193 réponses à ce sujet

[Jay_Hoxtatron]

Whoa, a male/female debate.

[Abraham_uk]

Crypticqa wrote...

Ledgend1221 wrote...

Equality is overrated.

Said by a guy.
Riiiight.

The word "overrated" is so overrated.

[painforest]

Data7 wrote...

Copy paste characters with voice changes. 'Suit me just fine. Not a whole lot of work there...
Just so long as it Slightly looks like majority of the galaxy is actually taking the threat of the reapers as seriously as Shepard/The reapers/The protheans made it out to be.

'Everyone', includes females which there is a lack of in current Multiplayer. 

"THEY ARENT IMPORTANT TO THE GAME"

[Auras_Mendalla]

Data7 wrote...

They sure didn't waste any time making Male Quarians.

This. Also the Krodept SHOULD have been female.

[Stardusk]

lazysundae wrote...

Stardusk wrote...

lazysundae wrote...

*snip*

It is not tangentially linked since human society (we are animals after all) is driven by reproduction. 

It depends on what you consider lesser value. Women and children first? When it comes to life, women always take primary position. Women are free to do what they want, I am merely asserting that our perceptions of the sexes are based on millenia of evolution where females had more value (in terms of life and health) than males. 80% of females in the past lived on to reproduce, Only 40% of males did. This is an indication of the circumstances we evolved under. In that sense yes, women were held back in a certain regard because they were regarded as precious treasures and one seeks to guard one's treasure as best one can. Men were and remain disposable utilities, work horses, soldiers, etc.

What century are you posting from?

Also, do you know the history of "women and children first"?  The British displayed male chivalry at sea to justify denying women the
right to vote. According to their argument, there was no reason for
women to vote since men would always put the interests of women ahead of
their own interests.

Sure, women were regarded as "precious treasures", just like the rest of the property and stuff that often came in dowries and the business-arrangement-known-as-marriage in the time period you're referring too. 

You are only telling half the story. And yes men DO put women's interests ahead of their own just as women favour women over men, as evidenced by this study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/15491274

"Four experiments confirmed that women's automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men's and investigated explanations for this sex difference, derived from potential sources of implicit attitudes (L. A. Rudman, 2004). In Experiment 1, only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem (A. G. Greenwald et al., 2002), revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference. Experiments 2 and 3 found pro-female bias to the extent that participants automatically favored their mothers over their fathers or associated male gender with violence, suggesting that maternal bonding and male intimidation influence gender attitudes. Experiment 4 showed that for sexually experienced men, the more positive their attitude was toward sex, the more they implicitly favored women. In concert, the findings help to explain sex differences in automatic in-group bias and underscore the uniqueness of gender for intergroup relations theorists."

So yes, men put women's interests ahead of their own. The other issue was the 'right' to vote was one tied up with military conscription and women were not to eager to do that.

[painforest]

Auras_Mendalla wrote...

Data7 wrote...

They sure didn't waste any time making Male Quarians.

This. Also the Krodept SHOULD have been female.

I kinda think the shaman should have been female. I don't get it. The model is RIGHT THERE BIOWARE WTF 

[himohillo]

painforest wrote...


I don't know where you're getting that statistic, but I'm not going to argue about it because this isn't the place. To a certain extent, I would agree with you about feminism making meaningful changes, but only in the western world. Female dominance has yet to take hold in many underdeveloped parts of the world. Be afraid, men. Be very afraid.

Feminism as an idea is good, but in practice it fails horribly. Especially when they act in the western world, where they have things all good and well for them without any effort.

They don't want equality, they want dominance. To them equality means special treatment.

The only reason you need wimpy support groups (i.e. feminism) is because of your primal instinct of inferiority.

[Stardusk]

himohillo wrote...

painforest wrote...


I don't know where you're getting that statistic, but I'm not going to argue about it because this isn't the place. To a certain extent, I would agree with you about feminism making meaningful changes, but only in the western world. Female dominance has yet to take hold in many underdeveloped parts of the world. Be afraid, men. Be very afraid.

Feminism as an idea is good, but in practice it fails horribly. Especially when they act in the western world, where they have things all good and well for them without any effort.

They don't want equality, they want dominance. To them equality means special treatment.

The only reason you need wimpy support groups (i.e. feminism) is because of your primal instinct of inferiority.

This human understands.

[painforest]

Stardusk wrote...

lazysundae wrote...

Stardusk wrote...

lazysundae wrote...

*snip*

It is not tangentially linked since human society (we are animals after all) is driven by reproduction. 

It depends on what you consider lesser value. Women and children first? When it comes to life, women always take primary position. Women are free to do what they want, I am merely asserting that our perceptions of the sexes are based on millenia of evolution where females had more value (in terms of life and health) than males. 80% of females in the past lived on to reproduce, Only 40% of males did. This is an indication of the circumstances we evolved under. In that sense yes, women were held back in a certain regard because they were regarded as precious treasures and one seeks to guard one's treasure as best one can. Men were and remain disposable utilities, work horses, soldiers, etc.

What century are you posting from?

Also, do you know the history of "women and children first"?  The British displayed male chivalry at sea to justify denying women the
right to vote. According to their argument, there was no reason for
women to vote since men would always put the interests of women ahead of
their own interests.

Sure, women were regarded as "precious treasures", just like the rest of the property and stuff that often came in dowries and the business-arrangement-known-as-marriage in the time period you're referring too. 

You are only telling half the story. And yes men DO put women's interests ahead of their own just as women favour women over men, as evidenced by this study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/15491274

"Four experiments confirmed that women's automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men's and investigated explanations for this sex difference, derived from potential sources of implicit attitudes (L. A. Rudman, 2004). In Experiment 1, only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem (A. G. Greenwald et al., 2002), revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference. Experiments 2 and 3 found pro-female bias to the extent that participants automatically favored their mothers over their fathers or associated male gender with violence, suggesting that maternal bonding and male intimidation influence gender attitudes. Experiment 4 showed that for sexually experienced men, the more positive their attitude was toward sex, the more they implicitly favored women. In concert, the findings help to explain sex differences in automatic in-group bias and underscore the uniqueness of gender for intergroup relations theorists."

So yes, men put women's interests ahead of their own. The other issue was the 'right' to vote was one tied up with military conscription and women were not to eager to do that.

"Not to eager to do that.."

Uh, more like not allowed to do that. And are you actually arguing that women haven't been denied basic rights for the better part of human history? U srs, bro? 

[Stardusk]

painforest wrote...

Stardusk wrote...

lazysundae wrote...

Stardusk wrote...

lazysundae wrote...

*snip*

It is not tangentially linked since human society (we are animals after all) is driven by reproduction. 

It depends on what you consider lesser value. Women and children first? When it comes to life, women always take primary position. Women are free to do what they want, I am merely asserting that our perceptions of the sexes are based on millenia of evolution where females had more value (in terms of life and health) than males. 80% of females in the past lived on to reproduce, Only 40% of males did. This is an indication of the circumstances we evolved under. In that sense yes, women were held back in a certain regard because they were regarded as precious treasures and one seeks to guard one's treasure as best one can. Men were and remain disposable utilities, work horses, soldiers, etc.

What century are you posting from?

Also, do you know the history of "women and children first"?  The British displayed male chivalry at sea to justify denying women the
right to vote. According to their argument, there was no reason for
women to vote since men would always put the interests of women ahead of
their own interests.

Sure, women were regarded as "precious treasures", just like the rest of the property and stuff that often came in dowries and the business-arrangement-known-as-marriage in the time period you're referring too. 

You are only telling half the story. And yes men DO put women's interests ahead of their own just as women favour women over men, as evidenced by this study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/15491274

"Four experiments confirmed that women's automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men's and investigated explanations for this sex difference, derived from potential sources of implicit attitudes (L. A. Rudman, 2004). In Experiment 1, only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem (A. G. Greenwald et al., 2002), revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference. Experiments 2 and 3 found pro-female bias to the extent that participants automatically favored their mothers over their fathers or associated male gender with violence, suggesting that maternal bonding and male intimidation influence gender attitudes. Experiment 4 showed that for sexually experienced men, the more positive their attitude was toward sex, the more they implicitly favored women. In concert, the findings help to explain sex differences in automatic in-group bias and underscore the uniqueness of gender for intergroup relations theorists."

So yes, men put women's interests ahead of their own. The other issue was the 'right' to vote was one tied up with military conscription and women were not to eager to do that.

"Not to eager to do that.."

Uh, more like not allowed to do that. And are you actually arguing that women haven't been denied basic rights for the better part of human history? U srs, bro? 

Women did not WANT to go off and fight and die in a war. They still do not. You have the right to be a pumber as a female, why are VAST majority of plumbers men? because women do not WANT to do the dirty jobs.

[lazysundae]

Hey I just figured something out.

I'm not engaging in this anymore.

[painforest]

himohillo wrote...

painforest wrote...


I don't know where you're getting that statistic, but I'm not going to argue about it because this isn't the place. To a certain extent, I would agree with you about feminism making meaningful changes, but only in the western world. Female dominance has yet to take hold in many underdeveloped parts of the world. Be afraid, men. Be very afraid.

Feminism as an idea is good, but in practice it fails horribly. Especially when they act in the western world, where they have things all good and well for them without any effort.

They don't want equality, they want dominance. To them equality means special treatment.

The only reason you need wimpy support groups (i.e. feminism) is because of your primal instinct of inferiority.

Can you please explain to me how women want special treatment? And how women want dominance? And if feminism as a movement is just a "wimpy support group", then why complain about it? I dare say that this "instinct of inferiority" might come from the fact that there is still a lot of sexism in the world, wonderfully demonstrated by some of the attitudes in this thread. Yours included.

[Nissun]

Himomillo and Stardusk should make out already, the sexual tension between them is killing me!!

[painforest]

Stardusk wrote...

painforest wrote...

Stardusk wrote...

lazysundae wrote...

Stardusk wrote...

lazysundae wrote...

*snip*

It is not tangentially linked since human society (we are animals after all) is driven by reproduction. 

It depends on what you consider lesser value. Women and children first? When it comes to life, women always take primary position. Women are free to do what they want, I am merely asserting that our perceptions of the sexes are based on millenia of evolution where females had more value (in terms of life and health) than males. 80% of females in the past lived on to reproduce, Only 40% of males did. This is an indication of the circumstances we evolved under. In that sense yes, women were held back in a certain regard because they were regarded as precious treasures and one seeks to guard one's treasure as best one can. Men were and remain disposable utilities, work horses, soldiers, etc.

What century are you posting from?

Also, do you know the history of "women and children first"?  The British displayed male chivalry at sea to justify denying women the
right to vote. According to their argument, there was no reason for
women to vote since men would always put the interests of women ahead of
their own interests.

Sure, women were regarded as "precious treasures", just like the rest of the property and stuff that often came in dowries and the business-arrangement-known-as-marriage in the time period you're referring too. 

You are only telling half the story. And yes men DO put women's interests ahead of their own just as women favour women over men, as evidenced by this study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/15491274

"Four experiments confirmed that women's automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men's and investigated explanations for this sex difference, derived from potential sources of implicit attitudes (L. A. Rudman, 2004). In Experiment 1, only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem (A. G. Greenwald et al., 2002), revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference. Experiments 2 and 3 found pro-female bias to the extent that participants automatically favored their mothers over their fathers or associated male gender with violence, suggesting that maternal bonding and male intimidation influence gender attitudes. Experiment 4 showed that for sexually experienced men, the more positive their attitude was toward sex, the more they implicitly favored women. In concert, the findings help to explain sex differences in automatic in-group bias and underscore the uniqueness of gender for intergroup relations theorists."

So yes, men put women's interests ahead of their own. The other issue was the 'right' to vote was one tied up with military conscription and women were not to eager to do that.

"Not to eager to do that.."

Uh, more like not allowed to do that. And are you actually arguing that women haven't been denied basic rights for the better part of human history? U srs, bro? 

Women did not WANT to go off and fight and die in a war. They still do not. You have the right to be a pumber as a female, why are VAST majority of plumbers men? because women do not WANT to do the dirty jobs.

You're still ignoring the fact that they were not allowed to and have only recently been allowed in limited combat roles. Also, stats on women not wanting to go off and fight in a war, please. Stats on women not wanting to do dirty jobs, please. Back up dem statements.

[Stardusk]

lazysundae wrote...

Hey I just figured something out.

I'm not engaging in this anymore.

A wise decision. Leaving the Matrix is dangerous.

[painforest]

Nissun wrote...

Himomillo and Stardusk should make out already, the sexual tension between them is killing me!!

2 MRAs, 1 Feminist :wub:

[painforest]

Stardusk wrote...

lazysundae wrote...

Hey I just figured something out.

I'm not engaging in this anymore.

A wise decision. Leaving the Matrix is dangerous.

omgomgomgomgomgomgomgogmomgomlol

[Stardusk]

painforest wrote...

Nissun wrote...

Himomillo and Stardusk should make out already, the sexual tension between them is killing me!!

2 MRAs, 1 Feminist :wub:

I am not an MRA. I am simply aware of things most people are not.

[Bariudol]

Stardusk wrote...

himohillo wrote...

Stardusk wrote...


It's a freaking game. They are just characters in a co-op game, nobody I play with thinks about the sex/gender of their character because it is irrelevant.

I always pick my characters based on their abilities, not gender.
Though if I use hSoldier, it's going to be female since she has grenades and my male has CS, which I never use and won't bother for respec, and BF3 soldier has carnage.

It's all about performance, not outfit. Looks don't count in a fight.

Exactly.

I agree in part, but its not just about performance in a game, but the way you feel with your character. I really don't like playing with certain classes, not because they are bad, but because i don't feel comfortable playing them. Mass Effect is founded on the spirit of role playing, and that should be reflected on the multiplayer. Its about feeling a soldier fighting against the reapers, and you should be able to choose at least the gender of your character for doing so.

[lazysundae]

painforest wrote...

Stardusk wrote...

lazysundae wrote...

Hey I just figured something out.

I'm not engaging in this anymore.

A wise decision. Leaving the Matrix is dangerous.

omgomgomgomgomgomgomgogmomgomlol

thank you for not leaving me to omglol alone.

[Apl_Juice]

painforest wrote...
Yes. And can you explain why modeling the males of a species takes precedent over modeling the females? Why isn't there a race where we only see the females, but the males are on the homeworld tending house and making sandwiches or something? 

"THEY ARENT IMPORTANT TO THE GAME"


Well, okay then.

Cool, a quote out of context. Lovely.

This isn't a game bout gender issues. Game Design isn't about accurate representation, its about making a game. If something isn't centripetal to the experience, it isn't necessary. You don't need to see everything just because its a fictional universe. Not because it has a vagina, but because using finite resources to make something they won't use is pointless. Real life race issues aren't represented in the game at all; is BioWare racist? No, the game isn't about that, so it isn't there. Females are there were female perspective is important, and vice versa for men. By the way, you're also forgetting the entire Asari race.