Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Angle]

I've had this really strange idea floating about my head for a while now, and I thought I'd share it with you. You can do whatever you want with it.

It started when I was playing league of legends, and I began analyzing the various champions on the basis of how Masculine or Feminine I thought they were. There are several different roles in League (These are specifically about Teamfighting, not Laning), but they basically break down to Tank, Support, AD Carry (Sustained Damage), and AP Carry (Burst Damage). The tanks job is to get in the front of the fight, take damage, and keep the enemy team from blowing past him to kill the carries. Supports usually either use disables and debuffs to impede the enemy team and buffs and heals to boost their own team. Right now, there are very few pure supports- It's usually paired with either tank or AP Carry. AD Carries are responsible for dealing sustained amounts of damage to whittle the enemy down. They rarely have good defenses, and so need a tank or support (or both) to stick around and defend them. AP Carries are responsible from dealing large amounts of damage all at once, usually with the intent to instantly kill an enemy carry. Various champions fit into these roles to varying degrees, and there are other considerations- some champions have capabilities that step outside this rubric, while others can fit multiple roles depending on how the player builds them.

Anyway, I was analyzing champions, and I came to the realization that I could in large part categorize how I felt about their Masculinity/Femininity based on their role. I feel Tanks are the most masculine- their job is basically to go and break peoples fists with their face. AD carries are the most Feminine- they have poor defenses, and are thus very vulnerable, especially to AP carries, but are also very powerful, and are usually the most important person to keep alive/murder horribly. AP Carries fall in the middle. They're not as physically tough, and can't take as much damage, but they can do more damage, and generally don't need to be babysat (because usually they can kill fragile opponents and ignore low damage ones, which rules out either AD Carries or Tanks going after them alone). Supports are hard to quantify, because there are very few pure ones. They'd probably also fall somewhere in the middle, depending on their specific kit/build/stats.

This has some interesting implications. For example, my Rubric for Masculinity/Femininity (at least when it comes to champions in league) is based almost entirely on how much a champion is geared towards being punched in the face. This might seem strange to you, (Indeed, it seems strange to me), but do keep in mind that gender is a very subjective topic. Different societies at different points in time have had different views on the topic, and if you take into account the different views of the people and populations, it gets even more complicated. Thus, I find myself curious- How would you gauge Masculinity/Femininity?

It also brings to my mind the idea that perhaps we need not be limited to two gender roles. If we wanted, we could reorganize our society to recognize however many seemed appropriate, or if we really wanted to make things complicated, could instead recognize a continuum or multi-dimensional spread. Personally, I don't think they even need to be related to your biological sex. This may seem obvious to some, and like complete madness to others, but I find the idea interesting. What do you think? Do you have a particular set of roles to propose, or some other take on the idea?

Also, if you wish to post saying that I got my league roles wrong, you may do so, but I'd prefer you did it in the League Thread, so as not to clutter this one up. That seems like a better place to discuss league mechanics and meta-game in detail.

[Eagle_eye]

I see no need for gender roles at all. Masculinity and femininity don't really exist except insofar as our culture encourages people to adopt one of two sets of stereotypical behaviors. There's nothing about reality that says people with a Y chromosome must adopt some "masculine traits" and few or no "feminine traits", or vice versa. It's just another stupid tradition most people have yet to realize we don't need.

[Angle]

I agree that gender roles are subjective, but I also think they serve some purpose, or can, at least. I also think that they should be entirely optional, and decoupled from sex and gender (Which I suppose would make them something other than gender roles- just roles, I guess?)

[Neonivek]

I never really agreed with the "Big dumb guy who punches people and can take a lot of punishment" as even archetypically masculine.

Isn't the classical archetypical masculine stereotype basically an anthropomorphic donkey? Someone who puts everything on their back because they can take it?

[Angle]

I never really agreed with the "Big dumb guy who punches people and can take a lot of punishment" as even archetypically masculine.

Isn't the classical archetypical masculine stereotype basically an anthropomorphic donkey? Someone who puts everything on their back because they can take it?

In the context of league, those are pretty much the same thing, minus the being dumb and the punching people.

I'm not sure about the classical archetype- what time and location would you cite for that? Ancient Greece or Rome?

[LordBucket]

How would you gauge Masculinity/Femininity?

The masculine is that which acts upon. The feminine is that which is acted upon. Masculine does. Feminine is.

perhaps we need not be limited to two gender role

Then allow me give you an alternative.

 * Sulphur is the force which acts upon
 * Mercury is that which takes shape
 * Salt is inertia

Without the action of sulphur or salt, mercury is liquid. It is formless. When sulphur acts upon mercury, mercury can take shape, but it is unable to sustain it. As soon as sulpur stops its action, mercury falls back into a liquid. But through the application of salt, the preservative, mercury can hold its shape. This can be applied so as to resist sulphur, or to sustain its action. For example, when sulphur tries to give shape to mercury, salt might resist that change. This is inertia. Or, once form has been given to mercury by sulphur, salt can maintain that form without continuous application of sulphur. This too, is inertia.

I think you will find this model more usefully descriptive than masculine/feminine.

I feel Tanks are the most masculine

AD carries are the most Feminine

No. Dps is the most sulphur. It's role is to affect others. The tank is the most salt, as its more important role is not to do...but to resist being done upon. Toughness might be "masculine" but it is not sulphur.

[Neonivek]

The masculine is that which acts upon. The feminine is that which is acted upon. Masculine does. Feminine is.

I've seen people argue that about classical femininity but I honestly don't buy into it either.

Masculinity isn't all about being the "actor" and Femininity about being the one "acted upon".

After all a lot about Masculinity is about being the person who is "put upon" and shouldn't complain (Hense why I equate it to being a donkey)... while a lot of femininity is about being compassionate and wise, something that can be quite active.

Sure, gender roles pretty much doomed women to a passive role in society (well back then... a bit more nuanced but basically yeah)... but there was always more to being a woman.

Mind you I only go as far back as the 1950s, maybe a bit to early-late industrialization. So my viewpoint is from where women actually started taking on larger roles and where there were a lot of pushes to "remasculate" men (the 1950s was one of the big ones)

[Angle]

Then allow me give you an alternative.

 * Sulphur is the force which acts upon
 * Mercury is that which takes shape
 * Salt is inertia

Hmm. That's an interesting way to look at things. How would that correlate with other gender roles? What league role, if any, would be high in Mercury?

[Neonivek]

It isn't hard to see...

That is the old "Create, Change, and destroy" dichotomy.

Mercury would be any character whose main strength comes from being able to switch roles and tactics on the fly. (I cannot remember his name, but there is a character who uses melee and ranged... and can switch between physical and magical damage)

Sulphur would be any sort of high-damaging character

Salt is any sort of defensive character made to avoid damage

[Orange Wizard]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism#Humans

[Angle]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism#Humans

Yes, that would be the topic at hand. Do you have anything to actually add?

[Orange Wizard]

Gender roles have nothing to do with "acting upon" or whatever, but instead developed because males are generally better suited to physical activity. I have no idea why people disregard this, or say it is false.

I was also concerned when LordBucket appeared to confuse chemistry with biology.

[Neonivek]

Gender roles have nothing to do with "acting upon" or whatever, but instead developed because males are generally better suited to physical activity. I have no idea why people disregard this, or say it is false.

I was also concerned when LordBucket appeared to confuse chemistry with biology.

Lord Bucket is basically saying that instead of seeing "roles" in male and female we should instead use these three entirely non-gender related ones.

If I am understanding Her/him correctly.

[Orange Wizard]

Gender roles have nothing to do with "acting upon" or whatever, but instead developed because males are generally better suited to physical activity. I have no idea why people disregard this, or say it is false.

I was also concerned when LordBucket appeared to confuse chemistry with biology.

Lord Bucket is basically saying that instead of seeing "roles" in male and female we should instead use these three entirely non-gender related ones.

If I am understanding Her/him correctly.

Oh, okay.

They also don't make any sense, but whatever.

[Angle]

Gender roles have nothing to do with "acting upon" or whatever, but instead developed because males are generally better suited to physical activity. I have no idea why people disregard this, or say it is false.

But what about all the details of gender roles unrelated to physical activity? If that was all there was to it, then shouldn't we see the overwhelming majority of men holding jobs that required physical labor, and most other jobs, including politics and management, left to women?

I was also concerned when LordBucket appeared to confuse chemistry with biology.

He's making some complicated symbolic metaphor. I don't yet fully understand it, but hopefully he'll return and elaborate.