There have been a few topics that have tackled issues of gender and sexism as presented in D:OS2. As some of those threads have gotten out of control, I felt it was time to start fresh and try to cover the subject as comprehensively and maturely as I can.

Biological and cultural differences between men and women

There are clear biological differences in athletic aptitude between men and women, and that's why sports generally are uncontroversially segregated by gender. However, Lyrhe made some comments where he argued that there are fundamental biological differences in intellectual aptitude between men and women.

Addressing a comment by Skallewag, I made the case earlier that culture is much more significant than race when it comes to athletic aptitude. That's why Americans are good at basketball, Australians are good at swimming & cricket (and summer sports, generally), Canadians are good at hockey, New Zealanders are good at rugby, Europeans are good at soccer, etc. I can't imagine anyone trying to argue that there are significant biological differences between these groups.

Likewise, all evidence points to differences in intellectual aptitude between men and women, but further analysis points to this being cultural, not biological. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in different contexts, as per the following references:
Think Again: Men and Women Share Cognitive Skills
Men Are Better At Maps Until Women Take This Course
Why you should send your daughter to an all-girls school
Girls and boys have different cognitive abilities


Text vs subtext

To be clear, it is not a problem if the world depicted in D:OS is sexist. First off, it's far less sexist than the real world anyway. In the real world there are few women taking on the roles of warriors, particularly in the medieval style of society that is depicted. The removal of this sexism makes the world less realistic, but I can accept it and I appreciate the freedom it provides.

On the other hand, there are media like Witcher 3, Game of Thrones & Dragon Age which also present sexist worlds with sexualised characters, and yet this does not bother me.

Art is more complex than just the world it presents. In art, it's important to remember that there are different layers of text:

• -> text (in this case, the world that is depicted)
• -> context (the cultural lense in which we view this world)
• -> subtext (the attitudes presented by the manner in which this world is portrayed)

The subtext is the part that really raises eyebrows. To be clear, the subtext in D:OS is much less sinister than the subtext in highly sexist examples like Metal Gear Solid V or Grand Theft Auto. D:OS2 could be worse, but there's still room for improvement.

So far, the concerns I've had regarding the subtext regarding gender relate to:

• -> Contrast between male and female poses during character creation
• -> Sebille (female) as the only scantily clad playable character, and the first character you see during character creation

This is certainly not exhaustive. There are potentially other issues that will be more apparent through further exploration of the game and as more content is released.


Traditional gender roles and why it matters

There were some very problematic comments by Testad I'd like to highlight. He's right that he comes from a different culture that views gender differently from my cultural background. But we all need to analyse our cultural views on gender, and consider how individuals push their cultural attitudes (which Testad admitted to be unjustifiable) onto the broader society they inhabit.

Traditionally women are not idolised for their intelligence or their strength. It's not seen to be attractive for a woman to be strong or intelligent. Under this dichotomy (and as confirmed by thebonesinger's comment) the men are attractive for taking poses that emphasise their strength or intelligence, but for women who want to take on a strong or intelligent pose, they also need to also sway their hips or otherwise emphasise their female sexuality in order to also be seen as attractive.

This is the reason women seem to be inherently less apt in masculine fields. There is clear research showing both men and women unintentionally rate equally qualified women as less competent than men in traditionally masculine fields. Media sends the message that strength and intelligence are masculine traits that are less important to women their femininity. This is the direct cause of experiences such as the one that Vometia expressed where colleagues questioned her aptitude in IT because of her gender. (This not only affects women, mind you. Men also face roadblocks if they want to take on feminine roles.)

Regardless of our culture, I think we can agree that men and women should have the same freedom of choice and the same opportunity to succeed, but we all need to acknowledge that this is not the reality we live in. This is the reason I care about how women are represented in a game.


Gender imbalance among fans of D:OS

Finally, there is this article from Swen lamenting that only 4% of the visitors to the Kickstarter were "female", and that only 9% of the followers of Facebook were "female". In the end, one conclusion Swen reached is that the Google analytics used for the Kickstarter were inaccurate. He accused the analytics of being sexist because when demographic data can't be obtained directly, Google will guess gender for purposes of Adwords. Because these are guesses, it's impossible to understand its accuracy.

However, when Google Analytics guesses, it does it in a sophisticated way -- that is, it won't assume you're a male just because you visit a website associated with a male interest. However, it will look at the known audience of that website and assume that you're male if you spend a lot of time on websites where most of the audience is known to be male. The results of these processes appear to be very accurate.

The fact is that all evidence points to the D:OS audience being overwhelmingly male. As a business, Larian needs to recognise that it's unlikely they're reaching the gender diverse audience they expect to be reaching. Given that Swen pointed out that PAX attendees are 35% female, this is clearly a problem that cannot simply be explained by blaming the overall demographics of hardcore gamers.

Even highly masculine games like Battlefield have a 22% female player demographic, so it's unlikely that less than 20% of the players of D:OS2 would be female, but there is something very problematic about having only 4% of visitors identifying as female. I'd be interested to know if there are any Google Analytics that have been done to see if this forum's demographics look any better.

If Larian wants to attract female gamers or address sexism, then they will need to do some navel gazing that doesn't simply rely on fielding opinions from their core fans. I'm not necessarily suggesting that the gender imbalance will be solved by reducing sexism in the game. As we are all living products of sexist culture, eliminating sexism in the game may actually be irrelevant to the goal of attracting women and Larian may be better off focusing on introducing explicitly "feminine" elements such as romance.

But it's important to recognise that there's a problem and I do not think it is unreasonable to hope that Larian could also try to aim to present any new or existing elements in a manner that does not invoke or reinforce regressive sexist attitudes.

I.......dude, you do understand your still arguing moral philosophy yes? I mean, I was a dick about it before, but restating your moral philosophy and the why's of it aren't gonna change the fact that it can brought into question itself. That all your points rely on statistics analysis, and as someone taking graduate courses related to this stuff, I'm telling you that I could make much of statistics say anything I want.

All of your arguments rely on a few key facts:
There are common moral grounds that cross the relative boundary between two peoples in the points you present
That people accept your statistical analysis and experts and resuources vs others against them
That yours and other sharing your views critical analysis and perspective of the subject matter and data is shared by others

I'll grant you that you're not an ass and you clearly have attempted to create an informed opinion and well structuted argument, but it doesn't make it less easy to tear down if one feels so inclined.

On another matter, you being up all this stuff focusing on female problems but fail to mention male ones with the same passion or degree even in the inviromenrs you bring up. That alone is an avenue of attack.

Besides allllllllll of that, you have the unique issue of trying to convince a group to come to the discussion table that has in the past attempted to but been burned multiple times by your "side" or at the least groups that said similar things. This makes it much harder to willingly attempt discussion as you must first prove that your worthy of said discussion and must inspire confidence that said discussion will be good for all parties and you won't single one side out.

I myself have offered attempts to reach middle grounds and compromises for your "side" in these forums. I was routinely ignored by one group and warned by the other that you'd only take a mile for every inch and eventually keep pushing and pushing and pushing and accepting no less than total victory in any discussion or action taken.

Also, also, there's the fact that your views are distinctly in the minority here. So that's an uphill battle.


PS. I still thinking its highly wrong to push your views onto a medium just for the sake of making it one more tool in the overarching scheme of things that we call life such that your views gain greater traction in society. That's how one of my favorite book series got ruined; a few of them actually. Authors were forced to make radical changes or lower quality in order to meet certain criteria of publishers such that political overtures and messages range through out;m. Never mind that the changes made no sense, ruined the quality, and basically tore to shreds all the original artistic talent that had gone into the original writing in books one to convey specific things. Never mind that a medium means more to its audience than the political or moral views that may be in it. Hell, its like if we had a dictator and so all books that had a protagonist that led rebellion against tyrants or showed the merits of democracy were burned or changed.

I should put the record straight there: that's not something I've experienced much within IT itself (a field which in my experience used to be much more open to women, by the by: there was almost parity between men and women when I started out, but it seems women in particular were turned off by an increasingly toxic working environment. Men didn't generally like it much either but seemed more resigned to trying to live with it. Anyway...) but has periodically been a notable feature outside of my professional environment. Not on a particularly major scale, but there are a few people whose opinions have been, erm, "notable". I'm never sure whether to be more amused or irritated when someone who knows I started working in IT nearly 30 years ago and who has no experience of it himself starts trying to explain to me how computers work...

But regarding the conclusion, speaking personally, I think the matter of sexism in the workplace and games is something that should be approached with great caution: obviously where it's a problem it needs to be addressed seriously, but where such an approach could result in the wrong solution to the wrong problem, I would be extremely uncomfortable having it done in my name.

First of all, the differences in men and women, including intelligence, are biological first and foremost. Even within the U.S., the bell curve for female intelligence is much more clustered around the mean, while male intelligence is more spread out. This means that there are more genius men than genius women, but there are also more stupid men than stupid women.

In first-world countries, there is no sexism against women. Yes, the genders are different, but these differences go so far back historically that they have been made biological through natural selection.

But none of this matters, because this is a video game. The developers can make the characters however they like, and I adamantly support their ability to do so. That being said, I see absolutely no problem with the way the genders are presented in this game.

I swear to god, if this forum turns into a bunch of women complaining about "sexism" in a video game, I'm out.

I have noticed in life, anecdotal, of course, that guys are more willing to put up with crap much more often, on average, than a woman when it comes to certain things. Maybe we're just being more stubborn when we dig our heels in, on average, though :P Grrr Manly Stoicism and bottling our emotions. "Lost an arm? Tis but a scratch!"

I've seen this reflected in game forums, my two years working at a restaurant (man but the hiring and firing there was like a revolving door for most people), my girlfriend, and one of my housemates who's had more job changes than I can keep count of for all kinds of reasons concerning why one place or another made her ultimately unhappy/bored/unprofessional/ect...

Also, how stupid do those people feel when they try to explain to you how computers work? Their expressions must be more than a little comical. And I'd say the correct reaction is amused. I'd definitely encourage amusement and milking it for as much much joke material as possible.

EDIT:


Meh, I doubt it'd get that bad, and at least it'd act as a magnet for all the other threads that devolve into this. As long as it's all in one place, I'm fine with it. There's also the fact that the OP is in the minority here.

I just lost my patience when there's a new thread (or connected enough that it might as well be) about it all the time or someone bringing it into a new thread all the time.

Well, basically we are talking sexual objectification (that's what a bikini armor is, after all). So you have three sides, those that want it for both sexes, those that don't want it at all, and those who are happy the way things are, sexual objectification of female only. There are worlds and places where it makes sense (Conan the Cimmerian, the princesses in Dragon Commander), but I havn't seen anything that make it fit for armors in previous Divinity games.

You may say it's a political agenda, but keeping things the way they are is one too (because things are doesn't mean they have to be kept that way).

There's some truth here. My counter point is this: All groups are active in creative mediums, especially in the present day world where political social activism is the new rage again. One group should not be pushing it's onto the creation of another group or the identity of another group.

I.E. What they did with Ghostbusters or what seems to be happening here

If you want to make a new IP or game or piece or art or book or something that contains your values, go right ahead. Freedom of Speech and all that. If I like your game , or what have you but dislike, the inherent messages that come with it, I might grumble, but I won't begrudge the fact that it's your freedom to make it and I wouldnt demand you change it. Point of fact, I have appreciated creative material made by "feminists" and such and enjoyed them...just I've enjoyed "sexists" work. They can exist in tandem....

EDIT:
Also, I fundamentally disagree that sexual objectification only happens to women. Hell, even in things like the original D:OS cover art. How men and women are idealized sexually is inherently different, after all, and shouldn't be looked at with the same check list.

^ But that's neither here no there and I appreciate you focusing on a more constructive point; one where I don't feel the need to point out flaws in moral philosophy arguments concerning right and left wing politics.

EDIT_2:
Also, considering current technology development and how game design is progressing, it seems to me that more powerful character creation and/or wide selections of various character all under the sun is becoming more and more of thing. The old way of having just a few notable stereoypes or options is dying out. People love options and feeling like they really identify or own their avatars, after all.

Thus, given more time, all these group this or group that stuff will eventually just go away on it's own. It's all converging to an all inclusive environment: one where a guy can have his big breasted, sex goddess in bikini armor and another can have a guy in a dress being a transexual barbarian who identifies as a pyrofox.

Civ 6 just announced a new cool female leader with interesting abilities as well. It's about 1:1 male and female leaders and each is interesting in their own way. It was slightly amusing in a "Damn, people are stupid way" when someone apparently decided to connect this, a change in artistic style, and the fact that a female dev with cool pink hair was the one on camera with feminism and political correctness (Steam forum if you want to look) <- As much as you think we bash on you guys when you pull up stuff about sexism and politics and stuff, me and others here and on other forums are just as quick to bash people like that as well.

Also, serious warriors in bikini armor is one of the most retarded, magical things I've ever seen. Does it magically give Charm bonuses to make dodging easier? Cause it should be giving you something in exchange for practicality. Unless, the enemy is so busy staring at your tits they can't help but swing for them in some dazed attempt to cop a feel while forgetting they're holding a weapon.

Sometimes outlandish stuff like that is for jokes/satire and sometimes the characters make sense of it (ex Revi from Black Lagoon), but I also have a funny look moment when I see it in things where the setting is much more grim dark or serious.

Stop right there, red flag. If the topics got out of hand, you are just looking for a debate then..you know the forums here do not share the same view as you, yet you want to push on it to literally start a debate / fight... so stop it.

secondly, don't lump all females together. I am 100% you and I don't have anything in common. Cause like.. I can tell a video game apart from reality.

*sighs* the elf female thing. You know know their lore correct? in this game..it would make zero sense if they were walking around in full plate armor going "don't look at me!"

Been playing for hours and have not found anything sexist in the game. Look at Griff in fort joy he has male and female thugs. \o/ and his female thugs were actually harder to fight then his male ones @_@.

Larian is a great company and they shouldn't have to deal with this issue again in this games forums. So stop it *gets the spray bottle* Let them focus on more important things, like DM mode, creation tools... ^_^!

respawn timers and level scaling! just saying, make it a thing! *runs away*



I will turn into a rainbow of happy if those two things make it into the editor tools.... and some kinda corpse removal thingy

Whoooooaaaaaa there nelly, hold your horses a gosh darn second. Have you ever experienced sexual discrimination before? Have you not listened to a woman who's gone through it? Have you not read a word about how Vometia feels talked down to because of her hender, did you not read a word that Testad said in the other thread about men being the kings of the household, about how women should be protected from themselves? Are you seriously going to say,



when people like my mother, a woman who has multiple patents for things that she has invented herself, who went from a poverty-stricken, unemployed single mother to having a master's in materials science and a bachelor's in mechanical engineering, has had to file multiple sexual harassment charges, has been passed up for promotions because he boss believed (and this is a quote, by the way) "I think women should know what it's like to have a man on top. Especially when they don't have one in their life."? Hold on for a second. Let me look up the definition of sexism for you.


sex·ism
ˈsekˌsizəm/
noun
noun: sexism

prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.


My mother has been told to her face that she is seen as unfit for a leadership position explicitly because of her genetic makeup. This is the definition of discrimination on the basis of sex. This happened in the US. Do you think this is an isolated incident?

She was hired at Experian because her boss wanted to sleep with her, and when she didn't give in to his advances, she was fired.

When she was at Raytheon, her boss wouldn't stop sending her love messages and giving her special treatment, so she had to file a restraining order against him because he wouldn't listen to her pleas for him to stop.

Hell, it gets as small and petty as that men in my family are notorious for getting tickets for traffic violations, but over Thanksgiving one year, it became very clear after a few minutes of discussion that the women were being pulled over far more often, and being let off with warnings.

And then there was the discrimination that I faced. I was not allowed to play the flute growing up because my family thought it was a girl's instrument.

I was not allowed to be in Choir because my mom thought it was "for girls".

I have been called a freak and sent death threats because someone found out I tried to put on makeup once when I was 14.

The list goes on and on, from the subtle, every day things that people tend to write off, to the major, career-impacting phenomena that are constantly happening to women like my mother year after bloody year. I could keep going with examples if I need to, but your argument that these are "biological" differences is completely baseless, unsupported and downright inane. The thought that there is no more sexism in first-world countries is downright ignorant on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin. It's not like I'm the only one experiencing these things. Look up any of Michelle Obama's talks about feminism and what it was like to face adversity as a successful woman. Hell, go walk up to any woman on the street, and ask them, "do you believe elements of sexism are perpetuated in our culture today?", or anything along those lines, and you may just find that there are societal expectations placed on women to be mothers first, and businesswomen second. Hell, my aunt (who is a self-made millionaire, by the way) taught a whole class on feminism. My grandmother is constantly going to women's retreats and women's bible studies to speak about her degree, and the challenges she faced in attaining it. She has to teach classes on a regular basis about how women are not inferior to men, because here in Texas, where I live, it is not a commonly held belief that women can be or should be allowed to be successful. It's disgusting, I hate it, I've seen it all around me all my life, and I've had to experience my fair share of "special treatment" that comes with being a white male in American society. It's real. I can feel it. I can tell it's there. From the way cops will not at me when they whistle at my sister, to the way the women in my family are expected to do all the kitchenwork (yes, even my self-made millionaire aunt who is somehow simultaneously a stay-at-home mom and an incredibly wealthy businesswoman working from home, God bless her heart). And the way that anytime I go over to help wash the dishes, or chop the onions, or peel the potatoes, my grandpa will stop me and call me over. Just to talk. And when I bring my work with me, he says things like "put that down, Grandma'll handle it". I don't know if you are truly living in blissful ignorance, or if you truly believe that this is the product of biology, but either way, this is not an issue that you have demonstrated that you are holding an informed opinion about. Please, explain to me , with utter clarity, no ambiguity, and unequivocally, exactly why you think that

And as soon as you are done making your point, we are going to drop it. Because it is insensitive, irrelevant to the discussion presented, and just generally genuinely insulting on behalf of every female in my family who has to go through all of this.

@SlamPow
I don't want to harp on your parade and life story their pal, but two things. I mean, I could being up others, but I only really want to focus on two.

1) While I don't really agree with Testad's opinions, his culture is his culture and if him and his woman are happy then you really shouldn't be putting your foot in that door to say anything. Hell, you shouldn't be acting like your culture is better.

2) My grandpa does the same thing and my grand ma is perfectly happy with it; actually she's incredibly bothered by the idea of me touching her kitchen. They're from another time and another culture and they're happy

I stress the word happy cause it means that there's no need for you to interfere. You don't need to step in and say they shouldn't be happy and there's no need to try and deprive or change them away from something that makes them happy. At the point you're just doing it for yourself.

MORAL RELATIVITY
Read up on it. It's a pretty simple concept that most people deny out right cause of one basic premise: By accepting it, you accept that you're no position to say there's such a thing as moral progress since all things are relative and nothing it better than the other. Most people hate the idea they can't denounce something as wrong and another as inherently right.

I generally accept the above statement as a realistic truth despite believing in God.

My criteria for saying a cultural perspective/action/view is wrong is very small:
1) Does it hold a society back in a very quantifiable sense (science, industry, ect..?
2) Does it create general misery for the majority of the populace?

Of course there's the always present bonus round:
3) Does it cause upheavel in my, and those I care about, personal life where it's not needed nor desired?

^ But I'm a selfish human bastard that puts me and the few I care about first always. The rest of the world can burn for the most part.

EDIT: Aside from that, I'm not really trying to detract from the overall point you're trying to make in the end on your end. Just point out something. I'm not really looking for that argument on the whole "Is sexism a thing in present society? And if so, in what ways? And what should we do, if anything to address this?" and I'm not even really looking for an argument for "Is sexism wrong?" <- Just making sure that you, nor anyone else, tries to pull me into that.

I am not one for tact or subtlety or being empathetic. I am generally direct and very honest; I will only come across as an asshole (a very insensitive one) if you're views are significantly to the left or if you hold close emotional ties to some topic. I make it a point not to emotionally invest myself in many things. Social issues is definitely not one of them and arguing from a moral/emotional standpoint won't get you far with me when it comes to political things.

I don't understand. On one hand, you say I am arguing morals. But on the other hand, I am not. I never was. At no point did I say any of this was right or wrong. I could give you a thirty minute rant about why Testad's behavior is controlling, and how that influences women's behavior directly (including providing clear motivation for women to hide their feelings), but I'm not going to. Because he's a straw man at this point, and I frankly don't care.

Now, let's take a look at exactly what it is that I'm saying.

"Are you seriously going to say,

Originally Posted By: CharityDairy
In first-world countries, there is no sexism against women."

That's it. I was calling into question the postulate that sexism was not present in first-world countries. At what point do I bash Testad's culture? It is a clear example of what has already been defined as sexism. Where did I act like my culture was any better? In the next several paragraphs, where I proceed to bash on it? What did I do next? I presented numerous examples of sexism, in a first-world country. Do you really believe that my grandma didn't want me in the kitchen, helping? My mother constantly forces me to help at home. It made my grandpa happy when I didn't help. Not her. Not the one who I was assisting, the one who's opinion I should be caring about. But let me read up on Moral Relativism anyways.

Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism) is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.

And where did I make moral claims? I have a clear argument that sexism does exist, in a first world country. And I do not stray from addressing that. I never said anything about the wrong or right of sexism. I never said that it needs to stop, that it offends me, or anything related to morals or ethics for that matter. The most I said was that I feel insulted by his ignorance, and that's a seperate matter entirely. In short, I feel as though you are putting words into my mouth, by accusing me of saying things I never did. Please stop and reevaluate what I said. I am making an objective statement, with objective facts to back it up, which prove my point. I am objectively right about this. Because this is not a moral issue. It is an issue about the existence of an issue, and by denying that sexism exists - not by being sexist, not by perpetuating sexism, none of that, I'm not saying anything like that - he has personally insulted me. You could even say that he has offended me personally. But my sensibilities, not my morals. No morals are at play in this case. I do not feel that it is sexist of him to say these things, and I do not feel as though he is a proponent of sexism. How I would feel about those is not the point is not relevant, and is why I am not arguing with Testad, because that would truly be a moral argument (although, again, I bring him up as an example because it is objective sexism that he is demonstrating, in a first world country, which contributes directly to my point and therefore this discussion). Instead, it is that I am experiencing a very real feeling that I am being personally attacked by him directly by having the struggles that myself, that my mother, and that so many other men and women have gone through, so rudely dismissed. That is all.

Edit: And I want to clarify, that I never said it was "right" or "wrong" of him to insult me or for me to feel the way I do. What's objectively right is that there is an easy-to-prove case for sexism being very real and very present in a first-world country. I don't care if it was right of him to insult me, I just want it to stop ,which is why I said I would drop it after he further clarified on his point.

Actually I'm the one advocating against a change in the IP here
Bikiniplate has never been an issue in previous Divinity game because there was none. I want to keep it that way, the same way I want Larian to keep telling jokes and making puns in the game.

You are the one who agrees with a change of the IP, I'm the conservative one here :p

Mah, mah I was being more general. Lol But that's a good point ;P

But wasn't the original D:OS gonna have bikini armor according to the box art? (I'm kinda glad they changed it, but I would've been for it on say a rogue not meant to get hit anyway or if it was a joke thing) The artist made a whole post about it.

And in this specific case, I think I'd consider the Original Sin games separate from the others. They're all just so different and even the devs don't really try to keep a truly cohesive universe except loosely last I checked.

You do certainly raise a very valid point concerning Bikini armor and this IP. MMM, *mumble mumble* should we consider them all one IP *mumble mumble*

But! Yay! I got to play the part of being the non-conservative in a conversation for once on here! Viva La Resistance!

Ah......big oops and lots of sorries! I totally read that wrong then. I saw that point but I did kinda skim a more than a bit. I kinda just got the vibe you were implying those things were wrong.

If you're only point was on it's existence, then....yeah, sure. I don't need to say anything on that. Like I said: I don't want to touch that with a ten foot pole.....Pssshhh *whisper* B-b-but it does definitely exist in the world, even if I don't agree with the exstent others say it does *now running away from that topic*

EDIT:
Troll moment -> Aren't sensibilities relative? And to argue a problem exists you must agree to define what constitutes a problem.....and....Yep, could keep going with that but really that's me being a bit of a dick cause I have an odd sense of humor and I have moments where I feel like being asinine

Well, you know I can't help but forgive you when you put it so demurely.


And yeah, I can see why you wouldn't want to touch it. But as far as not believing in it to the same extent that others do, please keep in mind, that these things I bring up are all things that have happened to me or to people close to me, and additionally that I pretty much aggregated the biggest, most traumatic examples that I can remember from like the past 14 years, so that's spread out over quite a long time. I don't mean to make it out to be a huge deal, because I feel that it's really not. Things have gotten way better for women in the past decade, I feel.

That, and there's much worse issues here in Texas anyways, ones that I have lots of personal experience with. Like race! But! Not gonna open up that can of worms.



Well yes, of course sensitivities are relative. But that's what makes them so relevant to me personally. My sensibilities are offended ---> I want people to stop offending them ---> tell the offender politely yet firmly to stop, is the natural flow of logic, and it's where my point led. Again, I never said it was by any means objectively wrong of him to offend me. He can say offensive things all day long, just like my racist uncles do. But when it affects me directly, then I must take action to cause it to stop, which is what I did, and I further ensured that he stop by directly addressing why he was offending me, and explaining the issue to him so that hopefully he would understand, and I would no longer be offended. Once more, not saying anything objective. Just personally feeling insulted and taking direct steps to alleviate that.

As for what constitutes a problem, anything that causes me emotional distress causes me a problem, as stress ties directly to my health, and I already have a stress disorder. But, like I said, I am taking steps to solve my problem directly.

Haha well, thanks for being forgiving.

And I totally get where you're coming from. I have personal experience or at least know people with lots of personal experience concerning hardships and tragedies and what not of various kinds from many walks of life. My problem is that when I always put things in perspective of population scale and proportions, numbers, and artificially perceived inflation of an issue given the information era and technology we now have. I don't try to say social issues don't exist, but anecdotal accounts vs hard numeric data on the seriousness of the issue.

*sheepish shrug* Gah, look at you. Somehow Jedi mind tricking me into discussing politics seriously! *sigh* Way too early for that; I should be in my bed with my beautiful girlfriend but insomnia paired with ADHD sucks

EDIT:
By the by, that was the best argument I've seen yet for saying you were justified in defending and standing up for your relative subjective views; what with the the whole flow of logic and what naturally occurs when you're sensibilities are offended.

TELL ME ABOUT IT!

I haven't slept in 2 1/2 days.

On the bright side, it's given me time to put another thirty hours into DOS2... =D

Also, I think part of it is to blame on these forums. We seriously need to stop talking, because you are way too informative and engaging of a person. If this keeps up, we might even end up as friends!

Edit: Thanks man! I'm glad I could come across as sensible, especially when dealing with topics involving emotional reactions.

Oh, yeah, there're both very familiar sights in my extensive portfolio of things that irritate me. I can empathise, even with the autism thing going on too.

Heyooo! I may not have autism, but I am mentally disabled, so I can totally relate!

Edit: Or maybe not, now that I think about it. May be totally different. Still! Mentally disabled buddies, woooo!

In my experience, it seems that psychiatric interestingnesses often hang around in gangs, so while they may be distinct and different to each other, in practice I think it's often quite easy to relate. It's one of those subjects where they can often seem more different than they are alike on the basis that all people are different, speaking as someone who for a long time rejected the idea of autism because "but I'm not like that". No, I'm like me, which is the whole point! The autism angle no more identifies me than having brown eyes (or whatever colour I've chosen today: one of the advantages of wearing contacts is that it conveniently panders to the indecisive in that regard at least).

Ah, I see!

I should learn from your example. My mental illness has really been controlling my life lately, between the medication side effects keeping me bedridden and the disorder itself flaring back up in the absence of any antipsychotics. Also, I would totally do colored contacts, but I was born with crystal blue eyes, which I've been told look really pretty! Then again, I've always been partial to the thought of glowing neon green irises, so I'll have to give it a shot someday!

Weird Life Fact of the day: Weird people like other weird people :P Weird being nonstandard for general utility in this case

Opinion: Normal gets boring

2nd Opinion: Guh, I could never do contacts. I'd poke out my eye; sides nerdy is sexy. I love my girlfriend wearing her glasses while wearing a Japanese marvel comi-con t shirt.

Oooooh, you should go into work with Sharigan or something lol

*sigh* well, I'm making my way to bed to see if I can force catch some sleep. These forums are part of my new entertainment lol and it's horrible on my habits

Alright, I'll hit the hay too, then, so neither of us is tempted to stay up. Sleep well, man! Say hi to your beautiful girlfriend for me!

*sigh* No, there is not a general trend of discrimination against women in the workplace anymore, it has been made largely illegal. Yes you can find an anecdotal example of someone discriminating against your mother, and I can throw anecdotes right back abut the reverse.

Lets touch on this women in IT for a moment shall we, because not only are women not being barred from entering these fields, they are actually prefered for hire over men because there is such pressure from certain *ahem* groups to "get women into STEM"

I will however not be trying to spin an emotional argument based on some anecdote, lets instead look at some statistics.

From: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/04/women-preferred-21-over-men-stem-faculty-positions

"For decades, sexism in higher education has been blamed for blocking women from landing academic positions in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields.
But a new study by Cornell psychologists suggests that era has ended, finding in experiments with professors from 371 colleges and universities across the United States that science and engineering faculty preferred women two-to-one over identically qualified male candidates for assistant professor positions."

The question is, now that I can direct you to solid evidence that the situation in STEM is actually the reverse of what you were trying to argue based on some anecdotes, are you equally upset over reading about the reverse?
If we were to start extrapolating what kind of anecdotes of one gender being passed up for promotions based on specifically gender over merit, does the situation in reverse make you equally upset or do you take a neutral or even positive attitude towards it? I ask you this question more for you to honestly ask it of yourself than to present me with an answer, because if your spontaneous reaction to reading about preferential treatment of women in STEM was anything but an equal amount of disapproval you showed previouisly, why should anyone take your hypocritical indignation seriously?

Another relevant point when opting to explain the gender disparity in STEM fields as caused by sexism is the implications of this explanation. If the reason we find fewer women in these fields in the west, then what is the explanation for women earing a majority of science degrees in the following countries:

Iran
Oman
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates
Romania
Algeria
Bulgaria
Malaysia
Kyrgyzstan
Italy
Uzbekistan
Georgia (the country, not the state)
Panama
Lebanon
Argentina
Jordan
Palestinian Authority
Mongolia
Azerbaijan

Are we going to conclude that this list of countries is less sexist than a list of western countries? Is the explanation that Sweden has one of the most gender segregated workforces in the world that Sweden is simply more sexist than this long list topped by middle eastern countries?

http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/mariacharles/documents/WhatGenderisScience.pdf

One might think that the sexism drum should start wearing out at some point considering how hard people are beating it over anything and everything.
But if Saudi Arabia is doing a much better job at curbing sexism in education, perhaps we should start taking cues from them as how to best eliminate the persistence of sexism here in the west? What do you say?

There is stuff, that makes women biological superior to men in specific areas, and stuff that makes men superior to women. But no every man and every woman are the same, some men are more like women and some women more like men, natur is strange. Men in general are strong in body but weak in mind, they are better soldiers and heavy workers but more likely to kill themself, sometimes just out of recklessness. Women can withstand far more suffering and because they are weaker bodywise they tend to be smarter, if you are weak you need to outsmart the stronger one. "Behing a strong man is always a strong woman" just a different kind of strong. Also women tend to be far more hard-working than men.

There is of course still sexism in the first world, there are many fields where women need to work harder to gain the same, and some fields were men are looked at as less competent. Overall women are getting more and more on the same field, but they still get more discriminated, mainly because men are afraid of their competition.

Men prefer to look down and women prefer to look up. If men and women met on a plain field, neither side will have a lot to look at.

Feel free to try backing up your claims with some substantial evidence. It would make them a lot more credible.

It's for a job as assistant professor. So an underling job.

Edit : and no, I won't check the other link when the first one is already crap.

Ah, so the sexism only starts for professorships? I see. I guess we better make that call to Saudi Arabia and ask them to help us with this sexism problem. No.... actually lets look at some more possible causative factors before we continue mindlessly banging the sexism drum.

From:
Gender differences at critical transitions in the careers of science, engineering and mathematics faculty
https://www.nap.edu/read/12062/chapter/1

Page 153
"The surveys of academic departments and faculty have yielded interesting and sometimes surprising findings. For the most part, male and female faculty in science, engineering, and mathematics have enjoyed comparable opportunities within the university, and gender does not appear to have been a factor in a number of important career transitions and outcomes."

Page 154
"Women accounted for about 17 percent of applications for both tenure-track and tenured positions in the departments surveyed. There was wide variation by field and by department in the number and percentage of female applicants for faculty positions. In general, the higher the percentage of women in the Ph.D. pool, the higher the percentage of women applying for each position in that field, although the fields with lower percentages of women in the Ph.D. pool had a higher propensity for those women to apply. The percentage of applicant pools that included at least one woman was substantially higher than would be expected by chance. However, there were no female applicants (only men applied) for 32 (6 percent) of the available tenure-track positions and 16 (16.5 percent) of the tenured positions."

Tell me, why would we expect gender pairity in these positions if women simply do not apply for them?
People and governments are bending over backwards to try to accomodate womens entry into various STEM fields, but they just don't apply in equal numbers. Could it possibly be that a full time academic career is simply less appealing to many women? No it has to somehow be sexism doesn't it?

Well then if the one true explanation for women becoming tenured professors because this just has to be something happening by design, lets have a look at the lower rungs of society. Lets tear our gaze from the top levels of academic positions and look at all the dirty and unpleasant jobs. Who works on deep sea fishing boats, oil rigs, in mines, with garbage disposal, heavy construction, and so on?
Oh whats that? Is it once more a category of job mainly held by men? Lets have a look at another gender disparity in the workplace. The work place fatality gap.

Fatal occupational injuries by worker characteristics and event or exposure, all United States, 2013
http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0283.pdf

Apparantly there were a total of 4585 fatal work place injuries in the US 2013.
4265 of them were men and 319 were women. So 92.5% men and 7.5% women.
If the explanation for the number of women becoming professors in STEM fields is because this is what society wants and not the collective result of millions of peoples individual choises, does this means society want women to not be professors and wants men to die?

Shall we go have a look at the statistics for homelessness and suicide next and start drawing conclusions on how this is some sort of inentional agenda society has towards men?

How about you just put the identity politics stick down, stop mindlessly beating the sexism drum with it and stop trying to push god damn gender politics into every aspect of art and culture?

No no no, lets go back to that post and read it again:

"We have a saying "Any man is a king of his own house." What it probably means to you - Any man is free to do whatever he wants with his woman. What it really means - The man is responsible for everyone living under his roof, first of all the safety, physical mental and moral."

As I understood, I may be incorrect, that you were raised without a father figure?
Can we assume if this is true that your thought on this matter lack the (how should I say that) "a man responsible for his family and his woman" kinda vision? And overall mans vision on the issue of equality of man and woman.
If you were raised without a man to guide you to the meaning of being a "man" we will not understand each other at all. And everything I write will turn Arabic when you'll read it.
Being born a male doesn't necessarily makes one a mature man thus some understanding of what is right and what is wrong about this topic can be incorrect. I guess this, cause I wrote that very clear - about "being king of your household" but you apparently took it in a wrong way.
And I'm telling this not to offend anyone, especially you, God forbid, I'm just letting people see some other perspective on the issue. On the whole topic of being a man and a woman.
To give you some thoughts : try not to think about right now and what is right for the time we are living in, cause a lot of things that are accepted now is so wrong and was forced on us through decades. Try to think what is the natural way of things? What is the nature of man and a woman.
Someone said that man is meant to be a stupid warriors and die a lot and woman are suppose to be intelligent housekeepers.
Well one of the greatest warriors of our culture is a woman. There are a lot of great woman warriors throughout the history.
And its ok! There are no apparent stone written rules on the roles of woman in the society but there are some general differences. A woman can be anything and anyone she wants as any other human being. But lets go back to the q "what is the natural way of things". Warrior woman - is she happy being a warrior? What does she do when she comes to her tent after some battle. Is it not true that despite the circumstances that made her take arms and lead forces in her heart she wants to be a woman, she wants to care for her family in peace, shake all that responsibility from her shoulders and be loved and love? Tomorrow she can be a fierce warrior again (and even love the thrill of battle) because that's the role she took but what is her deep desires when things calm down.

As for man being a warrior for example is natural. Now keep a man at home and give him 3 babies to take care of them alone. That will be frustrating experience to a man. I mean on a deep level. Ask a man what does his child wants when he cries and he would not be able to explain, but woman senses those things, she knows exactly why the child is crying (he wants food, he wants to sleep, his stomach hearts, that kind of things). Have you ever felt frustrated when your woman will not stop asking you about what you feel or what you are thinking. They have this. They need to know whats going on in your head. They know when something is wrong, they kinda feel the air of the relationship. Man will never be able to do that.
Now that shows me (therefore its my opinion) that the whole this movements of man and woman being ABSOLUTLY the same is like some man are just looking for an excuse to not have any responsibility for a woman. An excuse to keep abusing and using a woman (sex sells).
Whereas I'm telling it again, woman should be protected, helped and cared for.

Yeah! Managed 4 hours of sleep! .... though my girlfriend woke me up twice in that time frame: once for thinking class started at wrong time and conce to complain about me eating too much of her ice cream. ....Beware, all, never touch your gf ice cream @_@

So for funsies, here's a quote from Stabbey on the topics connected to here

They say that diamonds are a girls best friend.
"they" are wrong. Ice cream is a girls best friend. Its srs business. Girls are imo spot on in this matter. I have been to Italy and met the ice cream king.
...well, maybe not met him, but I ate what must have been the finest ice cream in his kingdom, stolen and then served to my unworthy taste buds.

Anyway stabby is really funny and a masterful weaver of straw men. They should let him have a TV show or something. ^^

1. [Finesse] *Say everyone on the thread is wrong.*

All this is fine and dandy, until you realize two major things:

-Despite their vocality on the issue, feminists/sjws are not the majority of consumers, nor is their view on the issue the prevailing one.
An average woman will not play video games, because she doesn't want to play them, and making them more inviting to her will not change that.
An average woman has never even been 'on the internet' outside of a few blogs and facebook and, once she reaches a certain point in her life, she will deliberately remove herself from the internet to take care of her career or family.
So long as the actual rights they have are not being threatened(such as the right to abortion in Poland right now), average women do not give a damn about how they are depicted in media, and often times will instead aspire to be as successful/beautiful as those depictions portray, rather than demand those depictions be altered.
"First world sexism" is an issue average women consider only when polled about it directly.

-The second thing is a small one, called 'artistic integrity'.
Larian chose a direction for their world, and how it depicts the sexes. It is an artistically sound direction, with it both tested and new ideas. It is a world many of us enjoy in it's current form, and while it might make it enjoyable for more people to introduce some changes, more often than not doing so was to the detriment of the final product.
It is better to please those that already enjoy your work to the fullest, then to leave a mild impression on everyone.

Diamonds were never really girls best friends. That was just marketing to make men buy diamonds for their women. If there exists no need for your product, create one...

@ Testad:
Yes, men and women will always be different and no neither men and men nor women and women will always feel and think the same. Not every man wishs to be a warrior or would feel happy doing so. I sure like the competition in MOBAs or the fight against evil in video games like DOS. But all that violence in real life just shows, how savage we humans still are. Not every mother has a real connection or understanding for they kids, not every father has no understanding at all. Do understand their needs is mainly a matter of empathy, something wich sadly seems to be more of trait that is dying out. But it is true, women are better at all those emotional things, partwise because they are women so softer and more sociable, but also partwise because men tell boys how a 'real men' has to be, like my father tried.

Anyway the problem with most kings is: They really think it is the green interpretation, their right to reign and command.

tl;dr : "I feel offended and have imaginary problems"

Lmao I've noticed this new trend in posts from you. Decided to just have fun with it?

Loved the God-Emperor reference earlier though ;P

**Officially killing time in Apple Soho while my iPhone is looked at -_- Man this placed is packed

Sexism will always exist so long as people acknowledge that males and females are inherently different.
If you believe that males and females are inherently different then you shouldn't view sexism as something negative but rather view it as an undeniable part of reality.

What is the point of pointing out that men and women are not equal if first and foremost no two people are equal to begin with? What practical benefit does a society gain from acknowledging that on average men and women are better in certain spheres if exceptions exist anyway and those exceptions should ideally be able to pursue whatever they feel like pursuing?

First strawman


This paragraph literally follows the definition of racism.


Those references are simply demonstrating a capability to do something which is not the same thing as aptitude. This is your second strawman.


Traditionally - where? Weren't you just talking about culture-based views? Which culture traditionally does not idolise women for their intelligence or strength? Because there are some cultures which have/do!


Ok, first off - I don't think the majority of people would rate a woman less intelligent than a man just because the woman is female and the man is male. Even the most narrow-minded person would have a lot of other considerations than just that.

Second, males generally have a biological predisposition toward garnering more muscle mass and thus are traditionally seen as naturally stronger than females. This is not dealing with culture. This is simply a result of biology. And since this is the natural order of things, it is no surprise that the generalised view of males being more muscular or masculine than females is a societal norm in many cultures. This is certainly not wrong and no one should have a problem with this. Also, no one is saying that a female can't be stronger than a male.


First... yes, I think that all reasonable people would agree that any person (regardless of gender) should have the same opportunities at success in life. Also, you're right that that is not the case everywhere. What you don't specifically say, here, though, is that the lack of opportunities is a result of gender, but you implying it through the context of your whole post. I think most people would agree with that. Maybe, in some countries this is true. I would say that in America this is not true. And believe me, gender is one of the least likely reasons someone will not be given the same opportunity as someone else to succeed in life. In fact, your birth place, family, race and even the economic state of your home country are all far more likely to affect your likelihood to succeed at life than is your personal gender.

My advise to 3rd-wave feminists and 3rd-wave feminist apologists is to turn your head 90 degrees. Take a good hard look at that chip on your shoulder. Remove it. And then admit to yourself that shit happens to everyone, everywhere. Get over it, and overcome it by ignoring anyone who judges you based solely on your gender, and prove them wrong rather than bitching about it everywhere 24/7.


Ok, first off I just want to address this terminology quickly - "gender imbalance". This is a loaded phrase with a lot of negative connotations nowadays, and I ask, why? Why is it wrong for men and women to be different? Men and women are better at different things. They are not equal. Does that mean males are better than females? No. Does that mean females are better than males? No. It means we're DIFFERENT. a!=b. a!>b. b!=a. b!>a. I think a lot of feminist apologists nowadays, unconsciously adopt this outlook on life as being victims or not good enough - and I think this is where a lot of their animosity, misunderstandings and general disgruntledness comes from. Men and women are not equal. For one thing/person/idea to be equal to another, they have to be perfectly identical. There are no two people (regardless of gender) who are equal.


This is what is called the "false cause" argument. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause
Audience is mostly male because females don't like this game because dos/larian is sexist! There is no evidence showing this is why the game does not have more female players. There is no evidence showing that this is the cause/case/reason.

And that's not all. You've actually had another "false cause" as well, in assuming that because the website's audience is mostly male that the game's audience must be mostly male as well. There is no evidence to show this.


I do not believe there is a problem with larian/dos/dos2, and you have failed to provide valid evidence to the contrary.

You're complaining about what I posted without saying that it's wrong. What's your point??

''What's your point?'' is a weird answer to my question. I just asked a question.

Ditto.

- What day is it today?
- What's your point?

How do you believe the first person should respond?

ugh..I hate when I have to be serious. but this topic is getting majorly out of hand.Like for serious people....it's a video game.

Feminists

- They are their own worst enemy and sorry to any ladies who think they are a feminist on here all they do is preach hate . Feminists do not play video games, as most in the feminism movement still view it as a male dominated industry. Now the hipster "ya, I'ma a feminist" do..I am sure I will get tons of flame for this.. but the feminist movement is a cult logic brain washing to spread hate. There have been women who made their place and opened doors for others without man bashing or picking things apart.

humanitarian now these are more people we need. less about stupid gender tags and more about humanity as a whole. ♥


The World

We live on it, is it always fair? nope..I have seen other parts of the world brought up in here. Their culture is their culture.

2. Video games

- So, I feel weird having to explain this..as it should be common sense. Video game's are not real, nor do they express how a company might feel for any gender. Men and Women are placed in various scenarios..I mean I don't complain when I see muscled rawr god of a man on a game cover. It's visual marketing, catching the eye. Same with females on covers or in games. it's marketing...


The elves

*shakes a stick angrily* Elf, Elf, Elf....they are not human, with their lifestyle and lore the armor they wear makes sense.

Example. If you are living in the woods and running around.. do you really want to be in full armor? no..no..plus, flowers and leaf made stuff is like camouflage...also super cute to accessorize other nature treasures with...dang it! now I am jelly beans! Larian..humans need the right to wear Elf armor ;_;

this will be my last post in this topic, as this thread is a mega downer to see constantly brought up. Maybe complaints should get their own sub forum?

Nah, it's a business. Look at Anita Sarkeesian, swimming in cash, raising unreasonable amounts on bs projects that don't even deliver in the end.

Y'all are terrible human beings! Look at you making Ellary feel bad!

Hahahaha

Making a move eh?

You know i usually dont like to write a lot or speak a lot for that matter. But after this intence disscustions i feel something different, mb cause we touched some sensetive/deep issues here, but i feel like i know some guys already for a long time... kinda team feeling... or maybe cause i read your posts a lot, and there arent many people posting.

"Being equal" is not identical with "Being identical". If two people have the same rights, they are equal regarding the jurisdiction, but they are still not identical. "Equal" means being worth the same, not being the same.

The benefit of acknowledging that people are not identical is, that the society, for example at school, can try to identify their true strengths. Identifying the true strength makes it possible to find the fitting role. Forcing someone to do something he neither likes nor can do very well, will never give a good turnout. Someone who would be good a piloting a fighter jet not necessarly would be good at teaching.

You know what, of all the terrible and dark things you can do in DOS2 (like "oh no, you can kill cute animals!"), I wonder why there is so much complaint about the elves armour (who are not even human)... Can't we get a thread about "please-don't-allow-the-players-to-kill-cute-animals" for a change?

lmao I'm already spoken for (happily going on three years <3 ) and unlike anime characters I find the idea of managing multiple lovers way too troublesome and draining @_@

Wouldn't mind trading in my sister for a better model though ;P

I almost feel like I don't need to say anything. There have been plenty of colourful replies to this post that help make my point better than I ever could. There's certainly no need to create strawmen. They're living and breathing in this thread.

First, I'd like to thank SlamPow for sharing his experience. Thank you, Vometia, for clarifying your experience.

In response to Testad: those are some interesting assumptions. For the record, my family is pretty nuclear and my dad is ex-military, if that's masculine enough for you. Perhaps the defining feature of my parents is that they are both atheists who were raised in Christian families. In other words, they analysed the culture they were raised in and rejected it. That said, in matters of gender, they're certainly not much different to the rest of Australia. Both my parents work, but at home they generally take on their gendered roles.

Personally, when my wife and I have a child, I'd like to be the one taking time off work to look after the baby. Attitudes like yours make that goal less attainable.

Although melianos have pointed out flaws with the research references by Skallewag, I have taken this to heart and I will try to review the research on this further before responding. For now I'll point out that:

Regardless of any gender biases, there's still the problem of the earlier evidence I provided that demonstrate any actual differences to be cultural.

Yes, men take on more dangerous roles and are disproportionately represented in workplace fatalities. So are you going to tell me sexism isn't a problem? I never framed the issue of sexism as just a problem for women. It's a problem for everyone.

That's all I have time for right now.

You cannot have equality without creating inequality.

Hey! The OP finally got back to us! Things are about to heat up in here ;P

Good to see you going out of your way to read opposing data points.

And I recommend that you always do what you did their at the end by showing sexism as detrimental to both sides. It increases your credibility as an unbiased speaker.

I'd like to point out, whether "sexist" opinions exist are not, there's nothing legally stopping you and your wife bucking traditional gender roles in the relationship unless you really care all that much about other's opinions. I do it with mine all the time; it's a running gag that she's my boyfriend and I'm the girlfriend cause of how we normally interact.

EDIT:
Consider reading up on trends concerning stay home dads though. It's very......upsetting. Family units generally fall apart cause of the wife and then family/civil court basically drills them, the husbands, afterwards at times. There's also none of the legal support nets to help them back on their feet that women have. <- It's a growing problem. Hell, I looked it up and read about it cause I'd be the more likely one in a marriage to stay at take care of the kids. I'm neither really ambitious or very attached to a career.

EDIT_2:
There's also issues with when the father is the one taking the kid to the park alone and there's mostly just moms and so on.

Maybe you've considered this before, though. Just felt like saying something since you generally seem alright.

Hmmm...pretty sure i adressed someone else when i asked about the father.

i thought u are a woman....

Lol i love this guy!

Dude now stop talking crazy and makes us some tea!

I keep 9 different brands and types in the house, along with cream, milk, honey, and different sugars...oh and cinnamon sticks :P I also make some damn fine grilled chicken sandwhiches and chicken soup.

My girlfriend would make a horrible horrible wife by traditional standards. @_@ If I left it to her she'd just eat mac and cheese and things out of cans or pre-made stuff. Oh my god, she can be perfectly fine eating nothing but Pasta Sides (just add milk and heat up) and Lipton Soup with some toast and other odds and ends.....

Nevermind, how low keeping our bedroom and shard office space cleaned and organized is for her.

Beautiful, intelligent, passionate woman.....definitely wouldn't be together if I considered traditional gender roles all that important, though.

EDIT: Would cinnamon sugar be it's own thing or just another type of sugar?? I never known if I should say it's an option explicitly or not

Wow. Just wow.

Well, let's see, it would take me ten seconds and a single figure to disprove this, but why don't I just read the rest of your post?



You literally quoted a source saying that sexism was so prevalent, that they have started to implement equally sexist programs to counteract it. Then quoted statistics explaining a clear disparity between women and men in the science field in other countries. I literally don't understand the basic premise of what you are trying to say - I said that sexism has been a demonstrable problem for my mother and many other women, brought up solid evidence proving such, and... now you're backing me up?? While saying the exact same thing you're very clearly proving is no longer an issue???

Let's look at another one of your posts, so I can try to further understand.



Nope. You're still backing me up. Thanks, man! One thing, though. Have you considered the "why" of why there are no women applying? I could give you my own anecdotes about what why my grandmother and my mother and my aunt (one of which, I have explained, is a degree-holding professor on this particular subject) believe that women are so heavily discouraged from applying. I have a feeling you wouldn't like that, though, so I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Now, onto what Testad said:



You also make literally no sense. Are you trying to say that I am not understanding the basic premise of your overtly sexist arguments because I was raised without a father figure? I was adopted by my adoptive father, and he stayed home and raised me. Because my mom couldn't stand to do so. I'm sorry, but there is literally nothing for me to debate here, as I am not understanding what point it is that you are trying to make.

Hahaha no worries man. I said it will turn all Arabic. Sorry for bringing your family up. I lost interest in the topic.

Ah, it's cool man. FWIW, it makes me happy to hear that you and your wife are enjoying the dynamic that you've got going on. It's always nice to hear when it works out. =)

@SlamPow
I'm pretty sure the point was that sexism isn't there cause people acknowledged it was wrong at some point and are now actively going out of their way to encourage an influx of women....Thus the fields aren't sexist, but the gender disparity has carried over from the past. Thus meaning that if they want to show that their not sexist and/or fix the "perceived" sexism caused from gender population disparity, they must try to draw in new blood of the female persuasion. Which they're doing.

It's actually pretty mind boggling how much they'll bend over backwards and throw events, emails, speeches, and on and on at female members of my engineering school to support them and make doubly sure that theirs a steady influx of female freshman to enter the field. A bit here and there would've been understandable but it's so mindbogglingly even my girlfriend and her female friends and my housemate made fun of it.

It's also very illegal, not to say a touchy topic, to be sexist in the work place or even be perceived as sexist.

There are real reasons for gender disparity in engineering and STEM, but it's not cause of the people in the industry itself.....Well, at least that's what I got from all that and my own experiences and what I've seen around

^This is actually backed up from the descriptions Lady V gave of her own experiences concerning IT and sexism, it seems. Notice it was from people who didn't work with computers (per her description) and, that while the toxic environment at work effected both genders equally, the guys were more willing to stick around and thus causing gender disparity that has noting to do with sexism of those there itself.

Hmm, thanks for trying to clarify.

I disagree, of course, as this has not been my mother's experience so far. In college, there were tangible incentives for her to become an engineer, and that's actually how she believes she's gotten some of her jobs. But the sexism is definitely still there. Not to mention, how blatantly sexist the whole "incentives" thing is. Sexist or no, though, the last time she showed me a chain email from work displaying a very questionable comic strip and comments on women's roles in the workplace, I completely lost faith in all of the "efforts" and "initiatives" that are taking place. Because all they address is the disparity itself, not the cause of it. Again, and I cannot stress this enough, as Skallewag mentioned, the primary reason for the disparity in many areas nowadays is that just not enough women are applying themselves. But I feel that there are societal and cultural reasons that they are not doing so which are not being addressed.

It's [CURRENT YEAR] people! I literally can't even! I can't even, man! I'm literally shaking!

Haha! Nothing to do with the year. Just very surprised by the perspectives and opinions of others.

I guess I see what you mean, but, honestly, whether you dislike what others find as a sexist joke..it shouldn't be enough of a reason to not apply or to leave. When you stick a bunch of guys together, they're gonna do guy things: like talk about women, and butts, and tits, and make jokes about their girlfriends and all that jazz that I'm sure is very offensive and upsetting to some women or maybe even a large portion of women. Remember, though, girls do the same thing: I've been there to see it and experience it. It's a two way street.

According to Lady V (from what I read) and my own reflections though it just seems like men are willing to put up with crap they dislike or hate. We'll more likely resign ourselves to it and trudge on.

In fact, if you google it I'm sure there's probably studies on it *shrug*

EDIT:
Also, yes -> affirmative action is bias and thus sexist/racist in it's own ways which is ironic

EDIT:
EDIT FOR THE EDIT: ....*tilting head* Not the place to discuss my life so getting rid of it

Yeah, I know it's a little thing to be upset about. But if it upsets her, I can see how it upsets others. Personally, I know what it's like to be the subject of a woman's "girl talk". It's kinda creepy and weird, and just makes me want to leave. I can certainly see why women would feel the same way when men do it, and it's kinda inappropriate to do in the presence of the other gender regardless, especially in a professional setting.

Oh it certainly is un-professional. I prefer lax work environments though; it's what I'm use to and I find it keeps me from stressing more than I have to. There's pros and cons to it though. My housemate disagrees with me and likes really professional places: suit and all. I look at her like she's crazy when she says that's her idea IT work enviroment

I wouldn't know about inappropriate *shrug* I grew thick skin. Others can do the same. I'm not overly concerned about peoples feelings when I don't know them personally.

Like I said, human bastard -> which describes lots of us.

Personally, if you're willing tp put up with my crap, I should with yours and vice versa

Fair enough. Glad to see that we can see eye to eye!

No, SlamPow.

We can't have you agreeing with aj0413.

You have to fight. You have to struggle. The forums demand blood.

Also, aj0413, sexism definitely exists in tech it just depends on where you are working. Bay Area? That place is riddled with entitled fuckbois and bro/rape culture. It's not necessarily the norm though. Also, some issues of sexism are pretty much buried underneath culture as an expression of survival or a means to gain power in a system that may or may not favor them.

Since you're playing nice with SlamPow, I am going to say that moral relativism is actually a memetic virus designed to kill the ego and thus, somehow into nuclear war.

As for you SlamPow, since you're playing nice Imma have to fight you.



What you're saying is an impossibility to address to the differences in genetic expression and cultural/societal reasons have adapted over thousands of years to best take advantage of these differences maximiing societal efficiency.

I love you.

You totally lost me, so I don't necessarily know what you're saying, but I agree completely and will gladly take your side.

All these gender talks and topics are just nonsense in my opinion. Players who really enjoy gaming don't care about those issues. Games are fantasy worlds and they have nothing to do with reality. And as long as we will have some people out there trying desperately to make their own gender everyday fights being a thing in our games, we will have such stupid and pointless threads all over the internet.

If you don't like a game because you find it offensive, don't play it. But please, stop bringing your own life issues into the fray and create some drama where there should not be any. We don't want it and we don't need it.

Real talk now: That crab had it coming...

Don't underestimate fantasy worlds and games, breh. Dungeons and Dragons is probably is the number one threat to the Christian American youths.

And while it may seem like nonsense to you, I kind of like seeing it as a battlefield where viral ideologies thrive; a victory here may lead to a victory much later down the line or perhaps synthesize into a new virus.

Also, these discussions are entertaining and it's what you take away from it at the end of the day that matters. To you it's drama, but to me it's a challenge and an interesting note in the slow march of history.

Let a thousand flowers bloom etc etc.

To me, it's even more than nonsense actually. It's overreaching the bounds of what a player and a game studio should have between them. The narrative and the art style of a game should be treated as an intellectual property owned by the studio, such as the story is for a novel or the scenario for a movie. As such, a gamer has the right to say he or she doesn't like the narrative or the game design because he or she finds it offensive, but in no way he or she has the right to say something should be changed about it.

It would be exactly the same as going to Mr Tolkien and tell him he should add some dwarven females in the company Bilbo is having a journey with because not doing so is utterly sexist. How do you think Mr Tolkien would have answered to such a plea?

Those kind of issues brought into the game industry are a hindrance to creativity and bring the whole narrative of gaming into some boring political correctness we certainly don't need. Games shouldn't be the place for social issues to have a good fight. It's an entertainment and should remain one in my opinion.

It really only matters that Larian Studios understand that.

lol I dont necessarily disagree with you ya know?

@Ayvah
No, I'm not saying that sexism isn't a problem, I'm saying your country (I'm persuming its the US or a somewhat comparable western country), is not generally sexist.

Sure we can find examples of some people who are sexist, just like we can find some examples of people who are racist, or stupid, or psycopaths, or nazis, or murderers. But if I say that americans in general are not sexist, racist, psycopathic moron nazi murderers, I am sure you would at least agree with me somwehat. This leads us to asking why it is you think they are sexist. There are invidivual examples of all of these, but its not true in general and all of them are behaviors that are frowned upon.
If what area women chose to work in is caused by sexism, how did you arrive at that conclusiuon? If I remember correctly you did earlier in this thread acknowledge men and women being different,
but if that is the case, why would you expect them to make the same career choises in life?
Also, even if the default would be that despite mens and womens differences they still prefered the same jobs, how did you concluide that the reason they don't make the same career choises is because of sexism?

I am by no means saying there are no individual examples of sexism. I am simply saying that society is not generally sexist, games are not sexist, just like men are not somehow "forced" to do all the dangerous work because of sexism.

@SlamPow
So you think that women are strong and independent, but the sexism is just too much for them in certain places and their womanly nature makes them avoid their dream jobs in favor of something else because its just too hard for them in certain careers?

I think women are equally capable of pursuing what interests them in life. I think they can deal with work place adversity. Not because they are women, but because they are adults. Just like men deal with adversity in their careers, not because they are men, but because they too are adults.
In some cases men and women face different problems, but I believe both are capable of dealing with them.

While you have not made a compelling case for society being sexist, you could convince me that you hold some sexist opinions about women, maybe you should try to quit doing so?

You are not correctly interpreting what I am saying.

Since my grandmother, with her degree on the subject, is not here to talk to you, I'll just cite some articles, like you asked.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/sexist-workplace_n_2718249.html

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...e-broken-the-glass-ceiling-of-diplomacy/

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GGGR2015/cover.pdf

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674088931

https://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1365171515760

http://www.alternet.org/books/why-i...mination-even-when-its-painfully-obvious

https://hbr.org/2014/10/hacking-techs-diversity-problem

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...e-63cf-11e6-96c0-37533479f3f5_story.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/09/27/lean-in-study-women-in-the-workplace/91157026/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...sm-often-comes-with-a-smile-study-finds/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto..._america_is_a_product_of_favoritism.html

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/

Obligatory wikipedia link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_inequality_in_the_United_States

And since you specifically mentioned STEM being nice to women, here's a study that very clearly, with facts and figures, proves otherwise:

https://hbr.org/2015/03/the-5-biases-pushing-women-out-of-stem

And another:

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~srugheimer/Women_in_STEM_Resources.html

I could go on and on about why I think you're wrong. But you've yet to cite any sources. You've yet to prove a point. And you've stooped so low as to attack me directly. You're a strawman at this point - not worth arguing with.

As someone who got her PhD in one the STEM subjects last year and is a postdoctoral researcher now, I can give you a few reasons why so few women decide to pursue a scientific career:

- The start as a scientist is VERY hard. You have no security of a job place for at least the first 10 years. Postdoc positions are limitted for 2-3 years so you need to apply for a new job every few years (and always hope that you'll get the next one)

- There are significantly more applicants than free positions: the ratio of >50 applicants for one job is quite normal.

- You have absolutely no choice as where you are going to get your new job. If it is in New Zealand, then you'll have to move to New Zealand, if it is in Alaska, then be prepared to buy warm winter clothes. Good luck with it if you have small children or want to start a family. Oh, and if your partner is also a scientist, then be prepared for a never-ending long-distance relationship.

- Be prepared to have a salary which is significantly smaller than e.g. in other jobs which require a university degree

- You are under constant pressure to produce results: an extended period of time without a publication which gets cited is your death as a scientist

- You need to grow a very thick hide. The field is exceptionally competitive so all your colleagues are going to find even the smallest fault with you and your work. Be prepared to get looked upon (not because you are a man or a woman but because other people will look better if they can make you look like an idiot) and to get aggressive remarks. Once you get your paper back from the peer-review, you'll start questioning not only your own abilities but the world as a whole.

- You need to become aggressive yourself and feel entitled to any money which you can apply for from any funding source. You'll need the money for your research.

- Do you like your home? Then you should stop doing it - not only will you move to another home in 2 years, but you'll be away from home a lot on conferences, meetings and symposiums. And be prepared that you need to fly a lot.

So, in view of all this, it is not really surprising that so very few women apply for it. Not because of any gender issues (in fact, I have never been pampered so much because I am a woman), but because the job is hard. At some point you have to decide whether you like to strive for some scientific ideals and ideas or whether you should stay down-to-earth, get a proper job with a decent salary and found a family. Oh, and just keep in mind that after the 10 years of your postdoctoral career, it is quite a large chance that you won't get one of the few professorships out there and that you'll need to start anew somewhere outside of science.

eek. I couldn't do that. Even if I could do that, I wouldn't. It's bad enough being a programmer and sysadmin, and when I describe that as toxic, it's mainly just down to idiot managers and take-overs. My sometimes errant career path sounds like bliss compared to life as a researcher.

Although IT has got much worse over the years, it's still a lot better than what you describe. I'm impressed with your fortitude.

@SlamPow
Nice way to make a spam post, quote a really long post for no purpose and then basically go "this bunch of links says I'm right". You do not seem to get the point of citations. Perhaps try to refer to something from the material you are citing?

Oh well, lets have a look then

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/sexist-workplace_n_2718249.html
How hillarious, besides not bothering to make any specific points based on your citations, your first citation is to another list of citations, most of which are feminist "researchers" looking at data and concluding everything is sexism. Wage gap, CEO positions, the same tired old nonsense.
Just the fact that the first thing you decided to cite was the huffington post says it all really.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...g-of-diplomacy/
Ok, not a lot of women are ambassadors. Did you notice how this link doesn't investigate the cause, just the number of women serving as ambassadors? Do you understand how that does not support your claim that its sexism?

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GGGR2015/cover.pdf
Oh, this 387 page PDF proves your point does it? Care to elaborate how? Did you read it? What pages are you refering to? Are you asking everyone here to read this 387 page report in order to disagree with your point? Jeez, how disingenuous can you get?

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674088931
Now you want me to watch some documentary about women in politics?
How about you try making a point instead. Instead of trying to copy paste others to compliance, try focusing on the basics of debating.

https://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1365171515760
You are linking to some commisioners speech to prove your points about sexism? Are you even for real? It is very cute, I'll give you that. Remember the thing I said about focusing on the basics of debating? Consider this a second recommendation.

http://www.alternet.org/books/why-it-sti...infully-obvious
You found a blog by someone complaining that sexism is hard to prove despite the authors really stong feeling that its super obvious that women are oppressed? Oh mate, you are just priceless!
Checking your links is like reading dragon ball. As fights and special attacks get more and more exaggerated you think they could not possibly top this. But here you are, finding increasingly hillariously flawed reasons to support your point. Sorry but the wage gap is a myth.
There is a gap in average income, but its not caused by sexism. Try again.

https://hbr.org/2014/10/hacking-techs-diversity-problem
Nice one. Here is a fun citation from your citation:
"Organizations need to find out how, if at all, these four patterns affect women’s careers internally."
The very fact that they uncritically frame it as a problem that an industry does not have a 50/50 male female workforce is kind of telling. Why is it inherently a problem if men and women are not equally interested in the same things?
And I do find it interesting that these people interested in "representation" only ever seem concerned with representation in high status jobs. Why do we never see this kind of article about sewage workers, or the lumber industry, or why we have so few fisherwomen working alongside the fishermen?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/...f3f5_story.html
Omg, yet again you are citing increasingly hillarious things. Allow me to simply quote the headline of your cicted article:
"At NIH, one woman says gender bias has blocked promotions"
O my! One woman says there is gender bias, quick! Someone call Emma Watson! No wait, call the new ghost busters! They should be able to catch this elusive patriarchy slithering its tentacles into everything.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/09/27/lean-in-study-women-in-the-workplace/91157026/
Yet again, allow me to cite your citation back at you:
"There is an ambition gap, according to the study, which found that 80% of men desire a promotion, compared to 74% for women. Overall, 56% of men say they aspire to become a top executive. By contrast, some 40% of women do desire the same goal."
I think I se one of many possible contributing factors for why fewer women might become CEOs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/spea...le-study-finds/
Oh another article by an opinionated journalist. Its funny how you like to cite this particular type of "evidence". Dies it match your serachwords easier than other material since it usually has some sort of splashy title about how evil and ever present sexism is?
Oh by the way, can you comment on the aparant representation disparity in your cited material? I can't help notice that whenever you cite a news article or blog, the writer tends to be a woman. According to your logic, that has to be because you are sexist, right?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/201...favoritism.html
Another woman blogging thinks men are sexist pigs, well color me suprised. If we examine her academic credentials how likely do you think it is we would find a gender studies degree in there somewhere?

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/uno...why-it-matters/
Finally you actually cite some research. Well, you cited an article written about the research, but still. So a group of scientists have measured that both men and women display some bias when rating the hierability of an aplicant in their field.
First of all why did you not lead with this? Why are you citing speeches and blogs and all manner of crap before you even try citing something serious? Are you under the impression that whoever has the most random citations "wins"? Sorry but that's not how it works.
But good job about finally getting to an actual citation from a study that actually atempts to look at the possible causes behind gender disparities in the workplace.
You still have a long long way to go befoire you can point to this study and claim it explains everything. Among other things you have in the above cited stuff shown that men and women have differing attitudes towards striving for high positions.

With all your copy pasting you managed to produce one credible source that might actually point towards a mechanism that could be causing a gender representation disparity and that could be considered sexist. Then again you also produced evidence of a mechanism that shows women applying their free will leading to fewer women in leadership.

As for the finding of hierability by gender, what the study showed was a bias (equally found in both men and women) towards who they would hire. This still does not prove the cause was sexism. It could be a bias based on differences in how men and women behave in the work place.
One of them for example is more likely to take an extended period of parental leave.
That could affect how desierable someone is for hire.

Anyway you really need to figure out how this discuission thing works. To begin with this is a forum about a video game alpha, so if you really desire an academic debate I suggest you search for the correfct forum. Before you do that however you still need to work on how to actually debate. Spaming links to huffington post articles will make people laugh at you just as much as on a video game forum.
Finally you might want tp practice your reading comprehension skills as I have indeed given you citations when relevant.

So in short, try to learn when it fills any function to quote a post or when to simply reply.
Learn to make relevant citations. Link spaming is not being serious, and if you seriously don't understand what you're doing wrong when you throw a book at someone and go "read this, it says I'm right and you are wrong", well... if ytou really don't understand that I just feel sorry for you.

Do you know why I'm not being serious? Why I don't care? Why I'm not even going to bother explaining these things to you? It's because I feel bad about arguing with you. I find you overly inarticulate, misinformed, and unable to comprehend basic information. Demonstrably so. I'm not looking for scholarly debate; I'm looking to change one person's mind, and I did that. I linked you information because you asked for it. I didn't analyze it because I felt that the data speaks for itself. But, apparently you don't feel that's good enough. Let's see why.



You really think the Huffington Post isn't a reputable source?



Uh huh. Not even going to address this.



Actually, it is the most informative thing I linked, and only one page is relevant. Page 357.



Really? I did that intentionally, for your benefit, so you could do further reading if you were interested.

You see? Most of your posts fail to understand the basic tenants of credibility, to explain anything, or to add to the discussion. They are filled with hot air. They are condescending. Dismissive. Hell, I bit the bullet and gave you actual evidence, and you aren't even reading it. I'm not going to explain why "More than a third (34.1%) of scientists surveyed reported feeling pressure to play a traditionally feminine role" is a problem. Because I shouldn't have to. It's reading comprehension on a kindergarten level. I'm not going to try to convince you that women comprising 2/5ths the population of men in STEM is what we're dealing with, that men are 30% more likely to be managers is a problem, that 10% of people on boards of studied companies are women should be recognized as an issue. because the data speaks for itself.

I'm not going to argue with you anymore, because at this point, I feel like either you must be trolling me, or so bad at listening/debating/trying to make a point that I feel bad for you. I literally cannot find a single substantial statement in anything you've said. I mean, just look at this.



And I linked you a whole article that disproves this. And what did you say about it?



That "someone complaining" has a law degree, more than 10 years of experience in the business world, and if you read the rest of the book that this is an excerpt from (under the bus, and yes, I've read it), it has a whole host of firsthand accounts and examples. But you don't mention this. You dismiss it.

And again, you say things like



Which is an inherently sexist statement. I don't even need to debate this - women sometimes get paid maternity leave. Men rarely do. This doesn't even affect hireability, since both are equally likely to be parents.

But here's the real gem.



Harvard. SEC. Slate. USAtoday. Scientific American. All incredible? Do you know what the meaning of that word is? Do you know anything about these sources at all?

I almost feel like I'm wasting my breath, because I have never in my life met someone who dismisses hard evidence, who doesn't even read something they asked for, and who says a scientific blog is just whinging. Either you are really bad at trolling, really bad at debating, or just so uninformed - willfully so, if your inability to take anything away from those sources is any indication - that I almost have moral objections to debating you, because even when you bring sources into the debate, it's literally too easy for me to even feel good about talking about them. You even fail to grasp even the most basic principles of what constitutes gender inequality. I can prove this, because you cited a source saying that women make up a minority of applicants - a clear indicator that there is a problem - and then blame women themselves. No analysis of "why". No attempt to understand. But if you look through my links again, you'll see why this is the case - because women feel discouraged from applying. See? Ten seconds of googling completely shatters any of your logic, and a basic analysis of your points show that you rely on condescension and personal attacks against the credibility of the articles to dismiss them, without providing any proof or explanation as to why they're not credible. It's not even arguing at this point. I don't feel that your points are strong enough to constitute an attempt at discussion.

Actually they do, they are part of culture and experience. And if in all or most the experiences you get as you grow up women are shown as sexualized no-brain, it has an impact on the way you see and asses other people intelligence (or your own).

No game or movie or book will do that by itself, but multiply it by thousands of those, everyday, and in the end the message seeps in.
That's simple opinion manipulation.

Or it is simply displaying a backward world where they are less evolved in society stuff.

@SlamPow
I don't know about everything else but the huffington post is questionable in their bias

And gender disparity in population doesn't indicate a problem in and of itself. That's like saying there are more female than male nurses and thus a problem. If follows that if there are more women than there are more men in higher positions. On the nurse thing:sometimes gender disparity simply comes from natural inclinations of the sexes. Just like there are more left voters as teachers and right voters as military.

Also, anecdotal and/or perceivied evidence from any one individual, no matter their education or experience, is always questionable. Highly so. Some of the most intelligent people I know would disagree on issues such as this and racism and well even be looking at the same scenario and data. Interpretation and perception influence critical analysis as the brain tries to validity emotional logic with rational or to prove a rationalization given a pre emotive assumption or previously accepted data point that will influence the person. In this case, if an individual feels strongly about sexism and accepts the idea tht sexism is still a large issue before encountering a given scenario than they are much more liable to then find reasons to validate the previous feelings or thoughts. That's why no one person can be an acceptable source of information, especially when they can't prove something beyond a shadow of doubt when confronted with opposing views and/or when they're points largely rely on personal anecdotes and inferences. Furthermore, given certain large topics such as sexism it's quite easy to find a large following of people that'll coraborate a given inference and view. I can find a lot of people that'd be able to give first hand accounts on how whites are overlooked for others of color, that blacks are the direct cause for most issues in their communities, or that their life experiences have shown them that giving money/charity always ended in futility: does this prove that there's something happening to look into? Sure. Does it prove that they're right? Not really. Just indicates there's data to be gotten. At which point more data my shed light onto an issue to say that the person didn't know something, wasn't aware of something, overlooked something, or even misinterpreted something.

Which is why I don't give much account to personal anecdotes in and if themselves as indicative of anything of a larger scale. Our population is so big that even if they're rift it they're individual cases, they'd still be a drop in the bucket. Making the data stastically insignificant for the whole.

As for maternity leave -> I don't see that as sexist but as a realistic cost and benefits analysis of why you'd hire one person and not the other. Females will always be ones who carry the child, thus they'll always be the ones leaving for maternity if it pops up on the job. I've actually discussed this at length with people in my apartment, two of them women. I don't and can't consider it wrong to judge an individual on their biology and how that might effect the bottom line of a company. It's like not hiring people with certain medical histories or such and such in the military or government whether as a whole or for specific positions. It's not an "unjust" prejudice; just an acknowledgment of gender and there differences. As for men vs women for maternity leave and how they're treateddifferently. It's a very large grey area since you can't rightly directly compare the two and most of it lies in morality and individual case by case basis. You can't/should t be able to enforce a company to be nice in a legal sense.

Im just following along y'all conversation. By the by, ;p so much easier to but in when I'm not the one needing to prove something on either side and both of y'all comment on each other's data and your own such that it's easy to follow along.

Also, the personal accounts of the women on these forums have actually refused the premise the the industry they work in, STEM, is sexist. Which is on direct contrast to things it seems your data and experience say. Funny thing is there's also data supporting both sides and lots of women that te different stories. Interestingly though, is not sure if this is provable but it might be that most critically analysis of Stem sexism and the bows and whys come from those outside the industry. Not to say it doesn't exist at all; when imply there's no sexism I imply that issue isn't nearly as serious of some would have others believe. This in the context of present day discussion of it.

Edit: typing on phone so sorry for the grammar and stuff in some cases

This has 5 pages.

Thats what ive been talking about.

They just never run out of steam do they?
Thats the problem with crusading ideologues. So convinced that they are doing the good deed that it consumes them. I just dont have the time to respond to every single one of those annoying threads that all have the same nonsensical goal: Remove a piece of content that is deemed inapropriate for ideological reasons. The reasons of course seem to change every threa.
One time its sexism then its realism then its "integrity" and then its about women again.

To be fair, I'd extend that criticism to anything that publishes news, at least here in the UK. It's not a matter of whether or how much they're biased, but in which particular direction. Which isn't a dig at Mr Pow at all, just someone who's become weary of the, er, "special" reliability of the news. It's probably just something that happens when one reaches a certain age. Or a certain degree of cynicism, as I suspect a lot of people arrive at that conclusion in less time than it took me.

Oh that's very true lol it's why I don't really bother with the news anymore -_- Everyone is pushing their own agenda. It's just not worth wading through and filtering it all

Edit: and I don't know about the rest of U.K. but here in the states? Politics and nearly everything about it seems like a circus. It's like everyone slowly lost their marbles this year and than it hit critical mass @_@

Why I love Larian:

"Politician talent: Gain +2 in charisma and loose +2 in intelligence"

I see what you are saying.

So let's leave out the huffington post articles and the scientific blogs. Let's look at studies like this one:

http://gender.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/motherhoodpenalty.pdf

A quote from the HBR link summarizes this nicely: "The subjects received identical résumés, but the candidate who was a mother varied. The researchers found that mothers were 79% less likely to be hired, half as likely to be promoted, offered an average of $11,000 less in salary, and held to higher performance and punctuality standards."

Even barring the maternity leave, why should this have long-lasting ramifications on her career? Is it assumed that the mother will be the one caring for the children? Because that is the definition of sexism, and patently false:

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/06/05/growing-number-of-dads-home-with-the-kids/

While you think about that, I'll analyze this:



Again with the personal anecdotes, but out of the three mothers I've known who have given birth on the job, only one of them took maternity leave. The fact that men often take paternity leave is demonstrable, too:

https://www.dol.gov/asp/policy-development/paternityBrief.pdf

So, this logic is invalid, since paternity leave is equally as likely to be taken as maternity leave.

Also,



Please direct me to one of the posts where a woman in STEM has rejected the premise.

Just ask Lady V and Elwyn above if you want. They're who I'm referring to. One made a post on being reasearcjer and the other working in IT. In both cases it seemed apparent that sexism wasn't within the workplace.

And I wouldn't call the logic invalid. Not all women take maternity leave and obviously some men will. You can't even really expect to know how someone will react so basing it off gender and biology isn't that bad. To me, it's an issue that should be clarified before employment begins. That way all parties are clear on what's expected instead of assumptions on either end. And if someone doesn't like options presented than they can just not sign the dotted line.

And I'd imagine that mothers are treated that way, because they have a child and thus can't be trusted to be as reliable or willing to work as much as a non parent. Then you throw in the maternity leave possibility and stuff and they become an undesirable employee. In the same vain, fathers are less desirable than a non parent. And then there's always age to take into account.

There's a lot going on there in the equation; not some unjust prejudice. Just people more concerned about their wallets than their employees

Edit: I do think most parents would want to take maternity leave if it was a viable option without upsetting their lives

Edit: curse big thumbs and iphone typing

I work in STEM and out of my personal experience (I do not claim here that my personal example is universally valid), the sexism issue in my working environment is absolutely a non-existing issue.

Okay, it seems that they believe discrimination to be a non-issue. My bad. However,



The study clearly shows that fathers do not have the same problem mothers do, not even ones that take paternity leave. How is that not the definition of discrimination, and therefore sexism? Also,



But this is the absolute, by-the-book definition of sexism. There is nothing more sexist than making a clear distinction between the capabilities of men and women in the workplace based on gender.

Let's clarify sexism -> "unjust" prejudice or distinction

Distinction itself is okay. What you're arguing here is if it's "unjust" in the case of maternity leave

And I'm honestly just taking your word for whatever study says :P I don't think you'd lie. I'm not actually reading the links ya know?

If you say the study says that fathers (even ones taking maternity) leave aren't treated same as moms. Then consider a list of less desirable qualities:
Can get pregnant
Might take maternity leave
Age
Personal responsibilities ex parent
Medical history

Given this it seems to me a mom would match to more than a guy.

Now if your data or data you have says that even when it's clear that a woman won't get preganant again and both her and the father plan for maternity leave (and that statistics show both are as likely to take it -> even if it's more a neccisty for women on average (the birth and healing from it)) and in all other accounts they're equal but the mom gets shafted -> I'd say that is a problem.

Also, guys leaving for maternity leave as often as women should be taken into account nearly as often. But not everyone knows that (I didn't) and don't care enough to look it up so they just go with what makes sense to them given biology.

That's not being "unjust" just not fully informed. Which isn't sexist. And will probably work itself out as it becomes more common knowledge

Uh, actually,

Search Results
sex·ism
ˈsekˌsizəm/
noun
noun: sexism

prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

It is merely a stereotype that women are going to be taking maternity leave when the child is born. Thus, it is sexist.



I don't see how these are "less desirable qualities", since all of these could apply to a man (minus getting pregnant). Heck, men can even suffer from post partum depression and pregnancy sickness! (fun fact)



Oh, but it does! In the study, both mothers and fathers mention in the interview that they plan to take leave to be with the child, and the woman still gets the short end of the stick. I'd tell you more, but the paper refrences a study I don't have access to.



Remember: stereotyping is still sexism, and this is stereotyping. Uninformed or not.

Well, huh it seems google agrees with you.

I was rocking off what I read on Webster some time which makes a pint to mention unjust

Well in that case, I should clarify that unjust distinction is the only one I care about *shrug*

Also that was kind of my point a women had one more undesirable quality and not a small one

Also -> we are talking about maternity leave (both medical and family leave included) where the woman must take time off for birth and healing? But the family leave is optional for both genders after the birth.

Cause when I talk about maternity leave in conjunction with gender and employment, it's the medical leave that I'm really pointing to here that causes a distinction that's justified


Edit: o.O and I wouldn't call that a fun fact. Not having to worry about the effects of pregnancy was a plus in my book. You're taking part of that away from me...

Edit2: I probably should've clarified the medical leave part earlier

The last time I checked our rules for interviewing an applicant for a position, it was an absolute no-go to ask them about whether they are going to take a maternity leave or not...

This is what I thought to according to my uncle...but I wouldn't be surprised if they did a test case of "pretend" interviews and asked for employer input afterwards.

Also, I totally think it should be asked. It's a big problem when the employer and employee aren't on the same wavelength about that both the medical and family leave portion

This is a very real concern, I'll concede. However, I sadly cannot say what the merit to this is. Here is the best article I could find on the subject:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...r-giving-bith-will-it-take-me-to-recover

According to the article, some people take 6 weeks due to the trauma giving birth wracks on their body. Others take days.

In my family, women were expected to take off a couple of days to give birth, and that was it. Hell, my aunt worked from the delivery room on her laptop!

In short: I cannot discuss this meaningfully with you, because A) there is no good data out there on it, and B) from what little I can gather, it varies heavily from woman to woman.

Where is Sordak when you need him?

That's fine. I've discussed this with my girlfriend and we had different opinions. And that's al anyone can really have at the moment or ever I think. It's more a moral quandry than anything in my opinion and you can't force morality into business.

Lol your family is lucky in that regard. Damn your aunt is a boss for that.

But yeah, that's what I was basing my argument about it not really being sexism when it comes to employee evaluation; just some biology and stuff.

Lmao actually where's Limz? He did want another fight/debate and he just missed it

Well, I'll just leave you with this little excerpt from the study which addresses exactly that:

"For example, Budig and England (2001) examine differences in work
patterns between mothers and nonmothers and find that interruptions
from work, working part-time, and decreased seniority/experience collec-
tively explain no more than about one-third of the motherhood penalty.
They also show that “mother-friendly” job characteristics (i.e., differences
in the type of jobs mothers and nonmothers choose) explain very little of
the penalty. Similarly, Anderson et al. (2003) find that human capital,
occupational, and household resource variables (e.g., number of adults in
the household) collectively account for 24% of the total wage penalty for
one child and 44% for women with two or more children. Likewise,
Waldfogel and Meyer (2000) find that occupational controls do not elim-
inate the penalty. As Budig and England (2001) conclude, the remaining
wage gap likely arises either because employed mothers are somehow less
productive at work than nonmothers or because employers discriminate
against mothers (or some combination of the two processes)."

Well that's interesting: probably a bit of both i would guess. Moms can't dedicate as much to work after all and Career moms are relaituvely new when compared against the weight of all of history

*shrug* so a bit of sexism is there, probably. I know Japan refers to moms working as something shameful or something I think I heard somewhere -> that's an extreme case of old cultural carry ivers

Please lock this thread.

I'm not sure this discussion will go anywhere good.

Sure is a lot of videogame discussion here.

Alrighty, well, this has been fun. But I feel that I've successfully proved my point. That, and I gotta go play DOS2 with a good friend of mine!

Cya!

O.o this stopped being a video game thread page one :P

I tend to side with the general sentiment put forth in your post, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that video games have nothing to do with reality. Like any art form, story telling through video games inevitibly draws from the artist's/writer's own experiences and views and helps to shape those of others as well.

I think what you meant to say is that we shouldn't take the setting(s) or dressing(s) of the fictional world of a video game too seriously.

"Say that you think this guy needs a Humor +500 ring or something"

Quest Failed

Fun fact: that thread was actually a litmus test for the mods to see if they're hypocrites.

Spoilers: they are.

Fun fact: your fact is not funny

Meanwhile, I'm just sitting here wishing for the other non-elven race/gender combos that I play to get more attractive and form-fitting clothing options.

At this point, maybe Larian would be better off removing Elves altogether given the drama they cause, or make them utterly inhuman to the point where they completely look as though they are made from wood/tree bark, lack breasts, hair, more androgynous, etc.

Maybe that will shut people up, when you take something and make it have no appealing characteristics at all, turn it into just a thing that everyone looks at neutrally, and that inspires no feelings whatsoever.

whoa there, now hold on. Lets be reasonable.

Allow me to correct you there, you sucessfully proved your opinion.
Posting links to 500 pages of material without comment only shows that you do not really know how to argue your point at all, nor that you care about convincing anyone.

I think they are taking the : if we ignore it, it will eventually go away approach

Nah. When you have the morality police in your yard the best way is to do your thing and ignore their complaining. They scatter like sandpeople if you just don't budge to their demands. The protein world campign is a really good example of that.

sandpeople are easily frightened, but they'll soon return.. and in greater numbers

This is not your final paper on gender studies. This is a fucking game.

"The Drama" they cause is purely in this forum alone, being constantly pushed by the same 2-3 people. I'm sorry but I don't see a widespread drama that would cause larian to rethink their character design. look at twitter, I even gave up scrolling in trying to find any mention of elves.

Now to get my own opinion into this whole discussion. I can understand certain people that really don't like the design and the representation it creates ,but I actually do like it, not for the "muh boobs" but just for the race-fantasy of having a woodlands elf race that dresses mainly in nature and sh*t and I like that, I like having different races that aren't just all on the same level of technology or... well fashion. Plus it lets me play as a skimpy male mage and I live for that.

I get it, female representation matters, but some people here really need to get down, log off and let off some steam, because they turned a small discussion about them disliking the design of elves into a political and social commentary discussion on such a high level that shouldn't be even there for a simple entertainment media... I understand the necessity to move away from the sexual objectification in games, I personally really dislike female characters that are obviously just there for the b-factor, but that doesn't have to mean that all forms of sexual representation has to be bad. I actually have to applaud Larian Studios for representing both genders of a race in the same level of "skimpyness" (for a lack of a better word coming to my mind), I was so prepared for changing sebille origin to custom one, change to male and then see a male character in full platemail and showing like 5 pixels of skin but I was pleasantly surprised to the point where I don't mind and can actually get them being serious about having a race that does dress in leafs. The only Issues I agree with is some of the poses that are ridiculous and the fact that sebille is the first origin selected when you start a new character, which is questionable. I'd much rather see lohse or the Red Prince as the first selected origin, or maybe one of the other coming origins.

All in All... People... Stop getting yourself worked up over this issue... currently this forum is spammed with the same topic in 10 different threads and all are on the top because of people pushing and pushing and it's obvious that it's just a vocal minority at this point...

Nyanko: Your interpretation of "intellectual property" is very different from the legal definition. It really sounds like your argument falls under the category of "freedom of speech".

Of course Larian has freedom of speech. And they can be the judge as to whether that speech is working as intended. Judging from the article posted by Swen, these issues are something that's on their radar. You shouldn't assume you're an expert on their creative vision. If they do decide to make changes, you'll probably accuse them of caving in to special interests? I'd argue it would be an example of them seizing an opportunity to better realise their creative vision.

aj0413: I think it's interesting that you posit that sexism doesn't exist, and justify it by saying that women in particular seem to suffer from a weakness that makes it difficult for them to persevere when faced with bullshit in an office environment.

What is this weakness, exactly, and where does it come from? Do you have any evidence supporting your claim? How can you justify your claims as anything except more of the bullshit women have to put up with?

It can be fair to argue that women sometimes miss out on professional opportunities because they have different professional attitudes. We shouldn't sit around here and blame all issues of sexism on the workplace environment. That's the complete opposite of my point.

The problem, again, is that sexism permeates through every part of our lives. Whether or not a specific workplace is progressive, at the end of the day women go home to a partner who wants to be "king". She and her partner watch movies, TV shows and play games that tell them that her strength, her intelligence, her professional capabilities are all less important than maintaining a persistent image of femininity.

I'm confident that workplaces are generally sexist, but I'll try to review sources further and assess this with an open mind before properly addressing this matter again. HOWEVER, this is just one component of a broad culture of sexism that interferes with the lives of both men and women and specifically works to erode the professional confidence of women.

Knock it off, but them back in your pants.. sit down and play the game... This thread is insanely toxic and doesn't need to be on these forums.. it's become nothing more then a pissing contest / ego peen size contest. Excuse the language.

These kinds of topics are not what people who just purchased the game and come to the forums should see. It's not productive or helpful... or even valid feedback. It's a recycled topic which was toxic before also. Know I said my last post was my last here... but this topic keeps floating to the top and it's horrible how people are acting.


Lock it, remove it..bann it if it returns. ~ P l e a s e ~

I'm sorry, Ellary. You're completely right. I'll try not to be so easily provoked in the future, and I want to apologize to you and others like you who have to deal with this in a place devoted to discussion about a video game.

stop it seriously.. cause I will take a forum bann to knock you into place and my sugary sweet coating can quickly turn into a toxic taffy....this topic was around before and was toxic..it didn't need to come back.

I have been playing the same game as you and found nothing sexist anywhere.. never once where my breasts offended. You twist and manipulate what is said.. One female to another...grats on being a prime example of typical female behavior.

Larian...please..please...please.. make a sub forum for complaints unrelated to the game. This topic has gone so far away from the game it's just toxic. It's literally people just trying to force their view and prove each other wrong now.

No need to apologize, silly head ♥. We are human *shrugs* sometimes we get carried away with things. *hugs*

Awww. Thanks, Ellary! You're the best.

Lol while you flamed me earlier for saying exactly the same thing. Yeah right, get lost you white knight scum.

Also, PLEASE FFS JUST LOCK THIS THREAD ALREADY

When did I do this?

"Have you ever experienced sexual discrimination before? Have you not listened to a woman who's gone through it? Have you not read a word about how Vometia feels talked down to because of her hender, did you not read a word that Testad said in the other thread about men being the kings of the household, about how women should be protected from themselves?"

That has nothing to do with being told that I'm out of line by someone I respect and care about, who is calmly stating that my behavior upsets them. That's asking if you have experienced discrimination or are aware of it, because I did not believe you had or were.

I find the comment that I am "white knighting" to be rude, denigrating and totally illogical. I have defended noone here, and even if I had, that's my prerogative. If you are respectful to people, they are much more likely to listen to what you have to say. Please keep this in mind when you post in the future.

Lol okay buddy.

This forum is way too sensitive. I'm out.

Regardless of your intent, I want to thank you for phrasing it respectfully.

I want to thank you for giving me the best day of my life

Its a good thing we don't have any french knights in here. They can be quite rude. A lot of feathers would be ruffled and that would be... Problematic.

I think this has run its course. Sorry guys, but it's time for a group hug now.