That's not really the sense I get from it. That's the way things work now, because the system is broken, and Color just needs to get out of this Void as soon as it can. One of the Sisters, Ire I think, says that there used to be 50 of them and they died because you took your time getting there. She says that each of them were supposed to be a new world, which mirrors the comments a few others said as well as the voice of Color, leading me to believe that ultimately each of the Sisters was supposed to be a new life. Now, however, because Color left and the Void is clinging on to a thin strand, there's only enough resources to send one Sister through. (Or, yourself, which several Sisters admonish as ludicrous)

That is, at least, what I pieced together from the dialog I read.

I beleive the brother's obscuras are the battle arenas.

I think The Void boils down to a "damsel in distress" story, which itself is full of "gender roles," and perhaps this is what the developers were going for. They wanted to make a game where the hero's problems are the player's problems. The things he is facing are the things we are facing. The emotions he has are the emotions we have. And, perhaps they wanted to evoke strong, specific emotions, as art usually does.

Sadly, the game has a target audience (which could be because of sales or the artists being male or any number of things), which really is a shame, but I think replacing or changing characters can affect the piece of art. The sisters' characters are one that the hero wants to protect, take care of, obey, rescue and yes, even in some cases, lust after. Those feelings feed directly into a male's primal/hormonal emotions.

I don't know if flipping things around, sisters are the brothers and so on, would have the same affect on a female player as the game currently does for a male. For example, a female hero rescuing a bunch of men from evil women. I'm not saying it wouldn't work, I'm actually curious if it would or not.

I understand this is a touchy subject and really mean no offense if I did offend at all. I'd like to understand more about the female side of things because I do believe equality is important. Also, I've left out things like perspectives of gay men and women because I don't think that all gay men or women think similarly and I don't want to offend anyone by pretending I know what I'm talking about

I don't think this is a good interpretation since it stays firmly on the superficial, and moreover it describes a really fucking boring fantasy to have. It's the lowest-common-denominator direction, which would put the game right there with a hundred of other much worse-written games and movies. It's cheap, it's tawdry, it's dull. I'd like to think IPL was going for something more interesting, not the same macho power fantasy catering to thirteen-year-old hormone-fueled subliterate boys that's behind the literary wonders of Grand Theft Auto.

Let me repeat: it's a dumb fantasy. It should be stamped out and doesn't belong at all on a platform that should be intellectually above this.
Female gamers are often resigned to taking on a male role because, as I've pointed out above, that's the way it is for most of the industry. That's why Bioware's games, though much shallower and triter than IPL's, get kudos from women: they let you play a character with the sex of your choice and at least give a nod to a shallow understanding of gender equality. Would I react differently if the characters were gender-swapped? Not really, though I'd be rather surprised. Do I need the ability to choose the protagonist's sex? Not really; he's a mute non-personality. But would I have preferred that both types of characters had male and female spread about? Hell yes. Doesn't even have to be an even spread. One female "Brother" there, a pair of male "Sisters" there and the game's gender politics would have been a lot less iffy.

I think the whole gender discussion and the direction it seemed to take are missing a point. Let me try to rearrange it.

The main character is male. So what? You can't imagine how could a female be roleplayed in the Void setting. I'll tell you how (just a guess). You start at an empty obscura as a newborn sister. At first you hear a whisper of colours but as the brothers start to attend to you you can talk/subterfuge them into giving you more. You can built you domain with the given resourses (the more kawai it is the more brothers are willing to attend to you), ot you can invest it into yourself and increase you color sense, the problem is you still need to look cute to make one of the guardians take it for you and share it. Something like that...

Reeks of prostitution? Yes it does, for while it's natural in most cultures for males to attend to many females a female is given a completely different role. The females are, in fact, more guardians (of love, home, piece, purity, etc.) than males. To strip them of those qualities would mean to corrupt their nature, which I (and I beat any of you) don't want to see any time soon. Feminism is evil (oh, how I'm going to be bashed for that), but it's good most people know it is.

Please, try not to become too agitated. This is supposed to be a reasonable dicussion. If there is no way you can find any arguments or a solid basis for your position, it is better not to start at all, as the discussion is going to be closed at some point (at this very point, to be more exact). You can always continue calling names through your PM. Do not forget that other people are reading every sentence you write.
For example, "feminism is evil" and "really fucking boring fantasy" seem neither overly exact nor rational phrasing to me, which isn't surprising give that feminism has a few versions, and I cannot quite grasp the essential difference between "boring" and "fucking boring". It does not help a reader get the meaning, does it?

Wow. Kindly look up "misogyny." I'm going to make an educated guess that you aren't one of the developers, so I doubt you've much of an idea what their idea of playing a female PC would have been like. The rest of your post? Hilarious. Did feminists touch you in inappropriate places or something?
I figured that since the board doesn't filter profanities, it was more or less okay to deploy them. (I previewed to make sure; if there was a word filter in place, I assure you I wouldn't have tried to get around it.)

I think he meant your tone was more offensive than your words. I'd like to think we were having a polite discussion and not attacking each other. That said, I suggest ignoring Bratt since he is either completely oblivious or is trying to get a rise out of people.

And to clarify, I wasn't insinuating that The Void has a simplistic story. I used "boils down" for a reason. Even the greatest of stories can be boiled down to simple premises like "rescue the princess," "save the galaxy," "become the greatest," and so on. It isn't a fault, it's merely a trope of story telling. What makes a story great isn't that it goes against the mold in this sense, it's that it takes the basic pieces and creates something new with it.

Some points:

• 1) Art is the reflection of reality. (Or, depending who you ask, it's the other way around, or it's both, anyway that's not the point. )
  
  2) Men and women differ. However, the precise nature of their differences, aside from obvious biological ones, has not been that easy to describe, especially since it varies greatly when taken collectively or individually (because hey, humans differ!)
  
  3) I think that gender equality does not mean denying the differences (both the more and the less obvious) between men and women. To me, it means that you need to remember that applying the collective stereotype to an individual might not be appropriate. To use a simple example, a boy should be allowed to play with dolls if that's what he likes, yet a girl shouldn't be forced to play with toy cars and soldiers if she doesn't want to, and vice versa. (It's not the best example, since children aren't the ones who should "know better" but I hope you get the drift.)

So, hmm, art is under no obligation to depict an image of human society as it now is, or how it ideally should be, but should have every right (and in fact it's quite difficult to escape this!) to use imagery that somehow reflects (distorts?) reality which is an integral part of cultural heritage (unfortunately?).
I hope you're not trying to fight fire with fire? Is the best way of trying to fight against something potentially sexist to call on the gender of its makers and users, let alone their sexual orientation? Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. I expect some straight men and lesbians will be more attracted to/aroused by Yani's petite form and graceful moves, or Eli's fit, healthy body, or Ima's chains, than Ava's more visibly sexual stretching.
Except, well, the traditional gender roles have been imprinted on most (every one?) of us through history, culture, upbringing etc. Except what "happens among some animals and various human tribes" is not what has been happening throughout centuries of Western history and culture, or among a great many other animals? Art does not exist in a, pun intended, void, but it interacts with the one who experiences it, depends on his or her knowledge and experience to achieve its effect.

Please, don't deny obvious biology - females are often the nurturers because they're the ones getting pregnant, giving birth and producing milk, while males are often the hunters because they're physically stronger. Wouldn't blaming art for somehow reflecting this be like getting angry at the sky for it being blue? Of course, it's important to realise that not having a child does not make one less of a woman, and not being physically strong does not make one less of a man.
After reading the last words, it seems to me that the Ice-Pick Lodge are hardly to blame for not trying to break even more new ground than they already did with the Void, if that's the image of how male erotica should look like...
Hmm, I suppose that must mean the society believes men are generally more shallow/superficial than women, i.e. they wouldn't consider a non-perfectly-looking female attractive even despite her potentially perfectly amiable personality?
Dumb? I'd say the more appropriate word might be... archetypal. Sure, the particular "damsel in distress" archetype might have been repeated ad nauseam, and usually in quite an uninventive way. I don't think that makes it anyone's place to call the human need/fantasy to care for, or protect, or "save" another human (regardless of their gender) dumb... What's not a dumb fantasy? To live among and have relationships with emotionally mature and mutually respectful people?
Sure, like all those American shows that prove how politically correct they are by putting one token black or Asian character to show that the cast is racially diverse.


Let's face it: the setting of The Void is "sexist" (as is reality: men can't breastfeed! women run slower and lift less weight!). There is no gender equality in it. The differences between sexes in The Void are very biological (I can't believe I'm writing this ) - Sister and Brother organisms function very differently - and those differences directly influence the way a Sister or Brother exists (unlike in real world, where the biological differences do not have to influence the lifestyle, as demonstrated by the variety of societies on Earth, except for the few biological functions like, for example, giving birth); Brothers and Sisters also have a society of sorts, and how it works also stems from those biological differences - and you know what, doesn't this make the setting more realistic! (I can't believe I'm writing this even more. ) Because hey, human societies are rarely enlightened about how they should ideally function (things like, for instance, gender equality) - why then should the characters figuring in works of art created by humans be?

Eh, what I'm trying to say is that I don't think The Void is making a direct statement about the nature of sexes. Because come on, are all men power-hungry, soulless monsters? Are all women manipulative temptresses unable to act on their own? I also don't think that it's per se wrong to draw on traditional gender images to create a story/setting/art... I think that the key to use stereotypes consciously and tastefully, and I think The Void's successful at this, though it's for everyone to decide on their own.

Of course, The Void could have featured the options to choose the player character's sex (male, female, both, none) and sexual orientation (hetero-, homo-, bi-, asexual) to create a Void filled with a "healthy" mix of pretty/ugly good/bad boys/girls/hermaphrodites/disembodied spirits. Would the game then appeal to a greater group of people? Potentially yes, though of course it could also cause the game to be outlawed in several places for "promoting" stuff. Would that make the game more difficult to create? Of course. Would that inhibit or improve the story and/or artistic vision? Who knows? Is there anything wrong in that regard with the game as it is? Not much, because hey, it's just art, and people should understand why characters featured in art have sexes, and what can they represent and why?

You might have just ask. I personally don't care much about gender and play whichever the developers offers. The problem here is that usually the games with predefined characters have much better charcters, while the games allowing you to generate characters rarely have any player character at all. That's why in most cases I am all for playing characters that I do not even create. A good writer at least makes sure these characters have some reasons to behave in a certain way.

If there is a choice, I usually chose the gender depending on my mood. It is pretty much random, I suppose (though, I will most likely chose female if males have badly modelled faces as in Morrowind; or some beast if all human beings have ugly faces). Sadly, in most games where you CAN choose the character there isn't going to be much difference either way. Dragon Age may be different (I doubt that, though), but I have not played it yet.

Oh, for god's sake. I'm being reminded why bringing up gender anything in a gaming crowd is such a bad idea.
Because that does describe the great majority of the gaming industry and gamers alike: straight males who are often not comfortable with looking at sensual, nude men. There're secure straight men out there who can admit they find another man aesthetically pleasing, but those tend to be in the minority. Before you start, most straight women don't freak out when they look at naked or scantily clad women, but that's another subject entirely (i.e. objectified females are the norm so everyone's used to it).
The best art transgresses and challenges, not affirm your comfort zone and social constructs. Yes, gender is a social construct and any beginner's sociology/anthropology textbook will tell you the same. Keep in mind, I've found merit in and enjoyed works with questionable attitudes toward women: Philip K. Dick, Paradise Lost, several works of Shakespeare, Michael Moorcock's Gloriana, to name but a few. I've defended Chaucer's portrayal of the "arch-wife" and Dunbar's "The Tua Mariit Wemen and the Wedo." But dismissing such attitudes out of hand as inoffensive and "just a reflection of reality/biology" is an insult and says nothing flattering about you.
So what about female wrestlers who are much stronger than your average man? You'd be surprised how much training, experience, and genetic makeup matter (some men are more prone to growing fat, some women are genetically inclined to be tall and muscular, certain types of cancer are more likely to happen to men). Did you realize women have a much higher pain threshold? Try giving birth. Oh, and upper body strength. Most scientists agree that there are much larger differences between two men or two women from disparate groups than between an average man and an average woman.
No, it's because society is inherently misogynistic and slanted toward the marginalization and disenfranchisement of women. For long periods in history and many cultures,* women weren't regarded as much of anything but chattel and breeding stock: they're not valued for intelligence or wit but their beauty. You may think that in this oh-so-progressive century such attitudes are obsolete and gender equality has been obtained, but let me assure you that this isn't the case.

*There have been tribes where the opposite is true. Yes, where women are hunters/gatherers and men stay at home gossiping. There are also differing standards of masculinity and levels of women's rights throughout history; for example, women in certain feudal SE Asian cultures could hold property and manage trade on their own right without the need for a husband's, brother's, or father's approval/buffer. Pre-Christian Germanic women could also hold property, had the right to divorce, and a select few could fight. Feudal Japanese women from samurai families were trained in combat so that they could lead and defend their homes in the absence of male relatives, and we're talking about a culture that's one of the most sexist around. Medieval peasant women of Europe worked in the field--the kind of labor that would break you in two within about fifteen minutes. The Roman vestals held real political power. Priestesses of Inanna likewise. Research and education are wonderful things.
The character in your avatar is a pansexual male-female-neither anthromorphic personification written by an author who refused to sell the movie rights to one of his novels because Hollywood was going to make his main characters white (instead of what they are in the book: black). Irony has never been more delicious.

And you know, I'm not enraged about The Void. I'd like to find a position from which its handling of gender and sex can be defended against outright declarations of misogyny. Most of you seem happy to burn your own house and shoot your own foot, though.
I don't even disagree. The Witcher (notorious for its softcore sex cards), Planescape: Torment and many adventure games have pre-set characters, an aspect that doesn't detract from them. As I've reiterated several times, I don't mind that the PC in The Void is male considering how vague he is. It's everything else in the game that makes me go "hmmm." Quite apart from that, I'd recommend you try NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer. Your character has an established history but not otherwise preset, but the story--while not quite the same caliber as PS:T--is still well-done.

As for Dragon Age, the difference is largely in NPC romances, some NPCs' reactions and certain endgame choices, but even then there're a couple of bisexual NPCs to have virtual relationships with. The same holds true for most, if not all, Bioware games.

You are good at guessing my unrelation to the development, but what about the idea of the Void female roleplay? Do you see any alternative whether it comes from me or a dev or you or anyone else?
You bet)) And their touch tastes no different than of any other girl outthere.

The tone in my responses and Umgenni Kemo's is much different than yours. I'm open to hear your views on the subject, but can we please keep this a polite discussion?

One shouldn't get angry over opposing opinions. We're not being stubborn or telling you you're wrong, we're just sharing our views. It makes me sad because I can see you have your points, but it's hard to get at it when I feel like I'm being attacked; filed into "oh, they're just those gamers, you know, sexist fucks."

Obviously some people here are being trolls, but let's ignore them.

Please, I'd like to continue this conversation, let's all just relax and keep sharing calmly, because who knows, you and I and everyone here can all learn something from each other.

Sorry to call you out, I'd just like to see where this goes, and hopefully it's a happy place.

No, actually, Umgenni's post is offensive. If I reposted his comments in certain places--and no, I'm not talking about some mythical "feminazi" forum or the like, just forums where progressive views are promoted--people would think I'm a troll then tear me apart, and with good reason. Especially because it's cloaked under passive-aggressive "nice guy" facade.
You're hitting the tone argument. To wit: you're accusing me of being rude without considering the fact that I find Umgenni's and bratt_n's posts insulting. Expecting me to be polite in the face of this is neither impartial nor reasonable, and if anything I've remained as polite as I can--on a message board where there's no moderation and discussions are no-holds-barred, I'd have been much more scathing. Here:


Replace "people of color" with "women" and "racist" with "sexist." Try to think on it. As for attacked? Come now, the rest of the world--gaming industry, literature, movies, the workplace, real life, everything--is a boys' club. I'm sure you can withstand having your sensibilities a tiny bit bruised on one solitary message board.

To be fair, of course there're level-headed male gamers willing to consider feminist concerns without hand-waving it off as hysterical screeching, but even if your voice approaches that end of the spectrum, it's being drowned out by the other extreme. And that you don't think Umgenni's post is particularly offensive makes me tilt my head very far sideways at your paradigm. Sorry.

It's nice to be nice.

Here I thought we were discussing a game and wether or not it was sexist, and I see it has become something much deeper, where our own beliefs are being insulted.

While you might find Umgenni Kemo's analysis of The Void insulting, and yes, I know what you mean, I only meant that it didn't seem like he was attacking you, and rather, was making observations and offering opinions on the subject. But all his talk was based along the question of "why is the game like this?"

I noticed that when you replied it was slightly different. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I see you attacked Umgenni Kemo's avatar:
and while I can see your point, I don't really see the relevance between that and the point Kemo was trying to make, which was that merely inserting a black person or a female for the sake of political correctness is kind of empty. It's like they're just covering themselves "oh, well here we have a black person, so we're not racist, you see."

It has nothing to do with whatever outside interests he has, he was only making a point that he could see why someone would avoid that. But it seemed like you attacked him personally for it.

And I'll admit that Bratt is being eh, but attacking him back with:
just didn't feel necessary.

And earlier when you said that the whole "save the princess" trope was fucking boring. Do you really need to say things like that? Especially, as I and Kemo have pointed out, it's a trope. It's a story structure. Insulting an artist because he creates an original story around a trope is a little backward. The point is that they took something and made something new with it, and that's what art is.

And then the "oh here we go with these gamer guys again," is that really necessary? I haven't once said "oh here's that feminazi," and I don't think Kemo has, although I could be wrong, which, well.. whatever.

I understand where you're coming from with the whole race analogy. I myself have had my share of that, and yes, it is irritating, but attacking the person who didn't know any better isn't exactly going to change their mind. Take the high road. You could explain why something is sexist, rather than call us sexists.

Edit: corrected a small mixup, it was Bratt who was being "eh," not anyone else.

The problem with discussing pretty much anything gender related or race related is that it is impossible to have an entirely objective viewpoint, given that every human on the planet has a race and gender. ; )

I can see where Pyro's coming from - the Sister's do take a much more passive role in The Void and, compounded by their nakedness, its quite easy to see them as weak, dependant characters compared to the dominating Brothers. True, I also get the viewpoint that their strength lies in the ability to nuture and guide the player in certain aspects and to outright manipulate him in others. However, manipulation is not a trait exclusive to the Sisters - the Brothers do an awful lot of lying by omission. I remember on my second playthrough, I failed to complete the challenge set by the Warden to kill the Pangolin. He clearly says "The task I set you was impossible", thereby causing the player to waste colour on a pointless task and leave him weaker for the duel that follows. Then we have the father figures of Patriarch and Montgolfier - two Brothers actively encouraging the development of the player, nuturing and guiding him in a similar way to Nameless at the beginning.

The point I'm trying to make is that if the ability to nuture and manipulate the player is not exclusive to the Sisters, it means one of the following:
A) That there is a certain equality in regards to behaviour between both Brothers and Sisters.
B) If A is correct, then the Sisters are weaker in having no other defences, other than trying to dissuade the player from a course of action.
The jokers in the pack are the characters of Echo and ?Aya?. These Sisters are not bound to the Chambers, suggesting an indepance of sorts - do all Sisters share this ability and choose to remain in their Chambers of their own free will? Then we have the odd characters of Aya and Nameless. It's harder to argue that Brothers have the ability rampage around The Void at will, killing Sisters as they see fit when it is a Sister herself that gives the player the ability to do so. Again, have all the Sisters given their respective Brothers the power to kill them? Moving on to Nameless, she does have real power, of a sort, in that she provides the player the strength to initially survive The Void and later, when she sacrifices herself ( ) she further empowers the player to survive in The Void. Admittedly, this course of action sets of a horrific chain of events and carries a high price but a transfer of power takes places nonetheless.

The important bit

I'm going to derail the thread slightly now with a question that I'd like you to think about and answer *honestly* - if some of the Sisters had been male and some of the Brothers female, would it affect your opinion of the game? The fun question is if some of the genders *were* changed but retained the same personalities, which ones should be changed to give a more gender-balanced feel to The Void? Do you say characters like the fiery and angry Uma should be male and deny the existance of a strong female character? Do you turn The Mantid into a woman and then argue it gives an unflattering view of women as the character is a cold, dispassionate sort?

/The important bit

I look forward to your answers, Young Ones.....>: )

This has been a really interesting discussion, I would hate to see it locked because of personal attacks.

How's this remotely an attack? I'm pointing out the irony of someone making that post while picking Desire as his avatar. The character is exactly what I've described. You're getting defensive.
That was directed at bratt_n. Even then, what about it? It's a statement of fact. He's not a developer. Is he psychic and can he read the devs' minds? I don't think so.
Saying that a trope is fucking boring doesn't insult the artist personally. It's like me saying the story you just wrote is garbage. It's not an insult to you but the writing/your writing ability. Of course, it's common for a lot of people to take criticism of their works as criticism to themselves, but the IPL people are all probably big boys and not going to throw fits over my calling a trope they may not have had in mind boring.
Uhh, I've already explained and I don't feel like explaining anymore. I'm sure you have the power of google at your fingertips just like I do.

I don't need to read anybody's mind (suffice to say there is a mind to read in the first place) to use simple logic. And, of course, me being/not being whatever has nothing to do with this discussion and the ideas I post. If you have a better (or any at all) idea how could a female be roleplayed in the Void as the PC, go ahead and express it, make sure it's reasonable and fits the setting before you do though.

Hooray, something I can reply to positively!
Basically my point, yep.
Some people pointed out to me that Echo and Aya were the creator's "favorites" and thus granted the ability to roam free, but another thread I read elsewhere suggests that the two "broke free" somehow. I'm not sure--it may be one of those differences between the Russian and English versions. I do consider their relative freedom a positive thing, though, and takes away from that "all Sisters are passive, vulnerable prisoners" factor. I never filled their hearts that far, but do you provoke a Brother into combat if you fill up their third one?
Funny thing is, I liked some of the Brothers and didn't much like some of the Sisters. The Mantid's a polite enough chap when he's not trying to kill you; I felt bad about Montgolfier and felt that he, at least, was acting under misguided notions. He believes in the Void and wants to keep it that way, hence "I can't give the glyph of Breakthrough to you without resistance" and "You are the strongest of us, so stay and guard the Void." He misses the point of the Void being transient and doesn't understand that it has to pass to the next limit, but I thought that under different circumstances, he'd have been a good ally. It's a little tragic. In some sense, you could argue that the Brothers' actions and choices are restricted by their nature. Given a greater measure of free will, some of them might have acted differently. Both Brothers and Sisters are fettered by different kinds of chains--some of the Sisters have plenty of will to spare and access to the truth of the Void/colors, but not the ability to act on it; the Brothers are, conversely, have power but little freedom of the mind and almost no understanding of their world. I could probably interpret it as a commentary on real-world gender relations--men are freer to act but held down by notions of machismo (if you express "soft" emotions as a man, you're seen as a pussy; if you pursue certain hobbies and dress a certain ways, your male peers exclude you or possibly think you're gay), whereas women's emotions are approved but not their actions.

Uta being male would've been interesting. Her passivity doesn't spring from being helpless and feminine per se, but from disdainful indifference--she can't be bothered to care anymore.

I am also a feminist, but while I see your point I don't think the game is inherently sexist. The Brothers and Sisters, to me are a sort of exaggeration or maybe you could even say parody of certain archetypes of male (brutish, dominant, dogmatic) and female (alluring, sensual, mysterious). It probably would not make a difference to me if some of the "sisters" were male and some of the "brothers" were female, but I can see why they weren't - it's hard to exaggerate an archetype if you're trying to break it at the same time.

Besides, as you and others have mentioned before, all of the characters have rather distinct personalities. A little less so for the brothers, but it's to be expected since they're all following the same code. There's only a small handful of sisters, and they're all very different, not just in the way they look - something you don't often see in video games. They may be in a submissive position, but they do not all have a submissive personality. Eli especially is depicted as ambitious, straightforward, athletic, rational, militaristic - all traditionally masculine qualities, but she's not depicted as any less of a woman or sister for it; and I'm not alone in her being my favorite.

I also agree that if a couple genders were swapped, due to the limited amount of characters you wouldn't get the full "spectrum"; people would ask: "why does he get to be the controlling/cold/strong/passionate one?" These things are hard to pull off.

Mind you, for some reason I thought that Echo was a dude for a second


On a tangentially related note, I'd just like to quickly explain "feminism" because a lot of people have weird misconceptions about it. (It's a bit long, sorry.) All it classically is and all it is supposed to be is the belief that women and men should be equal, and granted opportunity based on who they are as an individual rather than their gender. Yes, there's some crazy women out there who think men are rapists that should be enslaved or some other such nonsense - they're not feminists, they're crazy. Just because they're the vocal minority doesn't mean they represent the belief - it's like religious extremists. Or like looking at the crazy stuff that PETA says (fish should be renamed to sea kittens; release your pets you slave driver!) and then ignoring all animal rights activists even when they present serious issues (e.g. factory farming).

Basically, feminism = egalitarianism. It's just the branch that focuses on the issues of women's rights and standing in society. We're not discounting men's issues - it's true that sometimes men are underservered as well (e.g. divorce proceedings when children are involved - which is really the same problem, thinking that women are the caretakers and men cannot be) and these things should be changed. The focus is on women because they're disproportionaly affected - women are slightly over half the population doing 2/3rds of the working hours, receiving 10% of the world's income and owning less than 1% of the property.

It's not something that the "developed nations" have gotten over, either - you need to accomplish more as a woman for the same status as a man, and some will still not promote you because they think it's in your "nature" to leave work and be a mother one day. Women are still objectified by the media to a ridiculous extent (there's thousands of ads like this). If a man can't solve a math problem or beat a video game, people say he's bad at those things - if a woman can't, people say women are bad at those things. Similarly, if a man has an all-male company (a construction group or whatever) and they all act like assholes, laze around, and don't get any work done - people don't say men are lazy and brutish, they say he's a crappy boss. A few months ago, when a woman decided to make an all-female office, didn't do any actual managing, and all her workers did was gossip and fight; there was a news article in the Daily Mail that basically insinuated that women are not fit for positions of responsibility and cannot work together because they would eat eachother alive over men

It's the little things, too. Like certain jobs requiring you to wear high heels to be "professional", even though it can be a lot more dangerous and can seriously mess up your bone structure (if the heels are high enough and you wear them nearly all the time). Like how if some test finds out that 5% of men are 2% better at women at doing X, the medias will print "SCIENTISTS DISCOVER MEN ARE BETTER AT X" - making it sound as if all men are better than all women at that task. Which creates prejudice, stereotyping, lack of job consideration, etc. But even if, let's say, 90% of men would make better firefighters - you shouldn't ignore the unusual 10%.

The best example of the above, one I'm sure you've all heard, is "women are verbal thinkers, men are spatial thinkers". Here's the actual graph for the test on spacial reasoning (similar for males/females on the verbal version). That's just laughable. You can't look at that and say that it makes biological sense that only 15-20% of scientists are women. Not even accounting for men having a higher incidence of higher IQ. (Quick very very simplified lesson on that: women have XX chromosomes, men have XY, women's chromosomes try to "balance" each other, so if one has a "stupid" or a "smart" gene on one, it can get "averaged" out: so among males, statistically, you have more smart people and also more stupid people. Not very much more though: not everything gets averaged out and nothing stops women from hitting a particular gene on both.) And bizarrely, even though women are supposed to be "more verbal", it's still much much harder to be a female writer.

Well, that was a bit lengthy. It's hard to have a more brief introduction to such a serious topic, though. Hope it was informative to some of you.

By the way, since someone brought it up before, I just want to point out that men have mammary glands and can, in fact, breastfeed.

An interesting post Ledger, although I wouldn't click on that last link for all the Colour in The Void.

Nothing can go wrong with a few moobs

Because pointing out the irony that he enjoys an author who did that doesn't have anything to do with the conversation. It doesn't disprove his point or your point, it just comes off as you ignoring his point because of his interests.
sorry, I mixed that up and have since corrected it, but yeah, you don't have to be a developer to know what one is thinking. This whole thread we have been talking about what the devs were thinking and we all know who is and who isn't a dev. Pointing it out in such a way is just mean spirited.

And again, I apologize for the mixup with Bratt and Halfgild Wynac.
I don't think you understand, a trope is just a building block to a story. It's like saying you find G chords going into C chords boring. No one is going to get offended over that. It's missing the big picture. There's millions of songs that use that building block, just like there is millions of stories that use that trope.
I wasn't asking you to explain anything, I was suggesting explaining why something is sexist in general rather than getting angry about it because black people do it so it's ok. Yea, it sucks being offended, but getting mad right back at a person who didn't know any better and telling them to figure it out on their own is just backwards.

I'm not saying you do this, I'm just saying if something offends a person, they'll get their point across much quicker if they just politely point out what was wrong with the statement.

There aren't enough facepalms in the world. Either you're skimming my post rapidly and misunderstanding, or you're speaking a different language. I give up.