Musicmystery
Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
But regardless of this fact, here is what is mind boggling to me. Normand's idea was to create what he considered to be an ideal world. I wondered why in the creation of this world, it was important for him to reproduce the male dominated society aspect but then, on the other hand, leave out technology. Was it a rejection of the progress we've made? (Of course, I understand that if it is, it wasn't considered progress).
Gor is hardly an ideal world. It is, however, an alternate one, allowing human nature to play out in different ways than it would on Earth.
Technology, specifically weapons technology, prevents individual talent and initiative to be the presiding factor in events. Instead, the worst with the best technology can be tyrants. On Gor, there's a saying--the swords of others will set your limits. To excel, you have to actually be strong (in all senses, not simply physically), not just have bigger guns. This is true metaphorically as well as literally.
Some of the misunderstanding comes from Norman's reactions to feminism. Now, I'm all for equal pay and so forth, but if you think back to the 60s rhetoric, feminist writers put forth some pretty poorly supported stuff--including preparing for a world without men (I'm not exaggerating). Norman may have gone a bit far in his response, but that's the context.
In one of the rare funny feminist jokes, "I can do anything a man can do!" is answered by "Don't set your sights so low!" It's a glib retort, but it speaks a truth. Women were trying to be men. Instead, why not be superior women? That's what Gor means when talking about following our nature.
But a lot of women hide behind this. I remember a friend and colleague's poster---100 reasons it's hard to be a woman artist. Thing is, everything on that list applied to ALL artists, not merely women artists. Gor would take a dim view, and not simply because this example discusses women.
In several studies, women are indeed found to be less likely to strive to succeed in leadership roles than men. Does that mean this applies to all women? Of course not. To a Gorean, women--and men--will be happiest when following the path best suited to their natures. Be who you are.
For example---I didn't decide to become Dominant. In fact, I prefer to be left to work by myself. However, time and time again, I always ended up in charge. Vanilla girlfriend after vanilla girlfriend, girls went weak and wet when I took control. Smart girls. Talented girls. Strong personalities--but happier when I took control.
Take you. I've seen you in forums with submissive men. You don't have to force your hand; it's a comfortable matter of being yourself for you, and the boys fall over themselves to curry your favor, even snipping at each other in a kind of "Back off, I was here first" way while you calmly keep them in order. It's who you are. And I've seen other "dommes" essentially glorified bitches expecting people to kowtow to them, just as we've both seen wannabe "masters" of the "kneel bitch" variety.
Could there be a slave in you? Perhaps, with a strong man working with who you are. Isn't that what all successful seduction does? Sees the person for who he/she is? Perhaps not. Who cares.
And all this would be fine from a Gorean perspective. Things are what they are, not what we tell them to be, no matter how hard.
Incidentally, men aren't the dominant force on Gor either--two more highly evolved species are (well, it IS science fiction).
< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 3/27/2010 3:24:09 PM >
|
RE: Hierachy - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread