Forums of the Megaverse®

sybert1138 wrote:

cchopps wrote:Page 67, top right corner of Triax II.

"He sympathized with the Coalition States, and saw their people as noble and strong, only misguided and brainwashed by their misogynist leadership." (Emphasis mine)

That is news to me, but I'm thinking it is an editing mistake. I found that last night and did a double-take.

I loved the interview with the General. Is there a section with more on Viktoria's history and motivations? I'm wondering the reason for her progressive D-Bee stance.

C. Chopps

OMG! They've hated women all this time and not D-Bees and magic users. That's going to be a hard one to explain to the Tolkeen Survivors...

cchopps wrote:Page 67, top right corner of Triax II.
"He sympathized with the Coalition States, and saw their people as noble and strong, only misguided and brainwashed by their misogynist leadership." (Emphasis mine)
C. Chopps

duck-foot wrote:

runebeo wrote:misogynist - a misanthrope who dislikes women in particular.
I never knew this about old Karl, but I know he feels. When he get finally rid of the all D-Bees we can start with the women. He must hated when his wife always talked during the Juicer Games.

thats an annoying inconstistance... ive read in many books that he is married and in many that he is not married so which is it!!!!

Young Freud wrote:During the Dark Ages period, there would likely be a reinforcement of traditional gender roles brought on by the collapse of technology and loss of large numbers of the population. Society would likely regress to men doing most of the work and women having very little duties outside of making babies and having almost no rights. Maybe not as bad as "The Handmaid's Tale" but still pretty rough. This would like be continent-wide, and not just isolated with the Coalition.

Eventually, with modernization and recovery, women would be able to rebuild themselves as equals. This would be especially true in places that managed to preserve the continunity of augmentation research. After all, there's no discernible difference in strength, endurance, and overall fitness between a female or male Juicer or Crazy. In fact, you might see women trying to escape from a subservient societal role by becoming an augmented soldier.

However, with Chaos Earth, we see NEMA, who would influence the development of the Coalition, having men and women on equal footing. Whose not to say that there's elements within the CS that view gender equality as a Golden Age concept that should return and that it's indicative of human civilization returning; and others who can't not look past the horrors of the Dark Age and constantly harp that increasing and sustaining human population is the primary goal to survival of the species, damn the idea equality of the sexes.

keir451 wrote:

Young Freud wrote:During the Dark Ages period, there would likely be a reinforcement of traditional gender roles brought on by the collapse of technology and loss of large numbers of the population. Society would likely regress to men doing most of the work and women having very little duties outside of making babies and having almost no rights. Maybe not as bad as "The Handmaid's Tale" but still pretty rough. This would like be continent-wide, and not just isolated with the Coalition.

Eventually, with modernization and recovery, women would be able to rebuild themselves as equals. This would be especially true in places that managed to preserve the continunity of augmentation research. After all, there's no discernible difference in strength, endurance, and overall fitness between a female or male Juicer or Crazy. In fact, you might see women trying to escape from a subservient societal role by becoming an augmented soldier.

However, with Chaos Earth, we see NEMA, who would influence the development of the Coalition, having men and women on equal footing. Whose not to say that there's elements within the CS that view gender equality as a Golden Age concept that should return and that it's indicative of human civilization returning; and others who can't not look past the horrors of the Dark Age and constantly harp that increasing and sustaining human population is the primary goal to survival of the species, damn the idea equality of the sexes.

Agreed for the most part, there is a discernable difference in strength (in reality) between men and women, but by the time of Chaos Earth they might have been able to tweak that genetically. In some of the more far flung places on Rifts Earth there might still be societies that have women in subordinate roles.

Shark_Force wrote:eh, i dunno about the gender roles thing in the dark ages.

really, when you're no longer worried about bears and wolves, and you instead have to worry about supernatural demons that can rip you in half using only one hand, the difference in upper body strength is really just not going to convince anyone that the men should do all the fighting.

truth be told, the most likely roles to come about in the dark ages imo are the "has access to some form of psionic or supernatural ability capable of actually damaging the otherwise invulnerable enemy, or doesn't have access to any abilities to harm said creatures." because as pathetic as mind bolt is, it's still a heck of a lot better than trying to stab that demon with a stone-headed spear, most of the time.

Young Freud wrote:

Shark_Force wrote:eh, i dunno about the gender roles thing in the dark ages.

really, when you're no longer worried about bears and wolves, and you instead have to worry about supernatural demons that can rip you in half using only one hand, the difference in upper body strength is really just not going to convince anyone that the men should do all the fighting.

Upper body strength is emphasized greatly in military combat, as it is useful for carrying equipment, ammunition, and weapons. With energy weapons being rare during the Dark Ages, most people are likely using light-MD heavy weapons like rocket launchers, SAWs, and heavy machineguns, first looted from armories then likely reverse-engineered and reconstructed with whatever tools available (similar to what happened in Darra Adam Khel). Since you're firing 20-30 rounds of small arms fire to get a couple of points of megadamage, most of the weight is going to come down to ammunition. According to Army studies, the average gender difference between lifting capacity is about 40 pounds. With 7.62mm ammo weighing about 6 pounds per 100 rounds (belted), which one can get about 5 MD-capable burst out of, that difference is worth 30 bursts or 60 MDC on average.

The point about all of the above is average. While heroes, adventurers, and the like are the exception, they are the minority, as a great deal of NPCs would fall into this category. Because of that, I don't really see a need for statifying anything like this, but such conceptions would likely be represented in "game world" features. Having a P.S. 24 female mercenary PC blow into some BFE town might cause some funny looks from the locals, who aren't accustomed to women so aggressive or confident of themselves.

Also, with such a collapse of society as the Dark Ages is, community and family survival comes down to who has the most people, specifically who has the most largest and strongest people who conduct most of the fighting and labor. In communities where augmentation technology didn't survive, the only way you can increase and sustain that population is through baby-making. And since infant mortality likely skyrocketed to 1700s levels, there's going to be a need for a whole lot of baby-makers. Male-centric polygamy, raptio, and sexual slavery would all make returns to the North American continent.

However, I imagine that you might end up with some communities becoming reflecting Norse or Gaelic attitudes, with women being called up to fight in defensive battles, while the men wage offensive battles or conduct patrols or raids. This might be true of communities that descended from more cosmopolitian areas, as they would have likely carried on feminist or multicultural ideals.

Also, keir451 probably has a point in that the genetic engineering in the Golden Age may end up gender differences when it comes to fitness. Although, I'm not sure how common place genetic engineering was and if that, being killed off or mixed in non-engineered humans, if it would have faded away. It's likely that such genetically-engineered "pure" bloodlines would likely belong to the CS, having descended mostly from NEMA stock, which we know has genetically engineered members.

Shark_Force wrote:truth be told, the most likely roles to come about in the dark ages imo are the "has access to some form of psionic or supernatural ability capable of actually damaging the otherwise invulnerable enemy, or doesn't have access to any abilities to harm said creatures." because as pathetic as mind bolt is, it's still a heck of a lot better than trying to stab that demon with a stone-headed spear, most of the time.

True, but, psionics had some commonplace in the Golden Age, so most people, unless they were far off the beaten path, had some idea it existed. Magic, OTOH, would be viewed as it is in normal Rifts, with suspicion and rumors of corruption in most communities, with the few more-tolerant communities likely being saved by magic-users.

The Galactus Kid wrote:As for Viktoria, I have a lot of notes on her and the reasons for her stance. It may appear as a short story or something in the rifter at a later time.

Supergyro wrote:Here's where the writers of Rifts could really make the CS quite unique.

For good or ill, as currently portrayed, the CS is no more or less sexist than the current USA. Women do exist in influential positions, but they are the vast minority, much like the USA. This makes sense since the writers are American men, they portray the CS as if it's the US with giant robots and jackboots (Follow the CS command structure from the top, you have to go down a ways before you come across someone who doesn't have a Y chromosome).

However, women are half of the human population, and a truly gender-neutral society would show that sort of demographic at all the levels of power and influence (the CS generals would be half women.... as would the folks in the burbs). And I like that idea for the CS, it makes it more morally ambiguous. A CS which is very demonstrably gender neutral, race neutral, but also happens to be genocidally expansionist (and a practitioner of slavery for non-humans) is something with a little more gray area to play with.

It may be too late to add this element to the CS, but I would like it if they did.

Elthbert wrote:

Supergyro wrote:Here's where the writers of Rifts could really make the CS quite unique.

For good or ill, as currently portrayed, the CS is no more or less sexist than the current USA. Women do exist in influential positions, but they are the vast minority, much like the USA. This makes sense since the writers are American men, they portray the CS as if it's the US with giant robots and jackboots (Follow the CS command structure from the top, you have to go down a ways before you come across someone who doesn't have a Y chromosome).

However, women are half of the human population, and a truly gender-neutral society would show that sort of demographic at all the levels of power and influence (the CS generals would be half women.... as would the folks in the burbs). And I like that idea for the CS, it makes it more morally ambiguous. A CS which is very demonstrably gender neutral, race neutral, but also happens to be genocidally expansionist (and a practitioner of slavery for non-humans) is something with a little more gray area to play with.

It may be too late to add this element to the CS, but I would like it if they did.

WHy exactly would that be a more morally gray area, why would being gender nuetral be "good". Humans are still and endangered species, women should not be fighting at all, they should be having babies. In the Coalition abortion of a healthy human fetus should be a death penalty offense.

Elthbert wrote:Why exactly would that be a more morally gray area, why would being gender nuetral be "good". Humans are still and endangered species, women should not be fighting at all, they should be having babies. In the Coalition abortion of a healthy human fetus should be a death penalty offense.

keir451 wrote:The CS see themselves as Americans and the inheritors of the "American Way of Life" (Kevin's own description) so they may allow women into the military (as we do) but only a realtive few enlist and make it to the top ranks. With their access to the Tex Am complex infertitlity would be a moot point as they could fix whatever genetic problems come up. The only "slaves" the Chi-town CS has are the Dog Boys/Mutant Animals designed at Lone Star and those that work for the CS still get three hots, a cot and pay, while not equal to humans that's still far from slavery, more like second class citizens.

Supergyro wrote:

Elthbert wrote:Why exactly would that be a more morally gray area, why would being gender nuetral be "good". Humans are still and endangered species, women should not be fighting at all, they should be having babies. In the Coalition abortion of a healthy human fetus should be a death penalty offense.

It's a morally gray area because traditional focus on fertility goes hand in hand with oppression of the female gender (Three words: "barefoot and pregnant"), and we're taught that that kind of thinking is a bit evil (I agree with those teachings).

But science fiction is a lot about exploring alternatives to those ideas. Battlestar Galactica did it well, there was a child focus, but both men and women were in the Vipers because humanity needed every defender and couldn't afford to have folks sitting out.

A fertility obsessed CS is not incompatible to one with gender equality in the power structure. Imagine a society which not only looks at childrearing as the woman's responsibility, but pressures both genders *equally*. Men should be fathering children, as the process of having children requires both a man and a woman. One could very easily see a whole slew of CS propaganda posters aimed at *both* genders to have children. (Imagine a skull poster with the sloagan "Be a man, Be a father!" alongside one saying "Mothers bring us the future!").

Similarly, the process of defending humanity can very easily fall to... 'anyone strong enough to hold a laser rifle.' It's frontier seige thinking... something totally in character with the situation the CS is in.

keir451 wrote:The CS see themselves as Americans and the inheritors of the "American Way of Life" (Kevin's own description) so they may allow women into the military (as we do) but only a realtive few enlist and make it to the top ranks. With their access to the Tex Am complex infertitlity would be a moot point as they could fix whatever genetic problems come up. The only "slaves" the Chi-town CS has are the Dog Boys/Mutant Animals designed at Lone Star and those that work for the CS still get three hots, a cot and pay, while not equal to humans that's still far from slavery, more like second class citizens.

As I said "As portrayed, the CS is no more or less sexist than the USA".

However there is one minor quibble here.

DBee's in the CS are second class citizens, they have fewer rights, but they are allowed to leave at will.

The mutant animals are created for labor/fighting, they have almost no rights, they are the subject of medical experimentation without consent, and if they refuse or try to leave the CS ,they are beaten, punished, or killed. This begins at birth and ends only at death. This is the definition of slavery.

A slave is not defined by the money or sleeping accomodations given, a slave is defined simply by two questions. 1. 'did I choose this job?' and 2. 'What happens if I say 'no' to doing the job?'. If the answer to #1 is 'no' and the answer to #2 is 'I am beaten or killed', then that person is a slave, independent of how nice their cot is or how many meals they are given.

Supergyro wrote:

Elthbert wrote:Why exactly would that be a more morally gray area, why would being gender nuetral be "good". Humans are still and endangered species, women should not be fighting at all, they should be having babies. In the Coalition abortion of a healthy human fetus should be a death penalty offense.

It's a morally gray area because traditional focus on fertility goes hand in hand with oppression of the female gender (Three words: "barefoot and pregnant"), and we're taught that that kind of thinking is a bit evil (I agree with those teachings).

But science fiction is a lot about exploring alternatives to those ideas. Battlestar Galactica did it well, there was a child focus, but both men and women were in the Vipers because humanity needed every defender and couldn't afford to have folks sitting out.

A fertility obsessed CS is not incompatible to one with gender equality in the power structure. Imagine a society which not only looks at childrearing as the woman's responsibility, but pressures both genders *equally*. Men should be fathering children, as the process of having children requires both a man and a woman. One could very easily see a whole slew of CS propaganda posters aimed at *both* genders to have children. (Imagine a skull poster with the sloagan "Be a man, Be a father!" alongside one saying "Mothers bring us the future!").

Similarly, the process of defending humanity can very easily fall to... 'anyone strong enough to hold a laser rifle.' It's frontier seige thinking... something totally in character with the situation the CS is in.

keir451 wrote:

Supergyro wrote:

Elthbert wrote:Why exactly would that be a more morally gray area, why would being gender nuetral be "good". Humans are still and endangered species, women should not be fighting at all, they should be having babies. In the Coalition abortion of a healthy human fetus should be a death penalty offense.

It's a morally gray area because traditional focus on fertility goes hand in hand with oppression of the female gender (Three words: "barefoot and pregnant"), and we're taught that that kind of thinking is a bit evil (I agree with those teachings).

But science fiction is a lot about exploring alternatives to those ideas. Battlestar Galactica did it well, there was a child focus, but both men and women were in the Vipers because humanity needed every defender and couldn't afford to have folks sitting out.

A fertility obsessed CS is not incompatible to one with gender equality in the power structure. Imagine a society which not only looks at childrearing as the woman's responsibility, but pressures both genders *equally*. Men should be fathering children, as the process of having children requires both a man and a woman. One could very easily see a whole slew of CS propaganda posters aimed at *both* genders to have children. (Imagine a skull poster with the sloagan "Be a man, Be a father!" alongside one saying "Mothers bring us the future!").

Similarly, the process of defending humanity can very easily fall to... 'anyone strong enough to hold a laser rifle.' It's frontier seige thinking... something totally in character with the situation the CS is in.

keir451 wrote:The CS see themselves as Americans and the inheritors of the "American Way of Life" (Kevin's own description) so they may allow women into the military (as we do) but only a realtive few enlist and make it to the top ranks. With their access to the Tex Am complex infertitlity would be a moot point as they could fix whatever genetic problems come up. The only "slaves" the Chi-town CS has are the Dog Boys/Mutant Animals designed at Lone Star and those that work for the CS still get three hots, a cot and pay, while not equal to humans that's still far from slavery, more like second class citizens.

As I said "As portrayed, the CS is no more or less sexist than the USA".

However there is one minor quibble here.

DBee's in the CS are second class citizens, they have fewer rights, but they are allowed to leave at will.

The mutant animals are created for labor/fighting, they have almost no rights, they are the subject of medical experimentation without consent, and if they refuse or try to leave the CS ,they are beaten, punished, or killed. This begins at birth and ends only at death. This is the definition of slavery.

A slave is not defined by the money or sleeping accomodations given, a slave is defined simply by two questions. 1. 'did I choose this job?' and 2. 'What happens if I say 'no' to doing the job?'. If the answer to #1 is 'no' and the answer to #2 is 'I am beaten or killed', then that person is a slave, independent of how nice their cot is or how many meals they are given.

While this bolded statement is generally true, many Dog Boys, while created/born for this role choose to stay and love the work they do. To these ones it's not slavery but serving their pack, to those who run away, Yes, it is slavery and I won't argue that.
D-bees are even lower on the totem pole than the Dog Boys since as far as the CS is concerned they have no rights at all. Where as the Dog Boys are part of the military and are allowed to hold at least some rank in the CS military and are accorded some level of rights as soldiers.

Elthbert wrote:I strongly object to the concept that traditional concern about fertility is naturally oppressive to women. You use an example which is quite the opposite, using pregancy to oppress women, those are not necessarly the same thing at all.

Elthbert wrote:I watched the new Battlestar Gallactica pretty religiously but I can't remember any discsssion of women fighting as opposed to having babies ( they did outlaw abortion though). Men and women were in the vipers because in their society the military was totally egalitarian with regards to men and women. Women were in the fighters when the Cylons attacked.

Elthbert wrote:further, while this focus on both genders being parents might be in the coalition, it woudl ot have ben so in the Dark Age, when Humans were literally on the brink of extinction.

As or the frontier concept of "everyone who can hold a gun fights " that would I think be true in an emergency,

Elthbert wrote: Defending home and hearth and Children is one thing, but not being a soldier, pretty hard to keep your EBA suit all zipped up if you are suffering from morning sickness.

Supergyro wrote:

Elthbert wrote:I strongly object to the concept that traditional concern about fertility is naturally oppressive to women. You use an example which is quite the opposite, using pregancy to oppress women, those are not necessarly the same thing at all.

In theory they are not the same thing... in practice however, they have been the same thing. It requires a little science fiction thinking to separate the two concepts. There's a reason that the largest fertility interested organization in the world (The Vatican) is also arguably the most oppressive to women.

Elthbert wrote:I watched the new Battlestar Gallactica pretty religiously but I can't remember any discsssion of women fighting as opposed to having babies ( they did outlaw abortion though). Men and women were in the vipers because in their society the military was totally egalitarian with regards to men and women. Women were in the fighters when the Cylons attacked.

So... the colonists carried a gender-equal military situation through the emergency... yes, I agree. Have to give BSG credit for doing that. They simply showed it and nothing looked wrong. This was largely because the colonial military was primarily technological and fighting against opponnents who were so physically superior to the troops that gender didn't matter that much.

Similarly, there is an ongoing baby theme in BSG. Starting from the pilot and Rosyln's "We need to have babies" statement and going all the way through the series with all the half-cylon babies. Like the gender neutral military, it was understated, but it certainly was there. Consider the number of pregnancies seen over the course of the show.

Forgive me, I'm going to change the order of your next statements....

Elthbert wrote:further, while this focus on both genders being parents might be in the coalition, it woudl ot have ben so in the Dark Age, when Humans were literally on the brink of extinction.

As or the frontier concept of "everyone who can hold a gun fights " that would I think be true in an emergency,

So The Dark age would be a massive emergency that would engender an "Everyone who can hold a gun fights" mentality... which makes sense...

But Prosek plays upon fear, a fear that is focused on keeping the emergency footing on all the time. That emergency footing is what enables his facism. The same emergency thinking that leads to 'everyone who can hold a gun fights' also enhances Prosek's power base.

As was said earlier in BSG, a gender neutral military can 'carry forward', it doesn't seem at all odd that the CS would do the same, in particular when the carrying forward would allow the continuation of fear that enhances a facistic power base. Psychologically, Prosek wants to keep humanity in the dark age, with him as its only salvation. I could see Prosek wanting fertility... but not at the cost of lessening anything of the fear that keeps him in power.

Elthbert wrote: Defending home and hearth and Children is one thing, but not being a soldier, pretty hard to keep your EBA suit all zipped up if you are suffering from morning sickness.

There seems to be a thinking of a difference between 'military service' and 'defending home and hearth'.... To the CS, these two would be seen as the same thing.