Misogyny in Palladium

[Veknironth]

Well, I know this might be a loaded topic, but I think there's a strictly fantasy angle that's safe. So, the world is loosely set around medieval Europe and it's cultures and values. As such, it has the typical feel of sexism with men in charge of everything and women taking second place. This is also a bit of an issue with all of the source material being written by men, for mostly young men. But, let's focus on the world.

In the Medieval world, might made right. That was mainly based on physical strength and men have a genetic advantage in that aspect. Might still makes right in the Palladium world, but there are 2 things that really level the playing field: Magic and Psionics. While there might be a monopoly on magical studies by men, preventing women from studying, it should only stop wizard, diabolism, and summoning. However, should be equally able to be warlocks or witches. You would think that women would be able to be clergy for goddesses, at a minimum. Psionics should be equally spread through out the population and across sexes.

So, with magic being the technology of the Palladium world, and it being housed in individuals vs in machinery, would the societies be as lopsided as medieval ones were? Surely, some societies will have no magical background and will rely entirely on muscle, but ones who embrace the power of magic and psionics are going to be the most successful and should recognize that they need to maximize every possible reservoir of that power.

-Vek
"I'm sure I forgot some form of magic/psionics."

[kiralon]

In my world LotSW is a matriarchal society where the men are grunts, slaves and sex toys.
My Western Empire tends to be middling with bias against women except as the women can survive/thrive with wit, charm and assassination, so the ones that do go places are admired.
My Timiro is definitely at the other end with women being mostly kept from the wartime arts and kept as trophies.
My eastern territories is back to middling, because everyone is needed for the people to survive, but does have a bias for men to be in control.
My GNW is fully talent based, so people in their positions are good at their job or are replaced.
My Phi is where the nuclear tests take place.
My Lopan is probably the nicest human empire/state as they have abolished all forms of slavery, and women can be in all the important positions, including ruler.
My LotD is a bit unknown, are demons unisex, multisex, transgender, or gender neutral, so its a bit hard to say.


I had a yin sloth tribe that barely acknowledge women (eg totally ignore them when they speak) get slaughtered because they wouldn't talk to the female warrior in the party (also had one tribe the other way but the guys just laughed, sat down and started drinking while saying that the female of the party had to do all the work now).

[Veknironth]

Well, I guess my question is why wouldn't more of the societies be more level with regards to views on men and women? Sure, they're based on medieval societies, but why have the middling be the base as opposed to it being closer to equal?

-Vek
"Just curious"

[drewkitty ~..~]

While magic is the dominate power in the PF world it is always an art because each individual has their own subjective way of making magic work for his/herself.
-------------
Humans being humans will find a way of life to live as a culture.

That the culture's mythos and faith will shape the culture. Medieval europe's culture was influenced by a misinterpretation of text in the bible. Thus, the male dominated culture that was dominate there during the medieval times and for several centuries afterwards.

Gods and Goddesses will pick their own priests and priestesses without limitations of how humans would like to impose on "Their god". Thus, a male god will pick women for his priesthood, and the inverse. This does not mean that the priestesses will be treated the same as the priests because of the culture.
If there is a new faith that tell it's followers to treat men and women with the same respect it tends to up end the status-quo. Because it takes away the power of those who are 'comfortable' with the culture because it puts them into positions of power will oppose the new faith to keep those positions of power.
Opposition to a new faith or culture can take several forms: direct action (killing the people of that faith/culture and/or destroying the artifacts of that culture/faith) or more covert ways like subverting the faith/culture so they will end up 'on top'. And thus maintaing the 'status-quo'.

How is all of this relevent to the OP….I said it above…"That the culture's mythos and faith will shape the culture."
Thus, when creating a culture for the game, the specifics of that culture should have underlaying ideas that the culture's "rules" are based on.

[eliakon]

I would look at our world for the answer.
No really.
First look at the fact that pretty much every major culture has been more or less patriarchal (the level of it varies but the number of truly eligatarian societies is...small)
Second look at our modern Western Culture. Even in the US which prides itself on claimed gender equality women are still second class citizens when it comes to work, to education opportunities, to political opportunities, and to clerical opportunities and advancement...to the collection and use of real power.
If women have not managed to make the glass ceiling go away in our world, then it would boggle the mind to think that it would not exist in a world where:
The majority of the work is still physical
Where much of agriculture is subsistence
Where the medical system is still horrifically primitive (with the attendant likely infant mortality and childhood mortality rates and subsequently the likelihood of continually having children simply to have survivors).

AND on top of this it is already explicitly stated in canon that it is rare for women to be apprenticed to mages for training as wizards (thus the fact that one of the reasons for being a Forsaken Mage is simply being a woman)
And psionics are said to be viewed with suspicion.

This would leave the clergy as the only avenue of power for most women... and there are not all that many openings in the few female deities churches. And even they canonically tend to have mostly male clergy (the Isle of Lemuria aside) based on the published material.

Thus
I would conclude that women are going to be pretty much second class citizens, at best. And probably lucky to not be outright chattel in most place.

[Reagren Wright]

There is a nice topic about this in Bizantium. Because so many men at out to sea for
months upon end, the women are left in charge. So Women are equal in all descision
making and ownership as men are. Equality in Bizanatium is major thing. Things in Lopan
(we shall see) if they turn out different.

[Jefffar]

Another important thing to consider - the role of religion. The vast majority of Palladium faiths are polytheistic with strong females being a part of the pantheon. Several pantheons (Acco & Juggernaut, Rurga and Southern Gods are lead by goddesses. We also have a monotheistic faith devoted to a female Deity (Tolmet).

Contrast this to Medieval Europe when there was effectively a single monotheistic faith that claimed men were made in the image of the dirty and women were made from a piece of man, thus being inferior.

[eliakon]

Another important thing to consider - the role of religion. The vast majority of Palladium faiths are polytheistic with strong females being a part of the pantheon. Several pantheons (Acco & Juggernaut, Rurga and Southern Gods are lead by goddesses. We also have a monotheistic faith devoted to a female Deity (Tolmet).

Contrast this to Medieval Europe when there was effectively a single monotheistic faith that claimed men were made in the image of the dirty and women were made from a piece of man, thus being inferior.

That argument though doesn't hold much water.
Greece, Rome, Japan, China... all patriarchal, and all had goddesses of various power levels.
So patriarchy is not just some sort of 'accident of some wacky medieval Christianity beliefs'
They contributed yes, but they are not the cause.

AND I would point out that these faiths... virtually the vast majority of example clergy are males, especially those in any sort of positions of power.

[eliakon]

There is a nice topic about this in Bizantium. Because so many men at out to sea for
months upon end, the women are left in charge. So Women are equal in all descision
making and ownership as men are. Equality in Bizanatium is major thing. Things in Lopan
(we shall see) if they turn out different.

Which in many ways reinforces the idea that there is inequality in the rest of the world.
After all it would not need to be called out in Bizantium and then justified if it were actually the norm or even just not unusual.
If it were normal it would have been explained more as "as is normal women are seen as equals" or some such.

[kiralon]

Ancient Egypt was different, women were equals except they could only become pharaoh in certain circumstances, but they could own land, vote, make household decisions and more. This was part because of their religion, which is followed in a goodly portion of the world.

[eliakon]

Ancient Egypt was different, women were equals except they could only become pharaoh in certain circumstances, but they could own land, vote, make household decisions and more. This was part because of their religion, which is followed in a goodly portion of the world.

Actually they were not equals.
Not unless your quoting Herodotus instead of actual archeological studies.
Yes they had a lot more rights and freedoms than say Ancient Greece or Rome, but they were hardly a co-equal society.
And uhhhh...
No, their religion is not followed in a goodly portion of the world.
A religion based on the authors romantic views, myths and misconceptions of that religion is a popular religion in the world of Palladium.
There is a MASSIVE difference.

[Cr'Imson]

There are many women that play this game, and have fun doing it. Any kind of political BS people want in their game, outside of what is given, is up to them.



Cr'Imson

[Wōdwulf Seaxaning]

Click Bait title - misogyny & sexism in Palladium Fantasy, then try to put forth a reasonable discussion on why it is so. Ugh.

[Hotrod]

Vek, I think you're mis-characterizing gender roles of the middle ages as misogyny to a certain degree. Biologically, men are only essential for conception, whereas women are necessary for the full gestation and post-birth up to the age of weening, a process that can take a few years per child. Given the kind of infant and child mortality you see in a medieval society, each woman would need to average 4-6 kids to maintain a steady population; this means that most women in such societies would spend ~15 years or more biologically tending to kids in utero or by breastfeeding. As such, cultures that thrived in that kind of setting tended to have women in lower-risk professions (or in the profession of homemaking). Misogyny was certainly a thing, but there were underlying biological imperatives behind those social structures.

If there is sufficient medical magic to bring down that mortality rate, then it would make sense to have more women in higher-risk jobs (and I would argue that adventuring magic user/priest would be a very high-risk career choice). Even then, I doubt they would have equal representation, just as they do not have equal representation in high-risk jobs in our own world. Men and women have different distributions of interests and career choices, and thus you don't see equality of representation/outcome even if you attain equality of opportunity.

Women have the superpower of making babies. What's a Carpet of Adhesion next to that?

[Library Ogre]

That argument though doesn't hold much water.
Greece, Rome, Japan, China... all patriarchal, and all had goddesses of various power levels.
So patriarchy is not just some sort of 'accident of some wacky medieval Christianity beliefs'
They contributed yes, but they are not the cause.

The problem with this objection is that the Palladium deities are objectively real, and can make themselves understood if they feel that people are behaving inappropriately. In the real world, deities are more circumspect.

I think that you would, in general, see a leveling of gender disparity in a society that evolved in a magical world such as Palladium. As noted, when divorced from physical strength, power becomes a lot less gendered... it matters less that men are bigger and stronger if women are just as good at psionics and magic. If a priest starts saying that women are inferior, and his deity doesn't agree, he's going to quickly lose social power when it becomes clear that his god doesn't actually support him. This doesn't mean perfect equality... Lemaria proves that's not what's happening on Palladium... but alternative, egalitarian, sources of power will shallow the curve.

[eliakon]

That argument though doesn't hold much water.
Greece, Rome, Japan, China... all patriarchal, and all had goddesses of various power levels.
So patriarchy is not just some sort of 'accident of some wacky medieval Christianity beliefs'
They contributed yes, but they are not the cause.

The problem with this objection is that the Palladium deities are objectively real, and can make themselves understood if they feel that people are behaving inappropriately. In the real world, deities are more circumspect.

I think that you would, in general, see a leveling of gender disparity in a society that evolved in a magical world such as Palladium. As noted, when divorced from physical strength, power becomes a lot less gendered... it matters less that men are bigger and stronger if women are just as good at psionics and magic. If a priest starts saying that women are inferior, and his deity doesn't agree, he's going to quickly lose social power when it becomes clear that his god doesn't actually support him. This doesn't mean perfect equality... Lemaria proves that's not what's happening on Palladium... but alternative, egalitarian, sources of power will shallow the curve.

Lemeria is the textbook reason why this is demonstrably false.
The first is that the place is run by the priests of Isis, and yet violates her rules left and right and she has not done a blessed thing to stop it.
So the argument that the rest of the gods are going to step in to 'fix' some social injustice is demonstrably false.
Then there is the issue that the women in Lemuria were escaping from actual social injustice. Which would sort of be problematic in the sort of utopia being presented.
And THEN there is the fact that power HASN'T been divorced from physical strength. Not really.
When a tiny percent of your population is clergy then it doesn't really do much for the rest of the population and its power structure.
People seem to forget that society is not a player group where in a group of five 20% are mages and 20% are clerics....
Going by the books less than 1% of the population is mages+clergy+psychics. That doesn't really change the curves, it just changes who is in the top 1%.


Now sure, if a GM wants to make their PF some utopia, they can go right ahead.
What I am saying is that there is absolutely no in book justification for it beyond "I don't want to deal with sexisim at my table"
AND
That there are a whole host of canon reasons in the book to believe it does exist. (Lemuria, Forsaken Mage, having to be called out in Bizantium, the sex ratio of NPCs in positions of power, et multiple cetera)

[kiralon]

Ancient Egypt was different, women were equals except they could only become pharaoh in certain circumstances, but they could own land, vote, make household decisions and more. This was part because of their religion, which is followed in a goodly portion of the world.

Actually they were not equals.
Not unless your quoting Herodotus instead of actual archeological studies.
Yes they had a lot more rights and freedoms than say Ancient Greece or Rome, but they were hardly a co-equal society.
And uhhhh...
No, their religion is not followed in a goodly portion of the world.
A religion based on the authors romantic views, myths and misconceptions of that religion is a popular religion in the world of Palladium.
There is a MASSIVE difference.

I was talking about religion in the palladium world, Light and Dark probably has the most followers out of any of them, and the religion they follow would certainly effect the way they treat people.
and I didn't even think of Herodotus's views. He certainly was surprised.
IRL Women did get their societal name from their husband, but they could choose not to marry, could divorce, be a guard, or a judge, own property, run a business (especially textiles) to becoming king, and priestesses had a fair bit of power too, so equal in the eyes of the law. Most of them might not have done so (but hard to tell) but information pertaining to women is pretty fragmentary, I don't think they have yet found something written that can definitely be attributed to a women, and the texts about women were as scathing of them as they were the pharaohs. Strangely enough when you look into it you see a lot of ancient Egyptian women were equal in this and that and a lot less of not equal to men in various points. If you had any references I'd certainly read them but a lot of the stuff I have looked through doesn't really say there was great inequality, but I certainly didn't study ancient Egypt other than just a passing interest a long time ago, and a quick flick through the internet now.

The authors do tend to write their own biases into stories so there don't seem to be any great female leaders in the church of light and dark, and very few women of great power in the books (All of the house leaders in the western empire are male, and that pretty much is repeated through all the palladium books, Women in positions of power are rare)

[eliakon]

Ancient Egypt was different, women were equals except they could only become pharaoh in certain circumstances, but they could own land, vote, make household decisions and more. This was part because of their religion, which is followed in a goodly portion of the world.

Actually they were not equals.
Not unless your quoting Herodotus instead of actual archeological studies.
Yes they had a lot more rights and freedoms than say Ancient Greece or Rome, but they were hardly a co-equal society.
And uhhhh...
No, their religion is not followed in a goodly portion of the world.
A religion based on the authors romantic views, myths and misconceptions of that religion is a popular religion in the world of Palladium.
There is a MASSIVE difference.

I was talking about religion in the palladium world, Light and Dark probably has the most followers out of any of them, and the religion they follow would certainly effect the way they treat people.
and I didn't even think of Herodotus's views. He certainly was surprised.
IRL Women did get their societal name from their husband, but they could choose not to marry, could divorce, be a guard, or a judge, own property, run a business (especially textiles) to becoming king, and priestesses had a fair bit of power too, so equal in the eyes of the law. Most of them might not have done so (but hard to tell) but information pertaining to women is pretty fragmentary, I don't think they have yet found something written that can definitely be attributed to a women, and the texts about women were as scathing of them as they were the pharaohs. Strangely enough when you look into it you see a lot of ancient Egyptian women were equal in this and that and a lot less of not equal to men in various points. If you had any references I'd certainly read them but a lot of the stuff I have looked through doesn't really say there was great inequality, but I certainly didn't study ancient Egypt other than just a passing interest a long time ago, and a quick flick through the internet now.

The authors do tend to write their own biases into stories so there don't seem to be any great female leaders in the church of light and dark, and very few women of great power in the books (All of the house leaders in the western empire are male, and that pretty much is repeated through all the palladium books, Women in positions of power are rare)

Except that no, they do NOT get their laws from the gods.
Or lets back up
Ancient Egypt in our world did not.
Unless you are claiming that their legal code was divinely inspired.
They evolved a legal code based on their cultural needs and the local society. Their religion was, somewhat, involved but many of the gods are additions from other pantheons and the like.
Now we skip to PF.
Again, none of the societies in PF are even remotely inplied to have been divinely ordained or get their legal or moral codes from the gods.
Round about...none of them.
They are all mortal constructs.
This means that trying to pretend that the gods (who are two different sets of gods here, with two totally different social codes btw) would create identically 'free' cultures is... odd
ESPECIALLY since we have canon evidence that the gods do not care in the slightest about their followers legal codes.
We see this in Lemuria, we see this in the Church of Rurga being allowed to work for the advancement of a war based on lies.
If these major gods who are some of the major iconic 'good guys' in PF allow that level of social corruption in their churches then how can anyone claim with a strait face that all the other societies will be policed and monitored closely and held to some imaginary standard of social justice.
A standard I remind you that does not have any evidence of actually existing other than some apocryphal evidence of the real world Egyptians who might have had such a society, maybe.
It is pure protectionism where we are trying to project our views of what a 'good society' should be like
While ignoring the fact that in Palladium there is canon slavery, racism, classism, murder for hire, state sanctioned evil cults, national drug trades, and worse.
This is not some social utopia, this is basically the horrors of past.

[Prysus]

While there might be a monopoly on magical studies by men, preventing women from studying, it should only stop wizard, diabolism, and summoning. However, should be equally able to be warlocks or witches.

Greetings and Salutations. I'm fairly sure Witchcraft, in general, is a crime in most of the societies of the Palladium World. So women practicing Witchcraft isn't really going to be a good endorsement for women's rights.

Warlocks are much better, but PF2 page 108 tells use they rarely bind themselves to a king or god. They want to be in power, or free spirits. Either way, I'm not sure that (in general) they'd be the great for bringing about the women's revolution within society either. Now if one becomes "head of state or Emperor," maybe they'd bring about such change ... in the area they control. But I'm not sure this will have the massive rippling effect to alter the whole world.

Also, males have an equal opportunity to be a Witch or Warlock. So, by your own stance, men have Wizards, Diabolists, Summoners, Warlocks, and Witches. Women have Witches and Warlocks. So for every female Witch and Warlock there can be a male Witch or Warlock to balance the scales. However, men also have Wizards, Diabolists, Summoners, and Alchemists (default of the previous three) that there are few women to counter. I can see a clear disparity. Not sure how you reached the conclusion that this makes Men and Women equal in magic and magical influence in the world.

You would think that women would be able to be clergy for goddesses, at a minimum.

Well, we have an example in PF2 page 64 of a female priest (of Isis), so we know it's possible.

Psionics should be equally spread through out the population and across sexes.

So if they have equal psioinics, this doesn't give women an advantage. Look at it a different way: Both men and women can walk and run, so that must mean all societies view them as equal.

Also, while 25% of the population has psionics, PF2 page 21 tells us that "Two psi-powers, even spectacular ones, are considered inconsequential ..." That leaves us with the 09% which are major, which might have some influence. That's, of course, only 4.5% of the population that are women with psychic powers (half of the 9%). PF2 page 155 gives us slightly different figures, with 25-30% having even minor psychic powers (slightly higher figure than page 21), and 2-4% having incredible power (I'm taking it that this is a P.C.C., but hard to say for sure). So, that would mean only 7% (probably less, as I took half of 4%) of the population will be a female with any notable psychic powers (and another 7% being males with equally notable psychic powers).

If we look at the Mind Mage (the most powerful, and possibly most influential) psychic, we also see "many" have become enemies of churches/religious organizations, with some churches spreading this dislike to "psionics in general." If you're a psychic, then you're serving demons! This isn't very helpful (but likely it's not all churches everywhere, only some). While the powers of a Mind Mage are useful to a community, many making enemies of the church won't help ingratiate them to spiritual people (and lots and lots of people follow a church in the Palladium World).

So, with magic being the technology of the Palladium world, and it being housed in individuals vs in machinery, would the societies be as lopsided as medieval ones were?

Should, or are? I provided some possibilities for the "should" (but ultimately I'm indifferent, and don't generally focus on the gender issue in my games). However, per Palladium, it's primarily male dominated societies.

And while eliakon provided some sources, there is also ...

PF2, page 85, Knight O.C.C., "The Ignoble Knight" heading, second sentence, "As the sons (few females become knights in the male dominated societies of the Palladium World) ..." This tells us that few women become knights, and the reason is male dominated societies. While we might be able to interpret this as a statement saying that females are only rare in the male dominated societies while there are a plethora of non-male dominated societies where women are common, this seems unlikely considering what this statement is addressing, referring to knights (in general) as "sons" (male term). This is a statement regarding an O.C.C. across the entire Palladium World.

We also have Rifter #15, with the "official" Knights of the Eastern Territory article (by the same author as the world book). On page 23, we have the Sisterhood of the Northern Knights which are not recognized in the southern part of the Eastern Territory simply because they're women.

I'm sure there are more, but just wanted to provide a couple more.

Well, I guess my question is why wouldn't more of the societies be more level with regards to views on men and women? Sure, they're based on medieval societies, but why have the middling be the base as opposed to it being closer to equal?

-Vek
"Just curious"

Well, Hotrod provided some interesting information on that one. However, your question really comes down to: "Women can do many of the things men can do, so why aren't they equal?"

Answer that question in the real world, and then apply it to the Palladium World. Seriously, think about it. Let's take a non-magic, non-psychic O.C.C. Let's look at the Knight. Is there anything in the book (other than society) that stops a woman from being a knight? Not really. Mechanically, they'd be equal. Still, in the real world, we've had a predominately male military (including, but not limited to, knights). So why weren't females commonly knights in medieval times? Why do you think a woman in the PF world is better suited to become a knight?

Look at the non-magic, non-psychic O.C.C., and think about which gender tended to perform those roles in the real world around those times. Then ask yourself why. Then ask yourself why, in a world where magic and psychics exist, which non-magic, non-psychic gender would likely fill those roles? A good majority of the population still does NOT have magic or psionics. Of those that do have such powers, a significant portion of them are considered "inconsequential" powers.

Basically, magic and psionics exist and influence the world as a whole, but they don't play roles in the daily tasks of a majority of the population. So the wizard, Suzy, who can help defend a nation is great! But does that make Jane any better of a knight than it did during the medieval times? Give Tom and Jane a +1 sword. Why does Tom's (previous superior physicality that allowed males to dominate society) suddenly vanish and they're now equal?

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but your premise seems to be: "Males dominated historically because of physical might. So if both men and women have the exact same advantages, why does the male physical might still allow them to dominate?" Giving both sides an equal advantage (though with magic, women don't really have an equal advantage), and the previous advantage will still be present as it did not vanish anywhere.

-----

Going by the books less than 1% of the population is mages+clergy+psychics. That doesn't really change the curves, it just changes who is in the top 1%.

You're numbers are woefully low. Do you have any support for any of that? I mean, I posted above that 2-4% are psychics with "incredible" power. That's not counting magic users or clergy.

Anyways, that's all for now. Farewell and safe journeys to all.

[kiralon]

And I wasn't actually talking about the gods making the laws, but the religion, which is as you said, a man made construct, but religion definitely does influence and sometimes control civic law. If a country is very religious and the religion says its against the law (even just frowned on for that matter) for women to be in position of power, then women won't be in positions of power, or there will be very few. The legal code itself is a form of control, but in this case, rather than not having rights women did, and that changes the society greatly. Women in a society that is allows men to beat them with a stick whenever they like (learn to disrespect someone/thing at a young age and its hard to reverse that idea later on in life) will have different standing than in a society where if you beat a woman with a stick you lose your property and go to jail. Cultural needs and influence does include religion.

So i'm not saying that the gods are doing this, its more of a product of what you are allowed to do in your society, and if women are revered for their ability to have children, and people revere female gods and don't want to anger them or their priestesses then women in that society will be more like other societies that have those values, and religion can impart those values.

And if you look at my list greed and corruption can also change a society too. Timiro is not a nice place to be a woman, but the eastern territories are much better and they still worship on the same gods. Timiro pretends to be all noble even though the are rotting from the inside out. The western empire is worse but because money talks the loudest there rich women/men/golems/potatoes can get away with things that the poor normally wouldn't.

I don't think the gods in palladium mess with anyone unless something important to them is happening, I'd say its the free will thing but personally believe its more laziness. Humans disappear in the blink of an eye, who cares unless they do something important.

[Lukterran]

I don't think from a "in-game" perspective much thought is given to women's rights or about how one sex has privilege over the other. In a world where monsters and demons walk in the shadows of the forests and survival is a day to day challenge, people don't have time to worry about such trivial things.

How people are treated with psionic or magical powers would be really how the community viewed such things. Sex would probably be 3rd or 4th consideration. Does the community view the supernatural powers positively or negatively? Is the individual with the powers the same race as the rest of the community? Sex and social status would be next questions, I would assume.

In regard to a mage guild or wizard instructing students that would be a person view points again of the guild or person. If they would take woman as students.

The dark arts already break the rules and moral views. So they probably would teach their practices to any like minded persons regardless of sex.

You are free to make the world up anyway you so choose. It is your game. But from a perspective of where the source material came from "it is a man's world"

[Zer0 Kay]

Is it necessarily misogyny? Do they hate women? Or is it just male biased?

[eliakon]

Is it necessarily misogyny? Do they hate women? Or is it just male biased?

Your correct.
It is male dominance, and a patriarchal system.
But it is not Misogyny.

[zyanitevp]

There is a nice topic about this in Bizantium. Because so many men at out to sea for
months upon end, the women are left in charge. So Women are equal in all descision
making and ownership as men are. Equality in Bizanatium is major thing. Things in Lopan
(we shall see) if they turn out different.

That was one of my favorite parts in Bizantium!

[gaby]

the Majorty of Misogyny are in the non-Human/Elf and Dwarf,s Races with Orcs and Goblins the most sexist.

[Library Ogre]

.

I think that you would, in general, see a leveling of gender disparity in a society that evolved in a magical world such as Palladium. As noted, when divorced from physical strength, power becomes a lot less gendered... it matters less that men are bigger and stronger if women are just as good at psionics and magic. If a priest starts saying that women are inferior, and his deity doesn't agree, he's going to quickly lose social power when it becomes clear that his god doesn't actually support him. This doesn't mean perfect equality... Lemaria proves that's not what's happening on Palladium... but alternative, egalitarian, sources of power will shallow the curve.

Lemeria is the textbook reason why this is demonstrably false.
The first is that the place is run by the priests of Isis, and yet violates her rules left and right and she has not done a blessed thing to stop it.
So the argument that the rest of the gods are going to step in to 'fix' some social injustice is demonstrably false.
Then there is the issue that the women in Lemuria were escaping from actual social injustice. Which would sort of be problematic in the sort of utopia being presented.
And THEN there is the fact that power HASN'T been divorced from physical strength. Not really.
When a tiny percent of your population is clergy then it doesn't really do much for the rest of the population and its power structure.
People seem to forget that society is not a player group where in a group of five 20% are mages and 20% are clerics....
Going by the books less than 1% of the population is mages+clergy+psychics. That doesn't really change the curves, it just changes who is in the top 1%.


Now sure, if a GM wants to make their PF some utopia, they can go right ahead.
What I am saying is that there is absolutely no in book justification for it beyond "I don't want to deal with sexisim at my table"
AND
That there are a whole host of canon reasons in the book to believe it does exist. (Lemuria, Forsaken Mage, having to be called out in Bizantium, the sex ratio of NPCs in positions of power, et multiple cetera)

Is it necessarily misogyny? Do they hate women? Or is it just male biased?

Your correct.
It is male dominance, and a patriarchal system.
But it is not Misogyny.

Ah, we're bringing out the "special" definitions, now.

"Women are not allowed to study magic. It's not that we HATE them, it's just that we don't think they should be equal of MEN."

As I said, when you have power not being solely reliant on physical strength, you see a leveling of disparities. Psychic power, Warlockry, the political and magical power of priesthoods, to say nothing of learned magics (which are not exclusively male) all create situations in which women are less divorced from access to power, because power is less based on physical strength. That none of these are exclusive to women means that the result is that there are places where they are not as far behind, rather than places where they are demonstrably ahead. When coupled with common mythologies which actively support women in various forms (i.e. Rurga as a warrior goddess, Epim as an emblem of wisdom, etc.), you add another layer which differentiates it from the common mythology of Earth's Middle Ages (where female figures were, at best, secondary to male figures)... you don't wrench societies into gender equality, but you create a situation less likely to lead to inequality, and whose inequalities are likely to be lesser in magnitude.

You can dismiss this as "some utopia", but that's not what I said. I said that, when access to power is more egalitarian, you have a generally shallower power disparity. To paraphrase and cross games a little bit... "Od created the humans... Mordenkainen made them equal."

I pointed to Lemaria as proof that it was not equality... that women clearly felt oppressed in society at large, and it led to a reaction when placed in a position of supremacy. You said "But Lemaria proves it isn't equality".... because women placed in a position of supremacy created a society where they were in charge. You either failed to read what I wrote, or failed to understand it. You try to dismiss that power as belonging to the top 1%, but you seemingly dismiss that 25% of humans are psychic... of only middling competence, perhaps, but that power carries with it strength and influence. And, you ignore that women AS priests would have a significant effect throughout society... women are demonstrably not simply helpmeets, but able to stand as powers in their own right, or as voices of the gods. The perception of a female priest, speaking for her deity, is vastly different than that of a nun or non-ordained religious, who speaks to her deity, but has no authority.

I do not think, in general, that Palladium societies are egalitarian... that's clearly not the case. But I do think that access to power being more egalitarian, as it clearly is, results in societies with less severe inequalities... which is also the case, IMO.

[eliakon]

.

I think that you would, in general, see a leveling of gender disparity in a society that evolved in a magical world such as Palladium. As noted, when divorced from physical strength, power becomes a lot less gendered... it matters less that men are bigger and stronger if women are just as good at psionics and magic. If a priest starts saying that women are inferior, and his deity doesn't agree, he's going to quickly lose social power when it becomes clear that his god doesn't actually support him. This doesn't mean perfect equality... Lemaria proves that's not what's happening on Palladium... but alternative, egalitarian, sources of power will shallow the curve.

Lemeria is the textbook reason why this is demonstrably false.
The first is that the place is run by the priests of Isis, and yet violates her rules left and right and she has not done a blessed thing to stop it.
So the argument that the rest of the gods are going to step in to 'fix' some social injustice is demonstrably false.
Then there is the issue that the women in Lemuria were escaping from actual social injustice. Which would sort of be problematic in the sort of utopia being presented.
And THEN there is the fact that power HASN'T been divorced from physical strength. Not really.
When a tiny percent of your population is clergy then it doesn't really do much for the rest of the population and its power structure.
People seem to forget that society is not a player group where in a group of five 20% are mages and 20% are clerics....
Going by the books less than 1% of the population is mages+clergy+psychics. That doesn't really change the curves, it just changes who is in the top 1%.


Now sure, if a GM wants to make their PF some utopia, they can go right ahead.
What I am saying is that there is absolutely no in book justification for it beyond "I don't want to deal with sexisim at my table"
AND
That there are a whole host of canon reasons in the book to believe it does exist. (Lemuria, Forsaken Mage, having to be called out in Bizantium, the sex ratio of NPCs in positions of power, et multiple cetera)

Is it necessarily misogyny? Do they hate women? Or is it just male biased?

Your correct.
It is male dominance, and a patriarchal system.
But it is not Misogyny.

Ah, we're bringing out the "special" definitions, now.

"Women are not allowed to study magic. It's not that we HATE them, it's just that we don't think they should be equal of MEN."

Misogyny has a pretty clearly defined meaning.
So no, using the actual meanings of words isn't "special"
Trying to twist words to make them mean things they don't mean though is.
There is a rather large difference between the two and it does the discussion no good to try and paint the issue (falsely) as one of deliberate malice.

As I said, when you have power not being solely reliant on physical strength, you see a leveling of disparities. Psychic power, Warlockry, the political and magical power of priesthoods, to say nothing of learned magics (which are not exclusively male) all create situations in which women are less divorced from access to power, because power is less based on physical strength. That none of these are exclusive to women means that the result is that there are places where they are not as far behind, rather than places where they are demonstrably ahead.

Uhhh no.
Sorry no.
Having the same chances at Psychic power and Warlock magic is not going to do much for them. Really its not.
Being less able to be a learned mage (since that is canon from Mysteries of Magic) is not 'ahead'
Even the NPC ratios are skewed
AND the books repeatedly say that it is male dominated.
None of that says "not far behind"
It just says "there are some token exceptions that have not been sufficient to change the society in any real way. Sort of like how the presence of magic for 50,000 years has not changed warfare or legal systems and they are identical to human societies of the same 'era' even though they should be radically different."

When coupled with common mythologies which actively support women in various forms (i.e. Rurga as a warrior goddess, Epim as an emblem of wisdom, etc.), you add another layer which differentiates it from the common mythology of Earth's Middle Ages (where female figures were, at best, secondary to male figures)... you don't wrench societies into gender equality, but you create a situation less likely to lead to inequality, and whose inequalities are likely to be lesser in magnitude.

Again this is false
Because sorry, it was not just earths Middle Ages that were patriarchal.
Most of the Earth history has been such, and guess what? That has been the case even in places with strong female goddesses. Even strong female warrior goddesses

You can dismiss this as "some utopia", but that's not what I said. I said that, when access to power is more egalitarian, you have a generally shallower power disparity. To paraphrase and cross games a little bit... "Od created the humans... Mordenkainen made them equal."

That would almost be relevant...
...if there were enough mages to matter.
Or if it was not canon that women are at a disadvantage at learning magic.
They don't have an egalitarian access to power. They really don't.
To pretend that they do is why I said it was utopian.

I pointed to Lemaria as proof that it was not equality... that women clearly felt oppressed in society at large, and it led to a reaction when placed in a position of supremacy. You said "But Lemaria proves it isn't equality".... because women placed in a position of supremacy created a society where they were in charge. You either failed to read what I wrote, or failed to understand it. You try to dismiss that power as belonging to the top 1%, but you seemingly dismiss that 25% of humans are psychic... of only middling competence, perhaps, but that power carries with it strength and influence.

And fear.
Psychics are feared in Palladium
The books are pretty clear on that as well.
They are banned in many places and in some of the canon cities are a death sentence.
AND we have the issue that it is NOT 25% of humans that are psychic.
It is 25% of PLAYER CHARACTERS that are psychic
People tend to forget that.
This is why when you look at the breakdowns of the actual numbers in the books you don't see 25% of the population as being psychic.

And, you ignore that women AS priests would have a significant effect throughout society... women are demonstrably not simply helpmeets, but able to stand as powers in their own right, or as voices of the gods. The perception of a female priest, speaking for her deity, is vastly different than that of a nun or non-ordained religious, who speaks to her deity, but has no authority.

I am not ignoring anything.
I am saying that they don't change anything.
The books repeatedly state that women are disadvantaged.
That it is a male dominated society ect.
That to me suggests that the few female priests (seriously go count the number of male and female priests in the books...) are not demonstrating anything. It may even HURT women by providing the "Well yeah, sure those women can do it, but they are exceptions"

I do not think, in general, that Palladium societies are egalitarian... that's clearly not the case. But I do think that access to power being more egalitarian, as it clearly is, results in societies with less severe inequalities... which is also the case, IMO.

You can houserule that for your games as you wish.
The books though seem to disagree with you since the canon statements in the books state, quite clearly that the world is "male dominated" that "being a woman" is in itself sufficient cause to be incapable of learning magic properly (forsaken mage), that female knights are not respected or treated as being legitimate...
...that sort of suggests that, no, they are not egalitarian and that inequalities are still pretty severe.

[Veknironth]

Well, I think my question has been mostly missed. I think Mark catches it but I'll try to reword it and address a few concerns.

1. I'm not concerned about house ruling. Clearly, anyone can make any of their own games be anyway they want. It's sort of a tautology. Of course house ruled games will be the way the house rules them. However, that is essentially a non-answer. It shuts down conversation as it can be used to "answer' any question. "It's your game do what you want." It's a valid, but unhelpful response. Unless, that is, people are asking how others use house rules to make their games run better for them.

2. I know that the Palladium world is male dominated. It's the third sentence of my post. I'm not asking if the world is male dominated, I'm wondering why it is presented that way.

3. In my wondering why it is set as male dominated, I posited that it was based on Medieval societies as most sword and sorcery/high fantasy stories are. However, given that the Palladium world has mechanisms for women to wield power beyond sinew, would/should things have evolved to be more equal? Do you think the Palladium writers just went copy/paste with the setting without consideration to how the world might have evolved with women having access to power that can mitigate the lack of physical strength?

4. I should have asked this earlier, but do we think the Dwarves and Elves were so patriarchal? Magic was king then, and in an arms race against each other, I'd expect them to tap every resource available.

5. A separate post, which I purposely did not write, would be SHOULD the current world as written in the books, be so male dominated? That seems to be the majority of the discussion. I realize I worded my final paragraph poorly and I seem to be asking this question. I didn't mean it for the current state of the world. I meant it as questions I wonder if the writers consider(ed) when creating the source books. That's my fault.

-Vek
"1. Why did the writers make it male dominated? 2. (Not the topic of this post) SHOULD it be male dominated?"

[kiralon]

Well, I think my question has been mostly missed. I think Mark catches it but I'll try to reword it and address a few concerns.

1. I'm not concerned about house ruling. Clearly, anyone can make any of their own games be anyway they want. It's sort of a tautology. Of course house ruled games will be the way the house rules them. However, that is essentially a non-answer. It shuts down conversation as it can be used to "answer' any question. "It's your game do what you want." It's a valid, but unhelpful response. Unless, that is, people are asking how others use house rules to make their games run better for them.

2. I know that the Palladium world is male dominated. It's the third sentence of my post. I'm not asking if the world is male dominated, I'm wondering why it is presented that way.

3. In my wondering why it is set as male dominated, I posited that it was based on Medieval societies as most sword and sorcery/high fantasy stories are. However, given that the Palladium world has mechanisms for women to wield power beyond sinew, would/should things have evolved to be more equal? Do you think the Palladium writers just went copy/paste with the setting without consideration to how the world might have evolved with women having access to power that can mitigate the lack of physical strength?

4. I should have asked this earlier, but do we think the Dwarves and Elves were so patriarchal? Magic was king then, and in an arms race against each other, I'd expect them to tap every resource available.

5. A separate post, which I purposely did not write, would be SHOULD the current world as written in the books, be so male dominated? That seems to be the majority of the discussion. I realize I worded my final paragraph poorly and I seem to be asking this question. I didn't mean it for the current state of the world. I meant it as questions I wonder if the writers consider(ed) when creating the source books. That's my fault.

-Vek
"1. Why did the writers make it male dominated? 2. (Not the topic of this post) SHOULD it be male dominated?"

Short points
1. Because they come from a male dominated society, in a male dominated pastime and its what seems most natural to them as its in their comfort zone.
2. I have answered this with my house rulings I think. Some parts yes, some parts no with differing levels.

main points
1. True
2. Because they come from a male dominated society, in a male dominated pastime and its what seems most natural to them as its in their comfort zone.
3. They copy pasted the setting without worrying about the evolution of magic effecting things, so there's no surprise that they didn't take into account what it would do for the male/female power structure.
4. Because Papa Tolkien didn't believe in woman, so you barely get to see elven and dwarven females, and when you do they tend to be wearing chainmail bikini's, and writers wouldn't have taken into account what the females would be like, in fact female dwarves in fantasy tend to be indistinguishable from the males, and act the same way. And all elves are women https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=645
5. I don't think so, sometimes I wonder if some of the material came from people who have played the game at all, little own considered things like that. But for that to be considered a writer would have to have knowledge and forethought about many disciplines, something about reading a library to make a book.

[Prysus]

Well, I think my question has been mostly missed.

Greetings and Salutations. I don't think it was missed as much as much of your post muddies it and causes focus on other factors. I'll repost the original question.

So, with magic being the technology of the Palladium world, and it being housed in individuals vs in machinery, would the societies be as lopsided as medieval ones were? Surely, some societies will have no magical background and will rely entirely on muscle, but ones who embrace the power of magic and psionics are going to be the most successful and should recognize that they need to maximize every possible reservoir of that power.

You ask the question, and then tell us "surely" how it "should" be. For the record, my previous post addressed a few reasons it might not balance. If you'd like to discuss some of those possible reasons more so, I will be glad to do so. Simply taking issue that all the posts haven't praised how right your only true vision is, on the other hand, doesn't do much for me.

Setting that aside, you take the position that magic is the technology of the Palladium World, and that since people can wield magic that magic should balance a society. That's not entirely accurate though. I will admit Palladium does refer to magic much as the technology of the world, and states that if magic were to ever dry up (so to speak) on the world that it might turn more to technology. However, magic isn't really technology, and it doesn't balance the same way.

So in the real modern world, a man and a woman apply for a machine operator position. The job is to feed a piece of light sheet metal into a machine and push a button (clearing out jams and checking quality). The machine does most of the work, and really the person is just operating the machine. Whether a man or woman does the task doesn't matter much. Soldiering may be a touchy topic (even today) for some, but whether or not a man or woman pulls the trigger, a gun is just as effective, and it doesn't matter if you're a man or woman when you're shot because you're probably still going down (even if not lethal).

Now we go to a fantasy world. Magic is nice, and might be able to help an entire farm prosper. Yet, the farmer still has to do the same work, maybe just not as long because the magic helps the plants grow. Put a man and woman in magic armor and with magic swords, if the man can still physically dominate the woman her magic gear won't do as much. Yes, a magic fireball will do the same whether or not you're a man or a woman, but the problem is that only helps if you're the magic user. Magic users aren't as common as the every day person, so the question (to me) would be how does magic affect the average person? The answer, from what I can tell, is not much. If you'd like to actually make the case for magic being super industrialized and common where the average person can say a few magic words and have the magic device perform the hard physical labor for them, I'd be curious to see your evidence.

3. In my wondering why it is set as male dominated, I posited that it was based on Medieval societies as most sword and sorcery/high fantasy stories are. However, given that the Palladium world has mechanisms for women to wield power beyond sinew, would/should things have evolved to be more equal? Do you think the Palladium writers just went copy/paste with the setting without consideration to how the world might have evolved with women having access to power that can mitigate the lack of physical strength?

You'd have to ask Kevin what he was thinking when he wrote it 34 years ago. I don't know what he'd say. I can suspect the reality is that it's just based off of early D&D (as my understanding is PF is basically a house ruled version of AD&D), so if that's how D&D was back then you'd probably have to ask Gary Gygax, and I don't think we'll have much luck there. Other than that, probably based more medieval without too much thought on how things would change.

Note: Writers after Kevin would have to write to meet the original source material, and since PF is a male dominated society, means future writers will typically maintain the setting instead of just ignoring it.

4. I should have asked this earlier, but do we think the Dwarves and Elves were so patriarchal? Magic was king then, and in an arms race against each other, I'd expect them to tap every resource available.

You can check out my Elven and Dwarven cultures for my view on the role of females in their society. For an abridged answer: Elves were more patriarchal and Dwarves viewed women as more equal (though women still couldn't be the head of state, so to speak). For a more detailed answer:

http://www.prysus.com/pf_cultures.htm

5. A separate post, which I purposely did not write, would be SHOULD the current world as written in the books, be so male dominated? That seems to be the majority of the discussion. I realize I worded my final paragraph poorly and I seem to be asking this question. I didn't mean it for the current state of the world. I meant it as questions I wonder if the writers consider(ed) when creating the source books. That's my fault.

SHOULD it be? Hard to say. First, let's pretend there's no stigmata against psychics in the fantasy world (for ease of discussion). Second, I'll take the stance that the reasons men have historically dominated society is due to physical strength (as posited in the original post).

Now the question becomes: How useful are these psionics? Even if half the population can use Healing Touch and Sense Magic and Sense Evil and Exorcism, does this help women in any way at physical tasks? There are some psionics that can help, with Telekinesis as an obvious one. However, a limited selection of people have psionics, and even a more limited number of that limited group will have the ones that can be useful for the physical tasks. Then there's the factor of how long can this power be maintained. So let's look at Telekinesis (minor, as that'll be more common). It lasts 2 minutes per level. The average person isn't very high level, but let's say they're level 5 for ease of numbers (10 minutes per use). I'll say to be useful for physical labor you'll need to at least use Medium weight (which is still under 20 lbs, but also the weight category needed to parry an attack with Telekinesis alone). So that's 8 per use. In one hour, you'll need to use it 6 times. That's 48 I.S.P. There's almost no way a minor psychic will have that much I.S.P., but I'll ignore that factor for now. The person will need to sleep for 24 hours before they recover that I.S.P. If we allow meditation for minor psychics, we can lower it to only 8 hours. Mind you, that's more I.S.P. than a minor psychic will have and that still only covers ONE HOUR of work.

What about Levitation, that can be useful, right? That's 6 I.S.P. for every 10 pounds. An average person has a P.S. of 9 or 10. Let's say 9 to be nice. That means the person can lift 90 pounds. That's 54 I.S.P. to Levitate (for 2 minutes per level) what an average person can lift without psychic powers. Are there times when that's useful? Probably. Are those limited times enough to make men and women stand side by side in solidarity as equals for all of time? I doubt it. Most minor psionics are nifty little benefits, but I don't see them being the great equalizer like you think it should be. If you'd like to actually make a case based on numbers for how it should be, I'll be more interested.

Then there's magic. We know magic is common enough to not be unusual, but we don't have an actual percentage of magic users (that I'm aware of). We do know that magic users are still secretive with their spell knowledge. We also don't see many examples (that I can recall) of magic being so widespread to be able to help the average person, at least not without the magic user being there casting the spell. A single female magic user helping out a village is a good thing. However, I don't see that single female magic user suddenly making every man in the village grabbing every female in the village and saying: "That female wizard has changed my view on the world. You non-magic using woman are now my equal even though you can't do what that other person did, but she did it so now every woman has been lifted up because ... uh ... because!"

Magic can be great for elevating an individual, and that individual may be able to help a society. However, that individual does not represent all of society, nor does an individual necessarily alter how society will work as a whole.

Back to the question of: "SHOULD it be male dominated?"

Possibly. The existence of magic and psionics makes it more likely that females can play a bigger role, but how much more likely is questionable. I can see quite a few reasons why magic and psionics might not play that big of a deciding factor in the bigger picture. And someone could try to make a case for why women should've played a bigger role historically than they did without magic and psionics.

COULD magic and psionics play a role? Yes. WOULD it? Maybe. SHOULD it the way magic and psionics are presented in Palladium? I'm doubtful. For it to be a bigger influence I think you'd have to redo both psionics and magic to make them more useful and/or prolific.

Beyond that, I think history of the world will play a factor. Now, we know the PF history, but I'll address how magic may or may not affect equality in society. For an example, let's say magic is created by a woman, who then decides to only train other women. Men could, in theory, learn magic, but she doesn't touch them. This goes on for a while. Later maybe some women are willing to teach a man magic, but that won't necessarily change all of society or make it normal. After a point, it's just the way things are. Once people are set in their ways, it can be hard to get them to change despite a logical reason. There are reasons why things are the way they are, and it's traitorous to speak against such and such because this and that! It's easier to keep the status quo. It's easier to do what you've been is the way things work since you were a child. And most people will tend to do what's easiest. Of course, this same situation can work in reverse (with men discovering magic first).

The same could happen with males in charge. Or maybe it's a male dominated society already. A woman develops magic in this society. Witch in league with demons! She's burned at the stake, and then a man steals all her notes, passes it off as his work, and magic is born into a male dominated world. Men are already in charge, and when you already have the power its easier to keep it.

Then there's the factors, as brought up earlier by another, of child bearing and raising while maintaining a population. This factor is, to a degree, mitigated by magic and psionics, but not entirely. You should really look back at Hotrod's post on the matter.

Right now you're claiming only Mark Hall understands your question, but it looks like that's because only Mark Hall has taken your side at all. So instead of just ignoring anything that disagrees with your view of how things "should" be, perhaps you should try to address the points with an actual counter. Simply saying no one understands what you're asking if they don't agree with you, however, hasn't been very convincing. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Prysus]

You try to dismiss that power as belonging to the top 1%, but you seemingly dismiss that 25% of humans are psychic... of only middling competence, perhaps, but that power carries with it strength and influence.

AND we have the issue that it is NOT 25% of humans that are psychic.
It is 25% of PLAYER CHARACTERS that are psychic
People tend to forget that.
This is why when you look at the breakdowns of the actual numbers in the books you don't see 25% of the population as being psychic.

Greetings and Salutations. Page 155 (the section on psionics right before the P.C.C. section) states 25-30% of the "human population" have psionics. Do you have any book support to dismiss this as "human population of player characters only"? So tell me again what I'm forgetting.

I can provide further support, but the flat out statement should suffice for now. Farewell and safe journeys.

[Library Ogre]

Again, Eli fisks statements out of meaning. I grow tired of arguing with people who don't read what I say because of their agenda.

EDIT: That is an excellent reason to use the 'foe' function. - Jefffar

[eliakon]

You try to dismiss that power as belonging to the top 1%, but you seemingly dismiss that 25% of humans are psychic... of only middling competence, perhaps, but that power carries with it strength and influence.

AND we have the issue that it is NOT 25% of humans that are psychic.
It is 25% of PLAYER CHARACTERS that are psychic
People tend to forget that.
This is why when you look at the breakdowns of the actual numbers in the books you don't see 25% of the population as being psychic.

Greetings and Salutations. Page 155 (the section on psionics right before the P.C.C. section) states 25-30% of the "human population" have psionics. Do you have any book support to dismiss this as "human population of player characters only"? So tell me again what I'm forgetting.

I can provide further support, but the flat out statement should suffice for now. Farewell and safe journeys.

The reason I question if it is supposed to represent "normal people"
Is two fold
1) because we are told, repeatedly that PCs are 'special' and 'above the average' which seems to be why PCs get so many advantages in their generation
2) because the other random tables in PC creation such as background are flatly impossible to match to the world at large.
Or are we to assume that 3% of the Palladium population is Dee-bees?
That 7% of the population is Nobles? with only 20% of the population as peasants?

The fact that the tables are repeatedly said to be for 'generating a character' and not for generating random NPCs is, to me, pretty telling
and of course the most important fact is that when one looks at the published material the number of NPCs with psionics is miniscule.

THAT is why I am comfortable in saying that the table is for PC generation and not for the population as a whole.

And of course this all ignores the fact that rolling on the table is NOT mandatory. You don't have to do it, you only roll there if you want psionics. That means that if you don't want psionic powers you don't have to roll. Which is not a possible state of affairs if everyone has to roll on it, which I would point out is the only possible way you can have the distribution of powers in the general population match that of the table.
Otherwise you have to take into account the number of people who do not roll.
<Edit>
I would also point to page 62 of the base book which talks about the difference between player characters and average people.
Part of that mentions that "The average person is not likely to have psionic or magical powers." (emphasis theirs)
further reinforcing my belief that the character generation section is just that... for characters.
I would also like to note that rolling for psionics can be a disadvantage, since 10% of the time you get major psi and have to give up half your OCC related skills and half your skill bonuses. That is going to be a serious threat to life and limb when your talking basic survival skills like farming, or wilderness survival that entire families will be trying to depend upon.

[Prysus]

The reason I question if it is supposed to represent "normal people"
Is two fold
1) because we are told, repeatedly that PCs are 'special' and 'above the average' which seems to be why PCs get so many advantages in their generation
2) because the other random tables in PC creation such as background are flatly impossible to match to the world at large.
Or are we to assume that 3% of the Palladium population is Dee-bees?
That 7% of the population is Nobles? with only 20% of the population as peasants?

The fact that the tables are repeatedly said to be for 'generating a character' and not for generating random NPCs is, to me, pretty telling
and of course the most important fact is that when one looks at the published material the number of NPCs with psionics is miniscule.

THAT is why I am comfortable in saying that the table is for PC generation and not for the population as a whole.

And of course this all ignores the fact that rolling on the table is NOT mandatory. You don't have to do it, you only roll there if you want psionics. That means that if you don't want psionic powers you don't have to roll. Which is not a possible state of affairs if everyone has to roll on it, which I would point out is the only possible way you can have the distribution of powers in the general population match that of the table.
Otherwise you have to take into account the number of people who do not roll.

Greetings and Salutations. You keep focusing on the Character Creation section (page 20-21 for the psionic part). While I could make a case for that, I have not. Instead, I've referenced you to page 155, which is NOT character creation in the beginning of the book nor the racial write-up in the back of the book. The exact quote is ...

Approximately 25-30% of the human population possess minor psionic abilities. Of them, a comparatively tiny percentage (2% to 4%) possess incredible psi-power.

That's not characters, that's not character creation. That's "human population." By your above stance of it only applying to Player Characters, it would mean that 100% of the human population are Player Characters, which is even an odder claim. Or that your claim is the book is flat our wrong and we should ignore what's written by the author because your claim is right. Either way, it's not a very good claim. The entire books is NOT character creation. If it was, your claims of male dominance would only apply to the player characters and NOT the rest of the world. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[eliakon]

The reason I question if it is supposed to represent "normal people"
Is two fold
1) because we are told, repeatedly that PCs are 'special' and 'above the average' which seems to be why PCs get so many advantages in their generation
2) because the other random tables in PC creation such as background are flatly impossible to match to the world at large.
Or are we to assume that 3% of the Palladium population is Dee-bees?
That 7% of the population is Nobles? with only 20% of the population as peasants?

The fact that the tables are repeatedly said to be for 'generating a character' and not for generating random NPCs is, to me, pretty telling
and of course the most important fact is that when one looks at the published material the number of NPCs with psionics is miniscule.

THAT is why I am comfortable in saying that the table is for PC generation and not for the population as a whole.

And of course this all ignores the fact that rolling on the table is NOT mandatory. You don't have to do it, you only roll there if you want psionics. That means that if you don't want psionic powers you don't have to roll. Which is not a possible state of affairs if everyone has to roll on it, which I would point out is the only possible way you can have the distribution of powers in the general population match that of the table.
Otherwise you have to take into account the number of people who do not roll.

Greetings and Salutations. You keep focusing on the Character Creation section (page 20-21 for the psionic part). While I could make a case for that, I have not. Instead, I've referenced you to page 155, which is NOT character creation in the beginning of the book nor the racial write-up in the back of the book. The exact quote is ...

Approximately 25-30% of the human population possess minor psionic abilities. Of them, a comparatively tiny percentage (2% to 4%) possess incredible psi-power.

That's not characters, that's not character creation. That's "human population." By your above stance of it only applying to Player Characters, it would mean that 100% of the human population are Player Characters, which is even an odder claim. Or that your claim is the book is flat our wrong and we should ignore what's written by the author because your claim is right. Either way, it's not a very good claim. The entire books is NOT character creation. If it was, your claims of male dominance would only apply to the player characters and NOT the rest of the world. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

Then we run into the problem with page 62 where it says that "The average person is not likely to have psionic or magical powers" (emphasis theirs)
Which gets us into a problem of two conflicting statements
either 25% of the population has psionic powers OR the average person doesn't have them.
You can't have both.

Especially since the 25-30% number is basically impossible to have.
Since to get it you have to have everyone be required to roll on the table (which is explicitly not required). And even then you would need a statistical deviation to get higher than 25%

Which brings us full circle to the Palladium normal situation of "multiple mutually conflicting statements in canon"

Which, be that as it may...
...either way the presence of psionics in the general population is not going to change the sex roles.
1) the psi is going to manifest equally for everyone, so you get no 'advantage' to the women.
2) most psychic powers are of little to no use to the average person
3) possession of many powers will reinforce the role (healing powers for instance will reinforce the nurturer role)
4) Psionics are supposedly feared and mistrusted in wide swaths of palladium especially since the Mind Mage is explicitly feared... and as the changlings have demonstrated it is hard to prove you are not a Mind Mage and 'just' a minor psi. After all it isn't like most people have a copy of the rules book handy to look up and go "Ayup, she's got telekinesis and levitation. But the full skill allotment of a tailor, must just be a minor psi. So she's safe can't read your mind. Must have been someone else using the evil eye on you." Instead they will be looking at the known psychic and think "I know he/she can move rocks with their mind... what else can they do?"
5) and of the 25% 10% of them (10/25 people in other words!) take a massive skill hit. Which is going to be harsh when you need those skills to scrape by. That is going to be a bit of a Darwinian selection against psi right there...

[Prysus]

Then we run into the problem with page 62 where it says that "The average person is not likely to have psionic or magical powers" (emphasis theirs)
Which gets us into a problem of two conflicting statements

Greetings and Salutations. Ah, thank you! An actual book response was nice, and that thank you is sincere. And I can appreciate Palladium having conflicting statements.

either 25% of the population has psionic powers OR the average person doesn't have them.
You can't have both.

Actually, you can. 75% will still represent the average person. The typical person is listed to be one of the occupations in the sentence before. That doesn't mean anyone in a profession other than those are the 1%.

With that said, I'll concede the sentence, as worded, does sound like it's meant to indicate lower than 25%-30%, plus magic user % on top of that.

Especially since the 25-30% number is basically impossible to have.
Since to get it you have to have everyone be required to roll on the table (which is explicitly not required). And even then you would need a statistical deviation to get higher than 25%

Well, it is impossible, but not for the same reasons you presented. If you don't roll, then you may not have psionics. Simply not rolling doesn't actually guarantee that. Also, if you don't have psionics, you're part of the ~75% who don't have psionics. That doesn't really break the statistic.

And the way you get over 25% is also listed in the book. Those are your P.C.C. If you select a P.C.C. (such as Mind Mage) you do not roll on Step 3 (even though you don't pick until Step 5). Now, the reason that it's impossible is that the figure on page 155 suggests 2%-4% have incredible psionic power. I'm going to take this to mean P.C.C., judging by the percentage, the section the statement is in, the wording, etc. That would put the percentage at 27%-29% without rolls. Now, in theory, if we go to some variation on the statistical probabilities, the numbers may rise or lower enough to reach 25%-30%, but that variance is really just guess work and not written. Note: I actually suspect 25%-30% is just a much prettier looking number than 27%-29%.

Which brings us full circle to the Palladium normal situation of "multiple mutually conflicting statements in canon"

Which, be that as it may...
...either way the presence of psionics in the general population is not going to change the sex roles.
1) the psi is going to manifest equally for everyone, so you get no 'advantage' to the women.
2) most psychic powers are of little to no use to the average person
3) possession of many powers will reinforce the role (healing powers for instance will reinforce the nurturer role)
4) Psionics are supposedly feared and mistrusted in wide swaths of palladium especially since the Mind Mage is explicitly feared... and as the changlings have demonstrated it is hard to prove you are not a Mind Mage and 'just' a minor psi. After all it isn't like most people have a copy of the rules book handy to look up and go "Ayup, she's got telekinesis and levitation. But the full skill allotment of a tailor, must just be a minor psi. So she's safe can't read your mind. Must have been someone else using the evil eye on you." Instead they will be looking at the known psychic and think "I know he/she can move rocks with their mind... what else can they do?"
5) and of the 25% 10% of them (10/25 people in other words!) take a massive skill hit. Which is going to be harsh when you need those skills to scrape by. That is going to be a bit of a Darwinian selection against psi right there...

I agree with you here. My only real conflict is with how common psionics are, or are not.

Such as on page 21 (Step 3, I know), the first two sentences are: "In the Palladium World, psychic powers are comparatively common. Even an average person may have some degree of psychic power."

With statements from page 21, page 62, and page 155, I'd say that Palladium tends to consider the 25% to not be very significant enough to be considered psychic powers for the sentence on page 62 (that's why the use terms like "inconsequential" on page 21, while it's thinking more of the 2%-4% from page 155). But that's just my personal take on it. I'm willing to agree to "conflicting statements" as well. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Killer Cyborg]

"The average person is not likely to" pretty much describes the average person only having a 25% chance.
25% is not likely.

On the other hand, "the average person Does Not" would directly conflict with a 25% chance.

[Axelmania]

Hm... if an elf thought only elves should learn magic, and that humans shouldn't learn magic, does that mean the elf hates humans?

Regarding physical might (as if there is any difference in the PS dice based on gender... oy) whether you're a 2D6 gnome or a 4D6 orc, if you can summon a 6D6 Elemental to lift your logs, you're better off.

[Hell knight]

Click Bait title - misogyny & sexism in Palladium Fantasy, then try to put forth a reasonable discussion on why it is so. Ugh.

Agreed can not go any were with out running in to these topics .

[eliakon]

Click Bait title - misogyny & sexism in Palladium Fantasy, then try to put forth a reasonable discussion on why it is so. Ugh.

Agreed can not go any were with out running in to these topics .

Then perhaps you could
1) not post on the thread and thereby helping to keep it on the current threads list which means it can't just die off which brings us to...

2) note that due to the very issue brought up by Hotrod the issue was restarted as the Male dominance thread since the majority of Palladiums cultures seeming to be patriarchal is both textually cited and not a loaded phrase which posits malicious intentions, but is instead just a statement of fact. As far as any actual "mis" in the Palladium world the only form we were able to find was the misandry in Lemuria. And that is even called out as a highly bizarre and unjust exception which reinforces that while sex based contempt is not widely present sex based lack of equality is.

[Axelmania]

Wait, so Rifts Lemuria mentioned misandry but the word misogyny hasn't appeared in any Palladium Books product?

Kevin SieMbRiedA is a pretty cool guy.