3626 réponses à ce sujet

[SnakeCode]

How is male disposability not beneficial to women? First seats on lifeboats, priority status when being pulled from burning buildings, not expected to be the one to go and check out the ominous noise downstairs, no conscription in most countries that have/still conscript. No obligation to perform alternative duties for those who opt out of military service in place of conscription. 

 

Male disposability came out of humanity's need to protect women in order to thrive as a species. As stated in the link Han posted, one man and ten women can create ten babies every year or so, one woman and ten men can create only one human life in that same period of time. We only see this (rarely) being challenged now is because there is no longer a need to survive for a great deal of the planet's population.  There are seven billion of us clogging up the Earth. This wouldn't be the case if people had a "men and children first" mentality.

[Gwydden]

Probably should have clarified my point: When I say that sexual objectification is generally gender specific, what I mean is that it targets one group (mostly women) in order to benefit a different group (mostly men). If violent video games were mostly marketed to and played by women, if it were mostly women making decisions about what wars get fought and who goes to war, or if it were mostly women who inflict the violence sufferered by many men, you'd have a stronger point. The point is not that video game violence inflicted on mostly-male mooks is inherently less bad than sexual objectification; it's simply that it is not a direct male analogue to sexually objectifying imagery of women. There are conceptual differences here that tend to get lost in these conversations.

 

As far as why most mooks are men, there are a lot of reasons for this. Part of this is that historically, men have had more access to the public sphere, where most violence takes place. Also, when you're using violence as a form of entertainment, it's often convenient to use as targets members of groups who aren't perceived as vulnerable. This is why you never fight against child soldiers in games, and why so many bad guys in books, movies, etc. are rich business men. If anyone suggested that media is 'oppressing' corporate executives by portraying them all as slimy jerks, it'd be hard to take them seriously. And I suspect that it's for similar reasons that people don't get too up in arms about men being objectified in movies and games by being portrayed as targets for violence. If games tended to play up the characteristics of men that can make them vulnerable to violence (i.e. You're shooting at mostly poor, conscripted minorities), then you would get a lot more complaints.

 

EDIT: Added some stuff.

Slimy corporate executives have more money than I'll ever see in my life. Men do get send to wars more often than women, and men are victims of violence much more often.

 

And you know this, this does bother me, the 'it's the fault of other men anyway so let's not consider it' argument.

 

It's not men who made it that way. It's a societal thing, caused by biological and historical accidents. When World War I kicked around women were giving their sweethearts white feathers as a snide way of calling them cowards for not going to war to 'protect' them.

 

War does target men to benefit women. Men die so women don't have to. Heck, historically war has been the system wherein men (biologically expendable) risk their physical integrity to protect women and children (biologically valuable).

 

EDIT: I believe this is what they call being ninja'd?

[Sully13]

dNo being Ninja'd i when someone posts before you. you would have been Ninja'd if you were responding to me.

 

Now on to the White feather thing. you know that forces boys as young as 11 to repeatedly enlist then die in the trenches right? but meh its just those scummie Men who cares right? it forced Retired injured and Mentaly traumatised soldiers to reinlist. but pfft who cares whats another mans life worth. 

now i work with the militery in the Fleet Auxiliary dont go thinking im a "Conchie"

Yeah look at how they were treated.

Now dont think women didnt try to join in the fight there were lots who tryed to join the frontlines. Bob did exise.

[LiL Reapur]

I didn't really pay attention to the females outfits as being "oversexualized", but now that you bring it up. Seeing (I.E. Miranda's/Samara's) "assets" while in battle doesn't make sense to me. Given they have kinetic barriers an all, but at the same time if i was them i would want some "real" combat armor on when in a hostile environment. But as you said in the OP i wouldn't mind all that spandex business on the ship, or a safe haven (i.e. Citadel). That's my take on it, but knowing Bioware this could be a 50/50. 

[Gwydden]

Okay, I wasn't trying to turn this into a discussion about men's expendability. I admit it's beyond this topic's mission statement. It serves to make a specific point I was trying to settle, though: I fail to see how objectification's problematic as it happens all the time and it doesn't target women exclusively. 'Men as expendable' is such an example, but there are much more trivial, harmless ones around. For example, a waiter is the 'object' that makes sure your food gets to you okay, but for said waiter you are the 'object' that spews money once he or she puts in food and a smile. We all do it. All the time. I don't ponder a random woman's humanity on the mall when I get distracted anymore than I ponder that of the guy who sells me tickets to the movies. They'll be in my life for a whole of two seconds.

 

What I'm trying to get across is, objectification is a silly term and I see no way it is inherently negative or inherently gendered. People generally mean sexualization when they use it anyway, but I guess it doesn't sound quite as threatening. And even then, implying that sexualization is somehow wrong suggests a belief that sexuality is somehow dirty and denigrating, which I just don't share. Again, I can see the case against it, if that case is that women being used solely as sex objects, at the least, speaks to a low value placed on women by the developer and at worst, may detract from women as a whole.

[Sully13]

Okay, I wasn't trying to turn this into a discussion about men's expendability. I admit it's beyond this topic's mission statement. It serves to make a specific point I was trying to settle, though: I fail to see how objectification's problematic as it happens all the time and it doesn't target women exclusively. 'Men as expendable' is such an example, but there are much more trivial, harmless ones around. For example, a waiter is the 'object' that makes sure your food gets to you okay, but for said waiter you are the 'object' that spews money once he or she puts in food and a smile. We all do it. All the time. I don't ponder a random woman's humanity on the mall when I get distracted anymore than I ponder that of the guy who sells me tickets to the movies. They'll be in my life for a whole of two seconds.

 

What I'm trying to get across is, objectification is a silly term and I see no way it is inherently negative or inherently gendered. People generally mean sexualization when they use it anyway, but I guess it doesn't sound quite as threatening. And even then, implying that sexualization is somehow wrong suggests a belief that sexuality is somehow dirty and denigrating, which I just don't share. Again, I can see the case against it, if that case is that women being used solely as sex objects, at the least, speaks to a low value placed on women by the developer and at worst, may detract from women as a whole.

Oh agreed 100%

my post had a few typos that made it look like an argument to you.

its stull like this thread that makes me stick to the offtopic secton.

[In Exile]

Probably should have clarified my point: When I say that sexual objectification is generally gender specific, what I mean is that it targets one group (mostly women) in order to benefit a different group (mostly men). If violent video games were mostly marketed to and played by women, if it were mostly women making decisions about what wars get fought and who goes to war, or if it were mostly women who inflict the violence sufferered by many men, you'd have a stronger point. The point is not that video game violence inflicted on mostly-male mooks is inherently less bad than sexual objectification; it's simply that it is not a direct male analogue to sexually objectifying imagery of women. There are conceptual differences here that tend to get lost in these conversations.

As far as why most mooks are men, there are a lot of reasons for this. Part of this is that historically, men have had more access to the public sphere, where most violence takes place. Also, when you're using violence as a form of entertainment, it's often convenient to use as targets members of groups who aren't perceived as vulnerable. This is why you never fight against child soldiers in games, and why so many bad guys in books, movies, etc. are rich business men. If anyone suggested that media is 'oppressing' corporate executives by portraying them all as slimy jerks, it'd be hard to take them seriously. And I suspect that it's for similar reasons that people don't get too up in arms about men being objectified in movies and games by being portrayed as targets for violence. If games tended to play up the characteristics of men that can make them vulnerable to violence (i.e. You're shooting at mostly poor, conscripted minorities), then you would get a lot more complaints.

EDIT: Added some stuff.

I have a great deal of difficulty with the position that there is a meaningful distinction when media is targeted at a particular group and developed by that same group. And the reason for this difficult is, as I say above, because it ignores the intersectionality of gender, race and (especially) class. The men who make the game are not the same as the men who consume it and not the same as the men who benefit from the social hierarchy that produced this default template. It also ignores how this portrayal has negative impacts that in some ways parallel the negative impact on women. To me the issue with the sexualisation of women - and what makes it distinctive - is that this is tied to the type of historical disadvantage faced by women and is part and parcel of how women have been excluded from the power hierarchy for a very long time in our society.

Let me use a different example: I don't think that the portrayals would be the same even if it was women making a game for women using men as disposable mooks. And that's because of the historical disadvantage point. I don't want to be taken as condoning this hypothetical game - it would be bad. But I don't think it would be bad in the same way.

This is - in a way - the same theory tied in with the argument that there is something different about how roided out men impact male body image (because they're the power fantasy of other men).

I guess I'm not really disagreeing with your first paragraph (since I agree this isn't an apples to apples comparison anyway). I just happen to disagree with you on the "why" of it.

[Jorji Costava]

Slimy corporate executives have more money than I'll ever see in my life. Men do get send to wars more often than women, and men are victims of violence much more often.

 

And you know this, this does bother me, the 'it's the fault of other men anyway so let's not consider it' argument.

 

It's not men who made it that way. It's a societal thing, caused by biological and historical accidents. When World War I kicked around women were giving their sweethearts white feathers as a snide way of calling them cowards for not going to war to 'protect' them.

 

War does target men to benefit women. Men die so women don't have to. Heck, historically war has been the system wherein men (biologically expendable) risk their physical integrity to protect women and children (biologically valuable).

 

EDIT: I believe this is what they call being ninja'd?

 

I was very careful not to claim that male disposability was something we shouldn't consider or care about; I was just saying that it's different. There's a lot more to say about the issue of male disposability, and I was preparing a much longer response, but this is getting way off topic and seems to be hitting more nerves than I intended to hit (plus I have to prepare dinner), so I am absolutely done on this subject. It's probably best to just PM me if you want to continue this discussion.

[SnakeCode]

There is already such a game in existence. Revolution 60 is a game made by women, for women where you play as a woman leading an all-female team, liberating a space station. You exclusively kill faceless, stormtrooper-like men.

[Altair_ShepardN7]

I was very careful not to claim that male disposability was something we shouldn't consider or care about; I was just saying that it's different. There's a lot more to say about the issue of male disposability, and I was preparing a much longer response, but this is getting way off topic and seems to be hitting more nerves than I intended to hit (plus I have to prepare dinner), so I am absolutely done on this subject. It's probably best to just PM me if you want to continue this discussion.

Wait a second, this is not the Chat & Off Topic Thread? Goddess...

[KaiserShep]

Slimy corporate executives have more money than I'll ever see in my life. Men do get send to wars more often than women, and men are victims of violence much more often.

 

And you know this, this does bother me, the 'it's the fault of other men anyway so let's not consider it' argument.

 

It's not men who made it that way. It's a societal thing, caused by biological and historical accidents. When World War I kicked around women were giving their sweethearts white feathers as a snide way of calling them cowards for not going to war to 'protect' them.

 

War does target men to benefit women. Men die so women don't have to. Heck, historically war has been the system wherein men (biologically expendable) risk their physical integrity to protect women and children (biologically valuable).

 

It's our thing, I guess. Life insurance companies agree, since males are considered higher risk. 

[von uber]

Skyrim is an interesting one really.

The vanilla game itself had some pretty good armours I felt:

 

 

Then, of course, modders could create some ok looking stuff (although they still have boob windows, or be fairly figure hugging):

 

 

To some stuff that is verging on the not so practical, but rather well detailed:

 

 

To stuff that still manages to be more protective than Jack's ME2 outfit, and would probably be acceptable combat wear to quite a few posters on here.

 

 

(Yes, they are all characters I have created - lost most of the screenshots from when I changed PC).

[Former_Fiend]

If anything the picts might consider that to be overdressing for battle.

[von uber]

If anything the picts might consider that to be overdressing for battle.

 

You've been watching too much Hollywood.

[Gwydden]

You've been watching too much Hollywood.

Err, no, the Picts (and other Celts, too, on occasion), did in fact fight naked. Even the Romans. They still won 

 

If you're thinking Braveheart, those are Scots, not Picts. Big difference!

[Han Shot First]

Err, no, the Picts (and other Celts, too, on occasion), did in fact fight naked. Even the Romans. They still won 

 

I'm going to pick nits here, but actually the Romans won. They near completely destroyed Celtic Europe.

[Gwydden]

I'm going to pick nits here, but actually the Romans won. They near completely destroyed Celtic Europe.

They never defeated the Picts, and it's not like they didn't try.

 

It's not that rare, really. Armor costs money. Most people who fight in wars are poor. Ergo, many of them were dreadfully underdressed.

 

Although for the Celts, it seems to have been more of a warrior culture type of thing.

 

EDIT: The Roman Empire at its largest. Notice that place where Scotland is now? Yeah 

[SNascimento]

Wasn't the Battle of Mons Graupius against picts?

[Han Shot First]

They never defeated the Picts, and it's not like they didn't try.

 

It's not that rare, really. Armor costs money. Most people who fight in wars are poor. Ergo, many of them were dreadfully underdressed.

 

Although for the Celts, it seems to have been more of a warrior culture type of thing.

 

EDIT: The Roman Empire at its largest. Notice that place where Scotland is now? Yeah 

 

The Romans defeated the Picts at Mons Graupius.

[von uber]

Err, no, the Picts (and other Celts, too, on occasion), did in fact fight naked. Even the Romans. They still won 

 

If you're thinking Braveheart, those are Scots, not Picts. Big difference!

 

http://history.stack...to-battle-naked

 

It's very, very unlikely, and probably part of Roman propaganda to make them look inferior. Incidentally part of the reason that the Romans invaded Celtic Gaul was because it was fabulously rich.

the Picts lasted until around the 11th century, not that long before Braveheart. But Braveheart is a complete load of bollocks anyway.

 

Also, part of the reason Rome didn't fully occupy that region was because economically there was no point. If they had wanted to, they could have conquered it at the time. It just wasn't worth it.

[Gwydden]

The Romans defeated the Picts at Mons Graupius.

In a sense. There was no lasting consequence eg they didn't manage to actually hold Caledonia in the long term. Maybe we have a philosophical difference on the meaning of 'winning', but giving the best military force of the era enough of a fight they decide trying to conquer you is more trouble than it's worth counts as a victory for me *shrug*

 

I'm not advocating naked fighting. But going into battle lightly clothed is not all that rared in human history, and it doesn't always end as terribly as one would think.

[Gwydden]

http://history.stack...to-battle-naked

 

It's very, very unlikely, and probably part of Roman propaganda to make them look inferior. Incidentally part of the reason that the Romans invaded Celtic Gaul was because it was fabulously rich.

the Picts lasted until around the 11th century, not that long before Braveheart. But Braveheart is a complete load of bollocks anyway.

 

Also, part of the reason Rome didn't fully occupy that region was because economically there was no point. If they had wanted to, they could have conquered it at the time. It just wasn't worth it.

I don't see anything conclusive one way or the other. I do know Celts used armor, they were pretty good craftsmen, the question is whether some of them practice naked fighting for some reason. Pretty much everything we know about the ancient Celts comes from the Romans anyway, so it's a moot point.

 

If a tiny nation manages to convince a much larger one it's not worth the effort, partly by being just a pain in the ass to conquer and hold, that counts as a victory to me. Point is, all cultures in history certainly didn't go to battle dressed like Warhammer Space Marines. Light armor (or even no armor at all, whether for cultural, technological, or geographical reasons) wasn't that rare.

 

But again, that was just an aside. Guys, I agree. Those armors are not realistic. All I'm asking (and I'd really like a straight answer) is why do you assume realism is a requirement?

[SNascimento]

In a sense. There was no lasting consequence eg they didn't manage to actually hold Caledonia in the long term. Maybe we have a philosophical difference on the meaning of 'winning', but giving the best military force of the era enough of a fight they decide trying to conquer you is more trouble than it's worth counts as a victory for me *shrug*

 

I'm not advocating naked fighting. But going into battle lightly clothed is not all that rared in human history, and it doesn't always end as terribly as one would think.

Well, the trouble might have been small, but the reward even smaller... 

But anyway, it's true that you don't have to be heavy armored in a battle to win. But when the fight is face to face, armor is a good thing to have.
 

[Gwydden]

Well, the trouble might have been small, but the reward even smaller... 

But anyway, it's true that you don't have to be heavy armored in a battle to win. But when the fight is face to face, armor is a good thing to have.

Again, true! However, why does is the realism of light armor questioned but the realism of dual wielding being one of the main fighting styles in DA is not? Many cultures on Earth have fought with very little armor, but dual wielding is almost non existent outside of martial arts, and do correct me if I'm wrong.

[The Elder King]

I don't see anything conclusive one way or the other. I do know Celts used armor, they were pretty good craftsmen, the question is whether some of them practice naked fighting for some reason. Pretty much everything we know about the ancient Celts comes from the Romans anyway, so it's a moot point.
 
If a tiny nation manages to convince a much larger one it's not worth the effort, partly by being just a pain in the ass to conquer and hold, that counts as a victory to me. Point is, all cultures in history certainly didn't go to battle dressed like Warhammer Space Marines. Light armor (or even no armor at all, whether for cultural, technological, or geographical reasons) wasn't that rare.
 
But again, that was just an aside. Guys, I agree. Those armors are not realistic. All I'm asking (and I'd really like a straight answer) is why do you assume realism is a requirement?

It's Not (only? I can't talk for everyone) about realism. It's about internal consistency.