From: rday@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E Day)
Subject: Re: Sitting on the fence (was Re: Pentacles/Consorts)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:14:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.220050.667@lmt.mn.org> ciaran@county.lmt.mn.org (Ciaran B
enson) 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.
>  Is the problem that women are forbidden from the tourney, and thus from
>the crown?

No. At this time there have been 2 women who have won crown/cornet tourneys
(to my knowledge at least, there may have been more.)

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

This is the problem(for some at least.)

>  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.

Plus there are examples of women fighters & women sovereigns.

>  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.

There are no examples(to my knowledge) of same sex consorts within the period
of the SCA.

>  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.
>
>  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?

The term "arms" in this context refes to the device that would be on the shield
or the banner of the owner, not to the decorations of the weapons and armor.

>> [...]  As I mentioned above, the policy was
>> not intended to be discriminatory, but it appears to have that
>> result in practice. ...the only symbols that are
>> prohibited by policy are the fylfot and the pentacle.
>  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.

It has become a symbol of evil cults to a large portion of the population(not
the SCA, but the real world.) People in "funny cloths" displaying pentacles
would be asumed to be satan-worshiping baby-killing cult members by a large
segment of society(ignorant fools that they are, it is true.)

>  What then, will the reaction be to people who continue to wear their
>pentagrams at your events?

To most SCA'er, the wearing of pentagrams would not cause any problems.

>                             With an official sanction of society's
>intolerance and fear, how long until your membership extends that
>intolerance to personal adornment?

The "oficial sanction" does not cover what you wear, but only what you register
as 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.
>
>  Oh, sure, Christians can't wear pentacles

          Yes _they_ can & I have known some that have. Once again, the SCA
does not restrict what you wear(or for that matter, what you paint on your 
shield), only what the organization will register.

                                             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.

This is true. The Sovereign can keep anyone out of the tourney for any reason
that they wish. I know one gentle who was kept from fighting in the tourney
because he was having an afair. He could not fight _AT ALL_ much less fight for
his SO.

>> Individuals wishing to submit arms bearing the pentacle should be
>> free to assume the burden of proving that the device is appropriate
>> for use as a charge to the College of Arms (and to learn how the
>> symbol was used in period).

This should be true.

>  Maybe SCA doesn't completely suck, but I'm still gonna sit on the
>fence and keep my bow strung for awhile longer.

Come to an event(or two). What you read here on the "net" may not be what you
see for yourself. You may enjoy it, or you may hate it. find out for yourself.

-
-- 
If the price that I must pay to obtain my *  Robert E. Day/Syr Otto von    *
freedom, is to acknowledge that the Gov-  *  Schwartzkatz, Shire Mugmort   *
ernmet was granted the power to infringe  *  Barony Middle Marches,        *
on them, then I am not free. Paul Anderson*  Middle Kingdom                *