Ce sujet est fermé
I'm not sure to which "here" you are referring but I would point out that 95% of F500 are "White" men. For an egalitarian society some are still much more equal than others.
That's the inherent problem with equality. Some are inherently more equal than others.
True that.
but this was realy just about the grunts you kill.
You mean, a thread that's about what it's about? On BSN? UNPOSSIBLE! o.O
Try telling someone they need to stop practicing their religion because it encourages values that could lead to inequality, try telling them exactly what they are and are not allowed to teach their children, it wouldn't go over well and it's a slippery slope to start down. I'm not just trying to say there's a limit of effectiveness, I'm saying there's a point were I'd stop calling it "improvement".
Well certainly but that is why I keep saying equality of opportunity. I don't see any benefit in founding the thought police.
There's no reason success must be equally distributed.
No... but equality of outcome must be linked to equality of opportunity. Put in the simplest terms if two people with the same talents and the same desire apply the same amount of effort then they should attain more or less the same outcome (all else being equal). It should not inherently alter the outcome that one of the people is a woman of colour born into a working class family while the other is the scion of an affluent Scots-Irish tycoon family.
That said, I was recently told about how long on average it takes a family to climb from the bottom of the social ladder to the top. On average, it's a process of centuries. So I wouldn't be expecting things to change that quickly even with the official barriers removed if I were you.
Mere passive removal of barriers is only sufficient when the playing field is level.
Never heard of Flemeth.. I guess..
Absolutely.
Now, should I wait for it or should I just jump straight into overlapping bell curves and equality of opportunity?
Not entirely sure what you mean by that. The question was really just sheer curiosity on my end, as I often get the idea that one's stance on sexual dimorphism affects one's general idea of (true) equality.
You mean, a thread that's about what it's about? On BSN? UNPOSSIBLE! o.O
dont i look like a ejit.
Those things should not change the outcome, but all else is never equal, both of those individual's efforts are affected by random chance, timing, and luck, along with plenty of other exterior factors that have nothing to do with their background. If all of that is the same, then sure, but that's unlikely. An equal outcome is not guaranteed, one may experience great success while the other crashes and burns. Equality of outcome just doesn't work in any realistic scenario. It's not a useful expectationNo... but equality of outcome must be linked to equality of opportunity. Put in the simplest terms if two people with the same talents and the same desire apply the same amount of effort then they should attain more or less the same outcome (all else being equal). It should not inherently alter the outcome that one of the people is a woman of colour born into a working class family while the other is the scion of an affluent Scots-Irish tycoon family.
And that's where the slippery slope of "equality" comes in. Who gets to decide what makes the playing field level? How far do you take it?Mere passive removal of barriers is only sufficient when the playing field is level.
But it is. It is a useful expectation to statistically apply to a population. Random chance, luck, other neutral external factors "average out" across populations so if there is a discrepancy of outcome there is not a comprehensive equality of opportunity and corrective steps should be taken.Those things should not change the outcome, but all else is never equal, both of those individual's efforts are affected by random chance, timing, and luck, along with plenty of other exterior factors that have nothing to do with their background. If all of that is the same, then sure, but that's unlikely. An equal outcome is not guaranteed, one may experience great success while the other crashes and burns. Equality of outcome just doesn't work in any realistic scenario. It's not a useful expectation
Not being gods we're not searching for perfect individual justice, we're just trying to establish general principles of justice and then set up a framework that works to implement these principles and achieve those ends. Establishing those principals is an interesting discussion, trying to implement them within a current governmental system is an ongoing battle.And that's where the slippery slope of "equality" comes in. Who gets to decide what makes the playing field level? How far do you take it?
We're just going to have to disagree on this one. At best you'll get a predictable distribution of outcomes, what you won't get is a guarantee of the same ratio of outcomes across groups. If there is a discrepancy, there can easily be other explanations, as I've told you.But it is. It is a useful expectation to statistically apply to a population. Random chance, luck, other neutral external factors "average out" across populations so if there is a discrepancy of outcome there is not a comprehensive equality of opportunity and corrective steps should be taken.
That's not what you've been describing, but fine.Not being gods we're not searching for perfect individual justice, we're just trying to establish general principles of justice and then set up a framework that works to implement these principles and achieve those ends. Establishing those principals is an interesting discussion, trying to implement them within a current governmental system is an ongoing battle.
haha.. oh my god.. this thread is now apparently about something completely other than the topic again...
I think I could see something that's like "How did you decorate Skyhold"
10 pages later, "Post-racialism is a diverse incentive for patriarchal censorship"
"Equality is a myth perpetuated by elites to brainwash the proletariat into conformity!"
Anyway I clicked on because I was thinking of a pretty bomb kind of female end boss type of character myself just recently... and yeah it's kind of recurring not just in this game but in a lot of others isn't it? Unless they're succubi or "Desire Demons" (Succubi). It would be nice to change it up. Not necessarily a seductive one, maybe just some kind of general/warrior obsessed with power and control or something.
Not entirely sure what you mean by that. The question was really just sheer curiosity on my end, as I often get the idea that one's stance on sexual dimorphism affects one's general idea of (true) equality.
For a blunt example:
Men tend to be taller and broader than women with significantly superior upper body strength. This is a simple fact. Since (for the sake of argument we'll be silly-simplistic) it is fundamentally important for firefighters to be tall and strong what with the carrying people and hoses and chopping stuff with axes... So we know that men are generally better suited to be firefighters than women.
What does this mean for hiring practices? Nothing at all. Upper body strength in men maps to a bell curve. Upper body strength in women maps to a different bell curve. Those bell curves overlap. Meaning that for all but the furthest outliers there are both men and women at any point along the strength axis, which means that (again excepting the furthest outliers) there is almost always going to be some woman somewhere who is stronger than any give man (and here she is.)
So rather than assuming that since "men are stronger " firefighters should be men, a rational value of "how strong does a firefighter need to be" should be established and the opportunity to be a firefighter should be made available regardless of gender.
Not being gods we're not searching for perfect individual justice, we're just trying to establish general principles of justice and then set up a framework that works to implement these principles and achieve those ends. Establishing those principals is an interesting discussion, trying to implement them within a current governmental system is an ongoing battle.
It's only interesting until you realize that all you do is fighting with shadows in the futile attempt to nail down those principles... humans just don't hold up to any form of generalization, no matter the perspective you choose to look at them from.
Back on topic, I can only repeat my earlier statement: Writers should concentrate on creating interesting villains first and worry about gender later.
We're just going to have to disagree on this one. At best you'll get a predictable distribution of outcomes, what you won't get is a guarantee of the same ratio of outcomes across groups. If there is a discrepancy, there can easily be other explanations, as I've told you.
We're not looking for a guarantee. We're looking at establishing parameters that encompass whatever "other explanations" are skewing the actual equality of opportunity. It's the alternative to just holding pitching contests and hoping for the best.
So rather than assuming that since "men are stronger " firefighters should be men, a rational value of "how strong does a firefighter need to be" should be established and the opportunity to be a firefighter should be made available regardless of gender.
The problem is that the bar is lowered to allow women in, which results in less qualified firefighters.
People would call 'misogyny' if you had female villains. Easy as that. If they were directly engaged in the violence in almost any way, people would whine and cry about it.
I dunno, I think folks like Mill and Rawls have got some pretty serious traction there...It's only interesting until you realize that all you do is fighting with shadows in the futile attempt to nail down those principles...
Supervillains are hard, not a lot of interesting real world examples to go from.Back on topic, I can only repeat my earlier statement: Writers should concentrate on creating interesting villains first and worry about gender later.
The problem is that the bar is lowered to allow women in, which results in less qualified firefighters.
Except that it's not true. In practice, of course, things are far more complex than Stronger = Better for firefighters but the principles hold. Establish the standards that are actually needed to be a firefighter and then let anyone who meets them in regardless of gender. The problem here is that standards for entrance have tended to be far, far beyond what is actually required for the job due to the overabundance of applicants. Lowering these "competitive" standards to actual requisite standards does not result in unqualified firefighters, it just results in fewer overqualified firefighters.
I know of only one (1) case in which a fire department set standards and then let substandard women in. (Not a very good idea, that.)
Of course most things are much more complex than Strong Firefighters = Good Firefighters, like race and gender and applicants to chemical engineering courses at top schools. While that is a much more complex question it is still one that is ultimately tractable. There is no excuse for just throwing up our hands and just waving the word "meritocracy" around.
For a blunt example:
Men tend to be taller and broader than women with significantly superior upper body strength. This is a simple fact. Since (for the sake of argument we'll be silly-simplistic) it is fundamentally important for firefighters to be tall and strong what with the carrying people and hoses and chopping stuff with axes... So we know that men are generally better suited to be firefighters than women.
What does this mean for hiring practices? Nothing at all. Upper body strength in men maps to a bell curve. Upper body strength in women maps to a different bell curve. Those bell curves overlap. Meaning that for all but the furthest outliers there are both men and women at any point along the strength axis, which means that (again excepting the furthest outliers) there is almost always going to be some woman somewhere who is stronger than any give man (and here she is.)
So rather than assuming that since "men are stronger " firefighters should be men, a rational value of "how strong does a firefighter need to be" should be established and the opportunity to be a firefighter should be made available regardless of gender.
Ah, yeah I get what you mean now. Boils down to whoever is good enough for the job should get it.
I've seen people argue against it though. iirc, someone must go through a test before they can join the military. The test was passed by people of both genders, though more men managed to pass and so people argued that, in order to get a 50/50 ratio in the military (for the sake of gender equality), the test had to be adjusted and made easier for women. So whenever people talk about disproportionate gender ratios in certain job fields, I wonder if they're not just trying to fight against the fact that the minimum requirement for said job is easier to reach for people from one gender than the other. Of course, if the ratio is 0/100 or 10/90 and one gender is nearly or completely absent, there's something wrong, most likely sexism. But ratios of 60/40-80/20 seem reasonable.
People would call 'misogyny' if you had female villains. Easy as that. If they were directly engaged in the violence in almost any way, people would whine and cry about it.
Except that it's not true.
It is true though.
Physical standards have been lowered to accept women. You're just using wordplay to justify it. You're saying those men are overqualified and qualifications should be lowered so more women are chosen.
You want to lower standards so that almost everyone qualifies and then pick people "equally" depending on their race and gender.
That is exactly what I am saying. However it is not "wordplay", it is true. What's more, it is old news. There have been women in firefighting going back almost two hundred years, there have even been all women fire brigades going back as far as the eighteen hundreds and women fire chiefs. Right now, today, a significant percentage of firefighters in North America are women (about 4%) and the biggest problem that has been encountered is in getting the male firefighters to stop sexually harassing the women (rather like introducing women into the armed forces.) So you can clutch your pearls over falling standards but the proof is already here, women are successfully fighting fires, flying fighters and serving on subs... the dreaded Vaginapocalypse has failed to materialize.Physical standards have been lowered to accept women. You're just using wordplay to justify it. You're saying those men are overqualified and qualifications should be lowered so more women are chosen.
Not quite. I want standards lowered to performance rather than competition levels and then I want equal access to opportunity regardless of accident of birth.You want to lower standards so that almost everyone qualifies and then pick people "equally" depending on their race and gender.
Actually, I found Inquisition to be surprisingly female dominated, even a surprising amount of lesbian content portrayed through text or characters. Not that I'm complaining being female myself, but in comparison to other games, there are a lot more females in important roles. Being a female, this stood out to me, so I'd imagine more so for males?
Important/Pivotal characters (only including companions that largely affect main story)
Female
Empress Celene, leader of Orlais
Briala, leader of the Elven rebellian
Cassandra, pivotal character to the main story
Leliana, pivotal character to the main story
Calpernia, Corypheus's second in command
Morrigan
Flemeth
Male
Grand Duke Gaspard, rebellious cousin of the Empress
Solas
Varrick
Corypheus, villain
Samson, Corypheus's second in command
Even though the male list isn't that much shorter, it's not like that in other games where majority of all important characters are male.
why is it I noticed only like 7 female bad guys?
There are 3 female villains in The Winter Palace mission alone.
As to the physical standard argument of why there are more male characters than female, that's just bogus in the Dragon Age universe. It is quite clear that all characters are using some type of magic to increase their strength and perform magical attacks (such as the attack that throws rocks into the air when it hits the ground). Yes in our nonmagical world men are stronger, no one is arguing otherwise, but in a magical world, physical strength is only important for mundanes, and because mundanes are so much weaker than characters who can use magic, they don't count anyways.
10 high dragons.
Because these are a part of the main story now? And they are stopping you from progressing the story?
It's not a facepalm matter when there's proof of such actions being taken. GTA5 was taken off shelves in austrilia by k-mart and target for only reason of 'violence against women' which sounds like last decades argument of just simply 'violence'
Retour en haut
