Suggestion - Gender equality "Battle Stance", "Victory Pose" and weapon idle emotes

[Hazmick]

I'm not too fussed about the animations, but the idle poses for sure are something I'd like to see available for everyone. I really like the male DRK stance, and I hear lots of male characters say that the female stance is the best one. (It's possible to get the male stance on female characters for about 1 frame, since it's part of the victory or battle emote).

[Videra]

I would like to see these animations unlocked. And also, I'd like the butler outfit to be made available to all, as well. Either way, supported.

[ScarboroughFairy]

I think it's rather unfair of you to assume I harbor some kind of fear or am offended by the concept of a man wearing a dress. And yes, I understand nudity in the game is obviously not allowable. I was simply taking your side of the argument to its logical conclusion.

What I do believe is that it's better to go with the traditional genders for multiple reasons based in faith, various sciences, and overall common sense (e.g., this study).

I'm gonna tap you for this one because an opinion piece article about a sociological topic written by a philosophy major does not, in and of itself, validate whatever studies that were mentioned within the article. Not to mention one study does not dictate the general consensus of a topic/experiment. Meta-analyses and peer review exists for this very reason.

This is not a rabbithole you want to jump down, my friend. And it was also a matter of time before this thread approached this event horizon.

[Leandras]

Lol at everyone in here that are so sensitive that they'd get triggered by two words in the title.

On Topic:
I like this idea. Anything to get me away from the lightning pose on GNB.

[Ceallach]

I'm gonna tap you for this one because an opinion piece article about a sociological topic written by a philosophy major does not, in and of itself, validate whatever studies that were mentioned within the article. Not to mention one study does not dictate the general consensus of a topic/experiment. Meta-analyses and peer review exists for this very reason.

This is not a rabbithole you want to jump down, my friend. And it was also a matter of time before this thread approached this event horizon.

Then let me give you another, which ends with, "In summary, the fundamental paradox may best be explained as a conflict within ourselves--a conflict between our biological and cultural heritage on the one hand and our more contemporary aspirations on the other," and, "As these mixed findings suggest, the internal conflict between who we have been in the past and who we wish to become in the future is evident in our lives as well as in our data. The same traditional gender roles that facilitate men's and women's attraction to each other may also, in the context of egalitarian social ideals, impede their ability to communicate and lead to dissatisfaction in their relationships. As much as we might like to eliminate such conflicting elements in our theories about human social behavior, our understanding might be better served by openly acknowledging and confronting them."

I would posit that an egalitarian view is incorrect. Certainly, there is a level of equality among all human beings, but there is no denying that men and women are not only physically different, but psychologically different. Disrespecting and eliminating such differences will only further erode our humanity, and give further rise to the cited "internal conflict."

[ScarboroughFairy]

Then let me give you another, which ends with, "In summary, the fundamental paradox may best be explained as a conflict within ourselves--a conflict between our biological and cultural heritage on the one hand and our more contemporary aspirations on the other," and, "As these mixed findings suggest, the internal conflict between who we have been in the past and who we wish to become in the future is evident in our lives as well as in our data. The same traditional gender roles that facilitate men's and women's attraction to each other may also, in the context of egalitarian social ideals, impede their ability to communicate and lead to dissatisfaction in their relationships. As much as we might like to eliminate such conflicting elements in our theories about human social behavior, our understanding might be better served by openly acknowledging and confronting them."

I would posit that an egalitarian view is incorrect. Certainly, there is a level of equality among all human beings, but there is no denying that men and women are not only physically different, but psychologically different. Disrespecting and eliminating such differences will only further erode our humanity, and give further rise to the cited "internal conflict."

Based on the abstract alone and the summary, I would posit that the egalitarian view is no more incorrect than the stereotypical view many in the past and today now adhere to. Gender roles and the concept of gender itself is a social construct, sociology has confirmed this. Women don't sport dresses and wear high heels because they're women, many of us wear high heels and dresses because that was something humanity, as a whole, decided it was a "feminine" thing to do. It's completely at the whim of humans for that to change. The "internal" conflict stems from what that very study implied: that it's difficult to square breaking away from a concept that we'd adhered to for so long, which is why it may considered more "satisfactory" to go along with traditional gender roles since there is a massive stigma towards breaking them/switching them out. It is, for this very reason, people maintain the idea that "women are best left to stay at home and raise the children because they're better at it". This is also patently false and diminishes the value of paternal parental units as well as provides a rather harmful and, dare I say, sexist view in regards to child rearing.

So yes, while I do agree with you that there are psychological reasons as to why this internal conflict exists, them stemming from sociology, it does not, however have a biological basis to it--not in the way you'd think. If you want me to provide the scholarly articles affirming this, I can.

Edit: And to address your point on the differences you've mentioned, I maintain that acknowledging the differences to the degree we have so far has already done a fine job at eroding our humanity as a whole. People aren't secure with themselves because of such a high demand that "traditional" gender roles are something that is demanded that we adhere to. Also, and I don't know where you live, but in the US, policy in regards to topics such as child custody is lopsided because of the ideas that you and others posit. I've said it before, this is not the rabbithole you want to jump down or the hill you want to die on. Nor is it something best suited for a forum dedicated to a videogame. We're getting off-topic.

[Ceallach]

Based on the abstract alone and the summary, I would posit that the egalitarian view is no more incorrect than the stereotypical view many in the past and today now adhere to. Gender roles and the concept of gender itself is a social construct, sociology has confirmed this. Women don't sport dresses and wear high heels because they're women, many of us wear high heels and dresses because that was something humanity, as a whole, decided it was a "feminine" thing to do. It's completely at the whim of humans for that to change. The "internal" conflict stems from what that very study implied: that it's difficult to square breaking away from a concept that we'd adhered to for so long, which is why it may considered more "satisfactory" to go along with traditional gender roles since there is a massive stigma towards breaking them/switching them out. It is, for this very reason, people maintain the idea that "women are best left to stay at home and raise the children because they're better at it". This is also patently false and diminishes the value of paternal parental units as well as provides a rather harmful and, dare I say, sexist view in regards to child rearing.

So yes, while I do agree with you that there are psychological reasons as to why this internal conflict exists, them stemming from sociology, it does not, however have a biological basis to it--not in the way you'd think. If you want me to provide the scholarly articles affirming this, I can.

I would first like to thank you for approaching this with respect and without ad hominem attacks, unlike many others on this thread. It's a rare thing to see. And by all means, provide your sources. I did so, after all, so I think it's only fair.

I'd also like to present this and this to your attention. The first, while admittedly a blog entry, was written by a well-published sociologist who pointed out errors in one of the most influential psychology journals to date. The latter is a study on reported effects of masculine ideals on gay men ("gay" here being the accepted vernacular for men who like other men in a sexual manner, not to be taken as an insult or anything derogatory in any way).

Considering the former, I would disagree that the idea that "women are best left to stay at home and raise the children because they're better at it" is a false, sexist idea that diminishes the value of paternal parental units. Rather, it is a correct one, as it takes into account the natural feminine capability of nurturing young on several fronts, including but not limited to the emotional and the physical. I would also point out that traditional gender roles have been around since the dawn of humanity, not because it is a social construct, but because it is the natural course for humans who follow their natural capabilities. This is an acceptance of our nature, not a denial of an oppressive culture.

Considering the latter, I'd like to take a quote from near the end: "Altogether, traditional masculine ideals may to some degree amplify the adverse effect that some gay men experience when compared to heterosexual men. In other words, gay men may feel pressured to live by the same expectations and restrictions that heterosexual men—whether it be as a defensive reaction or because it genuinely reflects their personality—while simultaneously experiencing some of the adverse effects of misogyny and sexual objectification that heterosexual women feel." I would argue that this is only to be expected, as human biology defies homosexuality. Certainly, people can live the way they want, but just as a belief that two and two make chair has an adverse effect on one's ability to perform mathematics, a similar belief that traditional gender roles are inaccurate can only lead to incorrect conclusions.

Indeed, there have been cases of even peer-reviewed scientific journals falling victim to such a mentality, abandoning actual science (e.g., this infamous story). Considering how useful a tool fiction can be in terms of shaping the ideologies of a culture, perhaps it is time FINAL FANTASY XIV led by example.

Edit: And to address your point on the differences you've mentioned, I maintain that acknowledging the differences to the degree we have so far has already done a fine job at eroding our humanity as a whole. People aren't secure with themselves because of such a high demand that "traditional" gender roles are something that is demanded that we adhere to. Also, and I don't know where you live, but in the US, policy in regards to topics such as child custody is lopsided because of the ideas that you and others posit. I've said it before, this is not the rabbithole you want to jump down or the hill you want to die on. Nor is it something best suited for a forum dedicated to a videogame. We're getting off-topic.

Ah, this I did not see right away. Fair enough. Perhaps I'm just tired of seeing real life politics in video games, and even more tired of companies that take political stances one way or the other.

[ScarboroughFairy]

-snip-

You've provided me a lot to dissect on the topic and, for the sake of abiding by forum ToS and with respect to the OP, I'll be including my responses in a spoiler bar. Breaking it into two parts because there's literally too much in my response.

On-topic, I would love the male DRK pose for my Lalafilly, please and thank you.

Part 1

-snip-

So, I read that first link, because I actually care about the scientific method and sociological topics of debate. Not every scholarly link in that article worked, a few were broken, but from what I was able to gather from everything that did work and what the article provided I can say it is, indeed, an interesting read at the very least. With that said, and I mean this respectfully, I don't think you read it and if you did, you would understand that it does not in any way prove your point. The main point of contention that I find myself agreeing with was that bit about the Simpson's Paradox present. You cannot gather a superficial and casual conclusion from statistical data. However, that small contention does not invalidate the whole of what the challenged article was provided. There is a small kernel of truth in regards to specific and certain stereotypes, but the mere existence of the marginal exception to the rule does not invalidate the reason for its exclusion. I can clarify on that if needed, but I'll do it by drawing a parallel.

-snipped bit about gay men

Again, I don't see how this article proves your point, it, in fact, does a better job of proving mine. Much like the previous article you linked in your previous comment. To summarize, gay men often find their value and attractiveness influenced by the concept of masculinity and how it breeds insecurity because it squares with having to embrace the typical gender roles of males vs. abandoning them. Something you point out later, but don't...seem to reach the same conclusion I have. In fact you go waaaaay out of left field by saying something that was rather disappointing.

[ScarboroughFairy]

Ten entire characters.

Part 2

-snipped bit where you challenge my stance on the inaccuracy of women being inherently better caregivers than men-

I understand if that's how you feel, but data suggests otherwise. In fact, I would posit that the success of child-rearing depends wholly on the stability of the household and not the sex or sexual orientation of the parents. Here are a few of the scholarly articles supporting my claim:

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentra...71-2458-14-635
http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/ffp10b.pdf
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-17268-001

Call it a cross-reference. The general consensus is that children of same-sex parents (gay/lesbian) fared no better than children of opposite-sex parents, so that immediately challenges your contention.

I would argue that this is only to be expected, as human biology defies homosexuality

Bolded the literally logically incoherent thing you just said. If homosexuality is biologically present in humans, it is, by definition, biological. It doesn't defy biology, it is quite literally biological. I'm also going to tap you for citing an article from a site with a very heavy, very well-known right-wing bias. There is a reason why I'm making an appeal to raw data and not HuffingtonPost or Daily Kos or some other such nonsense.

[Ceallach]

You've provided me a lot to dissect on the topic and, for the sake of abiding by forum ToS and with respect to the OP, I'll be including my responses in a spoiler bar. Breaking it into two parts because there's literally too much in my response.

Oh, so that's how that works? I honestly didn't think of using the spoiler tags for that, sorry. For the topic, I would say that I think things are fine as they are, and we don't need any further androgyny foisted upon us by the devs for the sake of a small, though vocal minority. There's even a thread asking for customizable pronouns for NPCs to use in reference to the player, which is even more ridiculous and would require much more work.

I brought up the study on gay men because, by definition of being gay, they defy traditional gender roles by making themselves more effeminate, thereby being an example of why going against traditional gender norms is unwise. As far as what I've presenting proving your point, I disagree. For instance, from the first link, "We do know, however, that, throughout the social sciences, empirical findings that contest social justice narratives often are systematically ignored, overlooked, denigrated, and dismissed." I've found this to be very much true, which is why I am so thankful that we can have a civil discourse about it. Of course, if the author of this blog post is correct (and the "infamous story" I linked to would suggest that he is), that would suggest an agenda being adhered to by those who run scientific journals, among others, in favor of breaking down traditional gender roles.

Before you object to my use of the word "agenda" here, I'd like to remind you that everyone, without exception, has an agenda, even if it's as simple as earning enough tomestones for the week. It's really just another word for "goal."

Are you familiar with the concept of two people with two different worldviews having the same evidence but coming to different conclusions? I admit it's a bit philosophical, but it could be that's where you and I are now. Everything I've presented so far is, to me, an example of why the traditional gender roles are superior to what we're seeing in our culture now. You disagree, and that's fine. I believe respectful verbal conflict such as this is essential for our growth as people, and so I welcome the challenge. But as far as what we see throughout history, things don't tend to last long under the weight of gender politics and political correctness. I'd sooner see less than more inundation of such.

I understand if that's how you feel, but data suggests otherwise. In fact, I would posit that the success of child-rearing depends wholly on the stability of the household and not the sex or sexual orientation of the parents. Here are a few of the scholarly articles supporting my claim:

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentra...71-2458-14-635
http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/ffp10b.pdf
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-17268-001

Call it a cross-reference. The general consensus is that children of same-sex parents (gay/lesbian) fared no better than children of opposite-sex parents, so that immediately challenges your contention.

Bolded the literally logically incoherent thing you just said. If homosexuality is biologically present in humans, it is, by definition, biological. It doesn't defy biology, it is quite literally biological. I'm also going to tap you for citing an article from a site with a very heavy, very well-known right-wing bias. There is a reason why I'm making an appeal to raw data and not HuffingtonPost or Daily Kos or some other such nonsense.

You say that, but the "no differences" thesis is hardly settled science. Further, the statement that "homosexuality is biologically present in humans" is probably the most logically incoherent thing you've said. Tell me, how do you get offspring via two men or two women without intervening with things like donated sperm? On the other hand, obviously a heterosexual couple can create their own children via the conventional method. Human biology is very obviously in favor of heterosexuality, therefore homosexuality is not biologically present in humans. Rather, if there was anything about sexuality to call a "social construct," it would probably be this. Humans have always been fascinated with the idea of claiming the taboo, after all. This looks much more psychological to me, for the sake of sticking to science.