Messages

First, I'm not at all convinced that the debate of "sexist language" is actually worth the time some people put into it, because it distracts people from the actual underlying issues: it's treating symptoms rather than causes.

I agree that political correctness is treating symptoms rather than causes, and that trying to change language because it is supposedly sexist is completely vain and useless. But that is not what I am trying to do. The conversation led to the fact that masculine takes all as a gender, and I was mentionning that this is, historically speaking, not mild. While it is not worth changing the English (or French, or Spanish, etc.) language, I truly believe it is important to be aware of that.

My point was not with really with the language though ... although "men" is oftentimes used to mean mankind, my point was that in the founding documents, while the founding fathers might have meant "mankind" (I was not there so I cannot tell), the documents were subsequently used and interpreted as though they had said "men" as in "males". This is not merely linguistics; this is what has shaped America for the next few centuries.

And talking about history, why are famous artists always male? Can you name from memory any Classical era composer that is a woman? Chopin? Schumann? Schubert? Beethoven? Liszt? While these are more or less commonly known names, none of them are female. Is that to say that women are biologically capable of composing music?

I apologize for my, perhaps, vehement tone. As stated before, indifference, and complacency are two of the main adversaries in this debate.

Women are not victimized because everybody is actively seeking to undercut them, but because society has evolved on sexist roots, that is has never really shed---because they are not always acknowledged. (And again, women are not the only group on the receiving end of intolerance ...)

Anyway, I *am* turning in circles, so I guess I'll quit this topic and let others express themselves. Sorry for having more or less monopolized the convo, and thanks for answering me.

"Male dominance" in certain fields is the result of a unbroken cycle of social and psychological falsehoods inherent in, and perpetuated by, a complacent society.

Even in certain socities, where Women are treated as a lower sub-species of Man, the will to adapt and comply is still evident.

To fight for the "rights of women" is to fight an enemy that needs to expend no energy or resources in it's defence; the battlefield is empty.

As a man, I neither condone nor apologize for the society in which I am a benign participant.

The ideology involved in the "Battle of the Sexes", on both sides, is far too rigid and sectarian to interest me; beyond the fact that people blindly insist the battle is ongoing.

As long as you are *aware* of this, I don't think it matters so much whether you try to actively change it or not. Lack of awareness is what the "Battle" is about; lack of awareness is not benign.

Raggit, I am not in anyway implying that you are sexist. But in your haste to point out physiological difference--and I think, in your desire to express frustration at people that rigidly profess everybody is on equal footing--, you overdid it and said something you probably did not mean.

But that is not what (I feel) this is about (physiological differences). It's about why everybody laughed when that lady said about Hillary Clinton, "So, how *do* we beat the bitch?"; the belief that somehow, because she is a woman aspiring to a traditionally male job, she is worthy of a contempt? You can argue that this is Republicans talking about Democrats, but I've never heard a Republican supporter asking "How do we beat that asshole?" when referring to a male candidate ...

But it could mean that even in a perfectly equal cultural climate, we might have to live with one gender dominating a particular field, because of neurological predispositions. None of this ought to be relevant in a political discussion at this time, though, since there are other huge issues which are problems.

Perhaps, but I can assure you the lack of female neurosurgeons is not at all due to a real or supposed belief that women are potentially less capable neurosurgeons than men.

Raggit has told that genders are different...

Raggit has argued that the physiological difference between men and women is a sufficient basis to say that men and women are "entirely different from each other with no standard in between to be judged equal by."

I disagree that the physiological component is enough to state "entire" difference. Certainly it is a difference, but it is relevant to a limited field of issues.

Fisically, Raggit is totally right. The world's fastest girl won' t even win the world fastest man in 100 m, although the fastest girl in Earth will probably crush 99.9% of the guys in a race. Additionaly, she should receive as much as credit and respect as the male champion.

Be careful: the arguments you are using are potentially dangerous. How often do we get a non-black 100 m runner? And is that a basis to treat black men with a different set of rules than white men?

Agreed, about your linguistic point: it similar in other languages where masculin takes all. But this is not a gender neutral language. You have to ask yourself, at one point, why the "neutral" in a language coincides with the male--why are you assuming this rule is purely academic?

I am not assuming anything just stating facts which you also acknowledge.    The writings in question conform to standard usage of the language at the time of the writing.   I'm not an expert on the origins of English grammar but as you say other languages, in addition to English, use masculine pronouns to refer to all.

You are assuming: you are stating a fact without thinking about its basis, or questionning its meaning. My question is double:
* did the founders really mean all mankind when they said "men" (and if so, you have not answered my questions as to why women were only given right to vote in 1920--i.e.: centuries after);
* if they did, and if "men" is, as you say, used to refer to "men and women" (why not say "men and women"?), why is "men" the take all; why is it not "women" ... that is a choice that was made with intent (rather than randomly), as the fact that this rule also extends to many languages suggests.

In an equal world, a woman who wants to be a firefighter should have to pass the same mental and physical training that a man must, instead of just lowering the standard so she can pass so that everybody can PRETEND we're all equal.

First of all, this is assuming that all men are buffs, and all women are frail things.

Now, physiological/biological considerations aside, how is a woman any less competent to vote than a man; how is she any less competent to have a position of authority as a man; how is she any less competent to make her own choices, and why do men think they can take upon themselves to decide what women can and can't do?

When you say women and men are entirely different, it seems like you are heavily biased by the physical aspect of the question. Does everything in our society pertain to this aspect? Do you need to be heavy weight lifter to be a neurosurgeon? And yet, neurosurgery is a very male-dominated domain ...

I would definitely put the probabilities in a table with a big enough distribution.  I'm sorry, I'm too tired to be any clearer than mud!

The English language is gender neutral except for a hand full of pronouns such as he, she, etc.  It is correct English to use a masculine pronoun when referring to mixed groups or in a gender neutral context.   Feminine pronouns are used when specifically referring to individual(s) who are female while male pronouns are used otherwise.   So when the Declaration of Independence states that "... all men are create equal ..." the term "men" refers to everyone.   This nothing more than the correct usage of the English language.

Agreed, about your linguistic point: it similar in other languages where masculin takes all. But this is not a gender neutral language. You have to ask yourself, at one point, why the "neutral" in a language coincides with the male--why are you assuming this rule is purely academic?

Beside, on the choice of words, why choose men, instead of people?

I am not a feminist who's advocating we rebaptised History, "Herstory" or "Theirstory"!! Far from me to meddle with Shakespeare's tongue ... but simply, while the gender rules make sense now, because we are used to them, they have no logical raison d'être. Or rather, I would say: they come from a choice to prioritize masculine over feminine--and it is, I feel, important, to (while not necessarily repugnating that choice), understand that.

Also, it is on this basis, i.e. that the founding documents refer to everyone, that "progress has been made". 

When the founding documents were written, it was quite apparent, that when the founding fathers said "all men are created equal", what they meant was "all males are created equal" (and even then, they did not really think about slaves), they literally "forgot" about women---as evidenced, in short list, by the war it was for women to obtain the right to vote, and still evidenced by the failure to ratify ERA.

Hello,

Could you explain what is wrong?

Code: ags

function second (SecondOption param) {
  int RanNo;
  RanNo = Random(99);
  if (param == primero) {
  if(RanNo < 0) returno = 1;
  else if(RanNo < 100) returno = 2;
  //else if(RanNo < 0) return 3;
  //else if(RanNo < 0) return 4;
  //else if(RanNo < 100) return 5;
  }
  if (param == segundo) {
  if(RanNo < 50) returno = 1;
  else if(RanNo < 100) returno = 2;
  //else if(RanNo < 50) return 3;
  //else if(RanNo < 75) return 4;
  //else if(RanNo < 100) return 5;
  }
  if (param == tercero) {
  if(RanNo < 100) returno = 1;
  else if(RanNo < 0) returno = 2;
  //else if(RanNo < 60) return 3;
  //else if(RanNo < 80) return 4;
  //else if(RanNo < 100) return 5;
  }
}

From what I see this function has several problems:

* first of all, Random(99) returns a number that is either 0, 1 ... 58 ... 99, so the case (RanNo < 0) should never occur (and is thus obsolete);

* second: a lot of stuff is commented out (I imagine you realize that?), or misordered.

Right now, this is what your function looks like:

Code: ags

function second (SecondOption param) {
  int RanNo;
  RanNo = Random(99);
  if (param == primero) {
    returno = 2;
  }
  if (param == segundo) {
    if(RanNo < 50) returno = 1;
    else returno = 2;
  }
  if (param == tercero) {
    returno = 1;
  }
}

Is that what you are trying to do? Perhaps, you could explain precisely what is you are trying to do, as opposed to what is wrong?

BTW ... what, exactly, is a "ManJob"? It sounds nice!

My posts are not very interesting to this conversation, actually ... I let myself get overeager with my "feminist" agenda. I think it might be as interesting to wonder why male suffering is becoming something close to a taboo?

Again I am sorry Becky if I've made it seemed like all strong women have to order men around. That is not what I am saying. What I said was men who say (who think) they are turned on by strong women, sometimes have strong feelings against those strong women that they are subordinated to (or would have strong feelings against women they would be subordinated to). This is an implication, not an equivalence. I am not saying all strong women subordinate men.

But that is not really the problem. When I say subordinate, I do not mean in a affective relationship (such as that with your boyfriend), but in a professional relationship (a boss who's a woman, etc.). And again, this has not prevented women from climbing the ladder. This has prevented them from climbing the ladder with as much as ease as men.

On another point ... men are not the only proponents of sexism. As witnessed by the John McCain supporter debacle, not all women are for advancing the cause!!

You don't need to govern men to be a strong woman.

Becky agreed, and I completely walked into that one: what I meant was, I sometimes hear men telling me, "No, you're wrong, I think a strong woman is incredibly sexy." *wink* ... when they do not realize that they actually would have a problem, in a real life situation, to be subordinate of a woman. I chose the example of leader, because of Hillary, and how she was discussed in the article, but of course, you do not need to be a presidential candidate (or vampire hunter) to be a strong woman. :-)

Sorry for my unclear phrasing ...

Are Americans waiting on the edge of their seats for Hillary to screw up? Perhaps. Is she being bullied by 'all the guys' just because she's a woman? No, she's being bullied like any presidential front-runner would be, when it's getting closer to the actual election. People seem to forget that she is currently the most likely candidate to become president in 2008. Even the cordial Obama is taking his gloves off to get some leverage on the polls.

Agreed that, to a degree, Hillary is being debated agressively, because she is the most likely candidate. But some of the attacks, she gets because she is a woman. Edwards was talking about her skirt--I don't think any candidate would dream about talking about the pants of another candidate. Furthermore ... she is often referred to by her first name; whereas the men are referred to by their last name. Of course, you could say that this is because of Bill Clinton, her husband. But since he has completely left politics (as a candidate to various positions, I mean) ... then talking about "Clinton" would naturally evoke Hillary Clinton, in any context. You can of course argue that this is unimportant ... but sexism is not necessarily calling women bitches, it's also a small, accumulations of slights. Most of them involuntary. (Which makes them all the more awful.)

Monarchies are different in two ways:

I am aware of that, but since the point is not "women's ability to govern" but "American men's uneasy feelings towards having a woman at the top of the pyramid", the point still stands.

Agreed, but it's "men's uneasy feelings towards having a woman *climb* to the top of the pyramid". The difference is between a woman getting there on her own, and woman being installed there through rules established by men (the rules of that monarchy, the blood of a royal family). And the rationalization that, women are at the top, but in a insulated bubble that does not influence the world of men so much.

This sexism is certainly not restricted to America (granted there is a good deal of backwards thinking there). And why the anti American feeling? Did you see the mud-slinging that occurred in France, when a woman was the primary candidate of the socialist party?

Monarchies are different in two ways:

* first the queens are usually highly symbolical leaders; in England today, while there is a Queen, the political responsibilities, and day to day governing, fall on the Prime Minister (who, granted, serves at the pleasure of HM) ... in other countries, it might be a viceroy, or a chancellor, etc.;

* second the queens did not gain their position through success--they have generally not earned it through hard work, etc., it is a charge that they carry through blood, and hence they are not threatening, because it is not a position that could've been "gained" any other way.

Of course, there have been leaders such as Margaret Thatcher ... but they are the exception. And one might argue that Margaret Thatcher was not allowed to "retain much of her femininity".

[strong]

Careful, Buffy, on the contrary, was not an archetype of a weak, victimized woman. Buffy was actually a *strong* woman who, while retaining her femininity, fought off incredible odds. That was novel and incredibly on TV, where women are rarely presented as anything but supporting characters or bubbling mess. Only show coming close to that was Veronica Mars--a tough, attractive blond, who manages to face the (very) difficult odds stacked against her and prevail.


Our society is very normative (as discussed in that previous post about "am I asocial"): that means heteronormative, priviledging white people, ... but also extremely sexist. It is not normal, that important founding documents throughout the world state laws in terms of men (the declaration of independence says "all men are created equal", etc., etc.) ... of course progress has been made. Women can vote. We have a woman presidential candidate in the US (and a woman chancellor in Deutschland) ... but things are also very much the same.

I disagree that "we like to see women suffer because they look good doing it". I think the correct way to see it is, "we have not accepted that women are entitled to the same responsibilities, privileges as men"; society, to a degree, does not widely accept that women can be strong, that women can be successful.

(I don't think "CSI victims" is at all part of this phenomena---more plausibly, women are more prone to physical aggressions, because they are, on average, physically weaker then men.)


For instance, I don't know who watches much TV, but strong female leads are extremely rare. From Ally McBeal, where all the women where depicted either as airheads or dominatrix (Ling) ... to today, with Grey's Anatomy. In Grey's Anatomy, the character of Addison Shepard was initially introduced as a strong, confident and successful neonatal specialist. But the strength of her success antagonized viewers, and a lot considered her a bitch. That is why, to make the character more likeable, she has been made increasingly ditzier and clumsier ... Now the character that is getting her own show, Private Practice, is not at all the character that was first introduced. I find it terrible that this strong character had to be dumbbed down to be likeable.

That is sexism, and that is what the article is talking about.

Others example include Paris Hilton, and her friend. Of course she has acted like a spoiled brat, but I don't know how I would react if I had so much pressure for the media--so many people, tabloids, who live on my mistakes. When she was prosecuted for drunk driving, she was not treated fairly. On the base that she was not prosecuted enough, she had to go through an overly tough prosecution, and sentence.

Where is the male equivalent? Am I to believe that male stud celebrities don't get drunk? Don't get rawdy?

And next to that, real (male) crooks, who actually do destroy lives, such a Scooter Libby, get a jail free card.

Finally, Hillary, yes, she is getting agressed because she is a shadowy candidate, with some contestable views (and some very unclear views), for an office that has already been too corrupted ... but it's also because she is the first woman candidate (which is, of itself, terrible for the so called first democracy), because the odds are against her, because a lot of people are not ready to see a woman succeed that much. See John Edwards' comments about her skirt; John McCain laughing at a supporter calling her a bitch.

Yes, this society, for all its progress, is still incredibly sexist, and biased against successful women. But no, I don't think it's because they "look good suffering", or because we "enjoy seeing them suffer". I feel like strong women threaten a lot of men--men, who feel like those women are going after their jobs, or something, I don't know ... (and, no, please, nobody tell me that a strong woman is a turn on, because a lot of men say that in private, but are in truth not prepared to be governed by a woman).

Chris, you've done incredibly well; I just happened to stumble on a convo I thought I could add my two pence to, and decided to go for it  .NET is not relevant to the AGS engine. (Love what you did to the editor though! ...)

Any thoughts on ML though? (joking)

[limited]

Hello,

Thanks for your answer!

You are right about the platforms. But (and I'm not sure what you meant by "newish WM platforms") .NET is available on all Microsoft PDA platforms since Windows Mobile 2001 (or something).

Yes, I understand (and agree) with what you that an easily portable C++ version could be much more useful in the unlikely advent of a rewrite. On a related note though: I think (from my *limited* experience) that writing portable software is much harder than writing software for a cross-platform virtual machine (hence the undeserved popularity of Java ).

Insofar as ports of the actual engine are concerned, maybe releasing the game format specs would encourage ports. As you said, ScummVM's plurality of ports relies heavily on the fact that it is opensource (I'm sure CJ would share the code to a serious and motivated potential porter, as has been done with Linux ... but I'm not sure how many people volunteer without being able to get a clear picture of the amount of work involved).

BUT I truthfully don't have time to play on my phone anyway! And whoever thought pixel hunting was though on those old PCs would probably find a new challenge playing adventure games on a phone ...

And functional programming is the future, anyway 

Regards.

Hey,

Please stop me if I'm dragging this conversation too far from its originally intended topic.

ScummVM is extremely portable because SDL is extremely portable. (But agreed that C/C++ and open source also help ).

I also agree that up until now, portable usually went hand in hand with C/C++. I believe that this has or will change soon. What platform does .NET currently not run on (which you would want it to)?

(EDIT: all that said, I personally would certainly not wish for users to have to install that somewhat hefty framework to run an AGS game!!)

Hello,

C# and .NET are great for writing Windows applications, but C++ is much faster, more efficient and portable for writing games.

Actually that is not quite true. Or at least it won't hold true for very long: Microsoft has made it possible to develop games for its Xbox (with DirectX 10) using the .NET platform; it is pretty clear that they will aggressively push .NET (and are perhaps, possibly, trying to make it the defacto standard for writing game for the Xbox 360 et al.).

Beyond that, and still regarding portability, Mono is making great advances towards making the .NET platform quite easily portable in most every respect.

That being said, I'm just playing devil's advocate, as I certainly don't see what AGS would gain from being rewritten for .NET.

Regards.

Hello,

How many of you know what Scheme is ... and of those, how many think it would be suited for adventure game scripting ?

Just a thought! 

J.