From: jtn@nutter.cs.vt.edu (Terry Nutter)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: consort gender
Date: 10 Sep 92 05:19:13 GMT
Followup-To: rec.org.sca
Organization: The Rialto

Greetings, all, from Angharad.  Thom Watson quotes me, and responds,

>>The rules say that the person fighting crown and the consort must be of 
>>opposite physical gender.  Yes, this means that there are couples that
>>can't rule together (lots of them -- and it is worth bearing in mind that
>>even among heterosexuals, many ruling couples are friends rather than
>>sexually-involved pairs, and some _heterosexuals_ might rather rule with a
>
>What does sexual involvement have to do with it? Is this part of the
>general assumption that the relationships of gay people are predicated
>only on sex? The point is that a gay man or woman in the SCA is more
>likely to hold to the courtly ideal espoused in this thread when fighting
>for and inspired by a member of the same sex. 

Good grief, where do we get from "even among heterosexuals" there are ruling
couples that aren't sexually involved to anything _like_ an assumption that
gay relationships are purely sex-oriented?  If anything, the plain meaning
implies that of _straights_, not gays!

>>                                    I don't see this restriction as 
>>necessarily homophobic, any more than it is "arts phobic" to insist that 
>>at least one of the couple must fight well enough to win a Crown Tourney.
>
>Well, it is, but that's another thread :)

"Phobia" is a root having to do with fear.  I don't see any fear at all in
the use of Tourneys to decide rulership.  Lots of other kinds of assumption,
but no fear.  Not every choice that happens to decide against some class was
motivated by fear of that class -- or even awareness of its existence.  It
may nonetheless be pernicious; but not all pernicious things are phobic, and
claiming falsely that they are only weakens any arguments concerning their
perniciousness.

>>Hey, why don't we give up garb too, and everything else that has 
>>anything to do with the middle ages or renaissance, and just get together 
>>and party down?  Are we to have _nothing_ except a choice of party 
>>companions in common?  There are many inaccuracies in what we do; and
>>we can't hope to eliminate them all, and it's not clear that we'd
>>want to.  But the more we divorce our most central symbols from anything
>>that has any medieval or renaissance analog, the more we cut into what
>>little common ground we have.
>
>This is a straw man, much like the one of which you accused me. I
>have hardly suggested that we give up everything in period.

No; but you have said, directly, that it makes you very angry to hear
historicity cited as a reason not to do things you think we should do.
The question, as you so ably point out, is one of where the line should
be drawn.  It follows directly that sometimes historicity _is_ a reason
not to do things some people want done.

If you believe it is not an adequate reason in some particular venue,
it is a more effective tactic to say why this venue belongs on the one
side of the line rather than the other, than to excoriate people for 
citing history.

>>      our fantasies are ultimately solitary things; it is the history
>>as much as the ideals that holds us together.   We may want to think
>>about that before applying too readily the rule that "We've already got
>>bunches of inauthenticities; what's five or six more?"
>
>It's easy to say this when one is a straight man, and not even required
>to portray a peasant. The more truly historical the society is, the 
>better off such a person would be. Personally I'd prefer an atmosphere 
>where all people have equal value and equal opportunity.
>
>It's also interesting to note that all the posters who support the
>current situation vis a vis same sex consorts have been male and,
>presumably, heterosexual, the very group that holds the most 
>privilege under more stringent applications of historical accuracy.

Say what?  Um, I'm not male.  (Also, I don't fight, and while my lord
does, and I hold him dear and value him greatly, I never expect to see
him win a Crown.  So I am as much excluded under the current rules as
any.  I have no personal stake in this one way or the other -- and 
don't greatly appreciate the implication that I do, and that that is
the only basis for my opinions.  Your argument would also have been
stronger without this tag.)

In Service to the Society,

-- Angharad/Terry
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca