From: betel@camelot.bradley.edu (Robert Crawford)
Subject: Re: Sitting on the fence (was Re: Pentacles/Consorts)
Organization: Bradley University
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:18:40 GMT

ciaran@county.lmt.mn.org (Ciaran Benson) writes:
>  Admittedly, I'm a little confused about this.  I take it that you've got
>big tourneys where everyone bashes each other about (stage fighting?  Cool!)
>and the winner, male or female, gets to choose their consort for some
>period of time.

	Each kingdom (of which there are twelve) holds at least two
Crown Tourneys every year. Entrants in the combat are those who have
achieved knighthood (shown prowess in the martial arts and been
educated as to courtly behavior) and those who the current Crown
invites.
	Fighting is done in real armor, with period tourney weapons --
non-lethal weapons. They are currently made of rattan, while in period
certain woods were used.
	Before entering the Tourney, every entrant must choose a
consort, and at least in the Middle the current Crown must approve of
the consort. The sole limitation placed on the consort is that he/she
not have the same gender as the entrant.

>  Is the problem that women are forbidden from the tourney, and thus from
>the crown?

	Women are allowed to enter Crown Tourneys -- I believe there
have even been Queens by Right of Arms. (Someone correct me if I'm
wrong, please!)

>  Or is it that whoever wins must choose a consort of the opposite sex?

	Corpora (the body of rules that all the Kingdoms must follow)
states that the consort and the fighter must be of opposite genders.

>  If the former (forbidden), then there's very little that can be said
>to defend that kind of discrimination.  As has been said, 13th century
>pretenses about male and female roles just don't wash anymore, and are
>offensive.

	Women are allowed in tourneys because of evidence presented
years ago that women _did_ fight in tourneys at least sometime during
the Middle Ages.

>  If the latter (opposite sex), then there still is discrimination if
>only in that a MOTOS may choose their SO as their consort, while
>a MOTSS has to pick someone they can get along with while their SO
>sits in the sidelines.  This is not playing nice, folks.

	So what? Unlike the majority of society, we don't care who you
truly love or sleep with or whatever -- just that when you are acting
as the head of a _Medieval_ kingdom, that you have a member of the
opposite sex sitting beside you.

>  The idea of defending this kind of social setting -- indeed,
>institutionalizing it through your incorporation, really doesn't
>sound like much fun for a fair number of your members.

	There is no requirement that someone pursue the chance to sit
on the throne. Personally, I'm pretty sure I'll never be a king unless
I spend most of my time working towards it -- or I find a Lady to
fight for me at Crown. It's not likely.
	What is "institutionalized" is the concept that a Medieval
ruler would have _had_ to have been seen with a member of the opposite
sex.

>  I sincerely doubt that I'd have much fun in such a setting, especially
>since I've gotten fairly used to communities where people participate
>based on their abilities and desire, rather than their gender.

	The SCA is very much a group of people who participate based
on their "abilities and desire".

>  As for the pentagrams/cles, 
>In article <1992Sep9.185257.5368@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>, 
>boylan@sltg04.ljo.dec.com (Steve Boylan) writes:
>[...]
> 
>> The statement by the SCA does not attempt to restrict the religious
>> expression of any individual or group.  The only restriction is that
>> the pentacle may not be registered in arms.
>  My appologies, from the posts I had read previously, it seemed that
>the display of a pentagram/cle was forbidden, period.  To take a quote
>from "Young Frankenstein"; "That is, of course, and entirely different
>matter".
>  Well, maybe only sort of an entirely different matter.  Does this mean
>that a sword, for example, bearing a smith's mark of a pentagram clearly
>visible above the guard or on the pommel would be banned?  How about
>partial plate that has a 1" pentagram embossed in the metal over the
>heart (as is a part of my mark?).  I'm sure some of you will think I'm
>picking nits here, but I'm certainly not in a position to know until I
>ask -- has your executive board ruled that pentagrams can not be
>registered, and thus not be used in hereldry?  Or are they forbidden
>as ornimantation on arms as well?

	From what I understand, only one kingdom forbids bearing
religious symbols on the lists, and that covers even crosses.

	[...]

>  For example, the inverted pentagram which is the star of Easter in
>countries like Germany.

	The majority of the SCA is in the US.

>  Yes, I would say that it is significant that the pentacle and fylfot
>have been specifically selected for such treatment.
>  The reason I fuss so about the pentacle is that it is a _CURRENT_
>sacred symbol in my religion.  To read that it has been banned because
>it has been used by criminals or, as some have claimed, is some sort of
>universal symbol of evil, cuts very, very close to the heart.

	The flyflot is still a sacred symbol in my religion. I had
this explained to me after I saw it engraved on the floor of a church.
However, most people connect it with the Nazis, and for that reason it
is not allowed in arms. (The flyflots I saw were mirror images of the
swastika, reflected along one axis so that the legs pointed
counter-clockwise.)

>  By official decree, your incorporation bans the pentacle for registry --
>NOT because is has a questionable historical use, but because of fear
>of intolerance.

	RIGHT!!! Members of the SCA put up with _lots_ of crap. Sites
for events cancelled because someone thinks were Satanists; people
being fired from jobs because of their membership; being accosted and
abused while walking along the street in garb.
	While I'm sure the anti-SCA prejudice isn't as strong or as
wide-spread as that against Pagans or homosexuals, the only public
sentiment that the BoD _should_ worry about is that towards itself. In
other words, the BoD doesn't want Rev. Joe-Bob to see a pentagram on a
fighters shield (painted in such a way as to be _extremely_ visible,
which is the point of heraldry) and start a crusade against the
"Satan's Children Association".

>  What then, will the reaction be to people who continue to wear their
>pentagrams at your events?  With an official sanction of society's
>intolerance and fear, how long until your membership extends that
>intolerance to personal adornment?

	I doubt that will happen. The "official sanction" has been
pretty clearly explained as "Although we know this was a revered
symbol in the Middle Ages, the modern public doesn't. In order to
protect our members from public prejudice, we don't want anyone to
have this symbol in their coat of arms."

>  Again, you've got a group who, by official sanction, have measurable
>parameters to their involvement.  They can participate, but only so long
>as they accept limits on their religion or sexual preference which members
>of the majority society are not bound by.

	It's also forbidden to have an event centered around a
Catholic mass. Despite the fact that, in period, this was a common
occurence.
	
>  Oh, sure, Christians can't wear pentacles and MOTOS's can't choose
>a same-sex cohort either -- but the limitation on them is meaningless since
>doing these things is not a part of their definition of themselves.

	Bull. In period, pentacles and flyflots were pars of Christian
symbolism. Those symbols are forbidden to _everyone_ because of their
modern connotation.

--
Why do Saxons throw axes at Normans?
Stones bounce off.
                          -SCA joke

Robert Crawford 			betel@camelot.bradley.edu
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca