67 réponses à ce sujet

[Radahldo]

virumor wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

Yes *agrees with Nyoka*.

Most attempts at adding in 'gender difference' boil down to male/female stereotypes.
Or, to differentiate the female playthrough, they add in a few sleazebags hitting on the female PC.  

But a good game lets you turn the tables on the sleazebag.

How is that turning the tables?

Modifié par Radahldo, 20 octobre 2011 - 11:32 .

[jlb524]

virumor wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

Yes *agrees with Nyoka*.

Most attempts at adding in 'gender difference' boil down to male/female stereotypes.
Or, to differentiate the female playthrough, they add in a few sleazebags hitting on the female PC.  

But a good game lets you turn the tables on the sleazebag.

Oh, that reminds me why I never took the 'Black Widow' perk.

iOnlySignIn wrote...

5) Romantic interests
Absolutely no. I believe everyone is more or less bisexual, but a world where everyone is 50/50 bisexual is absurdly unrealistic.

Wat?

Modifié par jlb524, 21 octobre 2011 - 12:08 .

[mesmerizedish]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

5) Romantic interests
Absolutely no. I believe everyone is more or less bisexual, but a world where everyone is 50/50 bisexual is absurdly unrealistic.

That's why it's just the LIs where the point is actually raised. Only the ones who want to sleep with you want to sleep with you.

[slimgrin]

This is a terrible idea.

On a side note, playing as a hermaphrodite could bring up some interesting dynamics in a game.

[lost.long.ago]

Radahldo wrote...
How is that turning the tables?

You can just use his attraction  to you to trick him into a setup...

I think the general path should be gender neutral for the most part... guys and gals can both make the same general choices/ take nearly the same path; in a real world, there are no limits and you can take whatever action you want, no matter your gender.  I don't think you should be forced down a particular path due to gender. 
But, I do think there should be some minor interesting differences, like in New Vegas, as people do react to you differently depending on gender, and thus would occasionally offer slightly different opportunities.

[lost.long.ago]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

iOnlySignIn wrote...

5) Romantic interests
Absolutely no. I believe everyone is more or less bisexual, but a world where everyone is 50/50 bisexual is absurdly unrealistic.

That's why it's just the LIs where the point is actually raised. Only the ones who want to sleep with you want to sleep with you.

This^ . 
You would never realize that they're all bi as you can only pursue so many per game...  I didn't realize what BioWare had done in my first playthough of DA2, and still didn't realize they'd pretty much done it to every companion until I saw it mentioned in the forums...  you could go for whomever you want, and the remaining companions would take on the role of non-bi.

[Fidget6]

I'm confused what people are getting upset about, am I misunderstanding something? Isn't Shepard the very definition of a gender neutral protagonist? Other than the LI's and a couple of extra lines by some male characters being skeezy towards female Shep, both male and female Sheps have the exact same dialogue and animations. (I think femshep had different animations in Lair of the Shadow Broker though)

Modifié par Fidget6, 21 octobre 2011 - 06:04 .

[Fidget6]

jlb524 wrote...

iOnlySignIn wrote...

5) Romantic interests
Absolutely no. I believe everyone is more or less bisexual, but a world where everyone is 50/50 bisexual is absurdly unrealistic.

Wat?

I think they mean they believe the majority of people are at about a Kinsey 2 (primarily heterosexual, but more then incidentally homosexual) or Kinsey 4 (primarily homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual) but everyone being a Kinsey 3 ("true" bisexual, completely half and half attraction) is unrealistic. Or at least that's what I think they were getting at.

[slimgrin]

Fidget6 wrote...

I'm confused what people are getting upset about, am I misunderstanding something? Isn't Shepard the very definition of a gender neutral protagonist? Other than the LI's and a couple of extra lines by some male characters being skeezy towards female Shep, both male and female Sheps have the exact same dialogue and animations. (I think femshep had different animations in Lair of the Shadow Broker though)

My sheapard isn't gender neutral. Maybe yours is. Mine happens to be a raging lesbian with a serious chip on her shoulder.

It's called role playing.

[Carfax]

Nyoka wrote...

Culture defines genders: A century ago sewing was a manly thing, now is a womanly thing. Pink was for boys and blue was for girls. You can find more examples. These constructs can be easily overcome simply by acting in a way that doesn't conform to them. That's all there is to it. It always amuses me when people say "this man isn't acting like a man". Well, he is very obviously acting like a man, because he is a man. Every thing he does he does it like a man—like him! What people really mean when they say "he isn't masculine" or "he isn't acting like a man" is, actually, "he doesn't conform to my imaginary ideal of what every single man on this planet should do in that specific situation". In short, genders as defined by culture become useless when confronted with our individual diversity. But that doesn't stop people from trying to keep applying them, and making other people suffer because of it. In that aspect gender matters a lot. Not sex. To be honest, I am very glad gender is less important in these games than in real life.

There are plenty of gender behavorial indicators that have their root mainly in culture, but that doesn't mean culture explicitly defines your gender..  There is too much uniformity in the human experience to be able to blame everything on culture.

For example, how do you explain certain phenomena such as men causing or commiting the vast majority of the violent acts the World over (whether crimes or war), regardless of culture or time period?

Can a diverse concept such as culture explain such a thing, when it's repeated throughout EVERY culture in the World, past or presenty?

Just like what we debated the last time when I brought up the fact that ALL Civilizations rely on men for their defense without exception, regardless of culture or time period.

If it was all due to culture, surely there would be at least one or two permutations, but there isn't. 

It seems to me there is a current movement by certain people in Society to remove any perceived inherent differences between the sexes, and it's political, not scientific, in it's motivation.

[Carfax]

Fidget6 wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

iOnlySignIn wrote...

5) Romantic interests
Absolutely no. I believe everyone is more or less bisexual, but a world where everyone is 50/50 bisexual is absurdly unrealistic.

Wat?

I think they mean they believe the majority of people are at about a Kinsey 2 (primarily heterosexual, but more then incidentally homosexual) or Kinsey 4 (primarily homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual) but everyone being a Kinsey 3 ("true" bisexual, completely half and half attraction) is unrealistic. Or at least that's what I think they were getting at.

I can't believe people still quote Kinsey, long after much of his work was discredited due to his many outright fabrications

And the idea that everyone is bisexual is absolutely ridiculous, and has not one shred of evidence to support it.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Call it a Robot and I shall consider liking it.

[jlb524]

slimgrin wrote...

My sheapard isn't gender neutral. Maybe yours is. Mine happens to be a raging lesbian with a serious chip on her shoulder.

It's called role playing.

The thread is dealing with in game presentation of gender.  How people roleplay different genders will vary.

[tmp7704]

Carfax wrote...

For example, how do you explain certain phenomena such as men causing or commiting the vast majority of the violent acts the World over (whether crimes or war), regardless of culture or time period?

We encourage (or at least let slight) aggressive behaviour in boys, under cultural expectation that's part of what makes them men. At the same time we try to actively suppress that in girls because "violence isn't a thing the girls do, women are all about social manipulation".

Is it really a wonder that people who live in a culture that celebrates and encourages them to act in aggressive manner do precisely that more often than these who are criticized for it?

[Carfax]

Nyoka wrote...

Men are generally taller, too, and hairier. And the vast majority of the bald people in the World are men. Not to mention the bearded people. But I was talking about gender, not sex. You are mixing up the two.

I'm not mixing up anything.  I have perfect understanding of what gender is, but it seems you don't.  Anyway, just so we don't get caught up in a debate over semantics, here is the actual definition of gender as taken from Merriam dictionary:

a: a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms b[/i]: membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass c[/i]: an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass

2
a[/i]: sex <the feminine gender>
b[/i]: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex 

Now I have taken the liberty of highlighting the relevent meaning in the context of our debate.  With that said, how is what I said incorrect?

Men being responsible for the vast majority of the violent acts that have occurred throughout History regardless of culture, can be used as evidence to support the notion that gender doesn't specifically derive solely from culture, but also has a biological origin as well.  In this sense, behavioral and psychological traits such as aggression, violent acts etc can be associated with masculinity, or men.

 

Just like the last time when I brought up specific, 20th century, real life examples that refute that claim. Besides, you ignored the part where I said those expectations conflict with our individual diversity. Bruce Willis has never fought in any war, he hasn't defended any civilization. I guess you consider he's not a real man.

How did you refute my claim?  I said that all cultures regardless of time or location have primarily, or specifically relied upon men for their defense.

To refute my claim, you'd have to cite an example of a Society/Civilization that relied primarily/specifically on women for it's defense......and there aren't any.

Women serve in many of the Armed Forces today yes, but they are never the majority of the ranks, serve with limitations on certain positions, and are often not subject to conscription unlike men..

Not so "surely". The use of fire is something every culture has. Doesn't mean using fire isn't cultural. It totally is.

It seems to me that you're arguing against yourself here, because this statement could be inferred to support the notion that there are universal cultural experiences throughout humanity, something which I've been saying from the beginning.

And if this is true, what is the reason behind such uniformity?

That's an unfounded accusation, and your arguments aren't very compelling. And you keep mistaking sex for gender.

It's not unfounded, it's a fact.  The people I'm referring to tend to be feminists, progressives and liberals..

Also, I'm not mistaking sex for gender.  I'm arguing that there is an undisputable link between gender and sex and the two are not mutually exclusive.

[Carfax]

tmp7704 wrote...

We encourage (or at least let slight) aggressive behaviour in boys, under cultural expectation that's part of what makes them men. At the same time we try to actively suppress that in girls because "violence isn't a thing the girls do, women are all about social manipulation".

OK, so is it purely coincidental that every single culture from the dawn of Time has been encouraging more aggressive behavior in boys and suppressing it in girls?

And this is despite the fact that there are obvious differences in every culture, and no two cultures are the same..

So why is there such uniformity in this particular "cultural" expectation?

[jlb524]

Carfax wrote...

OK, so is it purely coincidental that every single culture from the dawn of Time has been encouraging more aggressive behavior in boys and suppressing it in girls?

You are sure it's every single culture?

greengoron89 wrote...

I don't like this idea. It would
make the protagonist very bland and would cripple RP options, IMHO. A
strong character is more clearly defined than this "gender-neutral"
protagonist you propose - and limiting the player's options for clearly
defining their character to suit their tastes and perceptions is unfair
to the player.

Just my two cents.

Characters can be strong without exhibiting gender stereotypes.  You could also say that it's unfair to force gendered stereotypes on the player.

Modifié par jlb524, 21 octobre 2011 - 08:09 .

[Carfax]

Nyoka wrote...

Carfax,
yes, gender is behavioral, cultural and psychological traits typically associated with one sex. Things that are expected from men. I'm pretty sure people don't expect from you to be responsible for the vast majority of the violent acts that have occurred throughout history.    That's why what you said is incorrect.

If we're discussing gender roles or the perception of gender in Society, then we have to look at the behaviour of both sexes en masse, because thats ultimately how the perceptions were formed.

However, since you're a man, you're expected to be active and competitive, and to take the first step if you want a girlfriend. These are examples of traits that are typically associated with the male sex. (i.e., they are part of the male gender as constructed by our today's society).

How is being expected to be active and competitive, any different from being expected to fight in defense of my family, home or country? 

They're still expectations that Society places upon men, and not women.

  As I said, I refuted your claim by bringing up specific, 20th century, real life examples. Besides, you ignored the part where I said those expectations conflict with our individual diversity. Bruce Willis has never fought in any war, he hasn't defended any civilization. I guess you consider he's not a real man.

Perhaps you could refresh my memory, because I don't recall you citing an example.  I remember Woo locked the thread, before I could reply to your post though.

At any rate, bringing up individual diversity is irrelevent as far as I'm concerned, because there's always going to be exceptions.  There are no absolutes.

However, there are trends and patterns in every group of people, and thats ultimately where gender roles come from....much the same as stereotypes.

Sorry, there are. Otherwise I wouldn't have been able to give you the examples I gave you.

Hmm, I must have missed this one

Oh, there are. All cultures have some kind of dancing, too. Doesn't mean dancing isn't cultural.

Yes, but the expression and nature of the dance differs drastically from culture to culture, and some cultures have strict prohibitions on what kind of dancing is allowed.    
 

It is. You learn it from others, you're not born with it. Which kind of dancing you get to learn as a toddler (as well as the very idea that this kind of dancing is fun, because it's almost always very heavily reinforced as something good by everyone around you) is defined by the society you live in.

At any rate, you can't possibly be trying to equate something like dancing to fighting in Wars or other acts of aggression   War is a heckuva lot more serious than dancing.

Anthropologists have no f*cking idea why cultural universals exist, but they're working on it, or so they say. I suspect it's because we as social animals want to be part of the group and belong to it, and we do so by watching others and imitating them; the group in turn wants you to belong to it (your family, your relatives), and so they teach you to be like them. And the ideas of what men are like and what women are like are part of these teachings.

I don't buy this at all, and surely you don't speak for all Anthropologists now do you?  Also, if cultural universals are all about emulation, why would women be excluded from some, and men from others?  What purpose does that serve?

No, it's unfounded. If you notice, I haven't given any political argument in our exchange, so you have no ground on which to say that. Dismissing what others say by declaring they have a personal agenda is a logical fallacy called ad hominem. You shouldn't use it because it's not cool.

I wasn't implying that you were one of those people, only that those people exist, and that one of their goals is to remove any perceived difference, real or otherwise between men and women.

Feminist theory hinges upon the supposed equality of the sexes after all, and you can't have equality when things like gender roles etc exist..

[Carfax]

jlb524 wrote...

You are sure it's every single culture?

Can you think of any Society/Culture/Civilization that didn't depend on men for it's defense?