Women in fantasy

[T.Allen.Smith]

It's possible to be completely honest while at the same time respectful. It's called tact.

To be tactful you must be able to exercise judgment, choosing how you say things to get the full point across while still maintaining a level of respect for another. Representing yourself and your viewpoints in a tactful manner will always garner better results when trying to defend your position or attempting persuasion.

Tactful expression is an extremely valuable skill, and in conjunction with ZA's prior post, requires intelligent thought & consideration for others thought before speaking.

Even in cases where you may not respect a person, tact will always win out. It's the choice between composure & class versus rule by emotion & demagogue.

 

[Steerpike]

Feo, you seem to operate a lot on base level assumptions that are entirely inaccurate. It seems to me to reflect a lot of personal bias. If I had to guess, I'm likely one of the most socially liberal people on the forums. I realize that doesn't fit in with the prejudged point you were trying to make, though. I don't like intimidation or hypocrisy. If you think that's a conservative view, you're off base.

 

[Devor]

I just saw this on Facebook. I don't have much of a point in posting it, except that it seemed interesting and relevant.

Love Lessons From The Dudes of Disney... From A Guy's Perspective

 

[Mindfire]

I just saw this on Facebook. I don't have much of a point in posting it, except that it seemed interesting and relevant.

Love Lessons From The Dudes of Disney... From A Guy's Perspective

Well that was... interesting. As far as Disney princes go, Simba and the Beast (whose name was Adam apparently) are tied for my favorite. Unless we're also (somehow) counting Tarzan. Then it's a three-way tie. I saw the most of myself in those guys. Prince Phillip gets an honorable mention for having an awesome fight scene though.

 

[Feo Takahari]

Feo, you seem to operate a lot on base level assumptions that are entirely inaccurate. It seems to me to reflect a lot of personal bias. If I had to guess, I'm likely one of the most socially liberal people on the forums. I realize that doesn't fit in with the prejudged point you were trying to make, though. I don't like intimidation or hypocrisy. If you think that's a conservative view, you're off base.

I feel like I need to explain, but I'm afraid an explanation will turn into an excuse, and an excuse is the last thing that's needed right now. I guess I'll just say it and hope for the best.

Imagine that you're Mexican-American, and you're discussing American unemployment with someone. That person states that part of the problem is cheap Mexican labor filling niches that would otherwise be populated by Americans. You've probably heard this one dozens of times. You can easily predict what blame will be apportioned and what racial epithets will be used.

And of course, if it turns out to be a simple statement of fact, you've potentially just made an ass of yourself.

I'm always going to flinch at the statement that Christians are discriminated against in America. I've seen it lead into too many truly horrible statements--about atheists, about homosexuals, sometimes even about Socialists. But it's not appropriate for me to just assume that someone else is saying something they're not. I know how much it hurts when people assume I'm saying something I would never say, and I can't apologize enough.

 

[Mythopoet]

I'm always going to flinch at the statement that Christians are discriminated against in America.

I do feel that Christians are the one group that everyone feels comfortable bashing constantly. Even Christians bash other Christians whose beliefs differ too much from their own. Catholics in particular are a popular subject for mockery and denigration. But I don't mind it so much because I know that if we weren't being discriminated against, it would be a sign that we aren't doing this Christianity thing right. Any religion that makes claims as extreme as those made by Christianity is going to be unacceptable to most people. We should expect discrimination and mockery. And we should be grateful that in America, that's as far as it goes. There are still plenty of places in the world you can be killed for being a Christian.

 

[Ophiucha]

I mean, it's awful when people are mocked and made fun of, bullying is never correct. But I have problems when men, white people, Christians, whathaveyou claim discrimination when - in fact - they are really only made fun of. Very few people are killed or deported for being white. Very few men are denied their reproductive rights. Very few Christians are harassed because some lone shooters happened to be a Christian. It's more politically correct to make fun of them, and it's not good that it's 'correct' to make fun of anyone, but saying all men think with their shafts hasn't contributed to a culture that widely blames men for, say, sexual assault. In fact, quite the opposite - that exact trait is often used to excuse men, since they 'can't help themselves', and that women should have known better/done more to protect themselves.

We shouldn't do it; it's bullying, and it can hurt individuals. But it's not institutionalized, so if they call 'discrimination!', I'm going to call 'BS!'.

We're also wildly off topic, guys, so here's a topic: female goons, zombies, background characters. Anyone else notice this? You have a hoarde of zombies, odds are 80% of them will be (ex-?)men. You go into a dungeon in your standard RPG and often all of the generic barbarians and bandits will be men. (In the Bethesda [Elder Scrolls, Fallout] games, they often have a trait that gives you a 10% bonus against the opposite sex. Since I always play as a girl, I always pick this trait since like 7 out of 10 enemies in the game are male.) Your storm troopers, red shirts, etc. - almost always men. I get why females aren't always major characters (even if I disagree with it), but I can't fathom why they turn up so rarely among the nameless drones of lambs being brought to the slaughter, you know?

 

[Mindfire]

Because more often than not your standard mooks will be men. And statistically men are more likely to turn to violent crime, so an all-male bandit troupe isn't exactly an outrage. Plus, it's often seen as politically incorrect to attack/kill women in video games. But your mileage may vary on that one.

 

[Chilari]

Let's be careful about discussing religion, people. It's off topic and it only ever leads to people getting upset.

Ophi, you've got a good point about female "extras". That, if nothing else, really drives home the subconscious expectation that male is the default position. Women on the baddie's side are almost always either the baddie or the baddie's secretary, girlfriend, family member, etc. You don't get nameless women with no part in driving the plot just wandering around patrolling the walls, operating the computers, watching the security cameras, etc. In fact I can't remember the last time I saw a female security guard on TV or in a movie.

Edit: Mindfire posted while I was typing, so I'll update to say:

Yes, to an extent, women are less likely to be part of violent crime, but that doesn't mean there aren't any at all. There are, for example, several famous women pirates, and if a few got to the top and became captains, there must be a few normal pirates who are women too.

And it doesn't account for antagonist groups which aren't violent criminals - government organisations, mindless zombies, etc. Zombies in particular - when the population the zombies should be infecting are 50/50 (and if anything, men should be slightly better equipped to escape zombification so there should be more female zombies, by a small margin), but the zombie population is 70% or more male, you've got to ask what happened to all the women.

It's one thing when it's Call of Duty, set in WWII where women quite literally could not join the army, but when it's set on a space station in 2310 it's a different matter entirely.

 

[Zero Angel]

I believe that there is a basic level of respect that all human beings deserve simply because they are human beings and all life is sacred. And I believe that honesty is a basic kind of respect. No human being deserves to be lied to or deceived because a lie is one of the ways that you rob another of free will and that's a form of dehumanization that I can never agree with. I also believe that anything you can say honestly can AT THE SAME TIME be said with respect. Personally, I always give a lot of thought to anything I say before I say it.

To be tactful you must be able to exercise judgment, choosing how you say things to get the full point across while still maintaining a level of respect for another. Representing yourself and your viewpoints in a tactful manner will always garner better results when trying to defend your position or attempting persuasion.

Tactful expression is an extremely valuable skill, and in conjunction with ZA's prior post, requires intelligent thought & consideration for others thought before speaking.

Even in cases where you may not respect a person, tact will always win out. It's the choice between composure & class versus rule by emotion & demagogue.

I just have to disagree with both of you I guess. I don't think those are things you can universalize. By universalize, I mean, it's OK for Mythopoet to believe that all people deserve a base level of respect for being people, but can't say that all people should believe that all people deserve a base level of respect for being people. I can't imagine an argument that is going to result in me accepting that opinion.

Now, I don't think you should necessarily be cruel to people even if you don't respect them, so if this is what you mean by the base level of respect, then I suppose I can get on board, but even then, there are times when I am going to say it's OK to be cruel.

And as far as tact goes, I think you can be tactful without being nice. I know the most common definition of tact is this idea of being nice and knowing what to say to avoid being offensive, but I like to think of it as tactical. And really, if you have tact, then you are able to manipulate people to your benefit. Usually, you'll be doing this without giving offense, and that's the accepted definition of tact, but I really think it should be more general. If you disagree, then I don't think people need to have your definition of "tact" at all times. Sometimes, what is the best tactical decision in a conversation is to offend.

Now, what you really shouldn't do is give certain groups more or less respect based on membership in that group, unless membership in that group is chosen and that says something about them. So you can't (or at least shouldn't) give more or less respect to black people compared to white people, men compared to women, etc.

On the other hand, where do you draw the line? Should you give less respect to animals because they're not sapient? They didn't choose to not be sapient after all. And what about bugs? Do you kill them indiscriminately?

You may think this is off-topic, but going back in history, many people did believe that women and other races were not as good as "real" humans. If it's OK to be mean to bugs, then isn't it OK to be nicer to your own group than a group you don't belong to? How do you quantify it?

Maybe it's too late to participate in a non-rambling manner. Apologies.

 

[Feo Takahari]

Didn't we mention female representation among bad guys twenty or thirty pages back? Or maybe that was in another thread?

I'll mention what I mentioned then, which is that I love how fair Mass Effect is about this. Female antagonists are common, and die just as gruesomely as male enemies. (I do think the violence in that series is generally stronger than it needs to be, but it's certainly not discriminatory.)

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I just have to disagree with both of you I guess. I don't think those are things you can universalize. By universalize, I mean, it's OK for Mythopoet to believe that all people deserve a base level of respect for being people, but can't say that all people should believe that all people deserve a base level of respect for being people. I can't imagine an argument that is going to result in me accepting that opinion.

Who said that? My only point was that tactful expression is most effective & what it takes to exercise tact.

If you're talking about people that you could never have any form of respect for, or consider the dregs of society, would you even be in a discussion with them? We're discussing people worth talking to....

And as far as tact goes, I think you can be tactful without being nice.

Totally agree. You can also be respectful without being nice. Neither is easy. Things worth doing rarely are....

Sometimes, what is the best tactical decision in a conversation is to offend.

If you're in a profession dealing with other people (or any social situation), those instances would be rare. People don't respond well to your message when offended. People get defensive. People shut down & you lose any ability to persuade. Trying to shock people out of their opinion by being offensive is almost always a poor choice. It's hard enough to get a convicted, intelligent person to change thinking & behavior as it is.

You may think this is off-topic, but going back in history, many people did believe that women and other races were not as good as "real" humans. If it's OK to be mean to bugs, then isn't it OK to be nicer to your own group than a group you don't belong to? How do you quantify it?

Yeah, that's a pretty big leap away from the argument. I follow your logic but it doesn't really fit this discussion, in my opinion. Sorry but I don't want to go down that rabbit hole. Maybe another will.

 

[Devor]

If you're talking about people that you could never have any form of respect for, or consider the dregs of society, would you even be in a discussion with them? We're discussing people worth talking to....

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by the dregs of society, but I've had long chats with the homeless. I would describe it as pretty insightful, actually. It's usually not long before they're open about the drugs, and the people in their lives who've given up on them because of their behavior.

The world can be a messed up place, and people can do some messed up things. But even the homeless help each other out and show compassion to each other, and so do prisoners in jail. People aren't static and absolute. Even someone who cannot conquer their problems learns a lot about life, from a perspective that you might never have considered.

If you want to classify people as the "dregs of society," maybe you should consider that society is much bigger than your corner of it.

 

[Mythopoet]

I mean, it's awful when people are mocked and made fun of, bullying is never correct. But I have problems when men, white people, Christians, whathaveyou claim discrimination when - in fact - they are really only made fun of.

Well, I won't go into it anymore, because it is so off topic, but I just have to say that you're wrong.

I just have to disagree with both of you I guess. I don't think those are things you can universalize. By universalize, I mean, it's OK for Mythopoet to believe that all people deserve a base level of respect for being people, but can't say that all people should believe that all people deserve a base level of respect for being people. I can't imagine an argument that is going to result in me accepting that opinion.

I'm confused. Are you saying that I can't say that people should believe that all people deserve a base level of respect for being people? Well, you should. But it's pretty much the basis of my belief system that no one really behaves the way they're supposed to so I certainly don't expect you to agree with me.

Now, what you really shouldn't do is give certain groups more or less respect based on membership in that group, unless membership in that group is chosen and that says something about them. So you can't (or at least shouldn't) give more or less respect to black people compared to white people, men compared to women, etc.

Except that this is precisely what you are doing. You are grouping people into the ones that deserve your respect and the ones that don't. I don't know what exactly your criteria is to get into those groups, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't agree with it.

You may think this is off-topic, but going back in history, many people did believe that women and other races were not as good as "real" humans. If it's OK to be mean to bugs, then isn't it OK to be nicer to your own group than a group you don't belong to? How do you quantify it?

You don't have to go back into history. There are places where women are still treated as chattel. Islamic nations, for one. I once spent a month in Egypt. It was very... interesting. When we weren't in the big tourist places my group was instructed that the girls shouldn't be seen by the locals talking to the boys or even looking any male in the eye. (We spent a lot of time in the terrorism-against-tourists capital of Egypt so it was important not to offend them.) When we were in the big tourism spots the girls in my group were assigned a "husband" from the males of the group so that when we were inevitably harassed by the local vendors and such, we could say "No, I'm married. This is my husband" and then they would leave us alone. It's really a different world.

 

[saellys]

I don't think those are things you can universalize.

I sure hope you're wrong about that. Treating different people with respect is the only thing that keeps large people groups coexisting peacefully, so without that skill, urban civilization would dissolve and we'd all have to live in isolated, homogeneous family groups to avoid constant warfare.

... there are times when I am going to say it's OK to be cruel. ... Sometimes, what is the best tactical decision in a conversation is to offend.

I'm going to need examples, because I honestly cannot envision any situation where it's okay to be cruel and offensive.

You don't have to go back into history. There are places where women are still treated as chattel. Islamic nations, for one. I once spent a month in Egypt. It was very... interesting. When we weren't in the big tourist places my group was instructed that the girls shouldn't be seen by the locals talking to the boys or even looking any male in the eye. (We spent a lot of time in the terrorism-against-tourists capital of Egypt so it was important not to offend them.) When we were in the big tourism spots the girls in my group were assigned a "husband" from the males of the group so that when we were inevitably harassed by the local vendors and such, we could say "No, I'm married. This is my husband" and then they would leave us alone. It's really a different world.

You don't even have to leave the country. In street harassment situations, I have found that the only way to get a dude to leave me alone is to say I'm married. They literally don't respond to anything else. Here's an actual exchange:

Dude riding his bike next to mine, with no prior interaction: "Wanna get dinner?"
Me: "No."
That's where it should have ended. But...
Dude: "Why not?" (Like it's any of his business.)
Me: "You asked if I wanted to. I don't want to."
Dude: "Yeah, but why?"
Me: "I'm married."
Dude: "Oh. Have a nice day!"

Obviously the situation is not as dire as your experiences in Egypt. Nevertheless, that attitude of ownership, or a woman only being "off-limits" if she's married regardless of what she actually wants, exists here too.

 

[Mythopoet]

You don't even have to leave the country. In street harassment situations, I have found that the only way to get a dude to leave me alone is to say I'm married. They literally don't respond to anything else. Here's an actual exchange:

Dude riding his bike next to mine, with no prior interaction: "Wanna get dinner?"
Me: "No."
That's where it should have ended. But...
Dude: "Why not?" (Like it's any of his business.)
Me: "You asked if I wanted to. I don't want to."
Dude: "Yeah, but why?"
Me: "I'm married."
Dude: "Oh. Have a nice day!"

Obviously the situation is not as dire as your experiences in Egypt. Nevertheless, that attitude of ownership, or a woman only being "off-limits" if she's married regardless of what she actually wants, exists here too.

Here's the thing: you seem to be assuming that the guy had an attitude of "ownership" based on this brief encounter, but I can think of plenty of reasons for him to ask "why not?" that have nothing to do with such an attitude. I realize that you viewed his sudden invitation to dinner as somehow offensive. But consider that most guys have a hard time working up the courage to approach a woman for fear of rejection. (And we think they have all the power. Honestly, when it comes to relationships, women have sooo much power.) Perhaps he thought he was being cool and suave and honestly wondered what he did wrong so he could try something different the next time he approached a woman. Perhaps he felt a bit rebuffed by the brevity of your response and felt like you could at least give him a good reason. Perhaps if you had said something other than "I'm married" he would have accepted that just as easily because all he wanted was something a little more than "no" for his efforts. You'll never know, because you choose to play that card.

Unless there was A LOT more to this encounter that you're not elaborating on, it seems to me like you're making some pretty big assumptions about a stranger's attitude and motivations.

 

[Mindfire]

*snip*

Zero Angel, this may not be your intent, but you're starting to come off as kind of an amoral, Machiavellian type.

 

[Mindfire]

You don't even have to leave the country. In street harassment situations, I have found that the only way to get a dude to leave me alone is to say I'm married. They literally don't respond to anything else. Here's an actual exchange:

Dude riding his bike next to mine, with no prior interaction: "Wanna get dinner?"
Me: "No."
That's where it should have ended. But...
Dude: "Why not?" (Like it's any of his business.)
Me: "You asked if I wanted to. I don't want to."
Dude: "Yeah, but why?"
Me: "I'm married."
Dude: "Oh. Have a nice day!"

Obviously the situation is not as dire as your experiences in Egypt. Nevertheless, that attitude of ownership, or a woman only being "off-limits" if she's married regardless of what she actually wants, exists here too.

Part of the problem is that there's a community specifically built around giving guys advice on asking girls out... and their advice SUCKS. I'm not kidding. Some of the advice they'll most often give, things that are considered "common knowledge" are absolutely and without a doubt the lowest pedigree of bulls**t. Not even government grade bulls**t. I mean this is "stop telling me you didn't take that cookie out of the jar when I watched you do it before my very eyes" level bulls**t. And one of these ruinous pieces of advice is the idea that if a woman says no, it really means yes, except you have to show her you're strong and confident (which in this case means pushy apparently) so you can "pass the test" and she will then relent and go out with you.

Sorry, but I prefer to follow my father's advice which is, to paraphrase, "If a woman says no, IT MEANS F***ING NO!"

Okay now that I've got my reactionary, slightly off-topic rant out of my system, Mythopoet has a point. Maybe he was honestly curious about what he did wrong. Perhaps not. But things like intent can only be judged in the moment via nonverbal cues and such and are therefore impossible for us to tell from a 3rd person's perspective after the fact. I could read his part of the exchange above as pushy or I could read it as dejected, depending on the tone. But since saellys was the only person there at the time, only she can really know what the tone was.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by the dregs of society, but I've had long chats with the homeless. I would describe it as pretty insightful, actually. It's usually not long before they're open about the drugs, and the people in their lives who've given up on them because of their behavior.

The world can be a messed up place, and people can do some messed up things. But even the homeless help each other out and show compassion to each other, and so do prisoners in jail. People aren't static and absolute. Even someone who cannot conquer their problems learns a lot about life, from a perspective that you might never have considered.

If you want to classify people as the "dregs of society," maybe you should consider that society is much bigger than your corner of it.

That's putting words in my mouth. I suppose I should've been more specific. I'm not talking about unfortunate people. I was referring to thugs, violent criminals, people of that ilk, ones that aren't concerned with redemption in any sense. There are parasites in this world. Yes, there are exceptions to every case. Just trying to clarify that to be in a constructive conversation, you'd likely be talking to someone you consider worth talking to, considering your argument/discussion topic.

I certainly wasn't attempting to degrade any specific "group" of people, talk down to anyone from a pulpit, or assign value to any person. Thats not me & I'd hope that should be clear to all members by this point. I've lived all over the world....in many countries & locales. I know better than most the variety that exists and how big the world truly is.... Still, people share basic commonalities regardless.

 

[saellys]

Here's the thing: you seem to be assuming that the guy had an attitude of "ownership" based on this brief encounter, but I can think of plenty of reasons for him to ask "why not?" that have nothing to do with such an attitude. I realize that you viewed his sudden invitation to dinner as somehow offensive. But consider that most guys have a hard time working up the courage to approach a woman for fear of rejection. (And we think they have all the power. Honestly, when it comes to relationships, women have sooo much power.) Perhaps he thought he was being cool and suave and honestly wondered what he did wrong so he could try something different the next time he approached a woman. Perhaps he felt a bit rebuffed by the brevity of your response and felt like you could at least give him a good reason. Perhaps if you had said something other than "I'm married" he would have accepted that just as easily because all he wanted was something a little more than "no" for his efforts. You'll never know, because you choose to play that card.

Unless there was A LOT more to this encounter that you're not elaborating on, it seems to me like you're making some pretty big assumptions about a stranger's attitude and motivations.

I don't feel compelled to sympathize with this dude based on the premise that it took "courage" to ask a random girl out to dinner. Rejection is a part of life. I hope I live long enough to see the day when women, in their interactions with men, fear something as trivial as rejection.

Once I spent an entire year working up the nerve to give a cute boy my number; he never called me. I did not demand a reason why, though I could have since we saw each other frequently enough for several years after. He wasn't into me, so I moved on. Street Corner Bike Dude did not respect my first two answers, and I did not owe him an itemized list of reasons. That list would have started and ended with "You just approached me out of nowhere," which he obviously thought was totally acceptable, so it would not have been effective anyway.

Your implication that I should have nursed his wounded male pride by softening my answer is part of the reason women fear rejection too... but we're afraid of being the rejector. Not only are we trained by our culture to be wary of how men might react to rejection, but if we do flat out say "no," we're told later that we should have handled the situation differently. "No" in all its forms has to be respected without caveat, mitigation, or elaboration.