Augestein

I agree. I know how it is first starting out, but I want to hear what you have to say.

I don't think Nino's tale would work in that context, because they were pretty much on the run. And Chad shouldn't be a rogue, he's a thief in FE6 which comes afterward! That'd be strange. Although, I do like the part with Jaffar and the Angelic Robe. I got a laugh from that.

I think what upsets people about that so much is Corrin just straight up let's him shoot her. Not just once, but multiple times. I mean I know if someone threatened to do that to my sister, I'd tear through them so fast they wouldn't even be able to say " I kid." Especially strange when you consider that Corrin is willing to basically destroy everyone in Kana's world when Kana wasn't even attacked. No I'll grant you that it's a child versus a sibling, but I think the point still stands here. In the case of Fire Emblem, this might be unpopular for me, but I can understand why they'd shoot a medic. All medics are practitioners of magic. You can't have a gifted healer that isn't also an equally talented mage.

This is one that would work as well. And yeah, I believe your conclusion is spot on. Basically anything to make a reason to need to fight Zola without it seeming like more of an excuse than a reason. Another one that I find weird is your servant. How does Jakob/Felicia find you later on in your castle? You're in a pocket dimension, and yet the servant does this because... How? I don't get why they didn't just give you both servants in the beginning. I guess having two healers seems like a bit much, but it still works better than what we got.

I don't know what to think. I'm still going to see it.

It's not necessarily that I disagree with you on the case of what you're saying,because stuff like this: I believe in all honestly that I'd have to be completely insane to disagree with this. My question was more of a question to get a grasp on your beliefs on the subject (primarily because the first thing I quoted prompted me to reflect on my own thoughts, and second because I wanted to hear another opinion on the matter) -- I apologize if I've come off as rather problematic in my questioning. I also know a chef as well, and she has talked to me about the problems in her field at moments as well. It's why I actually chose the example because I have some knowledge on the subject already. However, we can agree to disagree on some aspects, because I just don't think the true issue is a patriarchal one necessarily even if historically there is a bit of a correlation with it. There are enough people in my eyes that don't receive its benefit to its existence to where I feel strongly enough to say that the issue is not entirely a patriarchal one. Or at least, not enough to bother with that as a problem. I feel as though using males primarily in society is one of those aspects that keeps the power vacuum as tightly knit as possible -- it automatically ostracizes an entire subgroup without even having to consider them. I can see how one can come to the conclusion of "patriarchy" on it, so it's not as though I cannot understand why you feel that way. As for everyone else, I apologize if I kinda derailed it a bit on that note. It's one of those parts that's hard to determine all around. If we give the man the chance to abort and the woman does not, at best, we can have a man not having to raise or take care of the child while the woman does. Painful, but not as undesirable as the reverse. On the flip side, if a man wants to have a child and the woman doesn't, the child is effectively terminated. The man can't raise the child because the child can't be conceived, but forcing someone to carry a child for someone else to birth it comes across as even more unethical because as stated, the woman in question loses her autonomy. ... Honestly the right answer seems to be find a way to safely create an artificial womb in this case... Which seems to be coming along quite nicely (I'm not savey on birthing children so I may be wrong on this however). I'm sure both parties wouldn't be entirely upset about that-- well at least not about the fate of the child if the woman doesn't have to pay for her offspring.

He's okay, he's worse than Lena, but he's okay as a unit. He'll never be good with physical attributes but he can be an okay mage early on and be an okay filler healer.

That doesn't mean that he still shouldn't be around to talk about the subject itself. I never even said "50/50" or attributed any numbers here. The issue is whether he should have a voice or not. And the answer should be obvious from there. He should. Perhaps not with as much weight, but he shouldn't be completely stymied from speaking. And if that's not a good comparison, let's do other things. A woman should be able to speak on the draft, sure, she can't be drafted, but she should be able to speak on the subject. A person, man or woman, should be able to speak about living with a birth defect whether they have one or not; that's the only way we can actually have fair equality on these subjects.

Of which we are in agreement. But as the Blind Idiot says, there's enough people in the world trying to shut down men for speaking out against this or even speaking for instance. Let's use an example again: abortion. There shouldn't even be an actual debate about whether men should be able to speak on the subject. Under normal circumstances, children require a man to be born, so considering that he makes half of it, why are we even asking if he should be able to have an opinion on the subject? Instead article after article is hotly debated on whether men should even be allowed to speak on the subject rather than the actual ethics behind abortion itself. While there are articles on abortion, it's an absolutely asinine amount of effort, research, and time devoted to a rather cut and dry answer -- yes, both sexes should be able to address this problem sense both sexes are involved with baby making. And that's why I asked the question as aspects are deluded even nowadays and were always murky. Example, cooking. Masculine or feminine? "Patriarchy" doesn't address the problem because in this case it's not intrinsically based on the fact of "masculine" traits and more on not being similar to the people in power-- which just so happen to be men. This is confusing the issue more than anything else which is why I feel it should be stated. In other cultures at least, there IS some consistency with the masculine and feminine traits, but in your case, it's not just an issue with the men. It's an issue with both men and women. So we can't just slap "patriarchy" is the problem here, because it's not just a pushing of masculinity to power, but rather *enough* women are consistently pushing themselves, and feminine traits, into a powerless or at the very least, subservient position. At the very least, I believe that words such as "patriarchy" cloud and blindside the real problem. Of course, otherwise there wouldn't be a need for people to even fight for equal rights. And a white person can still be frisked if they aren't considered "normal" looking enough. The issue is when getting searched as a minority is immediately called out rather than actually being given clear, consistent rules for why people are being searched and it becomes lost in a swarm of individual versus societal prejudices rather than determining if it's a micro-level problem or a macro-level problem. I myself only seem to be searched in airports (and by that, I mean unfairly searched, as in I'm "randomly chosen" every single time to do a full strip search practically) , but the rule never seems to apply to me anywhere else that I'm on the move. I can't even begin to address such a problem because of the lack of consistency. So I remain silent on it because I can't understand what exactly is the problem in the first place-- and just screaming race for me doesn't work when I can't replicate it in various environments. And I'm not of a pure blooded ancestry, so we might not be from the same boat, but I do have a bit of an understanding of non-western society as well. In America, I'm not exactly in the best of states for behavior on things, and the problem is that I find certain declarations of problems more confusing and murky than actually helpful. It's why I mentioned women's suffrage for instance because this is a clear cut goal. Before the 19th amendment women couldn't vote but men could, and it had long sense passed that people of different races could vote, so the only people that were truly having problems voting at the time were women demographics (ignoring age with standing for a minute because I don't think anyone had realize this WAS a problem beforehand). I more so got to talking when we were getting vague things like "The pressure against those things for men is less in magnitude than the pressure in favor of those things in female" not only is that not necessarily true, but it's still no reason to shuffle things like this under the boss because it's dubbed as something of "less in magnitude." If subsets of people are still suffering from it, it's a problem when it's outside of an individual person.

They had them captive though. They didn't necessarily have to kill them in cold blood. They captured them fair and square. I'd say capturing all of the royal line is enough reason to force a surrender. I'd have liked the scene more if it had been something like : Zola had captured say Ryoma, Hinoka and then Elise and Leo by accident and was going to kill all 4 of them regardless and count them as "war casualties" or something. If it had become "rescue part of your soldiers that were threatened by Zola's actions but also help the enemy" it'd have been a bit better. Because at least then Corrin justifying attacking Nohrians would work here because he was killing Nohrians to prevent HIS Nohrians from being killed. It's kind of selfish but it's more understandable and considerably less dumb. It'd be like if Ike refused to use Ragnell because it wouldn't be honoring his father by not winning with Urvan. It's like... That makes no sense. Your goal is to beat the BK, so you should use the best possible strategy... (so a hammer obviously).

That's still better than a lot of weapons that you could be using against knights.

Yes, that's why I'm saying all need to be addressed rather than just one in that case. Saying "men must address it." Well obviously, but both must in order to actually have forward movement. It's not just a matter of talking about it. But the thing is, is that "patriarchy" is kind of a buzzword, because men that aren't in power don't get to decide rules either, aren't benefiting from these rules, and often times the people in power aren't making rules that help them.It doesn't work here because it's not truly just "patriarchal." It's a set of arbitrary rules that people in power create to continue to keep themselves in a seat of power. If it only applied to men, I'd be included to agree with it, but it doesn't. There are plenty of women with more power than several men, and they make stupid rules that hold people (women included) down too. .It's the same way we end up with problems with "white privilege." You can't really call it "white privilege" when it only really benefits people that are the richest of white people and everyone else has a dump taken on them just as badly as anyone else -- race disregarded. "Patriarchy" creates a false pretense that it's a "men catered society" when the reality is that it's an "in power catered society." It seems that way from a quick glance but it doesn't really touch the tip of the iceberg. "pussy" doesn't really work here, because it's easier to understand that being called ANY slang genitalia is a bad thing. If a person is called a "dick" that certainly isn't a good thing. But here's the thing, and here's why I hate stuff like this, what exactly defines "femininity?" Does cooking count as a feminine trait? How about sewing? You're taught how to do this in boy scouts for instance and it's a club that's pretty much supposed to "teach you how to be a man." The entire concept of masculine and feminine is honestly one that's poorly defined and simply has invisible rules based on the whims of the group you're currently among. I think most no individual levels are pretty neutral about things like that which is what honestly makes the problem a bit more obvious in the end of the day. As do I, and I'm not even sure where the term : "Man up" came from. It just sounds weird. It's like a more idiotic way of saying "Grow up."

I can agree with that, but the issue is that modern western feminism hits a weird spot in this regard, as if you're talking about equality, and you are addressing women's equality, men's equality must be addressed as well, or feminism ends up being what it's often misinformed to be considered: "fighting for women's increase in societal power, and not equal rights." The issue is that there aren't many issues in western culture where women aren't treated as equals. And the issue is that you have several cults of women deluding the actual problems by addressing things that don't matter. And often times, because of the mentality that the other sex shouldn't be addressed tends to cause vacuum arguments where other issues aren't addressed that can apply to both parties rather than just women. Like the instances of a man staying at home as opposed to a woman staying at home. Addressing that it's fine for a man to stay at home also addresses that it's fine for a woman to work. Conversely addressing that it is fine for a woman to work and a man to stay at home is the same thing. There's no reason to ignore either sex because the issues are one in the same. When addressed poorly, it comes across as a thinly veiled power grab. The problem is that it's like talking about the functionality of one's body without addressing the left arm but only specifically talking about the right. I can understand why one would if it's an issue that occurs if and only if the subject in question is a woman and only relates to a woman like say... Women's suffrage, where women weren't permitted to vote and men were. The problem is we get petty vague statements with things like "women are judged by society..." And that's not enough of a pressing issue to only focus on women for as this is something that happens to a person based on (but not limited to): their age, race, ethnicity, sexuality, background, or even familial ties. Long story short, in order for feminism to work, it needs to be addressing a problem that only applies to women. When it doesn't, it's bad because it's no longer searching for equality-- which makes it a rather self-defeating movement. This is why you see so many people throwing up their arms in frustration with feminism nowadays or even women vehemently denying that the are a feminist. And if that's too weird, I'll write it in a possibly stranger way for expressing my thoughts. If a man is the value of 50, feminism should be arguing that a woman should be the value of 50. Saying that we shouldn't even worry about addressing what the value of men are is nonsense because how can you even ever safely state that both sexes are equal when one is basically saying "men = x and women = 35, but women should be the value of 50?" We can't properly evaluate women value without addressing men value because that's what it's supposed to be equal to. Our goal is to make sure both of these values are equal. Because in the situation where we don't address men, men value could be equal to 71 for all we know, and we're low-balling the women by setting them to 50. I don't want that, and I'm sure no one else does either.

Maybe it's a culture thing, but how bad is winning through "dishonorable" ways in Japan?

This. It's sad, because I want to have a family too, but I haven't even really gotten started because of the whole money and work thing.

I think the issue is that Shadow Dragon's good aspects are subtle. Like... Fusing weapons subtle. And yes, the music IS good. I still remember the deployment theme.

Not really. Again, like I said, it's because it's largely ignored by people. No they don't. Especially nowadays. People do not pressure women to be homebodies more than against men to go to work rather than stay home. A man that doesn't work is considered a "failure" as a man, a woman that goes to work is an empowered woman. Of which it's still not that women have less freedom.

And on the flip side, men aren't going to receive as much help if they had a flat tire as a woman would by people passing by. Nor are they going to be taken seriously in the event that they DO have interests in raising their beauty standards. A woman that carries heavier looking objects is more likely to receive help than a man-- regardless if another hand would be helpful. And on the flip side, a man is pressured against even trying to be a "stay at home father." Like I said, I definitely don't see less for men. Just that people forget that there are perks and penalties on both sides.

Yes, I listed two examples for instance where a woman has a free choice with no ramifications and a male does not based on societal reactions. Both sexes have restrictions placed on them. I'm not seeing how somewhere like the United States has massive gaping problems with this. If you want another one, here's one.More people will make a bigger deal out of a man wanting to be a nurse over a woman wanting to be a doctor.

That's wasn't his point. His point was that men have less fundamental restrictions than women. I disagree.

Not really. If another female hugs another female and says she looks cute, no one bats and eye. If a male does that to another male, there will be insults hurled about, even if it's joking. Females crying in public rarely will ever be met with "man up." With a male? You can pretty much bet that it'll be said by someone. It's just that male restrictions are generally ignored.

I don't like it. It's an invasion of privacy, and we don't know if baddies will find a way to exploit its initial usage.

... O...O... Well I was a Roy x Sue shipper anyways.

Sain x Fiora is good in my eyes, I'm just too much of a fan of Eliwood x Fiora to want Sain x Fiora. Honestly I love Sain with Priscilla, but he doesn't end up with her. D:

She hates bright light on my gosh that's why she has shade.