236 réponses à ce sujet

[Satyricon331]

The Xand wrote...
What's amazing is that people can think that someone that bases her entire personality on the amount of people she's slept with isn't a slag :/

Zevran is charming because every second joke he cracks isn't a sex joke and he talks about more than just sex and when he does talk about sex it's subtly done.

Oh, and while we're talking about double standards any male character that consistently bragged about how many chicks he'd banged and how he didn't give a damn about emotional attachments would be labelled a shallow chauvinistic copulation obsessed sexist who only saw women as objects despite any underlying insecurities he may or may not have yet somehow that's okay from Isabella just because she's female? Talk about being prejudiced and ignorant :/ And that's why radical feminism fails as a social theory, because it's too imbalanced and assumes everything is a slight against women.

I have no idea what "slag" is - we don't use it in NYC or Boston - and it's fairly clear you're pulling the old move of hiding behind the denotation to mask your use of the connotation, but regardless, your claimed double-standard is incorrect.  I've known straight guys who do exactly that but unlike your hypothetical guy, present their preference in a respectful manner that signals they still respect the women they've slept with.  Sure, some "feminists" would still label him sexist, but so what?  Some feminists label all men sexist, so what?  The mere existence of criticism doesn't show anything, and doesn't justify your own criticism, contrary to your claims.  Trying to reject "radical feminism" to vindicate your own position is logically invalid, as radical feminism is hardly the only alternative to your attitudes and there are many other disjuncts to eliminate.  Isabela is entirely respectable, at least until she starts pulling nonsense that risks triggering the next Qunari war.

[The Xand]

Satyricon331 wrote...

I have no idea what "slag" is - we don't use it in NYC or Boston - and it's fairly clear you're pulling the old move of hiding behind the denotation to mask your use of the connotation, but regardless, your claimed double-standard is incorrect.  I've known straight guys who do exactly that but unlike your hypothetical guy, present their preference in a respectful manner that signals they still respect the women they've slept with.  Sure, some "feminists" would still label him sexist, but so what?  Some feminists label all men sexist, so what?  The mere existence of criticism doesn't show anything, and doesn't justify your own criticism, contrary to your claims.  Trying to reject "radical feminism" to vindicate your own position is logically invalid, as radical feminism is hardly the only alternative to your attitudes and there are many other disjuncts to eliminate.

My claimed double standard is quite correct. It's considered both crass, shallow and rude for either gender to talk about sex with so many people and with so little emotional attachment, yet it's somehow sexist to criticise a girl for acting in such a manner. Radical feminism was an obvious example to justify my position, but since it follows the same flawed "men are to blame for all women's woes" logic of the other schools of feminist thought it's quite logical indeed to bring into my own refutation. While yes, the existence of criticism doesn't in itself count as verification of my own critical views, it's how it's presented and the logic behind it that does, in this case it's a kneejerk defensive reaction of girls becoming protective of a ****ty female character who shags around and brags about and then trying to justify her on the assumption that it's accepted for male stereotypes even though were a male to act in such a manner he'd be slated by other males for being shallow, insensitive and crude.

Oh, and don't think your poncy manner of speech is impressing anyone love, I'm well versed in the social sciences and more than intelligent enough to see past your own feigned intelligence and weasel words. Srry bbz.

Satyricon331 wrote...
Isabela is entirely respectable, at least until she starts pulling nonsense that risks triggering the next Qunari war.

I'm glad you think so. Do enjoy trying to crack out sex jokes and wild boasts about how many people you've slept with in respectable company then. You'll get super far I'm sure.

Modifié par The Xand, 13 septembre 2011 - 10:48 .

[Xilizhra]

Radical feminism doesn't really work that way; I think you're thinking of militant feminism. Or something.

[The Xand]

Xilizhra wrote...

Radical feminism doesn't really work that way; I think you're thinking of militant feminism. Or something.

It blames all of women's woes in society on men, so yes, it does. Hence the "radical".

Modifié par The Xand, 13 septembre 2011 - 10:48 .

[Xilizhra]

The Xand wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Radical feminism doesn't really work that way; I think you're thinking of militant feminism. Or something.

It blames all of women's woes in society on men, so yes, it does.

No it doesn't. Not in the way you're saying it, at any rate. It says that many aspects of Western culture are inherently patriarchal/heteronormative, and they need to be altered to better achieve equality.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Achievement Unlocked!
Indifferent
Played a Bioware game without romancing anyone.

[The Xand]

Xilizhra wrote...
No it doesn't. Not in the way you're saying it, at any rate. It says that many aspects of Western culture are inherently patriarchal/heteronormative, and they need to be altered to better achieve equality.

No, it's exactly in the way I mean it. If a woman ever has a problem it's because men have socially engineered it, and if women don't have a problem it's because men have socially engineered them into submission and made them believe they're happy. Suffice it to say, radical feminism isn't taken seriously by anyone with any level of sociological knowledge.

[Satyricon331]

The Xand wrote...
My claimed double standard is quite correct. It's considered both crass, shallow and rude for either gender to talk about sex with so many people and with so little emotional attachment, yet it's somehow sexist to criticise a girl for acting in such a manner. Radical feminism was an obvious example to justify my position, but since it follows the same flawed "men are to blame for all women's woes" logic of the other schools of feminist thought it's quite logical indeed to bring into my own refutation. While yes, the existence of criticism doesn't in itself count as verification of my own critical views, it's how it's presented and the logic behind it that does, in this case it's a kneejerk defensive reaction of girls becoming protective of a ****ty female character who shags around and brags about and then trying to justify her on the assumption that it's accepted for male stereotypes even though were a male to act in such a manner he'd be slated by other males for being shallow, insensitive and crude.

Oh, and don't think your poncy manner of speech is impressing anyone love, I'm well versed in the social sciences and more than intelligent enough to see past your feigned intelligence and weasel words. Srry bbz.

If you think "the other schools of feminist thought" share the view that "men are to blame for all women's woes," then you're broadcasting your ignorance of the various schools of feminism.  If you were "well versed in the social sciences," you'd have at least a passing knowledge of that fact.  I can think of one social science where that would not necessarily be true (mainstream economics and its sub-disciplines), but if you were only familiar with it then you wouldn't be "well versed in the social sciences," which widely vary.

But let's be charitable - let's assume for the sake of discussion that all feminisms have the view you ascribe to them.  It nonetheless remains that that set of views is not the only alternative to your viewpoint, since your attitudes are not the only alternative to thinking "men are to blame for all women's woes."  So your argument is still logically invalid even under that premise.

I'm sorry you find my "manner of speech" "poncy," but if I used "weasel words," you would do better to identify them specifically.  In fact, I speak as I do specifically to avoid inaccuracy, since I'm right and have no need to worry about it, unlike you. 

[Xilizhra]

The Xand wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
No it doesn't. Not in the way you're saying it, at any rate. It says that many aspects of Western culture are inherently patriarchal/heteronormative, and they need to be altered to better achieve equality.

No, it's exactly in the way I mean it. If a woman ever has a problem it's because men have socially engineered it, and if women don't have a problem it's because men have socially engineered them into submission and made them believe they're happy. Suffice it to say, radical feminism isn't taken seriously by anyone with any level of sociological knowledge.

Do you have some condition in which you must state anything related to women and social issues in the worst terms possible?

Yes, patriarchal social aspects have sometimes been deliberately engineered, sometimes just grew naturally. If women are happy with it, fine, but they could be happier if the situation was different. Our goal is optimization.
And relatively few men are actively involved in whatever oppression is going on; it's more an issue of cultural attitudes than people.

[The Xand]

Satyricon331 wrote...

If you think "the other schools of feminist thought" share the view that "men are to blame for all women's woes," then you're broadcasting your ignorance of the various schools of feminism.  If you were "well versed in the social sciences," you'd have at least a passing knowledge of that fact.  I can think of one social science where that would not necessarily be true (mainstream economics and its sub-disciplines), but if you were only familiar with it then you wouldn't be "well versed in the social sciences," which widely vary.

The underlying root problems for women in society according to all feminist theories: men.

Bang bang. I shot you down.

Satyricon331 wrote...
But let's be charitable - let's assume for the sake of discussion that all feminists have the view you ascribe to them.  It nonetheless remains that that set of views is not the only alternative to your viewpoint, since your attitudes are not the only alternative to thinking "men are to blame for all women's woes."  So your argument is still logically invalid even under that premise.

My argument is quite sound. Isabella sleeps with lots of people, makes lots of jokes about sex, talks about sex, and doesn't develop emotional attachments to people easily especially not those she shags. That makes her a slag and her personality crude and awfully shallow. Yet we're not allowed to dislike her for that because apparently it's sexist to do so, the main argument being "a man would get away with it" when that is blatantly not the case. It's why none of the male characters were like that, it's because it's an unpopular character type. You can sleep with as many people as you want, but it's considered poor form to brag about it and even more so to make sexual jokes every time you open your mouth. It gets old fast, regardless of gender.

Satyricon331 wrote...
I'm sorry you find my "manner of speech" "poncy," but if I used "weasel words," you would do better to identify them specifically.  In fact, I speak as I do specifically to avoid inaccuracy, since I'm right and have no need to worry about it, unlike you. 

You are quite obviously trying to sound as intelligent as you can and it's embarassing and silly. You're like a little boy trying to fit into his daddy's clothes.

Xilizhra wrote...
Do you have some condition in which you must
state anything related to women and social issues in the worst terms
possible?

I just say it how it is babe [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/cool.png[/smilie]

Xilizhra wrote...
Yes,
patriarchal social aspects have sometimes been deliberately engineered,
sometimes just grew naturally. If women are happy with it, fine, but
they could be happier if the situation was different. Our goal is
optimization.
And relatively few men are actively involved in
whatever oppression is going on; it's more an issue of cultural
attitudes than people.

Women aren't being oppressed in the slightest in the UK though. They have equal rights in every quarter, can vote, can apply for every job out there (except the Royal Marines ofc) and not only that but are protected by men in nearly every situation they find themselves in because cultural attitudes dictate that "girls must be protected and you're not allowed to smack them around at all".

Modifié par The Xand, 13 septembre 2011 - 11:11 .

[Satyricon331]

The Xand wrote...
The underlying root problems for women in society according to all feminist theories: men.

Bang bang. I shot you down.

You said "men are to blame for all women's woes."  I'm not familiar with any feminist theory that attempts to explain all women's woes, but even still, very few think "men" per se are the underlying root problem for women.  More often they think patriarchical attitudes and sexism are - and even then they don't think it's an explanation for any woe.  It's unsurprising you'd try to move goalposts.

My argument is quite sound. Isabella sleeps with lots of people, makes lots of jokes about sex, talks about sex, and doesn't develop emotional attachments to people easily especially not those she shags. That makes her a slag and her personality crude and awfully shallow. Yet we're not allowed to dislike her for that because apparently it's sexist to do so, the main argument being "a man would get away with it" when that is blatantly not the case. It's why none of the male characters were like that, it's because it's an unpopular character type. You can sleep with as many people as you want, but it's considered poor form to brag about it and even more so to make sexual jokes every time you open your mouth. It gets old fast, regardless of gender.

The argument I criticized as logically invalid was your move to attack "radical feminism" as the alternative to your atittude to Isabela.  Presenting an argument that does not mention feminism at all is again moving your goalposts, but this time so blatantly I would have imagined even you would have noticed.  Evidently not.  

As for the argument you present here, I already mentioned a counterexample, which is enough to falisfy your sweeping generalization.  All I need is one case, after all.  Perhaps you simply haven't encountered them in your part of the world, but that's your loss.

You are quite obviously trying to sound as intelligent as you can and it's embarassing and silly. You're like a little boy trying to fit into his daddy's clothes.

Again, specificity, please.  Identify the "weasel words" I've been using to bolster my argument incorrectly.

edit: And I'm still waiting for any evidence to indicate you're well-versed in the social sciences.

Modifié par Satyricon331, 13 septembre 2011 - 11:28 .

[Xilizhra]

I just say it how it is babe

Amusingly, you just demonstrated it.

Women aren't being oppressed in the slightest in the UK though. They have equal rights in every quarter, can vote, can apply for every job out there (except the Royal Marines ofc) and not only that but are protected by men in nearly every situation they find themselves in because cultural attitudes dictate that "girls must be protected and you're not allowed to smack them around at all".

It's not a matter of laws alone. Fixing that was good, but I'm referring here to general cultural attitudes, though I admit that many are subtle.

[The Xand]

Satyricon331 wrote...

You said "men are to blame for all women's woes."  I'm not familiar with any feminist theory that attempts to explain all women's woes, but even still, very few think "men" per se are the underlying root problem for women.  More often they think patriarchical attitudes and sexism are - and even then they don't think it's an explanation for any woe.  It's unsurprising you'd try to move goalposts.

Patriarchal attitudes and sexism from...men. As in...men are the underlying cause.

You're cute when you don't know much about feminism

Satyricon331 wrote...
The argument I criticized as logically invalid was your move to attack "radical feminism" as the alternative to your atittude to Isabela.  Presenting an argument that does not mention feminism at all is again moving your goalposts, but this time so blatantly I would have imagined even you would have noticed.  Evidently not.  

I don't recall having specifically stated that radical feminism was the only alternative, but w/e. Thanks for taking the time to make stuff up.

Satyricon331 wrote...
As for the argument you present here, I already mentioned a counterexample, which is enough to falisfy your sweeping generalization.  All I need is one case, after all.  Perhaps you simply haven't encountered them in your part of the world, but that's your loss.

Your counterexample was flawed and poorly thought out. A man who brags about how many girls he's slept with and makes lots of sex jokes is still crude and shallow, regardless of if he respects the girls he's boned or not.

Satyricon331 wrote...

You are quite obviously trying to sound as
intelligent as you can and it's embarassing and silly. You're like a
little boy trying to fit into his daddy's clothes.

Again, specificity, please.  Identify the "weasel words" I've been using to bolster my argument incorrectly.

Was more of a "weasel paragraph" tbqh. A prime case of "I don't have anything of actual worth to say so I'm going to wrap it up in big words and pretend I have something".

Xilizhra wrote...

It's not a matter of laws alone. Fixing
that was good, but I'm referring here to general cultural attitudes,
though I admit that many are subtle.

Yes, I too find it sexist and chauvinistic that men aren't allowed to hit women as if they were men.

Modifié par The Xand, 13 septembre 2011 - 11:32 .

[whykikyouwhy]

@The Xand - I mentioned this earlier, and apparently it begs mentioning again. You would do well to refrain from calling people "babe" or "love" - especially if your goal is to demean them. If you want to have a discussion and attempt to make your points, try and do so without the cheeky insults, ok?

And stuff like this...

The Xand wrote...

You are quite obviously trying to sound as intelligent as you can and it's embarassing and silly. You're like a little boy trying to fit into his daddy's clothes.

...that's pretty darn insulting. I called you out on that kind of thing earlier, and you denied it, yet here you are again with the insults. For all of your talk of wanting the freedom to post your opinion, you should start to do so in a civil manner, if you indeed want people to take you seriously.

[The Xand]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

@The Xand - I mentioned this earlier, and apparently it begs mentioning again. You would do well to refrain from calling people "babe" or "love" - especially if your goal is to demean them. If you want to have a discussion and attempt to make your points, try and do so without the cheeky insults, ok?

And stuff like this...

The Xand wrote...

You are quite obviously trying to sound as intelligent as you can and it's embarassing and silly. You're like a little boy trying to fit into his daddy's clothes.

...that's pretty darn insulting. I called you out on that kind of thing earlier, and you denied it, yet here you are again with the insults. For all of your talk of wanting the freedom to post your opinion, you should start to do so in a civil manner, if you indeed want people to take you seriously.

I'm sorry mother.

[whykikyouwhy]

The Xand wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

@The Xand - I mentioned this earlier, and apparently it begs mentioning again. You would do well to refrain from calling people "babe" or "love" - especially if your goal is to demean them. If you want to have a discussion and attempt to make your points, try and do so without the cheeky insults, ok?

And stuff like this...

The Xand wrote...

You are quite obviously trying to sound as intelligent as you can and it's embarassing and silly. You're like a little boy trying to fit into his daddy's clothes.

...that's pretty darn insulting. I called you out on that kind of thing earlier, and you denied it, yet here you are again with the insults. For all of your talk of wanting the freedom to post your opinion, you should start to do so in a civil manner, if you indeed want people to take you seriously.

I'm sorry mother.

If your goal is to be taken as an intelligent adult and engage in discourse, you may also not want to make little digs lilke that, no matter how cute you think them to be.

[jlb524]

The Xand wrote...
Patriarchal attitudes and sexism from...men. As in...men are the underlying cause.

You're cute when you don't know much about feminism

...and from women.  Both sexes perpetuate patriarchal attitudes.

[The Xand]

jlb524 wrote...

...and from women.  Both sexes perpetuate patriarchal attitudes.

Goddamn...manly...women.

[jlb524]

The Xand wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

...and from women.  Both sexes perpetuate patriarchal attitudes.

Goddamn...manly...women.

Actually, the women that tend to perpetuate it aren't considered 'manly' at all...quite the opposite.

You've proven you really have no clue what you are talking about.

[Satyricon331]

The Xand wrote...
Patriarchal attitudes and sexism from...men. As in...men are the underlying cause.

You're cute when you don't know much about feminism

Women are quite capable of expressing mysogyny.  Hence the distinction between patriarchal attitudes and sexism versus the gender.  And yet again, you're moving goalposts.  Even if I were to concede your argument here, it would remain for you to show all schools of feminism aim to explain all women's woes in those terms.

I don't recall having specifically stated that radical feminism was the only alternative, but w/e. Thanks for taking the time to make stuff up.

You made an argument that would be logically invalid only under the assumption is was the only alternative.  Under a true premise (that it is not), the argument is logically invalid, just as I said.

Your counterexample was flawed and poorly thought out. A man who brags about how many girls he's slept with and makes lots of sex jokes is still crude and shallow, regardless of if he respects the girls he's boned or not.

You can bleat all you want, but it merely makes you "crude and shallow."  I'll agree both he and Isabela are raunchy, but the burden is on you to show that that trait somehow undermines their depth or intellects.

Was more of a "weasel paragraph" tbqh. A prime case of "I don't have anything of actual worth to say so I'm going to wrap it up in big words and pretend I have something".

Once again, specificity, please.  Identify the "weasel words" I've been using to bolster my argument incorrectly.  Even if the paragraph was a "weasel paragraph," you had mentioned weasel words, and you should be able to say which ones if you had noticed them as you claimed to.

Modifié par Satyricon331, 13 septembre 2011 - 11:43 .

[The Xand]

Satyricon331 wrote...
Women are quite capable of expressing mysogyny.  Hence the distinction between patriarchal attitudes and sexism versus the gender.  And yet again, you're moving goalposts.  Even if I were to concede your argument here, it would remain for you to show all schools of feminism aim to explain all women's woes in those terms.

I'm not moving goalposts. Merely stating that feminist schools of thought pursue the idea that men are the underlying cause of women's societal problems. Ie men are the problem. They're very sexist and imbalanced theories though.

Satyricon331 wrote...
You made an argument that would be logically invalid only under the assumption it was the only alternative.  Under a true premise (that it is not), the argument is logically invalid, just as I said.

Yes, you're right. It *would* have been invalid if I'd claimed it was the only alternative. Three guesses what I didn't do?

Satyricon331 wrote...
You can bleat all you want, but it merely makes you "crude and shallow."  I'll agree both he and Isabela are raunchy, but the burden is on you to show that that trait somehow undermines their depth or intellects.

I never said she was stupid, merely that harping on about sex all the time is incredibly shallow. But hey, maybe you have lots of deep and meaningful conversations about sex interspersed with lots of jokes about all the lays you've had? No? I thought not.

Satyricon331 wrote...
Once again, specificity, please.  Identify the "weasel words" I've been using to bolster my argument incorrectly.  Even if the paragraph was a "weasel paragraph," you had mentioned weasel words, and you should be able to say which ones if you had noticed them as you claimed to.

I did explain it was more of a "weasel paragraph". I'm sure even you can contextualise and extrapolate what I was meaning from that.

Modifié par The Xand, 13 septembre 2011 - 11:50 .

[John Epler]

Insults and condescension are completely unacceptable when discussing topics on these forums. If you're unable to discuss contentious topics without them, then I'd suggest you take a step back until you're able to be respectful.

[Satyricon331]

The Xand wrote...
Yes, you're right. It *would* have been invalid if I'd claimed it was the only alternative. Three guesses what I didn't do?

Yes, I agree, it would have been invalid if you had made the claim expressly, which is not what I said.  It would also have been invalid in the way I said it was.  

I never said she was stupid, merely that harping on about sex all the time is incredibly shallow. But hey, maybe you have lots of deep and meaningful conversations about sex interspersed with lots of jokes about all the lays you've had? No? I thought not.

Again, you're shifting your arguments.  I never claimed the discussions were deep, merely that they are not evidence of a lack of depth such that it merits stigma.  If you don't want to hang out with her, that's perfectly fine - I don't like her as a companion either.  It doesn't follow I judge her adversely for her open sexuality, which is what you're doing.

I did explain it was more of a "weasel paragraph". I'm sure even you can contextualise and extrapolate what I was meaning from that.

So there weren't any weasel words, then?  Thank you.

edit: I had missed this -

The Xand wrote...
I'm not moving goalposts. Merely stating that feminist schools of thought pursue the idea that men are the underlying cause of women's societal problems. Ie men are the problem. They're very sexist and imbalanced theories though. 

No, that is not what you had said, as I already explained.  Even if it had been, it would still be false.

Modifié par Satyricon331, 14 septembre 2011 - 12:09 .

[Sabariel]

When I create a character I don't have a sexuality in mind, there's no "I'm going to to a gay/bi/straight play-through this time!", I just play the game and see if any of the LIs suit the character that I have created. I ended up romancing Morrigan, Leliana, and Zevran with male characters and Alistair with a female.

As for DA2, I had a hell of a time connecting to any of DA2's companions, I still don't really "feel" any of them. Finally decided to romance someone with Dick Hawke (it ended up being Fenris) to see if maybe that would help with my problem. It didn't and I have no inclination to romance the others. Sooooo... blast

[Darth Krytie]

Ignoring the incredibly privileged, sexist, and ignorant bs and the poor, patient intelligent corrections of said bs, I'll address the topic.

I'm bi, so choosing either romance isn't really opposite. Though, when I play as M!Hawke, I only romance Anders or Fenris. (Or, more accurately, Fenris til he leaves me then Anders) When I play female, I'll play gay or straight. (Romancing Isabela as Fem!Hawke is my next goal) I just have no interest in playing a straight male at all. (It's one of the reasons I've played a bunch of FemShep games and only a very small portion of one game as DudeShep. It's also the reason my interest wanes so much in most set-protag RPGS.)