135 réponses à ce sujet

[Sen4lifE]

Then again, I'm sure that feminists would find no problem jumping the gun over technicalities, no matter how reasonable one tries to appear when arguing. {smilie}

I'm not going to take what you say and say you imply it in any way, but I definitely will use those words in my own way.

That right there is the big reason why this argument started in the first place. The technicalities: the absence of my feelings on the subject. The "jumping the gun" was the attack and assumption of what it was.

[Medhia Nox]

@Maria Caliban - you do not think you would lose many of the current iconic feminine personality types if fantasy were truly to be fantasy? (and step even further away from being an alternate mirror of our reality)

Or do you simply feel that it's an outdated "underdog" characterization that should be completely removed?

Do you not agree that many females from history are famous and notable precisely because the world was male dominated and they overcame this obstacle?

[JabbaDaHutt30]

Seena wrote...

Sen4lifE wrote...


Defining a default is assuming.  I was mentioning that it's interesting that they portray this.  This is a forum for feedback.  Maybe I liek it so I was bringing it up in the forums for that exact reason?  This thread is not only for problems, it is for positive feedback, you realize this, yes?

I do not have to specifically define whether or not I support you.  You finding the absence of my support and automatically declaring it as negativity is assumption, trolling and just rather pathetic.  It shows you really just wantd an argument, not a conversation.  And thus, I stand by my "grow up" retort.

You have no one to blame for your ambiguity - but yourself.  You have retracted and backpeddled, in an attempt to cover your tracks.

It's just unfortunate that your rewriting of your OP wasn't the actual OP - which just may be more back peddling.

It's a shame if he did that.

-- without having combat boots he will be hard to track.

[Braindeer]

Maria Caliban wrote...

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...

In various mediums of entertainment, there are a few common tropes that portray women ( or men ) in certain ways. Tropes like "women in refrigerators" were a recurring cliche in comic books ( from what I understand; I'm not familiar with this medium so much ), with women often being killed off in dramatic ways to force a reaction out of the main character/superhero.

Women can also be used in a more general sense to get sympathy out of the viewer, etc. I'm sure you get the idea.

It's not about women's actual capabilities, but how they tend to be portrayed in the gaming medium that the OP requested to be discussed in this thread, from what I understand. Claiming that people are "consternated" because they find it unusual/refreshing for women to be portrayed in such roles, is a bit on the straw man side of the argument, no?

I agree with this.

Then again, I'm sure that feminists would find no problem jumping the gun over technicalities, no matter how reasonable one tries to appear when arguing. 

Why did you ruin a perfectly good post by being an ****?

My thoughts exactly Maria Caliban! This was perfectly reasonable right up til that last point...

To ignore that last bit of nonsense and return to Jabba's actual argument...

Yes, I agree with you. The trope in a lot of genre fiction/gaming/movies is to have the woman, as you say, in the refridgerator. And so from that standpoint, yes, it is refreshing to see Bioware moving away from that trend. My point is that I always find it somewhat disheartening and a little patronising when people are congratulated for treating women like real characters. Which they should just be doing anyway.

See how reasonable the feminist can be? Watch out though, I might go CRAZY any minute. We're like that. Wacky, us feminists.

[Sen4lifE]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Maria Caliban - you do not think you would lose many of the current iconic feminine personality types if fantasy were truly to be fantasy? (and step even further away from being an alternate mirror of our reality)

Or do you simply feel that it's an outdated "underdog" characterization that should be completely removed?

Do you not agree that many females from history are famous and notable precisely because the world was male dominated and they overcame this obstacle?

Actually, it's probably part of the reason.  Depends on what exactly they did.  Sometimes, people are just famous because they were the first... and not because of the actual accomplishment.  Sometimes, they are acknowledged primarily because of something greater.  What they did was remarkable.

[Maria Caliban]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Maria Caliban - you do not think you would lose many of the current iconic feminine personality types if fantasy were truly to be fantasy? (and step even further away from being an alternate mirror of our reality)

I'm not sure what you're asking. Iconic female characters appear in all genres. They don't need a specific social milieu.

Or do you simply feel that it's an outdated "underdog" characterization that should be completely removed?

A woman can be characterized as an underdog without it being a function of her gender.

Do you not agree that many females from history are famous and notable precisely because the world was male dominated and they overcame this obstacle?

I don't... care?

I don't live in historical times. I live now. When I read a book, watch a movie, or play a game, I don't evaluate the women on historical context unless it's a historical drama. Dragon Age II isn't a historical drama.

That's not to say I don't respect women who managed to gain social or political power in pre-modern times, but if my Lady Hawke couldn't own property or hold a title because she's female, I'd be pissed.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 23 avril 2011 - 08:53 .

[JabbaDaHutt30]

Maria Caliban wrote...

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...

In various mediums of entertainment, there are a few common tropes that portray women ( or men ) in certain ways. Tropes like "women in refrigerators" were a recurring cliche in comic books ( from what I understand; I'm not familiar with this medium so much ), with women often being killed off in dramatic ways to force a reaction out of the main character/superhero.

Women can also be used in a more general sense to get sympathy out of the viewer, etc. I'm sure you get the idea.

It's not about women's actual capabilities, but how they tend to be portrayed in the gaming medium that the OP requested to be discussed in this thread, from what I understand. Claiming that people are "consternated" because they find it unusual/refreshing for women to be portrayed in such roles, is a bit on the straw man side of the argument, no?

I agree with this.

Then again, I'm sure that feminists would find no problem jumping the gun over technicalities, no matter how reasonable one tries to appear when arguing. 

Why did you ruin a perfectly good post by being an ****?

Why did I picture someone would be out to get me for that last-minute, err... touch? 

[Sen4lifE]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Maria Caliban - you do not think you would lose many of the current iconic feminine personality types if fantasy were truly to be fantasy? (and step even further away from being an alternate mirror of our reality)

I'm not sure what you're asking. Iconic female characters appear in all genres. They don't need a specific social milieu.

Or do you simply feel that it's an outdated "underdog" characterization that should be completely removed?

A woman can be characterized as an underdog without it being a function of her gender.

Do you not agree that many females from history are famous and notable precisely because the world was male dominated and they overcame this obstacle?

I don't... care?

I don't live in historical times. I live now. When I read a book, watch a movie, or play a game, I don't evaluate the women on historical context unless it's a historical drama. Dragon Age II isn't a historical drama.

Dragon Age II is happening in the past now.

@Seena

To clarify to you why I didn't add in my personal views (positive nor negative) on my original post on feminism is mostly because that would bring it off-topic.  This is a Dragon Age II forum, not a political views forum.  I wanted to bring attention to the method of writing, not my views on feminism.  Someone like you could have easily gotten mad at me for finding feminism problematic as someone who is anti-feminism could have found it insultive if I supported feminism.  I find the style of writing positive; however, my view of feminism is irrelevant, or should have been (as it evidentally was not).  Thus, I was taking it from a neutralistic standpoint, I do not claim to be neutral on feminism, but, I was not going to include my personal view in my original post for sake of avoiding argument.  It seems it's an unwinnable situation, as somehow not mentioning it brought it to attention.  Don't you think you could have send me a message and kept this thread on topic over starting an off-topic argument?

Modifié par Sen4lifE, 23 avril 2011 - 08:57 .

[Braindeer]

Sen4lifE wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Maria Caliban - you do not think you would lose many of the current iconic feminine personality types if fantasy were truly to be fantasy? (and step even further away from being an alternate mirror of our reality)

I'm not sure what you're asking. Iconic female characters appear in all genres. They don't need a specific social milieu.

Or do you simply feel that it's an outdated "underdog" characterization that should be completely removed?

A woman can be characterized as an underdog without it being a function of her gender.

Do you not agree that many females from history are famous and notable precisely because the world was male dominated and they overcame this obstacle?

I don't... care?

I don't live in historical times. I live now. When I read a book, watch a movie, or play a game, I don't evaluate the women on historical context unless it's a historical drama. Dragon Age II isn't a historical drama.

Dragon Age II is happening in the past now.

I have completely lost the train of this thought.

[Sen4lifE]

Braindeer wrote...

Sen4lifE wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Maria Caliban - you do not think you would lose many of the current iconic feminine personality types if fantasy were truly to be fantasy? (and step even further away from being an alternate mirror of our reality)

I'm not sure what you're asking. Iconic female characters appear in all genres. They don't need a specific social milieu.

Or do you simply feel that it's an outdated "underdog" characterization that should be completely removed?

A woman can be characterized as an underdog without it being a function of her gender.

Do you not agree that many females from history are famous and notable precisely because the world was male dominated and they overcame this obstacle?

I don't... care?

I don't live in historical times. I live now. When I read a book, watch a movie, or play a game, I don't evaluate the women on historical context unless it's a historical drama. Dragon Age II isn't a historical drama.

Dragon Age II is happening in the past now.

I have completely lost the train of this thought.

It's kind of like:

A long time ago* in a galaxy far, far away.

*Yet somehow in the future.

[elearon1]

You know, I haven't read a good fantasy series with a strong female character since ... well, since a Song of Ice and Fire. I would like to see more books with strong women in them ... I'd also like to see more books with strong lesbian women as the main character ... I always get into the lesbian relationships better than I do the hetersexual kind. (whatever the gender of the pc)

[Sen4lifE]

elearon1 wrote...

You know, I haven't read a good fantasy series with a strong female character since ... well, since a Song of Ice and Fire. I would like to see more books with strong women in them ... I'd also like to see more books with strong lesbian women as the main character ... I always get into the lesbian relationships better than I do the hetersexual kind. (whatever the gender of the pc)

Kind of why I think BioWare writing is cool.  It's a lot more.. original.

[Medhia Nox]

@Maria Caliban - I'm asking out of curiosity, that's all.

I admire certain female characters through history simply because I also admire the underdog who not only overcomes the hurdles set against them, but outshines them.

Two examples that come to mind:

Queen Elizabeth would have hardly been as memorable if she were simply another king. Perhaps noted as a king who brought England a great age - but I wonder if she would have been the same woman she was had she not been obsessed with proving that she did not need a man to rule England properly.

Joan of Arc - though likely far more successful, would hardly be a footnote in French history. And hardly as a "female the lead the French army to success" - but rather, as a "religious person that led France to success".

====

Yes, of course a woman can be characterized as an underdog without the function of gender - but then it must be something else. Wealth, Race, Sexual Orientation, Character Trait. You just don't become an underdog - "just cause". There is always an extenuating circumstance... I was merely curious as to whether you found "woman striving in man's world" at all a compelling tale. You seem to prefer that notion to be removed altogether.

====

As for my question you weren't sure about - several female archetypes could be said to arise from the very fact that they must prove themselves in a man's world. ((The Ice Queen Status Seeking Business woman perhaps as an example)).

If you were to create a world that removed the historical male dominance altogether - you would likely lose many female archetypes. Your response indicates you would either prefer it, or hardly notice.

====

Concerning Dragon Age (and tying not to be a rude derailer of a thread)

I think women and men are equally bland in Thedas. I believe the genders are notably different - but in Thedas, woman and men are written with the same - perhaps androgynous - hand.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 23 avril 2011 - 09:08 .

[Braindeer]

Sen4lifE wrote...

Braindeer wrote...

Sen4lifE wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Maria Caliban - you do not think you would lose many of the current iconic feminine personality types if fantasy were truly to be fantasy? (and step even further away from being an alternate mirror of our reality)

I'm not sure what you're asking. Iconic female characters appear in all genres. They don't need a specific social milieu.

Or do you simply feel that it's an outdated "underdog" characterization that should be completely removed?

A woman can be characterized as an underdog without it being a function of her gender.

Do you not agree that many females from history are famous and notable precisely because the world was male dominated and they overcame this obstacle?

I don't... care?

I don't live in historical times. I live now. When I read a book, watch a movie, or play a game, I don't evaluate the women on historical context unless it's a historical drama. Dragon Age II isn't a historical drama.

Dragon Age II is happening in the past now.

I have completely lost the train of this thought.

It's kind of like:

A long time ago* in a galaxy far, far away.

*Yet somehow in the future.

Ahh, but whose future? That's the question. Theirs or ours? Time is a construct, not a physical reality...


...yeah, I'm still not really with you. I'm trying to cover it by talking like Brian Cox. The physicist. Not the actor. Is it working? It's not is it. Damn. I admit defeat.

Modifié par Braindeer, 23 avril 2011 - 09:09 .

[Sen4lifE]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Maria Caliban - I'm asking out of curiosity, that's all.

I admire certain female characters through history simply because I also admire the underdog who not only overcomes the hurdles set against them, but outshines them.

Two examples that come to mind:

Queen Elizabeth would have hardly been as memorable if she were simply another king. Perhaps noted as a king who brought England a great age - but I wonder if she would have been the same woman she was had she not been obsessed with proving that she did not need a man to rule England properly.

Joan of Arc - though likely far more successful, would hardly be a footnote in French history. And hardly as a "female the lead the French army to success" - but rather, as a "religious person that led France to success".

====

Yes, of course a woman can be characterized as an underdog without the function of gender - but then it must be something else. Wealth, Race, Sexual Orientation, Character Trait. You just don't become an underdog - "just cause". There is always an extenuating circumstance... I was merely curious as to whether you found "woman striving in man's world" at all a compelling tale. You seem to prefer that notion to be removed altogether.

====

As for my question you weren't sure about - several female archetypes could be said to arise from the very fact that they must prove themselves in a man's world. ((The Ice Queen Status Seeking Business woman perhaps as an example)).

If you were to create a world that removed the historical male dominance altogether - you would likely loose many female archetypes. Your response indicates you would either prefer it, or hardly notice.

====

Concerning Dragon Age (and tying not to be a rude derailer of a thread)

I think women and men are equally bland in Thedas. I believe the genders are notably different - but in Thedas, woman and men are written with the same - perhaps androgynous - hand.

I'd have to agree and disagree.  While I like the personality betrayed by the people and do think there is a difference per region (Fereldan and the Free Marches), they will of course reflect common culture traits.

[Torhagen]

I really believe that the Person most qualified for a position should fill the Spot.
Sadly that is still wishful thinking
there ist always a biased person who decides

[Seena]

Sen4lifE wrote...


To clarify to you why I didn't add in my personal views (positive nor negative) on my original post on feminism is mostly because that would bring it off-topic.  This is a Dragon Age II forum, not a political views forum.  I wanted to bring attention to the method of writing, not my views on feminism.  Someone like you could have easily gotten mad at me for finding feminism problematic as someone who is anti-feminism could have found it insultive if I supported feminism.  I find the style of writing positive; however, my view of feminism is irrelevant, or should have been (as it evidentally was not).  Thus, I was taking it from a neutralistic standpoint, I do not claim to be neutral on feminism, but, I was not going to include my personal view in my original post for sake of avoiding argument.  It seems it's an unwinnable situation, as somehow not mentioning it brought it to attention.  Don't you think you could have send me a message and kept this thread on topic over starting an off-topic argument?

Your OP was not - neutral.  And it's quite clear to me what your personal position is about feminism (as I have read your posts in different threads).

Again - you had the luxury of rewording your OP in a way that suggested neutrality.

But we both know  - you are not neutral. 

As for sending you a PM - why would I ever do that, since you chose to voice your thoughts publicly?

{edit} clearly you aren't ready to let this go, are you?

Modifié par Seena, 23 avril 2011 - 09:16 .

[Merci357]

Medhia Nox wrote...

I think women and men are equally bland in Thedas. I believe the genders are notably different - but in Thedas, woman and men are written with the same - perhaps androgynous - hand.

I disagree here. With many traits, there isn't any black and white, there isn't any only male or only female feature, there is lot's of grey in between, where most of us are. However, we are educated, most often even raised to be black or white. Our western societies reinforce that, but it's just stereotypical. As in any stereotype, there is always truth, but it doesn't fit in many cases as well.
So I don't think women and men are equally bland, but they are equally human. And that isn't a bad thing.

Modifié par Merci357, 23 avril 2011 - 09:25 .

[Sen4lifE]

Seena wrote...

Sen4lifE wrote...


To clarify to you why I didn't add in my personal views (positive nor negative) on my original post on feminism is mostly because that would bring it off-topic.  This is a Dragon Age II forum, not a political views forum.  I wanted to bring attention to the method of writing, not my views on feminism.  Someone like you could have easily gotten mad at me for finding feminism problematic as someone who is anti-feminism could have found it insultive if I supported feminism.  I find the style of writing positive; however, my view of feminism is irrelevant, or should have been (as it evidentally was not).  Thus, I was taking it from a neutralistic standpoint, I do not claim to be neutral on feminism, but, I was not going to include my personal view in my original post for sake of avoiding argument.  It seems it's an unwinnable situation, as somehow not mentioning it brought it to attention.  Don't you think you could have send me a message and kept this thread on topic over starting an off-topic argument?

Your OP was not - neutral.  And it's quite clear to me what your personal position is about feminism (as I have read your posts in different threads).

Again - you had the luxury of rewording your OP in a way that suggested neutrality.

But we both know  - you are not neutral. 

As for sending you a PM - why would I ever do that, since you chose to voice your thoughts publicly?

{edit} clearly you aren't ready to let this go, are you?

Clearly you're not either, are you?  And you don't know my personal views of feminism - you do not know me.  If my original post did not convey anything negative or positive, then what was it but neutral?  No, you will not admit that because you were wrong, because you want it to be negative but you have NO proof it was.

[Seena]

Sen4lifE wrote...
Clearly you're not either, are you?  And you don't know my personal views of feminism - you do not know me.  If my original post did not convey anything negative or positive, then what was it but neutral?  No, you will not admit that because you were wrong, because you want it to be negative but you have NO proof it was.

I had stopped posting in the thread - until you addressed me again.

As for your views -  don't make me go search for your old posts. ; )

[Seena]

Sen4lifE wrote...

Then again, I'm sure that feminists would find no problem jumping the gun over technicalities, no matter how reasonable one tries to appear when arguing. {smilie}

I'm not going to take what you say and say you imply it in any way, but I definitely will use those words in my own way.

That right there is the big reason why this argument started in the first place. The technicalities: the absence of my feelings on the subject. The "jumping the gun" was the attack and assumption of what it was.

A sexist who argues reasonably -  is no less of a  sexist.

Modifié par Seena, 23 avril 2011 - 09:51 .

[Sen4lifE]

Seena wrote...

Sen4lifE wrote...
Clearly you're not either, are you?  And you don't know my personal views of feminism - you do not know me.  If my original post did not convey anything negative or positive, then what was it but neutral?  No, you will not admit that because you were wrong, because you want it to be negative but you have NO proof it was.

I had stopped posting in the thread - until you addressed me again.

As for your views -  don't make me go search for your old posts. ; )

Go fetch.  Empty threats are meaningless.

[Sabriana]

Hypatia, an outstanding teacher and mathematician, who was brutally murdered for her being a "forward" thinking woman in AD 415 thanks you for your support.

Really, it truly made her proud of being stripped, flayed, and burned alive. It was so worth it. /sarcasm

[Seena]

Sen4lifE wrote...
Go fetch.  Empty threats are meaningless.

Well, I believe this very clearly illustrates your viewpoint on women - I mean, some are good for ****ing, some marrying - and some killing, right?

Out of the love interests, which would you sleep with, marry or kill?  You can of course include Aveline or Varric, too, if you'd like.  Really I don't care who you include, not my reply.
Personally, I'd bed Isabela, marry Merril and kill ALL WHO OPPOSE ME Flemeth.. again.. or maybe bed her, she isn't so bad for an old lady in DA2..

Fortunately for you there is no search function on the forum, that gives me access to your other sexist/mysogynist comments.

Modifié par Seena, 23 avril 2011 - 10:18 .

[Sen4lifE]

Seena wrote...

Sen4lifE wrote...
Go fetch.  Empty threats are meaningless.

Well, I believe this very clearly illustrates your viewpoint on women - I mean, some are good for ****ing, some marrying - and some killing, right?

Out of the love interests, which would you sleep with, marry or kill?  You can of course include Aveline or Varric, too, if you'd like.  Really I don't care who you include, not my reply.
Personally, I'd bed Isabela, marry Merril and kill ALL WHO OPPOSE ME Flemeth.. again.. or maybe bed her, she isn't so bad for an old lady in DA2..

Fortunately for you there is no search function on the forum, that gives me access to your other sexist/mysogynist comments.

Again, you are attempting to make absence into material.  I told you to go fetch.  It was rude, and meant to be that way, you did threaten me and have been an ass this whole time.  I don't know if you're a male or female, you haven't specified, or at least I haven't noticed, and I don't care.

You show this trait again by saying there are sexist/mysogynist comments when you can't even find any.

I said love interest, not women.  I am a heterosexual, so evidently I would specify females.  Did I say "girls only?"  No I didn't, and there are replies concerning sleeping with/marrying women.  Have you never heard the phrase, "Sleep with, marry or kill?"  No?  It is rather cliche.

You are becoming pathetic.  You have no material to attack me with any longer.  In fact, the lack of material is what you are using.  You have failed.

(Woops on the typo)

Modifié par Sen4lifE, 23 avril 2011 - 10:31 .