Talk:The Heart/Quotes/@comment-49.144.212.154-20130617093109/@comment-50.198.43.76-20140811174855

It bothers me because an incredibly speculative conclusion of "OMG SEXISM EVERYWHERE" is being passed off as indisputable fact in this thread and in much of fandom when the information we have at hand is really inconclusive. I guess I apologise for being late on this juncture, but I didn't play this game til last week, so I'm gonna have to be a bit behind on this and all other discussions. But I mean, it's funny that you bring up that my conclusion about the role of the Church of the Everyman conflates Dunwall with the real world because that seems to be largely the case with the basis of the sexism charge. The accusation of sexism assumes that, because male privilege, male inheritance, male patriarchy exists in the real world (which is also a series of assumptions we can debate, but probably not appropriately in this context) that it exists in Dunwall. It assumes that the incredibly limited amount of information we are given can be taken as a pattern indicative of the entire rest of this fictional world because the information fits patterns we see IRL. 

  

For that matter though, religious institutions are by their nature conservative in function. Any institution that is set up to "safeguard morality and tradition" is going to be against change/progress because morality and tradition are, again, by their nature, stagnant concepts. They're supposed to be "right" across all contexts and situations, so of course it's going to resist any attempt to modernise, because if you're already right, then any change is wrong. If you don't prefer real life examples of conservative religious groups, we can look at just about any fictional religious group out there in existence . That's the reason why the "rebel against the establishment" trope in fiction works really well when the establishment is a religious group. That's the reason why is so goddamn common. 

  

The fact that the Church gets authority over religious crimes doesn't mean they have civil authority. The City Watch very clearly operates in a civil capacity (upholding curfew, keeping civilians out of off-limit areas), whereas the Church's authority is concerned with heresy and other Outsider bullshit. The fact that they are allowed habeas corpus is indicative only that the Church operates in conjunction with the City Watch as a function of government. Taking historical examples, because those are the easiest for me to reach for, they would be the equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition who were part of the Catholic Church as their own institution but who had a say in the running of the country as well. 

<span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">  <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">The fact that you're assuming parliamentarians are elected is another thing that doesn't really get supported in the information we get from canon. I would argue that the assumption that parliamentarians get their position through inheritance has a much stronger case, seeing as when Morgan and Custis get knocked off the map, their votes aren't reassigned to a district for reelection but are instead transferred directly to their younger brother. This would seem to indicate that political power in Dunwall is determined by primogeniture rather than democracy. This would also be supported by Jessamine's path to power as an heir born to her position (echoed by her audiograph to Emily where she says something along the lines of "you didn't ask to be born the daughter of an empress") rather than as something she worked into. <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">  <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">I hesitate to call self-selection into fields of employment as proof of systemic sexism, but again, that's an argument for another time. In any case, I'm not sure how to approach the links you provide to me for proof of gender bias in employment because, previously, you had resisted my use of a real life example as "conflation". I guess the same question can be asked of you that you asked of me: how do you know that's how gender politics work in Dunwall? <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">  <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">To approach your argument at face value though, we know that Callista wasn't allowed to become a whaler because "alas she is a woman". I don't want to sound like a broken record here, but that's still inconclusive of any definite fact of systemic sexism. All we can know for sure is that there might be sexism within Dunwall's whaling industry. Again, to bring real life examples into this (I'm not sure if you find these appropriate, but they're what I have to pull from), but it wasn't until 1985 that women were allowed in military submarines anywhere in the world. I don't think it's up for argument that by 1985, women were permitted into all sorts of fields of employment; I'd hazard to say pretty much every field of employment. Yet here we still were, one industry resolutely sticking to sexism til 19 frickin 85. That doesn't mean the rest of society was sexist (or as sexist as they were, to fit the REAL WORLD IS SEXIST narrative we're pushing here), that just means that one industry was. <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">  <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">Teachers are subservient because they work under another authority....god jesus, then by this standard, what work or career ISN'T subservient other than literally rulers, emperors, and world dictators? Even CEOs are held accountable and employed by their boards of directors. I'm not insulted by this line of reasoning, I'm honestly just baffled. Nearly everyone has to work for someone. That's not sexist, that's just economics.

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">In any case, how is Callista subservient? She mentions several times that she chose to be a part of the Loyalists because she was assured that they were working for a good cause. She wasn't pushed into it; she chose. She tells Piero that she is doing him a favour as a colleague when she brings him tea: they are equals and she is insistent upon that fact. She doesn't have a say in where to send Corvo next on his missions, sure, but neither does Piero because they aren't qualified to do so. Their specialties lie in different areas. Strategic/political thinking is left to the members of the Loyalists who have experience in those fields. Again, this isn't sexism, this is just how skill diversity works. No one wants a computer engineer telling you how to do your plumbing; no one wants a botanist advising on how to launch a space shuttle. <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">  <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">We don't see any women in any other occupations, except we totally do. <span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;"> We are also given the evidence of Lady Protectors, which would seem to indicate that the military/martial field is open to women. <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;"> Morgan's prostitute was a clerk for Lord Estermont  (she says so directly ). She has since fallen on hard times and gone into prostitution, presumably because the entire country's economy has collapsed into shit. That's not sexism's fault, that's the plague. I would argue that of the industries that were assured to continue during a rat plague, prostitution is a pretty rat plague-resistant field of work. (I specify rat plague because if the plague were spread through other means i.e. close contact, a whorehouse might not be such a good stock option). Dicks will always want to get wet, kind of thing; is that sexist? (Maybe, but then all prostitution is sexist -- or is it empowering? Depends which feminist narrative you go with). It makes sense in the context of the situation at hand that a whore house would stay open, actively employing workers when other industries (luxury fine goods in Drapers Ward, for instance) would have closed. <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">  <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">(Apropos: I don't like the argument "oh, this is the situation because the devs willed it so" in this case, or most cases, tbh, because we should try to make things work within the logic of the world established. Otherwise, everything can be handwaved by "the creator made it so", which is kind of a copout path of reasoning) <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">  <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">I don't think it's fair to discount Abigail Ames as an exception to the rule because "she's the only one we see" when your previous argument about the makeup of parliament being predominantly male also relies on "they're the only ones we see". Either the examples we see can be taken as indicative of the state of the situation in Dunwall or they can't. It's inconsistent to have it both ways, just to suit whatever political narrative is convenient. <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">  <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">I assume no one's talking shit about Jessamine behind her back because the in-game evidence would seem to suggest that she was immensely popular amongst the people. The offhand lines we hear about her all concern how much better Dunwall was when she was in power ("everything was fine but then that idiot Corvo had to go and kill the empress"; "not everybody did, but I really liked the empress" << note how, in contrast, we never hear a line about "I'm glad she's dead; the empress sucked"), which would seem to indicate that people held her in high regard and with great respect. The graffiti we see throughout the game praising her rule ("Long live the empress") along with the forgiving way she is talked about in history books ("no one could have been prepared for this plague")  would also seem to indicate that she was much loved and respected. <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">  <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">Again, of course this is speculative but then everything is speculative. They might've been talking shit about her out of earshot (not sure why they'd bother; it's not like they know Corvo is spying on them when they say these lines), but then again, they might all also be lizard people. We are not given indication that she was disrespected; I can't go about proving a negative. <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">  <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">Pendleton's quote about Corvo screwing Jessamine is being taken kind of really out of context. At this point, he was just trying to get under Corvo's skin. It's not indicative of any normal state of mind or any normal sentiment; the guy had a death wish. He would try to denigrate Jessamine to that effect; by implying that Jessamine was somehow "lower" than Corvo (by your reasoning) at that point would serve his purpose. <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">  <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">I'm going to reject your claim about the -isms intertwining here because I don't see evidence of it in the world we see in Dunwall. I'm aware that the -isms intertwine IRL, but I don't see evidence of this in Dunwall. There's not much more I can say about this subject directly since all my evidence and reasoning is already laid out elsewhere. <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">  <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">RE: widowed women. Did all the Ladies Boyle marry? I'm pretty sure only Waverly was definitely married to a Lord Boyle (who took her name). Esme got pregnant, but it's never indicated if this was in or out of wedlock (or that she was punished for it being out of wedlock, if that was the case). Lydia doesn't get any indication that she was married or even courted. And who else is in their family? Every time the Boyles are mentioned, it's in reference to the three sisters. There's no direct evidence that they aren't the head of the family. There's no direct evidence that they are either, but the fact that one of them hooks up with the Lord Regent as a political safety precaution would seem to indicate that they were acting on behest of the family in general. <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">Yes, most of the landowning women are aristocrats -- classism! That's my point! Privileges aren't determined down divisions of sex, but divisions of class! <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">  <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">We don't know what restrictions do or don't exist for women owning businesses -- except we do. I would argue that the evidence points more towards that Madam Prudence own the Golden Cat; not sure where you're getting that there are several Madams running the place. The Heart says that "the girls don't like this Madam as much as the old one who was kind" or something along those lines. I would make the (largely baseless) assumption that the former Madam died or fled because of the plague and that Madam Prudence bought the place up on the cheap. In any case, the fact that there was a previous Madam, not one in conjunction with Madam Prudence, would seem to indicate that Madam Prudence is, in fact, the owner of the establishment. I mean, I don't have concrete evidence that she DEFINITELY does own the business, but hers is the only administrative office and it's is filled with ledger books and a safe of money. This would be consistent with that an owner/manager of a small business would have in her office. We're not given any indication that she owns it with her husband or that she inherited it from a man: the previous Madam was also a woman, seeming to indicate that women own businesses, kind of like they're allowed to. I’m willing to call this inconclusive, but honestly, even if there is outside ownership and she’s just the manager, there’s no evidence that outside ownership isn’t women either. <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">  <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">RE: Jessamine not being married. First of all, Dunwall is based on Victorian era England, [http://books.google.com/books?id=jYL9cPE_M5EC&pg=PA158&lpg=PA158&dq=widows+remarriage+victorian&source=bl&ots=qiANL4np1C&sig=xHEh2MeporI6CIrH738oHkJsne4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=b-noU_jnFsL3yQTQy4LgBA&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=widows%20remarriage%20victorian&f=false where widows were allowed to remarry. ]. So there's that. Secondly, Elizabeth I got out of marriage because her father died before she was queen. If Henry would have lived long enough to see Elizabeth come of marriageable age, he would've arranged the shit out of that shit and she would've had no say in it, because that's how an actual patriarchy works: female children of monarchs are tools to extract alliances from other monarchies. Jessamine was of her majority by the time her father died. If Dunwall were a patriarchal society like the historical England, there's no way Jessamine wouldn't have been married, if only to secure the Kaldwin lineage and dynasty. But it's not. Jessamine doesn't marry because power doesn't pass down a patriarchy, it passes down primogenital lines. Actual patriarchies keep power within the male line: that is the literal definition of patriarchy.

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">The fact that Jessamine’s heir can be legitimately acknowledged as an heir despite her not having a named father is FUCKING HUGE (the fact that it's implied to be Corvo is even more huge). This shows that the sex of the parent who the heir succeeds doesn’t matter, as long as the heir was born of a royal parent. The system is set up to completely ignore the male side of the equation in the issue of legitimacy. The only thing that matters for Emily to have a claim to the throne is that Jessamine was her mother. No one questions it. No one tries to dispute her legitimacy with "oh she was a bastard daughter". Never is this even brought up as a concern. <span style="font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;line-height:16.5pt;"> THIS IS THE LITERAL OPPOSITE OF WHAT A PATRIARCHY DOES.

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:13.75pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">RE:  Women looters and that one lady who locks herself in the Flooded District....yeah I can see how the looters might be "outside the system" (albeit not part of any organised underworld system, which is what I was using as a counterpoint to "proper daylight society") but the lady who locks herself away to keep her family from seeing her deteriorate? That seems like a pretty individual decision outside of...any system. I find it significant that she wasn't forbidden from making that decision in any way, and the note she carries with her isn't disapproving, just pleading and loving. A proper patriarchy would have tried to tie her down with ownership rights over her life, which doesn't seem to be the case here.

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:13.75pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:13.75pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">RE: Esma. The nobles talk shit about Esma because the nobles talk shit about everyone. There's literally no one they say anything nice about. They talk shit about male nobles, they talk shit about female nobles, they talk shit about nobles who earned their money, they talk shit about nobles who inherited their money. They talk shit about Esma not because she is a woman, but because she has character faults that would be abhorrent in any person (she's a drunkard). But the nobles are catty, nasty, frivolous people, generalised as a whole -- almost like the game is trying to make a statement about the evils of money and power. Classism.

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:13.75pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Also, that line wasn't being thrown at Esma, it was at some other random (old) noble lady. The exact line was something along the lines of "Did you hear? [Noble lady's name] has been sending her servants into the streets at night looking for -- you'll never guess -- boys. I heard the last one was 16! A street urchin! LOL"  I don't have the sound file to find you a name or an exact quote, but it was definitely NOT Esma they were talking about. They do talk shit about Esma though, just not about her and 16 year old street boys.

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:13.75pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">Dunwall isn't "not sexist" because it doesn't tick all the sexism boxes..... I don't really know what to say to you here. You can't make a generalised statement like "Dunwall is a sexist society", but then when I point out all the ways Dunwall isn't sexist, go "Yes, that's true, but it still might be sexist because we're missing information". That's not a fair argument. That missing information might push things more clearly into the "not sexist" category. My entire point is that we don't have any concrete evidence supporting a general, systemic, institutionalised form of sexism in this world, so I am really, super freaking relunctant to allow the broad claim "DUNWALL IS TOTALLY SEXIST UWU" to go unchallenged.

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:13.75pt;"><span style="font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;line-height:13.75pt;">(Also, what other aspects of society? Which other aspects haven't we covered already? We have women in industry, women in politics, women in the military, women in the Church, women owning property, women running the country, women having sexual flings, women joining rebellion movements, women's heirs being legitimately acknowledged without named fathers, women -- possibly -- owning businesses. Women have the same opportunities as men in their same social classes. Am I missing some other place where there institutionalised sexism can be hiding out?)

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:13.75pt;"><span style="font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;line-height:13.75pt;">Bad things happen to women in this world. They are neglected and disempowered and unemployed. They are allowed to die in the streets. But just because bad things happen to women doesn't mean there's a system of oppression set up that forces bad things on women. Bad things don't happen to women because <span style="font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;line-height:13.75pt;">they are women. The fact of the matter is, the exact same bad things happen to men. There is no evidence of an element of "bad thing" that happens exclusively to women on any level or that they have it worse off than the men -- as long as they're in the same social class. The class of people who get it super hard, the people that the system actively works to oppress in Dunwall are the working class and the poor. Bad things happen to poor women and poor men BECAUSE THEY ARE POOR. That is the only concrete proof of power disparity we see in this world: the one that exists between the high-flying upper class and the stepped-upon working class.

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:13.75pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;border:1ptnonewindowtext;padding:0in;">I am going to give Dunwall the benefit of the doubt about sexism until I am hit in the face with actual concrete proof of institutionalised, systemic sexism. Give me "Lady Boyle wasn't allowed to keep her property unless she got married" or "Jessamine's younger brother was meant to be on the throne except he died" or "Women aren't valuable unless they have a powerful male family member". Otherwise, this doesn't seem like an accurate assessment. <span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:12pt0in;line-height:13.75pt;"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;"> tl;dr canon evidence for sexism being the root cause of Dunwall's social disparity <<<<<< canon evidence for classism being the root cause of Dunwall's social disparity

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal">