"...an infant Ythrian needs more care, and more food, than an infant human. The parents must cooperate in providing this as well as in carrying their young about. Here we may have the root cause of the sexual equality or near equality found in all Ythrian cultures." {p. 484)
Near equality? We saw in Diverse Avalonian Territories that, when husband and wife are of different choths, she always joins his and therefore has to adjust to different laws, customs, culture and geography. (The source for this is I, p. 447.) That sounds like a major inequality. Maybe Anderson should have reconsidered this detail in the light of IV, p. 484?
(Today has been busy as you might infer from the paucity of posts.)
13 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I don't think the objection you seem to be making here is reasonable. If a Ythrian female marries into another choth different from the one she was born in, then it makes sense that she has to adjust to the laws, customs, culture, etc., of that choth.
Paucity of blog pieces? Compared to many other one man blogs, this one has to be one of the busiest and most active blogs I've ever seen!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But you take it for granted that the female marries into another choth, not that the male does! In an equal marital arrangement, they would agree in advance which of them was going to change choth.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I "took it for granted" like that because that was the situation we see in THE PEOPLE OF THE WIND. My view is that most intelligent species will "orient" themselves to think in either patrilineal or matrlineal terms.*
Ad astra! Sean
*The latter being what we see among the Tigeries of Starkad in ENSIGN FLANDRY.
Sean,
But neither patrilinearity nor matrilinearity is equality.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And you touch on a point where I have to disagree with you: there has NEVER been any perfectly level or "equal" (whatever that means!) society in human history. And never will be. For the simple and obvious fact and reason that all human beings are DIFFERENT from each other in talents, inclinations, abilities, intelligence, virtue, circumstances of life, etc. These alone will make "equality" an impossibility. The best we can get is a state and society which does not favor anyone unduly before the law. And "legal equality" can take different forms and in different ways.
Dreams and fantasies some still have for a "perfectly equal" society lies behind why so many "revolutionaries" from the French Revolution onward have so often been fanatical, brutal, and bloody tyrants. That is how we got monsters like Robespiesrre, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, the Kims, Castros, Pol Pot, and all their other imitators.
No, the limited state (in whatever form it takes) and free enterprise economics are what works best for mankind.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But we seem to have gone way of the point. My only point was that these two propositions: (i) Ythrians have near equality between the sexes and: (ii) when a married couple are of different choths, then it is always the wife who has to move and to adjust to another choth - are inconsistent.
In terms of human society, to change the subject, two kinds of equality are both possible and necessary: equality before the law and equality of opportunity. The latter is very far from being equality of ability. Every job vacancy should be advertised equally, each short-listed applicant should be asked the same interview questions and assessed by the same criteria, open to scrutiny if necessary, and the successful candidate should be the one who is best qualified for that particular vacancy. (But that was not the point about Ythrians.)
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Because REAL people are never going to be as "sexually equal" along the lines you prefer. I think it's always going to be either patrilineally or matrilineally oriented. It's simply what people are like. The wise legislator or statesman does not try to force people to change in ways they instinctively dislike.
As for your second paragraph, what you favor is possible ONLY when the state is limited in its powers and the economy is mostly free. And you would have to accept that such ideals won't be perfectly achieved.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But we are talking only about whether two propositions in THE PEOPLE OF THE WIND are consistent, not about what I prefer.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
In that case, I will have to argue that all REAL societies will be riddled and shot thru with "inconsistencies." And before trying to do away with them we should first consider Chesterton's essay about "fences," that however antiquated a social "fence" might be, it was built for a reason, and doing away with it might well come with unexpected costs and dangers.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I mean not that Ythrian societies are inconsistent but that these two propositions are inconsistent. If it is always the females that must change their choth when they marry a male of a different choth, then the females are not equal. Equality would mean that, just as often, it was the male that changed choth.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But this "inconsistency" seems to bother you--while it does not seem to bother Ythrian females. If it does not annoy, vex, or trouble Ythrian females, then it should not concern you, as it would not me.
Another thought I had was that since, as avian sophonts, discontented Ythrians can literally fly a way if they did not like their choths to set up new and different choths with different socio/political arrangements. The expectation that females from other choths should adjust to the laws, customs, etc., of the group they married into would be a means of helping to preserve that choth.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It doesn't bother me! I simply argued that here is an inconsistency in the text.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Understood! I have been sometimes accused of taking things too seriously! (Smiles)
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment