There is some evidence to suggest that hobbit society is matriarchal, which would also tend to imply that hobbit women are more likely to be warlike than their male counter-parts.
Not really. To me it simply suggests that because hobbits tended to be strongly family-oriented, women had considerable social power as a result. That's got nothing to do with being warlike, though. It can't be a truly matriarchal society, either, because if it were then not only would hobbits be not at all like the English country-folk they're supposed to resemble, but the menfolk wouldn't be holding positions like Thain of the Shire.
In humans, males typically have more bone and muscle mass than females. We have nothing to indicate that this is true of hobbits. In point of fact, we are making the assumption that hobbit women are somewhat smaller and lighter than hobbit men; but I don't think there is anything in Tolkien's works to indicate that this is true. For all we know, their sizes may be roughly equal. We do know that dwarven women have basically identical builds to their male counter-parts; and I think that the same can be said of elves. Why not hobbits? For that matter... Tolkien's world is different than ours, who's to say that human (or more accurately Edain) men and women aren't of similar height and weight, with comparable muscle & bone mass?
Old man Tolkien, that's who. Middle-earth is a fantasy version of 'our' world, so the Men in it are very much like us, on the whole, with the Dunedain as the notable exception. One of the ways Tolkien differentiates the Elves from Men is that he says that female Elves were much closer in stature and strength to the males than you'd find among Men. As for hobbits, they're essentially just pint-sized Men - the chief difference (apart from great big furry feet) was in temperament, as they were far less aggressive by nature except when defending their own.
As for the OP's question "are female hobbit adventurer's lore appropriate?" I think that we've already established that there really isn't any room in the lore for any adventurers outside of the Nine Walkers in Lord of the Rings. The same question could be applied to any race/gender combination, and the answer would be: No.
Of course there's room for adventurers other than the Fellowship - it's silly to say there couldn't be any. Even the odd female hobbit (according to Tolkien himself) - it all depends what kind of adventures they might get up to. Not the kind adventurers do in MMOs, though, that's for sure.
However, the OP devolved his question into more of a campaign to remove female hobbit adventurers from the game. When you accept the convention that LotRo is a fantasy role-play game, the OP hasn't got a leg to stand on, here.
That's true enough, but there's the more general problem of hobbits being seen to do especially ridiculous things.
The OP continues to think that thousands of people will want to play a Game where the only role available is a starving peasant, especially if they wish to play a female character.
They (who one has to assume is male) doesn't seem to understand that one of the main reasons to play a Fantasy RPG is to become a Hero, save the world and be rewarded for doing so (with the possibility in some Games to be a Villain instead) and that there are not many people who wish to come home from work, school, college, etc and play a Game where there life is in fact worse then the one in which they actually live.
I personally play Fantasy RPGs to be someone very different than myself and finish a gaming session having achieved something of worth, rather than logging on to spend a couple of hours cleaning out the pig pen and then having to labour over the stove to provide the family's only meal of the day.
Never mind the fact that, as previously mentioned, throughout the Middle Ages there are examples of strong women and female leaders who achieved great things in a predominantly male world (details of the couple mentioned and of others can be found for them if necessary).
Last edited by f.i.t.c.; Aug 22 2011 at 03:24 PM.
There is a mistaken belief that there wasn't a Woman in the Fellowship. It is just that when she got to Rivendell. "You want to climb over the Misty Mountains - You want to go down through Moria - Are you all mad." So she moved in with the Elves instead.
So, when it comes to adventuring in the realm of Middle Earth at the end of the third age, unless your name is: Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin, Gimli, Legolas, Aragorn, Boromir, or Gandalf, you can forget it. Go home.
You forgot Gollum.
Also: All those names are already taken on every server! Now what am I gonna do?
Pretending that something didn't happen, doesn't make it so.
I don't see any arguable difference between an MMO (which is short for MMORPG) and an RPG.
Regardless of your statement that you "just want discussion," the tone you have taken strongly indicates you seem to have an agenda for removing female hobbits from the game.
As I have already replied, there is honestly no room for any adventurers in Middle Earth, during this time. Should we allow Male Elves to be adventurers? Female Humans? Dwarves of indeterminate gender? The answer to ALL of these questions is: No.
Realistically, can a female hobbit tank the Balrog? Well, no. Realistically, Female Elf, Male Human, Dwarf of indeterminate gender... no one can tank the Balrog. Gandalf did it, but Gandalf is "none of the above" -he is one of the Five Istari, an immortal, and a demigod.
So, in terms of the question you asked in your OP, no. There doesn't seem to be a lore-appropriate reason to allow female hobbits to adventure. The caveat being, in the larger scheme of things, that same restriction would apply to everyone, making it a pointless question.
Again, going back to your apparent agenda to get this race/gender combination removed from the game... just give it up. As I said before, you haven't got a leg to stand on.
Well, you can keep telling yourself that I'm on a secret agenda to remove female hobbits from the game, but that is simply not true because I've never said anything of the like. What I have stated is my questioning of the logic behind hobbit females being able to do certain things.
Though, if I haven't gotten this across yet, I'm sorry. But I'm questioning female hobbit "adventuring," whatever you might label that as. Female Humans or Elves are far more fitting to be able to do some of the things that I've stated before, like kill a creature, tank an instance all by themselves, etc. Why would that be? Because there are cases supporting them, such as Eowyn, or Arwen.
Not among hobbits, there aren't. Some strong female characters, to be sure, but it's not as if Belladonna Took got to be Mayoress.
Only because Hobbits are fictional characters, if Hobbits did in fact exist it is just as likely as with the Race of Man that Female members of their Race would have done actions of great worth, including in warfare and leadership.
There is a mistaken belief that there wasn't a Woman in the Fellowship. It is just that when she got to Rivendell. "You want to climb over the Misty Mountains - You want to go down through Moria - Are you all mad." So she moved in with the Elves instead.
Only because Hobbits are fictional characters, if Hobbits did in fact exist it is just as likely as with the Race of Man that Female members of their Race would have done actions of great worth, including in warfare and leadership.
So if they weren't what they were, then they'd have been different?
Huh? That somehow assumed nothing, except that folks have a sense of humor.
I prefer to post on these Forums with a sense of humor, but it is very difficult to do so when certain people keep coming on here saying that at least 50% of the world's population should not be allowed to do anything and that any of that at least 50% found to be out in the world doing things, should be sent back to where they came from (presumable by force) and (presumable) punished for daring to do something.
And it is clearly a issue of their Sex and not their Race, because they can be found not just on this Hobbit related thread, but also saying that Female Elves and Female Dwarves should not be allowed to do anything either.
They claim that J.R.R.Tolkien said that no Female of any Race ever went out and did anything, so they use this to justify their blatantly sexist view point that Female characters should not be allowed to do anything.
Which is of course a great insult to all those who play Female characters (whether or not they are Female) and an insult to the works of and the world created by J.R.R. Tolkien. Where just because the main actions are completed by Male characters, it does not mean that there are no strong Female characters or that only Males did anything of any importance.
[Note: My signature may be of a Male Dwarf, but of my seven active characters, three are Female and they are just as important and do just as much work as my Male characters.]
There is a mistaken belief that there wasn't a Woman in the Fellowship. It is just that when she got to Rivendell. "You want to climb over the Misty Mountains - You want to go down through Moria - Are you all mad." So she moved in with the Elves instead.
I prefer to post on these Forums with a sense of humor, but it is very difficult to do so when certain people keep coming on here saying that at least 50% of the world's population should not be allowed to do anything and that any of that at least 50% found to be out in the world doing things, should be sent back to where they came from (presumable by force) and (presumable) punished for daring to do something.
And it is clearly a issue of their Sex and not their Race, because they can be found not just on this Hobbit related thread, but also saying that Female Elves and Female Dwarves should not be allowed to do anything either.
They claim that J.R.R.Tolkien said that no Female of any Race ever went out and did anything, so they use this to justify their blatantly sexist view point that Female characters should not be allowed to do anything.
Well, then 'they' would be wrong, but you're equally wrong because you've gone to the opposite extreme in refusing to consider any limits at all even though there are grounds to argue for them. And worse, you're making a strawman argument: we're talking about female hobbits in this thread, not everyone. None of the arguments made here apply to female Men or Elves. Your problem seems to be that you consider hobbits to be just like Men in temperament, which they were plainly not.
Some of this supposed 'sexism' you're on about is part of the setting. When it comes to female Dwarves Tolkien actually says that they very seldom left their homes (only when they were forced to by circumstances) and never, ever went to war. In the context of the game, that means that they should indeed 'not be allowed to do anything', and the game acknowledges that by not openly supporting female Dwarves.
Which is of course a great insult to all those who play Female characters (whether or not they are Female) and an insult to the works of and the world created by J.R.R. Tolkien. Where just because the main actions are completed by Male characters, it does not mean that there are no strong Female characters or that only Males did anything of any importance.
Being strong characters has nothing to do with being able to carve their way through scores of Orcs, still less being able to tank a Balrog. Hobbits should be more limited than they are, male or female. You say that's an insult to Tolkien's works, while condoning the ludicrous spectacle of hobbits wearing heavy armour and going toe-to-toe with fallen Maiar. That's wildly inconsistent, to put it mildly.
[Note: My signature may be of a Male Dwarf, but of my seven active characters, three are Female and they are just as important and do just as much work as my Male characters.]
That's because the game allows that, which is no argument as to why that's right in the first place. Completely circular.
What I actually wanted to say in reply, I have just deleted, due to it highly inflammatory nature and would only have got me in trouble.
So I will leave it at this: Female Hobbits have as much right to tank a Balrog, to wear heavy armour or even to drive a heavily armoured tank at a Balrog as everybody else.
There is a mistaken belief that there wasn't a Woman in the Fellowship. It is just that when she got to Rivendell. "You want to climb over the Misty Mountains - You want to go down through Moria - Are you all mad." So she moved in with the Elves instead.
What I actually wanted to say in reply, I have just deleted, due to it highly inflammatory nature and would only have got me in trouble.
So I will leave it at this: Female Hobbits have as much right to tank a Balrog, to wear heavy armour or even to drive a heavily armoured tank at a Balrog as everybody else.
There is a mistaken belief that there wasn't a Woman in the Fellowship. It is just that when she got to Rivendell. "You want to climb over the Misty Mountains - You want to go down through Moria - Are you all mad." So she moved in with the Elves instead.
So I will leave it at this: Female Hobbits have as much right to tank a Balrog, to wear heavy armour or even to drive a heavily armoured tank at a Balrog as everybody else.
The point was made that no hobbit should be doing anything of the sort, let alone female hobbits, as it's absurd even by fantasy standards. It's even more absurd to talk about fictional characters having the 'right' to do things that make no sense within the fiction they're part of.
The point was made that no hobbit should be doing anything of the sort, let alone female hobbits, as it's absurd even by fantasy standards. It's even more absurd to talk about fictional characters having the 'right' to do things that make no sense within the fiction they're part of.
But how is not absurd to talk about fictional characters not having the right do something?
And also you are not saying you want the rights of fictional character infringed, you are saying that you want the rights of living breathing players of LOTRO infringed by preventing them from playing Female Hobbits in anyway that anyone would actually wish to play them.
My Female Hobbit most certainly wont be spending her time cooking, cleaning and waiting hand and foot on anyone, because there is no way I would wish to play that Game. She's a Burglar by the way and she was at Archet, during the Blackwold attack.
Your been offensive to the players of this Game, as well as still been sexist and possible racist towards Hobbits.
There is a mistaken belief that there wasn't a Woman in the Fellowship. It is just that when she got to Rivendell. "You want to climb over the Misty Mountains - You want to go down through Moria - Are you all mad." So she moved in with the Elves instead.
But how is not absurd to talk about fictional characters not having the right do something?
Because they're fictional, in a fantasy world, and you're bringing modern sensibilities into it.
And also you are not saying you want the rights of fictional character infringed, you are saying that you want the rights of living breathing players of LOTRO infringed by preventing them from playing Female Hobbits in anyway that anyone would actually wish to play them.
What I'm actually saying is that there should never have been hobbit Guardians, if you look, because having hobbit tanks yields ridiculous results. And that's male or female hobbits, note. You can't call sensible race/class restrictions infringing on anyone's 'rights'.
My Female Hobbit most certainly wont be spending her time cooking, cleaning and waiting hand and foot on anyone
There you go again with another of your strawman arguments.
Your been offensive to the players of this Game, as well as still been sexist and possible racist towards Hobbits.
So now you're saying I'm being 'sexist' and 'racist' towards completely imaginary people?
First I will say that yesterday I spent my entire Gaming time on Forums (mainly these ones) instead of doing any actual Gaming. By the time I had finished here, I was much to tired to actually log into a Game and went to bed.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Because they're fictional, in a fantasy world, and you're bringing modern sensibilities into it.
In my own personal opinion: I don't like it when people bring modern sensibilities into the Game or into Middle Earth discussions either.
But what I am bringing is a defense of peoples rights to play Female characters as Female characters, rather than weaker, more useless characters or lust objects and servents of Male characters.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
What I'm actually saying is that there should never have been hobbit Guardians, if you look, because having hobbit tanks yields ridiculous results. And that's male or female hobbits, note. You can't call sensible race/class restrictions infringing on anyone's 'rights'.
According to Turbine own description of Guardians, a Hobbit is the inspiration of the Guardian and he is a major character within the Lord of the Rings, so who is breaking the Lore of LOTRO now? Note: We are talking about LOTRO on these Forums, not LOTR.
As for race/class restriction I would like to see them removed not increased, why can't all Races play as all Classes? I wished to create a Female Elf Burglar, but she ended up been a Hobbit instead.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
There you go again with another of your strawman arguments.
On this I have just had to look up what you meant and in reply: Yours is pretty much made of straw, with no legs to stand on.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
So now you're saying I'm being 'sexist' and 'racist' towards completely imaginary people?
OK, maybe it is only Women and short people you have a problem with, because there is very little (if any) evidence that Women are not the equals of Men (either now or in the past - such as when the inspiration for Middle Earth took place) or people of short statue been less capable than taller people. Whether or not they are fictional characters does not come into it.
There is a mistaken belief that there wasn't a Woman in the Fellowship. It is just that when she got to Rivendell. "You want to climb over the Misty Mountains - You want to go down through Moria - Are you all mad." So she moved in with the Elves instead.
First I will say that yesterday I spent my entire Gaming time on Forums (mainly these ones) instead of doing any actual Gaming. By the time I had finished here, I was much to tired to actually log into a Game and went to bed.
Funny that, I managed to fit in quite a bit of TF2 as well. Sorry if you're finding this unduly taxing
In my own personal opinion: I don't like it when people bring modern sensibilities into the Game or into Middle Earth discussions either.
But what I am bringing is a defense of peoples rights to play Female characters as Female characters, rather than weaker, more useless characters or lust objects and servents of Male characters.
If you genuinely wanted to be able to play female characters as female, then you'd have to deal with the consequences of being female. Disadvantages when it comes to fighting at close quarters, in particular; you can blame evolution for that. No, what you want is an extra degree of fantasy empowerment - not that there's anything wrong with that, but you should acknowledge that what you want isn't a truly female character.
According to Turbine own description of Guardians, a Hobbit is the inspiration of the Guardian and he is a major character within the Lord of the Rings, so who is breaking the Lore of LOTRO now? Note: We are talking about LOTRO on these Forums, not LOTR.
And the devs are talking rubbish, there. Oh, Sam defends Frodo, that must mean he's a Guardian? Nope. When he takes on Shelob, he's acting more like a Champion, dual-wielding and all; he doesn't tank her, she's momentarily taken aback by his ferocity.
That's not the only example of a questionable archetype, either.
As for race/class restriction I would like to see them removed not increased, why can't all Races play as all Classes?
Because that would allow nonsensical combinations, like hobbit RKs.
On this I have just had to look up what you meant and in reply: Yours is pretty much made of straw, with no legs to stand on.
Looks like you didn't read the definition too closely, then
You've been talking as if the only alternative to what you want is women being treated as chattels. That is a strawman argument, because you're misrepresenting the situation and hence trying to cast what I've been saying in an unduly negative light.
OK, maybe it is only Women and short people you have a problem with, because there is very little (if any) evidence that Women are not the equals of Men (either now or in the past - such as when the inspiration for Middle Earth took place) or people of short statue been less capable than taller people. Whether or not they are fictional characters does not come into it.
No, the fact that they're fictional is what makes your argument absurd. You're trying to champion the 'rights' of people who don't even exist.
When it comes to some things, women genuinely aren't of equal capability to men as a result of evolution. That's why there's still segregation in sports, because equality of rights can't undo those physical differences. And being rather short IRL, I can tell you for free that it does naturally make for less physical capability in some respects. Less reach, less leverage. That's just how it is.
Funny that, I managed to fit in quite a bit of TF2 as well. Sorry if you're finding this unduly taxing
YOU DON'T PLAY LORD OF THE RING ONLINE! I am not at all surprised, in fact saw this coming, unless of course your character is a Troll.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
And the devs are talking rubbish, there. Oh, Sam defends Frodo, that must mean he's a Guardian? Nope. When he takes on Shelob, he's acting more like a Champion, dual-wielding and all; he doesn't tank her, she's momentarily taken aback by his ferocity.
That's not the only example of a questionable archetype, either.
And you have just made disparaging comments about the developer of the Game that these Forums are for, so definitely play a Troll and I thought this thread was supposed to be about Hobbits.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Because that would allow nonsensical combinations, like hobbit RKs.
Freedom of choice is not nonsensical and only by allowing all Race/Class combinations will freedom of choice be maintained, including Hobbit Guardians and Ruin-keepers.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
hence trying to cast what I've been saying in an unduly negative light.
I really don't need to, anyone just has to read what you have put, to see that it is negative.
ps. I have just change my signature, to a more appropriate one.
There is a mistaken belief that there wasn't a Woman in the Fellowship. It is just that when she got to Rivendell. "You want to climb over the Misty Mountains - You want to go down through Moria - Are you all mad." So she moved in with the Elves instead.
YOU DON'T PLAY LORD OF THE RING ONLINE! I am not at all surprised, in fact saw this coming, unless of course your character is a Troll.
I didn't play any LOTRO last night because I happened to be playing TF2, as I said. Some of us do play more than one game, you know!
Freedom of choice is not nonsensical and only by allowing all Race/Class combinations will freedom of choice be maintained, including Hobbit Guardians and Ruin-keepers.
Hobbit RKs would be the most utter nonsense because hobbits didn't use runes and never studied any form of magic. If you want that kind of nonsense, I'd suggest that WoW would be more your kind of game because Blizzard have stopped even trying to have that make any kind of sense.
I didn't play any LOTRO last night because I happened to be playing TF2, as I said. Some of us do play more than one game, you know!
I used to play more than one Game, but the last couple of days this Game has been to good.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Hobbit RKs would be the most utter nonsense because hobbits didn't use runes and never studied any form of magic. If you want that kind of nonsense, I'd suggest that WoW would be more your kind of game because Blizzard have stopped even trying to have that make any kind of sense.
No matter how much you think you can insult me by insinuating that I would play WoW, I'm sorry but I would never stoop so low as playing WoW. My background is Dungeons and Dragons, the original and the best - oh look Tolkien inspired and the choice to pick any Race/Class conbination. And yes I do play the online version, as an entertaining aside to LOTRO.
There is a mistaken belief that there wasn't a Woman in the Fellowship. It is just that when she got to Rivendell. "You want to climb over the Misty Mountains - You want to go down through Moria - Are you all mad." So she moved in with the Elves instead.
No matter how much you think you can insult me by insinuating that I would play WoW, I'm sorry but I would never stoop so low as playing WoW.
Don't make suggestions that would make LOTRO more like it, then. As this is Middle-earth we're talking about, some race/class combinations do not make sense.
As for D&D, it's hardly exclusively Tolkien inspired; it takes very much after the work of other writers such as Robert E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock and so on. That's why it's a much wilder fantasy than Tolkien's, with all those weird monsters, flashy magic and its emphasis on action; it's sword-and-sorcery rather than high fantasy.
Also: originally, D&D did have stringent race/class restrictions.
There is a mistaken belief that there wasn't a Woman in the Fellowship. It is just that when she got to Rivendell. "You want to climb over the Misty Mountains - You want to go down through Moria - Are you all mad." So she moved in with the Elves instead.
There is a mistaken belief that there wasn't a Woman in the Fellowship. It is just that when she got to Rivendell. "You want to climb over the Misty Mountains - You want to go down through Moria - Are you all mad." So she moved in with the Elves instead.
There is a mistaken belief that there wasn't a Woman in the Fellowship. It is just that when she got to Rivendell. "You want to climb over the Misty Mountains - You want to go down through Moria - Are you all mad." So she moved in with the Elves instead.
I'm sorry I don't understand your statement, could you please explain it more clearly.
There is a mistaken belief that there wasn't a Woman in the Fellowship. It is just that when she got to Rivendell. "You want to climb over the Misty Mountains - You want to go down through Moria - Are you all mad." So she moved in with the Elves instead.
How's it a good thing? What you two have been talking about is not what the title states. If you want to go talk about Arda, etc. go start another thread.
I half expect Celestra to come in here and close this thread.
If after that you have no idea what Arda is, I fear there's no helping you at all.
Your right there is no helping me at all, I am always completely lost.
Originally Posted by hisoka-thorongil
How's it a good thing?
It is a very good thing to protect defenseless Hobbits from such outrageous statements and -
Originally Posted by hisoka-thorongil
I half expect Celestra to come in here and close this thread.
- that would be a good thing as well.
There is a mistaken belief that there wasn't a Woman in the Fellowship. It is just that when she got to Rivendell. "You want to climb over the Misty Mountains - You want to go down through Moria - Are you all mad." So she moved in with the Elves instead.
It probably should, because you've yet to say anything constructive, only tactless opinion.
I would give you Negative Rep for that, but it the weekend (a three day one here in the UK) and I have had plenty of time to think things over and because it's the weekend (a three day one) rationally. So I may post something, somewhere, over the next few days, on things brought up by more than one thread of these Forums.
There is a mistaken belief that there wasn't a Woman in the Fellowship. It is just that when she got to Rivendell. "You want to climb over the Misty Mountains - You want to go down through Moria - Are you all mad." So she moved in with the Elves instead.
I would give you Negative Rep for that, but it the weekend (a three day one here in the UK) and I have had plenty of time to think things over and because it's the weekend (a three day one) rationally. So I may post something, somewhere, over the next few days, on things brought up by more than one thread of these Forums.
Negative reputation is when you disagree with what someone has said and when you do disagree with what someone has said, you can click (with your mouse) on the tag called Reputation below their post, where you get the option to say that you agree or disagree with what the person said. To then click disagree, is what is known as giving Negative reputation (or rep). The below link may help you understand more.
Hopefully these will help you understand what I said.
But unfortunately it is quite clear that some people who post on these Forums can not in fact think rationally at any time.
There is a mistaken belief that there wasn't a Woman in the Fellowship. It is just that when she got to Rivendell. "You want to climb over the Misty Mountains - You want to go down through Moria - Are you all mad." So she moved in with the Elves instead.
Negative reputation is when you disagree with what someone has said and when you do disagree with what someone has said, you can click (with your mouse) on the tag called Reputation below their post, where you get the option to say that you agree or disagree with what the person said. To then click disagree, is what is known as giving Negative reputation (or rep). The below link may help you understand more.
Hopefully these will help you understand what I said.
But unfortunately it is quite clear that some people who post on these Forums can not in fact think rationally at any time.
That wasn't my point, at all. What you wrote was a gargled mess of a paragraph that was hardly well constructed. You have absolutely no room to talk about what makes something rational or not.
I also understand what reputation means.
In addition, since you have "thought about it over the weekend," how about you actually give some valid points that are actually beneficial to what the thread title wants to be discussed.
Grand Member Online status:
Reputation:
Originally Posted by Boffadoc
Senior Member Online status:
Re: Are Female Hobbits Lore Abiding?
Poster of Note Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Re: Are Female Hobbits Lore Abiding?
YOU DON'T PLAY LORD OF THE RING ONLINE! I am not at all surprised, in fact saw this coming, unless of course your character is a Troll.
Re: Are Female Hobbits Lore Abiding?
I used to play more than one Game, but the last couple of days this Game has been to good.
Re: Are Female Hobbits Lore Abiding?
Now you have confused me, because how is this relevant.
Re: Are Female Hobbits Lore Abiding?
I'm sorry I don't understand your statement, could you please explain it more clearly.
Guard of the Citadel Online status:
Posting Permissions
