Tactical Question - Haley

[Aard_Rinn]

I think perhaps the thing you are getting at is that there are times when offending another person is not equivalent to having done something wrong. Most people are capable of becoming offended when it is suggested, or implied by another's behavior, that a position they hold or an action they took is wrong, immoral, or both. Their state of being offended is not causally related to whether or not their action actually was wrong, immoral, or both.

Yeah, pretty much. Offending someone else isn't inherently a bad thing - if I were to go up and kiss another girl in front of a group of WBC people, they'd be offended, sure, but that doesn't make them right. Standing up for your beliefs will offend people, but that doesn't mean you should apologize, nor that an attempt to explain your beliefs is -justification- - or even that having a justified viewpoint is wrong! If you can properly justify a viewpoint, go for it - attempts to stifle or belittle a justification of someone's beliefs is the equivalent of saying "sit down, shut up, no one cares what you think." If they can do it, let them - if not, well, they won't convince anyone and you've got nothing to worry about.

[Sir_Leorik]

Maybe the Giant gets a pass on the accountants. But what about his totally unfair and demeaning description of intellectual property lawyers. This is obviously a joke y'all.

Yeah, but he then did a 180 and showed labor attorneys in a great light.

Look, I understand that everyone wants to reassure me for some reason, but if I've identified something that I think I need to improve on, then that's my call. I'm not flogging myself publicly over it, I'm saying that I made some decisions without really examining them and now I am. Self-examination is a good thing. I'm sure there are lots of you who were OK with it the way it was, but then there were lots of people who were OK with a gag strip focused entirely on D&D rule jokes, and that didn't stop me from changing it when I thought I needed to.

The point is, now that I'm aware of this (and other issues), there's no way I'm going to knowingly write something problematic anyway, so it's sort of a moot point to argue about it with me. The past is the past, mistakes were made, going forward I hope to do better. That's it.

I'm not saying that reexaming the way you wrote Haley's character isn't a good thing, but I am wondering whether this will be addressed in the comic itself. Besides if you're going to engage in self-flagellation over a past mistake, Samantha and her dad are better candidates.

Kilkil's in on the scheme? Fascinating...

He clearly knows who he's supposed to be taking orders from. Including the people who supposedly advise the empires of sweat and tears.

Kilkil probably needs to be in on the scheme in order to make sure the scheme runs along efficiently. He's Tarquin's accountant, not the Empress of Blood's accountant. By contrast, the Empress' emissary to Reptilia seemed completely unaware of the scheme until it was too late.

Kilkil's character traits seem to be efficiency and loyalty. In that regard he's Qarr's Lawful Neutral opposite. Qarr is a barely competent henchman who flees at the first sign of peril. Kilkil, who's an Expert, not an adventurer, went on a business trip to a mysterious pyramid in the desert, regardless of the peril. That's loyalty. He also probably made sure Penelope got a bouquet of flowers every other day, and made sure to direct a fat contract for the plumbing on the Empress' palace to Hannah.

Well, thing is, all Tarquin says is that they observed that the more powerful dragons out there are larger and that she then assumed that becoming large would cause her to become powerful. Tarquin's manipulating her for sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean that every idea that pops into her head was put there by him. It could just as easily be that she took to this thing of her own volition and Tarquin simply saw no need to correct it. He probably figures she'll be replaced by the next puppet in a few years anyway and constantly gorging keeps her from asking annoying questions about policy and such in the meantime.

Or maybe he deliberately trolled her into turning herself into a living blimp for laughs. Who knows?

Agreed on all points, although I'd say he looks more amused at the development that smugly proud of the accomplishment. I think he saw the potential for some great laughs if he didn't correct her mistake, more than him engineering it.

Grey Wolf

Given the way we've seen Tarquin, Malack, Laurin, Jacinda, Miron and The Warrior With No Name manipulate their puppets, I can't see this as anything but a way for Tarquin and Malack to manipulate her. The fact that they get some chuckles in the process is a bonus. After all, Tarquin has always been willing go an extra mile for a punchline. The Empress of Blood dying from high cholesterol seems like the sort of thing he would laugh about for days.

[AKA_Bait]

Yeah, but he then did a 180 and showed labor attorneys in a great light.

Actually, he didn't. While effective, Celia was clearly acting beyond the scope of her authority and failed to adequately inform her client about the consequences of the agreement she negotiated. Lawyers aren't supposed to betray their client's principles all over the place.

Defense lawyers don't get off so well either, come to think on it.

[Kaytara]

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the original "joke" in this thread was a stretch, considering the only thing she has in common with a "Airborne Tramp" is…nothing. No, literally—nothing. She has been depicted as neither flying nor sexually promiscuous, and those are the only two words in the original reference. The only thing she has in common with any of the characters Haley was referring to with the original joke was that she is female, which means that as far as the OP goes, being female is enough to prompt the mental association. That's not really OK.

Laurin is a female character probably in her late 50's who is covered from head to toe and has never discussed anything sexual at all. I made a deliberate effort to not sexualize her, even, since I realized a while ago that I was subconsciously "sexing up" almost all of the female characters. The fact that she still rates these kind of comments is very disappointing.

Regarding Haley's fairly persistent slut-shaming…all I can do is apologize for that. I have no excuse except my own shortcomings and lack of self-awareness. I could try to say that because of the environment that Haley was raised in (a literal criminal gang), she hasn't had the education or experience to not fall in line and perpetuate those sort of harmful labels on her own gender. I could say that, but that would be justifying it after the fact. The truth is, I didn't think it was a problem at the time. I've known so many women (many in the lower class, like Haley) who would drop those insults at other women in a fight that I was just trying to add authenticity. In my experience, some women are quicker to slut-shame other women than even men. So I was going for accuracy in how a woman might insult other women, but you know what? It's still not acceptable. I'm still producing a piece of media consumed by young women, and I have a responsibility to do better.

Does this mean that those words will never show up in anything I write ever again? Probably not, but at least in the future I hope to only use them when I'm depicting a character who is overtly sexist/misogynistic (like Tarquin), rather than having them flow out of the mouth of the primary female lead. Because what kind of message does that send? I may be wrong, but I think I've avoided Haley using any of those words for this entire book. I just didn't want to draw attention to it.

And, for the record, "You're oversensitive," is not a valid defense for saying something offensive on this message board. The initial joke was mildly offensive; some of the responses defending it have been much more so. And references to political movements of the past are right out. Scrubbing may be in order.

Thank you, you are amazing. Logged in for the first time in a few years (not that I haven't followed the comic daily, just not the forums anymore) just to say that.

I think it might be OOC if Haley were to semi-abruptly stop spouting misogynist stuff after she's been established to do so, especially since, as you've rightfully pointed out, her background makes it plausible for her. In fact, I think it's very important that you keep that as a character trait for her for now - she's like a lot of women in that regard, as you've said, and i'ts important that other women like her can relate to her enough to finally notice why she's acting wrong.

So, on that note, I'd love it if you kept this character flaw but started treating it more like a flaw in-story and resolved it properly rather than just letting it fade out of existence. Perhaps with a small arc where this behaviour of hers was challenged?

Anyway, my respect for you just rose a thousand notches. Keep up the great work. ^^

[Kaytara]

King of Nowere, Dragonus, I'll just note that humor is at least in part a "what seemed dangerous actually isn't" mechanism. It's a "call off the alert" signal. A tense situation stopped being tense, we can all relax now. It can get filtered down through civilization into a "things aren't what they really seem," and this is why we find paradoxes funny.

But when you're laughing at someone by lumping them in with their social group, you're invoking that primal meaning - essentially saying "you're not dangerous. Whatcha gonna do, come and HIT me?" Replace "hit" with "challenge in any meaningful way" in civilized society. What makes it different is that the humor is not aimed at the environment, but at a person.

It's not a "male" or "female" thing. It's not a "we're laughing at a bad thing." It's a message saying "relax, it's ok." But when you're aiming it at people who DO belong to that same group you're insulting, you're sending a conflicting message. You're outwardly telling them to relax and at the same time you're reminding them to "know their place," which is lower than yours. This is what provokes an offended reaction. If they're feeling secure enough, they'll attack. If not, they'll be hurt. Do you seriously want to provoke a confrontation every time you use those words? Because that is what you're doing, ethologically speaking.

It's not offensive to you because you feel secure. If you want to invest into into other people feeling secure, into actually having a secure environment around you, then you don't use slurs or "humorous" insults, period. If you don't want to invest effort into that - well, you're going get the same attitude back in spades, give or take a few years, either you or your children. And there's always a bigger fish.

One of the best explanations I've seen for why the 'it's humour!' explanation is bogus and flies in the whole point of what humour is supposed to be.

As to everyone arguing that 'men are discriminated against' too.... Great. Yes. You're absolutely right. I'm not being sarcastic. You're correct. That's a result of society's (I wont' say 'patriarchy' because you appear to be allergic to that word and consider it some kind of 'new age conspiracy' thing) effort to impose rigid gender roles. Rigid, meaning step outside, and you lose the benefits you had by sticking to them. The only difference between men and women is that men are on average *slightly* better off if they stick to the 'rules', whereas for women it's often a no-win situation.

Now that you've successfully noted that sexism hurts men too, could you please move on and actually start trying to fight it? There's absolutely no reason not to except for the utter illusion that sexism against men and sexism against women are somehow separate and have independent causes.

And with that, I'm noping out of this thread because the past few pages have already made me feel sick to my stomach. I already put up with this crap on nearly every other website I know. Sinfest.net is receiving flack for the creator having dipped into femisnim (ostensibly to 'please his girlfriend', because men are ruled by their sex drives and no man would ever do anything different for any reason that did not involve getting laid, amirite?), half the articles on cracked.com are written explicitly in a way that assumes that the reader is a heterosexual male and its female readers don't even exist, about three thirds of the jokes on 9gag.com, a site meant for silly lighthearted humour, rely on misogyny or homophobia to work, and 90% of the Let's Play channels on Youtube similarly do nothing but insult women and other "minorities" in place of humour. And of course, I still don't know a single good female LPer, because, whaddoyouknow, being female in a *~*~*~male*~*~*~* industry gets you pelted with death threats, rape threats, and "joking' comments to get back in the kitchen. Surprisingly, not a lot of women stick around in that environment.

Tl;dr version: When an average female fantasy and gaming and sci-fi fan can't get her fun *anywhere* on the 'mainstream' (read: not "for feminists by feminists") internet without continuously running into reminders that she's subhuman, something is very wrong here.

King of Nowhere, it's easy for you to treat the "patriarchy" as some sort of "theory". I'd give a lot for you to actually spend a week as a woman and see if you still feel the same way. For me, it's everywhere I look, now that I've learned how to actually notice it. And I'm lucky that I live in a very progressive country and mostly only have to deal with that crap online.

[Grey Watcher]

Given the way we've seen Tarquin, Malack, Laurin, Jacinda, Miron and The Warrior With No Name manipulate their puppets, I can't see this as anything but a way for Tarquin and Malack to manipulate her. The fact that they get some chuckles in the process is a bonus. After all, Tarquin has always been willing go an extra mile for a punchline. The Empress of Blood dying from high cholesterol seems like the sort of thing he would laugh about for days.

Don't get me wrong, not correcting her misunderstanding is, in itself, a **** move (at bare minimum, he might suggest that she become a bodybuilder and increase her size that way). But that still doesn't prove that he deliberately goaded her into gaining weight. And, if (do note if) he did not, then Burlew's point stands that she's doing this to herself. Now, whether that makes her an acceptable target for jokes about her size is yet another discussion which I honestly don't care to participate in too heavily.

Of course, as I acknowledged, because we only have Tarquin's account of how this went down, and he was still playing mostly nice to the PCs at the time, it's entirely possible that events unfolded exactly as you say, and the Empress' weight is simply an elaborate prank.

Also, strictly speaking, we don't know that dragons are subject to the same health risks from obesity that humans are.

[Sir_Leorik]

Tl;dr version: When an average female fantasy and gaming and sci-fi fan can't get her fun *anywhere* on the 'mainstream' (read: not "for feminists by feminists") internet without continuously running into reminders that she's subhuman, something is very wrong here.

King of Nowhere, it's easy for you to treat the "patriarchy" as some sort of "theory". I'd give a lot for you to actually spend a week as a woman and see if you still feel the same way. For me, it's everywhere I look, now that I've learned how to actually notice it. And I'm lucky that I live in a very progressive country and mostly only have to deal with that crap online.

I think that the anonymity the Internet provides can often bring out the worst in people. "The New Yorker" once ran a cartoon of a dog typing on a computer, with the caption "On the Internet no one knows you're a dog". The masks the Internet lets users wear can be liberating, but that can lead users to drop their societal inhibitions. As you mentioned Kaytara, in Germany men would not dream of behaving that way in public. Even in America, in certain circles, outright misogyny is not tolerated. But on-line the mask comes on and people who might chafe at these "politically correct" or "feminist" ideas, might let loose with streams of invective. The problem is that once you turn on this kind of hate, you can't just turn it off. Even if they do nothing more than engage in misogynist speech on a forum or in a YouTube comment, that speech will eventually begin to filter into their day to day life. As Dr. Jekyll found, once you start turning into Edward Hyde, it becomes harder and harder to change back to Henry Jekyll. Eventually you will be Mr. Hyde all the time.

Don't get me wrong, not correcting her misunderstanding is, in itself, a **** move (at bare minimum, he might suggest that she become a bodybuilder and increase her size that way). But that still doesn't prove that he deliberately goaded her into gaining weight. And, if (do note if) he did not, then Burlew's point stands that she's doing this to herself. Now, whether that makes her an acceptable target for jokes about her size is yet another discussion which I honestly don't care to participate in too heavily.

Of course, as I acknowledged, because we only have Tarquin's account of how this went down, and he was still playing mostly nice to the PCs at the time, it's entirely possible that events unfolded exactly as you say, and the Empress' weight is simply an elaborate prank.

Also, strictly speaking, we don't know that dragons are subject to the same health risks from obesity that humans are.

I think the part where she's going along with this is that she is at least a little greedy and power hungry; she chose to join Tarquin and become the Empress. But she didn't understand that her bargain with Tarquin was a worse one than Redcloak and Right-Eye's bargain with Xykon in the diner. She's their pawn, and if they really wanted her to be in fighting shape, they'd keep her on a strict diet. They gorge her on food to keep her under control.

[Dragonus45]

:EDIT: Someone has tossed me a PM asking that i take any conversations with yall to PM since they feel we are derailing the thread. A second person i know just tossed me the same request on facebook after i posted this. Anyone who wants to ill gladly keep the discussion going, but only if you PM me first.

[Grey Watcher]

I think the part where she's going along with this is that she is at least a little greedy and power hungry; she chose to join Tarquin and become the Empress. But she didn't understand that her bargain with Tarquin was a worse one than Redcloak and Right-Eye's bargain with Xykon in the diner. She's their pawn, and if they really wanted her to be in fighting shape, they'd keep her on a strict diet. They gorge her on food to keep her under control.

True, Tarquin's relationship with the Empress is, at a fundamental level, abusive and manipulative. But that's a bit more broad that the specific question of: did the Empress embark on her weight gain project on her own, or was it Tarquin's idea?

Yes, he probably has many motives for not correcting her: maybe he thinks it's funny, maybe it's a handy way to shut her up and keep her from looking to closely at what Tarquin is doing, maybe it helps him keep her less of a physical threat to him (so that, should the need arise it's easier to kill her). But the question of whether she was somehow forced, coerced, tricked, or otherwise manipulated into starting in on the weight gain regimen in the first place has not been, definitively answered. Unless you interpret Rich Burlew's statement that he felt more comfortable doing fat jokes about the Empress in part because it was something she was willfully doing to herself to mean that, no, Tarquin didn't put her up to it.

[multilis]

Why it is still considered evil now that we recognize that women are not men's property, particularly in the case of unattached women where there's no legal presumption of paternity, totally escapes me. The availability of cheap highly-effective contraception doesn't help clarify.

It goes both ways, men also a social negative. For example polygamy is also often illegal, and is more often a man with multiple wives.

Many social structures are based on "family", where children are raised by 2 mates. Polygamy has more problems with jealousy. People who have multiple partners in past are statistically less likely to have lasting marriage and children raised by two parents... some might quote old bard who claimed "the first cut (love) is the deepest". Children raised in more complex situations than 2 parents who stay bonded for life tend to have higher crime rates later in life.

Some scholars feel that the collapse of Azuran Empire was because of the decaying social structure, because of having less strong family bonds. In early years, Azuran paladins were able to triumph over distant savage villages, but in later years, the Azure city defenders tended to flee rather than defend against the invading goblin hordes.

...

As for Laurin, we have insufficient information, she is planning to ask T for favor but unknown whether it is a sexual favor.

[Sir_Leorik]

True, Tarquin's relationship with the Empress is, at a fundamental level, abusive and manipulative. But that's a bit more broad that the specific question of: did the Empress embark on her weight gain project on her own, or was it Tarquin's idea?

Yes, he probably has many motives for not correcting her: maybe he thinks it's funny, maybe it's a handy way to shut her up and keep her from looking to closely at what Tarquin is doing, maybe it helps him keep her less of a physical threat to him (so that, should the need arise it's easier to kill her). But the question of whether she was somehow forced, coerced, tricked, or otherwise manipulated into starting in on the weight gain regimen in the first place has not been, definitively answered. Unless you interpret Rich Burlew's statement that he felt more comfortable doing fat jokes about the Empress in part because it was something she was willfully doing to herself to mean that, no, Tarquin didn't put her up to it.

My take is that Tarquin planted the idea in her mind, and that she began pursuing this course. Once Tarquin saw how aggressively she was pursuing her goal, he may have encouraged her. At the end of the day, she's the one eating the fattened cows, but if Tarquin really wanted her put on a strict diet, she'd be on a strict diet. He benefits from her looking the way she does, and the fact that her feeding habits disgust humans and lizardfolk, allows him to keep her away from state dinners, where he and Malack could run the show. I see her as a tragic figure, a victim of her own ambitions, but not smart enough to realize what's happened to her. By contrast, Xyklon the Consequential has no one but himself to blame for his weight gain. ("Sigh. Guards! Fetch the "Ben & Jerry's"!")

[AKA_Bait]

As for Laurin, we have insufficient information, she is planning to ask T for favor but unknown whether it is a sexual favor.

Of course, it is also unknown whether that favor will involve singing aardvarks. Or the baking of complicated confectionery. i.e., we have no evidence of any kind as to what the favor is.

I see her as a tragic figure, a victim of her own ambitions, but not smart enough to realize what's happened to her.

I was with you up until this. Tragic? This is an adult red dragon who is unquestionably evil and at least partially responsible for the atrocities of the Empire of Blood that we are talking about.

[AgentofHellfire]

One of the best explanations I've seen for why the 'it's humour!' explanation is bogus and flies in the whole point of what humour is supposed to be.

That explanation only works if the humour is directed at a person, though. If you're referring to the OP's joke, I still maintain that it isn't directed at Laurin, but that classification scheme.

As to everyone arguing that 'men are discriminated against' too.... Great. Yes. You're absolutely right. I'm not being sarcastic. You're correct. That's a result of society's (I wont' say 'patriarchy' because you appear to be allergic to that word and consider it some kind of 'new age conspiracy' thing) effort to impose rigid gender roles. Rigid, meaning step outside, and you lose the benefits you had by sticking to them. The only difference between men and women is that men are on average *slightly* better off if they stick to the 'rules', whereas for women it's often a no-win situation.

Well, calling it "male rule" isn't really at all accurate when males who don't follow the rules aren't really ruling, and even those that do are doing worse for it (guess which gender gets longer prison sentences), and its inaccuracy is kind of toxic to the actual messages feminism preaches, because such terms make it easier to conflate feminism with "anti-men", since the people that would be benefitting under an actual patriarchy would be more men than those that do.

Now that you've successfully noted that sexism hurts men too, could you please move on and actually start trying to fight it?

One could fight sexism against women and men both in a lot of ways, some of them way quicker than this whole fight against words that aren't even entirely representative of that.

You don't even, in theory, have to go full gender quota on that one if you think that's a tad extreme. You could just regulate business recruitment procedures, even, so that they're more professional. After all, the survey cited in that article states that businesses that actually used the professional recruitment methods got plenty of women in anyway. And the word "bitch" or "slut" didn't have to be touched.

There's absolutely no reason not to except for the utter illusion that sexism against men and sexism against women are somehow separate and have independent causes.

I'm still not really sure why sexism against women is considered to stem from a single cause, honestly. Culture is a huge multifaceted thing, and multiple modes of discrimination against an entire gender are going to be equally multi-faceted.

And one of those facets, by the way, is how feminist movements conduct themselves. They are, or they're supposed to be, the opposing side to all of this, so what tactics they use of course matters. And assuming media portrayals even matter, they don't use the best tactics when dealing with oppression of men, because they don't object to any portrayals of men at all. Nor do they object to any of the aspects of gender roles that don't favor men. Because it's not something they're fighting.

[Kevka Palazzo]

Of course, it is also unknown whether that favor will involve singing aardvarks. Or the baking of complicated confectionery. i.e., we have no evidence of any kind as to what the favor is.

Not quite. In this very thread, The Giant says that he deliberately designed Laurin to be as non-sexualized as he could, which I think signifies that it is very unlikely that the favor is sexual in nature.

Not to mention that, honestly, she doesn't seem to be all that into him, especially in regards to his willingness to blow resources on crazy whims.

[AKA_Bait]

And assuming media portrayals even matter, they don't use the best tactics when dealing with oppression of men, because they don't object to any portrayals of men at all. Nor do they object to any of the aspects of gender roles that don't favor men. Because it's not something they're fighting.

You know, I just don't think that's true. I can think of at least one self-identifying male feminist out there who objects to these sorts of portrayals regardless of gender off the top of my head.

Not quite. In this very thread, The Giant says that he deliberately designed Laurin to be as non-sexualized as he could, which I think signifies that it is very unlikely that the favor is sexual in nature.

Not to mention that, honestly, she doesn't seem to be all that into him, especially in regards to his willingness to blow resources on crazy whims.

Good point. We do, in fact, have evidence against it. I really don't understand why people keep bringing it up as a possibility.

[oppyu]

I was in the middle of typing a big wall-of-text argument in response to AgentHellfire, but frankly I'm tired of arguing against people determined to say hurtful things to women and minorities and arguing that feminism is either unnecessary or idiotically misguided. Registering token disagreement, moving on and finding something to eat and forgetting this thread ever happened.

[multilis]

Not quite. In this very thread, The Giant says that he deliberately designed Laurin to be as non-sexualized as he could, which I think signifies that it is very unlikely that the favor is sexual in nature.

Not to mention that, honestly, she doesn't seem to be all that into him, especially in regards to his willingness to blow resources on crazy whims.

It is not about him, it is about weath and power. Nale is dead. Elan may soon die. T may soon die. Who will be T's heir? And the mother of the heir can control much wealth and power for the very long time it takes for heir to grow up.

"he deliberately designed Laurin to be as non-sexualized as he could" but this just provides more evidence... Laurin *has* to use a favor because she can't just seduce him!

Obviously someone hasn't been watching Game of Thrones!

PS: This is a very serious scholarly subject so please help keep it that way! We don't want "flying skank" to get downgraded to a tabloid trash topic.

PPS: Here is a preview from the up and coming OOTS movie, the male is probably T, but not clear if the female is Laurin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq8Bh7JKPd4

[AgentofHellfire]

You know, I just don't think that's true. I can think of at least one self-identifying male feminist out there who objects to these sorts of portrayals regardless of gender off the top of my head.

Sure, and we've seen the majority of posters on this thread agree with the person I was responding to that the comments she objected to were wrong, along with an apology from the writer, I might add. But since the trend she's claimed to exist still exists in her mind, I've got no idea why I should view that one guy's actions as proof that some larger thing is occurring. Especially since he really wasn't making a statement about how men's place in society should be changed.

Good point. We do, in fact, have evidence against it. I really don't understand why people keep bringing it up as a possibility.

I always assumed it was an attempt to mock RPGs and their portrayal of women, honestly.

[ahdok]

Now, I wouldn't say that's true either. After all, my being asexual offends a whole bunch of people very, very deeply.

Hm. This is a fairly unusual case, but I'd say you probably are offending those people, and the rule is still technically correct. However, you're entirely in the right to do so, and they should get over it and stop being ignorant jerks. :)

[Benthesquid]

It is not about him, it is about $$$. Nale is dead. Elan may soon die. T may soon die. Who will be T's heir? And the mother of the heir can control much wealth and power for the very long time it takes for heir to grow up.

"he deliberately designed Laurin to be as non-sexualized as he could" but this just provides more evidence... Laurin *has* to use a favor because she can't just seduce him!

Obviously someone hasn't been watching Game of Thrones! ;P

Given that, at the moment, Tarquin doesn't hold any position that's likely to be inherited, and isn't poised to take over such a position anytime soon, legal heredity seems to be a nonissue. If Tarquin dies, the Empire of Blood will collapse, and whoever takes over the land will appoint one of their cronies as General. Said Crony may or might not be Shoulder-Pads fighty guy, or, I don't know, General Vater, recruited by Jacinda and Miron at the next tavern.

[Kaytara]

Well, calling it "male rule" isn't really at all accurate when males who don't follow the rules aren't really ruling, and even those that do are doing worse for it (guess which gender gets longer prison sentences), and its inaccuracy is kind of toxic to the actual messages feminism preaches, because such terms make it easier to conflate feminism with "anti-men", since the people that would be benefitting under an actual patriarchy would be more men than those that do.

Question, then. How "universal" does this 'male rule' thing need to be for the power imbalance to be acknowledged? Or rather, how does the fact that the system is imperfect change the idea that it's still biased heavily to empower men, at the expense of women more often than not?

The fact that it is utterly impossible for any discussion on mistreatment of women to happen without the mistreatment of men butting in - as if two wrongs make a right - is a problem.

One could fight sexism against women and men both in a lot of ways, some of them way quicker than this whole fight against words that aren't even entirely representative of that.

You seriously think Norway advanced to that 'quicker' level WITHOUT the preliminary fight against words? You seriously think action can happen before discussion???

I'm still not really sure why sexism against women is considered to stem from a single cause, honestly. Culture is a huge multifaceted thing, and multiple modes of discrimination against an entire gender are going to be equally multi-faceted.

For one thing, I think it would be a reasonable default assumption that that sexism has a common cause, as gender dynamics have always been defined in relation to each other. For 'strength', for example, to be considered a sign of masculinity, it needs to be juxtaposed with a group that is not considered to have that attribute. So perhaps a better question is, why wouldn't it have a common cause, or at least be closely tied?

As for the actual question, it is often considered to stem from the same cause as a result of a case-by-case analysis that leads to the revelation of a trend.

Men get longer prison sentences in part because it is considered in their "nature" to be more violent and aggressive at the same time as it is considered in the "nature" of women to be meek, not have the "balls" or "guts" for violence and even faint at the very sight of blood, and to be too compassionate and empathetic to be criminals.

Men are disadvantaged in child custody situations because they are considered, as a rule, to be less 'nurturing' and 'motherly' than women.

Men aren't taken seriously as rape victims because of the pervasive perception that no 'real' man could possibly ever not want sex, and if he didn't there's something 'wrong' with him and that's his fault and his alone.

And so on. There is a common factor to all of these examples, and that's the use of double standards based on pre-conceived stereotypes and notions of what the individual must be like based on what sex they are. Similarly, these stereotypes and perceptions are created and/or maintained almost exclusively through men in power, and by and large, it is men that benefit from them.

One would be hard-pressed to find an instance of men being discriminated against that does not result from some ****ty and restrictive attitude of the system towards both men and women. (And let's not forget trans people, who are often affected by the worst of both worlds.)

And one of those facets, by the way, is how feminist movements conduct themselves. They are, or they're supposed to be, the opposing side to all of this, so what tactics they use of course matters. And assuming media portrayals even matter, they don't use the best tactics when dealing with oppression of men, because they don't object to any portrayals of men at all. Nor do they object to any of the aspects of gender roles that don't favor men. Because it's not something they're fighting.

It is not the job of feminism to actively go out of its way to object to certain portrayals of men. A movement that is preoccupied foremostly with the rights of women should not be expected to give the occasional pat on the heads of oppressed men as a condition for being taken seriously. That, in and of itself, is a form of expression of privilege. Feminism isn't about men, even if men suffer from the same problems it is trying to combat. Saying 'but feminism should take the time to acknowledge men's problems' too is both derailing to the problems that women are facing and speaks of a staggering entitlement, like one cannot bear to not be considered important in any movement. It's like the guys who try to make the concept of lesbians to be all about women who got 'burned' by guys, even though it's the one orientation that literally has nothing to do with men.

Furthermore, there is a vast difference between oppressed men and oppressed women: Men are far more capable of fighting their own battles. Men are, while not guaranteed, far more likely to be heard and taken seriously when they speak out. Men don't need women to acknowledge their problems to try and make things better for themselves, they only need the initiative to go out there and educate themselves using the information others have gathered before them. Yes, obviously not every type of man will be taken seriously by his social circle when he calls them out on, say, a prison rape joke, but if it were a woman, you could be damn sure she'd be waved off or dismissed as having no sense of humour or being oversensitive no matter if she were gorgeous or unattractive, fat or thin, weak or muscular, popular or socially awkward.

Having a 'win' clause at all, even if it's not fair and not attainable for everyone, is a privilege men have that women largely don't, and the one that's being ignored in favour of some sort of weird oppression solidarity when 'but men get hurt too' arguments crop up.

I mean, Jesus. Modern feminism has already taken the interests of straight women, LGBTQA+ women as well as women of colour onto its plate, and you want it to spare a moment for the men, as well? Even though 99% of the problems these groups face stem from or are perpetrated by men?

[multilis]

Given that, at the moment, Tarquin doesn't hold any position that's likely to be inherited, and isn't poised to take over such a position anytime soon, legal heredity seems to be a nonissue. If Tarquin dies, the Empire of Blood will collapse, and whoever takes over the land will appoint one of their cronies as General. Said Crony may or might not be Shoulder-Pads fighty guy, or, I don't know, General Vater, recruited by Jacinda and Miron at the next tavern.

You haven't been watching Game of Thrones?

King is sent to bed without supper. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhKVVpnOgXw

Littlefinger has even less "position" yet may have in own way more power...

The levers of power can be passed on even if they are not the title of king. T. clearly thought that what he had could be passed on to Malack and his sons.

PS: (I actually don't watch game of thrones, don't even have TV, just watch some clips on youtube, read up on info, etc.)

[Benthesquid]

Game of Thrones is irrelevant here. The point is that having Tarquin's child wouldn't advantage Laurin in the event of Tarquin's death, because Tarquin, Laurin, et al, have spent a great deal of effort making sure that no one knows that Tarquin is controlling an empire at any given time. So, in this scenario.

1: Laurin asks for sex.
2: Laurin and Tarquin have unprotected sex once.
3: This liaison results in a child that is successfully carried to term and delivered.
4. Said child doesn't come with an opposite-alignment twin.
5. Tarquin dies soon thereafter.
6. The Empress of Blood appoints Tarquin's infant child as his successor as general.
7. Laurin manipulates her child to manipulate the Empress of Blood.
8. Somehow, this is easier than manipulating the Empress of Blood herself, and preferable to just continuing to rule from the shadows the empire she already controls.

[multilis]

Game of Thrones is irrelevant here. The point is that having Tarquin's child wouldn't advantage Laurin in the event of Tarquin's death, because Tarquin, Laurin, et al, have spent a great deal of effort making sure that no one knows that Tarquin is controlling an empire at any given time. So, in this scenario.

1: Laurin asks for sex.
2: Laurin and Tarquin have unprotected sex once.
3: This liaison results in a child that is successfully carried to term and delivered.
4. Said child doesn't come with an opposite-alignment twin.
5. Tarquin dies soon thereafter.
6. The Empress of Blood appoints Tarquin's infant child as his successor as general.
7. Laurin manipulates her child to manipulate the Empress of Blood.
8. Somehow, this is easier than manipulating the Empress of Blood herself, and preferable to just continuing to rule from the shadows the empire she already controls.

T has lots of powerful magic items, gold, and true loyalty of men, and knows who and what is really important. These things make Empire of Blood and all the empires after. These things can be passed on. Same reason that in Game of Thrones, a "general" is able to send the king to bed.

T is the one who really controls the "coinage and the court", he allows "the rabble to rule the rest, including title of king - quote from Dune book.

(Sorry, but due to board rules I can't use real life examples)

[Benthesquid]

T has lots of powerful magic items, gold, and loyalty of men. These things make Empire of Blood and all the empires after. These things can be passed on. Same reason that in Game of Thrones, a "general" is able to send the king to bed.

(Sorry, but due to board rules I can't use real life examples)

Or, you know, Laurin could just take the magic items and gold. And I don't see any real evidence of loyalty of men- Tarquin freely admits, multiple times, that he rules through fear.

[multilis]

Or, you know, Laurin could just take the magic items and gold. And I don't see any real evidence of loyalty of men- Tarquin freely admits, multiple times, that he rules through fear.

So do the guys I mention in Game of thrones who can send king to bed or have him killed.

So does the godfather of the mafia. Can the godfather pass on his empire to his son the godfather II? He is not the mayor of a city, etc.

[Benthesquid]

So do the guys I mention in Game of thrones who can send king to bed or have him killed.

Look, we seem to be arguing past each other. I'm not saying that Tarquin doesn't wield a great deal of power and influence. I'm saying that due to the manner in which he wields that power, it is unlikely to be passed onto his biological heirs by default. Nothing you've said has suggested that that is not the case.

[multilis]

Look, we seem to be arguing past each other. I'm not saying that Tarquin doesn't wield a great deal of power and influence. I'm saying that due to the manner in which he wields that power, it is unlikely to be passed onto his biological heirs by default. Nothing you've said has suggested that that is not the case.

Have you watched the movie The Godfather, and The Godfather II? Yes or no.

If yes, is the second Godfather the son of the first one? Yes or no.

Does the Godfather wield power more directly than T does? T has *official* title of general, he is officially one of most important people in city, and in feudal society much of that may be automatically passed on to whoever is heir. Sorry but I can't give lots of real world examples because of board rules.

As far as magic items, gold, etc. T likely has a vast horde, there are ways to hide it in that world, you can even buy people back from dead with it, and magic items can help make a single group stronger than an army of mooks. Small example is where T sees Nale, normally Nale's invisibillity would be powerful weapon, even X did not have it to see V, and the rulers of Azure city did not see invisible X.

[Benthesquid]

Have you watched the movie The Godfather, and The Godfather II? Yes or no.

I have not. I don't see how it's relevant, though, because Tarquin is not involved in a criminal organization with a traditional emphasis on family values.

[Kevka Palazzo]

I assume that Laurin is also bedecked in lots of magic items and gold. She's one of the six people who control the entire continent. She's also a powerful spellcaster, so she's less dependent on magic items than "So-far-purely-martial" Tarquin anyway.

Finally, why in the hell would she need to have some sort of convoluted scheme involving bearing Tarquin's children to get his magical stuff? I'm sure if she needs something badly enough, she could just ask the man. They did used to be an adventuring party and all.

There are no reasons that make sense given what we know that Laurin wants or needs anything sex-related from Tarquin. To believe otherwise is to admit that you can't get over the "woman = sex" barrier.