unnecessary, so could comfortably dismiss the issue.

Excessive fretfulness about a matter of no immediate concern seems to indicate a certain degree of perturbation; one wonders why.

Ooh, I can feel a debate coming on... wanna start a new thread?
[OOC]
Ehh, naw. I don't want to go head to head with an obvious fan. Still, didn't MZB herself say that her whole world was created via the naive viewpoints of the 16 year-old creator of the first Bloody Sun novel? She's been working semi-successfully to recover from those preconceptions ever since.

But I digress...

I don't think that ANY sort of rights should be legislated on the international level IN-game. The whole purpose of this game is to experiment freely with different types of governments, however simple-minded the interface may be. Building repressive governments is part of that.

Should women's rights be debated in NationStates? Absolutely.
Should individual states have the right to sanction neighbors who don't follow their view of what is right? Of course
Should everyone in the world have the same concept of what is right and what is wrong? I don't think it's even possible, much less desireable.

Should the UN pass legislation requiring that the viewpoint of a given natiion be adopted by all? Absolutely not.

1) Women can't deconstruct patriarchy from the inside. They've tried numerous times and failed. They're unlikely to change it from the outside - our own society shows the problems there. The only way things change is if the people with power want to change, and do so. Bear in mind this proposal is aimed primarily at nations where women have very little rights as is, and no alternatives within the current system.
i.e the very nations that will ignore the resolution.
? You can't ignore a resolution - once it passes, game stats are changed according to the category and strength of the proposal.

Also using the word "can't" is very definate and I'm not sure you can be that definate.
I'd be tempted to say "<group with less power> can't deconstruct <system withholding power> from within that system", as I can't think of a case offhand where this has happened. In that case, I'd agree "can't" is too strong a word, but as I've said, I can't think of any examples.

How about if I reverse the comparisons for the sake of argument, matriachal society would also be stationary rather than progressive, over-protective rather than liberal, passive rather than pro-active.
Again, that's putting forward an idea of matriarchy based on ideas of the 'typical feminine' now ie. as being passive and fearful. Again (and this goes back to the problems associate with post-modernism) the assumption is to start with things as they are now, assuming that starting point to be immutable and unchangable. It also assumes that there are no cultural factors affecting the production of weakness and passivity in the first place (which itself ties in with the post-modernist support I've seen for biological determinism).

It is quite easy to compare and contrast the supposed benefits of one gender with the obvious flaws of another and say that one is better than the other. Personally I think it is all just stereotypical nonsense at the end of the day women can be just as evil as men and men just as good as women.
Very true; and something that many feminists work towards is the kind of society where both men and women can be their "best selves", to use an awkward phrase.

I'm not sure the rape and violence can be proved to be 'more prevalent' certainly these societies tolerate it much than we do.
It would be hard to 'prove' anything, as there are relatively few studies here, let alone in really repressive societies. Most rapes in the UK are from partners or ex-partners, yet in the original relationship, the women chose to marry; if you're in a country where women are property and arranged marriages the norm, then most marrital relations are going to start and continue with rape. If a society only provides a role for women within marriage, then loss of family=loss of livelihood, with prostitution as a likely result if no other support is available.

I look at the amount of rape and violence against women that occurs in my society and in the US and all the emancipation in the world doesn't seem to cut it down.
? Depends on the definition of 'emancipation' you use, I suppose. I'd argue that the reason rape and violence are so high in the UK, for instance, is that many men in the UK and the men in, say, Iran, share a lot of the same views about women. Rape's a good example; it's traditionally regarded as a crime of theft against a woman's 'owner' than as a crime of violence against the woman concerned; hence why for so many years the thought of rape in marriage being illegal was considered absurd - how can you steal something you already own? The law didn't change until the late 90s but that still doesn't change underlying beliefs.

I guess that comes down to my fundamental belief that is better to try and change a society by social reform than it is to create exits and loopholes that allow oppresed members of the society to leave, thus reinforcing the views of the oppresors.
To be honest, that sounds like someone speaking from a position of power. Why does it have to be either/or? If it was you on the receiving end, which would you rather - wait for social reformers to bring change (which might not happen in your lifetime), or take help offered you to get out of an untenable situation?

That still doesn't answer my question as to why a gender-equal society like mine should support the setting up of a gender exclusive society with no real chance of supporting social reform.
I take it you're referring to the setting up of this in your own borders? If your society is as equal as you claim, why does it bother you either way? (Not to mention that if it is an equal society, any such Guild would be busy distributing their resources elsewhere; this proposal doesn't call for a guild house in every nation overnight, it calls for the right to create a guild house - one assumes they're going to put them where they're most needed first.) To be honest, I don't support your 'social reform' argument - if you were that worried about it, you'd have written a proposal yourself. Unless (IC) your society is totally uninterested in what happens outside its own borders?

The other argument being, of course, that in a stable society it doesn't actually matter whether you have exclusive clubs, as they cause no problems anyway. (IC: Just out of interest, would you allow a Freemasons' Lodge to be set up in your nation? If so, why? If not, why not?)
But this is not a 'club' this is a social experiment-like commune, very different.
The reason I asked was, groups like the Freemasons support existing power structures; a group like the Renunciates is apart from them (and hence a limited threat). Incidentally, what's the problem with it being a social experiment?

So we should negate philosophical thoery in favour of pragmatic doggedness?
Hmm, you're comparing different kinds of fruit there. Philosophical theory is just that - theory - and the nice thing about pragmatism is it actually gets things done. Now, if you were saying "so we should negate social reform in favour of pragmatic doggedness?" then I'd disagree, but I'd still argue for the presence of both during the transitional period.

I still believe post-modernism is a tool and it can only be used to express and explore viewpoints, not change them.
I'm reminded of statistics; also a tool, which allows you to express and explore data without changing said data. It's also possible to 'prove' just about anything depending on how you use it; so its use in certain arenas is therefore limited.

I agree you probably know more about post-modernism/feminism than I do (as a scientist I read this stuff for fun!!), but I think you are being a bit over confident
I re-read it and it does seem rather arrogant; to clarify, I was referring about the post-feminist ideas that I've read (not everything to do with post-modernism etc). This may be because these things tend to be written by sociologists, who don't get training in scientific method - remember the old saying, "if it's an -ology, it's not science"? Always a good one for annoying the biologists with. :)

especially as I have had to revisit at least one of my key questions which you failed to answer.
Assuming you're referring to, "Why should we support the setting up of a society that excludes men?", it was answered, though in general terms as it would apply across the UN. This is due to the fact I'd assumed (obviously wrongly) that you would vote on a UN resolution for the good or ill you would believe it to have across all UN nations, even if it isn't applicable to yours. Unless, of course, you believe that this proposal would be detrimental to your society; but if so, you haven't said why.

Also the looking glass was refering to post-modernism not post-feminsim as you seem to have implied.
Agreed; though I'd point out again, as I've understood it so far, post-feminism has been produced by a post-modernist approach to feminism; taking the root ideas of post-modernism and applying them to a particular subject.

Nice to have a decent debate for a change though. (Or am I just looking in the wrong places?)

SC

(By the way - did you mean you read NS for fun, or post-modernism for fun?)

Ooh, I can feel a debate coming on... wanna start a new thread?
[OOC]Ehh, naw. I don't want to go head to head with an obvious fan.
I dunno, there is a difference... when reading works of fiction I tend to suspend disbelief, it doesn't stop me disecting them if someone's interested.

Still, didn't MZB herself say that her whole world was created via the naive viewpoints of the 16 year-old creator of the first Bloody Sun novel? She's been working semi-successfully to recover from those preconceptions ever since.
Don't know, I've not come across the quote, and as you've written it I could interpret it two ways... I know she regarded it as a social experiment, and I think the Free Amazon books came in quite a way through the series. I didn't get the books in order, in fact I think I only got them because the bookshop was selling the end of a range of imports off cheap; I've not seen anything of hers locally other than "Mists of Avalon".

I don't think that ANY sort of rights should be legislated on the international level IN-game.
Now you've totally confused me - why are you in the UN? Surely this is the whole point of the UN?

Should everyone in the world have the same concept of what is right and what is wrong? I don't think it's even possible, much less desireable.
Agreed - but we're not talking about the world here, we're talking about the UN. As I understand, the purpose of the UN is to pass resolutions which become law across those member states. And that's not just free-trade agreements and environmental protections; you've got categories for human rights, social justice and (most woolly of all) moral decency. For laws to be passed there, there has to be an agreement for acceptable minimums, even if one nation takes a different stance to another.

Should the UN pass legislation requiring that the viewpoint of a given natiion be adopted by all? Absolutely not.
Again, it already is; because unlike the real world UN, this one applies resolutions across the board, there is no way to withhold your nation from it.

(IC) By the way, you didn't answer my question about your spat-upon non-workers - if you spit on those who won't work, are you still entitled to spit on them if you deny them a job?

SC

MSL will agree to this resolution allowing Renunciates to form a guild withing it's territory but does not support this as a mandated endeavor. We will ratify this willingly during the next session of the Board.

ooc: perhaps this would be better received as an issue than a resolution?

? You can't ignore a resolution - once it passes, game stats are changed according to the category and strength of the proposal.


Blah Blah , game mechanics...



I'd be tempted to say "<group with less power> can't deconstruct <system withholding power> from within that system", as I can't think of a case offhand where this has happened. In that case, I'd agree "can't" is too strong a word, but as I've said, I can't think of any examples.


The Russian revolution
The Cuban revolution
The Haitian slave revolts
The Zappatista Uprising (okay not a total deconstruction, but they reomved government authority from their homelands)
The American Revolution (or war of independence)
shall I go on???


Again, that's putting forward an idea of matriarchy based on ideas of the 'typical feminine' now ie. as being passive and fearful. Again (and this goes back to the problems associate with post-modernism) the assumption is to start with things as they are now, assuming that starting point to be immutable and unchangable. It also assumes that there are no cultural factors affecting the production of weakness and passivity in the first place (which itself ties in with the post-modernist support I've seen for biological determinism).


Well you started it.


It is quite easy to compare and contrast the supposed benefits of one gender with the obvious flaws of another and say that one is better than the other. Personally I think it is all just stereotypical nonsense at the end of the day women can be just as evil as men and men just as good as women.
Very true; and something that many feminists work towards is the kind of society where both men and women can be their "best selves", to use an awkward phrase.


So I take it you don't believe in the idea of matriarchy you put forward then?


It would be hard to 'prove' anything, as there are relatively few studies here, let alone in really repressive societies.


Exactly, so I don't see how you can justify the statement that rape and violence against women are more 'prevelant' in these societies.



I'd argue that the reason rape and violence are so high in the UK, for instance, is that many men in the UK and the men in, say, Iran, share a lot of the same views about women.


I doubt that very much. The cultural differences between these two societies is vast, their male populations are not really comparible. Plus it is highly controversial to assume that all rape is committed due to an explicit chauvanistic attitude.


Rape's a good example; it's traditionally regarded as a crime of theft against a woman's 'owner' than as a crime of violence against the woman concerned; hence why for so many years the thought of rape in marriage being illegal was considered absurd - how can you steal something you already own? The law didn't change until the late 90s but that still doesn't change underlying beliefs.


The tar and the brush...


To be honest, that sounds like someone speaking from a position of power.


That's probably because it is. White, middle class British Red-brick educated male, guilty as charged....


Why does it have to be either/or? If it was you on the receiving end, which would you rather - wait for social reformers to bring change (which might not happen in your lifetime), or take help offered you to get out of an untenable situation?


Because that does nothing to change the situation. You can't save every woman from 'the system' by this method, so you allow some women to live in oppression. You also acknowledge that the oppressor's (men's) views on the oppressed (women) cannot change, when we know that not to be the case (unless you want to argue that the treatment of women in the UK, for example, is no better than in the 50's). I find the view (as a man) quite sexist because it in fact de humanises the men in this situation be removing their ability to change their minds (a fundamental human trait, no?)


I take it you're referring to the setting up of this in your own borders? If your society is as equal as you claim, why does it bother you either way?


I don't understand, you later accuse me of a head-in-the-sand attitude but here you seem to be encouraging me?? I am bothered because I do not believe it is the way to solve the problem, regardless of my own society's views on gender.


To be honest, I don't support your 'social reform' argument - if you were that worried about it, you'd have written a proposal yourself. Unless (IC) your society is totally uninterested in what happens outside its own borders?


yep, now you accuse me of having head in the sand...

I don't have time to go through the pain of submitting a proposal (as I would have to sit down and think about one properly (so as to avoid it being label as a craply written proposal which I hate).

As for social reform - just because you don't believe in it doesn't negate it's worth (it does work!!).



The reason I asked was, groups like the Freemasons support existing power structures; a group like the Renunciates is apart from them (and hence a limited threat). Incidentally, what's the problem with it being a social experiment?


No problem, I just don't believe you can compare the freemasons to your proposed guild. But I guess I might know a bit more about the freemasons than you do.


Hmm, you're comparing different kinds of fruit there. Philosophical theory is just that - theory - and the nice thing about pragmatism is it actually gets things done. Now, if you were saying "so we should negate social reform in favour of pragmatic doggedness?" then I'd disagree, but I'd still argue for the presence of both during the transitional period.


But surely social reform starts with a philosophy or at least a belief?


I'm reminded of statistics; also a tool, which allows you to express and explore data without changing said data. It's also possible to 'prove' just about anything depending on how you use it; so its use in certain arenas is therefore limited.


But it is still used and to great effect.


I re-read it and it does seem rather arrogant; to clarify, I was referring about the post-feminist ideas that I've read (not everything to do with post-modernism etc). This may be because these things tend to be written by sociologists, who don't get training in scientific method - remember the old saying, "if it's an -ology, it's not science"? Always a good one for annoying the biologists with. :)


Well biologists aren't real scientists anyway...

They way I see it is you propose to set up a matriarchical pseudo-society in nation where opression of women is deemed to be a problem. I don't believe that a matriarchy is any less damaging to society than a patriarchy. I don't see why we should be encouraging the polarisation of these societies rather than the integration. I believe that what you are suggesting is like a 'ghetto' for women.


(By the way - did you mean you read NS for fun, or post-modernism for fun?)

I read post-moderism (and some post-feminism) for fun, my housemate is a political science PhD.

They way I see it is you propose to set up a matriarchical pseudo-society in nation where opression of women is deemed to be a problem.

The way I see it is he proposed to set up a matriarchical pseudo-society in EVERY UN Member State, with no regard for if the women of that NationState are oppressed or not.

This is one reason why the Rogue Nation of Greenspoint opposed this proposal.

Is the proposal even still in the queue?

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs
Greenspoint

I don't think that ANY sort of rights should be legislated on the international level IN-game.
Now you've totally confused me - why are you in the UN? Surely this is the whole point of the UN?
Due to server lag and general irritation, I'll only address this one point.

I should have said "I don't think that ANY sort of individual rights should be legislated on the international level IN-game." I see the UN acting as arbiter for issues that nations cannot resolve on their own, such as trade disputes, war, border-crossing disease, and transnational travel. I do not consider how a nation treats its citizens (or even its visitors) as a transnational issue.

We have many different types of government in Nationstates. Some of them are democratic, some are oppressive, some are anarchical. I don't see how a single set of individual rights can apply to ALL of them at once. It's that whole annoying sovereignty thing that everyone seems to bring up in just about every thread.

Human rights are fine and dandy. I'm personally in favor of them. Still, it's not my place to legislate what other people think. No matter how noble your intent, no matter how righteously you believe in the concept, there are lots of nations who won't agree with you. Why should your ideals supercede theirs?
you've got categories for human rights, social justice and (most woolly of all) moral decency.
Had it been my game, I wouldn't have put 'em there. As I stated earlier, *I* don't think they belong here. Me personally. I'm passing moral judgement on *your* ideals in doing so. And I'll vote against them every time, for that very reason.

Anyone wanna buy a slightly used double standard? I've got a few spares.

Our warmest congratulations to Shee City for having invented (or re-invented) the grand ol' concept of the nunnery.

Several things:

Your futility argument higher up strikes me as odd, given your current proposal. I think some general sort of scheme along the lines of women's equality will pass a lot easier than a contorted proposal for floating girl-power bubbles-- in which countries are being asked to allow a sovereign and unassailable foreign base on their own lands and lose some portion of its citizens. Oppressive societies like having someone to oppress-- and asking them to vote to let that someone waltz out is a bit optimistic. (I also think that innocuous and banal little proposals don't provoke the same extreme reaction that proposals like "let's ban stonings" do-- the extremity of the latter raises red flags in the minds of evil-dictator types and reminds them that *oh yeah, we're evil!*-- with a perverse effect on the voting.)

On the meat of the proposal itself, I'm not too clear on how it's supposed to clear up any issues of equality etc. even if it did pass. First off, creating a bubble in which the women are equal *to each other* might make them all better off in absolute terms, but relatively you've done nothing about the damn chauvinist pigs-- you've just run away. I also think that immediately after you set up the Recidivist bubble you'll find an *increase* in female oppression in the nasty societies, as some women will run away and the society will realise it's no longer in a vacuum-- so it'll take further steps to clench up whichever women it has left. And this whole thing about *free will* being honoured... I dunno. If it boils down to that, the threat of dismemberment will do plenty to make a girl say "no, really, I like it here and I don't want to leave..."

Just my two cents.

I'd be tempted to say "<group with less power> can't deconstruct <system withholding power> from within that system", as I can't think of a case offhand where this has happened. In that case, I'd agree "can't" is too strong a word, but as I've said, I can't think of any examples.

The Russian revolution
The Cuban revolution
The Haitian slave revolts
The Zappatista Uprising (okay not a total deconstruction, but they reomved government authority from their homelands)
The American Revolution (or war of independence)
shall I go on???
The key words are "from within" - if you take up pitchfork or gun to overthrow the system by force, you're hardly working within it. IRL I'm not aware of many women's groups doing this - Vagina Dentata (http://www.faklen.dk/en/the_torch/vd.shtml) being an exception.


So I take it you don't believe in the idea of matriarchy you put forward then?
If you re-read my original post, you'll see the words: [note: this isn't necessarily my view, just a commonly-held view]



It would be hard to 'prove' anything, as there are relatively few studies here, let alone in really repressive societies.

Exactly, so I don't see how you can justify the statement that rape and violence against women are more 'prevelant' in these societies.
I've already given you one suggestion which you've neatly ignored; I'm also going by the convention that doesn't regard anecdotal evidence as 'proof' unless standardised by research.


I'd argue that the reason rape and violence are so high in the UK, for instance, is that many men in the UK and the men in, say, Iran, share a lot of the same views about women.
I doubt that very much. The cultural differences between these two societies is vast, their male populations are not really comparible.
I'd argue that the cultural views of women aren't that dissimilar - the main difference being that men in those societies are more open about it.


Plus it is highly controversial to assume that all rape is committed due to an explicit chauvanistic attitude.
?! Highly contraversial? That's like saying race hate crimes aren't committed by people with an explicitly racist attitude, and makes about as much sense.


Rape's a good example; it's traditionally regarded as a crime of theft against a woman's 'owner' than as a crime of violence against the woman concerned; hence why for so many years the thought of rape in marriage being illegal was considered absurd - how can you steal something you already own? The law didn't change until the late 90s but that still doesn't change underlying beliefs.
The tar and the brush...
Tarring whom with what brush? Fact: a woman's most likely to be raped by her partner or ex-partner. Fact: it's much easier to get a rape conviction if a woman is a virgin living at home, or is in a vanilla marriage.


Why does it have to be either/or? If it was you on the receiving end, which would you rather - wait for social reformers to bring change (which might not happen in your lifetime), or take help offered you to get out of an untenable situation?
Because that does nothing to change the situation.
OK, let's make a distinction - in RL, yes, I'd say you need both, for the reasons I've described.
In NS, I can't see 'social reform' passing (though I'm willing to give it a shot, though it would take time to get a decent proposal written), hence this particular one - better to provide some help than none at all.

You can't save every woman from 'the system' by this method, so you allow some women to live in oppression.
Again, it's not black/white, either/or; women are part of the system, and even if the proposal were to pass, a lot of women would choose to remain in the system. The point is, if the proposal passed they would at least have a choice, whereas at the moment they don't.

You also acknowledge that the oppressor's (men's) views on the oppressed (women) cannot change, when we know that not to be the case (unless you want to argue that the treatment of women in the UK, for example, is no better than in the 50's).
1) For any person to change, that person has to want to change - and if they are already in a position of power, they are unlikely to want to change.
2) The treatment of women has improved, yes - though it's debatable how much real change there's been in attitudes. It's still acceptable (in some quarters quite trendy) to be sexist, while racism is now frowned upon.

Again, you're making no distinction between RL and NS; I've never stated that RL men's views on RL women cannot change, here or anywhere else.

I take it you're referring to the setting up of this in your own borders? If your society is as equal as you claim, why does it bother you either way?
I don't understand, you later accuse me of a head-in-the-sand attitude but here you seem to be encouraging me??
No, I was working from the assumption that you thought your own society to be equal; hence it seemed quite strange that you were concerned about the direct effects the proposal would've had on your society. This isn't necessary equivalent to being concerned about other countries outside your borders.

As for social reform - just because you don't believe in it doesn't negate it's worth (it does work!!).
In RL, yes, absolutely; though I still don't agree that in RL it isn't better to have social reform in tandem with a support programme. However, there are no 'levers' in NS - yes, this is game mechanics, but also a fact - no way to have economic sanctions, wars etc etc.


I'm reminded of statistics; also a tool, which allows you to express and explore data without changing said data. It's also possible to 'prove' just about anything depending on how you use it; so its use in certain arenas is therefore limited.
But it is still used and to great effect.
Depending on the arena. If you have groups of people trying to get a level playing field to discuss data meaningfully, it can be very useful. You get a group trying to "prove" one thing or another by differing methods of stats from the same data, it starts to get pointless.


They way I see it is you propose to set up a matriarchical pseudo-society in nation where opression of women is deemed to be a problem. I don't believe that a matriarchy is any less damaging to society than a patriarchy. I don't see why we should be encouraging the polarisation of these societies rather than the integration. I believe that what you are suggesting is like a 'ghetto' for women.
I propose a support system for women in nations which are not willing, at the current time, to allow women full human rights. Living in a ghetto is unpleasant if the alternative is freedom; personally I'd rather live in a safe ghetto rather than suffer violence and abuse in the 'family home'.

You make a good point about social reform; I'm still not convinced it wouldn't fall foul of the delegates, though I may try and sort out a women's rights proposal just to see what happens.

SC

The way I see it is he proposed to set up a matriarchical pseudo-society in EVERY UN Member State, with no regard for if the women of that NationState are oppressed or not.
1) The proposal was to allow the set up, not force set-up overnight.
2) As has been said in a different reply, the guild proposing this would have finite resources and as such, it would be reasonable to assume they'd concentrate their efforts where they were most needed.

Is the proposal even still in the queue?
It didn't go into the queue, it was posted here as a request for comment prior to being submitted; given Jumbo Sausage n Chips' points about social reform I may try and get a women's rights proposal done first, though it'll take longer.

SC

I should have said "I don't think that ANY sort of individual rights should be legislated on the international level IN-game." I see the UN acting as arbiter for issues that nations cannot resolve on their own, such as trade disputes, war, border-crossing disease, and transnational travel. I do not consider how a nation treats its citizens (or even its visitors) as a transnational issue.
A mediation service? Yes, I can see where you're coming from.

Human rights are fine and dandy. I'm personally in favor of them. Still, it's not my place to legislate what other people think. No matter how noble your intent, no matter how righteously you believe in the concept, there are lots of nations who won't agree with you. Why should your ideals supercede theirs?
I go to the UN because I think my ideas are superior. They go to the UN because, of course, they think their ideas are superior. If you want to redefine the UN by saying "it's not about anyone's ideas" then it's a load of foetid dingo's kidneys and neither point of view matters. :)

SC

Our warmest congratulations to Shee City for having invented (or re-invented) the grand ol' concept of the nunnery.
:) I didn't invent it (see the Darkover novels by Marion Zimmer Bradley for background), but you're basically on the right track, except that it's secular and not religious.

Your futility argument higher up strikes me as odd, given your current proposal. I think some general sort of scheme along the lines of women's equality will pass a lot easier than a contorted proposal for floating girl-power bubbles-- in which countries are being asked to allow a sovereign and unassailable foreign base on their own lands and lose some portion of its citizens.
Quite - I may indeed try to do a full women's rights proposal, though it may take some time.

(I also think that innocuous and banal little proposals don't provoke the same extreme reaction that proposals like "let's ban stonings" do-- the extremity of the latter raises red flags in the minds of evil-dictator types and reminds them that *oh yeah, we're evil!*-- with a perverse effect on the voting.)
That's an argument in favour of the proposal-by-stealth route though, isn't it? By your own argument, a full women's rights proposal would fail for the same reasons.

On the meat of the proposal itself, I'm not too clear on how it's supposed to clear up any issues of equality etc. even if it did pass.
It isn't. It simply serves to provide an 'out' for those women in repressive societies where they would otherwise have no choice.

I also think that immediately after you set up the Recidivist bubble
...er, trust me, 'recidivist' isn't the word you want here, but I'm not sure what word you do want...

you'll find an *increase* in female oppression in the nasty societies, as some women will run away and the society will realise it's no longer in a vacuum-- so it'll take further steps to clench up whichever women it has left.
Not necessarily - don't forget that women in repressive societies don't always want to leave them (better the devil you know, and all that). If the society is in the UN already it can hardly think it's in a sovereign vacuum as its laws are already affected by the UN.

If it boils down to that, the threat of dismemberment will do plenty to make a girl say "no, really, I like it here and I don't want to leave..."
Not in all cases. There are RL examples of muslim girls being shot because they refused to wear the traditional headscarf, for example. If the UN supports the presence of a guild house, then at least those who wish to leave the system will be able to do so - given that freedom of movement to the guildhouse is codified in the proposal.

SC

I wont carry on redoubling and rebutting as I feel we have got into a cycle, which boils down to a fundamental difference of opinion.

[IC]
Here is why I believe the proposal is wrong:

1) It provides for the undermining of equality laws in many nations in order to set up what is fundamentally a gender-exclusive society. I believe the UN should not be encouraging gender exclusivity in any form.

2) It does not takle the issue of gender discrimination, it is merely a humanitarian "quick-fix" that will reduce the ability to generate any real social reform.

3) It encourages the segregation of men and women.

4) It allows a place for ultra-feminist (anti-male) beliefs to flourish, thus creating a true polarisation in that society which can only be detremental.

5) It legitamises matriarchy above patriarchy on an international scale. The UN is effectively endorsing rule by females, whilst seeking to destroy rule by males, which is nothing more than role reversal and achieves no movement on the issue of gender discrimination.

6) It will reduce the effectiveness of the UN to operate in oppresive regimes by the clear UN backing given to an organisation that explicitly wishes to undermine that regime.

7) It could cause conflict and loss of life.

8) It forces nations to tolerate a belief system they do not share and that does nothing to improve human rights for women on an international scale.

Here follows a message from our most gracious ruler:

The Honourable and Righteous King of Jumbo Sausage and Lord of Chips, Protector of Faith, Life, Equality and the Screaming Sheep Puppet envisages a future where men and women in UN member countries can work together as peers, without seperation and without fear. His Royal Majesty feels that this resolution will undermine the spirit of principle that the UN stands for and threatens his country's way of life as a non-segregationist egalitarian social monarchy. Her Royal Highness the Crown Princess wishes to add she feels a womens rights bill would be the correct approach to this issue as she has spent many years as a special envoy of our state trying to educate the oppresive regimes of our region that womens rights increase prosperity and harmony.

Dr Jack Spanner
UN Delegation Team Director
Jumbo Sausage n Chips