Author Topic: Half-breeds and sexual equality  (Read 19299 times)

Case

  • Helper
  • Posts: 3034
Re: Half-breeds and sexual equality
« Reply #100 on: June 24, 2011, 06:27:47 AM »
re: gender derail;

Say it with me now:

gender roles != gender inequality
err, yes, gender roles == gender inequality if any role is available to some but not all members of the set of genders.

This is what inequality means.

Qzzrbl

  • Posts: 4959
Re: Half-breeds and sexual equality
« Reply #101 on: June 24, 2011, 07:52:53 AM »
re: gender derail;

Say it with me now:

gender roles != gender inequality
err, yes, gender roles == gender inequality if any role is available to some but not all members of the set of genders.

This is what inequality means.

Men can't spit out babies-- but doesn't make them any less equal.

Amitire?

spicemustflow

  • Posts: 2493
Re: Half-breeds and sexual equality
« Reply #102 on: June 24, 2011, 08:03:18 AM »
Depends, are you looking for someone to bear your child?

Qzzrbl

  • Posts: 4959
Re: Half-breeds and sexual equality
« Reply #103 on: June 24, 2011, 08:20:11 AM »
Depends, are you looking for someone to bear your child?

Meh.... I tend to think of "sexual equality" as more of a social thing, as opposed to a service thing.

Kismetic

  • Posts: 7007
Re: Half-breeds and sexual equality
« Reply #104 on: June 24, 2011, 08:24:38 AM »
This is the half-breed thread that died because it was already massively derailed (I think by me, heh).  Go rez a gender thread!
"Well, Gary, if that even is your real name ...  somebody stole my computer.  Now, if you're a criminal--  Look at me! ... You have to tell me, legally, or else it's considered entrapment."  -- Andy Dwyer

Delirium

  • Helper
  • Posts: 12073
Re: Half-breeds and sexual equality
« Reply #105 on: June 24, 2011, 01:38:53 PM »
Actually, let's not. I think this horse has been soundly beaten.  ;)

I don't even have the heart to argue the point I made. It's been argued so many times before.
"There are no happy endings, because nothing ends." - Schmendrick

PurpleParrot

  • Posts: 73
Re: Half-breeds and sexual equality
« Reply #106 on: June 24, 2011, 04:00:58 PM »
Gah, I'm sorry for rezzing something from March =\ I was just searching for stuff on breeds and found this and didn't even look at when it was posted before adding my two cents >_>

My bad.

Saellyn

  • Posts: 2505
Re: Half-breeds and sexual equality
« Reply #107 on: June 24, 2011, 04:13:46 PM »
... Think of breeds as people who want love but screw it up.

Kismetic

  • Posts: 7007
Re: Half-breeds and sexual equality
« Reply #108 on: June 24, 2011, 04:15:20 PM »
Gah, I'm sorry for rezzing something from March =\ I was just searching for stuff on breeds and found this and didn't even look at when it was posted before adding my two cents >_>

My bad.


You're not doing anything bad, it's just a common derail.  :)
"Well, Gary, if that even is your real name ...  somebody stole my computer.  Now, if you're a criminal--  Look at me! ... You have to tell me, legally, or else it's considered entrapment."  -- Andy Dwyer

Lizzie

  • Posts: 8195
Re: Half-breeds and sexual equality
« Reply #109 on: June 24, 2011, 06:16:30 PM »
breasts

(in before Ghost)
Talia said: Notice to all: Do not mess with Lizzie's GDB. She will cut you.
Delirium said: Notice to all: do not mess with Lizzie's soap. She will cut you.

Celest

  • Posts: 226
Re: Half-breeds and sexual equality
« Reply #110 on: June 25, 2011, 07:57:37 PM »
re: gender derail;

Say it with me now:

gender roles != gender inequality

Oh, God. Not this again.

Feeding your baby != gender roles. It's basic human decency and responsibility.

Telling a woman that she's not allowed to hunt, because only men can hunt = gender roles. That's inequality.

Quote
Men can't spit out babies-- but doesn't make them any less equal.

Amitire?

I want to make this very clear, because it's become abundantly obvious to me that most of the people on the GDB do not even know what a "gender role" is.

Having breasts, a penis, or a vagina is not a gender role. It's a sex. A gender role is the cultural, and/or mental role of someone. Saying "Men can't have babies, so gender roles are okay!" is absolute idiocy, because the two ideas are not linked. A gender role is the behavioral expectations/norms of a sex in a culture.  Saying "A woman should feed her child" is not a gender role. Saying "a man can not have children" is not a gender role. Saying "A woman should not hunt because she does not have a penis" is a gender role, and it is sexist, because you don't need a penis to hunt. Contrary to what Lizzie, and other people on the GDB seem to think, you don't hunt by fucking things to death, and a vagina does not product crafted goods. Neither penis, vagina, or breasts are required to do any of the jobs of traditional gender roles and so saying that only men or women can do them is sexist, regardless of how much you whine about how it's not sexist because it just isn't.

Honestly, I'm starting to wonder how many of the women who say it's okay to take away women's right to work and hold property because it's a "gender role" are actually women. I can't imagine any woman saying that she's okay with being submissive to someone else, against her will, just because she was born a woman. It blows my mind how people can honestly think it's okay to be discriminated against based on sex, just because it's traditional to do that.

Short version: No. Discrimination is sexist, even if you really really really really want it to be okay. Sorry. Stop telling women we can't do the same things as men because we lack testicles, when testicles are utterly irrelevant to the topic.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2011, 08:10:52 PM by Celest »

Jeshin

  • Posts: 484
Re: Half-breeds and sexual equality
« Reply #111 on: June 25, 2011, 08:10:50 PM »
Can't we all focus on that fact that breed women aren't people, but breed men are also not people. Why you might ask. Well lets ponder that shall we?

Recharge

  • Posts: 328
Re: Half-breeds and sexual equality
« Reply #112 on: June 26, 2011, 12:18:11 AM »
Breeds, male and female are kinda dirty to most of my pcs, unless their some perverse wierdo. If so, bring 'em on!
Though there be no squids to slay,
My spear will taste blood today!

Nao

  • Posts: 1999
Re: Half-breeds and sexual equality
« Reply #113 on: June 26, 2011, 03:54:06 AM »
Breeds, male and female are kinda dirty to most of my pcs, unless their some perverse wierdo. If so, bring 'em on!
Some people will be turned on -because- they are kinda dirty.
A rusty brown kank explodes into little bits.

Someone says, out of character:
     "I had to fix something in this zone.. YOU WEREN'T HERE 2 minutes ago :)"

PurpleParrot

  • Posts: 73
Re: Half-breeds and sexual equality
« Reply #114 on: June 26, 2011, 04:38:20 AM »
Can't we all focus on that fact that breed women aren't people, but breed men are also not people. Why you might ask. Well lets ponder that shall we?

Because they're breeds, not people! :D

spicemustflow

  • Posts: 2493
Re: Half-breeds and sexual equality
« Reply #115 on: June 26, 2011, 05:22:44 AM »
Short version: No. Discrimination is sexist, even if you really really really really want it to be okay. Sorry. Stop telling women we can't do the same things as men because we lack testicles, when testicles are utterly irrelevant to the topic.

There are those nine months or when a woman is not allowed or unwilling to hunt or guard or fight or do heavy labor. So, I don't buy that there's no discrimination based on sex in the game world. Tribes would protect their mothers to be, knocked up mercenaries would be given the sack immediately etc, etc. I understand why we have the "no discrimination" policy on the OOC level and I totally support it but sometimes it turns into: Zalanthans can't tell a male from a female.

Celest

  • Posts: 226
Re: Half-breeds and sexual equality
« Reply #116 on: June 26, 2011, 05:44:14 AM »
Short version: No. Discrimination is sexist, even if you really really really really want it to be okay. Sorry. Stop telling women we can't do the same things as men because we lack testicles, when testicles are utterly irrelevant to the topic.

There are those nine months or when a woman is not allowed or unwilling to hunt or guard or fight or do heavy labor. So, I don't buy that there's no discrimination based on sex in the game world. Tribes would protect their mothers to be, knocked up mercenaries would be given the sack immediately etc, etc. I understand why we have the "no discrimination" policy on the OOC level and I totally support it but sometimes it turns into: Zalanthans can't tell a male from a female.

That's only if she gets pregnant, which is her choice. Don't act like for nine months out of a year, every woman has mandatory pregnancy. There's so much birth control in Zalanthas that if someone gets pregnant, and keeps it, it's their choice. Mul Mix works as an abortion, a morning-after pill, and as birth control all in one, and it is LITERALLY dirt cheap. If a woman can't do her job, because of her choice, punish her as an individual who made a choice that makes her unable to do her duty.

Secondly, no, I'm sorry, but there's a huge difference between saying all women aren't allowed to do X at all because they're women, and saying that a woman who can't do X because she's pregnant can't do X. One is based on the premise of a gender role, and one is based on the premise of individual capability and choice. There's a huge difference there. The inability to tell the two apart only further demonstrates how little many of the people here know about sexual equality, and why it's so poorly RPed in game.

Finally, and this is the most important part: this is a game. It is, before all else, meant to be fun. Trying to insist that female characters deserve a lesser role than men when it comes to what you feel are "man" roles in spite of the loss of enjoyment that it would certainly cause characters in game, simply because it's your OOC perspectives carrying over into the game world, should not be tolerated at all. Lets not pretend it's something else, because that's exactly what this is, OOC perspectives carrying into the game world. 

Aside from one single instance with the Tuluki Templarate, there is no evidence to suggest that women and men have gender roles in the game. In fact, it's been stated that they are for all intents and purposes, equal. It is also abundantly clear to anyone who notices NPCs at all that there are male whores and female guards in every part of the world. Women can be nobles, and women can rent apartments, just like men. Women can be Templars, and women can serve in the governments of the City States. Even amongst the Arabet, which as far as I'm aware is the tribe that comes the closest to real life gender roles, men are just as loose with their affections as women, and women can still be hunters.

Also, for those of you who think that gender is some magical force of the universe rather than simply being evolutionary specialization that has no place in modern society or in a video game world, please read this
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 06:07:52 AM by Celest »

spicemustflow

  • Posts: 2493
Re: Half-breeds and sexual equality
« Reply #117 on: June 26, 2011, 06:08:50 AM »
Short version: No. Discrimination is sexist, even if you really really really really want it to be okay. Sorry. Stop telling women we can't do the same things as men because we lack testicles, when testicles are utterly irrelevant to the topic.

There are those nine months or when a woman is not allowed or unwilling to hunt or guard or fight or do heavy labor. So, I don't buy that there's no discrimination based on sex in the game world. Tribes would protect their mothers to be, knocked up mercenaries would be given the sack immediately etc, etc. I understand why we have the "no discrimination" policy on the OOC level and I totally support it but sometimes it turns into: Zalanthans can't tell a male from a female.

That's only if she gets pregnant, which is her choice. Don't act like for nine months out of a year, every woman has mandatory pregnancy. There's so much birth control in Zalanthas that if someone gets pregnant, and keeps it, it's their choice. Mul Mix works as an abortion, a morning-after pill, and as birth control all in one, and it is LITERALLY dirt cheap. If a woman can't do her job, because of her choice, punish her as an individual who made a choice that makes her unable to do her duty.

The effects of mul mix are intentionally vague so the players don't have to bother with pregnancy. If we're not talking OOC I wold say that it's very unreliable and fails more than it works.

Quote
Secondly, no, I'm sorry, but there's a huge difference between saying all women aren't allowed to do X at all because they're women, and saying that a woman who can't do X because she's pregnant can't do X. One is based on the premise of a gender role, and one is based on the premise of individual capability and choice. There's a huge difference there. The inability to tell the two apart only further demonstrates how little many of the people here know about sexual equality, and why it's so poorly RPed in game.

If you take into account the high mortality rates and the fact that many, say, tribal groups are often near the brink of extinction it would make sense that one of the primary roles of women is to, well, get pregnant as often as possible. It's not to say that she can't do anything else, nor that an average woman is worse fighter than an average man but an average man can't contribute to the group in that particular way. I don't think women (in game women!) would view that as demeaning, if anything they would take pride in that. Also, since both sexes have the same physical potential, the abuse of women wouldn't be as universal thing as it is in many primitive societies on Earth.

Quote
Finally, and this is the most important part: this is a game. It is, before all else, meant to be fun. Trying to insist that female characters deserve a lesser role than men when it comes to what you feel are "man" roles in spite of the loss of enjoyment that it would certainly cause characters in game, simply because it's your OOC perspectives carrying over into the game world, should not be tolerated at all.

No argument from me there, fun and respect to other players is why we have all these policies. I'm not going to advocate that we should force female characters to take "traditional" roles, you misunderstood me. I'm trying to somehow tie the OOC policy and my view of the game world together.

Nao

  • Posts: 1999
Re: Half-breeds and sexual equality
« Reply #118 on: June 26, 2011, 06:18:07 AM »
Short version: No. Discrimination is sexist, even if you really really really really want it to be okay. Sorry. Stop telling women we can't do the same things as men because we lack testicles, when testicles are utterly irrelevant to the topic.

There are those nine months or when a woman is not allowed or unwilling to hunt or guard or fight or do heavy labor. So, I don't buy that there's no discrimination based on sex in the game world. Tribes would protect their mothers to be, knocked up mercenaries would be given the sack immediately etc, etc. I understand why we have the "no discrimination" policy on the OOC level and I totally support it but sometimes it turns into: Zalanthans can't tell a male from a female.
The period where a woman is completley incapable to do those things is significantly shorter than nine months and gets even longer when you don't want to protect the baby at all costs. Will you go on a spider hunt eight months pregnant? Probably not, but you might still go hunt tregil, grab salt or order your underlings around. Pregnant women in modern times don't do a lot of things because they want to protect the baby but I can see that change very quickly when you don't really want the baby or just need the money. Or just don't consider it a huge risk because you're a Zalanthan.
A rusty brown kank explodes into little bits.

Someone says, out of character:
     "I had to fix something in this zone.. YOU WEREN'T HERE 2 minutes ago :)"

Case

  • Helper
  • Posts: 3034
Re: Half-breeds and sexual equality
« Reply #119 on: June 26, 2011, 06:22:01 AM »
Short version: No. Discrimination is sexist, even if you really really really really want it to be okay. Sorry. Stop telling women we can't do the same things as men because we lack testicles, when testicles are utterly irrelevant to the topic.

There are those nine months or when a woman is not allowed or unwilling to hunt or guard or fight or do heavy labor. So, I don't buy that there's no discrimination based on sex in the game world. Tribes would protect their mothers to be, knocked up mercenaries would be given the sack immediately etc, etc. I understand why we have the "no discrimination" policy on the OOC level and I totally support it but sometimes it turns into: Zalanthans can't tell a male from a female.

That's only if she gets pregnant, which is her choice. Don't act like for nine months out of a year, every woman has mandatory pregnancy. There's so much birth control in Zalanthas that if someone gets pregnant, and keeps it, it's their choice. Mul Mix works as an abortion, a morning-after pill, and as birth control all in one, and it is LITERALLY dirt cheap. If a woman can't do her job, because of her choice, punish her as an individual who made a choice that makes her unable to do her duty.

Secondly, no, I'm sorry, but there's a huge difference between saying all women aren't allowed to do X at all because they're women, and saying that a woman who can't do X because she's pregnant can't do X. One is based on the premise of a gender role, and one is based on the premise of individual capability and choice. There's a huge difference there. The inability to tell the two apart only further demonstrates how little many of the people here know about sexual equality, and why it's so poorly RPed in game.

Finally, and this is the most important part: this is a game. It is, before all else, meant to be fun. Trying to insist that female characters deserve a lesser role than men when it comes to what you feel are "man" roles in spite of the loss of enjoyment that it would certainly cause characters in game, simply because it's your OOC perspectives carrying over into the game world, should not be tolerated at all.
Spicemustflow is right; it does give rise to inherent discrimination. If we were going by individual capability, hiring only men to avoid having to deal with a pregnant employee is a decision somebody IG could make. The expectation that pregnancy is a choice, and mul mix isn't perfect either, is an expectation upon one sex that does constitute a gender role.

I think there are and must be differing expectations on either sex in Armageddon's theme. It matters on a noble level whether or not a woman is having children. It matters on a tribal level if there are not enough of either men or women to keep the tribe functioning. Tuluk's Templarate discriminates by sex.

There are enough examples in the game of gender roles and only one real case I know of sexual discrimination. Barring the case of some young female Tuluki noble wanting to be a Jihaen, the gameworld is not particularly bothered by sex but biological implications are acknowledged. I don't think anybody is claiming males or females are lesser in any context, or that they should be.

And I think what's interesting Celest and a few others, from a sociological viewpoint, is that your arguments are from the perspective that women are the outlier that must be proven equal. That is an attitude dragged in from real world gender discourse.

Saellyn

  • Posts: 2505
Re: Half-breeds and sexual equality
« Reply #120 on: June 26, 2011, 06:26:57 AM »
In Zalanthas a woman will rip your throat out.

A man will also rip your throat out.

Jihaens will kick your ass, Lirathans will order jihaens to kick your ass (or something?)

I dunno, I don't think I see "true" discrimination in that the females are viewed as lesser, but there are gender roles inherently in the game. Still, you can't avoid everything, and you can't make exceptions in the game for everything.

Celest

  • Posts: 226
Re: Half-breeds and sexual equality
« Reply #121 on: June 26, 2011, 06:42:25 AM »

The effects of mul mix are intentionally vague so the players don't have to bother with pregnancy. If we're not talking OOC I wold say that it's very unreliable and fails more than it works.

I think that saying it fails more often than it works is a bit of a stretch, but it is unreliable in the sense that it's less than 100% effective, which gives people an option to RP accidental pregnancies if they want. I, however, still disagree that it's enough of a reason to RP that women shouldn't be in physical professions in game. The Nobles themselves have female bodyguards (I actually see female bodyguards more than male bodyguards. It's almost universal, now that I think about it), so it's clearly not an issue in game.

Quote
If you take into account the high mortality rates and the fact that many, say, tribal groups are often near the brink of extinction it would make sense that one of the primary roles of women is to, well, get pregnant as often as possible. It's not to say that she can't do anything else, nor that an average woman is worse fighter than an average man but an average man can't contribute to the group in that particular way. I don't think women (in game women!) would view that as demeaning, if anything they would take pride in that. Also, since both sexes have the same physical potential, the abuse of women wouldn't be as universal thing as it is in many primitive societies on Earth.

In real life, sure, but this is a game, like I said. Also as I said before, the Arabet are the closest to what you are describing, but even amongst that tribe there is no gender roles or mandate that I'm aware of. It's not demeaning to get pregnant, of course, but men also take pride in having children in those situations. It isn't a gender role, because the men follow the same role: to get the women pregnant as often as possible.

Quote
No argument from me there, fun and respect to other players is why we have all these policies. I'm not going to advocate that we should force female characters to take "traditional" roles, you misunderstood me. I'm trying to somehow tie the OOC policy and my view of the game world together.

I referenced the traditional roles because the language Delirium used (gender roles != sexist) is identical to a post in the Random Arm Thoughts thread from a month or two back, where some people were arguing that it's okay to force women to be merchants and men to be hunters, and not allow any cross over, because discrimination based on gender roles isn't sexist. Given that it's the same people arguing it now as it was then, it seemed clear to me that this was a contiuation of that argument, complete with people using the "Men can't get pregnant, but no one says that's sexist!" and "women can't put their penis in a kalan, but no one says that's sexist" strawmen.

While I get that in dire situations, in real life, there might be a need for gender roles to exist simply for the survival of the human species, this is first and foremost a game. It is a game where you can get away with drinking water once every few weeks, you never have to sleep, and magic is real. Striving for a sliver of OOC realism that clashes with the docs and IC evidence, and makes the game far less fun for some to play (and a bit more offensive) just seems like a silly thing to do. I just don't get why people insist on constantly bringing it up and trying to act as if the game world is identical to people's perceptions of OOC reality, when it's clearly not.

Quote from: Case
Spicemustflow is right; it does give rise to inherent discrimination. If we were going by individual capability, hiring only men to avoid having to deal with a pregnant employee is a decision somebody IG could make. The expectation that pregnancy is a choice, and mul mix isn't perfect either, is an expectation upon one sex that does constitute a gender role.

Except that, as I stated before, many many nobles pick female bodyguards. All the GMHs have female guards. If the nobility themselves, the GMH, pretty much every single org in the game all feel that women are just as capable as men for that role, why do players get to say otherwise? It's OOC nonsense spilling over into the game world.

Quote
I think there are and must be differing expectations on either sex in Armageddon's theme. It matters on a noble level whether or not a woman is having children. It matters on a tribal level if there are not enough of either men or women to keep the tribe functioning. Tuluk's Templarate discriminates by sex.

There are enough examples in the game of gender roles and only one real case I know of sexual discrimination. Barring the case of some young female Tuluki noble wanting to be a Jihaen, the gameworld is not particularly bothered by sex but biological implications are acknowledged. I don't think anybody is claiming males or females are lesser in any context, or that they should be.

Can you provide those examples of gender roles? Because, straight from the "quickstart" page:

Code: [Select]
Avoid imposing your own interpretations and norms on the game world. For
example, there is no sexism on Zalanthas; women and men are treated equally. This
means that the following would not happen in Armageddon: a man expressing shame
 at being beaten sparring by a woman; someone referring to women as needing
protection or coddling; a woman being shamed for sexual promiscuity while a man is
praised for it.

This seems to state, pretty clearly, that double standards (such as gender roles) do not exist, aside from the lone issue with the Tuluki Templarate. And this is what I see happening, quite often. Especially in your post. What you said just contradicts the docs, especially the bit about double standards.

Quote
And I think what's interesting Celest and a few others, from a sociological viewpoint, is that your arguments are from the perspective that women are the outlier that must be proven equal. That is an attitude dragged in from real world gender discourse.

It's because I'm a woman. Of course my perspective is going to be on inequality towards women :P Sure, it's unfair to men who want to bend traditional gender norms, but I don't see anyone thumbing their nose at the Templar wearing high heels. Lets be honest, I'm not the one who is dragging real-world gender norms into this. The docs state very clearly that there is no sexism, and yet people are trying to make excuses for sexual discrimination that enforce OOC standards. It's not just a coincidence that the gender roles people are advocating for just happen to be identical to real life perceptions of gender, it's because people's OOC thoughts are mixing in with their view of the game world, and traditionally women are/were viewed as a lesser sex. When I see people insisting that it's a gender role, in game, for straight brawny fighter men to wear high heels and make-up then I'll be more careful with my wording. Until then, however, I don't see how you can act as if I'm the one with the OOC perspective here - and the OOC perspective being put forth by others has historically treated women as lesser compared to men. There's a reason that you never read about Men's Suffrage movements  ;D
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 07:08:16 AM by Celest »