These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The Female Character "Attributes"

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jove Death
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#141 - 2013-07-29 10:21:06 UTC
My avatar was made on a image from my missues.

The only diff is she has brown hair instead of black. I choose black to go with the name Big smile

Quoting "you will die" in EvE is fail Chars dont die in EvE. Unless you have a heart attack eek.
Aya Shinomiya
Promethean Ascension
#142 - 2013-07-29 10:28:26 UTC
Jove Death wrote:
My avatar was made on a image from my missues.

The only diff is she has brown hair instead of black. I choose black to go with the name Big smile



Smile I would say this is a nice compliment to your missues.
Aragoni
Black Talon Command
#143 - 2013-07-29 11:29:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Aragoni
I am not entirely sure to be honest. While certain men here seem to think the bigger the boobs the better, I personally think it really depends on the woman. Some women would look so much better with smaller breasts (just like short hair vs long hair) that I'd consider it sacrilege if they got breast implants.

Edit: I was very much into Black Metal during my teens and I guess I still have a small "fetisch" for ladies that also listens to it and dresses accordingly. Cool
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#144 - 2013-07-29 11:41:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Remiel, first of all, you are awesome. I am not a scientist, nor do I claim to be(unlike some). I am well educated, yes, but you possess the credentialed authority to defeat the false appeal to authority so frequently used by such people that I do not, and it was delightful to read. I've always hated the "Well science, so you lose" fiat arguments.

So have a few likes.

Secondly, this is something I'd like to have brought up before, had the discussion not been derailed. What, really, is the point of "radical feminism" in general engaging in such blatant bias? Not that it wasn't obvious from the outset, but I do wonder what the expected gain is of such disinformation. The motivations behind it have always confused me.

Is it change the expected norm of female beauty? And if so, for what end? Is it to attempt to alter some other perception by shaming men for their views?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#145 - 2013-07-29 12:05:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Remiel, first of all, you are awesome. I am not a scientist, nor do I claim to be(unlike some). I am well educated, yes, but you possess the credentialed authority to defeat the false appeal to authority so frequently used by such people that I do not, and it was delightful to read. I've always hated the "Well science, so you lose" fiat arguments.

So have a few likes.

Secondly, this is something I'd like to have brought up before, had the discussion not been derailed. What, really, is the point of "radical feminism" in general engaging in such blatant bias? Not that it wasn't obvious from the outset, but I do wonder what the expected gain is of such disinformation. The motivations behind it have always confused me.

Is it change the expected norm of female beauty? And if so, for what end? Is it to attempt to alter some other perception by shaming men for their views?


Based on my own observations, there are two subsets of radical feminist. There are proponents, and there are idealists. The proponents spin feminism as a 'way of thinking' for a variety of motivations - to sell books and other merchandise to women that have been 'hard done by' and get sucked into the false notion that they are somehow not just better people for it, but superior human beings, seems to be at the top of the list of motivations.

The idealists are just those women that get sucked into the campaigns fostered by the proponents. They might have been abused, rejected, or stood up by a man, they might feel entitled to more in their life based on a lack of satisfaction, and they might just be using it as an excuse to acquire more for themselves without having to actually work for it. More often than not, the idealist is driven by emotion and belief driven by misinformation, which they validate for themselves because they want to believe it.

The same motivations and the same two subsets exist throughout a variety of less-than-reasonable movements. Conspiracy theorists, anti-vaccination and other anti-science movements (GMO's, flat earth society, etc), and of course, when it's not a place of personal solace and meditation, religion, especially evangelical religion.

Again, I should point out this is merely based on what I have observed. However, based on those observations, I am planning a survey with the research agency I work for to begin to explore these observations, and properly document the results for a paper I'm working on.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#146 - 2013-07-29 12:14:03 UTC
Interesting.

I'd always grouped them into "agitators" and "enablers" myself. But as far as motivation goes, those are certainly better identifiers, while mine better describe the actions undertaken.

So, in this case, what would you say are the goals to all of this? From my own previous observations (insurance industry exec), it seems to be very... I'd call it unfocused. It's very antithetic, that being that it defines itself exclusively in opposition to something, and not on the merits of it's own ideology (honestly, I don't think it has any, or they could do this). But as a result of this, there really isn't any overall goal to any of it, if you discount their generalist rhetoric; "more rights for women", "end male tyranny", etc.

Thoughts?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Aragoni
Black Talon Command
#147 - 2013-07-29 12:26:59 UTC
Sorry but where have you seen these "radical feminists"? I live in Sweden where pretty much everyone considers themselves to be feminists (I.E. giving women an equal opportunity in our society) and I almost never see a "radical". I did once see one that could be categorised as such on television, but nobody cared about her.
Lilliana Stelles
#148 - 2013-07-29 12:30:25 UTC
I think the character creator itself is at least partially to blame here, for it's "flexibility" and wide range of options.

Not a forum alt. 
Aya Shinomiya
Promethean Ascension
#149 - 2013-07-29 12:33:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Aya Shinomiya
@ Remiel Pollard

And where do you sort in this Gender-movement?

Some example from my country what happens recently on the university of Leipzig according to feminism and Gender-movement:
In German normally the masculine form of a word is the neutrum form if you adress a group of mixed sexes or if you have a PhD or Professor titel e.g.. Because the director of the university (a women) believes that this discriminates the women carring this titel she changed the statute of the university in the way that all professors must adress with the female form (german "Professorin") no matter whether men or woman. No joke. The male Professors must now adress with "Herr Professorin". I do not know whether there is an englich expressions for that.

Some years before a group a women in Hamburg argue that it is discriminating for women that traffic signs for walkways and on traffic lights you only see male figures. They wanted to change the figures to female forms with children.

The traffic law was recently changed because in it was told of "cyclist" (german Radfahrer). Someone feels that this discriminiates the women because the masculine form is the neutrum, so now you read "bicycling people", "cardriving people" etc..

All this stuff comes from Brussels.

The feminists do not except the masculine form as neutrum but do not want to create a new neutrum. Now in fact they discriminate the men because the use the female forms as neutrum.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#150 - 2013-07-29 12:43:09 UTC
Aragoni wrote:
Sorry but where have you seen these "radical feminists"? I live in Sweden where pretty much everyone considers themselves to be feminists (I.E. giving women an equal opportunity in our society) and I almost never see a "radical". I did once see one that could be categorised as such on television, but nobody cared about her.


I consider a radical feminist to be someone that has gone beyond equality into female supremacy. Like described above with the whole "changing German words because grammar is sexist" thing. That changes from getting more rights for women, to taking rights away from men, and humiliating the male in general, as they do in American public schools.

Basically, it's the punishing of imagined slights, and the redressing of theoretical wrongs. Sadly, it's incredibly common nowadays.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Kyperion
#151 - 2013-07-29 12:44:44 UTC
I would rather have ridiculously large endowed women avatars modeled after ******** barbie dolls than anything modeled after your typical feminist.... As my hero Rush Limbaugh has said, feminists are typically only ugly women.PiratePiratePirate


.... LOL (Have fun with that you pinko commie pricks)
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#152 - 2013-07-29 12:48:53 UTC
Kyperion wrote:
I would rather have ridiculously large endowed women avatars modeled after ******** barbie dolls than anything modeled after your typical feminist.... As my hero Rush Limbaugh has said, feminists are typically only ugly women.PiratePiratePirate


.... LOL (Have fun with that you pinko commie pricks)


Hilariously, this is frequently true in my experience. I once had a "woman" (in that it identified itself as such), tell me that because I'm a "Misogynist jerkward asshat" that "no real woman" would ever touch me. (this is because I said that I don't believe that Tony the Tiger is an example of sexism)

I told her I'd ask when I saw one, and not something that looked like it leapt from the pages of the D&D Monster Manual.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#153 - 2013-07-29 12:51:15 UTC
Aya Shinomiya wrote:
@ Remiel Pollard

And where do you sort in this Gender-movement?

Some example from my country what happens recently on the university of Leipzig according to feminism and Gender-movement:
In German normally the masculine form of a word is the neutrum form if you adress a group of mixed sexes or if you have a PhD or Professor titel e.g.. Because the director of the university (a women) believes that this discriminates the women carring this titel she changed the statute of the university in the way that all professors must adress with the female form (german "Professorin") no matter whether men or woman. No joke. The male Professors must now adress with "Herr Professorin". I do not know whether there is an englich expressions for that.

Some years before a group a women in Hamburg argue that it is discriminating for women that traffic signs for walkways and on traffic lights you only see male figures. They wanted to change the figures to female forms with children.

The traffic law was recently changed because in it was told of "cyclist" (german Radfahrer). Someone feels that this discriminiates the women because the masculine form is the neutrum, so now you read "bicycling people", "cardriving people" etc..

All this stuff comes from Brussels.

The feminists do not except the masculine form as neutrum but do not want to create a new neutrum. Now in fact they discriminate the men because the use the female forms as neutrum.



I don't have a position in the 'gender movement', because I consider the 'gender movement' an illusion, one that we are all capable of seeing straight through but sometimes, unfortunately, choose not to. The most important thing people need to remember is that gender is not a role. It can be whatever else you want to be, as long as you don't make it a role, and you'll suddenly realise that it no longer counts amongst the merits of an individual.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#154 - 2013-07-29 13:00:37 UTC
Kyperion wrote:
I would rather have ridiculously large endowed women avatars modeled after ******** barbie dolls than anything modeled after your typical feminist.... As my hero Rush Limbaugh has said, feminists are typically only ugly women.PiratePiratePirate


.... LOL (Have fun with that you pinko commie pricks)


I personally find Anita Sarkesian to be incredibly attractive. Unfortunately, her mind games are the complete opposite. Perhaps, in a sense, Rush was right, in that I find her opinions to be of the 'ugly' variety. Most of the time though, he's very wrong, and I wouldn't be surprised if he bats off to plenty of women he didn't realise were feminist.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Aya Shinomiya
Promethean Ascension
#155 - 2013-07-29 13:08:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Aya Shinomiya
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I don't have a position in the 'gender movement', because I consider the 'gender movement' an illusion, one that we are all capable of seeing straight through but sometimes, unfortunately, choose not to. The most important thing people need to remember is that gender is not a role. It can be whatever else you want to be, as long as you don't make it a role, and you'll suddenly realise that it no longer counts amongst the merits of an individual.


Agreed. The people I have spoken with see this Gender-thing is extremely dangerous and destructive for the order in society. The best is really to ignore them and their enates like in Leipzig. But you cannot deny that they have influences on governments especially on Brussels and a number of followers especially in the female politicians in the EU. They try to convince other poor states and people around the world to follow their "ideals".

Some time ago, I become a mail via Youtube from one of this women because I told what I said above about this Gender-movement. Very disturbing what they think the world should be. Summarized a reign of feminist women and gays with no norms and rules in society.

I am no one who wants that women stay at home or at the kitchen if they do not want it. But I think that men and women should have a role in society and not all roles can men or women fullfil. What these radical feminists and Gender-guys want is to force the humans into their picture of the world and destroy traditional orders in society which have worked good for thousands of years. I believe the members of both radical feminits, genders (and gays) are some kind of "impaired" women (and men). Rebuffed, alone, despaired and dissatisfied with the way the socitey treats them. Just my opinion.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#156 - 2013-07-29 13:29:25 UTC
Aya Shinomiya wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I don't have a position in the 'gender movement', because I consider the 'gender movement' an illusion, one that we are all capable of seeing straight through but sometimes, unfortunately, choose not to. The most important thing people need to remember is that gender is not a role. It can be whatever else you want to be, as long as you don't make it a role, and you'll suddenly realise that it no longer counts amongst the merits of an individual.


Agreed. The people I have spoken with see this Gender-thing is extremely dangerous and destructive for the order in society. The best is really to ignore them and their enates like in Leipzig. But you cannot deny that they have influences on governments especially on Brussels and a number of followers especially in the female politicians in the EU. They try to convince other poor states and people around the world to follow their "ideals".

Some time ago, I become a mail via Youtube from one of this women because I told what I said above about this Gender-movement. Very disturbing what they think the world should be. Summarized a reign of feminist women and gays with no norms and rules in society.

I am no one who wants that women stay at home or at the kitchen if they do not want it. But I think that men and women should have a role in society and not all roles can men or women fullfil. What these radical feminists and Gender-guys want is to force the humans into their picture of the world and destroy traditional orders in society which have worked good for thousands of years. I believe the members of both radical feminits, genders (and gays) are some kind of "impaired" women (and men). Rebuffed, alone, despaired and dissatisfied with the way the socitey treats them. Just my opinion.


See, the problem is, there is definitely a need for reform. Tradition is not a reason to keep doing something if it is found that what we are doing is harmful or non-productive. There is a degree of feminism that is required in many parts of the world, because what happens if we allow tradition to prevail in say, Pakistan, where 11 year old girls are shot for trying to get education rights for women? There are many examples of pay inequality in the workforce in the developed world, as well, which would make sense if the difference was based on performance and merit, but it's usually not. There are many motes of inequality between genders that really do exist, but there are many as well that are blown out of all proportion.

I'm not an anarchist, but I wholly agree with exploring alternatives to 'traditional orders in society'. Traditional democracy, for example, or democracy as we know it, is based off the false notion that my ignorance might be just as relevant as your knowledge, so I for one would prefer to see implemented a democratic meritocracy, where those that have earned a right to vote are allowed to vote. Not those who have paid for it, those who have worked for it and proven themselves. Of course, there are problems with this, as well, not the least of which is the question, what of the impaired who cannot prove their merits? Does someone with merit speak for them, and if so, how much room does that leave for corruption or the abuse of that impaired person?

So still traditional democracy prevails where I live, because it is still the best option out of a collection of many bad options. Our real saving grace in Australia is our mixed economic system, where we have a balance between socialist and capitalist economics, such a balance that our economy is one of the strongest in the world, with 31 countries owning bonds in our debt. In this case, I can stand by tradition because so far, with only a few minor wrinkles, this tradition has worked in Australia. But there are many traditions that do little more than create an almost myopic fear of change and do nothing but prevent progress.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#157 - 2013-07-29 13:38:35 UTC
What about those of us who are a**men? Kinda feeling left out of the discussion... Question: If we had the option of athletic, average and obese body styles - would the obese option still fit in the pod? :D

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Stitcher
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#158 - 2013-07-29 13:45:18 UTC
Aya Shinomiya wrote:
I am not a feminist.


Why on Earth not? Feminism is just the philosophy that women are people and should be treated as such.

Correctly applied, it's a term that it should make almost no sense to be proud of. It should be like gloating about breathing. Saying you're "not a feminist" should be along the lines of saying "I'm not a breather".


As for the topic at hand though - it's a fantasy! If somebody wants a nigh-nude character who looks like two watermelons glued to a lamppost, fine, whatever. Let them be shallow, it's not harming any real person.

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders
Aya Shinomiya
Promethean Ascension
#159 - 2013-07-29 13:49:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Aya Shinomiya
Remiel Pollard wrote:
See, the problem is, there is definitely a need for reform. Tradition is not a reason to keep doing something if it is found that what we are doing is harmful or non-productive. There is a degree of feminism that is required in many parts of the world, because what happens if we allow tradition to prevail in say, Pakistan, where 11 year old girls are shot for trying to get education rights for women? There are many examples of pay inequality in the workforce in the developed world, as well, which would make sense if the difference was based on performance and merit, but it's usually not. There are many motes of inequality between genders that really do exist, but there are many as well that are blown out of all proportion.

I'm not an anarchist, but I wholly agree with exploring alternatives to 'traditional orders in society'. Traditional democracy, for example, or democracy as we know it, is based off the false notion that my ignorance might be just as relevant as your knowledge, so I for one would prefer to see implemented a democratic meritocracy, where those that have earned a right to vote are allowed to vote. Not those who have paid for it, those who have worked for it and proven themselves. Of course, there are problems with this, as well, not the least of which is the question, what of the impaired who cannot prove their merits? Does someone with merit speak for them, and if so, how much room does that leave for corruption or the abuse of that impaired person?

So still traditional democracy prevails where I live, because it is still the best option out of a collection of many bad options. Our real saving grace in Australia is our mixed economic system, where we have a balance between socialist and capitalist economics, such a balance that our economy is one of the strongest in the world, with 31 countries owning bonds in our debt. In this case, I can stand by tradition because so far, with only a few minor wrinkles, this tradition has worked in Australia. But there are many traditions that do little more than create an almost myopic fear of change and do nothing but prevent progress.


But we have no right to judge others for their culture or tradtions. We must respect others cultures and not judge them with our imagination of what is right or wrong (like the conquistadors did in South America as they wiped out the Maya e.g.). If the people of the country want to change the way they live than they must do it for their own. Who tells what is better or not? Whos cultures is better? Whos religion is better? Whos states form is better?

Traditions say us who we are and from where we come. Without history we are nothing and we do not undertand ourselfs. Of course must traditions change over the time and with the development of the socitey. But we have not to force it. A society needsorder, norms and traditions so the people forming it can identifiy with it. What the EU currently is doing is to destroy sovereignty and cultures to melt everything together to create a financial central state no one wants. You can see the results. We lose what we are. The varieties of human cultures, thinkings and philosophies makes us strong as species. Not that we all have the same imagination. At the end humanity will find unity ... hopefully. But this needs time.

To democracy. There is no real democracy on earth. The original democracy was never intended to use on a state. The ancient Greeks have city states. They knew that democracy in a super structure like a state would lead to corruption and tyranny because the structures are too complex and the bureaucracy too high, too far away from peoples will. We can see today it does. In the original democracy the city government was not elected. It was chosen by lottery. The people of the government were not paid. The service on the city and society were there payment. Based on the small scale of the city the people know the people of the government and have also the power to instantly throw out corrupt people.
Aya Shinomiya
Promethean Ascension
#160 - 2013-07-29 14:04:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Aya Shinomiya
Stitcher wrote:
Aya Shinomiya wrote:
I am not a feminist.


Why on Earth not? Feminism is just the philosophy that women are people and should be treated as such.

Correctly applied, it's a term that it should make almost no sense to be proud of. It should be like gloating about breathing. Saying you're "not a feminist" should be along the lines of saying "I'm not a breather".


As for the topic at hand though - it's a fantasy! If somebody wants a nigh-nude character who looks like two watermelons glued to a lamppost, fine, whatever. Let them be shallow, it's not harming any real person.


See what I wrote above. For me this whole feminits thing is too extreme. They force things.

I can tell you how I thing how the realtionship between man and women is. For me it is like Ying and Yang. They act together in harmony, balance eathother due to their thinking. Man - rational, logical. Women - emphatic, emotional. You need both in a healthy society. The nature seeks for balance in all things and we humans should do the same. But the women has a role in society to fullfil and the man, too. But this roles must work together. I think feminists and these Gender-weirdos do not see this. They seek for artificial extremums. Men and women should be fully equal in social status and law as only the two genders of humanity. But they are not equal in general.