Koolcat

is wanting to be a wife and mother a requirement for being a woman?

why might OP be annoyed with replies assuming that this post is about being aroace or transmasc if a woman doesn’t want to be a wife or mother?

are there reasons unrelated to sexuality and romantic interest that might make a woman not want to be a wife or mother?

are there reasons unrelated to gender identity and expression that might make a woman not want to be a wife and mother?

core concept: what is gender essentialism?

is it gender essentialism to imply that all women inherently want to be wives and mothers? could this be what OP is critiquing?

look at the notes OP responds to. is it gender essentialism to imply that being a wife and mother is so affixed to womanhood that to not want to be those things means you’re incapable of sexual/romantic feelings, or not a woman?

Dragon Age: Origins is a Dark Fantasy (specifically, Bioware described it originally as Dark Heroic Fantasy). It has its light-hearted moments, but almost every single main questline is steeped in horror, in injustice, in facing the fact that the world is cruel and full of oppression and injustices. There are glimmers of hope, and we are given the opportunity to right some of these wrongs, but the game is still - at the end of the day - interested in being a Dark Fantasy. This is why the world-building is the way that it is. Our elves aren't like other fantasy elves, they've lost their history and are oppressed by humans. Our mages aren't respected and revered like other fantasy magic users: they're discriminated against and put in glorified prisons. Our dwarves don't have a thriving society overflowing with wealth: they're dying out and are clinging to a caste system that leaves most of the population disenfranchised with no way out. The game does interesting things with all of these world-building points, but all of these choices are in service of the Dark Fantasy genre.

Dragon Age 2, for all its faults, continues this trend. Hawke's story is a tragedy. They lose potentially both their siblings and their mother, and they are ultimately helpless to save Kirkwall. They are surrounded by persecution and oppression that they are exempt from in Act 2 onward due to their privilege as a wealthy human, and there is nothing they can do to utilize that privilege to aid the people around them. The elves still suffer. The mages are tortured and oppressed. Dragon Age 2 very much still lives in Dark Fantasy.

And then Dragon Age: Inquisition rolled around, and it felt...different. Markedly different. Suddenly the game wasn't interested in being Dark Fantasy anymore: it's a power trip. You're the leader of a powerful, militant religious organization and you get to command armies and conquer lands in the name of the Inquisition. The oppression is still there, but the game is much less interested in examining it in a meaningful way. Whereas in Origins your background allowed you new perspectives to the world, Inquisition's various backgrounds changed little other than what people called you. Yes, the Inquisitor can be discriminated against at the Winter Palace and can experience micro-aggression from various NPCs, but that's...it. There's no hard look at the Alienages, no further examining of the caste system in Orzammar, and the mages's struggles are swept aside in favor of "both sides"ing the argument with the Templars. Because in this game, we are now the institutional corruption. But the game can't examine that, not really, because it is no longer interested in being Dark Fantasy. Inquisition is closer to High Fantasy: it's about building your army, about fighting cool dragons, about feeling powerful and heroic and fighting the Evil Wizard Magister. It's about courtly intrigue, about showing up and looking cool, about getting to mess in another country's politics with zero repercussions, because we're the Inquisition. Our villains are no longer pillars of corrupt institutions, but extremist outliers.

And then, ten years later, we get Veilguard, which is not interested in being Dark Fantasy at all. It's all about building your team, about being scrappy heroes against impossible odds (though at least this time we're not forced to be the figurehead of an imperialist religious organization). There are some moments of horror, but the overall tone of the game is not Dark Fantasy. Which is why there is no real engagement with Tevinter's institutional corruption, with its long-held practice of slavery. This is why the game rips the Antaam away from the Qun and pretends like they were the only problematic aspect of it. This is why there's no true examination of how elves are oppressed or of the caste system in Orzammar.

And here is where the issue lies, not just with Veilguard, but with the series as a whole. Because these institutional evils that Origins initially placed before us were never meant to be challenged, not really. The Warden can make things better for their community if they so choose, but the level of influence they can have over the institutions in play is very small. But that's fine, they had an Archdemon to kill. But as the games progress, as we start to move further and further away from the Dark Fantasy genre, we also start to move away from seriously examining the corrupt institutions at play.

might there be a reason this post resonates with a lot of women?

can you describe the phenonemon of learned helplessness? give an example.

in what ways might the gender pay gap have influenced this post?

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

To the people of the United States of America, and to all those who, amid a flood of distortions and manufactured narratives, continue to seek the truth and aspire to a better life:

Iran – by this very name, character, and identity – is one of the oldest continuous civilisations in human history. Despite its historical and geographical advantages at various times, Iran has never, in its modern history, chosen the path of aggression, expansion, colonialism, or domination.

Even after enduring occupation, invasion, and sustained pressure from global powers–and despite possessing military superiority over many of its neighbours – Iran has never initiated a war. Yet it has resolutely and bravely repelled those who have attacked it.

The Iranian people harbour no enmity towards other nations, including the people of America, Europe, or neighboring countries. Even in the face of repeated foreign interventions and pressures throughout their proud history, Iranians have consistently drawn a clear distinction between governments and the peoples they govern. This is a deeply rooted principle in Iranian culture and collective consciousness–not a temporary political stance.

For this reason, portraying Iran as a threat is neither consistent with historical reality nor with present-day observable facts. Such a perception is the product of political and economic whims of the powerful – the need to manufacture an enemy in order to justify pressure, maintain military dominance, sustain the arms industry, and control strategic markets. In such an environment, if a threat does not exist, it is invented.

Within this same framework, the United States has concentrated the largest number of its forces, bases, and military capabilities around Iran – a country that, at least since the founding of the United States, has never initiated a war.

Recent American aggressions launched from these very bases have demonstrated how threatening such a military presence truly is. Naturally, no country confronted with such conditions would forgo strengthening its defensive capabilities. What Iran has done – and continues to do – is a measured response grounded in legitimate self-defence, and by no means an initiation of war or aggression.

Relations between Iran and the United States were not originally hostile, and early interactions between the Iranian and American people were not marred with hostility or tension. The turning point, however, was the 1953 coup d’etat – an illegal American intervention aimed at preventing the nationalisation of Iran’s own resources. That coup disrupted Iran’s democratic process, reinstated dictatorship, and sowed deep distrust among Iranians towards US policies. This distrust deepened further with America’s support for the Shah’s regime, its backing of Saddam Hussein during the imposed war of the 1980s, the imposition of the longest and most comprehensive sanctions in modern history, and ultimately, unprovoked military aggression – twice, in the midst of negotiations – against Iran.

Yet all these pressures have failed to weaken Iran. On the contrary, the country has grown stronger in many areas: literacy rates have tripled – from roughly 30 per cent before the Islamic Revolution to over 90 per cent today; higher education has expanded dramatically; significant advances have been achieved in modern technology; healthcare services have improved; and infrastructure has developed at a pace and scale incomparable to the past. These are measurable, observable realities that stand independent of fabricated narratives.

At the same time, the destructive and inhumane impact of sanctions, war, and aggression on the lives of the resilient Iranian people must not be underestimated. The continuation of military aggression and recent bombings profoundly affect people’s lives, attitudes, and perspectives. This reflects a fundamental human truth: when war inflicts irreparable harm on lives, homes, cities, and futures, people will not remain indifferent toward those responsible.

This raises a fundamental question: Exactly which of the American people’s interests are truly being served by this war? Was there any objective threat from Iran to justify such behaviour? Does the massacre of innocent children, the destruction of cancer-treatment pharmaceutical facilities, or boasting about bombing a country “back to the stone ages” serve any purpose other than further damaging the United States’ global standing?

Iran pursued negotiations, reached an agreement, and fulfilled all its commitments. The decision to withdraw from that agreement, escalate toward confrontation, and launch two acts of aggression in the midst of negotiations were destructive choices made by the US government – choices that served the delusions of a foreign aggressor.

Attacking Iran’s vital infrastructure – including energy and industrial facilities – directly targets the Iranian people. Beyond constituting a war crime, such actions carry consequences that extend far beyond Iran’s borders. They generate instability, increase human and economic costs, and perpetuate cycles of tension, planting seeds of resentment that will endure for years. This is not a demonstration of strength; it is a sign of strategic bewilderment and an inability to achieve a sustainable solution.

Is it not also the case that America has entered this aggression as a proxy for Israel, influenced and manipulated by that regime? Is it not true that Israel, by manufacturing an Iranian threat, seeks to divert global attention away from its crimes toward the Palestinians? Is it not evident that Israel now aims to fight Iran to the last American soldier and the last American taxpayer dollar–shifting the burden of its delusions onto Iran, the region, and the United States itself in pursuit of illegitimate interests?

Is “America First” truly among the priorities of the US government today?

I invite you to look beyond the machinery of misinformation – an integral part of this aggression – and instead speak with those who have visited Iran. Observe the many accomplished Iranian immigrants – educated in Iran – who now teach and conduct research at the world’s most prestigious universities, or contribute to the most advanced technology firms in the West. Do these realities align with the distortions you are being told about Iran and its people?

This is the average American's mentality toward countries like Iran. The way they completely get everything wrong and admit they know nothing, yet are still willing to voice their incorrect opinions out loud without even bothering to look up basic facts. I'm sorry to Pezeshkian, but this is the kind of cattle he is dealing with.