gender equality and social disorder

[Savagelf]

there are except like i like rogue armor and dragoon armor you get is awesome. but the whole gender equality is concern i think whole thing in really life does more harm then good. if someone in really life transgression they chance for live a long life decreases and not increase. out respect for them i hope Square Enix never allow male to wear female armor. there was studied done sweden that prove this.

[Noxifer]

there are except like i like rogue armor and dragoon armor you get is awesome. but the whole gender equality is concern i think whole thing in really life does more harm then good. if someone in really life transgression they chance for live a long life decreases and not increase. out respect for them i hope Square Enix never allow male to wear female armor. there was studied done sweden that prove this.

I... what? O.o I'm having a really hard time to interpret this. There's a study that proves that a man wearing a skirt has a lower life expectancy? And this is why a game should limit costume options?

Or are you talking about sex changes? Because that has to do with medical and hormonal reasons, not with what clothes they wear. And costume options in a game has nothing to do with it.

Edit after below post: Ah, right. Yes. Like I said, that's a completely separate issue and shouldn't influence the game in any way, just as this game doesn't influence someone's IRL gender identity. I'd have understood it more if you'd used that study as a basis for why they shouldn't have Fantasia potions.

[Savagelf]

like i said kilt are fine.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0016885 this what i was talk about sorry for confusion noxifer

yes i am i hope i not offend anyone by talk about it

i own you an apoglese i didn't realize that you want something different i am sorry. I do think male equal outfite would nice the outfit in question is something that vanille wear mainly

how this guys outfit smirks http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Sazh_Katzroy

[raymon]

Final Fantasy 14, the end of a legacy. How did it end you say?
Well, the devs eventually stopped producing new gameplay content so that all development could go towards the pressing matter of men being able to wear dresses.

Then, all of the people that play the game quit over the fact that there were no new dungeons, quests, or anything else that was fun.

nobody is asking them to stop producing content in favor of making outfits equal across both genders, and i do not think it will take the entire development team to balance this out.

[Noxifer]

1000 characters limit is too short

It really is D:

Besides slave women and slave men, I doubt women have been property, any more than men have been. I guess families made loveless political or financial alliance marriages, but that concerns both parties, not just women. Property is slavery, people you can mistreat to an extent (often up to including killing them with impunity), because they belong to you. Not people the law forced you to provide for under threat of imprisonment.

They certainly have been. Quotes from wikipedia hidden so as not to take up ginormous amounts of space.

Traces of wife-purchase were still seen in the law of Æthelberht of Kent, which stated that if a man carried off a freeman's wife, he must, at his own expense, procure another wife for the husband.

At common law a woman could own both real and personal property. However, in the case of a married woman the husband had a life interest in any real property: this continued even after the wife's death, and was known as tenancy "by the curtesy". Personal property passed into the ownership of the husband absolutely, with the exception of certain items of adornment or household use known as paraphernalia.

(quotes taken from Legal rights of women in history)

1734
Sweden: In the Civil Code of 1734, men are banned from selling the property of their wife without her consent, and both spouses regardless of gender are secured the right to divorce upon adultery, while the innocent party are secured custody of the children.[5]
Sweden: Unmarried women, normally under the guardianship of their closest male relative, are granted the right to be declared of legal majority by dispensation from the monarch.[6]

1753
Russia: Married women granted separate economy [9]

1791
France: Equal inheritance rights (abolished in 1804) [12]

1792
France: Divorce is legalized for both sexes[12] (abolished for women in 1804)

1810
Sweden: The right of an unmarried woman to be declared of legal majority by royal dispensation are officially confirmed by parliament[15]

1811
Austria: Married women are granted separate economy and the right to choose profession[16]
Sweden: Married businesswomen are granted the right to make decisions about their own affairs without their husband's consent [17]

1821
US, Maine: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse[4]

1835
US, Arkansas: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name[4]
US, Massachusetts: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse[4]
US, Tennessee: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse[4]

1851
Guatemala: Full citizenship are granted economically independent women (rescinded in 1879)[43]

1857
Denmark: Legal majority for unmarried women[16]
Denmark: Trades and crafts professions are opened to unmarried women[53]
Great Britain: Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 makes divorce possible for both sexes.
US, Maine: Married women granted the right to control their own earnings [33]
US, Oregon: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name[4]
US, Oregon: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse[4]

1864
Sweden: Unmarried women are granted the same rights within trade and commerce as men.[17]
Sweden: Husbands are forbidden to abuse their wives.[66]

1867
Portugal: The Civil Code of 1867 secure legal majority and freedom from guardianship for unmarried, legally separated or widowed women, allows for civil marriage and give married women the option to secure their right to separate economy by agreement prior to marriage.[70]

1872
Sweden: Women are granted unlimited right to choose marriage partner without the need of any permission from her family, and arranged marriages are thereby banned (women of the nobility, however, are not granted the same right until 1882).[85]

1873
US, Arkansas: Married women granted separate economy[4]
US, Kentucky: Married women granted separate economy[4]
US, North Carolina: Married women granted control over their earnings[4]
US, Kentucky: Married women granted trade license[4]
US, Arkansas: Married women granted control over their earnings[4]
US, Delaware: Married women granted control over their earnings[4]
US, Iowa: Married women granted separate economy[4]
US, Nevada: Married women granted separate economy[4]
US, Iowa: Married women granted trade license[4]
US, Nevada: Married women granted trade license[4]
US, Nevada: Married women granted control over their earnings[4]

(the above being a few snippets from Timeline of women's rights (other than voting))

If you have no legal rights as an adult, are not allowed to own property (or are allowed to own but not control property), are not allowed to earn your own income (or are allowed to earn money, but not control it), and all those rights belong to your husband (or father), and they are legally allowed to beat you -- within certain limits, because we're clearly not animals... How is that so different from being considered property?

Well, I heard it first hand from 2nd wave radfems.

Well, they tend to be pretty vocal, I'll give you that. But while a fair bit of what they say tends to be hyperbole or outright lies, that doesn't mean it's automatically not true because it's been stated by them ^^;

I don't know what you mean with the medical staff.

I mean that if a biological male comes into a meeting with a dr or a nurse or a counsellor in a skirt+blouse or a dress, saying they were born the wrong gender, the medical staff will most likely be more inclined to taking them seriously right off the bat than if it's a biological female coming in wearing jeans and a t-shirt. Of course, a lot depends on behaviour and how far you go to 'pass' for your correct gender.

And I hope we get to it during my lifetime. What's funny is dress-like garments were a unisex norm before pants were even something people wore except for horseback riding (and well, also before that). For some reason we're able to differentiate between judge robes and dresses, as something *totally different*. In French robe and dress share the same word (robe).

Oh, I hope so too. And yeah, I don't quite get how the Spring Dress (for example) is so much different from all the other frilly robes we have in this game ^^;

Except that feminity is not weak, it's just usually impractical (you can minimize the impractical if you're like me).

Oh, I agree with that, but the general populace doesn't seem to agree. Whether that's because "the general populace" is poorly educated regarding it or not is another matter, of course ^^;

In the past aristocrats were having an arms-race on how impractical they could be. Having extremely long nails was just one way you could show people "see, I don't tend to the fields, I pay people for that, I'm obviously unable to do it with those hands, I can afford to do that because I'm that rich". So impractical stuff is not a nefarious ploy by men to enslave women, it's historically a manner to show off for those who don't get dirty.

Well, it may not have been a nefarious plot, but the (religious) rules against women wearing said practical gear has the same end result ^^;

Men don't dress feminine because other men don't dress feminine (ie it's not popular) and because it lowers their chance of attracting a woman (women on aggregate nowadays apparently don't like when men are aesthetic-driven, maybe fear of being out-competed). If long hair and frilly shirts were something enough women liked (not a small fringe of a fringe), you can be sure a sizeable portion of men would wear them the very next day.

Which kind of happened during the 70's. Sadly it didn't really last =/

Now it seems long hair is counterculture enough for men. Apparently even in Star Trek: women wear robe-like garments and have long hair, men wear pants-like garments and have short hair. Even on worlds 500 light years away humans have never been to before, 400 years in the future.

And apparently Star Trek is made by human beings. Might explain why they misrepresent people from planets they haven't been on. Can't Google it. ^_~

Being "like a woman" is seen as a bad thing for a man, but being "like a man" is also seen as a bad thing for a woman, but solely out of being gender-nonconforming. Hence the negative reputation of sporty girls and artsy boys.

I haven't seen much 'negative reputation' regarding sporty girls, to be honest. The most negative thing I've seen is the whole 'women's sports get less money' issue. (There was a football/soccer club a few years back who splurged on new shirts for their team... the male team, that is. The female team got to 'inherit' the male team's old shirts. Once that got out, they weren't very popular for a while xD)

It's not at all about protecting their boy child from bullies, knowing that bullies prey on the crybaby and that school staff condone/ignore male-male bullying - or maybe that people in general have much less sympathy for victimized boys, crying or not?

Yes, mostly people have less sympathy for victimized boys and tend to ignore boys being bullied... Much due to the whole "boys can take care of themselves" thing. And if you need to specify that boys can take care of themselves, that kind of implies that you think that girls can't.
Of course, girls being bullied by boys tends to get ignored quite a bit, too. "Well, boys will be boys," and, "If he pulls your hair it means he likes you."

As for the color thing, well there is no boy color, so the reverse can't happen much.

Um... Yes, there is. Blue. Though since the 90's it's swayed more into the realm of navy blue, black and dark grey. But if you look at those "congrats to the baby" cards, you'll see the girl cards being pink and the boy cards being blue.

Maybe girls who got into violent videogames (any game with combat, you don't need a FPS for that) being mocked for not being into The Sims/dolls/insert-social-game instead.

Nah, just for being into games in general.

But that's not masculine. I might as well say feminine only means the positive qualities we attribute to it, removing all the "but I'm above manual labor and getting dirty, that's guy's work" feminine attitude from the list and only having something like gracefulness.

I'm not saying masculine traits are all good. But I assure you that men who swear and spit aren't 'acceptable' either. Yes, there's a higher grade of leniency when it comes to boys/men exhibiting rude behaviour, and women are expected to be polite and helpful, but only to a certain degree. On the same level, girls/women have a higher allowance when it comes to temper tantrums and passive aggressiveness. Both behaviours are rude. I don't agree that "avoiding manual labour and getting dirty" is an equivalent to swearing and spitting. That's more an equivalent to "I'm above doing household chores or changing diapers, that's her job".

And yes, strength and leadership and such things are generally considered to be masculine traits.
Other things, like empathy, patience, nurturing (among others) are generally considered to be feminine traits.

(I have to say I really enjoy this discussion with you ^^; )

[SchalaZeal]

About women being property:

Your wikipedia quotes are not about women being owned but about women owning property. For the record, most people are not (and were not) landowners, although a lot of people aspire to being owner rather than renter. It was even more rare in the past when the rich-poor difference was even more blatant than today (it's slowly getting worse but it was good right after WW2).

I could say children are property and that property it owned by a family, and that beatings are not legal. Also that female-on-male beatings have rarely been prosecuted as outright crimes the way the reverse was. Some places even further humiliate the victimized man rather than help him.

I mean that if a biological male comes into a meeting with a dr or a nurse or a counsellor in a skirt+blouse or a dress, saying they were born the wrong gender, the medical staff will most likely be more inclined to taking them seriously right off the bat than if it's a biological female coming in wearing jeans and a t-shirt. Of course, a lot depends on behaviour and how far you go to 'pass' for your correct gender.

Can't say I was treated more seriously for being a trans woman than a trans man would have been. And I don't see why they would see it more seriously. Medical staff or not, most people see it as either serious, or as delusion, with a few who hold a verdict to be convinced overall, or about a specific person (ie wouldn't believe someone is trans outright, but is open at the possibility of trans people existing and that person being trans).

I've had a psychiatrist basically treat me with disdain as if I was a flaming gay man, who "obviously" wasn't a real woman, like her, and would probably be inclined to be a hairdresser or air hostess - that everyone would guess within a mile around was trans. I still got my diagnosis (necessary to get a endocrinologist and legal name change), but I'm not exactly fond of her. I went to see her 2 years into transition, to replace my family doctor who was ignorant about HRT. I had seen a psychiatrist before my transition, but was dismissed as not really trans. So I didn't go back to that guy. I transitioned over 9 years ago, the 1st guy's dismissal was unfounded.

Well, it may not have been a nefarious plot, but the (religious) rules against women wearing said practical gear has the same end result ^^

Robes and dresses are not that impractical. Long nails (at least enough to hinder manual work), make-up, a special hairdo, or a very large hat. Now that's impractical. I can do pretty much everything I already do, wearing a dress. I just tend to only some of the time. If I owned more skirts to my liking, I might wear more. Not fond of pencil skirts. I think the stuff I named that is impractical are pretty optional for most, and have been before. Even when women (and men) had to be covered, they didn't need a whole fruit basket on their head.

I haven't seen much 'negative reputation' regarding sporty girls, to be honest.

Mostly the whole "she must be lesbian", or inference of too-masculine. Similar to a guy in dancing, ballet jazz or figure skating being seem as gay or effeminate. This is especially true of kids and teens, less of adults.

Much due to the whole "boys can take care of themselves" thing. And if you need to specify that boys can take care of themselves, that kind of implies that you think that girls can't.

Being assumed independent is nice when you are, not when you're not. Unfortunately its not a toggle. So the victims would probably prefer help to dignity they're never gonna benefit from. I'd rather get helped than tough love. I was bullied a lot as a kid, and I learned from the bullying to hide my emotions. Because the emotions triggered more bullying.

Of course, girls being bullied by boys tends to get ignored quite a bit, too. "Well, boys will be boys," and, "If he pulls your hair it means he likes you."

Until everyone learns "never hit a girl, even in self-defense", as if beating guys to a pulp is fine, but girls are precious and worthy, don't hurt them.

Um... Yes, there is. Blue. Though since the 90's it's swayed more into the realm of navy blue, black and dark grey. But if you look at those "congrats to the baby" cards, you'll see the girl cards being pink and the boy cards being blue.

Seen girls being mocked for blue? Then its not a boy color. It has to be exclusive or its neutral.

[Savagelf]

this game that kids that 13 and up play i don't believe in any way we bring something make them or they parents feel they children are unsafe play on. picture this what would happen sudeny legian fail for blizzard they playbase head square direction. it might best not take something make them less like come here. I like Square Enix be around a long time and ffxiv as well thank you very much

[Roegadyn_Bear]

Good lord this thread derailed so hard.

[Colorful]

Good lord this thread derailed so hard.

There's no way someone that's spent even a week on the forums wouldn't have expected a thread about this subject to derail anyway.

[Roegadyn_Bear]

There's no way someone that's spent even a week on the forums wouldn't have expected a thread about this subject to derail anyway.

Fair enough, the thread title alone was basically gasoline waiting for a fire.