Exactly. I've been considering posting a rant on this matter. I've been thinking that (I'm sorry if this comes off rude but it's my opinion) Wizard 101 is kind of steryotyping. Not all girls like pink, not all guys dislike it. Not all girls wear heels and dresses, not all guys do either. I'm kind of mad that you have to be level 45 to get to the powerful stuff that has pants for the girls. I mean, come on! I'm happy that girls at least get to wear pants!
Sorry, no. A king is, grammatically, etymologically, and historically male. This badge problem has been resolved, but I guess I am confused as to why some people keep insisting on something that everything in their education should tell them is untrue. Kings are not gender-neutral. "King of the Jungle" is an anthropomorphic designation for lions. Not lionesses. Anthropomorphic means using human qualities to metaphorically describe something non-human. Kings are male humans. Kings of the Jungle are metaphorically kings, and literally male. Come on, let's be real. When have you ever heard a woman or female of any kind called "King?"
This was the only badge, to my knowledge (and I have played through every world) that had (notice past tense, it's now fixed) a gendered designation. So your odd assertion that "every badge" would have to be changed has no basis in reality.
If you "have no problem" with the designation King for both genders (no matter how grammatically, etymologically, and historically inaccurate it may have been), that's cool. But don't try to bend the semantic truths to turn your opinion into a universal truth. English is what it is. Gendered terms exist so people will know what we're talking about when we say words like "king," or "princess," or "lady," or "lord." We have a perfectly adequate set of gender-neutral words, too: "warrior," for example.
Yes, some words have become less gender-specific over time, like "hero." We no longer need the word "heroine," so it's seldom used. Likewise "actresses" are now usually referred to as actors, at least in the profession itself. But King still holds its old meaning--and until we start to see female rulers routinely referred to as Kings rather than Queens, the meaning of these two words remains clear and unambiguous. Language changes owing to custom and use, not someone's opinion.
We English speakers like the terms King and Queen---at least I do, being an old-fashioned sort--so I doubt they will ever become gender-neutral. I hope not. Our fairy tales and history books would lose a lot, I think. So I am not arguing that one shouldn't have gendered terms in some contexts. Not at all! I would not have minded being Queen of the Jungle, but that's a lot of programming for something pretty trivial. I did object to being called King, though, since that word does not, and never has, referred to women. At all.
Again, it's fine to have an opinion. Fine that you don't mind "King" as a universal designation. Had you stopped there, I wouldn't have added to this thread. But it's not fine to assert that one's opinion is based on irrevocable fact. Because in this case, the grammatical and semantic facts are what they are. End of story.
Tabitha, Professor of English and Ruler of the Jungle
Sorry, but where's your proof? In your opinion (and I say 'opinion' because you've shown no proven fact), 'king' may be "grammatically, etymologically, and historically male", but the only reference I see you make to verify this to be true is your title as a professor. That might be enough for some, but not for me.
I've searched many different dictionaries, and I have yet to find one where they don't refer to 'king' as a male monarch first, but also a gender-neutral term for a person of preeminence. The word 'king' comes from the Old English word 'cyning' meaning 'leader of people' or 'noble-born'. The term has absolutely nothing to do with gender; the term probably garnered association with males because of where it originated. The word 'queen', in fact, was born from a newer version of English, so if there were female rulers of England they would probably have been called 'king' or a new word would've been invented to describe a then necessary distinction. Please don't mistake the world's misogynistic history for etymology. In places where that distinction wasn't as necessary, there were female kings such as Hatshepsut the pharaoh (Egyptian word for king) of Egypt.
In today's world, these distinctions in titles aren't as important since the monarchs of the world are just figureheads. The gender-specific titles that are significant have traditional value, but in my opinion that doesn't really apply to King of the Jungle. That phrase has been used to describe lions as a whole, not just male lions, in the exact same way that saying 'lions' doesn't denote a group of male lions, but the type of animal.
Then there's your last point to which I say this: it's a family game! In a land where pigs fly and giant frogs vomit on your enemies, why can't we make King of the Jungle more gender neutral? We're not talking about drastically altering the universal meaning of 'king'. There's nothing to change. Why are we playing with semantics when the main demographic of the players in Wizard101 are people who really wouldn't or shouldn't care? From what I've noticed, this is mainly a problem among adults. To that I say, "calm down." There are so many other titles in the Spiral; why are you so hung up on this one when there's really nothing wrong with it?
Like you said, it's fine to have an opinion. It's another thing entirely, however, to give an entire speech about why you don't feel "King of the Jungle" was an appropriate title based on its usage and etymology, provide no fact whatsoever to back that up, and basically encourage one to take your word for it because of your profession. Sorry, but no.
Well, if we want to be absolutely correct, lions don't even live in jungles. I've also never heard of a female being referred to as "King", at least not in regards to being a monarch or ruler although some female pharaohs would dress up like men and wear fake beards, so who knows. Having said that, I still want a Christmas Santa hat and not a lame Christmas bonnet!
I have an interesting observation. Gender goes beyond clothes, it shows up in fights quests. I had suspected the boys were "superior" in battles by obtaining collect items faster. It is my conclusion that fights are biased towards boys.
I have two accounts. As a test I created a boy fire in one account and a girl fire in the other. I outfitted them as equally as possible. They traveled as a team from the beginning in Unicorn Way. The fire team is now in Mooshu.
I alternated them for first position in the fight, loaded the decks the same, and used the same spell in the same round.
The boy consistantly completes the quest before the girl. The boy fizzes less. The boy even is awarded more XP in some fights. The only aspect that the girl excells in is obtaining house items. The girl is slightly better in gardening. The boy is now one and a half levels ahead of the girl.
This may be a quirk. One "test" is hardly enough to draw a conclusion. But it is an very interesting observation.
I have an interesting observation. Gender goes beyond clothes, it shows up in fights quests. I had suspected the boys were "superior" in battles by obtaining collect items faster. It is my conclusion that fights are biased towards boys.
I have two accounts. As a test I created a boy fire in one account and a girl fire in the other. I outfitted them as equally as possible. They traveled as a team from the beginning in Unicorn Way. The fire team is now in Mooshu.
I alternated them for first position in the fight, loaded the decks the same, and used the same spell in the same round.
The boy consistantly completes the quest before the girl. The boy fizzes less. The boy even is awarded more XP in some fights. The only aspect that the girl excells in is obtaining house items. The girl is slightly better in gardening. The boy is now one and a half levels ahead of the girl.
This may be a quirk. One "test" is hardly enough to draw a conclusion. But it is an very interesting observation.
My daughter, wife, sister in law and a score of female friends on the game have all gotten drops and completed quests well before me. It goes both ways and has nothing to do with bias. Anyone looking for bias is going to see it, case and point the "King of the Jungle" badge. Despite the facts and I do stress facts of the badge being a gender neutral badge referring to the age old term for lions (King of the Jungle) A handful of people wanted to force their opinion about it on everyone else. KI is doing a wonderful job with this game and I and my family and friends salute them.
The Badge King of the Jungle is the reward for defeating a very large number of lions. It is not a reward for beating a jungle. The reason they used King of the Jungle is because it is an extremely common and very old term for lions both male and female lions.
I must agree with Tabitha on this one. You have made the assertion that the term "King of the Jungle" is gender neutral. I cannot think of a single time when that phrase has been applied to lionesses or to women in the whole of my time on the planet. In fact, every pictographic reference in my memory has been to a lion with a mane, and therefore clearly male. If you can cite a publicly available source which can dispute my otherwise "gendered" view of the term then I would be happy to concede that at least in your sphere of influence, the term may not be connotationally associated with gender. However, I would assert to you that the majority of people associate it with the male gender.
emperordark wrote:
A badge called Ruler of the Jungle does not makes since in relation to the accomplishment. If I had defeated all of Zafarai or all of a jungle area then Ruler of the Jungle would make since.
This argument is flawed. Many (most?) of the quest names and badges in this game are plays on the original phrases and titles. The new term "Ruler of the Jungle" is still semantically similar enough to "King of the Jungle" to connote its association with lions and therefore still readily applies to the task for which it is a reward. Your assertion that it be only fitting of completing all of Zafaria or a "jungle area" is at best a stretch used to make your argument seem more plausible.
emperordark wrote:
Their is no reason to argue female or male about this Badge.
Sure there is, even if only evidenced by the volume of posts in this thread.
emperordark wrote:
Facts about the King of the Jungle badge: 1.) The badge is gender neutral.
Saying it is so isn't the same is it being so. Even if I were to stretch my linguistic imagination to its very limit, I can in no way see "King of the Jungle" as gender neutral. I can think of neither a single conversation (real or imagined) nor literary reference where this term has been applied to any organism of a non-male gender.
emperordark wrote:
2.) King of the Jungle refers to lions. 3.) You must defeat a very large number of lions to get the gender neutral lion badges.
I know some would try to spin or twist the above basic facts, but they are facts and not opinion. An opinion is weather or not you like the badge. Dissecting one word of a title instead of considering the whole title is akin to saying there is only a moon in the sky because you want to ignore all those stars.
Emeprordark Professor of Physics and King of the Jungle
It is at this point where I think you must concede to Tabitha. Please refer to her post vs. your own. You used the wrong word at least twice not to mention several typos. Clearly, she is more adept with words than you thereby giving her linguistic opinion more weight and establishing herself as more of an expert in this field than yourself. She cited evidence supporting her claims. You merely made claims and then further asserted them as fact, despite the actual fact that the first (and most common) definition for king straight form the dictionary is as follows:
a male sovereign or monarch; a man who holds by life tenure, and usually by hereditary right, the chief authority over a country and people.
You will note that there is no real ambiguity regarding the gender for the word "king". Couple this with the fact that I cannot cite a single literary or conversational reference where the term "King of the Jungle" has been applied to a non-male gender (and the fact that you cited no such reference either) and I think it is pretty safe to conclude that you have lost this argument, failing a more thought out and researched rebuttal.
The Badge King of the Jungle is the reward for defeating a very large number of lions. It is not a reward for beating a jungle. The reason they used King of the Jungle is because it is an extremely common and very old term for lions both male and female lions.
I must agree with Tabitha on this one. You have made the assertion that the term "King of the Jungle" is gender neutral. I cannot think of a single time when that phrase has been applied to lionesses or to women in the whole of my time on the planet. In fact, every pictographic reference in my memory has been to a lion with a mane, and therefore clearly male. If you can cite a publicly available source which can dispute my otherwise "gendered" view of the term then I would be happy to concede that at least in your sphere of influence, the term may not be connotationally associated with gender. However, I would assert to you that the majority of people associate it with the male gender.
emperordark wrote:
A badge called Ruler of the Jungle does not makes since in relation to the accomplishment. If I had defeated all of Zafarai or all of a jungle area then Ruler of the Jungle would make since.
This argument is flawed. Many (most?) of the quest names and badges in this game are plays on the original phrases and titles. The new term "Ruler of the Jungle" is still semantically similar enough to "King of the Jungle" to connote its association with lions and therefore still readily applies to the task for which it is a reward. Your assertion that it be only fitting of completing all of Zafaria or a "jungle area" is at best a stretch used to make your argument seem more plausible.
emperordark wrote:
Their is no reason to argue female or male about this Badge.
Sure there is, even if only evidenced by the volume of posts in this thread.
emperordark wrote:
Facts about the King of the Jungle badge: 1.) The badge is gender neutral.
Saying it is so isn't the same is it being so. Even if I were to stretch my linguistic imagination to its very limit, I can in no way see "King of the Jungle" as gender neutral. I can think of neither a single conversation (real or imagined) nor literary reference where this term has been applied to any organism of a non-male gender.
emperordark wrote:
2.) King of the Jungle refers to lions. 3.) You must defeat a very large number of lions to get the gender neutral lion badges.
I know some would try to spin or twist the above basic facts, but they are facts and not opinion. An opinion is weather or not you like the badge. Dissecting one word of a title instead of considering the whole title is akin to saying there is only a moon in the sky because you want to ignore all those stars.
Emeprordark Professor of Physics and King of the Jungle
It is at this point where I think you must concede to Tabitha. Please refer to her post vs. your own. You used the wrong word at least twice not to mention several typos. Clearly, she is more adept with words than you thereby giving her linguistic opinion more weight and establishing herself as more of an expert in this field than yourself. She cited evidence supporting her claims. You merely made claims and then further asserted them as fact, despite the actual fact that the first (and most common) definition for king straight form the dictionary is as follows:
a male sovereign or monarch; a man who holds by life tenure, and usually by hereditary right, the chief authority over a country and people.
You will note that there is no real ambiguity regarding the gender for the word "king". Couple this with the fact that I cannot cite a single literary or conversational reference where the term "King of the Jungle" has been applied to a non-male gender (and the fact that you cited no such reference either) and I think it is pretty safe to conclude that you have lost this argument, failing a more thought out and researched rebuttal.
I knew posting the above facts would meet with spin and twisting of facts. That is why I kept the facts of the badge "King of the Jungle" simple and to the point. The facts I previously posted are readily check-able by anyone willing to do a minimum of research. Although I believe that most educated individuals already know these facts from grade school. You have every right to your opinion and I have every confidence in Wizard101 players and parents to make educated decisions with out me spending long rants attacking or trying to dismiss others posts with misinformation or by spinning truths into lies. For some sources check out a few easy sites:
King of the Jungle according to wikipedia: "King of the jungle", a common cultural depiction of the lion. (notice it does not say female or male)
You may also go to Lions.org where the term King of the Jungle is used for lions collectively not according to gender.
Type female king of the jungle in to a Google search and get 2,180,000 results after viewing a dozen or so where King of the Jungle refereed to both male and female lions I felt my point was more than made valid.
The word 'king' comes from the Old English word 'cyning' meaning 'leader of people' or 'noble-born'. The term has absolutely nothing to do with gender; the term probably garnered association with males because of where it originated. The word 'queen', in fact, was born from a newer version of English, so if there were female rulers of England they would probably have been called 'king' or a new word would've been invented to describe a then necessary distinction.
Sorry again, but no. Old English had a perfectly good word for "queen," which was "cwen," later becoming the Middle English "quene." Never in Beowulf or any other Old English text was a woman referred to as "cynyng." And there were queens, lots of them. But they were all called "cwen." Interestingly, the Middle English "quene" was also used as a disparaging term, rather like "wench." This "degradation," for want of a better word, often happens to female honorifics and titles (for example: "lord" is still always a term of honor, but "lady" can mean just anyone). I could provide links to Old English concordances to bolster my point here (the "proof" you seem to require) but that would be silly, and way off-topic. You can look it up if you want.
One of my points seems to have been lost amidst all the invective and scorn. I like gender-specific terms like King and Queen. I would hate to lose "queen." But so far, that hasn't happened. Kings are male. Queens are female. Vive la difference.
gtarhannon: thanks for injecting some lucid, rational thought into that (to my mind) rather surreal response. I am perplexed as to why some people seem intent on arguing that the sun sets in the east, as it were. No one has ever heard of "King Elizabeth"; and as you rightly point out, lion kings are maned (i.e., male) in all the iconography. This whole discussion has gotten way too Orwellian.
As to my degree/title, that was petty of me. And pedantic. I was annoyed at the way I felt the linguistic and cultural facts (I repeat, kings are not, have never been, female) have been twisted in certain responses to this thread. I am a professor, (of medieval literature), but the poster is certainly right in asserting that those words confer no authority in and of themselves. And my academic credentials were used to bolster my argument, which was really unnecessary, since it's a perfectly good and rational position without that.
However, I'm aware that I let my passion for language run away with my good sense and good manners. I came off sounding immature and more than a little arrogant. I apologize. I'm a teacher, and an adult, and I should know better.
I'm sorry this thread turned sour. I will be taking a break from the forum for a bit, I think.
I knew posting the above facts would meet with spin and twisting of facts. That is why I kept the facts of the badge "King of the Jungle" simple and to the point. The facts I previously posted are readily check-able by anyone willing to do a minimum of research. Although I believe that most educated individuals already know these facts from grade school. You have every right to your opinion and I have every confidence in Wizard101 players and parents to make educated decisions with out me spending long rants attacking or trying to dismiss others posts with misinformation or by spinning truths into lies. For some sources check out a few easy sites:
King of the Jungle according to wikipedia: "King of the jungle", a common cultural depiction of the lion. (notice it does not say female or male)
You may also go to Lions.org where the term King of the Jungle is used for lions collectively not according to gender.
Type female king of the jungle in to a Google search and get 2,180,000 results after viewing a dozen or so where King of the Jungle refereed to both male and female lions I felt my point was more than made valid.
Bravo. You missed the point entirely. I see now where communication broke down. You're bold assertion that "King of the Jungle" is gender neutral is based entirely on the idea of it being solely referential of lions, excluding completely the fact that this is a badge which will hang directly over the head of one's wizard. This was not something that I thought needed to be spelled out, but apparently, I was incorrect. You have not demonstrated in any way where the term "King of the Jungle", as it applies to an individual, can be considered gender neutral. Rather, you have demonstrated how it can be used to reference all lion kind both male and female in much the same way that "man" can refer to all human kind. Again, bravo.
Apparently, considering that the term is used as a badge worn by an individual rather than simply as the name of a quest meets with your criteria for "spin and twisting of facts". You'll note that our wizard avatars are of human appearance rather than of lion, by the way. Regardless, if you wish to judge it by that standard then by all means, I'm certain you will consider the statements of both myself and Tabitha to be "misinformation" or "spinning truths into lies". Otherwise, should you choose to review your assertion under the framing that I've now made evident to you, I'll wait for you to cite some common english literary work whereby an individual being referred to as "King of the Jungle" is to be taken in a gender neutral capacity.
Merriam-Webster definition of lion 1a or plural lion : a large heavily built social cat (Panthera leo) of open or rocky areas chiefly of sub-Saharan Africa though once widely distributed throughout Africa and southern Asia that has a tawny body with a tufted tail and a shaggy blackish or dark brown mane in the male b : any of several large wildcats; especially : cougar 1
Lion refers to the entire species as well as the male.
I was taught King of the Jungle refers to lions, the entire species not males. I am older, well past 30. When I think of that term, I see lions, as in a pride of them.
I am at a total loss as how the badge is gender specific. Megan
Merriam-Webster definition of lion 1a or plural lion : a large heavily built social cat (Panthera leo) of open or rocky areas chiefly of sub-Saharan Africa though once widely distributed throughout Africa and southern Asia that has a tawny body with a tufted tail and a shaggy blackish or dark brown mane in the male b : any of several large wildcats; especially : cougar 1
Lion refers to the entire species as well as the male.
I was taught King of the Jungle refers to lions, the entire species not males. I am older, well past 30. When I think of that term, I see lions, as in a pride of them.
I am at a total loss as how the badge is gender specific. Megan
Hey Megan. Here's an example... The term "man", for instance, can refer to the species of man. Would you define "man" as a gender neutral term? If I were to be reading through an article and saw the term "King of the Jungle" where the context suggested reference to a species such as a lion, then fine, no problem. However, the badge hangs over the head of your wizard and pictographically suggest a sentence such as:
"Hi, my name is Eloise Unicornpants and I'm a King of the Jungle."
If you can read that sentence and honestly not see it as feeling awkward, seeing that it applies now to an individual rather than to a species, then I don't think anything fruitful can come of further discussion. I will tell you, however, that this is one of the rare topics to arise which has given me cause to question my sanity and therefore I have asked the question of almost everyone I have come across in the last two days... "Do you think that the term "King of the Jungle" is gender-neutral?". The answer has been a resounding and unanimous "no".
The problem with arguing literary issues is that words are just symbols to communicate ideas. They are imprecise and messy which is a significant contributing factor in the breakdown of communication. Whether one ponders the dictionary definition (which only relates the meaning through reference to other words) or considers that every word has connotations which carry additional meaning, it will always be imprecise. This is why speech writers agonize over a speech. Effective verbal communication requires understanding what the recipient of the message will actually take away from it rather than just your understanding of the words you have chosen.
Often, the biggest issue is in framing the context for a particular set of communication so that you can relate the idea through a shared experiential context where your words will have more weight and meaning in the mind of the listener. I hope that I have framed the appropriate context above to convey why one might see "King of the Jungle" as a gender specific phrase. If not, I'm at a loss to explain it further but I will close on this final thought... The majority of listeners on this issue see it as gender-specific. If they did not, KI wouldn't have bothered to fix it so quickly.
Sigh. One very last time. The argument is about whether or not the word "king" can be applied to females. Human (wizard) females. It's not about lions, although I have to say I have never seen a picture with the caption "King of the Jungle" that featured a lioness. But it's not about lions, it's about people! Male and female humans!
The badge is worn by both genders, not just males. Kings. Are. Not. Female. Female kings are called queens in English. It's a perfectly nice word for female rulers, and, if wizards are to rule over the jungle, usurping, one assumes, the role of the lion, their respective titles should be gender-appropriate. Otherwise it's a misuse of our language.
I am truly tired of this argument, and I do wonder what gender assumptions are lurking below its surface. I suspect (but can't prove) that some people think there is a "feminist conspiracy" at work here, to undermine the entire game. Not so. Speaking for myself, I like many aspects of gender difference. I like that there are kings and queens, lords and ladies, princes and princesses. I love my language and its myriad, specific terms for things, people, and ideas. "Ruler" is a nice word that can be used for both genders. So is "sovereign." "King" is not. My point was about the proper use of language. NOT about politics, or political correctness, or any of that.
I am signing off for awhile, but wanted, in this last post, to wish everyone a Happy Holiday, however you celebrate the season. Let's try to give each other the benefit of the doubt, okay? Peace out.
I take it back. I thought of one other way to explain my position. First, I would like to offer an apology to emperordark. I was rude in my last post to you because I took offense to the implication that I was either a liar or a twister of facts. I realize that people get passionate about their positions and shouldn't have taken it personally. For that, I apologize. As to my explanation:
The rules of english grammar dictate that when the gender of the object being described is unknown that the masculine form be used. For instance, the sentence...
"He who dies for the crown, honors both his king and his country."
would be effectively genderless and should apply to either men or women. Perhaps that is why there is no ambiguity regarding the feminine version of our words which can be confirmed by looking up both the terms "queen" and "woman". On the other hand, should I wish to construct a sentence where the gender is known, I would use a gender appropriate word such as...
"He who dies for the crown, honors both Queen Elizabeth and his country."
or
"He who dies for the crown, honors both King Henry and his country."
understanding that I would never refer to Queen Elizabeth as King Elizabeth unless I was choosing to be insulting. This entire argument is over the badge "King of the Jungle" which is a textual caption to be placed over the head of the wizard, from whose picture you can clearly see the gender. Can you see why my head was spinning regarding the assertion that "King of the Jungle" is gender neutral? In my opinion, the confusion stems from that I was never trying to argue that masculine words such as "king" can be used in a sense meant to be gender neutral, but rather that "king" most definitely is tied to gender.
I hope this helps to clarify any confusion, for if it does not, I truly am at a loss to explain further.
Definition of BADGE 1: a device or token especially of membership in a society or group 2: a characteristic mark 3: an emblem awarded for a particular accomplishment Examples of BADGE She showed her badge for defeating lions in the game. She earned 10 merit badges in scouting. She was wearing a badge that read “Meow Master”
A Badge is not a title or a person's identity. Badges in the game are a reward for an accomplishment.
The king of the Jungle badge is a reward for defeating a large number of lions. They picked King of the Jungle because it has been used to refer to lions for a very long time.
King of the jungle: a common cultural depiction of the lion. (Notice it does not say female or male)
The badge does not in any way linguistically or through insinuation refer to anyone as a girl or a boy.
I may not want to wear a Badge called Night Stalker because there are three well known criminals, all who were referred to as the night stalker (Google it) but I have the education and the intelligence to know it is not in reference to criminals. Because you get the reward/badge for defeating a lot of ninja pigs.
By giving in to knee-jerk false political correctness KI has unintentionally abandoned its intelligent and educated players. It is better to educate those that mistakenly think something is wrong than to continue on in ignorance. On other forums players have sounded off greatly in favor of "King of the Jungle". My own wife and daughter were very dismayed by the choice to change a badge they earned and wanted. I have had to explain to three kids why KI changed it and to be honest it was very difficult explaining that some people just want to find problems were there are none. I am sure when KI came up with the original badge "King of the Jungle" they never expected anyone to complain and I hope they ultimately make the right call. And bring the badge back. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.
I definitely see your view on the subject, and I guess I'll have to agree to disagree. There's not much point in arguing any further anyway; the changes have been made no matter what anyone says. I can only speak for myself, but I'll say I accept your apology. We all get passionate in this Forum and say things we shouldn't (I'm the expert on this obviously; I almost didn't mention that faux pas because I felt so hypocritical). I don't think you should take a break from the Forum (of course that decision is yours), but I think you should steer this thread in a different direction. It's your thread! Take control of it!
What are you talking about? Life? Girly? i disagree. I mean,sure fairy and sprite are kind of but a tree with a rock? and a centaur? those are not girly at all. Ok and the whole santa bonnet looks exactly like the silent nightcap. just saying. In my opinion the mrs claus outfit is kind of cute. I would get it if i had the crowns. As for guys in pink, i don't know it depends on the guys. some guys would wear it, some won't. But again life isnt girly!
Definition of BADGE 1: a device or token especially of membership in a society or group 2: a characteristic mark 3: an emblem awarded for a particular accomplishment Examples of BADGE She showed her badge for defeating lions in the game. She earned 10 merit badges in scouting. She was wearing a badge that read “Meow Master”
A Badge is not a title or a person's identity. Badges in the game are a reward for an accomplishment.
The king of the Jungle badge is a reward for defeating a large number of lions. They picked King of the Jungle because it has been used to refer to lions for a very long time.
King of the jungle: a common cultural depiction of the lion. (Notice it does not say female or male)
The badge does not in any way linguistically or through insinuation refer to anyone as a girl or a boy.
I may not want to wear a Badge called Night Stalker because there are three well known criminals, all who were referred to as the night stalker (Google it) but I have the education and the intelligence to know it is not in reference to criminals. Because you get the reward/badge for defeating a lot of ninja pigs.
By giving in to knee-jerk false political correctness KI has unintentionally abandoned its intelligent and educated players. It is better to educate those that mistakenly think something is wrong than to continue on in ignorance. On other forums players have sounded off greatly in favor of "King of the Jungle". My own wife and daughter were very dismayed by the choice to change a badge they earned and wanted. I have had to explain to three kids why KI changed it and to be honest it was very difficult explaining that some people just want to find problems were there are none. I am sure when KI came up with the original badge "King of the Jungle" they never expected anyone to complain and I hope they ultimately make the right call. And bring the badge back. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.
While I see your point, and it is a very good technical one, I also see how the majority appear to use their badges in game and it generally appears to me as a statement rather than a badge. Please see my other post regarding how, from a pictographic standpoint, the badge appears grammatically to many. I believe that we can both agree that in real life, badges do not hang over one's head thereby appearing to be a caption on a picture yes? Therefore, is it not reasonable to conclude that the term "badge" as it applies to this game cannot be applied in its strictest sense but instead as more of an abstract concept?
Please don't believe that it is political correctness because it isn't. I personally find political correctness abhorrent. But while I now understand completely the sense in which you are taking this issue, please try to understand that there is more than one sense under which it can be taken and that it doesn't make others view of it wrong and in need of education. In other words, many wear the "badge" specifically so that it will make a statement rather than to simply identify either their accomplishments or the groups they may belong to. In this, KI has neither given in to "knee-jerk false political correctness" nor "abandoned its intelligent and educated players".
I come back to the same issue that has caused the arguing in this thread... communication. Unfortunately, we are not discussing math whose precepts are concrete and unyielding. We are discussing symbolic communication ostensibly contrived through a combination of pictures, references, and words based presumably on the english language. The statements you are making require not only text-book definitions, but also very strict interpretation and relational inference to several categories of information. While I no longer think that you are wrong as you have currently stated it, it does not mean that either Tabby or I are either. I hope that this gives you the same clarity on my position that your post has given me on yours.
Merriam-Webster definition of lion 1a or plural lion : a large heavily built social cat (Panthera leo) of open or rocky areas chiefly of sub-Saharan Africa though once widely distributed throughout Africa and southern Asia that has a tawny body with a tufted tail and a shaggy blackish or dark brown mane in the male b : any of several large wildcats; especially : cougar 1
Lion refers to the entire species as well as the male.
I was taught King of the Jungle refers to lions, the entire species not males. I am older, well past 30. When I think of that term, I see lions, as in a pride of them.
I am at a total loss as how the badge is gender specific. Megan
Hey Megan. Here's an example... The term "man", for instance, can refer to the species of man. Would you define "man" as a gender neutral term? If I were to be reading through an article and saw the term "King of the Jungle" where the context suggested reference to a species such as a lion, then fine, no problem. However, the badge hangs over the head of your wizard and pictographically suggest a sentence such as:
"Hi, my name is Eloise Unicornpants and I'm a King of the Jungle."
If you can read that sentence and honestly not see it as feeling awkward, seeing that it applies now to an individual rather than to a species, then I don't think anything fruitful can come of further discussion. I will tell you, however, that this is one of the rare topics to arise which has given me cause to question my sanity and therefore I have asked the question of almost everyone I have come across in the last two days... "Do you think that the term "King of the Jungle" is gender-neutral?". The answer has been a resounding and unanimous "no".
The problem with arguing literary issues is that words are just symbols to communicate ideas. They are imprecise and messy which is a significant contributing factor in the breakdown of communication. Whether one ponders the dictionary definition (which only relates the meaning through reference to other words) or considers that every word has connotations which carry additional meaning, it will always be imprecise. This is why speech writers agonize over a speech. Effective verbal communication requires understanding what the recipient of the message will actually take away from it rather than just your understanding of the words you have chosen.
Often, the biggest issue is in framing the context for a particular set of communication so that you can relate the idea through a shared experiential context where your words will have more weight and meaning in the mind of the listener. I hope that I have framed the appropriate context above to convey why one might see "King of the Jungle" as a gender specific phrase. If not, I'm at a loss to explain it further but I will close on this final thought... The majority of listeners on this issue see it as gender-specific. If they did not, KI wouldn't have bothered to fix it so quickly.
Thanks for your response and for your example, sometimes it helps me to picture things. The badge still does not bother me at all. I would wear it and not think twice about it. Funny you would mention context, this badge was removed from its proper context. The badge is awarded for a task. As are all the badges. It has nothing to do with gender. None of them do.
I personally think the badge should have been left alone. I also don't agree the majority think it is gender specific. Most of the threads I see are about 50% either way. I hope KI will consider changing it back. They way they used it was just fine, IMO.
I do respect KI for listening and responding. It says a lot about them as Company.
I mean I do find some points on where some people might take this offensive but I like the game how it is. I mean when I think of playing this game I think of girls section and a guys section. That is why there are splits in the game. There are girls clothes, colors, looks ect, and the same for boys. There is even different dorm rooms to show this as well. This game was made to be played by both genders. People have blown this out of proportion. Some things can change like a santa hat for girls or other little picky things, but nothing is ever going to be perfect. I see where that is acceptable to want some things to change. I do not believe they need to change other parts of the game however, like changing the badge. The quest has to do with loins. I mean have you ever heard king of the jungle? That is not stereotypical at all it was just a fact. Whether people choose to accept it or not is different. It does not say guys are better than girls. It is just a badge describing the event.
You gotta remember this is a kids game. My question to you is what would happen if you switched the girls colors with the boys colors? What would happen if a boy wanted to wear heals, or a dress and a skirt in the game? Girls playing the game would not like it nor would the boys if the colors were switched, and that shows that there are things that are not available to both genders. I am not trying to be sexist or stereotypical but I feel as if the game is fine how it is. I do not ever recall while playing this game where a single person has said they hated they had to dress or the colors that they had to wear. I have played wizard101 from almost the beginning on many accounts so that is a long time. I find it that both genders like how the game is made as to why there haven't been many complaints I have seen on the issue.
The reality is the game is made to best interpret the gender split. There are differences between guys and girls. I am not saying whether I believe that is right or not, but I am saying you must acknowledge that. There is no uni-character. There is no character that both girls and guys must be. This would upset people even more because there is no diversity. So K.I made the game even even better by allowing there to be two genders.
My opinion and conclusion is there is nothing wrong with how K.I has made the game. They are not saying girls are better to guys or vice versa. They are acknowledging that there are preferences between girls and boys and modeled in when they designed the game. This also reflects the views of society today also. Everything they have done up to this point is fine in my opinion. Great job K.I on what you have done to make this game allot of fun That's just my two cents!
Ok and the whole santa bonnet looks exactly like the silent nightcap. just saying. In my opinion the mrs claus outfit is kind of cute. I would get it if i had the crowns. As for guys in pink, i don't know it depends on the guys. some guys would wear it, some won't. But again life isnt girly!
That's just my two cents!