Originally Posted by
hapro
To me this is a p11. I agree that using speech which could make people uncomfortable should be avoided (re: calling only female players bitch). The fact that this fantasy world doesn't mimic proportions seen in our real world seems like a non-issue to me. Maybe just dropping gender from descriptors is fine.
It's a fine concept to keep in mind as development continues, but it seems like a waste of effort to go back and change what's already there.
The priority I chose is based on the degree to which I have been affected.
I haven't heard from many other female players on here yet (it's only been a few hours!) but my reading of other threads around the site is that this is an issue for several people, that at least some other users have already been vocal in stating that they were uncomfortable with the present set-up as it is, and I've even seen some posting that they'd considered an RFE on it themselves.
To me, this makes or breaks the game for some players, and is thus high (though not top, #1 style) priority. Maybe it's as low as 5, but 11 to be honest seems low enough for the issue not to be fully understood.
To be clear, I'm not insisting that every single aspect of the RFE is implemented. What I've written are a long list of positive possible changes and suggestions - all of which would be useful and improve the game for some players in various ways, all of which are at least relatively feasible things to incorporate (hopefully..!) given the gender system already partially in place, and all of which I'd like to be considered even if only a few come to pass.
The problem with just dropping gender is that, unless every single monster in the game then ends up as a "they", that actually -diminishes- the female representation even farther.
Originally Posted by
auricbond
I see what you mean, although I'm conditioned to not see the gender bias, being a bit old-school in my upbringing as far as what the default gender is.
Personally I don't see anything wrong with society assuming maleness unless femaleness is specified since it could just as easily be out of reverence for the female as contempt for the female--although it's usually neither--the point is it's all in your mind and expectations as to what, if any, prejudice is implied--and when we're speaking of defaults, at the end of the day it has to be one or the other, right? Why assume that assuming a penis means a favourable prejudice toward males or a negative one toward females, as opposed to vice versa?
But if enough people think it's worth the while, fine--I think it would be least obtrusive to foreshorten it: an ogre (m) or an ogre (f) or so, and a configurable toggle to disable the distinction entirely so only the 'l'ook command reveals the sex.
Regarding representation, males are still more represented in combat just due to obvious physical differences. That's reasonable discrimination--observing a difference that is actually there. So I'm fine with a slight lean toward male representation in aggressive monsters, although I think generating a few more females wouldn't hurt.
In my previous reply to you I'm sorry to say I wasn't entirely fair in how I answered - I basically picked up on the points you made that I considered unreasonable, 'reasonable discrimination' and 'this could be out of reverence' being the major issues. What I didn't do is address the really decent ideas you had to offer to the mix.
So-! First off, thank you for still being open to this concept, and I hope some of what I wrote before is helpful to you in return by demonstrating how the concepts you've been brought up with now come over.
I love the idea of foreshortening the title to "ogre (m)" or the like. To me, it seems clunkier, but what matters in the end is the taste and preference of the majority as well as of the game team.
Looking works very well also and someone else has suggested that seperately so I've incorporated it into the original RFE.
You've answered since, too, though - so I'll address anything from that reply that wasn't covered (or can't be googled easily-!).
Originally Posted by
auricbond
The common parlance, and above all, the intent, is what I think anyone should care about. You seem to be eating around the edges of the implications here instead of talking directly: are you talking about 'bitch' implying assuming a certain mating position?
Honestly, I'm just trying to be polite, and I don't swear by choice myself. An example, then -
http://feministing.com/2013/06/03/th...s-swear-words/ - From your comment, b***tard comes from having no status by being illegitimate (born of the wrong woman, as well) and b*tch comes from various sources - to be cursed, to be likened to a dog fit mainly for breeding. It's also a MAJORLY crude word
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bitch
Bitch, literally meaning a female dog, is a slang pejorative for a person, commonly a woman, who is belligerent, unreasonable, malicious, a control freak, rudely intrusive or aggressive. When applied to a man, bitch is a derogatory term for a subordinate.
Its original use as a vulgarism, documented to the fourteenth century, suggested high sexual desire in a woman, comparable to a dog in heat."
Originally Posted by
auricbond
I'm not familiar with this (and I thought the amazons were speculation or even myth). I would be curious as to why--what gives rise to the idea that females have the greater fitness for being warriors that causes them to put the idea into practice. Maybe it's to do with population control. A pregnant woman holding a spear seems pretty dicey.
When compared to being a pregnant woman on the other end of one?
The Amazon tribe was certainly real. The furore around them is less so, but they did feature large groups of warrior women who were absolutely committed to their cause. One oft cited (possibly true) example is the removal of a breast to aid in bow accuracy.
Your question here is basically hitting the nail on the head of the point I'm trying to make. You're asking "how did a group of people ever think females were fitter for being warriors than males?" The reply is, "Why perceive males as fitter than females?" Both cases are almost entirely cultural. If I were going to answer I'd probably start with the fact that physicality isn't in fact the full measure of a good warrior and can be trained to relatively close levels in any gender regardless. You only need X strength to draw a bow or pierce skin; if a person can reach X, then they're a potential fighter. Beyond that it's fitness, quick wits, training and talent.
I will say though that this is getting VERY off topic if we reply any further!
I had not considered it that way but I agree with [gender imbalance being unnecessary in a fantasy game world]. I also submitted an RFE myself on the
gender bias in shopz.
Awesome. That's about 1/3 of what I was trying to say, and I am glad you do! I'll look into the RFE shortly.
I think that
that--what you just said-- is also in your mind. Also to repeat myself: intent is paramount. Who cares what's endemic if you have the power to rise above it.
That is the entire point - we do NOT have the power in the same way that an equivalent man does in our position, and because there ARE equivalent men, we get shafted. Gross oversimplification of a very complex concept, but, powerful women don't do as well as they would have done if they'd been male. This isn't a matter of the woman being "swayed by sexism" but it is a matter of endemic, insititutionalised blocks against women and control by men at every single level of society - that is the actual definition of sexism (rather than the incorrect common-parlance one). None of this is 'in my mind' - it's confirmed, repeatedly evidenced and proven sociology. To explain further would basically be to explain the entire field of patriarchal issues, the concept of privilege and the understanding that people starting from different stages in a race have different chances to end up as the victor.
I do think male humans, or even whatever we were prior to having evolved, do joust for dominance to increase their mating prospects in a way that women seldom do, and so they're seen more often as the 'player' on the world's stage. I don't think this is mere societal conditioning, I think there is an evolutionary element to it. Not to say that women cannot be players. Unless there is someone actually
forcing women to assume a certain expected role, I don't have a problem with trend-observation. It's for women to rise above it and prove it wrong, if it is wrong.
Some and some. Women are less competitive and confident in part (and this is also proven) because we are raised to be; we're taught not to answer back, that leadership qualities are bossiness, that we should be attractive rather than assertive. it's not 'someone' forcing women into expected roles but -the entirety of society-. What you're missing here is that even though men as a group have more tendency towards aggressiveness and dominance displays, the culture in which this -results in success- is what causes men to rise above others. Comparison. Imagine if we only elected the compassionate, reasoned and those who saw the big picture, and that aggressiveness or confidence were actually seen as flaws. Suddenly, having male pattern hormones is a huge disadvantage.
Lastly your gender and the position you are coming from is -absolutely- relevant, because if you aren't female, you aren't as aware of how it feels to be treated poorly and excluded because you are female. Ditto any marginalised group. As you say, I guessed correctly - the reason I was able to do that is because - with no offence whatsoever intended - you sound like a person who has not experienced institutionalised discrimination on the basis of a physical and inherent trait. If you asked me to be more specific then for the same exact reason I would assume you were probably a white, heterosexual, Western, young or at least not elderly, healthy-bodied natural male. This may not all apply but on average the more positions of underprivilege someone comes from the more appreciative they are of the concept, and means you're less likely to have really come across the idea before.
You do also keep asking me to provide you with evidence and surveys and normally I would be really happy to, but, I've been on these boards now for hours.. as we're in the same country you probably know it's past midnight here so there's a limit to how much I can reply - plus, it's a bit inappropriate on this section of the board already, and has the potential to spark a massive discussion. More importantly though everything I have said is solid and can be backed up with reams of evidence that you can easily Google now if you'd like to - please do, some of them are an absolutely brilliant read. I'm willing to discuss this more in PM if you like but don't want to clutter this thread more. For now if you're interested, here are some of the concepts behind what I've been saying.
http://twentytwowords.com/what-will-...our-privilege/
http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/...nalized-469991
http://knowledge.insead.edu/leadersh...e-heights-3817
http://curt-rice.com/2011/11/02/peer...and-law-firms/