67 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

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?

It being coincidental or not has nothing to do with potential effect it may have on the society.

[tmp7704]

Carfax wrote...

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

Israel Defense Forces conscripts both men and women in the combat roles, to name one well known, modern example.

[Carfax]

tmp7704 wrote...
It being coincidental or not has nothing to do with potential effect it may have on the society.

Talk about downplaying an important question

It being coincidental or not has everything to do within the context of the debate we are having, and that is gender roles and how they came to be..

[slimgrin]

Just to make sure I wasn't jumping to conclusions, I read the op again. And I have to say it's the most ridiculous idea I've read in a long time.

Modifié par slimgrin, 22 octobre 2011 - 01:37 .

[Carfax]

tmp7704 wrote...

Carfax wrote...

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

Israel Defense Forces conscripts both men and women in the combat roles, to name one well known, modern example.

I know about Israel, and the IDF does not put it's women in to direct combat roles, only supportive or security.  They did use women for combat roles during the Arab Israeli War of 1948, due to manpower shortages, much like what the Russians did in WW2.  

The modern day IDF has the Caracal battalion, a mixed sex infantry unit comprised mostly of women that patrols the peaceful Jordanian border, and are not use for any direct combat operations.  It was created supposedly under pressure from feminist groups.

Still, I can see your point.  Israel is a small Jewish majority nation surrounded by Arab nations, so they have to conscript women into their service for their defense.

[tmp7704]

Carfax wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...
It being coincidental or not has nothing to do with potential effect it may have on the society.

Talk about downplaying an important question

No, talk about red herring. Your important question was how comes men tend to be statistically more violent than women. Now how does the potential cause being either coincidental or say, a result of dumb social structures and beliefs getting passed largely unquestioned down the generations... actually make a difference to the effect said cause may have on shaping behaviours of both genders?

(if you are trying to imply that just it being so widespread means it must be no coincidental and somehow makes said beliefs true to boot, you're mere step away from so called "appeal to numbers". Which happens to be logical fallacy)

[tmp7704]

Carfax wrote...

Still, I can see your point.  Israel is a small Jewish majority nation surrounded by Arab nations, so they have to conscript women into their service for their defense.

They don't have to. They choose to. Exactly like other nations choose not to. Which --given these men and women are of the same species like the ones who live just past their borders-- pretty much invalidates the point how the "gender roles" are anything more than (traditional) social constructs.

[Carfax]

tmp7704 wrote...
No, talk about red herring. Your important question was how comes men tend to be statistically more violent than women. Now how does the potential cause being either coincidental or say, a result of dumb social structures and beliefs getting passed largely unquestioned down the generations... actually make a difference to the effect said cause may have on shaping behaviours of both genders?

You must not be reading my posts carefully, or perhaps you're taking them out of context. My "important question" was never why men tend to be statistically more violent than women. I already know the answer to that question, even if you don't.

My important question centered mostly around the fact that since men play so prominent a role in Civilization when it comes to violent activity regardless of their culture, then it becomes plausible to assume the reason for uniform trend or pattern must transcend culture itself.

And what transcends culture? If you don't already know, then you are lost..

(if you are trying to imply that just it being so widespread means it must be no coincidental and somehow makes said beliefs true to boot, you're mere step away from so called "appeal to numbers". Which happens to be logical fallacy)

You speak to me of logical fallacy, when you're the one implying that for reasons unknown, all the various cultures of the World from the Ancient Egyptians to the Romans to the Mongols to the Austro Hungarian Empire, and finally to modern day USA, decided to "encourage" aggressive behavior in boys but not girls..
Yeah, thats very logical

Modifié par Carfax, 22 octobre 2011 - 07:33 .

[Carfax]

tmp7704 wrote...

They don't have to. They choose to. Exactly like other nations choose not to. Which --given these men and women are of the same species like the ones who live just past their borders-- pretty much invalidates the point how the "gender roles" are anything more than (traditional) social constructs.

If the IDF do this out of choice rather than necessity, then why do they place limits on their female soldiers?  Their female soldiers (like America's and every other country with a true and active Military) are prohibited from engaging in direct combat operations.

Men on the other hand, obviously have no such restrictions.  Whats the reason for this disparity?

[Wereparrot]

Luc0s wrote...

I hate gender-neutrality. It makes the character unrealistic, shallow, stupid and boring.

I agree completely. Why anyone would not want the PC to bear as close a resemblance as possible to the relevant gender is beyond me.

[Centauri2002]

Nyoka wrote...

Carfax,
you might want to look in that thread that got locked for the examples I gave you.

you might also want to google for a minute about egalitarian societies. The moment I go from debating to teaching is the moment I lose all interest, so consider it your homework.

I'm going to try to keep this thread unlocked by avoiding real life from now on. So, going back on-topic, which sex-related characteristics would you guys force into the protagonist?

I like the Fallout system. If someone thinks women should be physically weak, then they can just not put points in the strength stat and not pick the strong back perk. There you have it, your weak woman just how you like it.

If I want an Aveline-like tank, I can put plenty of points on strength and pick other perks. There I have it how I like it. Everyone is happy.   Surely you guys don't mind if I have my protagonist how I like it? In Mass Effect there's no place for that stat though because items don't weight anything.

No, Nyoka! Your individual game that I never have to see nor hear of personally effects and threatens my view of how woman should be! Don't be selfish!

[The Tookah]

Nyoka wrote...

I'm going to try to keep this thread unlocked by avoiding real life from now on. So, going back on-topic, which sex-related characteristics would you guys force into the protagonist?

Personally, I find femShep's tendency to hitch up her pants while standing at the galaxy map very non-gender neutral.  To me, that is a very male gesture.  It would be as out of place as if dudeShep was to shift his hip.  However, it is one of the few places the gender neutrality slips to the side of maleness for me.  I suppose it bothes me because there is little to distrake me at that point.  In role play, I suppose I must decide my Shepard is a woman with narrow hips and no ass.

I do not want my games to be more "real".  I don't want to be penalized for playing the game as the "weaker" sex, just as I did not want to be penalized for playing an elf in other games.  After reading what the writers intended with gender neutrality, I whole heartedly agree.  I don't want to force any gender related characteristic on my protagonist.   If animation mechanics become more sophisticated, it might be possible to insert small mannerisms.  But I am not sure what those would be.  I sure don't want to see any dudeSheps spitting on the deck. 

Modifié par The Tookah, 22 octobre 2011 - 01:04 .

[RamirezWolfen]

krissyjf wrote...

RamirezWolfen wrote...

Well I think the covers of games that allow players to pick either gender should be gender neutral, like the Fallout games or Elder Scrolls. Mass Effect should never have had default Shepard on the cover.

What do you think about putting both male and female protagonists on the cover or featuring them both in all promotions of the game? I tend to like this idea the best, but I get what you are saying about covers such as Fallout.

A few people on the other thread suggested showing all the characters... not sure about that option myself.

Putting both on? That might work, but it might confuse people if it's on the cover, as some might think they are actual characters in the game, which they are, but only if they choose them to be. I think showing both would be better left to the back of the game case saying that you can play as either gender.

Showing all the characters is better for games where you have a predefined main character, I think.

[Mercannis]

krissyjf wrote...


In a RPG (or any genre of game) do you feel that if the player is offered the choice to choose the gender of the PC that the protagonist should remain as "gender neutral" as possible when it comes to:

1) Dialogue choices
2) Animation/movement
3) Clothing
4) Reaction to given quest/situation
5) Romantic interests
6)  Promotion/Marketing

Or do you want some type of differences between the two genders- subtle or otherwise?

Answers? Opinions? Comments?

I never play as female characters so the similarites that you describe would be lost on me. However if i were another individual that plays both genders then i would be mighty peeved. The replay value of the game will plummet if that list of yours comes into effect. I observed my wife playing Origins some time ago, there were notable differences in dialogue and ofc LI. The whole concept of Gender Neutrality in video games just boils down to the company wanting to cut overheads, we didnt accept it in the past so why should we now?

I dont care if it costs more to give both genders a riveting interactive experience as a consumer it is our right to demand quality for our money.

[tmp7704]

Carfax wrote...

My important question centered mostly around the fact that since men play so prominent a role in Civilization when it comes to violent activity regardless of their culture, then it becomes plausible to assume the reason for uniform trend or pattern must transcend culture itself.

And what transcends culture? If you don't already know, then you are lost..

Far more plausible to presume the reason for uniformity is, the behaviour has been formed before what you consider separate cultures actually became separated groups and cultures.

And as far as these "trends which transcend culture" go, there also say, faith in divine beings. Do you believe this universal pattern mean something as well, simply because it's 'universal'?

You speak to me of logical fallacy, when you're the one implying that for reasons unknown, all the various cultures of the World from the Ancient Egyptians to the Romans to the Mongols to the Austro Hungarian Empire, and finally to modern day USA, decided to "encourage" aggressive behavior in boys but not girls..
Yeah, thats very logical

Not for "reasons unknown" but because they believe it's part of "traditional gender roles". That's hardly unknown reason when i gave it in my very first reply, isn't it?

[tmp7704]

Carfax wrote...

If the IDF do this out of choice rather than necessity, then why do they place limits on their female soldiers?

Every nation chooses where to place limits. However, the very fact these limits are placed differently even though the only difference in persons affected is their nationality shows the reasoning behind said limits is questionable.