479 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

Which works both ways -- it means lot of the men you get in your army won't be anywhere near the top performance-wise, either. So at the end you aren't getting some sort of homogenous setup where you have clearly better men and then the inferior women, but rather a mix that might start with men, then have some women, then some men, then women again... etc.

but on average a male will be stronger than a female, therefore they would be targeted for service.  its not like these conscripts are getting extensive training to make them the best warriors they can possibly be.  Since they cannot afford to spend the resources determining which men and women are the best at fighting, they take the group that is more statistically likely to be stronger

[tmp7704]

that is all the Qunari need to know

No, because the very point of the qunari job assignment is supposedly they don't operate on "averages". Each individual is examined for their strengths and weaknesses, and given a role based specifically on these.

(which yes, is at odds with the whole "men do that, women to that" thing, but that's for the writer(s) to sort out)

[AlanC9]

or they have no gender restrictions on armies because its an RPG and they wanted to include the possibility of women fighters, despite real life historical examples being few and far between (but by no means non-existent)

So, they've got women in the armies of Thedas and in the lore, but it's just an illusion for the players? Or those women are really there, and all the armies in Thedas are inefficient because reasons? Where are you going with this?

[tmp7704]

its not like these conscripts are getting extensive training to make them the best warriors they can possibly be.

We don't actually know that, do we? So that's pretty much inventing factors now in the way that suits the argument, rather than other way around (the argument being a result of established facts)

[Steelcan]

No, because the very point of the qunari job assignment is supposedly they don't operate on "averages". Each individual is examined for their strengths and weaknesses, and given a role based specifically on these.

(which yes, is at odds with the whole "men do that, women to that" thing, but that's for the writer(s) to sort out)

But it is also designed around averages as explained by Solas, the mediocre many are the focus, not the exemplary few.  When recruiting for the army I imagine they have a list of requirements for service like "can hold a sword the right way, can march in line, isn't rendered useless by armor" and some females may very well meet these requirements as well as or even better than their male counter parts, but they are not the focus, according the the Qun they should not be singled out for such training because its more likely that they will be a better *insert Qun role* than a man would be

[Kallas_br123]

or they have no gender restrictions on armies because its an RPG and they wanted to include the possibility of women fighters, despite real life historical examples being few and far between (but by no means non-existent)

historically women do not fight because in general men have always been expendable when over half the male population of his tribe dies you can still rebuild, when more than half of the female population dies, chances are that your tribe this screwed. this is one of the main reasons for historical armies contain only men, and of course the fact that men are naturally better able to combat.

[Steelcan]

So, they've got women in the armies of Thedas and in the lore, but it's just an illusion for the players? Or those women are really there, and all the armies in Thedas are inefficient because reasons? Where are you going with this?

I'm saying it makes little sense for the armies of Thedas to be open to men and women in the rank and file due to sexual dimorphism in terms of strength

 

if you'd like I can also list why it wouldn't make sense for other reasons in a medieval context such as high infant mortality requiring more children to be born meaning women have less choice in what they want to do with their life, which BioWare (completely understandably) has totally side-stepped

[Ieldra]

...or some other essence which we may not know of, or need to explain further, because from all that we can observe from all of the stories in Dragon Age, it is clear that it is common for a woman to be as physically strong as a man, and no one in Thedas seems remotely surprised or unaccustomed to this. As such the only conclusion we may draw, is that the gender differences in regards to physical limitations in Thedas are very small, for whatever reason...just like Dragons can fly for whatever reason, though it defies the laws of aerodynamics...

As I see it, ignoring small differences like this is well within the acceptable limits of artistic license. Or perfectly acceptable as a cultural predisposition. Historically, some cultural norms have been justified by biology, but a culture can as easily disregard small differences exactly because equality is the cultural norm. It's not as if we're seeing a world where men can have children. 

 

End of line: "Women are equally represented in Thedas' armies" does not need a justification.

[Kallas_br123]

I'm saying it makes little sense for the armies of Thedas to be open to men and women in the rank and file due to sexual dimorphism in terms of strength

 

if you'd like I can also list why it wouldn't make sense for other reasons in a medieval context such as high infant mortality requiring more children to be born meaning women have less choice in what they want to do with their life, which BioWare (completely understandably) has totally side-stepped

dude, some of them will continue to use circular logic, along nitty pickying your posts until you get tired and give up arguing.

[darth_hel]

But it is also designed around averages as explained by Solas, the mediocre many are the focus, not the exemplary few.  When recruiting for the army I imagine they have a list of requirements for service like "can hold a sword the right way, can march in line, isn't rendered useless by armor" and some females may very well meet these requirements as well as or even better than their male counter parts, but they are not the focus, according the the Qun they should not be singled out for such training because its more likely that they will be a better *insert Qun role* than a man would be

 

They look at each child to see which job they would most fit. I doubt the utilitarian Qunari would throw away someone who best fit the job of a warrior just due to their genitalia. So, they used a loophole to recruit them as soldiers. It makes sense that the Fanatically Faithful but culturally utilitarian Qunari would find an acceptable loophole to use everyone to their fullest potential.

[Steelcan]

 

End of line: "Women are equally represented in Thedas' armies" does not need a justification.

. 

And I'd disagree because such statements do not exist in a vacuum.  Maybe its just as simple as "BioWare isn't going a terribly great job of world building" but I'd still like explanations for why certain practices are and are not established in Thedas

[Steelcan]

They look at each child to see which job they would most fit. I doubt the utilitarian Qunari would throw away someone who best fit the job of a warrior just due to their genitalia. So, they used a loophole to recruit them as soldiers. It makes sense that the Fanatically Faithful but culturally utilitarian Qunari would find an acceptable loophole to use everyone to their fullest potential.

but inconsistent with their ideas on strict divisions of labor, not only between genders, but between occupations, and branches of government

[darth_hel]

but inconsistent with their ideas on strict divisions of labor, not only between genders, but between occupations, and branches of government

 

Strict divisions of labour that already show that they have loopholes. The strict divisions most likely come directly from the Qun, the loopholes come from reality that they'd be wasting talent by not accepting certain people where the fit best.

 

Warriors fight under the Arishok...except the Ariqun can use the Ben-Hassrath as a fighting force (Tallis is an assassin, and Bull a Mercenary Captain) so while there are distinct divisions there are also loopholes for them.

 

Women can't be Warriors, so if the Qun directly defined Warriors then they can't change that, but they can define what a Woman and a Man is.

 

You seem to think of the Qun as unbending, which it most likely is as far as what the Qun says, but everything left unsaid by the Qun is up to interpretation by the Triumvirate. As such the loopholes will often come from what you would think of as obvious, things the Qun would not have taken the time to define. You might think...well, of course a woman refers to their biological gender, but if the Qun didn't define it then that leaves it open for the Triumvirate to decide.

[Ieldra]

And I'd disagree because such statements do not exist in a vacuum.  Maybe its just as simple as "BioWare isn't going a terribly great job of world building" but I'd still like explanations for why certain practices are and are not established in Thedas

The explanation could be as simple as "There is a historically-grown cultural norm that serving in the army is a perfectly acceptable occupation for a woman". If you then ask why this norm exists, we'd have to answer the question how cultural norms come to exist. I do not think that it is necessary to go that far. I think your problem with accepting this as a cultural norm exists because you've been conditioned to accept an opposing norm.

 

Personally, I am interested in the question of whether there is a biological rationale underlying some of our cultural norms, and if so, which ones. I'm actually convinced these do exist, if not necessarily in the specific question we're discussing, but as long as we don't know - and we do not - we might as well err on the side of the desirable.

[Steelcan]

The explanation could be as simple as "There is a historically-grown cultural norm that serving in the army is a perfectly acceptable occupation for a woman". If you then ask why this norm exists, we'd have to answer the question how cultural norms come to exist. I do not think that it is necessary to go that far. I think your problem with accepting this as a cultural norm exists because you've been conditioned to accept an opposing norm.

 

Personally, I am interested in the question of whether there is a biological rationale underlying some of our cultural norms, and if so, which ones. I'm actually convinced these do exist, if not necessarily in the specific question we're discussing, but as long as we don't know - and we do not - we might as well err on the side of the desirable.

I imagine that would be BioWare's answer, but I find it unsatisfying since it does not take the medieval setting into context very well, only reinforcing my idea that BioWare has done a poor job of making a medieval world.  I have no problems accepting contrary cultural norms in fiction if they are explained.  Why should I stop at one point of questioning a world's culture over another?  Why stop at "women serve in the army because they do not suffer from the same prejudices that accompany women in the real world" instead of "well why don't these prejudices exist given the world?"

[Ieldra]

I imagine that would be BioWare's answer, but I find it unsatisfying since it does not take the medieval setting into context very well, only reinforcing my idea that BioWare has done a poor job of making a medieval world.  I have no problems accepting contrary cultural norms in fiction if they are explained.  Why should I stop at one point of questioning a world's culture over another?  Why stop at "women serve in the army because they do not suffer from the same prejudices that accompany women in the real world" instead of "well why don't these prejudices exist given the world?"

Because we don't know why they do or did exist in our world? As a consequence, we do not know the limits of what would be realistic in fiction, and since we don't, we are justified in designing the fictional world along our preferences. Why would I ever accept a limitation unless I'm convinced it's needed for the world to appear believable?

 

And don't think that we do know these things. All we have is speculation. Some of that is very plausible, but there's a large gap between "This could be the reason" and "this actually is the reason".

[Steelcan]

Because we don't know why they do or did exist in our world? As a consequence, we do not know the limits of what would be realistic in fiction, and since we don't, we are justified in designing the fictional world along our preferences.

Sometimes we do, and as I mentioned above, sexual dimorphism, child rearing, in addition to cultural norms would have all played a part in it, and when we get deviation form this "norm" I'd like an explanation that goes beyond "we just went with it because reasons"

[AppalachianApex]

Yeah, I'm seeing a pattern of a lack of variety and quality with models available to the player. I know its fun to blame everything you don't like on the dreaded SJWs nowadays but you're making the assumption that buzcuts and beige pajamas are some weird attempt to be inclusive and frankly that's a pretty big leap. It was more than likely a resource issue. Buzz cuts are a lot easier to make than other hairstyles, especially compared to long hair. Tweaking a model and design to fit both genders is easier than designing and modelling something completely different. 

 

It's not a stretch at all. I'm not "Accusing" Bioware of anything, but it just makes sense.

 

-All the hairstyle are very much gender-neutral, regardless of the effort required to make them. None are particularly masculine, none are particularly feminine. Look at the hairs in Origins and 2 to see the difference. Both games and plenty of option, some could work on a male or female character, but there were plenty of masculine and feminine styles.

 

-Same thing goes for the Skyhold Pajamas. One gender-neutral uniform fro everyone. Look at DA2, which had male and female versions of Hawke's home outfit. Or Mass Effect, which had a dress available of FemShep, and outfits varies slightly depending on Shepard's gender,

 

-If anything the Orlesian Ball pantsuits are a result of time and resource limits, but that still falls under the same category of neutrality. Hell, Ball aside, there aren't ANY pieces of clothing or armor that could be identified as distinctly masculine or feminine. 

 

I make any claim that inclusiveness is a bad thing nor do I make the accusation that Bioware are "SJW's" (a term I think is absurd) but I stand by what I said because it makes a whole lot of sense. Inquisition is a very, very 'neutral' game. And this is reflected least of all in these issues I've listed. It is much more present in the issues addressed by the original poster. I love Inquisition, but the idea of "Include everyone, don't offend anyone" is very tangible throughout. And while that is certainly and idea made with good intentions, it may have done slightly more harm than good.

[Ieldra]

Sometimes we do, and as I mentioned above, sexual dimorphism, child rearing, in addition to cultural norms would have all played a part in it, and when we get deviation form this "norm" I'd like an explanation that goes beyond "we just went with it because reasons"

We actually don't know these "obvious" things. For instance, that the necessities of child-rearing played a part in establishing a cultural norm that women don't serve in armies is a hypothesis with no factual evidence. In order to get some evidence, we would need to observe a culture where such a norm does not exist for a very long time, and see it dying out.  

[Steelcan]

We actually don't know these "obvious" things. For instance, that the necessities of child-rearing played a part in establishing a cultural norm that women don't serve in armies is an unproven hypothesis. In order to prove it, we would need to observe a culture where such a norm does not exist for a very long time, and see it dying out.  

Not everything needs to be proven empirically, Reason has not died as a suitable explanation.  In order to make up for a child mortality rate that could be as high as 50% at some times, women needed to have more children, being pregnant disqualifies you from military service for obvious reasons, as does the nursing period right after therefore women in the prime of their life are much more valuable as mothers and caretakers than as soldiers.

[darth_hel]

Not everything needs to be proven empirically, Reason has not died as a suitable explanation.  In order to make up for a child mortality rate that could be as high as 50% at some times, women needed to have more children, being pregnant disqualifies you from military service for obvious reasons, as does the nursing period right after therefore women in the prime of their life are much more valuable as mothers and caretakers than as soldiers.

 

Thats all supposition not proof. Its a decent theory but without actual proof we don't "know" it, its just a guess.

 

If you can't prove something, then you can't blame someone for disregarding it, especially in a fantasy setting.

[Ieldra]

Not everything needs to be proven empirically, Reason has not died as a suitable explanation.  In order to make up for a child mortality rate that could be as high as 50% at some times, women needed to have more children, being pregnant disqualifies you from military service for obvious reasons, as does the nursing period right after therefore women in the prime of their life are much more valuable as mothers and caretakers than as soldiers.

Rationalizations are most emphatically not knowledge. Your rationalization may explain why there were few women in medieval armies, but neither is it knowledge, nor does it necessarily explain why there was a prescriptive cultural norm "women don't serve in armies" on top of the mere fact that were few women in medieval armies. Also, I can come up with a counter-rationalization: things are different in Thedas because the availability of healing magic reduces child mortality significantly. This is, again, plausible speculation, but it is not knowledge. There are countless such rationalizations you can come up with. Why the heck do you insist on a canonical explanation?

 

Bioware hasn't come up with an explanation because none is needed. In fact, providing one when it's so easy to rationalize would be needlessly limiting. It is Not A Problem ™.

[SmilesJA]

I think in Bull's case, he has more of a liberal view of the Qun than Sten and the Arishok. Years working undercover may have softened his stance on gender roles in the Qun.

[AlanC9]

dude, some of them will continue to use circular logic, along nitty pickying your posts until you get tired and give up arguing.

Wait...you're accusing other posters of using circular logic?

[Steelcan]

Rationalizations are most emphatically not knowledge. Your rationalization may explain why there were few women in medieval armies, but neither is it knowledge, nor does it necessarily explain why there was a prescriptive cultural norm "women don't serve in armies" on top of the mere fact that were few women in medieval armies. Also, I can come up with a counter-rationalization: things are different in Thedas because the availability of healing magic reduces child mortality significantly. This is, again, plausible speculation, but it is not knowledge. There are countless such rationalizations you can come up with. Why the heck do you insist on a canonical explanation?

 

Bioware hasn't come up with an explanation because none is needed. In fact, providing one when it's so easy to rationalize would be needlessly limiting. It is Not A Problem ™.

(I'll ignore the obvious answer of not everyone being able to afford/having access to healing magic and just move on)

 

Because it helps with the world building, establishing reasons for cultural practices is not limiting, and its certainly not something to be avoided as it has no impact on anything besides helping explain what makes the world different.