Males and Female humanoids are statistically equal in terms of size, strength, game stats, social importance and social roles.
Men and Women are the same in everything except reproduction. In most of the ways that Earth Men and Earth Women are different, Zalanthans are the same.
It would not be that much of an oversimplification to state that there is only one gender on Zalanthas.
There is no expectation that men will be manly. There is no expectation that women will be feminine.
Part of the fallout of this is that there is no concept of "emasculation" in Zalanthas. I've seen people RP this incorrectly.
Statistically, 50% of the time that any warrior looses a sparring match it will be to a female opponent.
Fifty percent of domestic servants (or "housewives") are male. Warcraft is not seen as a "manlier" field than sewing, for example.
Another subtle point is chivalry and protecting women.
It wouldn't occur to someone that a female would require protection from a male.
All else being equal, a female victim would have a 50% chance of beating a male aggressor if she stands up for herself.
While our playerbase doesn't necessarily support these statistics, people who rp to the contrary are guilty of not taking the actions of NPC into account, for which I think there's a related thread somewhere.
Well, we do have masculine shoes.
Quote from: brytta.leofa on October 08, 2009, 04:29:58 PM
Well, we do have masculine shoes.
And feminine, IIRC. It would probably be better not to have items desced in that manner in the game.
I agree with your overall point, ibusoe, though I must admit I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to accomplish. Is this related to your harshness thread somehow?
Quote from: Gimfalisette on October 08, 2009, 04:35:34 PM
I agree with your overall point, ibusoe, though I must admit I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to accomplish. Is this related to your harshness thread somehow?
Probably related to the Male-Female thread. Lots of people say that they don't play the other gender because they don't think they could roleplay it, even though by one of the core rules of the game, men and women are exactly the same. You shouldn't have trouble roleplaying someone of a certain sex compared to the other sex, because in Zalanthas, sex has nothing to do with anything besides sex.
I read a lot of those "I don't trust myself to RP the other sex" comments to mean "Sure, men and women are equal in Zalanthas, but they're not
really equal." I refrained from commenting as such in that thread.
I dream for the day when I can be a female Jihaean. Damn you, Tuluki bigotry!
Quote from: Jdr on October 08, 2009, 05:11:49 PM
I dream for the day when I can be a female Jihaean. Damn you, Tuluki bigotry!
There are many organizations in the Known World where you can or cannot have a particular position based on gender. AFAIK, none of those positions are based on the idea that somehow one gender or the other is more suited to that role; it is just done that way because it's tradition and it's always been done that way. Therefore it is not actually bigotry or sexism.
So if I play a guy who wears a red silk bodice, a quirri-tail thong, and a pair of red heels, no on will pick on me?
Quote from: FantasyWriter on October 08, 2009, 05:17:44 PM
So if I play a guy who wears a red silk bodice, a quirri-tail thong, and a pair of red heels, no on will pick on me?
Hit on you yes, pick on you no. Why would they pick on you? There's no concept of that behavior being un-male in Zalanthas, nor is there any homophobia.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on October 08, 2009, 05:19:13 PM
Quote from: FantasyWriter on October 08, 2009, 05:17:44 PM
So if I play a guy who wears a red silk bodice, a quirri-tail thong, and a pair of red heels, no on will pick on me?
Hit on you yes, pick on you no. Why would they pick on you? There's no concept of that behavior being un-male in Zalanthas, nor is there any homophobia.
They might pick on you for having clothes that aren't fashionable or don't fit right.
But I agree with gimf, according to the documentation it would not be as a result of any kind of Zalanthan homophobia or sense that it was unmanly.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on October 08, 2009, 05:16:00 PM
Quote from: Jdr on October 08, 2009, 05:11:49 PM
I dream for the day when I can be a female Jihaean. Damn you, Tuluki bigotry!
There are many organizations in the Known World where you can or cannot have a particular position based on gender. AFAIK, none of those positions are based on the idea that somehow one gender or the other is more suited to that role; it is just done that way because it's tradition and it's always been done that way. Therefore it is not actually bigotry or sexism.
Wait a minute. If things are tradition and always been done that way, it's not bigotry or sexism? I detect some moral waywardness.
Also, he would be the hulking sleek-tressed man.
I agree with the overall point of the original post. It's worth being reminded of, from time to time.
QuoteMen and Women are the same in everything except reproduction.
Strictly speaking, this isn't literally true, I don't think. For instance, you can tell a male voice from a female voice.
But culturally, physically, and mentally neither is advantaged over the other.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on October 08, 2009, 04:35:34 PM
Quote from: brytta.leofa on October 08, 2009, 04:29:58 PM
Well, we do have masculine shoes.
And feminine, IIRC. It would probably be better not to have items desced in that manner in the game.
Yeah, there is clothing that is described as masculine or feminine. There are also items described as being designed to fit a female shape (maybe likewise for male?).
I don't think this is a bad thing. It's not like males and females of the playable races are supposed to be physically indistinguishable. To me it makes sense that there would be fashion differences, simply because male and female bodies have different shapes, even in Zalanthas.
The connotations of "masculine" and "feminine" may be problematic, though. I don't know.
Geez, this topic has been done to death.
Be as masculine or feminine as you like as is appropriate for your concept and gender. There's nothing wrong with being girly or masculine as long as it's realistic for your concept and class, you don't have to go out on a freaking black and white limb just to try and make gender equality sound ridiculous. Girls still have tits and guys still have dicks, last I checked, therefore yes, a corset would be pointless and ridiculous on a guy. Physical differences simply don't translate to cultural expectations. Is that so hard to grok?
Quote from: MarshallDFX on October 08, 2009, 05:20:48 PM
Quote from: Gimfalisette on October 08, 2009, 05:16:00 PM
Quote from: Jdr on October 08, 2009, 05:11:49 PM
I dream for the day when I can be a female Jihaean. Damn you, Tuluki bigotry!
There are many organizations in the Known World where you can or cannot have a particular position based on gender. AFAIK, none of those positions are based on the idea that somehow one gender or the other is more suited to that role; it is just done that way because it's tradition and it's always been done that way. Therefore it is not actually bigotry or sexism.
Wait a minute. If things are tradition and always been done that way, it's not bigotry or sexism? I detect some moral waywardness.
The Northern Templarate, I can see since they are, at least in my understanding celibate.Edit: nevermind, that just doesn't work either, since homosexuality is viewed no different than heterosexuality except in the way of breeding.
They do it that way because Muk said to.... end of story. :D
I would be curious to know the other groups that are segregated by sex, if its not IC secret info.
Quote from: flurry on October 08, 2009, 05:22:01 PM
The connotations of "masculine" and "feminine" may be problematic, though. I don't know.
This is all I meant. The clothing that is designed, for example, to create cleavage on the female form--that's fine and make sense. But an item being described as masculine simply because the shape of it is blocky, or as feminine because the shape of it is softer, that seems like going where we don't need to go.
Quote from: MarshallDFX on October 08, 2009, 05:20:48 PM
Wait a minute. If things are tradition and always been done that way, it's not bigotry or sexism? I detect some moral waywardness.
Do you know why Muk decided that Lirathans would all be female and Jihaens would all be male? I don't. I'm comfortable assuming that, because the game documentation says there is no sexism in Zalanthas, that Muk made this choice for some other reason. Since there were other orders of the Tuluki templarate as well, and I don't know of anything that says those were gender-segregated, then I feel comfortable with believing that Muk just perhaps kept the two orders he liked best, and they happened to be gender-segregated. Guess what, Muk could change his mind this very moment and make Jihaens the kind that do Lirathan stuff, and Lirathans the kind that do Jihaen stuff, if he wanted to. It has nothing to do with their gender.
Kuracis address female family members as "-di" and males as "-da." Sexism? No.
Other organizations may give the top spot traditionally to a male or female. Sexism? No. Just the way it's always been done.
Quote from: a strange shadow on October 08, 2009, 05:24:09 PM
a corset would be pointless and ridiculous on a guy.
Technically, corsets are for waist-cinching, and there are plenty of men IRL who wear them for that purpose. They're really not gender-specific at all and many types don't cover the bust, anyways.
Gimf, you're getting into semantics here. I don't exactly forsee a Zalanthan male, noble or not, having reason to wear 'a lacy black corset'. Unless there's suddenly some trend among Allanaki noble males to have a thinner-than-usual waist (which would be entirely anti-culture; skinny people are poor or underfed people), I think my basic example still stands.
(Also, my main point was that physical differences simply don't equate to cultural differences; not the corset issue.)
You said it would be pointless and ridiculous, and I explained how it wasn't, which is not semantics in the least. I see no reason why a male noble couldn't want to wear a corset and do so, if a female noble might. Allanaki high fashion actually makes a point of restrictive garments, so wearing a corset seems to fit that aesthetic.
And yes, the topic in general may have been done a thousand times, but it's actually been quite a while since we had a discussion on specifics of gender play in Zalanthas. So long so that it's likely many of our new players have really not seen or participated in one.
Do women in Zalanthas tend to have more bodyfat (and differently distributed) than men?
Are women's and men's hips a bit differently constructed, or are they basically identical? (If identical, are they, by our standards, "masculine" or "feminine?")
As strength is identically distributed, are Zalanthan women's muscles larger than we're used to, or are men's muscles smaller? Or are women's muscles smaller but stronger for their size?
Quote from: a strange shadow on October 08, 2009, 05:34:03 PM
Gimf, you're getting into semantics here. I don't exactly forsee a Zalanthan male, noble or not, having reason to wear 'a lacy black corset'. Unless there's suddenly some trend among Allanaki noble males to have a thinner-than-usual waist (which would be entirely anti-culture; skinny people are poor or underfed people), I think my basic example still stands.
(Also, my main point was that physical differences simply don't equate to cultural differences; not the corset issue.)
Err... so because you can't think of a "valid" reason for a man to wear a corset means that there are no reasons for a man to wear one? Something tells me that's a bit flawed.
If one's character sees a man wearing one in-game, they mght thiink it's silly for its impracticality, or because it looks funny, but unless one asks the man wearing the corset why they do so, how can one know if there is indeed a point to it?
I'd think that if anyone went through the trouble to put on a real, bone-ribbed corset, there's got to be a good reason... but I also think the point is, you can't just assume the man is somehow trying to be less masculine/man-like just because he's got a corset on.
Maybe he or his lover just happen to think it looks good on him?
Muk Utep: Zalanthas' first sexist? You decide.
Quote from: Jdr on October 08, 2009, 05:55:50 PM
Muk Utep: Zalanthas' first sexist? You decide.
There's evidence in game that he is not sexist, such as the fact that the Lirathans and Jihaens can switch precedence in the government (remember, Jihaens used to be #1).
I'm just teasing, Gimf. :P
Quote from: Jdr on October 08, 2009, 06:01:20 PM
I'm just teasing, Gimf. :P
FINE.
I wish I could play a female Jihaen, too, but alas...it is not to be.
As to which other organizations do stuff in a gender-segregated manner, that's definitely IC info and would need to be found out by playing within those organizations.
Yes he is sexist, he divided his servants by sex for some reason. Doesn't mean that he thinks one is better than another, he simply can tell the difference. As can the tailors tell the difference between a male and a female body and therefore make feminine armor with enough space for tits. What's the problem there again? An elf wouldn't wear something made to be worn by a dwarf.
I think the concern there is over how much the roles of the two Tuluki Templarate orders reflect traditional RL views of gender roles.
Quote from: FantasyWriter on October 08, 2009, 06:10:02 PM
I think the concern there is over how much the roles of the two Tuluki Templarate orders reflect traditional RL views of gender roles.
Eh, yeah, I'm not totally fond of the too-stereotypical way it was divided up, but since their abilities come 100% from Muk himself...it still doesn't say anything about the basic nature of male or female in Zalanthas. It's just sort of OOCly irritating.
I find it OOCly irritating that you think that any such division in the game world is sexist and shouldn't be allowed.
Dude, you guys are getting caught up on the example and completely missing my point, which is this:
Quote from: spicemustflow on October 08, 2009, 06:07:55 PM
As can the tailors tell the difference between a male and a female body and therefore make feminine armor with enough space for tits. What's the problem there again? An elf wouldn't wear something made to be worn by a dwarf.
Quote from: spicemustflow on October 08, 2009, 06:18:54 PM
I find it OOCly irritating that you think that any such division in the game world is sexist and shouldn't be allowed.
...what? That is not even close to what I said. I don't have an issue with there being gender-segregated roles in the game. What niggles at me is the fact that Lirathans got the more stereotypically "feminine" role and Jihaens got the more stereotypically "masculine" role. That is all. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on October 08, 2009, 06:25:23 PM
Quote from: spicemustflow on October 08, 2009, 06:18:54 PM
I find it OOCly irritating that you think that any such division in the game world is sexist and shouldn't be allowed.
...what? That is not even close to what I said. I don't have an issue with there being gender-segregated roles in the game. What niggles at me is the fact that Lirathans got the more stereotypically "feminine" role and Jihaens got the more stereotypically "masculine" role. That is all. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
Ok, now that I've reread the thread you really didn't say that explicitly. Sorry.
Still, this sound suspiciously similar:
Quote from: Gimfalisette on October 08, 2009, 04:35:34 PM
And feminine, IIRC. It would probably be better not to have items desced in that manner in the game.
I've seen this explained before somewhere, but I think a lot of the gender-segregated roles we see today are the result of a majority consisting of one gender (in this case, males) founding the world and making decisions on the lore. It's not bad that this is so, but the natural effect of this is that things will be more slanted one way or the other.
There are no sorcerer-queens. This is alright. Maybe in Arm2.
Jihaens and Lirathans are alright. The issue is not that they're split, it's how they're split. Jihaens do the fighting and Legions-leading, and Lirathans do a lot of peaceful activities. I honestly think if it were split the opposite way, it would be seen as an obvious attempt to do away with the RL gender roles. And splitting it by sex ensures the orders will be of roughly equal size. That's not to say their activities don't cross and overlap though.
A feminine breastplate is fine, because it would be designed with a female's torso in mind. A feminine pair of shoes... not so fine. Guys wore shoes we now consider "feminine" at some point in the lovely history of our planet (search for a picture of Louis XIV on Google if you don't believe me... specifically, "Portrait of Louis XIV", 1701), and it's totally possible for a guy to wear, say, high-heeled shoes in Zalanthas.
Yeah, back then high-heels on guys was hot because it was all about the thighs, or something. Ever watched The Tudors? :D
The difficulty is that gender (if you buy into Joan Scott's influential article on gender as a category of analysis, which I mostly do) is one of the primary ways, if not the primary way, that humans on earth articulate power relationships. I think it's really difficult for players to get past this because we live and breath cultures that articulate this power in uncounted ways that we usually never even notice. Hundreds if not thousands of times per day.
Zalanthan society, in many ways, feels more like a society in a science fiction novel than one in a fantasy novel. While there are plenty of exceptions, the norm in the fantasy genre is for the world to be a re-imagining of myths and folktales from our past. In these, the basic building blocks of humans (and any other fantasy races) basically stay the same as our own. Yes, there are noted authors that branch out from this. Consider, however, the founders of the modern fantasy genre. Tolkien and Lewis. I love them both. But the cultures in their worlds do not operate radically differently from our own. In Tolkien's world, gender, race, class, and religion (how characters morally identify themselves) work exactly the way that they do on earth. Same goes for Lewis and the same goes, in general, for most fantasy. Whether I'm reading George R. R. Martin or L.E. Modesitt, the basic rules of human interaction apply. Even when a fantasy author portrays a fantasy world that differs radically from our own in certain behaviors, the fundamentals of the way that we articulate power and difference still apply. What usually makes fantasy worlds different from our own, however, is magic and the "what if's" of the writing process are often based on this. "What if there was magic that offered amazing power at a terrible price?"
Science fiction often asks these questions, too. But from the beginning, writers like Isaac Asimov were asking "what ifs" that fundamentally challenged what it means to be human and how humans view the world. Robots are a staple of classic science fiction because, on the one hand, they represent technological progress and possibilities and on the other hand, they're frickin' cool and shoot laser beams. But robots are also a staple of the genre because they allow the authors to explore basic questions about what it means to be a human. I'm sure such fantasy books exist, but I have never, ever read a fantasy book in which the author used dwarves or elves or orcs to challenge in a fundamental way what it means to be human. I do think this is one of the reasons that urban fantasy is so popular right now. The glut of vampire stories since Anne Rice (and probably earlier, but I don't follow the genre too closely) are able to present simultaneously a mythical story with heroes who are sexy/badass by nature but who also allow the author to dissect the meaning of being human in the same way that, say, the robots in Bladerunner do. I'm sure people will respond with other fantasy stories that do this, but it isn't a classic building block of the genre the way it is in science fiction. Elves are usually mythical stereotypes for lazy authors, not a means of destabilizing the reader's view of human nature.
So, why does Zalanthan society feel like science fiction to me? Because it takes one of the basic human identity categories and wipes it away. Race, gender, and class are fundamental (though differing) categories that earth-humans use to understand themselves and the world around them. The major "what if" of Zalanthan culture is "what if gender wasn't a way of articulating power?" In compensation, Zalanthan society places HUUUUUGE emphasis on race and class and completely conflates them.
It's a beautiful thought experiment ... and it's also really, really, really hard for humans to successfully imagine and play out because it jettisons one of the basic building blocks of all human culture. It's great, but very difficult. Even the coders/builders seem to have had a difficult time thinking around the issue (the topic of clothing being one instance).
I'll also say that these science-fictiony "what ifs" are one of the reasons I love this game world. "What if sentient cultures had to evolve in a world stripped of basic resources?" That's a fantastic science fiction premise and the social/cultural result in the game makes the world deeply satisfying. I also believe that some of the deep divides in the player base result from those that prefer traditional fantasy what-ifs butting heads with those that prefer traditional science-fiction what-ifs. (I'm not a scholar of literature, so I'm sure I could be roundly criticized for how I'm describing these two genres).
Quote from: Thunkkin on October 08, 2009, 07:01:09 PM
I also believe that some of the deep divides in the player base result from those that prefer traditional fantasy what-ifs butting heads with those that prefer traditional science-fiction what-ifs.
Interesting.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on October 08, 2009, 07:07:58 PM
Quote from: Thunkkin on October 08, 2009, 07:01:09 PM
I also believe that some of the deep divides in the player base result from those that prefer traditional fantasy what-ifs butting heads with those that prefer traditional science-fiction what-ifs.
Interesting.
Eh? ???
Quote from: Jdr on October 08, 2009, 06:59:06 PM
Yeah, back then high-heels on guys was hot because it was all about the thighs, or something. Ever watched The Tudors? :D
The calves. Legs on a man were very important to show off in various cultures and fashion eras.
I think tights, stockings, corsets, and heels would and should be acceptable for a variety of men in Zalanthas. We have male whores who would want to show off their goods as readily as the women in their low-cut tops and side-slit skirts. Not to mention nobles and templars.
As far as gender roles. I think that current divisions in the Tuluki Templarate have more to do with the moons then gender. Without going into IC, they are what they are and divided for particular reasons. In my opinion, Jihae represents war in its blood-red field and Lirathu represents a shield in that she is big, circular and silver - as impenetrable as metal. So to me, I can understand why one does one thing and the other does their thing. Gender doesn't have much to do with it.
Why do I keep hearing male PCs, not a lot mind but a few recently, mentioning how they hope they have a son or all their children be sons? That to me is not Zalanthas.
When I hear 'ew' IG in terms of a male PC being with another male PC, a little part of me dies. When I hear female PCs saying they cannot exist without a male PC to protect them, a little piece of me cries. I hate hearing derogatory terms said IG about homosexuality just as much as I hate hearing a male PC called a 'woman' or a 'pussy' because he lost a fight, won't fight, or whatever else.
Eww. Who cares, girls are gross. They have cooties and carry disease. Remember: Statisically speaking the dirtiest, most germ ridden place on the face of Zalanthas is within the average female's mouth. Stop being pussies.
What is this thread about, again?
I absolutely detest the fact that the Tuluki templarate is separated by genders. I would rather there be males or females in either order.
Factor in this:
The average gestational length for humans is 40 weeks at 7 days a week. This equates to about nine months real time. To translate that into Armageddon time it would most likely be around five real-life weeks (approximately a little less than one game-year since there are 3 months in a game-year) with one month being slightly longer than a traditional trimester. Also, you might consider a longer gestational period if your character is a non-human, since both dwarves and elves have longer life spans than humans with slower development. That might also reflect back into the pregnancy as well.
Unless you all are advocating we all play muls or males giving birth -- there _will_ be some gender differences. It takes time and energy to birth and if you all want to continue with this "one night stand is the norm"... well, who gets stuck with the kid then?
Honestly, this whole issue is funny.
The main reason why there is such a rule in Armageddon, is to avoid conflicts based on IRL prejudicies (skin color, gender, religion). That is it's one and 'only' purpose. All those finer details, chivalry, manliness, feminine, etc are all "details" that simply do 'not' need to be picked on. If a person wants to feel chivalrous and decides to protect the females ... then take it as your character would. Some Females would find it impressive and swoon, some females would find it idiotic, and some females would calculate it that this is the guy's method of getting laid. The point is ... that it's irrelevent. Much like the raping issue, one of it's main reason for the rule's existence is to avoid certain serious issues of the IRL.
If you play a woman, and you see a male who clearly shows he thinks of females as weak ... then pummel him into a bloody pulp or ... ignore him. I do not think it's worth correcting the issue via an OOC medium, for overral ... the whole "reason" for the gender equality role is in essence ... OOC.
Quote from: hyzhenhok on October 08, 2009, 04:46:07 PM
Quote from: Gimfalisette on October 08, 2009, 04:35:34 PM
I agree with your overall point, ibusoe, though I must admit I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to accomplish. Is this related to your harshness thread somehow?
Probably related to the Male-Female thread. Lots of people say that they don't play the other gender because they don't think they could roleplay it, even though by one of the core rules of the game, men and women are exactly the same. You shouldn't have trouble roleplaying someone of a certain sex compared to the other sex, because in Zalanthas, sex has nothing to do with anything besides sex.
I read a lot of those "I don't trust myself to RP the other sex" comments to mean "Sure, men and women are equal in Zalanthas, but they're not really equal." I refrained from commenting as such in that thread.
I disagree.
I don't think equal means identical, so when someone says a role is too different I don't assume they mean unequal. Check it out ... you can prove it with math.
1+4=5
3+2=5
equal. But different.
A culture can have feminine and masculine traits that do not correlate specifically to gender.
Feminine and masculine are words we use in our language to describe what we see in other cultures. They're charged by gender only from our conceptions. In Zalanthas, the equivalents likely have no such connotations.
A feminine male is still a male, but he acts in a feminine manner. A masculine male is a female, but she acts in a masculine way to our culture. They're just easy descriptors for cultural translation.
Chivalry may well exist, but it would likely be distributed to those in weak positions - whether male or female. Unless, of course, the chivalrous one has a specific taste for crotch-bits. That may introduce its own prejudice.
Your mom. (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,32165.msg373931.html#msg373931)
Quote from: musashi on October 09, 2009, 12:56:12 AM
Quote from: hyzhenhok on October 08, 2009, 04:46:07 PM
Quote from: Gimfalisette on October 08, 2009, 04:35:34 PM
I agree with your overall point, ibusoe, though I must admit I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to accomplish. Is this related to your harshness thread somehow?
Probably related to the Male-Female thread. Lots of people say that they don't play the other gender because they don't think they could roleplay it, even though by one of the core rules of the game, men and women are exactly the same. You shouldn't have trouble roleplaying someone of a certain sex compared to the other sex, because in Zalanthas, sex has nothing to do with anything besides sex.
I read a lot of those "I don't trust myself to RP the other sex" comments to mean "Sure, men and women are equal in Zalanthas, but they're not really equal." I refrained from commenting as such in that thread.
I disagree.
I don't think equal means identical, so when someone says a role is too different I don't assume they mean unequal. Check it out ... you can prove it with math.
1+4=5
3+2=5
equal. But different.
You wrote 5 = 5 twice.
I object to this. While your argument is logically sound, it goes against the docs. I think this is one of those rare instances where it's better to not be logically, internally consistent and to just say "hey, it's just a game, a fantasy game, females can hunt and fight while pregnant."
Quote from: My 2 sids on October 08, 2009, 10:02:36 PM
Factor in this:
The average gestational length for humans is 40 weeks at 7 days a week. This equates to about nine months real time. To translate that into Armageddon time it would most likely be around five real-life weeks (approximately a little less than one game-year since there are 3 months in a game-year) with one month being slightly longer than a traditional trimester. Also, you might consider a longer gestational period if your character is a non-human, since both dwarves and elves have longer life spans than humans with slower development. That might also reflect back into the pregnancy as well.
Unless you all are advocating we all play muls or males giving birth -- there _will_ be some gender differences. It takes time and energy to birth and if you all want to continue with this "one night stand is the norm"... well, who gets stuck with the kid then?
Wow, that was one of the most articulate posts I've ever seen on the GDB.
I think you're very insightful. To my real-life friends, I've often described Zalanthas as a science-fiction game.
I agree with you that most of the GDB conflicts I've had over the years have probably been with people who would rather be playing a post-apocalyptic version of Lord of The Rings rather than a low-technology version of dune.
Quote from: Thunkkin on October 08, 2009, 07:01:09 PM
Zalanthan society, in many ways, feels more like a society in a science fiction novel than one in a fantasy novel.
Thank you.
At first the posts were meant to be related. But in practice, I'll have to admit that any relationship is a stretch of the imagination.
The only real connection that I can honestly bring up is a general complaint that women (in game) should be left to solve their own conflicts, and that if the playerbase had more concerns of their own there would be less of the unrealistic sort of chivalry that I brought up.
So really, it's probably better to look at this topic as a stand-alone thread.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on October 08, 2009, 04:35:34 PM
I agree with your overall point, ibusoe, though I must admit I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to accomplish. Is this related to your harshness thread somehow?
Quote from: ibusoe on October 09, 2009, 09:09:29 AM
I object to this. While your argument is logically sound, it goes against the docs. I think this is one of those rare instances where it's better to not be logically, internally consistent and to just say "hey, it's just a game, a fantasy game, females can hunt and fight while pregnant."
You're right, it's a game. But, consider this: I'm pretty sure every player here has a gender. Maybe what you're seeing in game isn't bias so much as the player having fun.
Just like Dar said: let it be an IC reaction.
Quote from: ibusoe on October 09, 2009, 09:09:29 AM
I object to this. While your argument is logically sound, it goes against the docs. I think this is one of those rare instances where it's better to not be logically, internally consistent and to just say "hey, it's just a game, a fantasy game, females can hunt and fight while pregnant."
That's the point, it's a game designed for equal enjoyment of players of both sex. That's all there needs to be said, any "IC" justification and theses about male/female anatomy and psychology of the game world fall flat. Because they are.
Quote from: Dar on October 09, 2009, 12:03:56 AM
If a person wants to feel chivalrous and decides to protect the females ... then take it as your character would. Some Females would find it impressive and swoon, some females would find it idiotic, and some females would calculate it that this is the guy's method of getting laid.
Rather than discouraging this, I'd encourage more females to act chivalrous and go out to try and protect the weak males... for all the same reasons as we normally see.
Most of the things I see complaints about, I don't see as such a problem, except that I personally have never seen female PCs going out and doing the same thing. Whats stopping them from doing it?
Quote from: Aleksandr on October 09, 2009, 01:07:27 PM
Quote from: Dar on October 09, 2009, 12:03:56 AM
If a person wants to feel chivalrous and decides to protect the females ... then take it as your character would. Some Females would find it impressive and swoon, some females would find it idiotic, and some females would calculate it that this is the guy's method of getting laid.
Rather than discouraging this, I'd encourage more females to act chivalrous and go out to try and protect the weak males... for all the same reasons as we normally see.
Most of the things I see complaints about, I don't see as such a problem, except that I personally have never seen female PCs going out and doing the same thing. Whats stopping them from doing it?
The fact that so many males seem to be doing it
for them? Why go through all the hassle when you can just send your 'knight-errant' out to get the job done?
Quote from: Pale Horse on October 09, 2009, 03:29:47 PM
Quote from: Aleksandr on October 09, 2009, 01:07:27 PM
Quote from: Dar on October 09, 2009, 12:03:56 AM
If a person wants to feel chivalrous and decides to protect the females ... then take it as your character would. Some Females would find it impressive and swoon, some females would find it idiotic, and some females would calculate it that this is the guy's method of getting laid.
Rather than discouraging this, I'd encourage more females to act chivalrous and go out to try and protect the weak males... for all the same reasons as we normally see.
Most of the things I see complaints about, I don't see as such a problem, except that I personally have never seen female PCs going out and doing the same thing. Whats stopping them from doing it?
The fact that so many males seem to be doing it for them? Why go through all the hassle when you can just send your 'knight-errant' out to get the job done?
"Why should I put myself on the line for that loser? If he wants to do something for me for free, more power to him." Traditional gender roles aren't all about being weak and defenseless. ;)
<While watching the red-cloaked man get placed along the corpses of Meleth Circle>
With a hint of regret in his tone,the obese, double-chinned man says in sirihish:
"I told him. The woman's mouth is the most germ-ridden place, I said. Statistically the most unsafe place for a man to put his penis, I said."
With a soft sigh, adjusting his helmet ovr his brow, the small, slender man says in sirihish,
"Well... now we know."
With a firm nod, the obese, double-chinned man says in sirihish:
"And knowing is half the battle."
Quote from: hyzhenhok on October 09, 2009, 02:25:54 AM
Quote from: musashi on October 09, 2009, 12:56:12 AM
Quote from: hyzhenhok on October 08, 2009, 04:46:07 PM
Quote from: Gimfalisette on October 08, 2009, 04:35:34 PM
I agree with your overall point, ibusoe, though I must admit I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to accomplish. Is this related to your harshness thread somehow?
Probably related to the Male-Female thread. Lots of people say that they don't play the other gender because they don't think they could roleplay it, even though by one of the core rules of the game, men and women are exactly the same. You shouldn't have trouble roleplaying someone of a certain sex compared to the other sex, because in Zalanthas, sex has nothing to do with anything besides sex.
I read a lot of those "I don't trust myself to RP the other sex" comments to mean "Sure, men and women are equal in Zalanthas, but they're not really equal." I refrained from commenting as such in that thread.
I disagree.
I don't think equal means identical, so when someone says a role is too different I don't assume they mean unequal. Check it out ... you can prove it with math.
1+4=5
3+2=5
equal. But different.
You wrote 5 = 5 twice.
Yep. In two
different ways.
Apology accepted :D
Quote from: musashi on October 10, 2009, 06:34:04 AM
Quote from: hyzhenhok on October 09, 2009, 02:25:54 AM
Quote from: musashi on October 09, 2009, 12:56:12 AM
Quote from: hyzhenhok on October 08, 2009, 04:46:07 PM
Quote from: Gimfalisette on October 08, 2009, 04:35:34 PM
I agree with your overall point, ibusoe, though I must admit I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to accomplish. Is this related to your harshness thread somehow?
Probably related to the Male-Female thread. Lots of people say that they don't play the other gender because they don't think they could roleplay it, even though by one of the core rules of the game, men and women are exactly the same. You shouldn't have trouble roleplaying someone of a certain sex compared to the other sex, because in Zalanthas, sex has nothing to do with anything besides sex.
I read a lot of those "I don't trust myself to RP the other sex" comments to mean "Sure, men and women are equal in Zalanthas, but they're not really equal." I refrained from commenting as such in that thread.
I disagree.
I don't think equal means identical, so when someone says a role is too different I don't assume they mean unequal. Check it out ... you can prove it with math.
1+4=5
3+2=5
equal. But different.
You wrote 5 = 5 twice.
Yep. In two different ways.
Apology accepted :D
Fine. But you'll find that while you usually write 1 + 4, it really wasn't difficult to write 2 + 3, even though you've only written 1 + 4 all your life and didn't think you could understand the nuances of the 2 + 3 variant.
Write up a female character. Join a clan with some cool peeps, play normally but don't reveal who you are. Later, ask them if they could tell it was a dude behind the chick. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
EDIT: Blarg, double post!
Quote from: hyzhenhok on October 10, 2009, 07:37:31 AM
Quote from: musashi on October 10, 2009, 06:34:04 AM
Quote from: hyzhenhok on October 09, 2009, 02:25:54 AM
Quote from: musashi on October 09, 2009, 12:56:12 AM
Quote from: hyzhenhok on October 08, 2009, 04:46:07 PM
Quote from: Gimfalisette on October 08, 2009, 04:35:34 PM
I agree with your overall point, ibusoe, though I must admit I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to accomplish. Is this related to your harshness thread somehow?
Probably related to the Male-Female thread. Lots of people say that they don't play the other gender because they don't think they could roleplay it, even though by one of the core rules of the game, men and women are exactly the same. You shouldn't have trouble roleplaying someone of a certain sex compared to the other sex, because in Zalanthas, sex has nothing to do with anything besides sex.
I read a lot of those "I don't trust myself to RP the other sex" comments to mean "Sure, men and women are equal in Zalanthas, but they're not really equal." I refrained from commenting as such in that thread.
I disagree.
I don't think equal means identical, so when someone says a role is too different I don't assume they mean unequal. Check it out ... you can prove it with math.
1+4=5
3+2=5
equal. But different.
You wrote 5 = 5 twice.
Yep. In two different ways.
Apology accepted :D
Fine. But you'll find that while you usually write 1 + 4, it really wasn't difficult to write 2 + 3, even though you've only written 1 + 4 all your life and didn't think you could understand the nuances of the 2 + 3 variant.
Write up a female character. Join a clan with some cool peeps, play normally but don't reveal who you are. Later, ask them if they could tell it was a dude behind the chick. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Well, what if I wrote it like this?
64 + 1 = 65
6E (3x + 1) = 65
k = 2I'm just messing around anyway man ;D
Just saying ... sure it's possible for people to RP the other gender well, but for some folks it might seem too confusing or difficult to bother with, and their reason for thinking that does not have to be because they think the other gender is somehow "less" than the one they happen to be IRL. It could be that that their reason is exactly what they said it was: They think the role is too difficult for them to do justice to.
But yes, other folks seem capable of portraying the opposite gender quite well, I've been surprised a few times myself to learn the player on the other end of the internet was not actually the same gender as the character I'd been RP'ing with for months.
Quote from: Dar on October 09, 2009, 12:03:56 AM
Honestly, this whole issue is funny.
The main reason why there is such a rule in Armageddon, is to avoid conflicts based on IRL prejudicies (skin color, gender, religion). That is it's one and 'only' purpose. All those finer details, chivalry, manliness, feminine, etc are all "details" that simply do 'not' need to be picked on. If a person wants to feel chivalrous and decides to protect the females ... then take it as your character would. Some Females would find it impressive and swoon, some females would find it idiotic, and some females would calculate it that this is the guy's method of getting laid. The point is ... that it's irrelevent. Much like the raping issue, one of it's main reason for the rule's existence is to avoid certain serious issues of the IRL.
If you play a woman, and you see a male who clearly shows he thinks of females as weak ... then pummel him into a bloody pulp or ... ignore him. I do not think it's worth correcting the issue via an OOC medium, for overral ... the whole "reason" for the gender equality role is in essence ... OOC.
Right.
So what are we arguing about again?
Whenever I played females prior to people knowing I was a male IRL, I was considered to be female IRL--in addition to being treated properly in game and getting prior IC reactions to all my dude/dudette's doings. If you're having issues with people not reacting to you IC, you probably have an issue with consistency. It doesn't matter how you play your male/female roles.
I find that it's the rp of the person that things surround that determines the reactions of those around them.
So, if you act like a stereotypical male/female, then expect for some others to respond accordingly.
I don't think I've ever seen a female pc that was portrayed as a "Zalanthan female" that was treated otherwise.
On an aside that I feel is somewhat related, I think some people portray homosexual pcs in a very stereotypical way and then get upset when others respond accordingly.
I don't think homosexuals, male or female, would appear much different than straights on Zalanthas, other than what gender they prefer to have sexual relations with.
I'm tired of seeing the "effeminate" (obviously must be gay) man and the "butched" (obviously must be gay) female in the game.
Some great posts thus far. I really appreciate the thought folks have put into this subject.
I think Thunnkin's post was dynamite! Thanks T. for putting that out there. Your take on SF vice Fantasy expectations was brilliant.
From my perspective, as an ardent, RL feminist it looks like Musashi and Jhunter have the right of it.
First, extrapolation on Jhunter's point: In actual play, whenever I've run into what seemed like gender-bias, it was quickly corrected on both ends by "Zalanthan female" behavior. Almost always, the bias has arisen from players that feel new (trouble with basic commands, don't know the game world very well, and so on). As soon as I've asserted myself IC (in the manner appropriate to the character, but we're mainly talking about the Byn here), I felt the other player respounded in a world-appropriate fashion. Granted, that reaction can and has varied greatly by character, but I felt like they were reacting to me, and not my persona's gender.
Now onto Musashi (*laugh* Sorry, that just doesn't sound right. :P): By both documentation and hard code, women are absolutely equal to men in every regard. They fight as hard, cast as well, and learn as quickly. Moreover, they're just as physically brave and fierce in battle. In this case though, I really believe equal and identical are not the same thing. As M. pointed out in a few elegant lines something I was going to belabor for paragraphs, we can arrive at the same destination while taking alternate routes. I think even in an utterly egalitarian society, it would be possible to see subtle differences in interactional style, different nuances in approach to conflict, and of course, the biggie, differing agendas when it comes to having sex and caring for children. As I've seen played out with wonderful verisimilitude IG, on fundamental questions of child-rearing and resource-gathering, you can have potential for massive conflict between the sexes if dad isn't on board with helping (I have to laugh when I think about the Zalanthan version of the "dead beat dad" plotline - attempting to collect "child support" can be lethal!). I eagerly await the reverse, although the defense of "But it isn't mine!" obviously won't work in that situation. My point here is, we can have our rp cake and eat it too, maintaining complete parity while allowing for the delicious differences between women and men to drive some very entertaining storylines.
Edited to add: A hearty "Thank you!" to all the gals and guys who played bad-ass female characters through the years, and made a space for equality to exist, one character at a time.
I tend to think that that that acceptance of exclusive homosexuality is directly proportion to your group's population size.
If you are crammed in the city and there's not enough food/space/water to go around, being completely homosexual is fine. We don't need more of your hairy asses running around.
If your tribe is barely hanging on or has relatively low numbers, then I think it would be frowned onto be exclusively homosexual. You need to be making a few kids to do your duty, even if you don't enjoy it.
I think some characters may be perceived as being sexist when they are merely being protective. I know certain of my characters will protect the weaker fighter regardless of sex. If the female hasn't seen my guy protecting his weaker male buddies then they may think "Oh this guy is not RPing properly, he is protecting me because I am a girly girl." Not so, I just don't want my allies to die, male or female.
On the other hand, I do think that some players are somewhat sexist. But if the female is portraying herself as weakling, and they are valuable to you, why wouldn't you protect them. Perhaps not enough males choose to play the weakling male.
Quote from: KankWhisperer on October 12, 2009, 11:36:53 PM
I tend to think that that that acceptance of exclusive homosexuality is directly proportion to your group's population size.
In the real world, yes. But this is a game. It's a realistic way, but one of (about a dozen) ways in which the game is somewhat silly is that the genders are equal and sexual minorities are tolerated.
What you're proposing is a change to the rules. If you change the rules, that's fine but that's a different topic entirely.
The deck is stacked against people appropriately playing gender roles in Armageddon.
The very nature of the game seems bent toward a more traditionally masculine environment and power structure, partly because the original Staff were predominantly male and the original players were predominantly male. Even today, the majority of Armageddon players are probably male. Of those males, it's likely the majority are somewhere between the ages of 17 - 27. I'd wager that many of those players enjoy roles follow the same escapist path as many others, where it's not uncommon for their characters to be beefy, strong, ruggedly-handsome badass mo-fo's ready to oblige the nearest scrab, longneck, or southie with the sharp end of dirty knife or engage in a sloppy round of drinks espousing their physical prowess, manliness, or skill with a blade.
And while there's nothing wrong with embodying that type of character, it quietly contributes to the void of characters that display the converse of these traits and balance the game world. And who fills that void? The void comprised of more subtle, intellectual, crafty, passive, non-physical, nurturing, supporting types that favor achieving power through wealth, status, and influence rather than physical power and strength? I would suspect some of the male players, and many of the female players.
It's natural for us to be drawn to a character with whom we can identify, and we can identify most easily with a character that conveniently exhibits the same type of gender-specific qualities that we ourselves display or favor. This can inadvertently create situations where the guys play more masculine roles, the females play more feminine roles, and a handful of people occasionally try to bridge the gap -- though I'd bet they were the exception rather than the rule. And while there's nothing inherently wrong with that, I worry that it will be an uphill battle to ever achieve an environment where people don't naturally drift toward gender roles in Arm that mirror or largely resemble their own in RL.
We can be frustrated by males being protective hunter-gatherers who enjoy drinking, swapping stories, and settling score with tests of strength or martial prowess as equally as with women being maternal, intelligent, nest-makers who enjoy socializing, gossiping, and building/displaying material wealth as a measure of social status. I can't really fault them though -- it's somewhat like asking right-handed people to accomplish a task and then ask them why they don't use their left hand more often.
-LoD
PS - I don't mean to offend anyone or push everyone into stereotypes. I'm talking in broad strokes here, and am certainly aware of many male/female players whose characters don't fall into a traditional masculine/feminine gender role.
Males and females are built differant on Zalanthas. but there isnt a stereotype to it, but there diffinately IS a distiguisigh of sex in many places.
ex: Human tribals. MOST of the tribes are Matriarchal for whichever reason suits them.
Tuluk's split gender templar order is another example.
so i see no problem with this specific thing, i dont see men rushing to "protect" women warriors. in fact, some of my male warriors were protected by women, because he wasnt as ood a fighter as they were.
No the only thing that relates to this post that i have seen in game is the IG joking that someone likes there own gender sexualy ( ie: homosexuality) and reference to it being a bad thing, ot thing to be ashamed of. When the docs state homosexuality is common, and very excepted. (not that i am homosexual, but just pointing it out)
Quote from: LoD on October 13, 2009, 10:30:07 AM
The very nature of the game seems bent toward a more traditionally masculine environment and power structure, partly because the original Staff were predominantly male and the original players were predominantly male. Even today, the majority of Armageddon players are probably male. Of those males, it's likely the majority are somewhere between the ages of 17 - 27. I'd wager that many of those players enjoy roles follow the same escapist path as many others, where it's not uncommon for their characters to be beefy, strong, ruggedly-handsome badass mo-fo's ready to oblige the nearest scrab, longneck, or southie with the sharp end of dirty knife or engage in a sloppy round of drinks espousing their physical prowess, manliness, or skill with a blade.
*lots of other good stuff, etc*
Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head. In fact, I've tried to lobby the idea in the past that we have too many junior players to have a gender equality based world. Since people weren't really receptive to this, I've switched tactics to try to help existing players better realize what a sexually-equal world might be like, basically the opposite of high school.
Quote from: ibusoe on October 16, 2009, 10:56:54 AM
Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head. In fact, I've tried to lobby the idea in the past that we have too many junior players to have a gender equality based world. Since people weren't really receptive to this, I've switched tactics to try to help existing players better realize what a sexually-equal world might be like, basically the opposite of high school.
I don't think the difficulties
all of us face in imagining a sexually-equal world ended with high school, and I wouldn't be too quick to associate a perceived unwillingness or inability to inhabit such a world with immaturity or naivety. It's a very real challenge to take something all of us encounter (consciously or subconsciously) on a daily basis, like socially defined gender-roles, and completely shift gears when trying to ignore/reorient everything we've ever learned.
I've often tried to reason out a way that a gender-equal society would logically exist in Zalanthas, but I was never able to convince myself that it could. However, the most important realization for me was not to try and accept the logic of a gender-equal society, but simply to accept gender-equality as it pertains to playing the game.
The point behind the gender-equal society is not that it's a well-supported IC phenomenon, but that, OOCly, women should have exactly the same opportunity to enjoy the game as men. Female characters should be just as capable of playing a clan leader, cunning hunter, skilled mercenary, influential senator, shrewd merchant, and deadly assassin as any male character. Sex should never come into the equation when considering a character for an appointment or role. And as long as this is maintained, I can look past some of the subtle physical and mental breakdowns we occasionally demonstrate in our day-to-day interactions between our male and female characters.
-LoD
Is it proper rp to laugh or give odd looks at a man wearing a dress?
Quote from: LoD on October 16, 2009, 02:10:50 PM
...OOCly, women should have exactly the same opportunity to enjoy the game as men. Female characters should be just as capable of playing a clan leader, cunning hunter, skilled mercenary, influential senator, shrewd merchant, and deadly assassin as any male character. Sex should never come into the equation when considering a character for an appointment or role...
This.
This is why I eventually came here, because the place I was playing for about two years before mostly relegated women to very stereotypically 'historical' women's roles, and you were treated like some kind of oddball if you wanted to TRY play a Sargent or any other kind of military leadership. I freaking hated that. I take enough crap in the real world for being an intelligent, outspoken woman from a lot of backwards-thinking men AND women, in my real life and career, and I just don't want that in my fantasy escape game.
Yes, there's a difference between keeping all roles open to everyone, and ignoring physiological differences, but if the policy is that women and men are physically alike, and the purpose of that is to keep all roles open and promote an environment of nondiscrimination, I'm willing to suspend my disbelief for that. Since I can suspend my disbelieve enough to think like X, Y, or Z person whose life experiences don't match my own at all, I don't really consider the ignoring sex differences incongruities thing much of a challenge.
Quote from: The Archbishop on October 17, 2009, 07:25:33 AM
Is it proper rp to laugh or give odd looks at a man wearing a dress?
Probably.
DO: Comment on the funny fit.
DON'T: Impugn his sexuality.
Quote from: brytta.leofa on October 17, 2009, 11:18:58 AM
Quote from: The Archbishop on October 17, 2009, 07:25:33 AM
Is it proper rp to laugh or give odd looks at a man wearing a dress?
Probably.
DO: Comment on the funny fit.
DON'T: Impugn his sexuality.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. A man wearing a dress in Zalanthas is funny because a dress is made for a woman's body. Its not effeminate or gay or sexually deviant - its just weird, cause you're wearing clothes that obviously aren't made to fit you.
Quote from: valeria on October 17, 2009, 08:13:53 AM
I take enough crap in the real world for being an intelligent, outspoken woman from a lot of backwards-thinking men AND women, in my real life and career, and I just don't want that in my fantasy escape game.
QFMFT
Quote from: valeria on October 17, 2009, 08:13:53 AM
I take enough crap in the real world for being an intelligent, outspoken woman from a lot of backwards-thinking men AND women, in my real life and career, and I just don't want that in my fantasy escape game.
Yes, but you can murder them in your fantasy escape game.
Quote from: spicemustflow on October 17, 2009, 02:43:45 PM
Quote from: valeria on October 17, 2009, 08:13:53 AM
I take enough crap in the real world for being an intelligent, outspoken woman from a lot of backwards-thinking men AND women, in my real life and career, and I just don't want that in my fantasy escape game.
Yes, but you can murder them in your fantasy escape game.
You can't in real life?
Quote from: jcljules on October 17, 2009, 11:23:21 AM
Quote from: brytta.leofa on October 17, 2009, 11:18:58 AM
Quote from: The Archbishop on October 17, 2009, 07:25:33 AM
Is it proper rp to laugh or give odd looks at a man wearing a dress?
Probably.
DO: Comment on the funny fit.
DON'T: Impugn his sexuality.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. A man wearing a dress in Zalanthas is funny because a dress is made for a woman's body. Its not effeminate or gay or sexually deviant - its just weird, cause you're wearing clothes that obviously aren't made to fit you.
Why are dresses only made for women, if the sexes are equal :P?
Quote from: jcljules on October 17, 2009, 02:52:21 PM
Quote from: spicemustflow on October 17, 2009, 02:43:45 PM
Quote from: valeria on October 17, 2009, 08:13:53 AM
I take enough crap in the real world for being an intelligent, outspoken woman from a lot of backwards-thinking men AND women, in my real life and career, and I just don't want that in my fantasy escape game.
Yes, but you can murder them in your fantasy escape game.
You can't in real life?
No, she is a woman.
Quote from: KankWhisperer on October 17, 2009, 03:24:38 PM
Why are dresses only made for women, if the sexes are equal :P?
There are plenty of man-dresses in Armageddon. Kilts for one, robes, and a dozen other robe-like non-leg-specific garment types for men.
Quote from: KankWhisperer on October 17, 2009, 03:24:38 PM
Quote from: jcljules on October 17, 2009, 11:23:21 AM
Quote from: brytta.leofa on October 17, 2009, 11:18:58 AM
Quote from: The Archbishop on October 17, 2009, 07:25:33 AM
Is it proper rp to laugh or give odd looks at a man wearing a dress?
Probably.
DO: Comment on the funny fit.
DON'T: Impugn his sexuality.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. A man wearing a dress in Zalanthas is funny because a dress is made for a woman's body. Its not effeminate or gay or sexually deviant - its just weird, cause you're wearing clothes that obviously aren't made to fit you.
Why are dresses only made for women, if the sexes are equal :P?
If they were equal in the way you're implying, the staff would forbid the use of "man" and "woman" in sdescs:
The human with no templar has arrived from the north. Despite being equally strong and equally unlikely to tear the anterior cruciate ligament whilst playing basketball, Zalanthan women have hips and other features necessary to make dress-wearing look non-ridiculous.
Quote from: jcljules on October 17, 2009, 02:52:21 PM
Quote from: spicemustflow on October 17, 2009, 02:43:45 PM
Quote from: valeria on October 17, 2009, 08:13:53 AM
I take enough crap in the real world for being an intelligent, outspoken woman from a lot of backwards-thinking men AND women, in my real life and career, and I just don't want that in my fantasy escape game.
Yes, but you can murder them in your fantasy escape game.
You can't in real life?
Yes, you can; no, you mayn't.
Quote from: Marauder Moe on October 17, 2009, 03:51:12 PM
Quote from: KankWhisperer on October 17, 2009, 03:24:38 PM
Why are dresses only made for women, if the sexes are equal :P?
There are plenty of man-dresses in Armageddon. Kilts for one, robes, and a dozen other robe-like non-leg-specific garment types for men.
Kilts and robes are one thing. But please, for the love of Tektolnes, not this:
(http://clothingsanctuary.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/pink-cocktail-dress.jpg)
Gage Gritshaw
Clearly not, that dress is Tuluki-style all the way.
So what you are saying is that certain types of robes are only for women to wear. I am saying if there is no real distinction between the sexes why would a robe for a woman be called a dress in the first place?
Quote from: KankWhisperer on October 17, 2009, 04:32:59 PM
So what you are saying is that certain types of robes are only for women to wear. I am saying if there is no real distinction between the sexes why would a robe for a woman be called a dress in the first place?
Now you're just being silly. Obviously there's distinctions between men and women, or Zalanthan (demi)humans would all be hermaphrodites. Just as there's differences between the words "men" and "women", "male" and "female" there's differences between the sexes, so there's
going to be different words for clothing of different functions.
"Dress," for example. It's a body covering. Well, we all wear body coverings. What's it's specific use? Specifically, it's a body covering designed to fit a woman person, who has curves where a man person does not. There for the funny name, to specify to all those who encounter one, that it is a body covering designed for a woman person who has curves.
Quote from: KankWhisperer on October 17, 2009, 04:32:59 PM
So what you are saying is that certain types of robes are only for women to wear. I am saying if there is no real distinction between the sexes why would a robe for a woman be called a dress in the first place?
Because they're distinctly different garments. Even in Zalanthas, male humanoids don't have any need for a bodice.
"Dress" doesn't imply that something has a bodice, however. A dress can be a completely loose garment. There's really no reason a male PC couldn't wear something sdesced as "dress." There isn't any consistency even in how those items are desced.
There are also other dress-like items that do not have "dress" in the sdesc. Kalasiri are dress-like.
I think y'all are fussing too much over this issue. PCs should wear what the PC wants to wear, with attention to social status, culture, and appropriateness of garment.
To be a dress, it would need a bodice. If it didn't have a bodice, it would be a skirt. That may just be a technical name for the upper portion of a dress.
None the less. It is designed for a woman's shape. A robe is a cape or cloak with sleeves.
Robe is not equal to a dress. A robe an outer garment. A dress can be worn with a robe over it. A robe cannot be worn with a dress over it.
Let us change subjects, yes?
Saying that males and females are equal does not require conversation about garb designed to enhance sexual features. Whether women can lead a unit of soldiers as well as a man or not, breasts and hips will always be a female feature designed for their natural function in the reproductive side of things, and likewise, always a feature to be enhanced for social and romantic reasons. Whether the male is perfectly capable of playing concubine to Lord/Lady High-and-Mighty or not, the pelvic region will be an area to be guarded and/or enhanced (assuming he's no eunuch), and a natural tool designed for reproductive purposes.
Equality refers to equal, unprejudiced opportunity, not to why dresses are made for woman and cod-pieces for males.
It's pretty clear cut to me Kank Whisperer. "Equal to" does not mean "identical to." Men are not the same as women. Women are not the same as men. Socially they have equal status. Physically they have equal capacity to murder/death/kill.
Men, however, cannot bear young. Women do not have penises. Men, unless they're mutants, don't grow their mammaries. Women, unless they are mutants, don't grow full beards and chest hair. Men, unless they are mutants, don't have the curves needed to look good in a dress designed to show off the breasts and accentuate their child-bearing hips, and women, unless they are mutants, have little-to-no need for codpieces (a kick to the groin will still hurt like hell but isn't nearly as likely to incapacitate a woman as it is for a man).
Quote from: Lizzie on October 17, 2009, 06:06:22 PM
It's pretty clear cut to me Kank Whisperer. "Equal to" does not mean "identical to." Men are not the same as women. Women are not the same as men. Socially they have equal status. Physically they have equal capacity to murder/death/kill.
Men, however, cannot bear young. Women do not have penises. Men, unless they're mutants, don't grow their mammaries. Women, unless they are mutants, don't grow full beards and chest hair. Men, unless they are mutants, don't have the curves needed to look good in a dress designed to show off the breasts and accentuate their child-bearing hips, and women, unless they are mutants, have little-to-no need for codpieces (a kick to the groin will still hurt like hell but isn't nearly as likely to incapacitate a woman as it is for a man).
Mutations are common.
Quote from: Yam on October 17, 2009, 06:28:22 PM
Quote from: Lizzie on October 17, 2009, 06:06:22 PM
It's pretty clear cut to me Kank Whisperer. "Equal to" does not mean "identical to." Men are not the same as women. Women are not the same as men. Socially they have equal status. Physically they have equal capacity to murder/death/kill.
Men, however, cannot bear young. Women do not have penises. Men, unless they're mutants, don't grow their mammaries. Women, unless they are mutants, don't grow full beards and chest hair. Men, unless they are mutants, don't have the curves needed to look good in a dress designed to show off the breasts and accentuate their child-bearing hips, and women, unless they are mutants, have little-to-no need for codpieces (a kick to the groin will still hurt like hell but isn't nearly as likely to incapacitate a woman as it is for a man).
Mutations are common.
I believe Admiral Ackbar agrees with Yam...
There's a reason some "people" are refered to as a "trap"... or at the very least you've never tried to google search for a new animal trap for your next hunting trip... *cough*...
Quote from: KankWhisperer on October 17, 2009, 04:32:59 PM
So what you are saying is that certain types of robes are only for women to wear. I am saying if there is no real distinction between the sexes why would a robe for a woman be called a dress in the first place?
To answer that, I'd probably have to be fluent in Sirihish. Maybe they
don't have a separate word for dress. Or maybe they do, and it's an archaic leftover from the the time of the Council of Kings and all.
In English, though, we do have a word for that type of garment, so we might as well use it in the game.
All these differences you keep pointing out seem to me to point to why there would be differences in gender roles. To me it seems the feminist legions want to be bad ass man killers but oh I still want there to be frilly dresses just for my sex cause we're cute. Then we get to the point where oh its natural cause they have teh babies. Alright, then -likely- they would have a different role in the society with all these differences.
That sounds more like a player complaint regarding a lack of consistency in what you're observing in specific people. I'm inclined to agree, but it doesn't really have anything to do with documented gender roles. If your character is gonna be all giggly and girlish and fruity and frilly and lace-loving pink-wearing tee hee coy, then you should -expect- people to think your character is pretty damned crazy, or stupid, for joining the Byn. Likewise, if you're playing a character who behaves like the Terminator, then don't be surprised when her peers can't wrap their minds around her desire to have twins and stick her spouse with a monogamous relationship with her forever and ever because he's such a wuvvy mooshy wooshy smookie nugglums.
Delicate = bad idea to join the Byn. Whether your character is male or female. It doesn't matter. The Byn is not for the delicate types who sniff and whine about breaking a nail or getting blood on their beautiful new silk sleeves.
Rough = not the most suitable for work involving diplomacy and requiring impeccable ettiquette. If you wanna play a floor-spitting, crotch-grabbing, vulgar-talking street-wench, then it doesn't make much sense to suddenly turn on the giggles and swoons and girly hair-flips and coy gazes, just because a guy whose player knows how to emote well walks into the room and you wanna mudsex him. Or if your character is male, doesn't make sense for him to suddenly become "sensitive" with the first female PC with the word "buxom" in her main desc.
Again, it's not a matter of gender roles, that I think you have an issue with. I think it's more a matter of roleplay consistency. I see lots and lots of people playing consistently - their "girly girls" are well fleshed out in personality, with depth, and with understanding that they're putting these characters into a virtual world filled with ugliness. And lots of people playing "manly men" whose testosterone levels don't suddenly change to suit the player's needs/desires/fetishes. And girly men, and manly women..these adjectives -do- fit..there -are- girly men, and manly women, and manly men, and girly women. It's the ones whose players can't, or choose not to play them consistently that I think is the problem. Not the adjectives themselves.
Quote from: KankWhisperer on October 17, 2009, 09:49:40 PM
Alright, then -likely- they would have a different role in the society with all these differences.
Good points Lizzie ... but just to add to this; it has already been pointed out in this thread (more than once I think) that women and men DO have different roles in some societies in Zalanthas. You can not be a Lirathan Templar with a penis. You can not be a Jiahen Templar without one. Many tribes have elders or guiding councils who for whatever reason have to be either male or female.
But I think the distinction is supposed to be that the reason for these segregations is not because society believes one gender to be weaker than the other. Although I admit that seems like an OOC reason stuck onto to something rather than an actual IC justification.
I mean ... the fact that some tribes will be led (organized and kept in line and managed) by a woman or women, but will have a head warrior/hunter/macho type who is obviously a man screams RL gender roles from a modern woman's point of view, to me. So does the Tuluki Templarate system.
In the new game, I would prefer that staff either eliminated gender roles from the game entirely with no examples of it at all (so a man and woman really can join any group and rise to any rank based on skill rather than reproductive organs) or ... that they made sure gender roles were balanced either within every culture, or within the world as a whole. So if you want to go play in a society where women are deemed weaker, go play in this tribe... if you want the amazons who treat men like slaves, go play in that tribe, ect ect.
Quote from: musashi on October 17, 2009, 10:41:37 PM
But I think the distinction is supposed to be that the reason for these segregations is not because society believes one gender to be weaker than the other. Although I admit that seems like an OOC reason stuck onto to something rather than an actual IC justification.
This whole "no gender roles!" reminds me of the "one night stands are the norm/ no one ever has a long-term relationship" mentality: screaming of someone's OOC fear of... something?
There isn't a whole lot of IC justification and truthfully it probably inhibits more role-play than it promotes. Why? Because shocking as this might be the majority of Arm players are people! Why else would we be given a choice as to the gender of our character (why not automatically assign one to the PC) Gender wars/ relationships -- all usually done in fun, not to be offensive.
There are no stat inhibitors, no glass ceilings so what is up with 5+ pages of PC police???
I do not think the imms will ever do as you say 2 'sid. To be honest, I hope they don't. This isn't a 14th Century remake where men fight wars and women teach/birth/don't talk. That honestly doesn't sound enjoyable to me either. In the beginning of Islam, they were involved in the development of the religion not merely as wives and daughters but also as warriors, consultants and scholars. They carried the word of Islam and served as accessible role models for women. I will grant that we could add a lot of strife to the game by making it gender bias, but who would enjoy that? Oppression of the female = PC Slavery = Not allowed in Armageddon.
Please change the subject. This is going nowhere and it is not what this thread is about.
To an extent, some gender roles are natural - women give birth and men don't. That's a pretty big deal. But the gender constructs that came with the dawn of civilization are not natural. As such, I think the "no gender roles" in Zalanthas means "no glass ceilings and significantly less influential gender roles that can be twisted or bent at will."
Natural assignment of sexual roles does not equal cultural assignment of sexual roles. Just because women are biologically equipped to carry babies and for certain types of clothing to be better looking on them than on the male of the species, does not mean that the woman can not be a leader, role model, politician, aide, soldier, explorer, or anything else.
I think it's foolish to argue against dresses looking better on females than on men, or to debate robe vs. dress. Clothing hardly espouses role. If a man decides to wear a dress, then it will automatically look odd on him, because it is not designed for him, period. That said, there is no law against doing it, so the discussion again becomes mote.
A woman is as good as a man for any role, and visa versa. You don't have to play a stereotypical behavior, yet you may play any stereotypical behavior you want to. There is no standard. No behavior is manly or womanly. No behavior is normal. No behavior is abnormal.
This does not make it so that men are biologically equal to women, nor are women biologically equal to men. But there is no behavior expectations - no scenario in which men and women are expected to act a certain way dependent on their sex. Nor is there any respecter of sex in regards to doing a particular job correctly. Culturally, men and women are equal in all cultural aspects.
It feels like we're slipping a little bit too far into RL aspects of gender equality.
Zalanthas=/=Earth, as we all know.
Zalanthas does not have the gender roles as we, as people of [insert your country here], know it. My own personal opinion is that all the gender roles we experience, at least in the United States, exist in Zalanthas in one form or another, but they're just not attached to any one sex. The role you think of as fitting a 'Nurturer', which for the most part, those of us in the US have been trained from childhood to think is a woman's roll, could be filled by either a man or a woman without any sort of social stigma attached to it, in Zalanthas.
..Maybe that's more my personal hope and idea of the game world. I like to think that any combination of 'gender roles' could be found in an individual raised in an environment where, supposedly, there are no prejudices against men or women assuming what they would want to, based on their likes, dislikes, the way they were taught, etc.
There are plenty of opportunities for male vs. female struggle and politics in the world. A prime example is when a female decides to go off birth control (mul mix) and have a child without telling her partner. Or when a female tells one male the child is his when it really is someone else's. I can see this being especially disruptive in the nobility. Since some men would be aware they could be tricked by women this way, they might take measures to ensure any child is theirs. And so on.
Quote from: Delstro on October 18, 2009, 10:42:16 AM
I do not think the imms will ever do as you say 2 'sid. To be honest, I hope they don't. This isn't a 14th Century remake where men fight wars and women teach/birth/don't talk. That honestly doesn't sound enjoyable to me either. In the beginning of Islam, they were involved in the development of the religion not merely as wives and daughters but also as warriors, consultants and scholars. They carried the word of Islam and served as accessible role models for women. I will grant that we could add a lot of strife to the game by making it gender bias, but who would enjoy that? Oppression of the female = PC Slavery = Not allowed in Armageddon.
Please change the subject. This is going nowhere and it is not what this thread is about.
I think you totally missed my point, Delstro
No one is saying "lets go to Fairytale land" What I'm saying is this entire thread is based on something which doesn't even happen in game!!
You want absolutely no gender assignment -- play a mul. The rest of us will play humanoids w/ a gender because (as shocking as this is) it's funnn!
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on October 18, 2009, 02:38:38 PM
A woman is as good as a man for any role, and visa versa. You don't have to play a stereotypical behavior, yet you may play any stereotypical behavior you want to. There is no standard. No behavior is manly or womanly. No behavior is normal. No behavior is abnormal.
This does not make it so that men are biologically equal to women, nor are women biologically equal to men. But there is no behavior expectations - no scenario in which men and women are expected to act a certain way dependent on their sex. Nor is there any respecter of sex in regards to doing a particular job correctly. Culturally, men and women are equal in all cultural aspects.
I think this point is important. I've seen people put down for playing "conventional" roles. Like a female playing a prissy aide, or a man playing a grizzled hunter. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. If someone wants to play a prissy, female aide, they shouldn't be regarded as part of the problem for that. The only problem here is when people put down a woman who wants to be a grizzled hunter, or a man who wants to be a prissy aide.
Quote from: jcljules on October 18, 2009, 11:17:31 PM
I think this point is important. I've seen people put down for playing "conventional" roles. Like a female playing a prissy aide, or a man playing a grizzled hunter. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. If someone wants to play a prissy, female aide, they shouldn't be regarded as part of the problem for that. The only problem here is when people put down a woman who wants to be a grizzled hunter, or a man who wants to be a prissy aide.
Quote from: hyzhenhok on October 08, 2009, 04:46:07 PM
Lots of people say that they don't play the other gender because they don't think they could roleplay it, even though by one of the core rules of the game, men and women are exactly the same. You shouldn't have trouble roleplaying someone of a certain sex compared to the other sex, because in Zalanthas, sex has nothing to do with anything besides sex.
I read a lot of those "I don't trust myself to RP the other sex" comments to mean "Sure, men and women are equal in Zalanthas, but they're not really equal." I refrained from commenting as such in that thread.
I've seen roles where I've found a good deal of sexism IG and roles where I've found almost none. I do think it's a bit discouraging that my crafter PCs that are more or less successful than male crafter PCs are generally let be, but have had people give my combat PCs a hard time for, for example, coming away from a sparring match with a broken wrist (for more specifics, it was a hit to the wrist which shaved off 1/3 of my HP in a single hit. Yeah, I'd say it nearly took the hand clean off).
I did wish to address your post though, hyzenhok, which I've bolded for emphasis:
I don't mean to imply in any way that males and females are unequal in any way. But there are hard-wired differences in the way male and femal brains work due to the testosterone or estrogen flowing through the person, starting as early as in utero.
Sex = male and female
Gender = masculine and feminine
So in essence:
Sex refers to biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs.
Gender describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine.
So while your sex as male or female is a biological fact that is the same in any culture, what that sex means in terms of your gender role as a 'man' or a 'woman' in society can be quite different cross culturally. These 'gender roles' have an impact on the health of the individual.
In sociological terms 'gender role' refers to the characteristics and behaviours that different cultures attribute to the sexes. What it means to be a 'real man' in any culture requires male sex plus what our various cultures define as masculine characteristics and behaviours, likewise a 'real woman' needs female sex and feminine characteristics.
So, no, I wouldn't want to make a PC where I would always FTB on mudsex because I didn't know for myself how my PC would be feeling as a result of them having a different set of genitals. Likewise, I hate watching obvious 'lesbian' mudsex between what would seem to be 14 year old boys. There are, of course, other reasons as well, but with my pcs and their track records (of usually having romance as a pretty high priority), I would already have a dislike of the alienness of it. But then there are other things as well, (ie, being punched/kicked/mutilated genitally, having certain garments a PC simply 'dislikes' because of the fit, etc.). Truthfully, it's much the same reason that I've only played 1 elf. It gives me a completely alien body IG, so it makes me feel more disconnected from the character, and feel like I don't know them as well, and leads to my questioning my RP to the point where it becomes a chore to play.
Quote from: KankWhisperer on October 17, 2009, 09:49:40 PM
All these differences you keep pointing out seem to me to point to why there would be differences in gender roles. To me it seems the feminist legions want to be bad ass man killers but oh I still want there to be frilly dresses just for my sex cause we're cute. Then we get to the point where oh its natural cause they have teh babies. Alright, then -likely- they would have a different role in the society with all these differences.
It's not an issue of feminism. I hate feminism. This is a game.
I don't think it should be that hard to play by the rules, which means recognizing equalization of the sexes inside of the game.
They could add a rule in game that all humanoids have four hands -- but I'd wager that the majority of players wouldn't have their PCs use hand numbers 3 and 4. Why? because it's so far out of the realm of possibility many players simply wouldn't enjoy RPing that way.
The folks who are screaming "every gender is the same", a question for you. Have you ever played a PC w/ a different sex than your own? Why?
Quote from: My 2 sids on October 23, 2009, 08:56:18 AM
They could add a rule in game that all humanoids have four hands -- but I'd wager that the majority of players wouldn't have their PCs use hand numbers 3 and 4. Why? because it's so far out of the realm of possibility many players simply wouldn't enjoy RPing that way.
The folks who are screaming "every gender is the same", a question for you. Have you ever played a PC w/ a different sex than your own? Why?
No one is debating the realism of gender equality. I wouldn't say gender equality is any more realistic than magic.* What I was attempting to bring to discussion is whether or not it's better to ignore this particular rule.
I'm not sure where your question is leading, but I don't mind answering it.
Yes, I played a woman once. In real life I'm a male. Why did I do it? Admittedly, I was so sure that everyone would go so easy on my character that I'd soon be a Colonel in House Kurac. Secretly, I probably wanted to prove how easy it was just so that I could complain about it. My character was "typically female" in terms of hygiene preferences and being somewhat quiet, but "typically male" in terms of career choice and willingness to face danger.
My experience was surprising. I was so swamped with male attention that I didn't know how women could stand it full time. Rather than having an easier time, I had a tougher time -- I had too many eyes on me to maneuver and get any politics done. While my character had it very easy in terms of being safe and cared for, I couldn't identify any vector for her to advance in the ranks. Players of male characters projected their own desire for my character to be a stupid plaything onto the character.
I didn't enjoy this at all. I'd never play a female character again.
The realism of gender equality is what this entire thread is about! Unless there is some basis for the rule (either OOCly or preferably ICly) the rule shouldn't exist -- it throws too much off with it's randomness.
My point with the question is this: If genders were exactly the same, there would be no point in choosing one over the other. But, you chose a specific gender because you _wanted_ to play that gender role. So, you yourself (even if things worked out differently than your expectations) wanted separation between the genders. People may not want the gender role assignments that come with some fairy-tale type muds (thus, the rule) BUT, they also don't want to be hindered from playing the separation of gender stereotypes
Quote from: My 2 sids on October 23, 2009, 10:23:18 AM
The realism of gender equality is what this entire thread is about! Unless there is some basis for the rule (either OOCly or preferably ICly) the rule shouldn't exist -- it throws too much off with it's randomness.
My point with the question is this: If genders were exactly the same, there would be no point in choosing one over the other. But, you chose a specific gender because you _wanted_ to play that gender role. So, you yourself (even if things worked out differently than your expectations) wanted separation between the genders. People may not want the gender role assignments that come with some fairy-tale type muds (thus, the rule) BUT, they also don't want to be hindered from playing the separation of gender stereotypes
There is no rule that states you can't play a girly-girl or a macho man.
I don't see what the problem is.
Quote from: ibusoe on October 23, 2009, 10:05:53 AMPlayers of male characters projected their own desire for my character to be a stupid plaything onto the character.
I didn't enjoy this at all. I'd never play a female character again.
I'm pretty sure most girls are used to this, and regularly use it to their advantage. That goes for real life, too.
I think this thread has degenerated into just 'back and forth', repeats and rewordings of the same opinions.
Bottom line, as I see it, is play as you like. In a world where there are no set gender roles and physical toughness and strengths are equal amongst both sexes, any gender role can be adopted (and likely has) by any man or woman. Girly-girls, manly-men, manly-girls, girly-men, ravenous-mutants, nest-sitting elves, whatever. It's all cool.
Just be aware that there are those that might take offense to what you do, seeing as how it crosses their personal morals and ideas as wrong. And those of you taking offense, realize that you are now the minority, since the majority of Zalanthan's don't really care (according to the documentation). Minorities, especially Zalanthan minorities, have this tendency to be "put in their places" by the majority, historically speaking.
I don't think women are being taken advantage of in game, I think weak-willed people are being taken advantage of. Play somebody (male or female) that isn't a pussy and then you won't be treated like a plaything.
Quote from: LauraMars on October 23, 2009, 11:19:41 AM
Quote from: ibusoe on October 23, 2009, 10:05:53 AMPlayers of male characters projected their own desire for my character to be a stupid plaything onto the character.
I didn't enjoy this at all. I'd never play a female character again.
I'm pretty sure most girls are used to this, and regularly use it to their advantage. That goes for real life, too.
They're trainable to not do that. Unless I have something I need done. Or I want to draw it out and crush them later. Or they're cute.