291 réponses à ce sujet

[joejoe099]

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.

 

3? i'd only count the dutchess

 

and it's really more of the female villains in this game simply being lied to to do evil things, rather then the men knowingly doing evil things. why the hell can't a women be evil without being lied to in anything?

[Calders]

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.

 

In the UK they lowered the standard for both sexes to allow more women to get in, specifically the test of carrying a large weight above your head.  Of course there are no all female fire watches and you can bet your life that if you need to be carried down a ladder by a fire-fighter then that fire-fighter is going to be a male. 

[Unchangeable Appearance]

Unless you're talking about some hypothetical statistically insignificant example, yes it does. Leadership is an attainment, if one particular group of people is achieving it more often than another that is in itself inequity and very strongly suggests an inequity of opportunity (or an inherent inferiority and I know you're not going to go there.)

Try this: try to explain how an actual egalitarian society could end up with a significant gender imbalance.

 

I really don't want to sound like a neanderthal, but all other things being equal, I believe that men would attain to leadership positions more than women. That is not to say that women shouldn't be allowed equality of opportunity; women who want to be and would make good leaders should DEFINITELY be allowed and encouraged to be leaders.

 

We are, however, social primates, and gender is not only a function of our genitals; there are statistically significant differences in the personality traits and mindsets of men and women and education alone isn't enough to erase the silverback gorilla in us. Men are more socially inclined to leadership - in fact, leadership is a sexually desirable trait in men in most if not all cultures, so even if a man and a woman have the same level of leadership skills, the man is more likely on average to want to pursue a higher position. I'm all for letting women be leaders when and if they want (and are able to), but shooting for a 50-50 ratio isn't realistic or even desirable. 

 

This is not something inherent to humans but is a trait common to the Great Apes. There is no intelligent social mammal in which the males and the females serve the exact same group functions in the exact same proportions. 

[WarBaby2]

This is not something inherent to humans but is a trait common to the Great Apes. There is no intelligent social mammal in which the males and the females serve the exact same group functions in the exact same proportions. 

Which was never that big of a "problem" to human societies until the industrial revolution... the "first world" just has no other problems to deal with anymore, it seams. I mean, with religion out of the picture, what else is humanity to do? Actually better themself and descend bejond petty squabbles? Nah...

[n7stormrunner]

Which was never that big of a "problem" to human societies until the industrial revolution... the "first world" just has no other problems to deal with anymore, it seams. I mean, with religion out of the picture, what else is humanity to do? Actually better themself and descend bejond petty squabbles? Nah...

 

 

looks around the southern U.S. um you sure about that religion comment.

[WarBaby2]

looks around the southern U.S. um you sure about that religion comment.

Yea, pretty much... I mean, sure, if some people would have their way, the US would pretty much have brought back the crusades by now, but in reality, that's not really religion as it used to be. It's just a whole lot of people wanting their personal responsibilities taken away from them. That's all it really is... same with the new "religions" like social justice. Ah well, off topic, I guess.

[LordParbr]

No, because sex doesn't matter to me

[Grieving Natashina]

One can consider themselves a "feminist" without being a part of some movement.  I don't feel like I'm in any sort of movement when it comes to my thoughts about feminism.  I just feel like I was doing what I was raised to do:

 

• Treat others with respect.  
• Gender roles are ridiculous, because everyone is different and things can change on a dime.  
• Equal work for equal pay.  
• The over-idealization of men in our culture is about as bad as the over-sexualization of women.  There's more and more of a stigma for men if you don't look a certain way.  Sadly, due to that, eating disorders are on the rise for teenage men.  The gay male community has been hit with this the hardest, but straight men have been suffering as well.  
• Don't assume someone is weak or strong due to gender.  
• Women should get equal budget for advertising in games, which is not happening currently.  
• Equal representation in the media; let me see female villains as well as female heroes without some sort of crappy "broken bird" excuse.  BioWare has been pretty good at not having a "broken bird" among their lady villains.

 

Plus, I can't count how many times I've gotten into debates with those from different waves of feminism (look it up, feminism isn't just a blanket term) because I think that men and women should be treated equally.  Men shouldn't be treated like subordinates anymore than women should.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....ilent_majority 

 

I think that's all I can and will say about that, since this has gotten way off the topic of Dragon Age.

[LordParbr]

Unless you're talking about some hypothetical statistically insignificant example, yes it does. Leadership is an attainment, if one particular group of people is achieving it more often than another that is in itself inequity and very strongly suggests an inequity of opportunity (or an inherent inferiority and I know you're not going to go there.)

Try this: try to explain how an actual egalitarian society could end up with a significant gender imbalance.

No, it doesn't. You're looking at the effect, and assuming the cause. When you take into account that women receive more college scholarships than men, one of Britain's most revered PMs was a woman and that a woman is currently poised to become leader of the free world, this line of reasoning just doesn't follow. It seems much more likely that the answer is just simple biology. Women seem, to me, to be more likely to form friendly bonds with each other than men. This can contribute to it, since one often has to step on others to get to the top. So, for that reason, or others, women just aren't as interested in leadership roles as men are. Another, more likely, reason is testosterone. As you know, men have more of it. One of the effects testosterone has is that it makes one more willing to take risks. So, men are just simply more likely than women to take risks.

An inequity of result does not inherently correlate with inequity of opportunity. There are many other factors to consider. Biology, neurology, anthropology, ambition, interest, skill, etc. Men and women are very similar, but we're also very different in fundamental ways.

[LordParbr]

One can consider themselves a "feminist" without being a part of some movement.  I don't feel like I'm in any sort of movement when it comes to my thoughts about feminism.  I just feel like I was doing what I was raised to do:

 

• Treat others with respect.  
• Gender roles are ridiculous, because everyone is different and things can change on a dime.  
• Equal work for equal pay.  
• The over-idealization of men in our culture is about as bad as the over-sexualization of women.  There's more and more of a stigma for men if you don't look a certain way.  Sadly, due to that, eating disorders are on the rise for teenage men.  The gay male community has been hit with this the hardest, but straight men have been suffering as well.  
• Don't assume someone is weak or strong due to gender.  
• Women should get equal budget for advertising in games, which is not happening currently.  
• Equal representation in the media; let me see female villains as well as female heroes without some sort of crappy "broken bird" excuse.  BioWare has been pretty good at not having a "broken bird" among their lady villains.

 

Plus, I can't count how many times I've gotten into debates with those from different waves of feminism (look it up, feminism isn't just a blanket term) because I think that men and women should be treated equally.  Men shouldn't be treated like subordinate anymore than women should.

 

There is nothing to really "take back."  The idea has spread far beyond any movement.  Shoot, I did some digging and, among feminist sites, there is no leaders of the feminist movement.  There is simply feminists, from all walks of life.  This includes people like Sophia Gandhi, Angelina Jolie, Maya Angelou (may she rest in peace.)  I think that less time needs to be spent on reading extremists and assuming they are the leaders and speakers for all of us.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ilent_majority 

 

I think that's all I can and will say about that, since this has gotten way off the topic of Dragon Age.

No they can't, as feminism is a movement.

The silent majority has to speak up. As it is, you're allowing the loud, bullying minority to speak for you. It doesn't matter what a silent majority thinks, because they're remaining silent. So, the minority is left to effect things and agitate for change, while the rest of you just sit around saying, "not all of us think that way." It doesn't matter. They do, and they're using the feminist label to get automatic support from those unaffiliated, regardless of what they're doing, while the silent majority stays silent and just allows them to run rampant.

The feminist movement has become a hydra, with each head trying to achieve different goals. It's far too nebulous. Any movement wherein you have to spend most of your time disassociating yourself from radical agents is probably fundamentally flawed. That's why I'm an egalitarian. It isn't an ideology like feminism. It doesn't have all this extra baggage and there are no different interpretations or waves or sects. Egalitarianism is just a push for equality, for everyone, regardless of race, sex, orientation, or anything else.

[WarBaby2]

An inequity of result does not inherently correlate with inequity of opportunity. There are many other factors to consider. Biology, neurology, anthropology, ambition, interest, skill, etc. Men and women are very similar, but we're also very different in fundamental ways.

Exactly, and that's where the problems lie: The people that are most vocal now don't want equal opportunity (since they already got it), they want equal outcome, something true equality can never garantie.

[LordParbr]

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Ideal_theory

 

Egalitarianism is a political philosophy.  Which falls into ideal theory.  Which means it's based on ideals.  And Karl Marx as well as Ayn Rand are listed.  Let's see, the guy that inspired communism, and the woman that denounced Social Security and Medicare until she got cancer.  Then she was all about those government benefits.  Oh and she considered herself a leader in that philosophy too.  

 

See, I can take a few extreme members of the ideals you believe in and throw that blanket on you as well.  I'm also quite sure that they don't represent all egalitarians out there, much like some of the extreme feminists don't represent all of feminism.

That isn't the same thing. Karl Marx's work with communism was entirely separate from Egalitarianism. He may be considered one, but he wasn't vying for communism under the egalitarian banner. The feminists to whom I'm referring are agitating for change through feminism and are using feminism to gain support for their personal causes. The difference is that, while they had egalitarian leanings, Karl Marx and Ayn Rand are associated with Communism and Objectivism, respectively. Not egalitarianism.

[Grieving Natashina]

Most my research came from here, from Stanford University. 

 

http://plato.stanfor...egalitarianism/

 

In any case, I hid the post because it's too far off topic at this point.

[Sully13]

im neither I hate everyone.

[WarBaby2]

That isn't the same thing. Karl Marx's work with communism was entirely separate from Egalitarianism. He may be considered one, but he wasn't vying for communism under the egalitarian banner. The feminists to whom I'm referring are agitating for change through feminism and are using feminism to gain support for their personal causes. The difference is that, while they had egalitarian leanings, Karl Marx and Ayn Rand are associated with Communism and Objectivism, respectively. Not egalitarianism.

Not to metion, they have pretty much infiltrated academia today, so most of their "theories" have become accepted facts... including patriarchy, rape culture, female objectification, etc.

 

...and yea, we officially gone waaay off topic now.^^

[Sully13]

Just about to say that.

CANNON FODDER PEOPLE.

[mikeymoonshine]

 

Women should get equal budget for advertising in games, which is not happening currently.  

 

Honestly this is where I tend to disagree with the social justice and feminism in gaming lobby, I don't think women should get anything in games. I'm certainly not against representation and more diversity in fact I want there to be more of that but I don't agree with the notion that it should have to be there just because feminists can't handle the idea that it isn't. 

 

Games are a product and they are made for all kinds of reasons, I think the least important reason in the world should be "to appease feminists". If feminists want games to be a certain way then they should make games or at least support games that do things the way they want them to, that's how you interact with a market. Feminists shouldn't get to succeed where the fundamentally religious failed just because they are more socially accepted. 

 

I would like to see more AAA developers introduce and advertise a female protagonists just to see how well that would work but you have to understand that it is the developer who is putting their money on the line to make and advertise these games. 

[Sully13]

Topic is now dead and the horse has now been beeten to a Findus chrispy pancake.

[Britcorp]

 

• Equal work for equal pay. 

If this were true why wouldn't a company cut it's costs by hiring all women? Let's say that all those women did equal work to their male counterparts. Hiring all women for less pay would give them a competitive advantage over their competitors if this wage gap truly existed.

[Kantr]

Why did you change the topic title from "Why aren't there more female bosses"

 

Why should Bioware create (female or male) characters specifically to have them die as soon as you send them on a mission? Aside from un-named npc's who die because they're troops or something.

[Sully13]

Oh for FU*KS SAKE.

MOD CLOSE THIS THREAD.

Ichaged the title to try and get back to the topic Kantr. that being said i may as well have been pishing in the wind.

[Ziegrif]

Topic is now dead and the horse has now been beeten to a Findus chrispy pancake.

 

We can still grind it!

It's just a little flat!

It's still good!

[Sully13]

Then we can sell it to Mc Donalds. $$ 

[Kantr]

Ichaged the title to try and get back to the topic Kantr. that being said i may as well have been pishing in the wind.

It doesnt make sense now though. At least the boss one made a little sense.

[LordParbr]

Then we can sell it to Mc Donalds. $$ 

You lost this one almost immediately.