So andromeda initiative is all about girlpower?

Mar 6, 2017 7:11:35 GMT gaycaravaggio said:

So are you going to go on a crusade to talk about how various movies, tv shows, and other video games having a mostly male cast is political? Furthermore, your solution could easily be argued to be unrealistic as well, since the chances of an evenly split cast of gendered individuals in any subgroup isn't all that likely either.

I'm not against an evenly split cast, in general, but I don't understand why it is specifically some kind of agenda where there are mostly women leaders, especially since we don't 100% know the context in which these individuals were selected for leadership positions.

I don't go on crusades about identity politics, just not my thing. I do however support realistic representation for various groups.

As for the claim that 50/50 is "unrealistic", I'm going to quote an earlier response of mine:

"Keeping things close to an even split is apolitical and is actually rather realistic if the same number of males and females applied, and were chosen according to a meritocratic process."

Mar 5, 2017 20:40:34 GMT Lady Artifice said:

Is it necessarily preaching? If it's not discussed, not treated with special attention within the setting, does the simple act of involving something that happens to be politically controversial (like women in roles of authority) in the real world automatically equate to preaching? 

A writer's worldview almost always informs their writing, and almost any story I can think of is subject to that. Anything can be political in a specific crowd, but this example might yet avoid preaching. 

Necessarily? I don't know. Is it likely? Oh yes.

women in positions of authority is hardly as controversial as you are claiming. There are women in positions of authority everywhere.

What I call "preaching" is when a writer inserts something (often related to gender or sexuality) into the story despite it being unrealistic and unlikely, for the sole purpose of making a political statement.

(as opposed to something inserted simply to make the story more interesting)

Mar 6, 2017 8:05:25 GMT laughingbanana said:

More like "I think your opinion is illogical and has no actual basis on reality."

Work of arts can never be apolitical: the ones that build them are not some unfeeling robots with no emotions, no opinions on how the world revolve around them.

To demand that work of art to be "apolitical" is to strip them from what makes them art in the first place.

Also, I still really don't understand how Bioware is making a "political statement" by giving female characters positions as leaders and major roles. What is so "political" about "women can be as capable as men"? Why is such statement makes you uncomfortable?

That's not what you said. You claimed that what I said was actually a code for me being sexist, which is why I made my comment.

Art hardly needs to be political to be amazing. Most of the best pieces of art in the world have nothing to do with politics.

Stories are similar to a degree. You don't need current politics to make an imaginative (well, ideally...) story about a different galaxy, weird aliens, and other Sci-fi themes interesting.

As for your last comment, you really like misrepresenting my arguments, eh?

I never claimed that the existence of women in positions of authority is a political statement, nor do I object to such, I am merely speaking about unrealistic representation and BW's tendency to make political statements

over what makes sense in a realistic scenario.

Mar 6, 2017 7:40:38 GMT Lady Artifice said:

It's certainly a controversy in this thread, and this thread is not the first of it's variety on a Bioware forum. You yourself posited that Bioware's intent here is likely to make a political statement, rather than just being a case where numerous female characters happen to be in leadership roles. You've even just clarified that the qualifier to render an element of the story preachy is that it involves inserting something unrealistic. 

So even just isolated between you and I, each of us having such different perceptions of whether including female authority figures is realistic counts as controversy, no? 

Outside of you and I, in my experience it's always been very controversial, especially within the religious community. As a girl I was explicitly, verbally taught that women are unsuited to leadership roles. Most of my family believes that, both males and females. All of my childhood friends believe it. These are ordinary, often kind people, and there's plenty of them, very much believing that women are overall better suited to support roles. 

I still remember the upset over this one play the church theater group did about the Parable of the guests invited to a banquet. They cast a girl in the host role. That was good for a months worth of tension in the congregation. This debate isn't that antiquated. 

The "controversy" (or nontroversy, at least my part of it) in this thread is more about the likelihood of a political statement being made than about the mere existence of women in positions of authority.

Personally I only care about BW's annoying tendency to make these statements on the expense of what makes sense realistically, not about the actual number of females in positions of authority,

which I really couldn't care less about.

Is it realistic that the entire (or most) of the leadership roster of something like the AI is comprised of females? Doubtful.

Adding BW's propensity to that, and you might understand why I assume that this is more political preaching.