Men, Women and BG (1 and 2)

[dragon wench]

I decided to start up this post since this subject brought the "best male NPC body" (in the BG2 forum) thread so far afield. For those who have not been following that thread, the question arose as to how well can men and women understand one another.
I also propose here another question in an effort to pull it closer to the game, "when you respond to a particular npc, do you do so on a physical, emotional or intellectual level?"

[Brink]

dragon wench-Welcome to SYM .Do enjoy your stay here

[fable]

@Brink's right, Dragon wench. Glad you found your way over here. Pull up a drink, take some virtual food from one of the passing trays (it's all free, you know), and spam to your heart's delight.

[Loredweller]

Originally posted by dragon wench:
<STRONG>
... how well can men and women understand one another ...
</STRONG>

The question, IMHO, is solved quite well. The humankind isn't extinct, after all

Originally posted by dragon wench:
<STRONG>
I also propose here another question in an effort to pull it closer to the game, "when you respond to a particular npc, do you do so on a physical, emotional or intellectual level?"</STRONG>

Can there be separation in any way? I definitely have to click left mouse button (physical), i enjoy the game (emotional) and i read the text on the screen (intellectual)

The next is pure emotional
Glad to see you again,
L.

[ 05-10-2001: Message edited by: Loredweller ]

[Manveru]

IMHO i.e. in BG2 there was made a really huge progress in comparison with BG1 - I'm thinking now mainly about interactions with NPC.

It is just impossible that I can really hate some NPCs because of their character (Viconia, Anomen), to be angry on Irenicus every time he wins and succeds in his schemes or finally to be enchanted by Jaheira. Though from logical point of view they don't exist - they are just a collection of bytes (pictures, sounds, some text and instructions for them) that could be easily destroyed by erasing/switching off the computer.

So from the emotional point of view there was done real progress in developing Virtual reality .

About intellectual advantages : I learn many things about using computers during my customization efforts.

[scully1]

dragon wench --

I've said this in the "male npc" post, but I'll elaborate here if you don't mind

I believe it is possible for men and women to understand one another...IF, and ONLY if, we get rid of the idea we've fabricated that it ISN'T possible. We've convinced ourselves that it isn't...probably because we haven't taken the time or made the effort, being preoccupied with our own concerns...

If I may be permitted, I'd like to bring a bit of a different perspective to this. I too am earning my Master's degree, in biblical studies. Now before I start I'd like to make a disclaimer that I am NOT trying to "convert" anyone or foist my beliefs on others...I'm just trying to bring out an idea.

In the book of Genesis, you have the familiar story of Adam and Eve. I do not believe that this story is literally/historically true...in fact, if one sees it as such, one misses completely the depth and beauty of the real truth it tries to teach us. THere are actually two accounts of creation. The second one is where you find Eve being created from Adam's rib. Now, most (or at least many) people find this insulting. They think it says that woman should be subservient to man. But that is not the case at all! Listen to what Adam says when he gets a look at Eve for the first time:
"This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called 'woman,' for out of 'her man' this one has been taken" ("her man" and "woman" being a Semitic play on words), Gn 2:23.
Now, I think this is amazing, much more profound than most give it credit for. Indeed, one of the most beautiful passages in the entire Bible. Eve does indeed "belong" to Adam by virtue of being created from him -- but Adam also "belongs" to Eve ("her man") for the exact same reason. The truth this story teaches us is that man and woman are one, one being, sharing one life, one heart, and one spirit. This applies to the entire human race, not just to two individuals, and not just to romantic relationships. This being the case, it is actually not possible at all for us NOT to understand one another! We've simply set up too many mental/emotional blocks. These blocks are not natural, they are our own creation.

I deeply believe that if we saw the truth of this -- no matter what our religious beliefs of the lack thereof -- men and women wouldn't misunderstand and hurt one another as much as we do. Because, from this point of view, when a man hurts a woman he hurts his own self, and when a woman hurts a man, she does the same. If we understood and accepted this, we would see the opposite sex as something to be cherished as our own selves, not stereotyped and looked upon as objects. (That's a little off-topic, but I add it as an extension...)

I defer of course to the gender scholar , but thanks in advance for hearing me out with an open mind

long post

[Darkpoet]

Originally posted by dragon wench:
<STRONG>I decided to start up this post since this subject brought the "best male NPC body" (in the BG2 forum) thread so far afield. For those who have not been following that thread, the question arose as to how well can men and women understand one another.
I also propose here another question in an effort to pull it closer to the game, "when you respond to a particular npc, do you do so on a physical, emotional or intellectual level?"</STRONG>

Welcome to the spam forum.

That's an interesting question. I have to go with all three. If they were not strong in all three, you would be looking at eveything behind a tree.

[dragon wench]

Thanks for the welcome all
I intend to add further to this discussion, but I just woke up and discovered to my intense chagrin that we are out of coffee, which means that I won't be functioning for a while.

[Darkpoet]

Originally posted by dragon wench:
<STRONG>Thanks for the welcome all
I intend to add further to this discussion, but I just woke up and discovered to my intense chagrin that we are out of coffee, which means that I won't be functioning for a while.</STRONG>

What!?!?!? No coffee

[Minerva]

Originally posted by dragon wench:
<STRONG>I also propose here another question in an effort to pull it closer to the game, "when you respond to a particular npc, do you do so on a physical, emotional or intellectual level?"</STRONG>

I prefer real people (or men, if you want to talk about "relationship") than computer generated characters. I certainly have neither time nor intereste in interacting with npc... Sorry.

Welcome here, anyway.

[ 05-10-2001: Message edited by: Minerva ]

[C Elegans]

Hello Dragon wench, welcome to SYM!

My short answer to you first question would be: as well or bad as any randomly picked people.

My long answer would be ? long:

I read the entire thread "best male NPC body", and was surprised that some posts use words like "instincts", "biology" and "hormones" to explain behavioural differences between men and women acting according to gender role norms and stereotypes only representative of the modern western Christian culture. Of course there is nothing wrong with discussion only one culture and one time, but one has to be aware of the danger in trying to draw any conclusions about men and women in general from behaviour and attitudes that are according to norms and standards in the present US and European culture. There is a huge difference between physiological sex and gender roles in a certain society during a certain point of time. Sometimes people seems to forget that the present norms in our own society might differ substantially from other cultures or other times.

Now to understanding. I would define understanding between people as a mutual feeling of being akin, alike, of sharing experience, ideas, values etc.

What factors would contribute to the experience of understanding? I believe a key word here is *interpretation*. You can put people from different culture and different times in the same situation, and they will experience different things due to how they interpret the event. A man and a women from the same time and culture will probably understand each other much better than let's say a man living in a big European city and a man living in the rainforests of New Guinea.
There are about 3 billion men and 3 billion women populating this planet presently. As humans, we all share common drives and needs like food, drink, social relationships, reproduction, love, understanding the world we live in, etc. I don't believe there are any innate differences between men and women in these areas, but according to sociocultural roles, expectations and norms, *channels for expressions* will differ at a group level, just as they do differ across culture, time or age.

Personally, I have never experienced that a person understands me better, or I them, because we share biological sex. My feeling of identity and view of myself consisists mostly of life events and experience, my way of conceptualising and viewing the world in general, social context, personal interests, moral values and social relationships. I have never felt these things are better understood by females than males. Sometimes the opposite happens, that a woman or a group of women understands me more poorly since they assume I should be like them, whereas men don?t automatically believe I should be like them. (How many times haven't I heard the generalised expressions "we women..." are this and that and found myself and many women I know not at all fitting into the description.)

In the end, I believe that degree of understanding between all people, is a question of what you are choose to focus on and if you view yourself and others mainly as individuals or as group members with group attributes.

Of course all of the above is just my personal opinions!

[fable]

@Minerva: I prefer real people (or men, if you want to talk about "relationship") than computer generated characters. I certainly have neither time nor intereste in interacting with npc... Sorry.

I agree with Minerva on the point about reacting to NPCs. I enjoy the good writing and attempts at bringing "to life" a character in BG2, but I never suspend disbelief sufficiently to think I'm dealing with a person on any level. That's probably because I think each person in reallife is a universe in themselves, which is, parenthetically, why love as an attractive force can be such a f**ked up mess. It's like moving from the established boundaries of one's own universe into another based on entirely different referential terms, in no way alike, yet disturbingly similar: exhilirating, frightening, invasive, frustrating, wonderful. Nothing cleans away the cobwebs of mental and emotional habit like love.

That really didn't answer your question, did I? Well, I hope the view on the ride was at least worth part of the ticket.

[C Elegans]

Oh sorry, I forgot your second question. I can't relate physically to computer animations. I mainly react emotionally (Tolgerias is a creep, let's hit him) or intellectually (when deciding who would be in the party and not).

[Craig]

Emotional

[dragon wench]

@Loner 72: I think that the idea of man being as much a part woman as the reverse is a very compelling one. It reminds me a lot of ying and yang; we are two distinct, yet similar halves of one whole. Indeed, it are those very differences that balance the two halves and create the whole. Thank you for sharing that part of Genesis with us , I haven't studied the Bible very extensively, but I'm always interested in learning about different religious perspectives. What I find fascinating is the sheer universality of some of those beliefs.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, because I'm truly wading out of familiar territory, but wasn't it Saint Paul, and later Saint Augustine, that lessoned the concept of gender balance that tends to be found moreso in the Old Testement???? As I said, I'm way out of my depths here, this is just coming from odd fragments lurking around the old grey matter. Although, I do remember that when I read Augustine's "Confessions" I became very angry at his views on women.

@C.Elegans I think that the reason this thread (and the one that spawned it) tends to focus on Western constructs is simply because the majority of us are most familiar with Euro/North American culture(s). I certainly agree though that class and culture generally override gender. This is one of my biggest criticisms of 1970s feminism. They tried to promote the idea that all women, regardless of race, creed, class or culture were automatically part of some kind of universal "sisterhood." That, in my opinion anyway, is utter crap. Clearly, a professional woman living in urban North America or Europe has very little in common with a rural woman from one of the world's developing nations.

Regarding the second question: I proposed it out of curiosity, because I was trying to figure out why a certain computer generated mage/thief annoyed me so much. I mean it's only a game, so why worry about it?
I also find the whole concept of the BG2 romances truly bizarre. They are a neat feature, and I find it quite easy to become intrigued by them, and then I sit back and think, this is just very strange. I was also interested in seeing if men and women responded differently to the NPCs. For example, from what I can tell women are generally more tolerant of BG2's Anomen than are men. *hence why I included it in a gender-related discussion).

[scully1]

Originally posted by dragon wench:
<STRONG>Correct me if I'm wrong here, because I'm truly wading out of familiar territory, but wasn't it Saint Paul, and later Saint Augustine, that lessoned the concept of gender balance that tends to be found moreso in the Old Testement????</STRONG>

Thanks dw
Actually gender balance is sadly lacking in the entire Bible, due to social factors in ancient times; but there is more gender balance per se in the New Testament, especially in the Gospel of Luke. (I mean male interactions with women. If you're referring to the actual number of female protagonists, yes there are more in the OT.)Contrary to popular belief, early Christianity afforded women a respect and dignity as individuals which they had not previously experienced. (I'm talking Semitic and Greco-Roman culture, here.) Christianity invented the concept that it was all right for a woman to remain single for life -- meaning perpetual virginity, practically unheard-of in the ancient world. Frequently people see this as stereotypical Christian sexual repression -- but on the contrary it was originally intended to free women from marriage bonds that amounted to little more than slavery. A Christian woman had the option open to her of avoiding such a fate; she could now choose for herself. This is one reason why so many women became Christian, to gain some degree of control over at least one area of their own lives. Of course the first Christians didn't completely revolutionize gender relations or the legal rights of women, and the idea of naturally-(divnely-)ordained male/female roles was still very active, as it had been for centuries previous...but women, including many powerful and influential women, flocked to Christianity for very gender-specific reasons.

St. Paul has to be the most misunderstood guy in the world. In order to come anywhere close to comprehending his meaning, it's necessary to know that Paul was writing to specific individual churches addressing very specific circumstances. There were some "false teachings" going around that Paul wished to correct, and many of these were associated with female prophets. In the Corinthian church, the women were apparently just going completely wild, a leftover from the pagan rituals, and Paul wanted to get them under control because he saw a dire need to clearly separate Christian practice from pagan. However, he at the same time implies that he encourages women to prohesy in the churches, as long as their teaching is in line. Paul frequently refers to his female co-workers in very positive terms: "Greet Andronicus (male) and Junia (female)...they are prominent among the apostles" (Rom 16:7). People often quote the passage from Ephesians (5:21-33): "Wives, be submissive to your husbands." But it's likely Paul did not write Ephesians at all. Even so, the next lines are: "Husbands, love your wives...He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh but nourishes and cherishes it..."

As far as St. Augustine goes...I agree. He was speaking from very negative personal experiences, however, which naturally shaped his views on womankind in general. Unfortunately, they have been adopted as the dogma of God throughout the centuries, rather than being seen for what they really were: subjective attitudes born of personal demons.

I could go on about this forever...but I shall desist

One last thing: I like your yin/yang analogy...Notice how there's a bit of yin within the yang-half, and a bit of yang within the yin-half. Just so, there is a bit of the male within the female, and a bit of the female within the male. Tap this bit, and the Mars/Venus distinctions are overcome.

[ 05-10-2001: Message edited by: loner72 ]

[fable]

@Loner72: Actually gender balance is sadly lacking in the entire Bible, due to social factors in ancient times; but there is more gender balance per se in the New Testament, especially in the Gospel of Luke.

I'm glad to read this from you. It implies an understanding that the Judeo-Christian bible operates on a variety of levels, some of them religious and revelatory, others non-religious and without consequence for modern humanity. I've often thought that one of the banes of modern Western civilization has been the Judeo-Christian-Islamic relegation of women to international second class citizenry. While some modern branches of the main surviving monotheistic religions have attempted to redress this (women as Reform Jewish rabbis and Methodist or Anglican ministers, for example), the underlying message still refers to the Godhood in masculine terms. I've heard speeches by individual people within these traditions who refer to god as "she" or both he and she, or shy away altogether from sexual differentiation; but there still seems to be a lot of work to be done, there.

Part of the problem, of course, is the wholesale absorption of the Old Testament into Christianity, complete with a (frequently) cultural mindset that would do credit to a modern tribal ruler for some backwater Mid-Eastern nomads. Women are viewed, generally speaking, as chattel, or support characters, rather like a nation of quivering Mary Tyler Moores'. Non-Jewish women, like their men, are threats, to be treated as dangers which require extermination. Unfortunately, all too often it would appear that even in societies operating under the "new dispensation" of the New Testament, it is precisely the cultural mindset of the Old Testament that is retained.

What is the evidence that Jewish Christians treated women as equals? I can see that happening among the Greek and Roman converts--some historians have speculated, perhaps cynically, that this was a wonderful way to gain female converts, particularly among spinsters who did not wish to marry, but could will their entire savings to the church. Looked at from a more positive perspective, it is possible that early Christianity regarded itself as a revolutionary movement, one which would reorder society according to a relationship with a deity, rather than with primary concern for social interactions. I am curious when you think this trend began to reverse itself.

[ 05-10-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

[scully1]

@fable --

I'm not sure if I'd use the term "equals" to describe the early Christian view of gender relations, Jewish Christian or otherwise. Certainly, as I said, the early Christians did not seek or attempt to overthrow already-existing social norms, such as women's legal rights, etc. The equality they espoused was more along a spiritual line. All are one in the Body of Christ: women and men share the same baptism, receive the same Spirit, and share one common sacred meal. However, earthly distinctions and practices remained intact. Such as the institution of slavery, for example. Master and slave still existed, but they were expected to live as members of the Body of Christ, joined in baptism. Later, when Christians were in a better position to affect social change, they would condemn slavery, but initially the institution itself was not challenged, only the relation between master and slave. Which in itself was really somewhat revolutionary...

The big idea was of course that earthly institutions would very soon vanish altogether. St. Paul refers to this constantly. The return of Christ was thought to be imminent and once He appeared, He would sweep away all earthly kingdoms, rulers, institutions, etc. Paul cites this as the reason for not challenging existing norms, even though they may be unjust. They are passing away. Modern-day Jehovah's Witnesses carry this to an extreme, refusing to vote or participate in other civic activities in order to remain seperate from the world. I think it was as late as the 18th century that this began to change, actually during the American Revolution. The ideals of liberty espoused during that time claimed inspiration directly from the biblical precepts of equality before God. Later, abolitionists would claim a Christian motivation for their cause [though supporters of slavery did the same ], and so on up through the Civil Rights movement into our own time, with people like Dorothy Day and Oscar Romero. It is only in fairly modern times that Christians have sought to bring about the Kingdom of God on earth by working hard for justice in society (which is the real meaning of the Kingdom anyway, IMO). Ever hear of Liberation Theology?...

As far as winning female converts...many female converts were widows and virgins, meaning they had no male to provide for them and therefore relied on the charity of the Church for their entire livelihood. They certainly (at least for the most part) did not possess lands or money to bequeath to the church. The only thing the Church got from these women was service to the poor and needy of the community, to which they dedicated their lives. This is why they would have had no savings to leave -- it was all given to the needy. Rather than them supporting the Church, it was actually the other way around. There were indeed influential women converts...but they were frequently the wives of governors and such, and more than once spared Christians from slaughter in localized persecutions.

I'm not sure about your view of women in the OT, however...there are indeed, I agree, attitudes about women there which do not bear up in our world [thank goodness ]. However, I don't believe that the biblical authors intended malice, to keep women as cowed, weak, dominated chattel (to use your word). It was simply believed that women had a natural role, and men had a natural role, and that women's natural role was far more passive. Women were partners for men in that they bore and raised children for Israel. A man could not relate to a woman on an intimate intellectual level. That was something men did with each other. For example, when David's best friend Jonathan dies, David laments him: "More precious have I held my love for you than love for woman." Why?? Because Jonathan was someone David shared his thoughts and fears and beliefs and confidences with. You didn't do that with women. That is why Christ is so remarkable for carrying on a deep theological conversation with a female -- to the great astonishment of His own disciples (Jn 4:4-30).

At the same time, there are great women to be found in the OT. Deborah, one of the Judges, is one. Another is Judith (included in the Catholic canon, considered apocrypha by Protestants). These are just two, there are others...As a matter of fact, if you read through the Torah, you find that the laws regarding women change, affording more respect to women as time goes on and as society changes. In the Exodus version of the 10 Commandments, for instance, women are lumped in with slaves and cattle -- possessions. However, by the time we get to Deuteronomy, long after, we find women being considered on their own as persons, not as possessions.

Just one last thing and I'll shut up -- the gender-specific terms for God. *sigh*, alas, our language is limited. We have no English personal neuter pronoun. Short of calling God "It", there is no solution. To call God "She" is just as unbalanced. God is Spirit without gender, but we must relate to God in a better way than constantly saying "It" or "He/She". Within the Bible itself are many references to God as mother (you have to look for them, but they're there). Is 49:15 and Psalm 131 are but two examples. And the very Wisdom of God is personified as female (Prv 1:20-2:4; 9:1-11 and throughout the Book of Wisdom).

oof...very long post...forgive

[ 05-10-2001: Message edited by: loner72 ]

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by dragon wench:
<STRONG>@C.Elegans I think that the reason this thread (and the one that spawned it) tends to focus on Western constructs is simply because the majority of us are most familiar with Euro/North American culture(s). I certainly agree though that class and culture generally override gender. This is one of my biggest criticisms of 1970s feminism. They tried to promote the idea that all women, regardless of race, creed, class or culture were automatically part of some kind of universal "sisterhood." That, in my opinion anyway, is utter crap. Clearly, a professional woman living in urban North America or Europe has very little in common with a rural woman from one of the world's developing nations.
</STRONG>

DW, you are probably right in why the threads at BG2 forum became focused on our society and time. I just wanted share my thoughts that some "biologist" conclusions drawn from that, was too generalised.


I very much agree with you about he critisism of the 70's feminism. In Sweden, there are mainly 2 schools of feminism, one derived from, and still very similar to the 70's, and one that focuses on differences between man and women. The latter form put emphasis on that women should be more feminine, and that the sterotypes reflect a "true nature". It's a bit like "Be yourself and be natural! Get a pair of silicon breast because that is what you really want!" if you get what I mean.
I would personally critisise this type of feminism for the same reasons as I crisitised
the BG2 threads above, namely premature conclusions about what is "natural" and "biological".
Do I need to mention I am not a feminist?


Regarding Anomen, I liked him because I made him a lethal stone hurler. I also felt some empathy for "life" history, it reminds me of many patients I have met. (Sad childhood, abusive parents, compensating for low self esteem, instable and moody, needs to prove a lot of things to himself.)
I never went into the romance thing, so I can't comment on that.


My husband (I played BG2 multiplayer with him the 1st time through the game) also liked Anomen, and he thought it was good that Bioware introduced NPC:s that are not only "knight in shining armour" stereotypes, but mimicks real people a bit better.


As for other PNPC:s, I notice I get irritated by some battle cries and feedback lines, probably because you hear them repeated so many times while playing.

DW, check out how the "rolemodel" thread has developed, it's a quite interesting discussion

[ 05-11-2001: Message edited by: C Elegans ]

[fable]

@Loner72, you write well, with insight, and lengthily. I never intended to imply that the particular culture which gave birth to the OT and later (at least in part) the NT was malicious. (Though actually, many early Christians were malicious, in their intentional destruction, as mobs, of the churches and temples belonging to other religions; and later still, when Orthodox Christianity became more powerful, in their attacks on non-Christian individuals and groups--as Gibbon's extraordinary work on the Roman and Holy Roman Empire attests. But that's because imperfect people were convinced that they were perfectly righteous--a very dangerous combination, IMO.) But the effect was the same: women were frequently treated as chattel, bought and sold as slaves--males, too, of course, but women also served as purchased sex objects, in the various biblical references to concubines.

I recall one horrific passage in Judges 19, I think (I'll look it up, later--it's been 20 years or more since I read this stuff, and a lot of the OT seems to me, with apologies, just a triumphalist horror story dotted by fetish rules), where a gent on the way between cities makes a bad deal accepting some overnight hospitality. He ends up faced with a mob who demand he leaves his place of rest so they can gang-rape him. Instead, the man shoves his concubine out the door, and listens to her get raped all night.

When she staggers in the following morning, he just orders up to get up so they can leave. When she remains unconscious on the floor, he places her upon his mule, and takes her home. Then, despite the fact that she's alive, he kills her, cutting her with a knife, in order to scatter her parts and provoke a war.

Now, this particular concubine is gone from the biblical narrative, after this. She's served her purpose. And it is not so much the horrible, twisted things that were done to her that are the problem for me, as the fact that, in a document so heavy with moral condemnation of everything from eating the wrong animal to having sex with a woman during menarch, the bible voices no disgust at tossing this concubine to the raping gang, nor any disapproval (to put it mildly) of her death. It is not that these are condoned; they are simply of no interest. She was an owned woman, whose life was therefore of no particular importance to that culture.

I can understand the roles created by "primitive" (primitive only in a technological sense) cultures to sustain existence. But when we move from what's necessary for existence to what's done by one group to another simply out of desire, thouse same roles become, by my way of thinking, invalid. IMO, this same mindset, tempered by time, still exists, and has had a pernicious effect on all the major monotheistic religions of today.

For the record, I'm not a feminist, at least as the term is generally conceived. I've taken to task friends of mine of the Wiccan persuasion who believe only in a goddess, and some of whom even believe only in a female priesthood--to me, they're only repeating the errors of Judeo-Christian-Islamic worship on the other side of the road.

But I am concerned with the treatment of people, all kinds of people, and the bible is a very bad guide, IMO, to social interaction. Unfortunately, this is precisely the kind of thing that it is often used for, since it can be easily copied; while the spiritual insights offered in the bible cannot be copied, but must be experienced personally.

[ 05-11-2001: Message edited by: fable ]