422 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexXIV]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
There is alot of sexual assaulting in a relationship and that's mostly ok.

And that's a problem. By definition, sexual assault is a Bad Thing.

I don't care if you call it sexism.

Even if you don't care, it's still an aberation.

We could discuss sexism in broad but not going to do it here and now.

You already are, so it's a bit late to try and claim the end of the argument even as you insist on the last word.

So in my book it is not sexism.

Your book is irrelevant to a cultural standard.

It is what I expect a man to understand and accept without drawing the sexism card.

Expecting other people to go off of your personal book when your book isn't the cultural standard is egocentric and pretentious.

Lol @ cultural standart. Where are you living? Where I come from beating women is unacceptable for any man. As is beating chíldren for parents. That's our cultural advancement that I would defend to the last breath.

[Badpie]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Badpie wrote...

I'm certainly not saying it is.  My concern is the people who see nothing wrong with any of it whatsoever, not even on a small level.  

So you've been ignorring most of what a number people have written in this thread.

Well, if you're just going to ignore what anyone says anyway, no reason to keep trying. Thanks for the tip, though I doubt you'll register this.

I haven't been ignoring. In fact I think a lot of people are saying similar things in different ways. And I was making a blanket statement about the general attitude of some people about it, not necessarily directed at anyone in particular.  No reason for you to get hostile.

[AlexXIV]

Saphra Deden wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Hitting a man for no reason is bad, hitting a woman for no reason is worse. Actually hitting a woman is always bad unless maybe in self defense if you have no choice. That's of course if we assume it happens in a hostile manner. If you slap your girl on the butt it's something different.

You are sexist.

I for one believe women and men are equal. It is unacceptable to hit a man and it is unacceptable to hit a woman unprovoked.

It is not worse to hit a woman than it is a man.

Chilavry is dead and has been for a long time. Women are not entitled to any preferential treatment of any kind and neither are men.

Chivalry is an idea and ideas never die. Also I am not a chivalrous person in general. I am pretty much for equality of genders in many subjects. But this what we are talking about here is not something I'd remotely consider subject to change. Maybe if one day men give birth to babies. But until then this will not change.

[AlexXIV]

Saphra Deden wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Lol @ cultural standart. Where are you living? Where I come from beating women is unacceptable for any man. As is beating chíldren for parents. That's our cultural advancement that I would defend to the last breath.

Your culture is backward and primitive all the same. You still have much farther to advance. Stop coddling women for one.

So just because I don't beat women I am backward, primitive and coddling them? Yeah, right. In many respects of life I consider women equal to men. But not in that. That's one exception for eternity, no matter how far culture/society advances.

[AlexXIV]

Badpie wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Badpie wrote...

I'm certainly not saying it is.  My concern is the people who see nothing wrong with any of it whatsoever, not even on a small level.  

So you've been ignorring most of what a number people have written in this thread.

Well, if you're just going to ignore what anyone says anyway, no reason to keep trying. Thanks for the tip, though I doubt you'll register this.

I haven't been ignoring. In fact I think a lot of people are saying similar things in different ways. And I was making a blanket statement about the general attitude of some people about it, not necessarily directed at anyone in particular.  No reason for you to get hostile.

He doesn't need a reason to be hostile. Or at least he doesn't need anyone to give him one.

[Zjarcal]

I didn't punch her in ME1 but I did punch her in ME2... if I get another chance I'll take it. I just hope it goes like this:



Credit to Espantiras for that glorious depiction.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 05 février 2012 - 04:59 .

[Ryzaki]

lmao

Hilariously the one sexist Shepard I do have will never punch her. He refuses to touch women.

And yes that means right after FP he replaced Miranda with Zaeed. Didn't get Samara or Thane either because of that damn unavoidable Liara hug.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 février 2012 - 05:00 .

[King Minos]

Men fighting is socially fine. But god created man then created women from a rib (i think) so punching women is like punching a man so punching women is socially acceptable as your actually punching a man, well a piece of a man in reality so your really punching a shard of a rib-cage, which is bone so your infact, very manly and very strong as bone is hard to punch.

So Shepard is really strong and manly.

[syllogi]

Mass Effect 1 was the first role playing game where I decided to try the "dark" path, because Renegade *isn't* "dark" or cartoonishly evil -- most of the time. It's entirely possible to take the reporter down on the renegade path without touching her. The punch is a lowest common denominator type joke, and it's out of place, in my opinion, when compared to most of the renegade options in the first game. I don't personally enjoy playing the kind of character who physically attacks people for being obnoxious, so I don't do that.

For the record, I don't like physically threatening Conrad Verner, either, although that's not as douchey as the punch. Those are both extreme and unnecessary responses to their respective situations, Gender doesn't play a part in how I feel about it.

[BatmanPWNS]

I never have and never will. She ask questions, why should I hit her for it? That makes Shepard look like a dumb brute who can't back himself up and so has to resort to physical attacks.

[mousestalker]

How about we don't hit anyone? Being civilized and having manners is a far better way to live, not just for society as a whole but for each individual as well.

[Kronner]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Women are not any less capable of defending themselves then men are and men are not any more capable.

This is just not true.

[Olive Oomph]

Never punched her, but if she starts talking bs again, I want the dialogue option:
"Yeah? What else can you do with that mouth!"

[bleetman]

Eh, I've not bothered with it myself. Professional bruises take longer to heal than physical ones.

[AlexXIV]

Saphra Deden wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

But this what we are talking about here is not something I'd remotely consider subject to change. Maybe if one day men give birth to babies. But until then this will not change.

Why does giving birth entitle women to anything? Perhaps when women die as early as men do, work the dangerous jobs that men work, and die in the wars, then they can complain they aren't getting a fair deal because they give birth.

Ideas do die, my friend. They die all the time.

They would only die if nobody remembered them or nobody got the same idea again. Which can only really happen when all people who could possibly have any ideas die. Also the same reason why men do the most dangerous jobs and die in wars is exactly the same reason why they don't beat women. Easy as that one man can have thousand children in his life time, in theory. A woman can't. Women have always been too precious to lose them in a war. Men have always been more expendable.

[Beeno4Life]

Having a big buff space marine mentally out-manuever a cunning reporter appeals to me.

I haven't ever punched her. Humiliation works better. >

[incinerator950]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Kronner wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Women are not any less capable of defending themselves then men are and men are not any more capable.

This is just not true.

Yes, it is. You think a woman can't **** you up? Especially if you are holding back because you think it is wrong to hit women?

Yes and no.  However, a six foot man with over 200 lbs of muscle, and two tours of armed forces training, is more likely to hurt someone then a woman with the same qualifications, likely to have less mass though.

Reason why Reach and power is for men, agility and flexibility is for women.  Both of which you can adjust for. 

Also comes with intent and mindset.

[AlexXIV]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Kronner wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Women are not any less capable of defending themselves then men are and men are not any more capable.

This is just not true.

Yes, it is. You think a woman can't **** you up? Especially if you are holding back because you think it is wrong to hit women?

Not something that's going to happen to you, huh?

[AlexXIV]

Saphra Deden wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Easy as that one man can have thousand children in his life time, in theory. A woman can't. Women have always been too precious to lose them in a war. Men have always been more expendable.

This only applies if we are in a war for survival.

It also means that only women who plan to have children are more precious. All the others can go die in the trenches or die at age 72 from a lifetime's worth of hard work and stress.

We are always in a war for survival. Life is all about survival. You are argueing from a point of fairness. 'It's unfair that women may hit men but not the other way round.' I argue from a point where each have their roles, with advantages and disadvantages. And if your role is first and foremost to protect then you don't hurt those you are supposed to protect. Especially not for no good reason.