If women are easily the counterparts etc., then where are they?
chimeric
Member Posts: 1,163
Let me start with an aside: I found this wonderful disclaimer in the AD&D 2nd edition Player's Handbook.
"A Note About Pronouns
The male pronoun (he, him, his) is used exclusively throughout the second edition of the AD&D game rules. We hope this won't be construed by anyone to be an attempt to exclude females from the game or imply their exclusion. Centuries of use have neutered the male pronoun. In written material it is clear, concise, and familiar. Nothing else is."
This is so elegant and yet firm, I think I'm going to include it with all my writing. But otherwise the COMPUTER adaptations of the AD&D game that we have here really don't have nearly as many women NPC as their political correctness hastens them to assure. The cast of party NPC in Baldur's Gate is balanced rather well, at least numerically. A few "strong females" like Shar-Teel and Dynaheir mesh with others who don't make a business of proclaiming themselves "strong." Outside, though, it's by and large a men's world. For many creatures only the male version is present at all, and women are very much a second sex.
Now it's true that even in the paper-and-pencil game monsters the party encounters are often male and that females and offspring are contained in the "Habitat/Society" section (in the style of "There will be 1d10 females, who fight as bugbears, and 1d6 children, who fight as goblins." What more is there to say?) The fantasy world has not yet been emancipated. The women mostly stay at home and the men mostly go out earning money. As inconsistent as fantasy settings are on many levels, they are at least traditional in this conservatism, and it keeps them coherent. So I'm not calling for a revolutionary sex-change for Eltan and Belt into Eltana and Beltie. In any event, you can't split Five Dukes half-way, even if you split some completely. But what I, for one, would like to see is modders making a point of creating female characters - not as an afterthought, but as a priority. If you are going to make a character, think first of making him a her. There are already lots of men to go around. With a woman, you are going to have to adjust the dynamics of your mod, consciously or not, because sex is more than cosmetics. And we need this refreshing change of angle. With a mod full of dudes, they will more likely than not end up doing the dude thing, which in the games comes down to being rude and killing things. Just look at Sarevok and his all-boys gang: Tazok, Angelo... Don't get me wrong: I appreciate the dude thing, but I've done quite enough of it to last me.
So let's be affirmative action about this and make some - no, lots - of women. More than half. If you only plan on making three NPC, make them all women. And not "amazons." Just women. Not all adventurers, either. Use the "Female commoner" avatar and the "Girl" avatar. Then see how different the mod comes out.
"A Note About Pronouns
The male pronoun (he, him, his) is used exclusively throughout the second edition of the AD&D game rules. We hope this won't be construed by anyone to be an attempt to exclude females from the game or imply their exclusion. Centuries of use have neutered the male pronoun. In written material it is clear, concise, and familiar. Nothing else is."
This is so elegant and yet firm, I think I'm going to include it with all my writing. But otherwise the COMPUTER adaptations of the AD&D game that we have here really don't have nearly as many women NPC as their political correctness hastens them to assure. The cast of party NPC in Baldur's Gate is balanced rather well, at least numerically. A few "strong females" like Shar-Teel and Dynaheir mesh with others who don't make a business of proclaiming themselves "strong." Outside, though, it's by and large a men's world. For many creatures only the male version is present at all, and women are very much a second sex.
Now it's true that even in the paper-and-pencil game monsters the party encounters are often male and that females and offspring are contained in the "Habitat/Society" section (in the style of "There will be 1d10 females, who fight as bugbears, and 1d6 children, who fight as goblins." What more is there to say?) The fantasy world has not yet been emancipated. The women mostly stay at home and the men mostly go out earning money. As inconsistent as fantasy settings are on many levels, they are at least traditional in this conservatism, and it keeps them coherent. So I'm not calling for a revolutionary sex-change for Eltan and Belt into Eltana and Beltie. In any event, you can't split Five Dukes half-way, even if you split some completely. But what I, for one, would like to see is modders making a point of creating female characters - not as an afterthought, but as a priority. If you are going to make a character, think first of making him a her. There are already lots of men to go around. With a woman, you are going to have to adjust the dynamics of your mod, consciously or not, because sex is more than cosmetics. And we need this refreshing change of angle. With a mod full of dudes, they will more likely than not end up doing the dude thing, which in the games comes down to being rude and killing things. Just look at Sarevok and his all-boys gang: Tazok, Angelo... Don't get me wrong: I appreciate the dude thing, but I've done quite enough of it to last me.
So let's be affirmative action about this and make some - no, lots - of women. More than half. If you only plan on making three NPC, make them all women. And not "amazons." Just women. Not all adventurers, either. Use the "Female commoner" avatar and the "Girl" avatar. Then see how different the mod comes out.
3
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Here is a snapshot of my current party - wish I could find at least one male to fit in there, otherwise I'll soon pick Dynaheir (without Minsc of course).
(From top: PC; Sandrah, Jen'lig, Ajantis, Imoen, Viconia.)
Ajantis? Anomen? Gavin?
I' m not playing to get married to a paladin. Where is my fun while I'm on my way to become a goddess of the Realms? Edwin - at least he could wear my skirts while I use shorts during battle.
Coran, oh yes, I don't believe a single word you tell me and I know you don't expect I do...but he only lasts for BG1 part, too bad.
In the end I have to wait until I make it to Irenicus' dungeon...to meet Chloe (not a male name in any language) and have an interesting lover at last.
For thousand of years*, women were kept of academia, despite the fact that we with empirical evidence today can say that men do not outperform women in the field of science. Likewise, women historically have been, and are still unproportionally kept out of the board rooms of companies and such, despite the fact that women in general outperform** men, as they are less willing to take risks. When it comes to soldiers, yes, it is a fact that men are physically stronger*** - however, not in the realms. It specifically says during character creation that men and women get no attribute differences.
Yet, in the realms, most societies (with the notable exception of the drow) are male dominated. While men are not stronger than women in the realms, it should be noted that the culture, social pressure and differences in the psyche of men and women are persistent in the realms. It should also be noted that the amount of females in power and in the army and so on none the less are substantially higher than even in modern RL.
Evolutionary, these stagnant gender roles have to do with child-rearing. Women are pregnant for nine months, males lack the necessary equipment to feed the young, and finally, women can only create one offspring at a time whereas males can create a virtually unlimited number of offspring, assuming this male is given access to willing women. The inequality of the cost of investment for males and women have led to women picking their mate with care, and as a male may have several partners without suffering "downtime" before he can replicate again, men are, in the eyes of evolution, less valuable and can more readily be risked in combat. It is also the case that men, wishing access to women, must "prove" themselves, often doing so by oppressing other males. Thus, the price men pay is a higher risk of premature death or a higher risk of a life in solitude. The reward men get is that success mens access to more partners - now, obviously, women can also have many partners, yet she can only raise one child at a time, which for social reasons stigmatize women with many partners.
These biological differences makes certain strategies more or less likely to survive in either gender. For instance and as already discussed, going to war is a poor choice for a woman, as she risks premature death life but without being compensated by more mating (that creates off-spring) opportunities, whereas men who go to war take the same risk of premature death but is compensated by more opportunity for offspring creation, if, for no other reason, that upon surviving and returning home much of the competition have been eliminated, leaving many otherwise picky females more desperate for companionship. As a result, X specific genes and genes activated by X-specific hormones and transcription factors creating a more adventurous female phenotype are evolutionary disadvantaged, while the reverse is true in in males and Y genes. Thus, on average, males will be more adventurous than females.
Because of the resulting differences in psyche, regardless of which gender is more suited for adventure, males will dominate the scene. Now, mind you, this is only true on the population level, but not on the individual level. There are to many examples to count of cautious males with many children and adventurous females with many children. However, this creates a temptation for societies to fall for the naturalistic fallacy, thereby resulting in said cultural and societal oppression of women, and cultural and social expectation of men to be bread-winners. Thus, not only are women on average less inclined to become adventurers, adventurous women will be coerced to become stay at home moms (and suffer depressions as their life didnt turn out the way they wanted, which is then labelled as female hysteria, thus only further "proving" how unsuitable all women are for traditionally male occupations). Now, as a fallacy, the naturalistic fallacy is more prevalent in ignorant societies, which is why gender roles have more importance in RL uneducated shitholes such as Murka, but less importance in RL rational utopias such as Sweden.
Likewise, the natural fallacy is more or less alive depending on the degree on ignorance also in the realms. For instance, in elf**** societies women are equal if not dominating, while in filthy human societies, women are disadvantaged, both as an unequal ration of gender occupation and as compared to elf societies and in savage societies, such as hobgoblin societies, women are chained to the stove.
Thus, in conclusion, yes, include more women, because the realms are more equal than is the RL, but the ratio should not be fifty-fifty, unless your scenario involves elf societies.
* Depending on place and time of course, there are notable exceptions. There are also always this one or two exceptions to the rule. But the statement is generally true.
** Now, takings risks can at times be a successful company strategy, and I will not speculate whether the "best" CEO is a man or woman.
*** Which does not necessarily mean men are better soldiers, although it can be noted that RL elite squads are mostly, if not exclusively, male.
**** Even drow non-withstanding. Drows, BTW, are also an exemption as their reversed gender roles comes from their religion, and should thus in any case be excluded from the argument as such.
What I really want to see are more believeable monster characters though. Not as "monsters", but actual "persons" with distinct characters and personality. M'Khiin Grubdoubler was a step in the right direction here. Another example:
Gnolls of either sex for instance look quite similar to each other. As long as you don't look what's under their fur, that is. So no reason to not have a *insert gender here* Gnoll custom NPC who values family ties above all else.
On a side note. Given that females are the stronger sex in both Gnoll and Hyena society, chances are that Sarevok's all-boys gang was actually filled to the brink with females. You just didn't look carefully enough.
A female gnoll would most definitely be interesting as mentioned( a flind even more so than the regular gnoll as they are the more charismatic of there brethren- WOOF WOOF!
And dadburnit, still want ma wererat as well (or Skaven as @Kamigoroshi calls 'em).
For that matter,I miss the old reincarnate spell, that led to some interesting play throughs in my PnP days, as I remember.
@WarChiefZeke Ishlika female half orc NPC is definitely a nice change up from the game standard mass muderin' Dorn (plus she don't like him very much either).
But the question was - "why modders do not add women?". All I said is "they do and a lot of them".
(And you lost me on Chloe: afaik, she is a female kensai NPC. Why did you mention her as a male option for straigh women?)
@DrakeICN Brilliant analyses! Was a pleasure to simply read that article.
Edit: and just to make it clear, I am myself one of those primitive apes. I do not presume to set myself on high horses and know full-well my flaws, even as I continuously strive to excel above my primal urges.
Although I still have to get BG2 finished.
Both women and men write mods and they release projects not only for players that share the same gender, but for all players. Believe me, they do their best to make those games great. As much as you may support modders, tell what you'd like to see et cetera, you can't tell them what should be the gender of their NPCs, as that is nothing else but oppression. Mod authors are great males and females with their ideas. What is they're better at writing males? What if some of them tried writing females but they did not felt right, in their opinion? As a both player and modder, I would like to see other modders do their best, write mods they would be proud of; I want them to release stories that can make us feel all kinds of feelings, think about stuff, make us wonder. To do that, freedom is needed. Of course, there are some exceptions - I wouldn't like to see mods that offend people, exclude certain groups; mods that are based solely on some hurting stereotypes, but to me that's a general rule about all kinds of media. Project should not pass hightly harmful content.
The topic - in my opinion - shouldn't be only about women. There are many groups that are presented in harmful ways, or are just excluded. There are many different players. Men, women, gay, lesbian, asexual, all of different camplexions. I like diversity, yet not all games include those. Some time ago I released an IWD EE NPC called Dusky. Even though even before EE there were IWD NPCs, Dusky is the first gay in IWD... so yeah, sometimes it takes like 10 years, but there are many missing stuff in the games. What I would tell other modders - look at the game, find what's missing, something you find interesting and then tell us about it. Provide a story. Tell us about males, females, different races, their beliefs, their situations... Make it interesting and engaging. Make us wonder about different matters. Are are sooo many stories that are yet to be told.
It's not freaking politics or quota or time bombs, it's just fun.
Unheard of! HERESY!!!
That's my reality as a woman and nobody is at all interested in playing that character (and who can blame them) because there's not so much exciting you can do.
You don't want more females in games, litrature, TV, anything.
What you want is females who put a huge part of being a woman to one side and play with the boys.
Who are from a narrow age range because guess what, being female does actually take it's toll, (although we hang on longer at the end). Who never are unreasonable/incapacitated/incapable because of menstruation (and women are frquently), who will always be able to pick up a sword, are as strong as the males (which women aren't), who never feel different than any of the males physically or emotionally so they fit into the group.
Basically a woman with none of the drawbacks of being a woman in a demanding, physical enviroment.
Oh shit, wait, no it doesn't! It raises all manner of social and philosophical issues, and those you have no problem with.
No, your problem is specifically that these issues are raised at all. They should not be discussed ever, because this automatically lodges a game into the social justice bin, and must be shunned for ever more.
However, to give you the benefit of doubt, would you be okay with the realms being as diverse as the real world, (or indeed it would get one-sided in favor of social justice). So, for every bisexual character added, also throw in a blatant homophobe. Would you then be happy with this social issue being included?
If you answer no to that, I believe it is very clear from where you are coming, so get off your high horse...
@UnderstandMouseMagic - Joan D'Arc was not a real woman? i mean, yeah, you would not bring about a pregnant lady on a campaign (except that you do, Aeries) but it all comes down to life-choices. And mercenaries tend to hang with other mercenaries instead of attending the local coffee, knitting and gossip parties. There are lots of housewives etc in the game, but they are all backdrop characters... what gives, I wonder..?
In all fairness, the lives of local scribes, merchants, cooks and other male non-mercenaries are also given the same harsh backdrop treatment as house-wives are, so there is no gender inequality here either.
I like getting immersed in a game world that is not the same as my real life world. Certainly, I like diversity represented in the game world, but too much emphasis on political correctness, sex and race equality etc., just ends up watering down role-play. In my opinion.
Hard physical work was always there for women, actually, "adventuring" would be a simple trade off some safety for less work - that's all. And the reasons not many women did that are mostly social, as @DrakeICN perfectly summed up.
" Joan D'Arc was not a real woman? i mean, yeah, you would not bring about a pregnant lady on a campaign (except that you do, Aeries) but it all comes down to life-choices. And mercenaries tend to hang with other mercenaries instead of attending the local coffee, knitting and gossip parties. There are lots of housewives etc in the game, but they are all backdrop characters... what gives, I wonder..?"
And here is an example of modern feminism. Disparage and mock the pursuits that the majority of women want to do. Of course they are worthless because otherwise men would be doing them.
Life choices bollox.
Do you really think thousands and thousands of years ago when survival was harsh, cavepeople sat around thinking, "I know lets demarcate the gender roles because having only half the tribe being able to hunt on any particular day is an advantage"
Rather than, "oh bugger, we keep on insisting women come on all the hunts because equality, but we keep losing one or two and the children they are carrying (inside or outside) as they collapse, but lets carry on, can't be seen to be sexist"
Well, to be fair, there may well have been some proto 'gender equality at all cost' tribes, but none of them made it.
And the two examples you give.
Joan of Arc, well she was French for a start off and a traitor so lets not go there.
And Aerie, it would have been far better if you wanted to portray "woman in the FR" as a reflection of RL, to actually have her suffering a miscarriage and bleeding out because of the life she was leading at that point. Or to have her dying in childbirth.
That's reality.
That's the reality of women's lives for almost the entirity of history before modern medicine, and still a reality now in a lot of cases.
This insiduous idea that you can just shrug off pregnancy because it doesn't suit the narrative of "gender equality".
Women, when will they learn?
Throw off the shackles and immediately put on another set that makes them pretend they are no different from men.
I'm thinking that humans are just stupid. In history there have been notable women but really, they are too sparse.
In the game I feel that there are quite a lot of women adventurers, though maybe my counting is off... Note that most bg1 npcs (including men) are pure stereotypes. I am not sure how serious you need to take that game. Bg2 is less stereotype in that regard and I find the women quite well written and represented. I'm more disappointed in some male npcs...
Mods.... I rarely play them.
Nephele NPC is a good example, a nice story well written, much detail and love that comes across when you play her. All of that in a character that appears like nothing special at first glance but grows if you get to know her. (by the way a woman, even a grandmother, trying a bit of adventuring because she does not feel old enough to retire). On the other hand Dorn, obviously created in some laboratory by a team of scientists trying to mix several ingrediences they thought were missing in the game. Result is an artificial character without personality in a flat plot. Even his creators did not seem to like him, just felt obliged to add *somebody real evil with a new kit* to the game.
Not such a bad trade off when you consider that humans have the internet and lions have.........what?
And it's women who bear the cost of that trade off.
Stop diminishing human women.
I think, mayhaps, you surround yourself with likeminded, for I rarely encounter women with an express wish to become housewives. To the contrary, I feel women of today want to see the world, settle for a bit, and then resume their careers.
Edit: And perhaps women hunting is not a maximal human resource allocation for cavemen... but we dont live in caves anymore, so this is a non-issue.
First of all, I don't ever mention this being only for BG. Second, you don't understand where I come from and for yor own image I advise you to ackowledge that fact. For another time, I explain to you that raising up the questions or problems is not the issue here. The issue is the intention and the way you go about it. The good way of thinking for writer to have is: "I want to create a good character/story. Oh, by the way, I might consider making a character this or that if it fits the story. Or even better, if it actually improves the story". The second, bad way, is: "I want to make the character this and that because I feel like filling social justice check box: trans character: check. homsexual: check. disabled character: check." See the difference in approach?
About the "proportions" question you "propose", I must dissapoint you. I'm not going to give you answer you want. I'll say this instead: I don't care about proportions at all. I don't need to feel "represented" in media, so I don't care what % of people are represented. This is because I do care about good story, likeable characters and so on. But if you include the character or plotline that's not really integrated into the story for the sake of earlier mentioned checkbox, instead of quality writing you'll have something that stands out in a really bad way. Worst of all, by doing this you are catering to people who either doesn't give a damn about it or won't be greateful anyway.
Also, I don't need to be "represented" to like or relate to character in fiction.
I'll get to the "homosexual" and "blatant homophobe" characters you mentioned. Good way of implementing these is to give them depth, character development and involve them in the story. And resolved their conflict, giving multiple choices if the medium is in videogame. The bad was is just throwing them there and leave them with their only notable characteristic being their sexual orientation and bigotry, while clearly suggesting the viewer/reader/player how exactly he/she should feel about it.
If you still don't get what I'm talking about, I give up. Spending my time here anymore will be pointless.
I feel that animals are better off by not having Internet.
( Absolutely not influenced by GOG's current 50% sale of Fallout 3 GotY, Fallout New Vegas Ultimate Edition and Oblivion GotY. I swear