Discussion in 'PanOceania' started by ThananRollice, Mar 25, 2018.
Had I had some better meme skills I would surely already started a campaign ;P
Well the female knights are there because that's what the author intended, and hopefully not because he's trying to influence his readers in some way vis a vis their attitudes about... I don't know, women in society.
You talk about the level of male vs. female inclusion as if there's some self-evident reason why higher levels of female representation in media are good on some inherent level, and, conversely, lower levels of male representation in same is also beneficial. I don't believe that, I haven't seen evidence to support it.
In the context of minis games, I hate to break it to you, but no matter how many powerful women the minis depict, there are always going to be a good amount of people who think the hobby is inherently "problematic" because white, nerdy men like it (regardless of who else does), and how it supports "toxic masculinity" because it represents fictional characters killing each other with firearms. I know of one woman who appreciates the WH40k setting exactly for its overwrought-to-the-point-of-absurdity hypermasculine motifs, and generally enjoys fielding her armies of orks and Khornate demons with a certain sense of irony. So in that sense worrying too much about if Infinity, or any other minis game, conforms to certain ideas about how women should be portrayed or how much it toes the line of left-leaning college-educated sexual mores is missing the point.
Your viewpoint naturally lends itself to the idea that, since the propaganda in art is more important than the art itself, or what the author intended by the art, art can and must be censored so that it conforms to the "right" viewpoints. And that's anti-art, because art thrives on freedom of expression.
I mean, nobody's provided me with evidence to justify the kind of ideological viewpoints with respect to male and female representation in the media, including our niche little hobby. Is it just that men have "unclean" souls and women are more pure, is that it? So there's a difference on a deontological level?
Just out of curiosity, have you even read the wikipedia page of Jeanne d'Arc?
Uh... yeah. She ain't a knight.
It's weird to see a debate on the politics of art where both sides agree with authorial intention. Isn't the author dead, my friends?
I actually don't think @Solar and company do.
Except in Infinity she is, of both the Order of the Hospital and of St. James.
That's fine, she's also an inhuman cyborg in Infinity. I was talking about the historical figure, since someone brought it up.
Well, even with the historical figure one could make the argument that she was a knight, with her actions in battle, generalship, feudal relationship with the Dauphin, ennoblememt and titles for her and her family based on service to her liege in war, etc.
You're clearly not familiar with what actually happened. She didn't fight; she held the standard, however. It was actually very important in her trial that she *didn't* fight, because that would have been another mark against her... lot of good it did her. Even if she was a warrior in service to a feudal lord, that doesn't make her a knight - that would require membership in what is basically a warrior society, which she never received.
Not necessarily. Her service to her feudal lord can be seen as a qualifier, since chivalric orders were a later appendage to the office, rather than a driving force behind it.
She was never knighted. Full stop.
Well, she *did* perform the prior act required of a knight, swearing fealty to her liegelord, and receiving the accompanying rights and titles of a vassal, so, again, the argument could be made that she was a knight. A warrior sworn in fealty to the sovereign, receiving titles and land in return for that fealty... seems a chevalier by any other name would fight as hard.
Was she knighted? Nope. She wasn't a knight. Someone could make that argument, but it wouldn't even be specious, it'd just be inane.
Was she ennobled by her liegelord in recognition of and with the promise of further military service? Yes, she was, which is what knights did... so, nothing inane about it nor even specious... she received honors and titles for service in war and in expectation of more of said service. Simple, really.
You are utterly misinformed about the issue, which is par for the course for your childish attempts at using your intellect. Joan of Arc was never knighted. If you could cite such an event, you would. Since you can't, you're reduced to this sort of feeble verbal flailing.
There's no other way to refer to someone that obtuse.
Well, your insistence that it must involve an order (which it doesn’t) and what appears to be an unwillingness to look at the institution as a whole, coupled with your customary attempts to play the man rather than the ball indicate a certain... unsteadiness in the foundations of your argument. Membership of a chivalric order neither was nor is a condition of knighthood, and the institution was a step in the ranks of nobility, which Charles raised Joan to. The reason and occasion for her being raised to nobility was her service in war in fealty to her liege (present and future), the key tenet of knighthood. So, an argument is there to consider her a knight, your protestations and ad hominem notwithstanding.