Krank

[ QUOTE ]
I generally try to keep big stuff about my characters secret OOCly as well if they are IC unknown, after having few bad experiences with other godmodding the hell out of me based on their OOC knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good advice - why risk your own hands when you can learn just as well by seeing someone else's horribly deformed and burned hands? =)

...and how do you know there aren't _bigger_ stuff I've not even mentioned yet? =)


[ QUOTE ]
To change a subject a little, I saw you mention somewhere earlier how Punisher is watered down lately, and I was curious if you were refering to MAX, or have read those at all. I just read them not so long ago and thought they were quite excellent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eheh... By "lately" I mean a bit further down the road than that... Can't remember the name, but around when Punisher was first introduced, I remember him being written by a real conspiracy-survivalist nutcase. Punisher has been quite crazy over the years, but those comics, for instance, saw him gunning down a bunch of children, afterwards stating something like "this war is getting dirtier... now Kingpin is sending children against me" (not exact quote, translated from memory of a swedish comic book I don't own).

Haven't read the MAX ones, but my Punisher-loving friends assure me it's rather good. Not much of a Punisher fan myself, really =)

[ QUOTE ]
From the sounds of it, you (Krank) got quite level-headed approach on discussing these subjects ingame, and what you post in your blog is your own business. But when dealing with highly provocative issues like this, a little distancing is often good and you might get more people interested of it. If you talk about imaginary prison camp, people can think of it without getting defensive reaction of the real world name and the weight of already existing opinions and feelings of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like how you think, and I hadn't even comnsidered that adding real-world stuff could actually break immersion for people. I thank you for the pointer, as it hadn't really occurred to me...

previously, I was only going to be careful because I didn't want to upset people who didn't want to become upset (I do that quite enough on forums and in real life), but now I got two reasons to be discreet with any real-world references =)

[ QUOTE ]
Generally, people mention things about their characters in here because they want people to take an interest, and maybe even interact IC regarding the information. As it appears Krank does NOT want that, mentioning it seems to serve little point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's probably because I'm not "people". I'm "me"...

I like having both a "meta" level, in which I as a reader can read the Bio's of villains and heroes in the comic book, and a "immersion" level read the comic book itself. I read bios to get a better grip on how the character "feels", but I disregard that info when I'm actually reading the comic.

I'm also mostly unaware when it comes to what passes as "standard" RP behaviour in CoX. I'm, drawing from my own experiences of comic books and tabletop roleplaying, and that's about it. I'm slowly realizing there are more or less "standardized" ways of doing things regarding RP in CoH.

[ QUOTE ]
One question I'd like to ask though. If it's not something you ever want to bring up IC, why mention it? I understand you want some backstory there and of course that's perfectly fine, but with things like this, generally people mention it because they DO want to do something with it in-game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's related to the stuff A-bom criticizes in his Blog?

Really, I wasn't planning on outing his extracurricular activities, but it happened. They're an important piece of information if one is interested in A-bom as a character on a meta-level...

[ QUOTE ]
But can you do it whilst avoiding godmodding, or avoiding frustrating the other player so that, OOC, they just go "Bugger this, it's boring", and wander off? There's the hard bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is, though, that this is just background noise. Stuff that happens way, way offscreen. No reader of this fictional comicbook would ever see it. It doesn't come up in conversation.

Of course, if some player seriously wanted to make A-bom go away from Paragon city for a few months, they could, of course, confront him, or spread the word in-game, or make up a story where they get on A-boms trail. But that would be seriously un-nice.

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I'd rather have my character caught and deal with the IC consequences, than come up with some implausible reason why they get away with it. YMMV of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I have no intention of making any of this overt in-game. At least not the serious [censored], like offing politicians etc. Like I said, casual remarks about shutting down third world sweatshops aren't likely to make things annoying (since more or less everyone agrees sweatshops, while not strictly illegal, are Bad Stuff). The rest of it - well, I plan to never, ever make it overt in-game. And I'd appreciate it if it was kept that way. I'd seriously hate it if people began using this kind of forum-information in-game.

[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: BTW Krank, I'm not trying to put down your character or how you've designed him. Just trying to point out that characters such as him are hellishly difficult to get away with in RP because there's always some annoying smart alec that comes up with something to catch him that you've not covered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, since we're talking about stuff that aren't manifest in-game, I can always block any smart-alec claiming A-bom has one power or the other.

I'm heckishly good at... Gah, the name eludes me... the game played in Sandman etc, where you create/turn yourself into/verbally describe stuff and the point is to make up something the other can't top... (You know, my snake eats your puppy - well, my elephant stept on your snake).

Thet's the point of the exercise. I can get away with more or less anything, as long as I have imagination enough to counter any objections. And I got a lot of free time and a rather huge imagination.

[ QUOTE ]
He was physically present in the room, therefore his scent WILL be present. Also, he used a bone arrow; which he had to touch. Therefore his scent is on the arrow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if he remembered to activate his scent-inhibitors, which mask what little smell a person who's around 85% metal gives off.

And the bone arrow wasn't touched - it grew out of chemically-enhanced biorobotic manufacturers scattered around A-bom's body. They were 100% devoid of identifiable DNA or any scent for that matter.

[ QUOTE ]
There are also heroes that can manipulate time, so if you need to know who did a deed; pop back and look!

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that COULD be A-bom... or it could be one of his brothers. He was manufactured, ya know. There are more like him out there, only noone really knows what happened to them. And A-bom always has a good alibi.

Like I said - the police seem happy to work with him, so apparently noone has connected him to anything.

[ QUOTE ]
There's plenty of characters around with flangesenses (Abilities beyond the actual game capabilities), that would root him out in VERY short order.

[/ QUOTE ]

So?

Keep in mind A-bom was created by a secret government organization to serve as an 100% government-loyal, military-controlled, and 100% US of A owned alternative to traditional superheroes. In case they ever got out of hand. Remember, this was before the Rikti invasion. The government wanted security - and they got A-bom. They wanted a supersoldier capable of dealing with supers on their own levels, and budget wasn't a problem.

A ******* child of military-grade technology and genetic enhancement, A-bom could theoretically have more or less any protection imaginable.

Or, to put it simply - you make up that you have a superior sense of smell - I make up that I got no smell, or have military-grade scent-inhibitors (or whatever sounds cool).

A-bom hasn't yet been connected to the politician-killing or the blowing up of companies... So apparently he's been able to get away with it. If seen from a strictly in-game point of view.

[ QUOTE ]
Psychics might be a problem for him but then without evidence there isn't anything they can do to him 'lawfuly'

[/ QUOTE ]

Military-grade pshychic shielding takes care of most psychics, actually. That's actually reflected i-game as well, as he's got powers that shield him from "confuse" and [censored] like that. Getting through to A-boms slightly deranged and very paranoid mind isn't a walk in the park =)

[ QUOTE ]
A-bom isn't a licenced hero? (licencing would require going through the burocracy of "Hi government person" "hi, here's your licence")

[/ QUOTE ]

He's licensed, but he's doing a lot of "extracurricular activities"...

[ QUOTE ]
One link to a murder would make him a target for any hero who's inclined to uphold the law. - okay, so murdering gangmembers won't put him high on the priority list... offing politicians would.

[/ QUOTE ]

*bling* teleport in, send a big bone arrow into chest, *bling* teleport out. Not much in the way of clues, no witnesses, no scent, no nothing. That's the beauty of teleportation. =)

[ QUOTE ]

What was your choice to make him a hero?


[/ QUOTE ]

I got several reasons:
1. because I only owned CoH at the time I created him.
2. If Punisher could be considered a hero, A-bom can too.
3. CoX is a bit too stereotypically "evil" for the character. I wanted a character who sould fight traditional "crime" as well as what I precieve as "crimes against humanity" (but aren't neccessarily illegal, and I wouldn't resort to A-boms methods).

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly, in the views of Paragon, he's a vigilante and a villain. One is loosely tolerated, the other combatted.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "Villain" part, at least the parts of that people would get upset about, he keeps very much under wraps. Noone's going to mourn some multinational company's sweatshop operations. Blowing up politicians and credit card companies - well, those operations are few, far apart, and always cleaned up nicely.

[ QUOTE ]
Targets for Anarchist type people:

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good suggestions all in all, and you've managed to pinpoint more or less all the groups A-bom tends to focus his efforts on - plus a few he hasn't gotten around to yet.

But, my point is this:
* Imagine you believe that all organizations, in fact all forms of hierarchal systems are not only detrimental to the individual, but actively harmful. Imagine you believe every organization is essentially corrupt. You can limit youself to fighting superpowered menaces, or you can open up a broad front.
* Imagine you believe that supervillains, street thugs, and just ordinary corporation bosses are all symptoms of the same disease - the disease of capitalistic fascism and hierarchal systems. Sure, the symptoms must be kept in check - but some progress has to be made on the overall picture. Malta, for instance, are just another arm of the Government. It's blackest black ops, perhaps, but still just a symptom.

In short, A-bom doesn't sleep. At all. His small percentage of actual biomass (can't really pass it off as "human" anymore) makes him a 24/7 kind of guy. A large part of each day (as in, the part of the day I'm playing him) is spent chasing Creys, Council, Circles, and other superpowered threats. I imagine he spends a sizeable part of the rest of the day doing more or less the same thing (in addition to his own storylines - I'm working on several short stories involving his shadowy past, his twin brother, his creator, an army of evolved versions of him, and other such standard comicbook stuff. Think "Wolverine" and you're on the right track).

Somethimes, though, he occationally finds the time to blow up an officebuilding owned by some major credit card company (think "Fight Club" and you got his reasons), or destroy a sweatshop or five, or off a senator or two who are (in his opinion) working "in the wrong direction" (which would be more government control, or less education, more police, etc etc) and who wouldn't be bullied into changing his/her mind.

Why does he do this? Because I cannot justify having a violence-focused anarchist with superpowers simply combat what I, in real life, as an anarchist, ultimately see as more symptoms of the disease. I want my dear, dear anarchist to really BE an anarchist, not only by name. If all he's ever fighting are the same guys everyone's fighting, then the choice of philosophy and ideology feels like windowsdressing - and I don't want that. Then he'd be as latter-tyear Punisher, no trace left of the crazy survivalist mother-bleeper who wrote him the first few years. I don't want to make A-boms anarchistic ideals to be a sticker, a pink anarchist-A T-shirt, a show for the masses. I want it to mean something.

[ QUOTE ]
So i doubt there's a place to keep those who seek to 'destroy the american way of life' since pretty much every punk you fight is looking to do that, super-powered or not!

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, they keep claiming they "arrest" them... A-bom usually claims he's never "arrested" someone in his entire life... =)

[ QUOTE ]
ONLY a woman can know what a woman wants

[/ QUOTE ]

Sexually, perhaps - but otherwise, again, gender doesn't have to be all that important.

And as I said, "what a woman wants" is culturally defined. I've read enough history and various studies to know that much.

[ QUOTE ]
us women

[/ QUOTE ]

You see, here's where you make two pretty weird basic assumptions. You kind of assume you "women" are a heterogeneous group. You also assume that no person who happens to have is genitals on the outside of his body could ever even begin to understand, sympathize, or wish to change things.

To me, both assumptions are simply wrong. First of all, I know enough women to know you aren't a heterogeneous group. You have more or less the same range of personality, interests, knowledges etc as "men".

Women have, for most of human history, been taught to like being in a certain way. That doesn't mean it's a good way. "What people like" is determined by the culture in which they exist.

And no, I won't go on "being male". I don't see myself as "male". I prefer to see myself as "human". My gender isn't that big an issue when it comes to my identity.

[ QUOTE ]
Who the hell wants to be an androgynous biorobot anyway? Hallelujah to the differences of the genders I say!

[/ QUOTE ]

You really see gender as being that central to your identity? Your hobbies, interest, sexual preferences, cultural background, favorite books, parents, occupation, favorite color, what movies you like, what food you like... Those don't matter? Your identity is 100% Being A Man, and if you take away that, there's nothing left?

If so, how sad. But I don't believe you really believe that. Gender is only one part, and not necessarily an important part, of a person's identity.

[ QUOTE ]
Sound like a nice phrase to pseudo-disprove anything. So, how would you imagine this "training" to look like when the result is the same for so many different cultures?

[/ QUOTE ]

...because most cultures, if not all, are fundamentally connected to eachother through history?

[ QUOTE ]
I think you still need to learn a lot about the more subtle differences between men and women. You are talking about stereotypes.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you are talking about "subtle" variants of the same stareotypes.

[ QUOTE ]

Most certainly not! That would bring us one step closer to being biorobots. Your statement would make sense if all but the anatomical differences between men and women were exclusively of social origin. In all other cases it would be a recipe for evolutionary and social stasis.


[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely not. We can still make the dirty, regardless of how we work socially or mentally.

Getting rid of "gender" is the same as getting rid of ideas regarding "race" (some races simply work differently). Sure, there's an aesthetic difference. There may even be cultural differences. But they shouldn't influence how you treat, talk to, or raise new human beings.

[ QUOTE ]
We should become aliens? Sorry, but I have to put it that way since the race you describe is clearly not mankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what if we become "aliens"? It sould be a definite improvement.

Personally, I see mankind as it is today as having a deeply flawed culture on all fronts. There is a sickness in the heart of the human cultures that needs to be cured.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, it would make sense if all but the anatomic differences were of social origin, but things being as they are it's just thinly veiled propaganda.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could say the exact same thing about any "biologically" focused perspective.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I see the big picture. So, how do you say I would profit from insulting someone opening the door even if he was a sexist?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say people benefited. I didn't even say I though women should do it. I can simply understand why. Understanding and agreeing are two very different animals. I, for instance, understand your view - but I don't agree with it.

[ QUOTE ]
Hardly. I am not talking about rules of etiquette. The way I hold a spoon certainly won't make the world a better place, but doing someone a favour, even if it's a small one like opening the door, should never provoke an insult unless the person in question wants to insinuate ulterior motives which is an insult in itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're still focusing on the individual issue, while I see the action taken as a part of a larger structure. Women are constantly looked down upon. We men "have to take care of " those "defenceless little creatures". I'm not saying that you, or anyone, are conciously trying to uphold that kind of a belief system, and practically noone actually says it like that anymore - but the same structures remain, both structurally and individually. The simple action of holding up a door is more than a "simple action". It's a highly symbolic act, connected with all the rest of the [censored].


[ QUOTE ]

I can understand such a reaction if I slam the door shut right before a man approaching the door next and tell her something like "So, now that I have opened the door for you that you could have never opened with your weakling arms you can bear my children in return, wench!", but I have never tried this modus operandi. (Perhaps I should... )


[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said - symbolic act.

[ QUOTE ]
So what? Would it be any better if it was the other way around? Or would you prefer being compared to bacteria or something equally genderless?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd prefer us to not have a gender-based standard at all.

[ QUOTE ]

Not for the followers of ideologies at least, although that makes common sense quite uncommon.


[/ QUOTE ]

Common sense is simply the sum of your preconceptions...

[ QUOTE ]

Nice rethoric phrases won't cover the fact that those who follow ideologies leave the thinking to others. Others don't require such help.


[/ QUOTE ]

Bull. Your "own thinking" is still determined by your experiences, what people you like think, etc. There's not a single person on this planet who "thinks for him/herself". Your thinking is an effect caused by your surroundings and experiences.

As for the ideology issue, how do you know it's not the other way around? Let's say I found myself annoyed at macho idiots and the ridiculus ideas some people have regarding gender. Say I find I want to try and help raise the issue. Well then, feminism just happens to be an ideology that fits. Ideologies are flexible. Just look at stuff like democracy. How many different kinds of democracy is there? Definitions? Etc? Quite a lot. And still, believing in democracy makes you, theoretically, a democrat (not as in the off-to-the-right american political party, mind you - that's a whole different story)

[ QUOTE ]
Just so we're clear on the terminology: What you call "socialized gender" is a mixture of bad taste, urban myth and superficial gender-stereotypes. Perhaps it's that difficult to understand you because from all the differences with social origin you seem to reduce your focus on these few things... actually you seem to reduce all differences apart from anatomy to these things. Don't you really see the rest?

[/ QUOTE ]

So, just because I'm obscenely curious about the way other people think:

So far, you've put down all my examples of gender diefferences as "stereotypes". What, then, are the "real" differences (but believe me, the stereotypes are alive and well. You should see the studies done on how young women construct "femaleness")?

What makes a man a man? What is a "man"?
What makes a woman a woman? What is a "woman"?

(and if you have any plans on quoting John Grey, we'd better end this discussion right about now. I tend to become quite angry when I think about that stinking pile of doo-doo. The only other person even coming close to making me angry is Ayn Rand. Not much makes me actually angry)

[ QUOTE ]
Because it makes no sense in a modern setting. For example the sense of orientation: Women's orientation is highly adapted to limited areas while men's orientation is highly adapted to longer travels, just because of the way it works. Learned in a modern setting this would be a very strange and highly unlikely coincidence, but back in prehistoric times this specialization was a key to survival given the distinct roles of men and women back then.
In modern society this gives women an edge for some activities while it's a drawback for others. However, that's still a very long way from telling a woman how her sense of orientation should work and what she should do with it. It's just a given fact the majority of people has to live with, nothing more, nothing less.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is, there are a lot of things we are taught, which don't make sense. Most training is covert, as I'm sure you're aware.

[ QUOTE ]
but spare me women who behave like men.

[/ QUOTE ]

Spare me men who behave like "men", and spare me women who behave like "women". I absolutely loathe the ridiculous gender roles assigned due to the biological gender.

[ QUOTE ]
The one is just stating that it's a good thing that men and women are different, a statement that I would subscribe any day since I would not want to live in a dull world without that difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then, there's the difference between us. I do. That would bring us one step closer to perfection.

I'm not saying women should behave "like men". I'm not saying men should behave like "men". I loathe both the masculine and feminine gender identities, and I want nothing to do with them. They're just another border between people. Tell people often enough that they "can't communicate" and it'll become true. We have thousands of years of training to be "different". We should, in stead of trying to create more "men" and "women", create more individuals.

[ QUOTE ]
You think a rude reaction to opening a door for someone is understandable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, since it's tied togeather with archaic ideas about the "weaker sex", so-called "gentlemanism" and other sexist structures - frankly yes, it's understandable. See the big picture.

[ QUOTE ]
It's an indignity to be forced to disprove false insinuations contracted by nothing but good behaviour.

[/ QUOTE ]

But continually being seen and implied to be the "weaker sex" isn't?

"Good behaviour" is a matter of perspective.

[ QUOTE ]
"Feminism is the radical idea that women are people" is a nice example of rethorics, but unfortunately the message sent by feminists is a little bit different.[7quote]

Read a lot of feminist theory, about heternonormativity etc, have you? The point is that men are what women are compared to. Men (as in the social "men", not as in the physical gender) are what's "normal", the "default".

[ QUOTE ]

Like I mentioned above, damn ideologies. The moment you adopt an ideology you should be able to hear your IQ plummet down.


[/ QUOTE ]

The difference between someone why says they ascribe to an ideology and one who doesn't, is that the one who doesn't isn't aware of his or her ideology. There's no such thing as "common sense".

[ QUOTE ]
No offence taken. Sometimes one hears a keyword and the associations and assumptions take over, right or wrong. That's why we are talking about it: to not be ruled by false assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the other hand, several of my assumptions, like you being one of those who want to "celebrate" what I see as mostly socially constructed "differences" between genders.

(And just so we're clear on the terminology: "Gender" is the socialized role; women wearing pink, makeup and high heals, being incomprahensible to men and "mysterious", etc etc. "Sex" is the biological gender. They influence eachother, absolutely - but historically speaking, what it means to be a "man" and a "woman" has changed a lot depending on social class, time in history, and culture)

[ QUOTE ]
Have been tempted to make him ingame, but males can't get the stockings and high-heels options...

[/ QUOTE ]

And that's too bad, really. Darn anti-queen game creators! Why can't we be allowed to mix and match as we damn well please, huh?

Right, I'm going over to the Suggestions forum... *stomps angrily*

[ QUOTE ]
Far from it, it's really a method of Enlightenment. Enlightenment does not come from being condemned, annoyed or berated, it comes from being taught a lesson. In this case, by introducing empathy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely agreed. What, we have a telepathic connection or something? =)

[ QUOTE ]

Damn right, because it's popular! Nothing about pushing boundaries, trying something different, adding character detail, or giving the Crimson Archer a friend. No, all humans act on shallow impulses to be popular all the time. Of course! Lets abandon our projects now, because it's far too selfish to hold any merit.


[/ QUOTE ]

Irony is the sh*t.

[ QUOTE ]

We have far too many of the same ideas, Krank, for it to be healthy for this planet. Let's team. ^_^


[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely!
At the very least, we should meet. Just drop me a line whenever you see me online, I'm never to busy to swing down to Pocket D for some refreshments... =) You got my global, right?

(Man, I REALLY need to get Disco Fever out of mothball storage. Him at Pocket D... Disco isn't dead! Disco is LIFE!)

And I'm still hoping for that heroic anarchy-related character of yours =)

[ QUOTE ]
So, my final thought;
Before you assume that every G*y character spawned from this thread will be a horrible affront to the Homosexual community and try to make us stop and think about the pink calamity we're about to unleash on Pocket D. Just remember, we're smarter than that. We're Role Players.


[/ QUOTE ]

Damn right!

And really, I can think of worse things than a Pocked D flooded with wild queens, pinkoes, Tom of Finlands, and just ordinary g*y blokes =)

[ QUOTE ]

Peace, Happiness and Love for All,
- Hatesman

[/ QUOTE ]

There's something inherently funny about that closing statement... =)

[ QUOTE ]
In most cases I would suggest a healthy mixture of both. I really don't know why you would deny any biological influence in this matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't deny the existance of some biological influence, I just deem it too small to influence how we treat people (or how we raise children).

[ QUOTE ]
True, we don't understand everything yet, but I think it's a little bit of a stretch to call our knowledge "not the faintest clue". It seems your information is a little bit dated. You can show in experiments how differently the sense of orientation of men and women works, how men's perception "favours" different things than women's and even that different regions of their brains react to the exact same stimulus.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, the tests subjects are hardly blank slates. How do you know they haven't been trained to react differently to the same stimulus?

[ QUOTE ]
Most of these things can not be explained in the least by modern socialization (and it would even less explain why these differences persist in many cultures with little semblance to ours), but would make incredibly much sense if they would have been "learned" in prehistoric times leading to an adapted evolution. Rashly dismissing those theories because there is no final proof strikes me as somewhat naive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if they are somewhat biologically defined - so what? Is that a reason to continue doing the things we've always done? Is mankind a static species? Hardly.

There are theories, certainly. But there are pretty credible theories on both sides. I simply chose a side based on the favorable outcome - and that is the maximation of the realization of each individual's potential. And I don't think that'll happen until we do away with the socialized gender (not the biological one).

[ QUOTE ]
If it eases you I can assure you that these things get more and more uncommon where I live. Unfortunately, this has also some more unpleasant side effects (due to over-zealous feminist preaching) as some people get a bit oversensitive to perceived sexist behaviour.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same thing is happening here - but we also have a very unpleasant side-effect: Conservatism. A lot of people are doing funny faces and going "let men be men and women be women" and continue claiming such nonsense as it's natural for women to have low-status jobs, less pay for the same amount of work, etc etc. In short, there's a strong backlash right now - and frankly, I'm disgusted. Not that I mean to imply that you're one of those people, but the biological perspective ("cherich the differences!") is all-too-often used by conservativa forces who strive to maintain the so-called "traditional family model".

[ QUOTE ]
I, for example, consider it good manners to open the door for a lady (or anybody else who passes the same door I am about to pass or have just passed) and I am quite irritated if this is answered by a rude remark by a woman who sees this as sexist behaviour. Very sad!

[/ QUOTE ]

Sad, but understandable. Now, if the standard in sociaety would be to open doors for everyone (regardless of gender), it would be a different matter. My female friends have had similar reactions to my behaviour (I, too, am a door-opener) but have grown accustomed to it as they've seen me open doors for men and women alike.

Likewise, some people say "don't hit a woman". Well, why make that gosh darn gender distinction? Don't hit anyone, I say.

[ QUOTE ]
And I would never doubt that there are caretaker men and mechanic women. Being predisposed towards something (as I said) is not the same as not being able to do something else and as already mentioned there are always mavericks (which has nothing to do with job statistics).

[/ QUOTE ]

I just believe those "predispositions" are more vagie and more easily overcome than generally percieved in the general debate. I see no merit in being limited by our biology unneccessarily.

As someone said, "feminism is the radical idea that women are people". As long as you're with me on not treating men and women differently, not paying them differently, not encouraging them differently, and not bringing them up differently - then we're on the same track.

[ QUOTE ]
Why would you suggest that biology draws a distinct line between things like male and female or any other biological phenomenon? If your sources tell you something like that you should clearly take their advice with a big fat grain of salt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I might very well have misunderstood you completely. Most likely due to an overreaction based on your usage the kind of arguments made by people whose conservative opinions I kind of loathe.

There's a difference between agreeing there might be biological differences, and allowing those differences to influence how you treat people. Social and biological gender. Dig?

(And I do hope you understand that I'm not trying to offend you or anyone you care about. If I have, please accept my deepest apologies.)

[ QUOTE ]
Until your character starts discussing things like Guantanamo Bay in public RP areas, at which point you are inflicting the real world on people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now why would I do that?

[ QUOTE ]
You char is in Pocket D, and talking about Guantanamo Bay; possibly ranting about terrorism and that the people in that place deserve to be there. (I don't know your opinion on this, this is a fictional scenario)

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said just a post or two up - wouldn't happen. If I'm not talking with someone I KNOW has the same preferences as to real-world references as I do, I don't bring up those references. It's called "being polite", or so I've heard.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, it's not that easy. Some of that is indeed more thinking in "roles" and that, but evolution has played along as well (surely influenced by prehistorical role allocation - that's how evolution works - but that doesn't make it less real) with the obvious anatomic differences being of only minor relevance as long as we are not talking about progeny. It's more about how their brains and their modes of perception work. I don't want to derail this thread any further by going into too much scientific detail, but it's a fact that genders tend to be more predisposed towards certain activities and occupations just because their brains or their ways of perception support these activities or occupations. (Keep in mind, this is all about statistic averages, so there naturally are mavericks in one or the other direction.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep in mind, though, that neither thesis can actually be proven. Sure, a statistical analysis will show that most women have "caretaker" jobs (or that the majority of violence is cause by people with dark skin) but statistics don't explain anything. Statistics don't show why women generally have caretaker jobs - nature or nurture? Noone knows. And until we've done some extensive experiments in social engineering (highly morally suspect experiments) we'll never know for sure. "How brains and modes of perception" work is very much something we don't have the faintest clue about. There are as many theories on the workings of the human mind as there are psychiatric philosophers, and more.


[ QUOTE ]
However, I value these differences and think sexist blabber is basically a waste of energy, be it to talk a away these differences or to keep a particular person "in their role".

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I simply see how people who would work very well in particular societal roles are kept from those roles simply based on how they were raised and taught that their genders "should" behave. I've also met more than enough caretaker men and mechanic women to take any biologistic theory with a big fat grain of salt.

[ QUOTE ]
The simple fact of playing a computer game set in a fictional universe says who.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't mean squat, actually. A computer game in a fictional universe can still connect to real-world events. In fact, I like it better when they do.

[ QUOTE ]
None of my characters are even remotely like that. Some of them have been through WAY more unpleasantness than anything going on in the real world, and I did all of it with a level of realism wholly appropriate to the genre of a computer game. None of it included bringing in any elements of reality as it's just not necessary. You'll find that NO roleplayers characters are shiney happy people living in a work of pink bunny hopping simplicity.

[/ QUOTE ]

So because YOU feel offended (or whatever) when I draw in real-world events in MY part of the fictional universe, I should immidiately stop, because what I think elevates my game experience makes you queazy?

[ QUOTE ]
There's plenty of conflict available, and a lot of it is nowhere near the "black & white" level you seem to think it is. With roleplayers, when the game doesn't provide scenarios we want, we make up our own.

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet, somehow, that doesn't apply to me.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, without involving the real world.

[/ QUOTE ]

And why not? And, more importantly, why do you take offence at how I play the game? Why would you even care? Like I said, I'm not forcing any of this down your throat. I like my roleplaying experience well-connected to the real world. I do the same thing when tabletop gaming. You, obviously, don't. I'm no trying to destroy how you play the game. You, however, are obviously trying to tell me I can't play the game the way I like it.


[ QUOTE ]
Some would see the results as depressing, but they're not REAL so we manage to avoid causing any real emotional turmoil, unlike real events that can and do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without causing emotional turmoil, what good is it? That's what sets us apart, I think: For me, culture's merit lies in its ability to cause real, emotional turmoil. Be it love, angst, hatred, jealousy. I want to experience things, not just "play the game".

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, you're entitled to enjoy the game in any way you wish, but that doesn't mean you can inflict the sad facts of reality on those playing to escape it. That's generally why we make things up, or follow the fictional storylines we're given.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not 'inflicting' anything. The only place I've mentioned real-world facts are in my own, personal blog. In-game, none of these issues have come up - nor do I plan on bringing them up. You see, I respect the way other people play the game. I don't force my own way of playing down anyone's throat. Even if I would be able to have a discussion about politics or anarchy, i'd keep it on a strictly theoretical level.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, let's just agree to disagree then. If you really want a discussion about the socialized nature of genders etc, we can have that particular nasty bit of feminist discussion somewhere else...

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. I highly doubt that you could convince me that all differences between genders could be 'socialized away'.

[/ QUOTE ]

There'd still be differences, of course. Mainly having to do with breast size and what's dangling (or not) between the legs. But all that [censored] about women being mainly good at caring, having children, etc while men are mainly "hunters", good with mechanics, etc needs to go out the frickin' window - now.

[ QUOTE ]
Before this thread existed, you had never considered his sexuality. If it had not existed, you'd probably have started playing him still with no thought to his sexuality. This thread has made you consider his sexuality, and you decided he was bi. That says to me that the only reason you thought Bi fits him is because it's become a popular choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you think whatever you like. I'm bi myself, and making my Disco-inspired alter-ego bi doesn't seem like such a big stretch, really. I chose bisexuality because it fit with the rest, nothing else. Had this been a ghaybasher thread where everyone hated homos, i'd still have chosen bi as his sexuality. Heck, you could have had a thread on the topic of cybering in general, with a distinct heterosexual focus, and I'd still have made him bi.

But like I said, man. Think what you like. Whatever floats your [censored].

[ QUOTE ]
That's not too uncommon when you have homosexual/bi friends. Actually, the fact that you have such friends shows that you can't be that homophobic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I'm not very homophobic. Kind of hard being openly bi and homophobic at the same time...

[ QUOTE ]
Well, actually most of these differences do have their roots in biology, but that's not really the point. (And I had to make a slight generalization there just to keep my statement at least somewhat concise. )

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, let's just agree to disagree then. If you really want a discussion about the socialized nature of genders etc, we can have that particular nasty bit of feminist discussion somewhere else...