271 réponses à ce sujet

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

The Wolf Man wrote...

But, ladies, by all means voice your preferences too. Tell me, do you think the gaming industry could do more to include women? I do. Beyond that, and more on topic with the forum, do you think Inquisition will offer balanced options between the sexes? Options in terms of flirts, romance, armor, CC, and so forth? 

I can and have played as both, with straight/gay/no relationships.

My gaming history has most of my PCs as female, and usually (but not always) my first playthrough is with a female PC. At first this was because I was RPing myself (in the Ultima series the PC was supposed to be you), then just because I liked playing female sword-slinging warriors who wear heavy armour.

As to your question about Inquisition, I hope DAI, and industry at large, will get over the men as default thing.

[The Heretic of Time]

JerZeyCJ2 wrote...

Jeanne d'Arc/Joan of Arc

A folklore legend who's heroic deeds are questioned by true archeologist and scholars. She most likely did exist, but the stories about her are (at least) 50% mythical and/or exaggerated.

Because if you mentioned her I feel like listening to this song again. Good song imo.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 12 novembre 2013 - 02:13 .

[Heimdall]

Silfren wrote...
I don't see how anyone who is a history major can deny that history books (I suppose I should clarify at the grammar and high school levels, because college texts are somewhat better) erase a great deal of history.  It's not just about such books being truncated by necessity because there's only so much material that can be taught in a single year.  And I didn't say anything about a nefarious conspiracy, those were your words, not mine, trying to ridicule and discredit my absolutely valid point.  

History (I'm talking from a U.S. point, too, I should specify) is slanted in a way that glorifies a mostly white history with women and other minorities being relegated to sidebars as exceptions.  But the reality is considerably different. The fact that anyone here can seriously think that the only notable women fighters in history were the Amazons just illustrates that.

Certainly history books are slanted(Though I think they've gotten better)... But not to the extent you appear to suggest.  The goal of grammar and elementary school texts is usually to give at least the general flow of what happened and why.  Those on the periphery suffer, but the reason female soldiers are on the periphery is not just because of their gender, but because there have been so few of them compared to men and rarely have they been of great relevance in the wider scope of the conflict.

As for the Amazons, they get a lot of press because not only because they were female, but because they were exclusively female.  That, is a rarity amongst rarities.  Its understandable that they attract more notice than my distant relative that disguised herself as a man to fight in the American Revolutionary War.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 12 novembre 2013 - 02:18 .

[The Xand]

Women are dead 'ard and made for fightin'.

Modifié par The Xand, 12 novembre 2013 - 02:14 .

[TheBlackBaron]

Because you keep using that word "erased".

"Erased" implies that there's an intentional effort to somehow eliminate women in combat from the annals in the service of some agenda.

The fact of the matter is that history textbooks don't go into great detail on this because most people don't need or care to learn about it in great detail. Most people can barely tell you that Lee and Grant were the generals of the Civil War and that the war was started over slavery (which is incorrect, but the actual details are rarely discussed outside of AP classes). Good luck getting them to learn or care about the Anaconda Plan or the Western Theater, much less the maybe ~400 women that disguised themselves as men to fight as soldiers (which is remarkable, but a pittance compared to the total numbers that were engaged in the Civil War). If you're fortunate you might get them to remember Clara Barton and the nurses.

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 12 novembre 2013 - 02:17 .

[Ryzaki]

Wulfram wrote...

The sensible thing would probably be to pick based on the voice acting. That's the most substantive difference, generally.

Though I seem to end up disliking my male characters and thus end up playing female ones.

Yeah I did that in TOR my agents are males, my warriors are females and my inquisitors are a mix.

I really hate the agent female voice and the male warrior voice doesn't pop the way the fem one does.

[TheBlackBaron]

Lord Aesir wrote...

As for the Amazons, they get a lot of press because not only because they were female, but because they were exclusively female. That, is a rarity amongst rarities. Its understandable they they attract more notice than my distant relative that disguised herself as a man to fight in the American Revolutionary War.

Not to mention that the Amazons, as we commonly think of them, are basically an invention of good ole' Herodotus working from Greek legend.

Historically, about the most you can say with any accuracy is that they were probably inspired by the Sarmatians and Scythians, which did have a notable percentage of women buried in military or warrior graves.

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 12 novembre 2013 - 02:21 .

[Estelindis]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

The fact of the matter is that history textbooks don't go into great detail on this because most people don't need or care to learn about it in great detail.

Part of the inherent bias in all these accounts stems from the judgement of what is most important, what is so essential that it's the part of history that everyone should know.  Without getting into the nitty gritty of the discussion, the idea that most people need to know more about the male side of history than the female side is not unproblematic.

Personally, I think that this is as clear in Thedas as it is in the real world.  The Codex entries all seem to speak from subjective perspectives that put forward one condensed version of events or another.

[Heimdall]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Not to mention that the Amazons, as we commonly think of them, are basically an invention of good ole' Herodotus working from Greek legend.

Historically, about the most you can say with any accuracy is that they were probably inspired by the Sarmatians and Scythians, which did have a notable percentage of women buried in military or warrior graves.

True enough.  Shield Maidens are sort of like that.  Aside from a few scattered accounts from largely Byzantine sources of finding woman with weapons amongst the enemy dead, the Shield Maidens' existence survives largely in sagas to my knowledge.

There are mentions of warrior women in Celtic mythology too if I recall.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 12 novembre 2013 - 02:25 .

[Rawgrim]

With everyone being player-sexual, the choice of gender is of no consequence.

[Silfren]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Because you keep using that word "erased".

"Erased" implies that there's an intentional effort to somehow eliminate women in combat from the annals in the service of some agenda.

The fact of the matter is that history textbooks don't go into great detail on this because most people don't need or care to learn about it in great detail. Most people can barely tell you that Lee and Grant were the generals of the Civil War and that the war was started over slavery (which is incorrect, but the actual details are rarely discussed outside of AP classes). Good luck getting them to learn or care about the Anaconda Plan or the Western Theater, much less the maybe ~400 women that disguised themselves as men to fight as soldiers (which is remarkable, but a pittance compared to the total numbers that were engaged in the Civil War). If you're fortunate you might get them to remember Clara Barton and the nurses.

And I'll continue to use the word erased, because it doesn't matter if it's done deliberately or not, the effect is that a huge chunk of history is erased.  To treat entire groups of people as if they are only incidental or exceptional to historical events is to erase the reality of their history.  Women played a much larger role in history, as fighters and otherwise, than is realized, and this is NOT because they only existed in history as exceptions.  That is simply false, full stop.  The same goes for other minority groups. 

The fact that if you look at history tomes outside of the classroom you'll find a veritable mountain of knowledge about those other groups proves this.  Of course part of the problem is simply the way that history is generally taught--I could talk about how it is thoroughly documented just how badly history as a course in school has been slanted far less toward teaching actual knowledge of history and far more toward indoctrinating a specific brand of patriotism for God and country, but that just might make you have a conniption given the way you've already reacted to the mere idea.  Anyway, the fact that you can find a wealth of information about women fighters and other groups erased from standard history text does illustrate that they are not merely notable exceptions.  If they were truly so exceptional, then it wouldn't have been so easy for me to pull up as many sources as I did just from google. 

Modifié par Silfren, 12 novembre 2013 - 02:30 .

[TheBlackBaron]

Estelindis wrote...
Without getting into the nitty gritty of the discussion, the idea that most people need to know more about the male side of history than the female side is not unproblematic.

I don't disgree. But the broad strokes that are generally taught in high school level courses usually only aim to hit the most general of points, that aren't "male side" or "female side". 

Put it like this - tracing the basic timeline of the American Revolution, from Boston to Yorktown, is rarely going to go any deeper than "this happened in this battle and these people wrote the Declaration". That's no more a male history than a female history. 

Personally, I think that this is as clear in Thedas as it is in the real world.  The Codex entries all seem to speak from subjective perspectives that put forward one condensed version of events or another.

I actually think the Codices of ME and DA are quite remarkable in how objective they are. But that's the perks of being a fictional universe - outside of stuff that's written from an in-universe perspective, it's mosty as if God (or the Maker, I guess) is writing an encyclopedia. 

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 12 novembre 2013 - 02:33 .

[Heimdall]

Estelindis wrote...

Part of the inherent bias in all these accounts stems from the judgement of what is most important, what is so essential that it's the part of history that everyone should know.  Without getting into the nitty gritty of the discussion, the idea that most people need to know more about the male side of history than the female side is not unproblematic.

While true in theory, the men in history are usually remembered only when they inhabit a position of authority, leadership and power.  Women are also mentioned when they inhabit positions of power, but for cultural and societal reason, that occured seldomly by comparison.  I'm just saying that if history were to be written with full objectivity, in terms of the highlights and broad strokes, you'd still see more male names than female.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

On the subject of women looking like credible fighters in games, it would be nice to have different physiques available between the classes, or even just in general. The stock standard female model isn't exactly high in the muscles department.

[Silfren]

Estelindis wrote...

TheBlackBaron wrote...

The fact of the matter is that history textbooks don't go into great detail on this because most people don't need or care to learn about it in great detail.

Part of the inherent bias in all these accounts stems from the judgement of what is most important, what is so essential that it's the part of history that everyone should know.  Without getting into the nitty gritty of the discussion, the idea that most people need to know more about the male side of history than the female side is not unproblematic.

Personally, I think that this is as clear in Thedas as it is in the real world.  The Codex entries all seem to speak from subjective perspectives that put forward one condensed version of events or another.

I think the statement "...because most people don't need or care to learn about it in great deal" is quite illustrative, actually, of my own point.  

It can't not be in there because people don't care to learn about it...unless of course we are pre-judging what a person wants to learn before they ever read the books.  But if it's not there because we don't need to learn about it...why don't we need to learn about it, and who is making that judgment call? 

As you said, both of those thought processes are extremely problematic.  They can't just be dismissed as harmless.

Modifié par Silfren, 12 novembre 2013 - 02:51 .

[AlexanderCousland]

Silfren wrote...


History (I'm talking from a U.S. point, too, I should specify) is slanted in a way that glorifies a mostly white history with women and other minorities being relegated to sidebars as exceptions.  But the reality is considerably different. The fact that anyone here can seriously think that the only notable women fighters in history were the Amazons just illustrates that.

This. The most accurate statement I've seen you make. 

But I highly doubt people here can name many notable male fighters either, We male's live vicariously through legends, God's, and superheroes.

[xAmilli0n]

Whell this his thread got lively...

Rawgrim wrote...

With everyone being player-sexual, the choice of gender is of no consequence.

Thats not the only reason to play the different genders, but in the case of DA, still very true.

[The Xand]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

On the subject of women looking like credible fighters in games, it would be nice to have different physiques available between the classes, or even just in general. The stock standard female model isn't exactly high in the muscles department.

I said that about Leliana and everyone went nuts.

[AlexanderCousland]

Silfren wrote...

Estelindis wrote...

TheBlackBaron wrote...

The fact of the matter is that history textbooks don't go into great detail on this because most people don't need or care to learn about it in great detail.

Part of the inherent bias in all these accounts stems from the judgement of what is most important, what is so essential that it's the part of history that everyone should know.  Without getting into the nitty gritty of the discussion, the idea that most people need to know more about the male side of history than the female side is not unproblematic.

Personally, I think that this is as clear in Thedas as it is in the real world.  The Codex entries all seem to speak from subjective perspectives that put forward one condensed version of events or another.

I think the statement "...because most people don't need or care to learn about it in great deal" is quite illustrative, actually, of my own point.  

It can't not be in there because people don't care to learn about it...unless of course we are pre-judging what a person wants to learn before they ever read the books.  But if it's not there because we don't need to learn about it...why don't we need to learn about it, and who is making that judgment call? 

As you said, both of those thought processes are extremely problematic.  They can't just be dismissed as harmless.

Here's the deal.

Most people don't know of many Notable Male Fighters outside our own present day examples. So your argument should be more towards "We should be learning more about Fighting history in general" not necessarily Female Fighting history. 

[Xilizhra]

Rawgrim wrote...

With everyone being player-sexual, the choice of gender is of no consequence.

Rightly so.

Women all the way, I don't give a damn about body types because there's not much differentiation anyway in DA, and Seboist is a troll.

[TheBlackBaron]

Lord Aesir wrote...

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Not to mention that the Amazons, as we commonly think of them, are basically an invention of good ole' Herodotus working from Greek legend. 

Historically, about the most you can say with any accuracy is that they were probably inspired by the Sarmatians and Scythians, which did have a notable percentage of women buried in military or warrior graves.

True enough.  Shield Maidens are sort of like that.  Aside from a few scattered accounts from largely Byzantine sources of finding woman with weapons amongst the enemy dead, the Shield Maidens' existence survives largely in sagas to my knowledge.

There are mentions of warrior women in Celtic mythology too if I recall.

I think the Russians (from the Kievan Rus period) have some records of them as well. 

Silfren wrote...

And I'll continue to use the word erased, because it doesn't matter if it's done deliberately or not, the effect is that a huge chunk of history is erased.  To treat entire groups of people as if they are only incidental or exceptional to historical events is to erase the reality of their history.  Women played a much larger role in history, as fighters and otherwise, than is realized, and this is NOT because they only existed in history as exceptions.  That is simply false, full stop.  The same goes for other minority groups.

 Anyway, the fact that you can find a wealth of information about women fighters and other groups erased from standard history text does illustrate that they are not merely notable exceptions.  If they were truly so exceptional, then it wouldn't have been so easy for me to pull up as many sources as I did just from google.  

Women do not suddenly participate in equal numbers in warfare as men simply because you want them to. The fact that your articles mention things like "a Chinese annalist wrote about a woman who was a great swordsmen" or "a Carthaginian committed suicide rather than be handed over to the Romans as a prisoner of war", specifically calling them out as notable, illustrates this rather perfectly. How many male great swordsmen do you think there were in Chinese history, or how many male soldiers were taken as prisoners of war? I'll give you a hint: a lot more than women. 

At -no time in history- have women formed a majority of soldiers, leaders, or spies during warfare. I'm sorry if that's inconvenient for your narrative, but it's the truth. They are the -exception-. 

I could talk about how it is thoroughly documented just how badly history as a course in school has been slanted far less toward teaching actual knowledge of history and far more toward indoctrinating a specific brand of patriotism for God and country, but that just might make you have a conniption given the way you've already reacted to the mere idea.

LOL. "Indoctrination". Sure. Based on your ramblings, I don't think I'm the one being indoctrinated here. 

[Heimdall]

Silfren wrote...

And I'll continue to use the word erased, because it doesn't matter if it's done deliberately or not, the effect is that a huge chunk of history is erased.  To treat entire groups of people as if they are only incidental or exceptional to historical events is to erase the reality of their history.  Women played a much larger role in history, as fighters and otherwise, than is realized, and this is NOT because they only existed in history as exceptions.  That is simply false, full stop.  The same goes for other minority groups. 

Of course a huge chunk of history is erased, that's what happens when you need to summarize the general flow of events for elementary schooler consumption.  Summarizing things always requires trimming it down.

I won't speak to other groups or notable non-warrior women, because that's not what I'm caring about at the moment, but if you'd consider this objectively I think you'll agree.

In the usual stripped down version of history presented in the history courses we're talking about, you're lucky if anyone in an army is mentioned aside from the name of the general.  They care about events and leaders, not the soldiers.  So why then would female soldiers deserve special mention?  Unless you're writing with a specific agenda to emphasize the combat capability of women, you wouldn't because you only care about leaders and events.  When those leaders are women, they are mentioned, in my experience as a history student anyway.

And the simple matter is that female soldier ARE unusual.  That's just plain fact.

[Estelindis]

Lord Aesir wrote...

While true in theory, the men in history are usually remembered only when they inhabit a position of authority, leadership and power.  Women are also mentioned when they inhabit positions of power, but for cultural and societal reason, that occured seldomly by comparison.  I'm just saying that if history were to be written with full objectivity, in terms of the highlights and broad strokes, you'd still see more male names than female.

I think that "full objectivity" doesn't necessarily involve focusing more on those who inhabit the positions of power typically inhabited by men.  (Other positions of power can be inhabited by women without necessarily being seen or acknowledged as such.)  That said, it's debateable as to what objectivity actually is!  I think that it's very hard for any of us to reach it.  We can just do our best.  At least having discussions like these and encountering the ideas of others can help us to see a bigger picture than we could see alone.

TheBlackBaron wrote...

I actually think the Codices of ME and DA are quite remarkable in how objective they are. But that's the perks of being a fictional universe - outside of stuff that's written from an in-universe perspective, it's mosty as if God (or the Maker, I guess) is writing an encyclopedia. 

Personally, I recall the ME codex being a lot more objective than the DA one.  However, I may be misremembering some details.  

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Put it like this - tracing the basic timeline of the American Revolution, from Boston to Yorktown, is rarely going to go any deeper than "this happened in this battle and these people wrote the Declaration". That's no more's a male history than a female history.

I am not an expert on American history, so I make no great claim to knowledge here.  I just wonder if it's really no more a male history than a female one if events that people regard as being influenced predominantly by men, like battles, are reported more than those seen as influenced by women.  You may (quite fairly) protest: it's a war - of course battles are the most relevant events!  And, as I don't know enough about American history, I can't really gainsay you.  I just know that, when it comes to history with which I am personally familiar - namely, Irish - even in wartime women played a huge role.  In our history books, it's not so well-recorded, but when I turn to my family members, they can often tell me much that the books leave out, e.g. the roles played by male and female family members and acquaintances in conflicts of about a hundred years ago.  And, if we try to look at development of societies as a whole, not just at battles fought, we can see other influences too.

Anyway, thank you for the discussion.  I won't continue with it at present, both because I am about to go to bed and because I prefer not to stay on real-world topics for too many consecutive posts in a Dragon Age forum.  However, I really enjoyed the exchange.

Modifié par Estelindis, 12 novembre 2013 - 02:47 .

[TheBlackBaron]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Estelindis wrote...

Part of the inherent bias in all these accounts stems from the judgement of what is most important, what is so essential that it's the part of history that everyone should know.  Without getting into the nitty gritty of the discussion, the idea that most people need to know more about the male side of history than the female side is not unproblematic.

While true in theory, the men in history are usually remembered only when they inhabit a position of authority, leadership and power.  Women are also mentioned when they inhabit positions of power, but for cultural and societal reason, that occured seldomly by comparison.  I'm just saying that if history were to be written with full objectivity, in terms of the highlights and broad strokes, you'd still see more male names than female.

This. 

So much this.