I feel a bit sexist for saying this, but there are too damn many female leaders.

[LyriaFrost]

You missed my actual question and just responded to the Boys vs. Girls argument in this thread.

 

My question was not "Why are there so many women leaders" but why there are ONLY women in charge of everything in the Republic while the Empire, on the other hand, has ONLY men leading. I wanted it to be more even but apparently it's sexist of me to think so.

 

Except there AREN'T "only" women in charge of everything in the Republic.

 

You're taking 3 examples out of literally thousands of "leaders" within the Republic, and conflating that to mean "all of them are women".

 

Like I said, it's like walking into a massive office building, seeing two women and no men at the first room, and declaring, "Everyone who works in this building is a woman!"

 

It's ridiculous.

[JadeBranch]

Thread derailed a few pages back. Topic was discussed, then it flew off in a new, sorry direction.

 

Besides, for the military leaders such as Garza, the physical-aspect is a requirement nonetheless. And Generals only excel in education. When it comes down to the physical, they are expected to be the same as a grunt in most cases.

Yes, I know that, and was hoping to not have to bog down my post explaining that I know that. Those are good and true points. But as this topic is we are talking about the plausibility of female soldiers, not female leaders.

A leader is more than being physically strong, even in the military.

 

The discussion/argument is controlled into one single aspect of a leader instead of the whole of it. Maybe no one in the thread questions the validity of female leadership, just their strength. Or maybe people are just blind sided by the desire to prove they are 'more-righter' that other things ripe for discussion are forgotten.

Edited January 12, 2012 by JadeBranch

[Gustomucho]

I am disappointed by our Republic leaders. Satele is very boring, she lacks personality. I feel like we have the shorthand of the jedi order. If she is supposed to be the best jedi we have for the job, I am very disappointed by the jedi.

 

No wonder the empire is so well represented compared to republic, lord Malgus is very dark and very driven. Satele sounds like a needy jedi wanting to please everyone and without power to back it.

 

She was in diaper at the begining of the game but when her master died she became the best jedi for the job? okay...

[Sykres]

How come in a thread about female leaders, we are discussing pinpoint statistics and what-if situations concerning the strength of women versus the strength of men when we could be discussing such things as a male leader versus a female leader and the differences in how they display power?

 

Page 2. Some one had to comment about how women can be just as strong as men.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Sykres

[JadeBranch]

Except there AREN'T "only" women in charge of everything in the Republic.

 

You're taking 3 examples out of literally thousands of "leaders" within the Republic, and conflating that to mean "all of them are women".

 

Like I said, it's like walking into a massive office building, seeing two women and no men at the first room, and declaring, "Everyone who works in this building is a woman!"

 

It's ridiculous.

 

These were my thoughts too, actually. But without actually getting to know these big Republic leaders, seeing as how my smuggler isn't really concerned with any real authorities outside of flashpoint missions, I decided to give the benefit of the doubt.

[Raiellyn]

Yes, I know that, and was hoping to not have to bog down my post explaining that I know that. Those are good and true points. But as this topic is we are talking about the plausibility of female soldiers, not female leaders. A leader is more than being physically strong, even in the military.

 

The discussion/argument is controlled into one single aspect of a leader instead of the whole of it. Maybe no one in the thread questions the validity of female leadership, just their strength. Or maybe people are just blind sided by the desire to prove they are 'more-righter' that other things ripe for discussion are forgotten.

 

Ah, apologies for assuming the question was not rhetorical. I believe that the solitary-subject is mostly because people see personalities varying between genders more than biology and physicality. It's fairly common for people to state that women are weaker than men... but it is more widely-accepted that there is cross-over in terms of personality, so no one really questions that females could be leaders?

 

Just stabbing in the dark here, really.

[Gustomucho]

so no one really questions that females could be leaders?

 

I don't think so, I think they say the republic has too much woman power figures. Top general, republic leader... #1 jedi is a woman, #1 in military is woman. The only notable man is the Supreme Chancellor and I have never met him and I am at lvl 48.

 

Sure there are plenty of men in charge, but 2 woman at top of military bodies feels a bit overdone.. and as I said in my previous post : Satele is BORING.

[Raiellyn]

I don't think so, I think they say the republic has too much woman power figures. Top general, republic leader... #1 jedi is a woman, #1 in military is woman. The only notable man is the Supreme Chancellor and I have never met him and I am at lvl 48.

 

Sure there are plenty of men in charge, but 2 woman at top of military bodies feels a bit overdone.. and as I said in my previous post : Satele is BORING.

 

Er... Poor choice of words on my part. What I meant was that no one questions that a women CAN lead, except in the case of military as this topic demonstrated.

 

But to clarify, General Garza is only in charge of Republic Special Forces, not the entire military. We have yet to meet her superior, so it seems a bit premature to claim that the mlitary is run by a woman, though it very well may be.

 

The Jedi, I'll give you. But we've only ever seen four "leaders" of the Jedi; Yoda, Luke, Vandar from KotOR, and now Satele. So in the end, Bioware probably did it for a change of pace.

[LyriaFrost]

I don't think so, I think they say the republic has too much woman power figures. Top general, republic leader... #1 jedi is a woman, #1 in military is woman. The only notable man is the Supreme Chancellor and I have never met him and I am at lvl 48.

 

Sure there are plenty of men in charge, but 2 woman at top of military bodies feels a bit overdone.. and as I said in my previous post : Satele is BORING.

 

Out of curiosity, where does it say that Garza is the "top" general of the Republic military? She's *A* general, but there are TONS of generals. She's a very driven and noteworthy general (and is in charge of the spec-ops forces), but nowhere do I see her being listed as the "supreme high generalisimo" of the Republic military. She's the leader of one small branch of the military.

Edited January 12, 2012 by LyriaFrost

[Hyfy]

It's obvious that this is an exercise in futility as none of you will give any ground on the matter through sheer stubborn belief that men are inherently superior to women in such things, so I'll save myself the headache of debating with such idiocies as this.

 

I don't Know if it's intentional or not, but you are reading way more into what they are saying then what they are actually saying. You're gettin your panties in a bunch over something, when they guy said he isn't trying to be sexist.

 

Not only that but there is science to back up their claims of physicality of men in general over women. That doesn't mean, nor did anyone else say, that women aren't viable fighters or can't be good leaders. But there are differences in body make ups and builds that favor men in the physical form over women.

 

Either way you're getting worked up about it and taking what they said as a sleight when I'm pretty sure that wasn't meant or the case.

[DrMelhattan]

I don't Know if it's intentional or not, but you are reading way more into what they are saying then what they are actually saying. You're gettin your panties in a bunch over something, when they guy said he isn't trying to be sexist.

 

Not only that but there is science to back up their claims of physicality of men in general over women. That doesn't mean, nor did anyone else say, that women aren't viable fighters or can't be good leaders. But there are differences in body make ups and builds that favor men in the physical form over women.

 

Either way you're getting worked up about it and taking what they said as a sleight when I'm pretty sure that wasn't meant or the case.

 

The OP may not be trying to be sexist, but his post inherently is.

 

A lot of posts here are. They're not TRYING to be sexist (unless they are trolling), but some of them ARE sexist by pure virtue of what they're saying. The intent might not be there, but that still does not make it okay. That's why people are getting upset and making a big deal about it. Not only are sexist remarks being made, but they're also being marginalized.

 

For instance, you just said "getting your panties in a bunch". That's sexist, too. You might not have intended it to be, but that doesn't change what it is.

Edited January 12, 2012 by DrMelhattan

[Hyfy]

The OP may not be trying to be sexist, but his post inherently is.

 

A lot of posts here are. They're not TRYING to be sexist (unless they are trolling), but some of them ARE sexist by pure virtue of what they're saying. The intent might not be there, but that still does not make it okay. That's why people are getting upset and making a big deal about it. Not only are sexist remarks being made, but they're also being marginalized.

 

For instance, you just said "getting your panties in a bunch". That's sexist, too. You might not have intended it to be, but that doesn't change what it is.

 

Well I would of said boxers, but I am fairly certain that she is a she, hence my use of panties. It's not sexist it's ACCURATE! That and I think people are too hung up on what's politically correct anymore and let simple words get them all wound up tighter then a nun at a bahmitzfuh. No one looks at intent anymore, all they look at is what they perceive was the intent was. They feel slighted even if the person makes it a point to say no ill will is intended. And instead of saying, "hey I know what you meant but try saying it this way" they get on their soapbox and start preaching. Sorta like you did when I said panties even though it is technically accurate.

[Cozur]

For instance, you just said "getting your panties in a bunch". That's sexist, too. You might not have intended it to be, but that doesn't change what it is.

 

Then "You have balls" is also sexist. Now you can never say that again.

 

BALLS!

 

Eh?

[Raiellyn]

Well I would of said boxers, but I am fairly certain that she is a she, hence my use of panties. It's not sexist it's ACCURATE! That and I think people are too hung up on what's politically correct anymore and let simple words get them all wound up tighter then a nun at a bahmitzfuh. No one looks at intent anymore, all they look at is what they perceive was the intent was. They feel slighted even if the person makes it a point to say no ill will is intended. And instead of saying, "hey I know what you meant but try saying it this way" they get on their soapbox and start preaching. Sorta like you did when I said panties even though it is technically accurate.

 

The problem with the internet is... we have no intent.

 

All you see are the words.

You inject your own intent into them, based on context.

 

Example;

You are an idiot.

 

That could be an insult, or I could be playfully poking fun at you. Without tone, all you have is the statement. So it's hard to blame someone for getting riled up over text when there is only text to go on. Even an after-the-fact apology of "no offense" can seem glib and derisive, based on the reader's current mood.

[Duradel]

Except there AREN'T "only" women in charge of everything in the Republic.

 

You're taking 3 examples out of literally thousands of "leaders" within the Republic, and conflating that to mean "all of them are women".

 

Like I said, it's like walking into a massive office building, seeing two women and no men at the first room, and declaring, "Everyone who works in this building is a woman!"

 

It's ridiculous.

 

They are those in charge of everything. GRAND MASTER of the Jedi Order, SUPREME CHANCELLOR of the Republic government, Garza is not the high General but she is the face of the Republic military, and has MUCH more sway than High General Vans (sp?) as I can attest to, having played through the entire Trooper storyline. Saying it's equal because there are male officers on the sidelines is like saying women have always had equal standing the the Executive Branch because there are female Congressmen. We can just ignore that EVERY president has been male.

 

Your logic does not work.

 

I don't think so, I think they say the republic has too much woman power figures. Top general, republic leader... #1 jedi is a woman, #1 in military is woman. The only notable man is the Supreme Chancellor and I have never met him and I am at lvl 48.

 

 

You haven't met him because Bioware killed him off, and then replaced the only male figure with a lot of power with a female

 

Out of curiosity, where does it say that Garza is the "top" general of the Republic military? She's *A* general, but there are TONS of generals. She's a very driven and noteworthy general (and is in charge of the spec-ops forces), but nowhere do I see her being listed as the "supreme high generalisimo" of the Republic military. She's the leader of one small branch of the military.

 

Trust me, having played through the Trooper storyline I can assure you she's in charge. She gives orders to High Generals and High Admirals, and she coordinates many major battles (Battle of the Gauntlet, Battle of Corellia).

Edited January 12, 2012 by Duradel

[DrMelhattan]

Well I would of said boxers, but I am fairly certain that she is a she, hence my use of panties. It's not sexist it's ACCURATE! That and I think people are too hung up on what's politically correct anymore and let simple words get them all wound up tighter then a nun at a bahmitzfuh. No one looks at intent anymore, all they look at is what they perceive was the intent was. They feel slighted even if the person makes it a point to say no ill will is intended. And instead of saying, "hey I know what you meant but try saying it this way" they get on their soapbox and start preaching. Sorta like you did when I said panties even though it is technically accurate.

 

The saying itself is sexist. It implies that people who wear panties (usually women) get upset when said panties are in a bunch. Basically, women are easily upset. That's a sexist statement.

 

You could have said underwear. That is gender neutral. And not all women wear panties, so that's a stereotypical and generalizing statement, and not an accurate one. It's a sexist statement no matter how you dress it up, panties or not.

 

Even if there is no ill will, if the statement is sexist, then it's perfectly understandable why people are upset. If someone said something unintentionally racist, it's still racist. It's still demeaning to a group of people. It's perfectly understandable why someone would be offended by that. And then to have other people marginalize those feelings is basically like kicking a person when they're already down.

Edited January 12, 2012 by DrMelhattan

[Guildrum]

Out of curiosity, where does it say that Garza is the "top" general of the Republic military? She's *A* general, but there are TONS of generals. She's a very driven and noteworthy general (and is in charge of the spec-ops forces), but nowhere do I see her being listed as the "supreme high generalisimo" of the Republic military. She's the leader of one small branch of the military.

 

Except we aren't even shown the other Republic military leaders. Let's not forget she is in charge of the Elite of the Elite, which means she has a lot of authority over the military, more than any Spec Ops commander has in real life. That's like being in charge of the Navy SEALS, sure maybe you don't command the entire army, but you certainly are in a high place there.

[DrMelhattan]

Then "You have balls" is also sexist. Now you can never say that again.

 

BALLS!

 

Eh?

 

It is sexist, but in a positive way. "You have balls!" implies that someone is being brave or courageous like a man, which is construed a positive thing. "Panties in a bunch" implies that someone is being overly sensitive like a woman, which is construed as a negative thing.

 

Do you see the difference?

[Guildrum]

Except there AREN'T "only" women in charge of everything in the Republic.

 

You're taking 3 examples out of literally thousands of "leaders" within the Republic, and conflating that to mean "all of them are women".

 

Like I said, it's like walking into a massive office building, seeing two women and no men at the first room, and declaring, "Everyone who works in this building is a woman!"

 

It's ridiculous.

 

That's the same as saying "So you don't SEE any female leaders in this movie/game, Women may LOOK marginialized by what you see, but there are literally thousands of "leaders" in this game that we just don't see, and it's silly to say they are all men."

 

It's more like this, going into a massive office building, and seeing that everyone at the top of the chain is a woman, and saying that "There are no men leaders here". Because it's true.

[Hyfy]

The problem with the internet is... we have no intent.

 

All you see are the words.

You inject your own intent into them, based on context.

 

Example;

You are an idiot.

 

That could be an insult, or I could be playfully poking fun at you. Without tone, all you have is the statement. So it's hard to blame someone for getting riled up over text when there is only text to go on. Even an after-the-fact apology of "no offense" can seem glib and derisive, based on the reader's current mood.

 

What I mean is people will look at one small part and not take into con text everything that is being said. They impose intent on one small sentence instead of reading and understanding the entire thing. Poor wording on my part before. She had much more context from the OP but centered her argument on a small portion of it because she felt slighted when he made it a point to note that it wasn't his intention to do so.

 

Really I'd just like to point out the inherent hypocrisy in the women saying they want equal treatment, and when they do get bagged on like men do, they say and act as if they are being picked on. I'm not saying sexism isn't a real thing, it's something I see often in my field of work. I work in the trades with other tradesmen and they can be the most sexists people you'll ever meet, but in this case I'm pretty well certain the OP wasn't inherently being sexist, but is being summarily tried and hung in the court of public opinion in what was really a rather innocuous observation.

[Dantonator]

*SPOILER*

 

 

 

 

 

Call me stubborn, his health didn't hit zero thus he's not dead >.<

 

I refuse to believe that a man that could kill a Lord of the Sith (Malak) who was consuming the life force of Jedi all around him during the fight... was then killed by riff raff...

 

Nah, he isn't dead. Just did this last night and was shocked by it but when I think on what he says and then just disappears Revan will most likely pop up again somewhere in the timeline.

[Hyfy]

The saying itself is sexist. It implies that people who wear panties (usually women) get upset when said panties are in a bunch. Basically, women are easily upset. That's a sexist statement.

 

You could have said underwear. That is gender neutral. And not all women wear panties, so that's a stereotypical and generalizing statement, and not an accurate one. It's a sexist statement no matter how you dress it up, panties or not.

 

Even if there is no ill will, if the statement is sexist, then it's perfectly understandable why people are upset. If someone said something unintentionally racist, it's still racist. It's still demeaning to a group of people. It's perfectly understandable why someone would be offended by that. And then to have other people marginalize those feelings is basically like kicking a person when they're already down.

 

Look, I have a five year old daughter. They are just naturally called panties if women's underwear is beig referred too. It is NOT sexist. But again youre being reactionary instead of trying to find proper intent. You are taking it wrong for the sake of taking it wrong. So bravo for helping prove my point.

 

 

Edit in red.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Hyfy

[hushia]

What part of "there are exceptions for both of course" you did not understand???

 

 

I still stand by what I said that you have to be careful with generalizations.

There is no such thing as the 'average' person. Averages have to do with groups not individuals. To give an extreme example: half the population is male, the other half is female, thus the average person is both male and female.

 

You make it sound as if everyone is average but for a few exceptions. I disagree with that,

I'd go as far as to say that a generalization is hardly ever true if you pick a random person from the street.

[DrMelhattan]

What I mean is people will look at one small part and not take into con text everything that is being said. They impose intent on one small sentence instead of reading and understanding the entire thing. Poor wording on my part before. She had much more context from the OP but centered her argument on a small portion of it because she felt slighted when he made it a point to note that it wasn't his intention to do so.

 

Really I'd just like to point out the inherent hypocrisy in the women saying they want equal treatment, and when they do get bagged on like men do, they say and act as if they are being picked on. I'm not saying sexism isn't a real thing, it's something I see often in my field of work. I work in the trades with other tradesmen and they can be the most sexists people you'll ever meet, but in this case I'm pretty well certain the OP wasn't inherently being sexist, but is being summarily tried and hung in the court of public opinion in what was really a rather innocuous observation.

 

Just because you're not TRYING to be sexist doesn't mean you aren't, though. That's what I've been trying to explain and that's what a lot of people aren't getting.

 

The thread name itself is sexist. "Too damn many female leaders". Just think about that for a second. Can there ever be too many female leaders? In what situations? People sensitive to that statement probably read that and came into the thread with the expectation that it was going to be sexist regardless of what the OP said.

 

What he's really saying is that the Empire/Republic gender ratios are imbalanced. Important Republic leaders are all women according to him, and important Empire leaders are all men, and he would've liked to see a woman on the Empire side and a male on the Republic side. That's perfectly fine and I see nothing wrong or sexist about that.

 

But then he also says "Are you trying to say something about the masculinity of the Republic, Bioware?" And that's the statement I (and I'm assuming others, I cannot speak for them) have a problem with.

 

I also have a problem with the people who are screaming "There are NO male Republic leaders!!" To them, I say...So? And? What's your point?

 

And yes, I will agree about the double-standard of equal treatment between men and women but that's another issue entirely and I think this thread has been derailed enough.

 

I do wish Satele were less bland, though. I don't know much about her yet, I guess, so time will tell. the Empire guys just seem so much cooler!

[DrMelhattan]

Look, I have a five year old daughter. They are just naturally called panties if women's underwear is beig referred too. It is NOT sexist. But again youre being reactionary instead of trying to find proper intent. You are taking it wrong for the sake of taking it wrong. So bravo for helping prove my point.

 

 

Edit in red.

 

I already said that the statement itself is sexist, but I'm sure it was not your intent to be sexist. Read my original post, thank you.