Well, certainly. The issue is whether the negative stereotype is (1) tied to gender and (2) in particular to men having qualities traditionally seen as feminine.
Except even in your examples they are not. The only one that even references a gender is nurturing because you brought up stay at home dads. Which isn't even a good example since a dad can be nurturing while still working a job "like a man".
As a man with feminine traits, I can tell you we do, in fact, have our masculinity questioned. Often. By both men and women.
No one is arguing that cross-gender behavioral traits actually make someone less male or female, only that those traits diminish the impression of their masculinity or femininity.
"Man with feminine traits" means literally nothing, considering that, like I said above, every single human being in the entire world has both feminine and masculine traits. Unless you're overly feminine (like, Adam Lambert levels of effeminate), nobody would care enough to judge you, because you'd be an otherwise normal human being. If it's really considered effeminate of a man to be considerate to the needs of others or to be nurturing, then I guess every mentally healthy man in the entire world is an effeminate nancy.
I guarantee you that if you just walk down the street to go run some errands, that nobody will call your masculinity into question unless you're actively doing something to catch their attention and bring the issue to their attention (and if that's the case, then they're not questioning you because of femininity, they're questioning you because you'd be an attention w***e.
Except even in your examples they are not. The only one that even references a gender is nurturing because you brought up stay at home dads. Which isn't even a good example since a dad can be nurturing while still working a job "like a man".
A stereotype doesn't have to reference gender to be about gender. Sensitivity is seen as anathema to being a man, hence terms like "sack up" (a reference to tescticles, after all) carrying carrying both the sexual reference and the implied value. The same with "stay at home dads", because of the stereotypical views that men have to be providers, etc., or that the only appropriate sports that one can play aren't about grace, but power (e.g. football vs. ballet).
The danger here, as I'd perceive it, is the possible misconception that feminine and masculine traits can fit neatly into separate boxes in a discussion with this many different perspectives, especially in the modern world.
Academics have been analyzing the different portrayals of femininity in media for a very long time, and we can see trends and variations in every culture. The word "feminine" is going to mean something different to everyone here, and even though we can discuss general tendencies of that concept throughout history, it's going to be impossible to reach a consensus even if we all try to be as objective as possible.
Agreed. If we each of us creates a list of traits associated with femininity and masculinity, I am sure our lists will be quite different. That's why when I discuss traits of characters or persons, I tend to avoid the whole femininity/masculinity categorization.
For a gay KISA, I will not say that he should not have any feminine traits. Rather, I would just say that "this specific trait is not what I want." and avoid the whole femininity/masculinity thing altogether.
Also I would like to a gay KISA to have some amount of sensitivity: not in a way that he would get offended easily. But in a way that he would be emotionally affected by other people's suffering and injustice. (I am not sure "sensitive" is the right word to describe this trait here.)
"Man with feminine traits" means literally nothing, considering that, like I said above, every single human being in the entire world has both feminine and masculine traits. Unless you're overly feminine (like, Adam Lambert levels of effeminate), nobody would care enough to judge you, because you'd be an otherwise normal human being. If it's really considered effeminate of a man to be considerate to the needs of others or to be nurturing, then I guess every mentally healthy man in the entire world is an effeminate nancy.
I guarantee you that if you just walk down the street to go run some errands, that nobody will call your masculinity into question unless you're actively doing something to catch their attention and bring the issue to their attention (and if that's the case, then they're not questioning you because of femininity, they're questioning you because you'd be an attention w***e.
Thank you for conceding the point.
How nice of you to suggest that Adam Lambert isn't a normal human being because of his femininity, and therefore demonstrate precisely the problematic thinking I'm attempting to highlight. You made it easy to identify yourself as part of the problem.
Agreed. If we each of us creates a list of traits associated with femininity and masculinity, I am sure our lists will be quite different. That's why when I discuss traits of characters or persons, I tend to avoid the whole femininity/masculinity categorization.
For a gay KISA, I will not say that he should not have any feminine traits. Rather, I would just say that "this specific trait is not what I want." and avoid the whole femininity/masculinity thing altogether.
Also I would like to a gay KISA to have some amount of sensitivity: not in a way that he would get offended easily. But in a way that he would be emotionally affected by other people's suffering and injustice. (I am not sure "sensitive" is the right word to describe this trait here.)
This post is so nice I want to like it twice. 
Seriously, that's been my take on this whole gender behavior subject. I feel it's been a worthwhile one, but I can't see it going anywhere productive at this point. I completely agree with you. It shouldn't be about masculinity/femininity at all, and I do think it's a little more productive to list traits we'd like to see/don't want to see. This gender codifying seems to be dividing some of the posters in here, and that's a shame.
As far as your second point, to be honest, I could use that in a straight/bi male LI as well. All of the LIs for the straight female Inquisitor are extremely stoic.
I think Garrus makes for a good balance, at least as of ME3. He gets the job done, and he's good at it. However, he's one of the first to ask how Shep is doing, and shows his frustration/hurt over the losses of not just his own planet, but of Earth as well.
I would also cite Steve Cortez as a good example. yet I have a bit of a hesitation. Overall he is, but the writers based too much of his character arc around his lost husband. I would love a LI that's similar to Steve, but I would rather not have his arc based around a lost love nor about his sexuality.
Seriously, that's been my take on this whole gender behavior subject. I feel it's been a worthwhile one, but I can't see it going anywhere productive at this point. I completely agree with you. It shouldn't be about masculinity/femininity at all, and I do think it's a little more productive to list traits we'd like to see/don't want to see. This gender codifying seems to be dividing some of the posters in here, and that's a shame.
It's here to stay. Masculinity and Femininity aren't going anywhere. You're going to need to be a little smarter than trying to make it go away with 'People's opinion's on masculinity and femininity differ.'
Duh. Men are revolted by other men who dress, speak, or act in a feminine manner.
Though I doubt you'll catch my meaning, let's not speak in generalities here. There are plenty of men who are not, even if they are not the majority. And there are plenty of women who would react similarity. The issue is societal.
It's here to stay. Masculinity and Femininity aren't going anywhere. You're going to need to be a little smarter than trying to make it go away with 'People's opinion's on masculinity and femininity differ.'
Except that as the last 30 years have shown, gender stereotypes are most certainly fluid and can be changed within a generation.
Though I doubt you'll catch my meaning, let's not speak in generalities here. There are plenty of men who are not, even if they are not the majority. And there are plenty of women who would react similarity. The issue is societal.
I'm sure there are. I fail to see how that makes any difference. And no, beliefs exist because people as individuals carry them. Not 'society.'
Except that as the last 30 years have shown, gender stereotypes are most certainly fluid and can be changed within a generation.
Except that the concepts of masculinity of femininity are still very clearly here and very clearly alive and kicking.
I don't think Nat was saying it doesn't exist, just that it's not the most productive framework for discussing this particular thread's issues in.
That's where this sort of thing always has to go.
Advocates of 'equality' eventually realize that as long as any standards or ideals exist, they exclude and marginalize people. Masculinity and femininity exclude certain people. They realize the only way to eliminate that is to purge all standards and ideals. They vary in their intelligence and integrity of understanding the implications of this simple fact, but I digress.
Ergo the people that always show up to proclaim that, surprise surprise, not all people agree 100% on what femininity and masculinity mean. That not all cultures do. That baby boys were once dressed in pink. With the clear implication of "Only a backwards fool would ever be silly enough to think masculinity and femininity mean anything!"
I don't think Nat was saying it doesn't exist, just that it's not the most productive framework for discussing this particular thread's issues in.
A gay woman/man is always going to have their presentation defined by ideas of masculinity and femininity to some extent. Therefore it's a good thing to keep in mind. But it's one of those tools that is not precise or well defined, arguments circling it can only circle it lest they become too prescriptive and when applied to fictional characters, like here, its use is limited.
Agreed and agreed. 
Simply put, this is another LI request thread, the same as countless others. A lot of the differences is that we keep the conversation overall civil, and try to avoid circular debates. The posters in here also tend to avoid insulting each other, insulting the characters, or insulting the devs. Some of the various side topics we've discussed have gotten heated and have brought out some passionate debates. Occasionally these side topics can cause some major derailing, but usually polite requests to drop the subject are received well.
This thread is about a gay,or lesbian knight. I personally don't see the idea in terms of "butch" or "feminine" or "masculine" or whatever. We've discussed what traits we like, what traits fit the archetype, and what traits we'd prefer to be left out. We've also talked about stories we'd want to see (member of the Rivani Armada, a Chevailer in the Grand Tourney, ect ect) and those we'd rather not see, such as the bulk of the companion's arc revolving around their sexuality.
There is differing opinions all over the place, but I honestly feel this focus on gender codification is not going anywhere in relation to this thread. This is one of those matters that is truly a matter of subjective views. We can agree about what the definitions are within our (Western) current society, and we can agree that those roles change quite a bit over time. However, I've noticed even in this thread that certain things considered masculine or feminine in today's society has depended upon the point of view. I think the whole concept is fluid, and up to the individual to decide what's what.
Besides, we're talking about Thedas. Yes, it does mirror our world in many ways, but I think some of the societal norms we experience in our world don't completely apply here. For example, the people of Thedas obviously don't have the problems with women on the front lines. While the original Aveline had to work to become a Chevalier, women fighters weren't uncommon. There are other examples of the DA lore showing less concern for such gender roles as we do. With the exception of the qunari of course, but they are the most OCD about their gender/culture roles than any other group in Thedas I've seen so far.
In any case, I think I've said my piece here. Since I know that this is a subject other folks are still interested in discussing, I'll respectfully bow out for now. 
Since this thread has talked about a bisexual KISA being fine as well, would them being a demisexual KISA also be fine as long as they were available to the same sex that they are?
Well, I mean, of course they mean something. Pointing out that something conceptually falls apart when applied to the real world doesn't dismiss its impact on the real world. It attempts to mitigate some of the effects, although you are correct in that it does not make them magically go away. The problem is that this thread really doesn't have a shared framework for discussing those concepts in, and so it can't apply that to the topic at hand without that becoming the topic, which veers sharply away from the purpose of the thread imo. Which I suppose is also not really for me to say or police so like...that's kind of why I'm remaining mostly silent..I just don't think that your connection of "masculinity and femininity are flawed, complicated concepts that fall apart" to "therefore they don't exist nor matter" is fair.
Nat--yes, that was in reply to Baby, sorry. I have a bad habit of not quoting when I'm phone posting because I assume it will be the next post and then...it isn't. 
edit: Hanako, yes!
edit: Hanako, yes!
Yay!
I posted yesterday in my thread a character who fits demisexuality and is without a doubt a Knight in Shining Armor, so it made me curious here.
Yay!
I posted yesterday in my thread a character who fits demisexuality and is without a doubt a Knight in Shining Armor, so it made me curious here.
Would you mind copying and pasting it?
I just don't think that your connection of "masculinity and femininity are flawed, complicated concepts that fall apart" to "therefore they don't exist nor matter" is fair.
None of this makes them flawed or even complicated concepts.
There are plenty of incredible simple concepts that 'fall apart' when placed under scrutiny that nobody has really found a good answer to. Questions like 'How many grains of sand does it take to make a pile of sand?' Like 'Why do 1 and 1 equal 2'
It irritates me when people act as if the fact that this particular concept is not objectively carved into the fabric of the universe is some jaw-droppingly sublime and meaningful revelation that totally changes the whole way we think. It's not. At all. It's the most common thing in the world, and very, very old news.
Would you mind copying and pasting it?
Sure. I'll put in spoilers for those not interested since it is large and more describes how the character is demisexual rather than a KISA.
I'd also be totally fine with a demisexual gay/bisexual KISA. I'm not a fan of the 'no sex' romances myself, so as long as the demisexual romance eventually led to physicality, I'd be cool with it. And, frankly, it would be a nice change of pace given that there are no DA s/s guys who even come close to fitting the demisexual bill up to this point. Variety is the spice of life, after all.
Ah, I understand what you mean. We certainly haven't seen a character like this in Bioware game before, would be interesting. That reminds me, there is a mod for Baldur's Gate II for a gay Cleric or Paladin character, I don't remember how he was called though. Bioware should definitely take some ideas from modders as they seemed to have gotten there first.
I'm actually quite the opposite. I'm kind of sick of knights in armor we girls keep getting, so I would like someone like Bishop from NWN2 for a change, even though its unhealthy for our sanity and many people hate this type of character.
Zevran, Iron Bull, Anders, and Fenris somehow don't count? I'd like to hear an argument for how any of those guys qualify as a "knight in armor". (I'm assuming you mean only het romances, otherwise this complaint gets even MORE ridiculous.)
I'd also be totally fine with a demisexual gay/bisexual KISA. I'm not a fan of the 'no sex' romances myself, so as long as the demisexual romance eventually led to physicality, I'd be cool with it. And, frankly, it would be a nice change of pace given that there are no DA s/s guys who even come close to fitting the demisexual bill up to this point. Variety is the spice of life, after all.
As long as it's well done, I'm not too focused on having a sex scene. However, it has to be damn good if they do indeed go without one.
I'm sure there are. I fail to see how that makes any difference. And no, beliefs exist because people as individuals carry them. Not 'society.'
Except that the concepts of masculinity of femininity are still very clearly here and very clearly alive and kicking.
Josephine doesn't have a sex scene and it works out alright.
I'll try to avoid launching a debate over the special snowflake sexualities.
Retour en haut
