Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

prof1515 · 06-19-2005, 12:10 PM

Actually, I put that quote in there for humor and to express the fact that to design something, you need to know a little about who's going to use it. As for my "concern over 'chivalry'" and my view of women, it appears you don't know much about me or for that matter people in general. As for the title, "the fairer sex" is a term that is used, regardless of accuracy, to describe women and I thought the use of "fairer sex" and "fairness" was a nice little play on words. You've taken it from that and turned it into "how (I) view women."

I cited one example. Sadly, I don't have the time to go off on a tangent and explain everything to someone who's upset because she's misinterpreted my words. Teaching people? That's my occupation. But as far as MUDs go, they're recreation, though they can be intelligent recreation that can stimulate one to learn more about what they experience in the game such as setting, etc.

Sadly, not every woman does view it on emotional and personal levels. In fact, I can recall one female I know who stated that if male and female characters weren't equal in every way, she wouldn't play that MUD. I've run across many others that weren't interested in a MUD where they felt they couldn't do everything a male can do (regardless if male characters couldn't do everything a female character could).

When one uses parenthesis to denote a direct quote, it should actually be a direct quote and not your own opinion posed as someone else's.

I didn't say your post was "knee-jerk", I said your reaction was. Your post was for the most part quite level-headed and accurate, but your initial response appeared, at least to me, to indicate that you were responding more in reaction than in suggestion.

That's what I've spent a good amount of time doing. However, I'm also trying to simultaneously avoid the pitfall of making female characters mundane, as was said by another poster above, while avoiding taking them too out of context with the setting.

While also ignoring the initial problem of fitting this into the historical period. You wrote:

Now, if these opportunities were not available in the said time period, it's impossible for them to be attained. As it were, there were some analogous roles in the period I'm working on, but unfortunately, it would have to be pointed out that they were still subordinate to men of supposedly-equal standing. Nevertheless, such opportunities (as possible) are going to be available in the MUD, for both male and female players but characters would likely be confined by their social standing and other relevant factors.

You went from discussing the MUD to discussing the problems of reality. If that's not hopping on a "Feminazi High Horse" (your term, not mine), what is? You took the time, in a discussion of how to make a historical MUD more palatable in spite of period limitations upon women, to talk about "21st Century women" and how they won't want to step back into a period where their role was different. I'm well aware of that problem, since that's the topic of this discussion essentially, and your reiteration of it came across not as constructive but as soap-boxing.

Actually, that's one of the topics I'm debating. Should suffrage in this time period, one in which women could not exercise it, be modified to allow women for the sake of fairness, since women eventually did win this battle (though it took a long time).

This is actually very good discussion and I agree with your points. The only part that has to be watched, and this applies to male and female characters equally, is that "opportunity" to become what they want is sometimes just not possible, both from a cultural perspective and a administrative perspective (for example, no vampires, sorry folks). But in both cases, that's something that applies equally to both male and female characters. As for worrying about it now, I’d like to try and address problems before they arise by being proactive instead of reactive.

Now, judging by the different parts of your posts, I'm going to work off the premise that you didn't mean to come across as a "Feminazi" and hope you understand I'm not as easily stereotyped as you claimed.

Take care,

Jason

*Entire post edited due to MASSIVE citation syntax errors. *grin* #### it.

06-19-2005, 12:10 PM	#21
prof1515 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Illinois Posts: 791	Actually, I put that quote in there for humor and to express the fact that to design something, you need to know a little about who's going to use it. As for my "concern over 'chivalry'" and my view of women, it appears you don't know much about me or for that matter people in general. As for the title, "the fairer sex" is a term that is used, regardless of accuracy, to describe women and I thought the use of "fairer sex" and "fairness" was a nice little play on words. You've taken it from that and turned it into "how (I) view women." I cited one example. Sadly, I don't have the time to go off on a tangent and explain everything to someone who's upset because she's misinterpreted my words. Teaching people? That's my occupation. But as far as MUDs go, they're recreation, though they can be intelligent recreation that can stimulate one to learn more about what they experience in the game such as setting, etc. Sadly, not every woman does view it on emotional and personal levels. In fact, I can recall one female I know who stated that if male and female characters weren't equal in every way, she wouldn't play that MUD. I've run across many others that weren't interested in a MUD where they felt they couldn't do everything a male can do (regardless if male characters couldn't do everything a female character could). When one uses parenthesis to denote a direct quote, it should actually be a direct quote and not your own opinion posed as someone else's. I didn't say your post was "knee-jerk", I said your reaction was. Your post was for the most part quite level-headed and accurate, but your initial response appeared, at least to me, to indicate that you were responding more in reaction than in suggestion. That's what I've spent a good amount of time doing. However, I'm also trying to simultaneously avoid the pitfall of making female characters mundane, as was said by another poster above, while avoiding taking them too out of context with the setting. While also ignoring the initial problem of fitting this into the historical period. You wrote: Now, if these opportunities were not available in the said time period, it's impossible for them to be attained. As it were, there were some analogous roles in the period I'm working on, but unfortunately, it would have to be pointed out that they were still subordinate to men of supposedly-equal standing. Nevertheless, such opportunities (as possible) are going to be available in the MUD, for both male and female players but characters would likely be confined by their social standing and other relevant factors. You went from discussing the MUD to discussing the problems of reality. If that's not hopping on a "Feminazi High Horse" (your term, not mine), what is? You took the time, in a discussion of how to make a historical MUD more palatable in spite of period limitations upon women, to talk about "21st Century women" and how they won't want to step back into a period where their role was different. I'm well aware of that problem, since that's the topic of this discussion essentially, and your reiteration of it came across not as constructive but as soap-boxing. Actually, that's one of the topics I'm debating. Should suffrage in this time period, one in which women could not exercise it, be modified to allow women for the sake of fairness, since women eventually did win this battle (though it took a long time). This is actually very good discussion and I agree with your points. The only part that has to be watched, and this applies to male and female characters equally, is that "opportunity" to become what they want is sometimes just not possible, both from a cultural perspective and a administrative perspective (for example, no vampires, sorry folks). But in both cases, that's something that applies equally to both male and female characters. As for worrying about it now, I’d like to try and address problems before they arise by being proactive instead of reactive. Now, judging by the different parts of your posts, I'm going to work off the premise that you didn't mean to come across as a "Feminazi" and hope you understand I'm not as easily stereotyped as you claimed. Take care, Jason Entire post edited due to MASSIVE citation syntax errors. grin* #### it.