Gender of Evangelions

[Magami No ER [ANF]]

I think the three things(bodily, not behavior -wise or that angel symbol on their head) about unarmored Eva that make people think "alien" is
1. Their eyes' postions. Reminds me of my rabbit.
2. Their lack of "womenly" breasts...that's easy, not all female creatures do.
3. Their lack of hair(on their sclaps)....think of kemo-therpy patients once and a while.^^;;;

Originally posted on: 20-May-2005, 08:51 GMT

[Mr. Tines [ANF]]

@Magami

While Evas are well beyond the Uncanny Valley, they still fall into the category of "almost but not quite human" i.e. monster.

Their lack of hair(on their sclaps)....think of kemo-therpy patients once and a while

Or even the recent pictures of Natalie Portman

Originally posted on: 20-May-2005, 08:55 GMT

[OMF [ANF]]

She is not within the beast, she is the beast. Are you within your own body, or is your body you? Answer that question, and you have your own answer.

Are we only our bodies? If our body is destroyed or mutilated is out fundamental self destroyed or mutilated? We could easily fall into a pit of philosophical musings with this.

To bring it back to Eva, consider the events of episode #19, where Unit-02 was dismembered and decapitated, yet was rendered fully combat worthy by episode #22. Here certainly, the body of Unit-02 was broken, yet the Eva lived. Why? I would say it is because the body of the Eva is not truely the essence of it. The core of the Eva is really the heart of the entity. Damage to the body, even the head, is almost inconsequential, as long as the core remains intact. The bodies of the Eva's might well be mearly secondary appendages, the core being the only essential part of it.

Seriously, though, you really badly need to watch a nature documentary. I've seen plenty terrifying, vicious, and violent female creatures in my time. The female Wolverine would be a good place to start, if you are curious.

Precisely. There is a duality to the role of the mother, or more generally the parent. On the one hand gentle and caring, on the other, fiercely violent in the defence of the young, or family. In the case of Yui, this is readily symbolised by the contrast between the serene and calm doctor Ikari, and the fearsome and beastial Unit-01. Unit-01 does not represent a calm or caring figure. Rather it remains a symbol of violence an destruction.

The scene right after EVA-03/Bardiel has been defeated, Shinji identifies himself directly with this form. His identification is because of the fact that during synchronisation, the Eva and the pilot more or less become one. It is an imperfect joining, but still a joining.

But a joining which Shinji has always been fearful of. The Eva awakens a violent side of him which he fears.

With regard to the first portion that I have emboldened I'm going to be forced to play the hardcore academician here, and ask you for your evidence. You can't just make assertions like that. It's not self-evident, nor does it appear to logically follow.

Do you mean that it is not evident that Shinji resents that his mother is now a demonic killing machine? I suppose it might not be explicitly stated, but I would point to his confrontation with his mother in the form of Eva Unit-01 in episode #25 as evidence of his. It is the only time Shinji shows any animosity towards his mother at all, and her aspect here is that of Unit-01 at it's darkest.

If she were to remove it, she would be little more than a vagrant soul, and entirely disembodied. During synchronisation, Shini becomes one with the Eva, but he does not don her body like a suit of armor. His soul and hers become of one consciousness, and they share that consciousness between both bodies. When one is hurt, the other hurts too. When Shinji wishes to move, the Eva moves. If the bindings were not in place, Yui would be able to walk around for herself, which I believe is something that suits of armour have been historically incapable of.

I am using "suit of armour" as a metaphor here. The Eva does wear its own armour, but that's not what I'm getting at.

"Quasi-robotic", eh?

Well. It is a giant robot show after all! The Eva's certainly do have a robotic facade. This doesn't go unnoticed either Shinji: Ah, a face... A giant robot... etc, etc...


My reasoning for referring to the Eva's as "its" is not only based on gender issues. As Magami mentioned, we are never exactly informed on how to identify the angels or the eva's.

So, how are we as the audience supposed to use these creatures in pronouns? For Angels, we simply had to guess. Adam and Lilith are called mothers, and while they sort of look it, they are not tradital organism "mothers". So, how do we identifiy Evas?

We can choose to use the soul in the core as a basis for our choice of pronouns.

Only mothers's souls can cause Eva to move. Female. So, that is the true reason for why I call Evas female.

This is a good reason on which to base out choice of pronouns, but we do not have to reach this conclusion. There are not many rules for the use of pronouns where gender might be in question.

Consider how gender specific pronouns are used. If we were to see, say a dog from afar, we might refer to it as a "he" "she" or "it" when we spoke of it. If we saw another animal, say a fish, we might be more inclined to use "it". A fish more alien than a dog. If we saw a coral, we would use "it", and yet a coral does have a gender.
Gender specific pronouns are also used for things with no gender or sex at all. Ships are referred to as "shes" for example. But even this is not universal. I believe in russian, ships are referred to by the male pronoun, as "hes".
Of course, when one considers languages such as french or german when even everyday inanimate objects are ascribed gender this becomes an even broader issue. In the words of Nanny Ogg "In foreign parts, words have sex!"

By al this I mean to say that my ascribing "it" to the Eva's, or at least to their form, is not as untoward as it may seem.

Originally posted on: 20-May-2005, 08:59 GMT

[Reichu [ANF]]

She is not within the beast, she is the beast. Are you within your own body, or is your body you? Answer that question, and you have your own answer.

I would posit that the "essence" and the body are inseparable, in so much as they form a symbosis. The essence relies on the body to achieve a corporeal existence and perceive and manipulate the physical world. But without the essence, the body is little more than a sack of meat.

Do you really believe that oni (no need to add 'demon', that would be an oxymoron) only come in male form? If so, then where do baby oni come from?

People like Lum, of course. Incidentally, female oni are, I believed, supposed to be beautiful women, whereas the males are vile brutes. Both take advantage of opposite-gendered humans sexually, tho.

If she were to remove it, she would be little more than a vagrant soul, and entirely disembodied.

Technically, it's unknown whether 'vagrant souls' (I wonder if the use of the term to refer to souls in transitional periods between being freed from their previous body and finding a new one to inhabit is uniquely mine?) exist in the NGE universe. Can they wander, as ghosts? Can they become reincarnated into a new life? Do they just evaporate eventually without the protection of a vessel?

Since all of these cases refer to people and not to objects, though, I shall chose the neuter pronoun "ve" instead of he or she. Though not generall accepted, this pronoun is the solution to a long-standing problem in English, namely that "it" may generally only refer to objects, and not to people.

I found an interesting FAQ about the pronoun problem here. Its author, however, is not a fan of ve/ver/vis, and instead prefers ey/eir/em. I dunno, "ve" has been growing on me.

If by countergender you mean a male to balance the Evangelion females that we have seen thus far, it is clear that the character designers consider several of the angels to be male. I can offer evidence for this in the form of "Angel Kiss".

Well, that sort of 'evidence' is a bit facetious, one must admit. A sex scene between Sachiel and Shamshel would be kind of pointless if neither one were granted a sex, even if only for the purposes of the comic. It's not meant to be taken any more seriously than Ritsuko futanari -- but all in the name of fun. I suppose one can at least read into the fact that Asari chose to make Sachiel the male and Shamshel the female, rather than the other potential combinations.

Male Evangelions are theoretical, but there is no evidence which suggests that they could not exist, simply that they do not.

...thus denying the Evas any chances to give audiences the "decisive proof" of their femininity. After all, females are little more than compartments to manufacture offspring, and males little more than walking sperm factories. Without bearing any offspring and thus proving her femininity, a female must be considered an asexual entity. And without fertilizing an egg, the same goes for a male.

(Note: I don't really believe that.)

No. They are what they are, madam. I hope you don't mind me calling you madam, Suzy. It seems to suit you better, and I don't have sufficient motivation to call you OMF.

Well, being as there has never been conclusive evidence for OMF's gender one way or another, perhaps "ve" would be most appropriate...

Originally posted on: 19-May-2005, 21:01 GMT

[OMF [ANF]]

...thus denying the Evas any chances to give audiences the "decisive proof" of their femininity. After all, females are little more than compartments to manufacture offspring, and males little more than walking sperm factories. Without bearing any offspring and thus proving her femininity, a female must be considered an asexual entity. And without fertilizing an egg, the same goes for a male.

You can consider the case of ants or bees, where all workers and drones are in fact female, but for practical purposes can be considered asexual as they neither reproduce nor show any inclination to do so.
As an added bonus, these workers are referred to as "its" a lot of the time, whereas the queen of the nest is always "she". I would regard the Eva's gender as being closer to the worker ant than the queen.

Well, being as there has never been conclusive evidence for OMF's gender one way or another, perhaps "ve" would be most appropriate...

Oh, it's there. You just have no know where to look!

Originally posted on: 19-May-2005, 21:26 GMT

[Treize X [ANF]]

I agree with Reichu. I see them as females.

Similar, I suppose, to how Soluzar said a corpse, despite being unoccupied (for lack of a better term) is still referred to as a she or he.

So...ja.

Originally posted on: 19-May-2005, 22:33 GMT

[Soluzar [ANF]]

Well, being as there has never been conclusive evidence for OMF's gender one way or another, perhaps "ve" would be most appropriate...

I was making a point not about OMF's gender, which remains indeterminate, but about his notions. I suppose it would have been more effective had I been but certain of ver masculinity.

Originally posted on: 19-May-2005, 22:49 GMT

[AchtungAffen [ANF]]

Evas being considered female inherently is, as I think, a case of extremist feminism. If you take the soul part, yes, they are female (ever heard of a woman trapped inside a man's body?). But without counting the soul, have Eva's sexuality? Do they have sexual organs? No? No evidence about it? Well, then they're physically asexual.

Originally posted on: 20-May-2005, 02:36 GMT

[Hell Cross [ANF]]

I belive the Eva's are male and only embodie feminen qulitys because of the female souls within them (eg. Yui Ikari). I guess it doesn't really matter if there male or female (unless some sick bastard makes an Eva hentai! Oh ****, just gave em an idea).

Originally posted on: 20-May-2005, 04:13 GMT

[Soluzar [ANF]]

Kaworu refered to Adam as "the being which is our mother" - that's not an exact translation, but he did use a Japanese word which means mother. Since the Evangelions are all clones of Adam, they are all biologically female. Sorry Achtung, but you are wrong.

Originally posted on: 20-May-2005, 04:28 GMT

[Reichu [ANF]]

Evas being considered female inherently is, as I think, a case of extremist feminism.

No, it's common sense.

If you take the soul part, yes, they are female (ever heard of a woman trapped inside a man's body?).

Just to point out, these transgender individuals often prefer being referred to as whatever gender they feel they belong to.

But without counting the soul, have Eva's sexuality? Do they have sexual organs? No? No evidence about it? Well, then they're physically asexual.

That's making a pretty heavy assumption about something that is biologically complete in every other way. I guess Rei is asexual because there is no proof that she possesses genitalia. I will make it a point to call her "it" from now on.

The essential point is, there is gender and there is sex. Even if we do not decisively know the Evas' sex, they have female gender. Thus, calling them "its" is unnecessary, as "she" is entirely appropriate.

But I already know that you, Monkey, and probably OMF as well are as stalwart in your positions as the evil feminazis who insist on something being called "she" in the absense of beaver shots, making the futility of this debate painfully obvious.

I still cling to the notion that if an entity that does not even require traditional reproductive faculties to fulfill vis duty as a Genesis Being is heavily insinuated to have a pootang that cannot be explicitedly depicted for censorship reasons, there is a severe flaw in the notion that these entities are somehow "beyond" sex. Or "beyond" any issues of petty biology, for that matter. Why on Earth does an entity that was meant to be sustained by a non-metabolic energy source (S2 organ) have a complete digestive tract? The only real logical way to explain it is to suppose that frailer beings governed by the laws of biology have created gods in their image, down to all of the organic parts that would be rendered 'unnecessary' for a deity.

What DO you folks have against the idea of giant boobless femmes, anyway?

Originally posted on: 20-May-2005, 07:26 GMT

[OMF [ANF]]

The essential point is, there is gender and there is sex. Even if we do not decisively know the Evas' sex, they have female gender. Thus, calling them "its" is unnecessary, as "she" is entirely appropriate.

This is a good point. As I said before, in other languages things like tables and chairs have gender... but they do not have sex. It would be interesting to find out what pronouns the german and french translators used when referencing the Eva's? Der or Die? However, in english, we are allowed certain leeway in our use of pronouns. Thus a ship can be a "she", a river may at times be a "he", and OMF, under mortal peril, might refer to giant soul absorbing artificial humaniods as "its".

But I already know that you, Monkey, and probably OMF as well are as stalwart in your positions as the evil feminazis who insist on something being called "she" in the absense of beaver shots, making the futility of this debate painfully obvious.

While feminazis scare me, the gender issue isn't my real problem. The reason I use "it", is because of the extreme otherworldly nature of the Eva's. Even if the Eva's had specific genders, I wouldn't call them hes and shes, but rather its. Not because I'm a xenophobe, but because in english, the "he" and "she" pronouns are generally used to people, and thus carry some small baggage. I call corals "its", because they are so different.

Now just on this, while I might call the half Lilith hanging from the cross an "it", I would be less inclined to to so for the post lance removal full Lilith and naturally the Rei/Lilith combination for me, warrent a "she". That said, I'm not entirely sure about the Rei/Harpies , who remain rather disturbing throughout. I suppose they are rather like marble sculptures or something. I'm the kind of person that would call the statue of David an "it" rather than a "he". Maybe i'm just wierd that way

Originally posted on: 20-May-2005, 11:34 GMT

[AchtungAffen [ANF]]

Kaworu refered to Adam as "the being which is our mother" - that's not an exact translation, but he did use a Japanese word which means mother. Since the Evangelions are all clones of Adam, they are all biologically female. Sorry Achtung, but you are wrong.

If Adam derived Evas are clones of Adam, then Eva-01 is also a clone of Lilith, being that them two are referred to with the same term, the infamous bunshin. But I don't know any other instances in original Japanese to the clone vs. alter-ego argument.

But I already know that you, Monkey, and probably OMF as well are as stalwart in your positions as the evil feminazis who insist on something being called "she" in the absense of beaver shots, making the futility of this debate painfully obvious.

To that I'd have to reply with the post who replied yours

Decrete 01/05:

Having seen:

While feminazis scare me, the gender issue isn't my real problem. The reason I use "it", is because of the extreme otherworldly nature of the Eva's. Even if the Eva's had specific genders, I wouldn't call them hes and shes, but rather its. Not because I'm a xenophobe, but because in english, the "he" and "she" pronouns are generally used to people, and thus carry some small baggage. I call corals "its", because they are so different.

Considering

As in my own language we refer to the Evas as "El", as its coming from the word "Evangelion", which is interpreted as coming from "Evangelio" which is male in article, but knowing the differences in languages, and the different gendering on each one of them, and by similar or same argument as OMF

I decrete:

To say an "it". Don't want to be like Flema said, black & white, black & white, but never in the middle.

Be it published and archived.

(I always wondered if that legislative technique workshop would help in Eva discussion)

Originally posted on: 20-May-2005, 17:48 GMT

[Soluzar [ANF]]

If Adam derived Evas are clones of Adam, then Eva-01 is also a clone of Lilith, being that them two are referred to with the same term, the infamous bunshin. But I don't know any other instances in original Japanese to the clone vs. alter-ego argument.

Oh, for heaven's sake! Any notion that Shogouki is a clone of Lileth and not of Adam was put to rest long ago, I thought. Besides, how is that relevant? Both Adam and Lileth are female. I really can't see what you are getting at.

As in my own language we refer to the Evas as "El", as its coming from the word "Evangelion", which is interpreted as coming from "Evangelio" which is male in article, but knowing the differences in languages, and the different gendering on each one of them, and by similar or same argument as OMF

Your own language doesn't come into this, Achtung. Evangelion wasn't written in your language. If you spoke Greek, for example, I might give it a moment's consideration, but since the show was written in Japanese, in Japan, by Japanese people, I fail utterly to see what relevance the gender of a word in Spanish could have.

I decrete:

To say an "it". Don't want to be like Flema said, black & white, black & white, but never in the middle.

Be it published and archived.

I looked up "Flema" and I could only find it defined as the Spanish word for Phlegm. I'm sure you didn't mean that. In any event, you must be aware that you have not even addressed the questions raised by the opposing side in the debate, rather you have just rubber-stamped your own decision with a flourish of unilateral authority. If you are satisfied with that, then please, don't let me stop you.

Originally posted on: 20-May-2005, 18:55 GMT

[OMF [ANF]]

As in my own language we refer to the Evas as "El", as its coming from the word "Evangelion", which is interpreted as coming from "Evangelio" which is male in article, but knowing the differences in languages, and the different gendering on each one of them, and by similar or same argument as OMF

Interesting. So in Spanish(?) at least, the Eva's have been given male pronouns (El) instead of female (Él). Spare a thought now for the many gender confused hispanic Eva fans.
Is there a gender neutral pronoun in spanish?
Come to think of it, do pronouns have gener in Japanese? Are there even pronouns in Japanese?

Any notion that Shogouki is a clone of Lileth and not of Adam was put to rest long ago, I thought.

Wait! Are you saying Unit-01 was not created from Lilith? I was always under the impression that Unit-01 was the only Eva not be be copied from Adam.

Originally posted on: 20-May-2005, 19:19 GMT

[Magami No ER [ANF]]

In Spansih, if you want to say, "They or Them" for men, you'd say "ellos", if you want to say the same about women, it's "ellas". But, if you were to talk abou both men and women together, it goes back to "ellos".Nouns and pronouns are either "feminine" or "masculine, with the latter being the default. This goes for Spain panish as well(vosotros/as) O is usually masucline, a is feminine. Espanol is a bit of a sexist language, like many.
^3 Sho was "birthed" through Lilith, from Adam. There's a good thread somewhere about that.....
Anyway, look at Evas' body parts. They look like female parts, just different ones.

(They should be obvious and well-known by now.)
And, at the end of the manga vol 7(I believe), they were talking about a book that explained that some of the conceptions for the ending of EOE was having a "gaint naked female emarge from the armor."(could someone please post the original?) Yui's facial features and "humaness" was made seen in the Eva We only see through the hair in the final movie.

I'm currently working on a detailed fanart that pertains to this...
Edit And remember mini-GNR in NPC 23'? A merge of Rei, her Eva(which is essentualy Rei already anyway), and the angel....making a GNR.

Originally posted on: 20-May-2005, 19:52 GMT

[Talon [ANF]]

I think bodies and souls are two different things. The soul is you. The body is a complex machine that your soul operates. In my opinion EVA-01's body has nothing to do with its gender... the soul has the gender. Yui is female and the Eva is her machine. About the Yui showing masculine characteristics in Eva... there is a psycholigist (i don't remember his name) who came up with this diagram of the human mind... in this diagram there are two halves of a human's mind... the concious and subconcious. The concious is the you that you express to everyone based on your gender and what you think is right and wrong. The subconcious is the you that you can not show to anyone else, the you that is in the back of your mind that you can never be fully aware of until death. Everyone's subconcious reflects the opposite of thier concious... So in that light every woman's subconcious has a masculine side and every man's has a feminine side. Yui's soul in Eva was asleep (so to speak) and when you are asleep your subconcious takes over... when Eva-01 went berserk Yui basically woke up and her motherly instincts took over.

Originally posted on: 21-May-2005, 08:18 GMT

[Reichu [ANF]]

Yeah, this is really a debate over the English language. In Japanese, for instance, this issue does not exist. The words for "he" and "she" are infrequently used*, and there is no word equivalent to "it". Yes, you have things like sore, kore, are, but these are so abstract and flexible in their usage that they can refer to just about anything, including people.

Language is a reflection of culture, politics, philosophy. For me, "its" are inherently inanimate -- objects, intangible ideas, etc. To refer to living entities with the same word is, to my mind, a subtle form of anthropocentrism, basically saying that only humans are worthy of any sort of distinction. Not only are they worthy of being distinguished from all other animate and inanimate things, they are entitled to be distinguished on the basis of gender, sex, or both. This, of course, has created more and more problems the more heated the gender/sex issue has become; not to mention that it forces categorization of "non-its", with no culturally-accepted pronouns on equal ground with "he" and "she" to refer to entities of either unknown gender/sex or no gender/sex.

Another problem exists with the classical habit of using "man" to refer to either a person or a male human being**, and "he" to refer to both male human beings, as the "default" pronoun for someone whose gender/sex you do not yet know (do you have any idea how often I have been called "he" on the Internet?), and, sometimes, as a pronoun to refer to someone of either gender. Alternatively, "woman" ONLY means "female human being", and "she" considered the virtually exclusive domain of women. As for ships and other vehicles being called "she", I never really understood this tradition and I am inclined to read cynical things into it.*** (BTW, here I'm not taking into account those fine people who choose to give non-humans the distinction of not being "its".)

One could say, "What are women complaining about? They are entitled to distinction from humanity as a whole." However, this distinction is hardly complementary. In essence, the MALE is treated as the default. Humanity (and just about everything else) is collectively represented by the male version; females warrant distinction because they are NOT the default, NOT the image that is chosen to define humanity as a whole. Consider the influence of religion here: The first human is a male, and the female is merely an afterthought. This is a mentality in which men come first and women are strange, lesser creatures to be kept in their place. And it is certainly not limited to people; generally speaking, the females must be separated from the "default" male, resulting in terms like "lioness" and "tigress", wherein the terms they are derived from are used to not only refer to all members of their kind, but specifically the male, as well.

Feminism, despite the ridicule it has been subjected to, is, at its core, something that has been seeking to release all people, not just women, from the shackles of a world governed not only by men, but from all concepts of gender inequality and rigid gender roles. There is extremism, of course, but feminism that has abandoned the concept of egalitarianism should be viewed as a deviant sect that has lost touch with the movement's innate purpose.

That said, AchtungAffen's assertations that this entire discussion is a symptom of extremist feminism I find slightly insulting. Were there adequate reason to believe the Evas and SoLs were masculine, I would be advocating that we call them all "he".

All that is a detour, though. Although there is the matter of recognizing the Evas' femininity, the issue we are more specifically dealing with here are the anthropocentric attitudes possibly governing the tendency to call anything that is not "human as we know it" by the term 'it', and thus to debase them to something not worthy of the distinction from all non-human entities and things we grant those of our own species.

And with regard to Evas, "non-human" is not really applicable, considering the show bothers to point out that the Evas are human, too.

* Yes, OMF, there are pronouns in Japanese, many in fact, but you'd probably gain more by spending some time with Google than me attempting to summarize the matter here.

** And, even so, the default assumption is that "men" are male. "All men are created equal"? This clearly was not commonly interpreted to encompass women when it was written, otherwise the feminist movement would have never sprung into motion. Also, I hasten to add, even not all *men* were created equal back in the day, although this is perhaps more due to the fact that those of African descent were not really considered people by those Caucasian poo-poo heads.

*** Vessels. These and other vehicles, traditionally something that men control. Indeed, an occupied vessel (among other things) is said to be "manned". One could even apply a Freudian interpretation and note that such vessels are typically controlled after being ENTERED. The man enters and imposes his will; the vessel complies without complaint. No wonder they came to be referred to as "she".

Originally posted on: 21-May-2005, 08:20 GMT

[AchtungAffen [ANF]]

@Soluzar

Oh, for heaven's sake! Any notion that Shogouki is a clone of Lileth and not of Adam was put to rest long ago, I thought. Besides, how is that relevant? Both Adam and Lileth are female. I really can't see what you are getting at.

Well, I never finished reading Sharp's thread. But I can say, as Seele calls Eva-01 Lillith's only "bunshin", and Kaworu calls Eva-02 Adam's "bunshin", that if Eva-02 is clone of Adam, then Eva-01 also but from Lilith.

It's not relevant to if the SOL's are female or not. I just wanted to poke with this. I still don't feel easy on it, need to sleep at night you know??

Your own language doesn't come into this, Achtung. Evangelion wasn't written in your language. If you spoke Greek, for example, I might give it a moment's consideration, but since the show was written in Japanese, in Japan, by Japanese people, I fail utterly to see what relevance the gender of a word in Spanish could have.

How can I put it... the souls of languages? I mean, having seen Eva in 3 languages (ES-JA-EN), subs and dubs (xcept for english dub, only parts of it), you can feel more or less what the souls of each one says. The spanish consideration is merely subjective, OMF's argument is more the real stuff.

I looked up "Flema" and I could only find it defined as the Spanish word for Phlegm. I'm sure you didn't mean that. In any event, you must be aware that you have not even addressed the questions raised by the opposing side in the debate, rather you have just rubber-stamped your own decision with a flourish of unilateral authority. If you are satisfied with that, then please, don't let me stop you.

Well, that's how it sounds when I put it in legislative technique as a "decrete" (a presidential decision). But that's not exactly what I meant, as I'm no president. I stated my oppinion in the form of a decrete, but I'm not impoisng it to anyone, and I'm also not adding an article which would say "Article 2°: Unmodifiable all the articles of this decrete are from here to the eternity", which would also be inconstitutional, as the only unmodifiable part of my legislative system is the dogmatic part of the constitution, and the international agreements (unless they are changed internationally).

Flema, oh flema. Yes, that's the meaning of the word. But there's much more than that. Flema was a punk rock band, very crude, very funny sometimes, but giving you an aspect of reality, one of the dimensions of humans, that probably cannot be covered anyother way. Songs include "Mi suegra tiene menopausia" (my mother in law has menopausia), "Nunca seré policía" (I'll never be a cop [this one is extremely good, because it has almost nothing to do with cops until the end of it - lyrics here, song is copyrighted methinks, no link.], "Más feliz que la mierda" (Happier than sh*t), "Fistf*cking", etc...

If you like punk rock you might like it. But as sung Tango, the very big dimension of it is in the lyrics more than the music (which in Flema's case is no better than Skrewdriver)

====================================

As for spanish. Like Deutsch, it has three articles. Whether in german it's Der (male), Das (neutral) and Die (female), in spanish we have "El" (male), "Lo" (neutral) and "La" (female). As in german different things have different articles. Table is feminine, plane is masculine... WAIT!!! There are no neutral sustantives as in german!!!! I stand corrected. "Lo" is used differently, it's some kind of neutral... but well, I really can't explain how it works. I'll ask someone who knows it in detail later.

Got it: "Lo" is "generality". For example "Lo lindo" (the beautiful), "Lo que odio" (what I hate)... jeebus. This is what happens when you go to a bilingual school and have better formation in the foreign language than your own...

As for Eva, if you want to take an article on that sustantive from the word "Evangelion", then it would be "El", masculine, as it comes from "Evangelio (gospel)" which is masculine. But if you call it Unit 01, then it's feminine, as "Unidad 01", "Unidad" is feminine. But "Eva Unidad 01" is masculine, as again the thing that gives the article is "Eva".

Magami gives a good explanation. Listen to her, seems to have better technical knowledge of my own language than myself.

==============================

As for Eva-01 being born from Lillith through Adam insemination, that's another thing that I would not bet my life upon. Still, I haven't read the whole thread, so my oppinions are partial. I still haven't fullfilled my promise, I'm sorry, I will, I need to.... "Unrestful will my heart be until it rests in thee", in thee, the read thread, the question answered at least in my own persona's interior forum.

===============================

@Reichu

Feel glad, in spanish, human kind is feminine: "La humanidad".

Consider the influence of religion here: The first human is a male, and the female is merely an afterthought.

This depends. Think about, for example, that painting on the Sixtine Chapel, the creation of man. God reaching out for Adam, but God's being held by a femme... the distinction that God had already her in mind. I have theology with a pretty weird priest, a disciple of Luigi Guissani, a fine man. He affirms that both, man and woman, were concieved at the same time (don't remember exactly the theological explanation), and that the Genesis cannot be taken literally as for times, as according to the catholic cathecism, it's not part of the "historical part" (which starts when Abraham departs from Ur). If you're not satisfied with this answer, I'll ask the priest for a more detailed one. Listen, I'm not defending religion, I'm just saying that different interpretations of the books give different "Weltanschaungs". For example, this priest says that creationists who refuse evolution are just ignorant of what the bible says (again, inconsistencies in timings in the non-historical parts of the bible, literal vs comprehensive interpretation). But well, he's more of the planned theory type. Evolution, yes, but behind all this there seems to be an intelligence, it's everything much of a coincidence (not only the complexity of life on earth, but all the coincidences of factors on the solar system and the universe that made life possible on earth). They see evidence in coincidences.

That said, AchtungAffen's assertations that this entire discussion is a symptom of extremist feminism I find slightly insulting.

I'm sorry for that, I really didn't gave much of a thought to that quote of mine until now, and now I see how limited it was. It was a matter of profound currents, always having considered them as masculine, because of my born language, it stroke me to see it otherwise. I'm not justifying myself, cannot be justified. I'm sorry if I ever offended you or anyone.

Originally posted on: 21-May-2005, 03:12 GMT

[Reichu [ANF]]

Achtung, I never claimed that Adam "inseminated" anyone. (Indeed, that is a bit at odds with my contention that Adam is not a "he".) However, if we are to further debate on this matter, I insist it be done in the preexisting thread. Also, if might be beneficial to actually read the thread before deciding that you disagree with the ideas contained within.

Also, with my references to religion, I was not referring to the "truth" of said texts, but to the (however misinformed) prejudices that have arose because of them. Or, I suppose, sometimes it is a matter of someone possessing a prejudice beforehand, and then "interpreting" a religious text to support their assertation. (But, really, that can apply to just about anything.)

Originally posted on: 21-May-2005, 03:23 GMT