205 réponses à ce sujet

[leaguer of one]

I think telling anyone -- no matter the gender - what's good for them is the problem. It's as unfair to males to be a Warrior (if they don't think it's good for them) as it is to tell a woman she can't be.

 

I think telling people to just discard things outside their "role" is also a problem. We all may excel at some things, but that doesn't mean we only have to do that. I've been playing the guitar for over 20 years. And yet, I'm not that great at it. I do it mostly for fun and for.. my own therapy, if you will. It makes me happy. To someone like Sten, "happiness" isn't all that important. You can be enough in your "duty" according to him. I disagree.

 

It'd be nice if it was left at that. People disagree all the time. But my final problem with the Qunari is they can't abide disagreement either. If you are "blind", then they will MAKE you see.

That's the issue about the qun. They don't care about the wants of the individual, it's all about efficiency and order. You're more a cog in a machine then a person in the qun. This is a pure lawfully neutral society.

[EmperorSahlertz]

IIRC, it's determined at birth.

Something like: they decide they need more warriors, breed a warrior with a woman whose father was a warrior, and any boys born will be warriors.

It is decided when they are around 12 years old. Yes, their genetics do play a role in this. The Qunari hold extensive genetic records of their entire population, so that they can pair up favorable traits. But if a person who had a long line of warriors and fighters in his genetics, proves to simply not be much of a warrior, then he will not be assigned the role of Karashok.

[Mistic]

Sexism is believing one gender is inherently or overall superior to another.

 

The Qunari have strict gender roles, true, but they don't believe one gender is inherently superior to another. They believe both genders have different strengths and talents (men are stronger, women are better administrators, etc.), but they don't think the talents of one gender are better than those of the other, more valuable to their society than the other, etc.

 

I agree that we are projecting our views about gender roles to the Qunari society and thus they can't be called sexist in that way. However, the Qunari are sexist. The problem is the definition of sexism, mind you.

 

The Oxford Dictionary says that sexism is "prejudice or discrimination against people (esp women) because of their sex". Given that the Qunari "deem one gender or the other better at certain roles in their society" (WoT), it's pretty clear that there is discrimination. Even your own definition applies, because the Qunari do think that one gender is inherently superior to the other... for a given task (it was "inherently or overall" in your definition after all, not "inherently and overall", wasn't it?).

 

That's where our misconception of Qunari society and sexism comes from. We think that there can only be one sexism, putting one gender onto a pedestal and putting down the other. However, the Qunari have a myriad of pedestals, so there's a myriad of different sexisms.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Just curious, but where does this come from? I never noticed these details in any codex.

It was one of the writers, Chee or Kirby can't remember which. But the codices don't cover this part of Qunari society, because this part of Qunari society is largely unknown to the rest of Thedas.

 

 

I agree that we are projecting our views about gender roles to the Qunari society and thus they can't be called sexist in that way. However, the Qunari are sexist. The problem is the definition of sexism, mind you.

 

The Oxford Dictionary says that sexism is "prejudice or discrimination against people (esp women) because of their sex". Given that the Qunari "deem one gender or the other better at certain roles in their society" (WoT), it's pretty clear that there is discrimination. Even your own definition applies, because the Qunari do think that one gender is inherently superior to the other... for a given task (it was "inherently or overall" in your definition after all, not "inherently and overall", wasn't it?).

 

That's where our misconception of Qunari society and sexism comes from. We think that there can only be one sexism, putting one gender onto a pedestal and putting down the other. However, the Qunari have a myriad of pedestals, so there's a myriad of different sexisms.

 

It isn't exactly discrimination or sexism. At least not any more than workplaces in our world are "discriminating" agaisnt people without educations.

 

It isn't like Qunari men or women are denied social activities based on their gender. There are however certain job restrictions based on gender. But I don't think that these are based on prejudices of the QUnari, as much as observed facts. Mind you that there is a distinct difference between the genders of the Qunari race. The male Qunari are certainly bigger and more physically imposing than the female, which could lead the QUnari to conclude that males simply make for better soldiers based on their physical attributes. Also, keep in mind that the Qunari have not been exposed to humans, elves and dwarves for more than a few centuries, so the smaller difference between the genders in these races may not have had time to influence the Qunari point of view yet.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

How is that not oppression?

If I'm a woman and I want to be the head of household, I'm denied that ability. Being the head of a household/family structure is a position of socioeconomic power. If an entire class of people is denied socioeconomic power and only allowed to be subservient, that's oppression.

 

Sigh. 

 

Oppression = The act of subjugating by cruelty.

 

This is what is usually the case when it comes to patriarchal traditional family units :- There is dad, mom and bunch of kids. Dad has to go out, work, toil,do the miserable dangerous jobs, fight in the wars, all in order to bring some resources to support the family. Mom on the other hand manages the house, raises the kids, educates / indoctrinates the kids. 

 

So patriarchy is a system is a division of labor by both sexes in order to raise a traditional family successfully. 

 

It is repressive but not oppressive. It is repressive because of the lack of technological advancements. 

 

Remember we are talking about a time where there is no TV or radio or washing machine or microwave oven or ready-made food or proper sanitation or safe job environments...The so-called good old days that are not actually good old days but crappy old days...

 

I do not know about Europe or United States but we still have some pretty technologically backward places in Southeast Asia...Where housekeeping is a full time job...Where strict division of labor was necessary...

 

The husband and father usually become the head of the household because they had to do more work and shoulder more dangerous responsibilities. But to claim the mother and wife to not have any power is foolish. She is responsible in shaping and bringing up the offspring, which is reason for this system's existence in the first place - division of labor to raise offspring. 

 

Being a leader or the head of something, even a family unit comes with responsibilities. More work, more obligation to the lords, knights and nobles.  

 

Anyway, back to the Qunari.

 

The reason they do not have or do not need to adhere to any binary limiting social structures such as Patriarchy vs Matriarchy or Men vs Women is because they are technologically more advanced than the rest of Thedas. 

 

They appear to be able to produce food production with high and efficient yields. You never see a Qunari going hungry in the game. Ever.

 

Their mechanization is on par with that of the dwarves, some even suggest that they surpass them. 

 

Their military technology is superior as well. 

 

Even their religion is more technologically advanced than that of Thedas' alternatives such as the Chantry or the Elven Pantheon or the Stone. No other Theodosian religion employ the use of hallucinogens...chemical warfare basically...To convert people....

 

When you have a society that values efficiency, predetermined roles, has technological superiority...That society is not going to be one which is based on sexes one upping the other...It is going to be very much like a giant machine...

[Bayonet Hipshot]

Sexism is believing one gender is inherently or overall superior to another.

 

....I feel like our society has this obsession with deciding which is better in any given situation. Bring two puppies in front of a group of people and the odds are someone will try to figure out which one is cutest. Two attractive girls can walk together in a crowded mall and various people watching them will try to decide which one is prettier. Etc.

 

I feel like all this talk that the Qunari must be sexist stems from our own society's obsession with deciding which of something is more important....

 

...And, of course, since our society has decided that male gender and societal roles are superior to women's (notice it's more acceptable for women to dress like men than for men to dress like women), that must mean that the Qunari have determined that the male gender and societal roles are more important than women's. After all, if they weren't sexist then they would let women do men's jobs because men's jobs are better than women's, and thus barring women from it must be because they think women are inferior, right? It's not like they can think both gender roles and jobs are important but have strengths in different areas.

 

No, our society has decided that if there are two different things, one has to be better than the other; if there are two different gender roles then one has to be better than the other, so it must be the same for Qunari.

 

This. So much this. Sorry to cut off parts of your post but this is essentially it. 

 

The "Frame of Reference" problem. 

 

I am currently doing a postgrad in History of STEM. 

 

One of the first things they teach you is to not superimpose your frame of reference, your values on another group before understanding them independently first. 

 

That's what most people here fail to get. They are looking the Qun and Qunari through the eyes of their values before attempting to understand them and then they pass judgments. 

 

OP :- Qunari are sexist, patriarchal.

 

Logic :-  Okay from what viewpoint ? Why are they sexist ? Is being cannon fodder to spread the faith better than cultivating crops, sculpting or trading ? Is leading an army better than leading a religious education group ? Do they even have a family unit at all to define them as patriarchal or matriarchal or equalists ? Do Qunari as a collective even have individual self interests to allow for the one-upsmanship we see in other  societies ? If there is no self interest which is the key to conflict of any form, even gender ones, among the Qunari, then what drives them ? 

[Herr Uhl]

IIRC, it's determined at birth.

Something like: they decide they need more warriors, breed a warrior with a woman whose father was a warrior, and any boys born will be warriors.

 

It is determined when they're 12 IIRC (when the Tamassran stops rearing them and they're sent out to learn a trade). I'd imagine that they'd breed for traits depending on demand though.

[Maria Caliban]

Sigh. 
 
Oppression = The act of subjugating by cruelty.

Oh, I get it. You don't know what oppression means.

Remember when people of color and women couldn't vote? They were oppressed. Even if they never experienced 'acts of cruelty.'

[A.Kazama]

Alert BSN! Anita sarkeesian has made it into the forums!

On another note, qunari cultures is that in itself alien and couldn't really be compared to our society . I would say that their certain beliefs are sexists but only from our points of view.

To them women and men's roles are set from birth and they given these roles by the tamrassen. They don't see it as misogynistic or patriarchal. They see it as the qun.

Therefore I have only one thing to say to this argument:

"Struggle is an illusion... There is only the Qun"

[Herr Uhl]

To them women and men's roles are set from birth and they given these roles by the benhassrath.

 

The child rearing and breeding is handled by the Tamassran, not the Ben Hassrath.

[Maria Caliban]

It is determined when they're 12 IIRC (when the Tamassran stops rearing them and they're sent out to learn a trade). I'd imagine that they'd breed for traits depending on demand though.

My thanks!

[A.Kazama]

The child rearing and breeding is handled by the Tamassran, not the Ben Hassrath.

My bad CBF looking the info up so I was guessing one of the two

[Clockwork_Wings]

I would think if one were to ask, the qunari would probably give you the same look Sten does when your female warden asks if she's being hit on.  I think if one were to try to explain the concepts of "patriarchy" and "matriarchy" to a qunari they'd call that a really dumb idea.  To them, a warrior has the same societal value as a farmer.  They consider the roles that one plays to be different, but all of equal value.

 

 

What? That doesn't make any sense. They are not the Borg Collective. If they were a single hive mind then they couldn't have or behave half the way they do.

 

If I could use another analogy, they're more like the Tau. Not the Tyranids.

 

I think if someone were to explain the jellyfish that are just colonies of smaller, individual organisms to a qunari, they would find the creature admirable and consider that a worthy goal to aspire to.

I used the phrase "hearth and home" (which people are getting quite hung up on) because of the way the text was written. I think most people would think find it surprising if it read like this:

 

 

The language about nurturing, especially, calls to mind to traditional gender roles in human societies. Yes, the qunari are a non-human fantasy race. Women being responsible for crafting weapons is a difference between the Qunari and most human societies. Women being responsible for food preparation and distribution is less so. (also, I'm sure the wiki got most of that info from somewhere, but where? the link to the BSN just has Mary confirming that the Arigena is always female.)

 

 

I know it's a metaphor. I was analyzing that metaphor. I firmly believe that body>mind and spirit. If that metaphor accurately reflects Qunari society, it's telling.

 

This is why I always read someone's full post before I start fisking it.

 

I don't assume men generally hold more power than women in the Harry Potter universe because women are teachers. I was making a joke about sentient hats. I do think that the Potterverse is a bit sexist because it takes place in 90s Britain which, like most human societies on earth, is at least a little sexist. (I don't think "sexist" or "patriarchal" are synonyms for "the worst and most unbearable things imaginable") I'll reiterate my point about teachers and primary caregivers below.

 

The World of Thedas says this about the Tamassrans:

 

 

You could say that about teachers and caregivers in many patriarchal societies. And (mostly female) teachers and caregivers will agree. I agree! They have wield great influence. I'm not sure I'd say they wield the most influence at all. But Tamassrans select someone's role at twelve. They wield great influence in the sphere education until just before the end of tweenhood. I wouldn't say this indicates a female-led society, or that the Tamassrans are leaders. David Gaider said that an outsider might view this society as female-led, but the Qunari don't see that way. (and I certainly don't)

 

The other text I quoted from WoT was someone's in-universe writing. It is objectively what she wrote in the universe, but that doesn't mean she's right.

 

Don't the Qunari place a lot value on doing what is socially expected of you? They receive roles at twelve and have to fulfill as best they can for the rest of their lives. The Qunari are different from humans both biologically and culturally in some respects, (keep in mind that their are Qunari of many races, including humans, of course) but not all. I feel comfortable saying their religious policy is anti-clerical and very similar to Enver Hoxha's (bonkers Albanian communist dictator). And, again, the Qunari strike me as patriarchal.

I find it interesting that, according to your information, women are not soldiers, but they do make the weapons.  I find that...kind of neat, actually.  Is that what the qunari would consider an art form, maybe?

[mikeymoonshine]

Possibly.

I’m stating that there’s frequently a gap between what we’re told of the world and what we’re shown. Star Trek, for example, was supposed to be a gender equal society, yet men walked around in pants while women wore miniskirts. If someone asks me ‘Is the Federation a model of gender equality?’ why those actresses ended up wearing miniskirts is less important to me than that it happened.

Another example: Starfire from DC comics. She’s a princess from matriarchy… which is also a culture where nudity is common place.

You never see sexy alien dudes from cultures where nudity is commonplace. Why this happens for a specific character/culture/show is less interesting me than the larger pattern.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you I just think that why it happened is important. Star Trek may have failed at showing gender equality but they made some advances and I feel like you have to give them credit for doing something they did not have to. Nichelle Nichols may have been sexually objectified but she was still a woman who was given a prominent and important role in the show and one of the first black women not to be portrayed as a servant.  

 

TNG even attempted to make up for the miniskirts thing, quite hilariously. 

Spoiler

 

Were women sexually objectified in TNG? Yes, was there 100% gender equality shown, no but it was better than the original series and the original series was better than what came before. Later series were even better than that. 

 

 

Patriarchal norms that exist because of society.

 

and I never said they didn't. 

 

When the Assassins’ Creed devs decides that they won’t have female models in its multiplayer because that would be too much extra time and effort, that decision happens inside a larger industry model that gives us mostly male heroes and characters, and so insures male character models and animations will always be available.

It’s the same thing as BioWare talking about its previous graphic engines not doing darker skin well. Why was that? Because the system was designed with white skin in mind; if it couldn’t do fair skin well, it would have been worked on until it reached the appropriate level of fidelity.

What bodies are considered ‘standard’ and which ones are labeled ‘extra’ is totally a product of society.

 

When did I disagree with any of this? I said the reason essentially boiled down to patriarchy, that was my way of not saying all of that.

 

I don't believe it's as simple as the gaming community is mostly males who wont play female heroes because I don't believe that's necessarily the case but it is a big step to be the first to take the gamble and prioritise females over males, If you truly can only do one model.

 

I actually do believe that darker skin tones are harder to get right than lighter ones simply because of how they look under different lighting. Lighter skin tones are just more reflective, that's not a good excuse but I don't think it is a lie or that it is because of some bias. 

 

 

Edit: Rereading your post, it's possible that you think when I say artists I only mean the writers. I mean everyone involved with the development. Some of the most interesting parts of games have nothing to do with the writing. Things like first person view vs third person fixed vs third person where the player has control impact the experience of playing the game, and so are aesthetic elements.

 

Well that's the part I disagreed with. You generalized a whole bunch of people involved in a process into the word "artist" and then labelled the fact that a certain feature did not appear, as a failure on the part of the artist. It's the studio that failed not necessarily the artist. As I said the origional idea may have been to have equal representation and the people who designed the models may have wanted to make females but that didn't happen because males were picked over females and I guess they thought the female humans and the Asari addressed the balance (or something). 

 

You made it seem like the person/people who created the game do not understand what an equal society is, at least to the level that you feel you do. That may or may not be the case but I don't think we should just assume that it is. 

[leaguer of one]

Mind you, it's easy to rationalize anything, if you try hard enough.

 

Example - Mormon Women in the polygamy period (1800s) tried to say they stood for female empowerment too. Since their husbands had so many wives, in their thinking that meant the wives had more time to themselves. So they read books or got involved in whatever private interest they had. Unlike women in other societies who had to devote more time to homekeeping or whatnot. And they didn't need to think on their husbands (their husbands got attention no matter what, from dozens of women). Because of this, some of these women viewed themselves as independent and feminist.

... Oh god...I never thought about it that way. I always find it strange polygamy is still against the law and I came up with many arguments for undoing that. I did not think of that argument.

[leaguer of one]

The child rearing and breeding is handled by the Tamassran, not the Ben Hassrath.

The Tamassran are still a part of the Ben Hassrath.

 

The differance is that of Arisaad to the Arishok. They have different roles but they are both part of the same branch of sociaty.

[Herr Uhl]

The Tamassran are still a part of the Ben Hassrath.
 
The differance is that of Arisaad to the Arishok. They have different roles but they are both part of the same branch of sociaty.

They both answer to the Ariqun, but they're separate entities. And the branch isn't named Ben Hassrath, just like the military branch isn't named the Beresaad.

[Kreator_Wrex]

Oh, I get it. You don't know what oppression means.

Remember when people of color and women couldn't vote? They were oppressed. Even if they never experienced 'acts of cruelty.'

 

Actually that's exactly why they were not oppressed. That would simply be discrimination, not really oppression. Oppression would be like the Jews in Nazi Germany being thrown in gas chambers or thrown into hard labor (essentially slave labor) simply for being Jewish. Or additionally disabled people in the USSR being killed simply for being disabled, as well as Irish people in the British imperial days being sold off as slaves, or people being thrown into starvation camps in Maoist China for being assumed enemies of Chairman Mao. As someone who studies history, I could continue, but before this becomes too long and dull to continue reading I'll end this section.

 

Oppression involves actual acts of cruelty, such as the aforementioned, concentration camps in Nazi Germany, death camps in the USSR, Irish enslavement in the British Empire, and starvation camps in Maoist China. Oppression is not simply not having a right to vote because you're X, Y, and/or Z.

[Doominike]

What puzzles me is that in DA:O, Sten tells you "women don't fight" and he seems genuinely confused that someone who fights is shaped like a woman. But Ben-Hassrath are fighters and they can be female. So what the qun says is really just that women can't be *soldiers*, not that they can't fight period.

 

Though this likely just a retcon because they hadn't developed the Qun when they wrote Sten's dialogue. Or Sten knows nothing about the BH

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I I think if someone were to explain the jellyfish that are just colonies of smaller, individual organisms to a qunari, they would find the creature admirable and consider that a worthy goal to aspire to.

 

Jellyfish? Jellyfish are but animals. Enlightenment does not await them.

[PrayingMantis]

What puzzles me is that in DA:O, Sten tells you "women don't fight" and he seems genuinely confused that someone who fights is shaped like a woman. But Ben-Hassrath are fighters and they can be female. So what the qun says is really just that women can't be *soldiers*, not that they can't fight period.

 

Though this likely just a retcon because they hadn't developed the Qun when they wrote Sten's dialogue. Or Sten knows nothing about the BH

 

Well, you said it yourself. He says women don't fight, he doesn't say they cannot fight. Sten comes from somewhere, where women have other responsibilities, it's understandable that he is confused about a new system in a new society.

Who said Ben-Hassrath are only fighters by the way? The wiki says they are priests, who can perform different duties. They can be assassins and so on, but they don't necessarily fight all the time. Female Ben-Hassrath have different specializations on top of that. I could imagine them having to learn how to fight (in a manner of protecting themselves, not solely combat-training), but being taught not to use too much violence (e.g. learning how to make the strategy of a mission, learning how to convince people as fast as possible, etc).