291 réponses à ce sujet

[Nathair Nimheil]

Not really, that conclusion only holds if you assume equality of opportunity necessarily leads to a diversity of leadership, which is by no means true. What you suggest is a possible reason, but there's no reason to jump to the conclusion that leadership has become gender linked.

Sure there is: I can not imagine, nor have I ever heard of, an egalitarian society in which leadership was (even mostly) gender determined. I won't say it is categorically impossible but...

You know, actually I will. It is categorically impossible, that's why you can just jump to that conclusion.

[Heimdall]

Sure there is: I can not imagine, nor have I ever heard of, an egalitarian society in which leadership was (even mostly) gender determined. I won't say it is categorically impossible but...You know, actually I will. It is categorically impossible, that's why you can just jump to that conclusion.

...Why the assumption that leadership is gender determined in the first place? Just because the leaders are mostly men doesn't mean them being men has anything whatsoever to do with them being leaders.

[fhs33721]

they get the chantry right at least. Why the hell can't my inquistor make some pants to fit into the that sunburst throne? He personally lead the movement to establish order in the south of thedas, why can't I just reestablish order in their church? I think he'd be rockin those red robes and everything.

Well the female Inquisitor can't become the divine either. It probably has less to do with the gender and more with the fact thar our Inquisitors are random homeless persons that only got control over the Inquisition because they stumbled around into rooms they clearly had no acess-clearing to during the peace conference and decided that it would be the best course of action to grab ominously glowing magic artifacts altough it could very well have been that it would desintegrate them to particular matter. 

Which instead happened to everyone else there. Good Job Inquisitor.

Well I sure wouldn't want that person to be the leader of my religious organisation (If I had any).

[Nathair Nimheil]

Just because the leaders are mostly men doesn't mean them being men has anything whatsoever to do with them being leaders.

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.

[Bariudol]

Does that actually make sense to you? Sure, there's clear inequality and bias but if we just stop talking about it it will go away! That's how slavery was abolished, after all, we just ignored it an it went away! That's how women got the right to vote! We all just shut up about it and *poof* - Equality!

The day we are truly equal we can stop talking about it.

 

 

I don't believe you have the right to censor a game based on your sexual inclination or belief. BioWare, over any other company work their ass off to make the game as equalitary as possible. Second, comparing slavery with sexual discrimination? really?  It makes sense to me that you, biased as you are, interpretated my post in the way that seemed to fit your own statement (even by cutting my comment, so you could talk about only what "helped" you, you are ready to work at CNN). Just to be clear, i never said lets ignore inequalty, I just think that over discussing and obviously non discriminatory game and trying to point out an inexistent discrimination does not make any sense. If the main enemy was a female this forum would be full of people crying for the lack of male villians and how puting women in the centre of evil is terrible for the female gender.

Cassandra isn't good enough of a female character? she is a ****** badass, an awesome female character, Leliana, another excelent character. I prefer to have few but awesome female characters than a bunch of washed out token females. But Oh, Look! there are lots of good female characters in the game!. It seems like for you equalty is equalty of numbers, well, its not. 1 Character makes all the difference when representing a gender or an etnicity (for the good or the bad,  In my opinion BioWare makes a damn of a good job beaking stereotypes). I Want good characters, like the ones BioWare gives us.

 

It is stupid to cry over numbers (I remember someone crying because there werent enough males on the multiplayer, really?), what it is important is the equalty of roles. There can only be 1 main villian, this time it was a man, maybe in the next game it will be a woman or not, and a lot of idiots will cry about it.

 

[Nathair Nimheil]

I don't believe you have the right to censor a game based on your sexual inclination or belief.

Since I have neither the power nor the inclination to do so... you're safe.

On the other hand I do have the right, just as you do, to try to influence game developers and so I do.
 

Second, comparing slavery with sexual discrimination? really?

No, not really, just noting the way various civil rights were achieved. However, now that you mention it, there are strong and constant parallels between opposition to abolition, opposition to broader racism, opposition to feminism, opposition to all forms of social equality. Now, before you attempt to paint that as me claiming that sexism is just as bad as chattel slavery or something ridiculous of the sort, don't. That is not what I said.

 

I just think that over discussing and obviously non discriminatory game and trying to point out an inexistent discrimination does not make any sense. If the main enemy was a female this forum would be full of people crying for the lack of male villians and how puting women in the centre of evil is terrible for the female gender.

Cassandra isn't good enough of a female character? she is a ****** badass, an awesome female character, Leliana, another excelent character. I prefer to have few but awesome female characters than a bunch of washed out token females. But Oh, Look! there are lots of good female characters in the game!. It seems like for you equalty is equalty of numbers, well, its not. 1 Character makes all the difference when representing a gender or an etnicity (for the good or the bad,  In my opinion BioWare makes a damn of a good job beaking stereotypes). I Want good characters, like the ones BioWare gives us.
 
It is stupid to cry over numbers (I remember someone crying because there werent enough males on the multiplayer, really?), what it is important is the equalty of roles. There can only be 1 main villian, this time it was a man, maybe in the next game it will be a woman or not, and a lot of idiots will cry about it.

Perhaps you should spend less time imagining what people would say and just read what people actually are saying.

[Heimdall]

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.

Because the individuals that had the qualities necessary just happened to be mostly of a particular gender at this particular time? There's absolutely nothing stopping that from happening. If gender doesn't matter than an imbalance is perfectly possible without resorting to the idea that there is an inequity. And I wouldn't say one group achieving leadership more often is in itself an inequity unless you think equality of opportunity means entitlement to equal success.

[Bariudol]

 
Perhaps you should spend less time imagining what people would say and just read what people actually are saying.

 

I would recomend the same to you. Good day Dude/dudette

[celestialfury]

 

Sooo.

Is BioWare sexist for not making more female bad guys or are they sexist for even including one female bad guy ? Also is saying female bad guy - would that mean we are misogynistic ?

 

Im half ready for Anita to jump out of some dark hole in the univiers to scream at me how misogynistic i em.

 

 

Sorry SJW's are making me question my existence.

 

that's because ~anti-SJWs whiners only know strawman arguments and go on wild tangents based on what  ~silly sjws would say in their imagination instead of paying attention to what people are actually saying. All people want is complex female characters who are allowed to be as ''human'' and diversified as the male ones are. It has never been a matter of ''are female villains sexist or not?'', it would have been a matter of ''is this female villain written in a sexist way or using sexist tropes?''

 

 

[Darth Death]

Does it matter? If you had your way and made every villain in DA female, what would that suggest? A better game? A better story? People who think this way make it clear where their prioritizes are. They care only to play a petty game called, "keeping score" more than anything else. It's pernicious as while as monotonous.  

[Nathair Nimheil]

Because the individuals that had the qualities necessary just happened to be mostly of a particular gender at this particular time? There's absolutely nothing stopping that from happening.

If the qualities expected of leadership have become linked to gender in the view of that society then there is no equality of opportunity; it is not an egalitarian society.

Unless you're now just talking about some temporary, anomalous and coincidental blip on the time-line in which case, no, that's not what I thought we were talking about because that is not worth talking about. If it is not a pattern of occurrence then why would we be talking about it?
 

If gender doesn't matter than an imbalance is perfectly possible without resorting to the idea that there is an inequity.

Only when the imbalance is statistically insignificant.
 

And I wouldn't say one group achieving leadership more often is in itself an inequity unless you think equality of opportunity means entitlement to equal success.

Leadership is power. An unequal allocation of power is the very definition of social inequity.

What's more, unless you are going to posit some inferiority or predilection in this situation equality of opportunity should be linked to to equality of outcome. If it doesn't connect because, for example, leaders tend to be selected from among the best educated of applicants and women have statistically poorer access to education then your equality of opportunity is only superficial.

[Nathair Nimheil]

Does it matter?

It does. How people are portrayed in literature and social narrative influences how such people are perceived and therefore treated in that society. How could it be otherwise?
 

If you had your way and made every villain in DA female, what would that suggest? A better game? A better story? People who think this way

That's the thing, nobody thinks that way. Your whole "if you had your way" argument ignores the fact that nobody is asking for anything so silly as to have every villain in DA being female.

[Heimdall]

If the qualities expected of leadership have become linked to gender in the view of that society then there is no equality of opportunity; it is not an egalitarian society.Unless you're now just talking about some temporary, anomalous and coincidental blip on the time-line in which case, no, that's not what I thought we were talking about because that is not worth talking about. If it is not a pattern of occurrence then why would we be talking about it?

Oh, it looks like we were talking about different things. I was still thinking of the original reference to the rest of Thedas, where most of the rulers we know of outside of Orlais are male at the moment but we know that has not always been the case at least in some places.

Leadership is power. An unequal allocation of power is the very definition of social inequity.

What's more, unless you are going to posit some inferiority or predilection in this situation equality of opportunity should be linked to to equality of outcome. If it doesn't connect because, for example, leaders tend to be selected from among the best educated of applicants and women have statistically poorer access to education then your equality of opportunity is only superficial.

I suppose that would be technically true. Though by that broad standard a government that doesn't routinely elevate individuals of every conceivable group is guilty of inequity.

Equal distribution of outcomes is a possible result of equal opportunity, I'll grant you that it might even be a likely one. It is not, however, the necessary outcome.

[Nathair Nimheil]

Though by that broad standard a government that doesn't routinely elevate individuals of every conceivable group is guilty of inequity.

Pretty much. By that standard, and I think it is the correct one, a government that doesn't represent the constituency equitably is an indicator of systemic inequity somewhere along the line.
 

Equal distribution of outcomes is a possible result of equal opportunity, I'll grant you that it might even be a likely one. It is not, however, the necessary outcome.

Perhaps not but if you are not achieving equality of outcome then the question is why not? In the specific case of gender and leadership roles in a society I can not think of any valid reason for them to be disconnected.

[Heimdall]

Pretty much. By that standard, and I think it is the correct one, a government that doesn't represent the constituency equitably is an indicator of systemic inequity somewhere along the line.

I suppose I can agree. The only things that bug me about that is the thorny issue of what is "equitable" (The gender issue being the easiest where the constituency would be more or less 50/50) and a part of me that instinctively revolts at the notion that of leaders being elevated based on group rather than qualifications (Though I know that's not what you're saying)...

Perhaps not but if you are not achieving equality of outcome then the question is why not? In the specific case of gender and leadership roles in a society I can not think of any valid reason for them to be disconnected.

Oh, there are all manner of cultural or historical reasons one gender might achieve leadership more frequently without it necessarily being a matter of systemic inequity.

To pull up a thought from another track: Why are more women than men enrolling in college in the US? Is there some sort of systemic inequity holding men back? I don't actually know the answer, but I've always wondered if it might be partly because the opportunity is still relatively new for women. Where a woman would previously start looking for a husband or support herself on what work she could find, or keep living with her parents, she could now go to college and embark on a career. With men, however, college has always been "out there" but other traditions might still have a hold. Maybe he's inheriting a family business, or becoming a mechanic, vocations that don't involve college men have been taking for generations before woman were accepted doing those sorts of things. Thus fewer men flock to college in part because they are accustomed to other alternatives.

I don't have anything to back up this idea, it's just an idle theory, but I thought it a good way to illustrate part of why I'm hesitant to chalk things up to systemic inequity at first glance . All sorts of things work into why people do things and take particular paths. Even if the system is equal, that doesn't mean all groups within the system will behave the same way.

That, and I'm... wary of group politics. There are too many people that will use discrimination, real or imagined, to empower themselves and distract from other important issues facing the very same community.

[Nathair Nimheil]

Oh, there are all manner of cultural or historical reasons one gender might achieve leadership more frequently without it necessarily being a matter of systemic inequity.

No, I don't think that there are. Leadership is not neutral. It's not like saying more men play the piano while more women play the violin and that doesn't mean there's some inherent inequity. Whether it's public office or CEOs of fortune 500s leadership is achievement. It is power, by definition and if women are not gaining access to it representatively then this is inequity and it is coming from something, somewhere in the underlying system.
 

That, and I'm... wary of group politics. There are too many people that will use discrimination, real or imagined, to empower themselves and distract from other important issues facing the very same community.

But that is a very different discussion.

[Heimdall]

No, I don't think that there are. Leadership is not neutral. It's not like saying more men play the piano while more women play the violin and that doesn't mean there's some inherent inequity. Whether it's public office or CEOs of fortune 500s leadership is achievement. It is power, by definition and if women are not gaining access to it representatively then this is inequity and it is coming from something, somewhere in the underlying system.

lets try this: Maybe there are just more men pursuing it than women. Power is not universally desirable, nor is its pursuit universally encouraged. Where men are historically and culturally pressured to pursue power and achievment, and more likely to be ridiculed if they don't. Whereas the culture encouraging women to do the same is a very recent development and not being ambitious more acceptable. And just to drive home my point about these pressures: I read a study some time ago that found that men with unassertive personalities tested much higher for emotional distress than men with assertive personalities and women with unassertive personalities. Interestingly, women with assertive personalities tested higher for emotional distress than women with unassertive personalities. The possible implication being that people feel pressured, even subconsciously, to match traditional societal and cultural expectations. Men that don't fit the ideal of the assertive confident alpha male felt uncomfortable with it. Women that don't fit traditional expectations, even if those expectations are outwardly condemned by modern society, can still feel uncomfortable about it.

Point of all this being, a system with equal opportunity is no guarantee the group's within the system will behave in the same way and pursue the same goals in the same proportion.

But that is a very different discussion.

Yes, but related. It tugs at my unease.

[Joseph Warrick]

Whatever you do: problematic.

[Nathair Nimheil]

Maybe there are just more men pursuing it than women. Power is not universally desirable, nor is its pursuit universally encouraged. Where men are historically and culturally pressured to pursue power and achievment, and more likely to be ridiculed if they don't. Whereas the culture encouraging women to do the same is a very recent development and not being ambitious more acceptable.

But how is that not inequality in action? Men are pressured to seek power while women are not or are not pressured as much or actually pressured not to seek power or some combination of that. In what way is that society still "egalitarian"?

Equality:

Train boys to throw from the time they are old enough hold a ball. Make throwing the masculine ideal.

Give girls dolls, call them delicate and pretty. Use "throws like a girl" as an insult.

Elect all public officials with perfectly fair and equal pitching contests.

[AzureAardvark]

Whatever you do: problematic.

 

Like scale itch.

[Sully13]

Dude all i wanted was more female grunts or Red templars.

trust me i aint no fuc*kin sjw.

[Nathair Nimheil]

trust me i aint no fuc*kin sjw.

What's the opposite of a Social Justice Warrior anyway?

 

An Antisocial Injustice Poltroon?

 

...