76 réponses à ce sujet

[Quething]

Chipaway111 wrote...

You've actually explained what I was trying to communicate far better. I used the words 'to us' and indeed other Thedasians (?) it would come off as sexist. Whether or not the Qunari themselves view it as that is something I doubt. In their world, their culture and their society sexism does not exist, neither does racism or anything that can tip balance and mean one group is favoured over another because it violates their religion

"The Qun, from an elf? The madness of this place."

[PizzaThe Hutt]

I'm sure there is some racism going on, just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it's not there.

[Quething]

We have seen it. From the Arishok, with that line.

Also, Tallis implies it fairly strongly when she says it's not easy being an elf in the Qun, because you're not "born to it" the way kossith are, so you're under more scrutiny and it's harder to really internalize everything. But there are elves in Par Vollen and Rivain who have been with the Qun for generations... and yet Tallis still says "an elf" and not "a convert." It's not a definitive statement of fact, but it does suggest that her issues with other Qunari are as much about her species as about her childhood as a non-Qunari.

[DarkDragon777]

Chiramu wrote...

 Gender has nothing to do with intelligence...

[nightscrawl]

Zkyire wrote...

Judging by Sten's reaction to Leliana it seems to be a mixture of them assinging people to their best suited roles based on talent, and also assinging people on what they assume to be their best suited roles.

We have no idea how they measure people though. I also assume that they have different methods for children born into that society, than those adults who are new to the Qun.

I go back to my Sten vs Arishok example. The Tamassran decided at some point that the individual we know as Sten from DAO was best suited to the role of sten, and the person we know as Arishok from DA2 was best suited for the role of arishok. Once that decision was made their paths would have diverged as different training would be required for those roles. They saw something in the Arishok, whether it be from superior breeding based on parentage, observations made while he was a child interacting with others around him, or any number of things. They chose him specifically to be the future leader of 1/3 of the Qunari. That is not a decision to be made lightly, nor for arbitrary reasons.

There is no promotion in the Qunari. You are assigned a role, you are trained for that role, and you perform in that role for your entire life (as long as you are able). I've read threads where people mentioned wanting to see DAO Sten as the arishok in a future DA game. That's not how it works.


As an aside, I've always thought the "role as name" thing was odd, and could get very confusing. Sten is a platoon commander, as such he commands a number of karasaad (soldier), karashok (private), and karasten (commander). When he is giving orders to his karasten, who then give orders to their karashok, when then give orders to their karasaad, and you have a number of people around with the same "name," do they just point? While a name is a symbol of individuality, it's also a means to differentiate between persons. You want only five soldiers to go to a specific location so you tell Jim, Bob, John, Tim, and Eric to go there by their names so that Michael and Jacob don't also go there, or that John and Tim thought that was referring only to Michael and Jacob, and they weren't included.

Even something as simple as "Karasaad One," "Karasaad Two," etc would make more sense than everyone being called the same thing.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 20 juillet 2012 - 11:32 .

[PizzaThe Hutt]

nightscrawl wrote...

As an aside, I've always thought the "role as name" thing was odd, and could get very confusing. Sten is a platoon commander, as such he commands a number of karasaad (soldier), karashok (private), and karasten (commander). When he is giving orders to his karasten, who then give orders to their karashok, when then give orders to their karasaad, and you have a number of people around with the same "name," do they just point? While a name is a symbol of individuality, it's also a means to differentiate between persons. You want only five soldiers to go to a specific location so you tell Jim, Bob, John, Tim, and Eric to go there by their names so that Michael and Jacob don't also go there, or that John and Tim thought that was referring only to Michael and Jacob, and they weren't included.

Even something as simple as "Karasaad One," "Karasaad Two," etc would make more sense than everyone being called the same thing.

Whenever I think of this, I always think back on the Marklar from South park, they just know which Marklar is speaking to another marklar...

[Lazy Jer]

WotanAnubis wrote...

What are you talking about? Of course that's equality. You see, men and women complement one another. They both have a Qun-given role to fulfill, but one role is not any lesser than any other role. The man's role to fight is not any more or less important than the woman's role to keep him fed.

They are perfectly equal according to the Qun and therefore they are equal.

Oh, sure, some who are ignorant of the Qun might argue that perhaps some women would really know how to handle a blade and some men might make for some really sharp traders. Or that a culture that values conquest would hold the soldier in higher regard than the farmer. But the Qun says this is not the case and therefore this is not the case.

 
Just because the roles are considered equally important doesn't mean that's gender equality.  Furthermore you can't dismiss the arguments against equality by saying "the qun says this is not the case".  What if the Qun is wrong?

[GavrielKay]

I don't know if the dictionary definition of sexism applies in this case, but I don't think the Qunari are sexist in the modern way of thinking. Typically sexist behavior is to limit the ability of one gender to advance and thrive. Women being purposely passed over for promotion because men are supposed to be providers and "deserve" the job is a classic example.

However, the Qunari do not limit the potential of one gender in favor of the other. They limit both genders. Neither gender has free reign to advance to whatever level they aspire to in whatever profession they choose. And, they consider a female performing her role to be equally as important as a male performing his role. It is equality of a fashion.

True sexism in the Qunari would be if the men were allowed to choose whatever role they pleased, but women were limited to roles chosen for them. Worse sexism would be if none of the roles women could possibly be chosen for were considered as important or admirable as any the men could choose. (Or vice versa... reversing the gender roles would be sexism as well, of course.)

I find the Qunari system to be oppressive and truly abhorrent, but not sexist. Sexism would imply some kind of explicit or implicit favoritism which I really don't see. True, a female in the Qun couldn't choose to be a soldier and eventually become a great general, but a male in the Qun couldn't choose to be a horticulturist and devise new ways to get more crops from less land.

[Lazy Jer]

GavrielKay wrote...

I don't know if the dictionary definition of sexism applies in this case, but I don't think the Qunari are sexist in the modern way of thinking. Typically sexist behavior is to limit the ability of one gender to advance and thrive. Women being purposely passed over for promotion because men are supposed to be providers and "deserve" the job is a classic example.

However, the Qunari do not limit the potential of one gender in favor of the other. They limit both genders. Neither gender has free reign to advance to whatever level they aspire to in whatever profession they choose. And, they consider a female performing her role to be equally as important as a male performing his role. It is equality of a fashion.

True sexism in the Qunari would be if the men were allowed to choose whatever role they pleased, but women were limited to roles chosen for them. Worse sexism would be if none of the roles women could possibly be chosen for were considered as important or admirable as any the men could choose. (Or vice versa... reversing the gender roles would be sexism as well, of course.)

I find the Qunari system to be oppressive and truly abhorrent, but not sexist. Sexism would imply some kind of explicit or implicit favoritism which I really don't see. True, a female in the Qun couldn't choose to be a soldier and eventually become a great general, but a male in the Qun couldn't choose to be a horticulturist and devise new ways to get more crops from less land.

Well it may not be the particular type of sexism that one generally sees, but that doesn't mean that it isn't sexism.  The fact that male Qunari and female Qunari are both equally left out of potential career paths means it's just as sexist against males as it is against females.  It definately doesn't mean it's gender equality. 

[GavrielKay]

Lazy Jer wrote...
It definately doesn't mean it's gender equality.

Equally opressive for both genders.  I don't mean to say it is a fair system or a good system, but I really don't think what they do qualifies as sexism under any meaningful use of the term.  Neither gender is singled out or suppressed in favor of the other.

I always thought that what was worst about the Qun was the depth of the brainwashing:  that Sten simply can't connect the idea of being a woman with the idea of being a warrior.  That speaks to a level of control over the adherents that is abusive.

• Leliana: Do you mean your people have no female mages or warriors?
• Sten: Of course not. Why would our women wish to be men?
• Leliana: What are you talking about? They don't wish to be men.

[CuriousArtemis]

GavrielKay wrote...

Lazy Jer wrote...
It definately doesn't mean it's gender equality.

Equally opressive for both genders.  I don't mean to say it is a fair system or a good system, but I really don't think what they do qualifies as sexism under any meaningful use of the term.  Neither gender is singled out or suppressed in favor of the other.

In the nineteenth century, women were believed to be more spiritually pure than men whereas men were more suited to mixing with the outside world (the "unclean" worlds of business and politics).  Both genders were sacred in the eyes of God; men worshipped at the feet of women and allowed them to lead them in a spiritual sense and to bring up their children properly, while women gratefully relied on men to make important political decisions and provide income.

I think most anyone in the 21st century would refer to that belief system as sexist.  At one time, some whites once thought blacks were "hardier" and thus more suited to heavy labor ... and we all would rightfully refer to this as racism, right?

Modifié par motomotogirl, 21 juillet 2012 - 03:29 .

[GavrielKay]

motomotogirl wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

Lazy Jer wrote...
It definately doesn't mean it's gender equality.

Equally opressive for both genders.  I don't mean to say it is a fair system or a good system, but I really don't think what they do qualifies as sexism under any meaningful use of the term.  Neither gender is singled out or suppressed in favor of the other.

In the nineteenth century, women were believed to be more spiritually pure than men whereas men were more suited to mixing with the outside world (the "unclean" worlds of business and politics).  Both genders were sacred in the eyes of God; men worshipped at the feet of women and allowed them to lead them in a spiritual sense and to bring up their children properly, while women gratefully relied on men to make important political decisions and provide income.

I think most anyone in the 21st century would refer to that belief system as sexist.  At one time, some whites once thought blacks were "hardier" and thus more suited to heavy labor ... and we all would rightfully refer to this as racism, right?

In your first example, women are cloistered with the children and men do EVERYthing else.  That is both clearly unequal and clearly different from the Qun.  In your second example there is a notion both that blacks are "better" at something and that the something they were better at was considered menial and low brow.  This is also different from the Qun.

Again, I'm not saying the Qun is good or that I think anyone should have to live their life as prescribed by some test during childhood.  But in its own way, it is an equality of oppression.  You have to take the modern thinking out of it - thinking that manual labor is "less" somehow than being a merchant, etc.  The Qun doesn't feel that way.  When the Qun assigns someone to the life of a soldier, they don't feel that person is any worse or lower than the one they assign to be a general.  The only "worse" or "better" in the Qun is how well you perform the role assigned to you.

I think it is a horrible system and that it would fail utterly in the modern world.  I just feel that sexism (or racism for that matter) implies favoring one side over the other.  And I do not feel the Qun favors men or women, they just have a rigid system for determining what persons of each gender are supposed to do with their lives.

[PizzaThe Hutt]

I don't really think it's sexism, I feel that it is more of Bigotry if anything else..

[MagmaSaiyan]

heres what i think...females are generally raised to believe that their role is basically anything other than fighting, now is it sexism? i dont think so, because as far as i know, a female Qunari hasnt exactly revolted against the males for not letting them be in battle. i suggest that if any of them are like Sten, if any females showed their skill against some males and beat them, i would think the Qun would benefit having a female as a warrior. though maybe their deep thinking just means theyre valuable to their race and need to keep them out of battle, so they can reproduce(give more warriors)

Modifié par MagmaSaiyan, 22 juillet 2012 - 08:47 .

[NKKKK]

nightscrawl wrote...

Zkyire wrote...

Judging by Sten's reaction to Leliana it seems to be a mixture of them assinging people to their best suited roles based on talent, and also assinging people on what they assume to be their best suited roles.

We have no idea how they measure people though. I also assume that they have different methods for children born into that society, than those adults who are new to the Qun.

I go back to my Sten vs Arishok example. The Tamassran decided at some point that the individual we know as Sten from DAO was best suited to the role of sten, and the person we know as Arishok from DA2 was best suited for the role of arishok. Once that decision was made their paths would have diverged as different training would be required for those roles. They saw something in the Arishok, whether it be from superior breeding based on parentage, observations made while he was a child interacting with others around him, or any number of things. They chose him specifically to be the future leader of 1/3 of the Qunari. That is not a decision to be made lightly, nor for arbitrary reasons.

There is no promotion in the Qunari. You are assigned a role, you are trained for that role, and you perform in that role for your entire life (as long as you are able). I've read threads where people mentioned wanting to see DAO Sten as the arishok in a future DA game. That's not how it works.


As an aside, I've always thought the "role as name" thing was odd, and could get very confusing. Sten is a platoon commander, as such he commands a number of karasaad (soldier), karashok (private), and karasten (commander). When he is giving orders to his karasten, who then give orders to their karashok, when then give orders to their karasaad, and you have a number of people around with the same "name," do they just point? While a name is a symbol of individuality, it's also a means to differentiate between persons. You want only five soldiers to go to a specific location so you tell Jim, Bob, John, Tim, and Eric to go there by their names so that Michael and Jacob don't also go there, or that John and Tim thought that was referring only to Michael and Jacob, and they weren't included.

Even something as simple as "Karasaad One," "Karasaad Two," etc would make more sense than everyone being called the same thing.

Why can't experience and maturity allow Soldier Qunari to change names (promote) and assume more responsibilities?

Arishok said something about that you work in YOUR AREA OF ROLE or something to that effect, not a specific role your whole life. I'm assuming he means there are some flexibility with your role in society, promotions and such. Otherwise it wouldn't work, you can't assign a young officer right from the start over 50 year old something veterans.

Modifié par NKKKK, 23 juillet 2012 - 02:10 .

[GavrielKay]

NKKKK wrote...
... you can't assign a young officer right from the start over 50 year old something veterans.

I don't know if we have solid in game evidence one way or the other, but it is possible to do it this way. 

If the chosen officer is trained in tactics and command from a very young age and the 50 year old veteran has never been anything but an obedient foot soldier they could do it.  There's a big difference in what a commander does and what a soldier does.  In the real world we do a little of this...  officers coming out of military academies are often younger than some enlisted folks in the units they end up with. 

The Qun is a philosophy which requires strict performance of your role and no ambition.  The foot soldier isn't even supposed to wonder why command has been given to a young man.  He is supposed to assume that the correct role was chosen for both he and his new commander and just do what he's told.

[TEWR]

nightscrawl wrote...

I go back to my Sten vs Arishok example. The Tamassran decided at some point that the individual we know as Sten from DAO was best suited to the role of sten, and the person we know as Arishok from DA2 was best suited for the role of arishok. Once that decision was made their paths would have diverged as different training would be required for those roles. They saw something in the Arishok, whether it be from superior breeding based on parentage, observations made while he was a child interacting with others around him, or any number of things. They chose him specifically to be the future leader of 1/3 of the Qunari. That is not a decision to be made lightly, nor for arbitrary reasons.

It doesn't necessarily work like "You're fit to be the Arishok, so you're the Arishok".

There are promotions within the Qun, as the devs have confirmed. If you're in the army, over time you can attain higher ranks.

[NKKKK]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...

I go back to my Sten vs Arishok example. The Tamassran decided at some point that the individual we know as Sten from DAO was best suited to the role of sten, and the person we know as Arishok from DA2 was best suited for the role of arishok. Once that decision was made their paths would have diverged as different training would be required for those roles. They saw something in the Arishok, whether it be from superior breeding based on parentage, observations made while he was a child interacting with others around him, or any number of things. They chose him specifically to be the future leader of 1/3 of the Qunari. That is not a decision to be made lightly, nor for arbitrary reasons.

It doesn't necessarily work like "You're fit to be the Arishok, so you're the Arishok".

There are promotions within the Qun, as the devs have confirmed. If you're in the army, over time you can attain higher ranks.

Exactly it doesn't make sense to have a 20 year old Airishok

If the chosen officer is trained in tactics and command from a very
young age and the 50 year old veteran has never been anything but an
obedient foot soldier they could do it.  There's a big difference in
what a commander does and what a soldier does.  In the real world we do a
little of this...  officers coming out of military academies are often
younger than some enlisted folks in the units they end up with. 

Yup and you wanna know how respected fresh West Point graduates are? Butter bars are a big joke and they are often at times "forgotten to salute". Trust me, I know, I'm in the military.

Enlisted ranks in the military goes up and up past non-commisoned officers, which all enlisted folk aspire too. So, I can't imagine Sten always being Sten. Fresh out and training "Hey bro, you're Sten now, and these guys who have been in the army for 30 years, never moving past the rank of Grunt, are your subordiates. Makes no sense.

However sometimes enlisted folks get a bachelor's degree and then can become an officer, those guys are respected, because they have the experience and authority

And yes, Sten will be the new Arishok.

Modifié par NKKKK, 23 juillet 2012 - 11:11 .

[Beliar86]

I don't remember anything saying the Ben hassreth don't reevaluate people from time to time anyway.

[GavrielKay]

NKKKK wrote...
Fresh out and training "Hey bro, you're Sten now, and these guys who have been in the army for 30 years, never moving past the rank of Grunt, are your subordiates. Makes no sense.

Like I said, I don't know if we have enough in game evidence to really understand how the Qun does it, but using feelings of military "Grunts" in the real world isn't entirely relevant.  The closest I've heard to the Qun in the real world is some stories out of communist countries where say, gymnasts would be selected as promising at a young age and more or less forced to train to become olympic athletes to make their home country look good.

The Qun is an entire system of brainwashing its people into thinking whatever role they are assigned is good and right and whatever role anyone else is assigned is likewise proper.  I don't think it would be correct to assume that a member of the Qun military would spend much time questioning why someone else was either placed or promoted above him in the ranks.

[Treacherous J Slither]

The Qunari have it WRONG in terms of gender equality. Not every man/woman is stronger/smarter than their counterparts. When I was in basic training there was a girl who outran me and half the guys in the company. She was also a far better shot than I was. In modern combat her cardio and accuracy equated to her being a better gunfighter than me. For her talents to be wasted in administration simply because she's a female is ridiculous and a system that does such a thing weakens itself considerably.

It is not gender equality if a man is forced to be one thing and a woman is forced to be something else. Even though there are things I actually like about the Qun, the whole gender role thing is not one of them.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

DarkDragon777 wrote...

Chiramu wrote...

 Gender has nothing to do with intelligence...

Not much else needs to be said.

[Vox Draco]

Who cares about the Qunari? Their petty ideas and false beliefs will be wiped out by a grand exalted march one day, and the Qunari will see the light of the Maker and receive a chance to atone for their many crimes!

[PizzaThe Hutt]

Beliar86 wrote...

I don't remember anything saying the Ben hassreth don't reevaluate people from time to time anyway.

I would not be surprised if they have examinations from time to time to ensure forward progress in someone and give them a reassignment to fit with their progress.

[GavrielKay]

PizzaThe Hutt wrote...

Beliar86 wrote...

I don't remember anything saying the Ben hassreth don't reevaluate people from time to time anyway.

I would not be surprised if they have examinations from time to time to ensure forward progress in someone and give them a reassignment to fit with their progress.

I would be surprised because the Qun has been portrayed as very extreme so far.  They would be diluting the Qun, in my eyes anyway, by adding in too much "reasonableness."  If the purpose of the Qun in the story is to provide a stark philosophy contrast to normal human behavior, they should probably have them be rigid in their beliefs.

At the same time, there's no reason to assume that just because a boy is chosen for the role of sten at a young age, that he actually assumes those duties at the same age as regular foot soldiers do.  The role of sten could well include several years of extra training in tactics and such that delay his entry into actual service, or are served out as a 'sten-in-training' with the infantry to give him an understanding of those he'll be commanding.