Gender Prejudice

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

It should vary from culture to culture. I could see a female dominated society that regards males as little more than cheap labor and walking "sperm banks". While there could also be a society that sees genders as relatively equal.

[licketysplit]

Tricky to do but worth the effort imo. It'd piss off the more politically correct and sensitive. A positive side effect.

Edited October 3, 2012 by licketysplit

[PsychoBlonde]

 

Indeed, in a fantasy setting, which is based on medieval times(even if a bit too loosely) wouldn't it be quite logical for many occupations and even activities to be strictly divided into masculine and feminine. Maybe it's just me, but wouldn't that be more engaging?

 

Historically accurate, maybe--if real-world history had magic. I suspect the historically paternal societies would have been radically different in a world where women could wield magical power and also had magic around to cure diseases and control fertility.

 

Most people have an erroneous view of gender "roles" across history, though. It was never a straightforward case of men do this, women do that. Instead, the general situation was that most women were not independent--someone had legal authority over them or their property and so they had to put up with whatever that person would allow them to do. But the smallish percentage of women who were independent did pretty much whatever they liked within the constraints of their wealth. Heck, wealthy noblewomen would raise armies, defend their lands, etc, it's just that they usually didn't have the opportunity to do so until their father and husband were dead.

 

I wouldn't find it intolerable if certain cultures consider certain class/race/gender choices to be genderbending, however, and make fun of you for being "mannish" or "effeminate". But being unable to play a female fighter or a male witch? No.

[Badmojo]

VTMB had characters react differently based on gender and character type. It added a lot to the game. I do not like games that treat everybody EXACTLY the same regardless of race, gender, belief,etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqiFAm7R-ZY It shows how a male vampire PC is treated by a NPC, then at 2.00 spot, it shows how the same NPC reacts to a crazy famale vampire PC.

[Veleda]

People have very mistaken notions of what the medieval world was like. Women DID own property, they inherited and passed it on, they worked in trades, they ran major institutions, noblewomen were educated and in the early Middle Ages likely more educated than men overall. In early England, husbands sometimes took their wives' surnames if they were the landed ones. Women outside the Greco-Roman sphere were sometimes warriors. It was the re-discovery of Roman law in Europe that led to property rights degrading, to a loss of economic and political power for women, which only in recent times has been rectified.

 

So I prefer fantasy realms that acknowledge what earlier societies knew better than modernity did- that when it comes to tooth and claw, no one can afford to sit around being primped, everybody works and fights, and if you earn respect you get it.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Veleda

[Vin]

I don't care how badly men treat me in-game... as long as I can kick them in the crotch for it later. :D

[AwesomeOcelot]

 

I'm a man, on average men are stronger than women, and I'm stronger than the average woman, but there's millions of women who are stronger than me.

 

But no woman is as strong as the strongest of men. This should be reflected in the game.

 

Not necessarily because the strongest of men might be such an outlier that it doesn't make much sense to account for such a rarity in a system like say SPECIAL where strength is a number 1-10.

 

 

They aren't outliers.

 

The strength distribution curve is symetrical (with the males curve being nudged forward).

 

 

 

Take a look at sports. Males outperform women. It's the reason why leages and events are separated.

I guarantee you that all those women train hard. And they still get beaten by men who train hard.

 

 

Or if you want antoher example...women in the miltiary? Sure, there are some.

Women in special forces? Nope.

 

Those two aren't mutually exclusive. A system like SPECIAL doesn't take into account average curves. The only difference it would be taking account of is extremities, and as I said, if you look at something like weight lifting, all these people are 10 in this system, the top men are stronger but they're outliers that wouldn't be accounted for in a 1-10 system.

 

 

People have very mistaken notions of what the medieval world was like. Women DID own property, they inherited and passed it on, they worked in trades, they ran major institutions, noblewomen were educated and in the early Middle Ages likely more educated than men overall. In early England, husbands sometimes took their wives' surnames if they were the landed ones. Women outside the Greco-Roman sphere were sometimes warriors. It was the re-discovery of Roman law in Europe that led to property rights degrading, to a loss of economic and political power for women, which only in recent times has been rectified.

 

I don't believe that. You can obviously cherry pick examples of all your claims but that wouldn't give an accurate picture of the time.

[TCJ]

Not quite on topic, but it's what I thought of when I saw the thread title:

 

I think it WOULD be interesting if in character creation, there is a certain "prejudice" based on gender. That is, each one has its advantages, disadvantages. It would make a little more variety, would it not?

[Badmojo]

People have very mistaken notions of what the medieval world was like. Women DID own property, they inherited and passed it on, they worked in trades, they ran major institutions, noblewomen were educated and in the early Middle Ages likely more educated than men overall. In early England, husbands sometimes took their wives' surnames if they were the landed ones. Women outside the Greco-Roman sphere were sometimes warriors. It was the re-discovery of Roman law in Europe that led to property rights degrading, to a loss of economic and political power for women, which only in recent times has been rectified.

 

So I prefer fantasy realms that acknowledge what earlier societies knew better than modernity did- that when it comes to tooth and claw, no one can afford to sit around being primped, everybody works and fights, and if you earn respect you get it.

 

That is some interesting political correct history white washing you got there. This must be the disney version of our history because it sounds too politically correct for the history I read about.

[TrashMan]

Those two aren't mutually exclusive. A system like SPECIAL doesn't take into account average curves. The only difference it would be taking account of is extremities, and as I said, if you look at something like weight lifting, all these people are 10 in this system, the top men are stronger but they're outliers that wouldn't be accounted for in a 1-10 system.

 

Then that system doesn't really work at accurate representation because that's not how the real world works.

It's as simple as that.

[Calabain]

People have very mistaken notions of what the medieval world was like. Women DID own property, they inherited and passed it on, they worked in trades, they ran major institutions, noblewomen were educated and in the early Middle Ages likely more educated than men overall. In early England, husbands sometimes took their wives' surnames if they were the landed ones. Women outside the Greco-Roman sphere were sometimes warriors. It was the re-discovery of Roman law in Europe that led to property rights degrading, to a loss of economic and political power for women, which only in recent times has been rectified.

 

So I prefer fantasy realms that acknowledge what earlier societies knew better than modernity did- that when it comes to tooth and claw, no one can afford to sit around being primped, everybody works and fights, and if you earn respect you get it.

 

That is some interesting political correct history white washing you got there. This must be the disney version of our history because it sounds too politically correct for the history I read about.

 

Actually that poster is quite right in implying the the modern form of femininity and the role of women didn't really mature until well into industrialization, although as with anything its origins can be found far, far back.

 

Many of our preconceived notions about what gender roles should look like in the middle/high middle age setting that most fantasy takes place in draws more from that industrial mentality than anything that existed in medieval Europe. There does seem to be much more overlap for the general populace for the roles of men and women during that time, at least within the household and within families, than popular culture would lead you to believe.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Calabain

[AwesomeOcelot]

Those two aren't mutually exclusive. A system like SPECIAL doesn't take into account average curves. The only difference it would be taking account of is extremities, and as I said, if you look at something like weight lifting, all these people are 10 in this system, the top men are stronger but they're outliers that wouldn't be accounted for in a 1-10 system.

 

Then that system doesn't really work at accurate representation because that's not how the real world works.

It's as simple as that.

 

When you create a character you can create people that are unusual, of course a system like that doesn't accurately represent averages. What would be the point of a system that conforms to averages?

[TrashMan]

But do you do have to take into consideration how social factors/environment affects sexual dimorphism.

 

If you asked the same question about the physical capabilities of men and women 100 years ago, there was an even bigger difference. If you asked the question during the Victorian Age, there would be no comparison at all.

 

Ever heard "form follows function?". Social roles are not just a product of someone thinking "hey, this would be great". There's practical reasons behind it.

 

Now I know some may think that the following will be chauvinistic/insulting. It is not. It's how things are. Physical prowes has no bearing on the individuals worth, so if anyone thinks I'm demeaning women or something, that is only because they place so much worth in physical attributes themselves.

Do women think men are worth less because they aren't as good at multi-tasking? Do you hear us ever complaining about it?

 

 

moving on...

 

Let's take for example Delta Force. You have to be a prfect human speciment to get in. Recruits are usually taken from other special forces (whos tests are grueling as hell). And even then only 1 out of 10 pass. You heard me.

Out of 100 special forces candidates only 10 pass.

 

 

If you want some numbers (taken from the CRC data)

Men have 40% higher upper body strength and roughly 20-30% higher lower body strength.

During boot camp and regular training, women have shown to be twice as likely to sustain injuries (from training) because they have to strain themselves harder to keep it with the male counterparts. Most of those injuries are back injuries. And those are nothing to sneeze by, I assure you.

 

You may think that physical strength or endurance don't have a big role in modern combat. But they do.

If you have to run from cover to cover - speed matters.

If you have to carry a wounded friend or lob grenades - strength matters. A lot.

If you have to walk 70 miles across the desert in full comabt gear - everything matters.

 

Women can be decent, even great soldiers, I said so before.

But they are at a disadvantage and will remain so, no matter how hard they try and train. Becasue there will always be men who will train just as hard, and with their inborn advantage they will outperform a woman.

[TrashMan]

When implementing any feature, I think it is important to ask: "is this fun? will it make the game more enjoyable?" It would certainly capture the feel of the middle ages to have lots of gender prejudice and have women segregated to certain, usually subservient, roles. However, for many people, this would not make the game more fun. If I were female, I would not enjoy having all the gender issues I have to deal with every day thrown in my face when I sit down to relax with a computer game.

 

Being able to create a character free from the all the BS of the real world is precisely what makes video games so enjoyable. They allow you to be someone you aren't, someone who supersedes the limitations you have in the real world. In most fantasy worlds, females are free to be whatever they want and don't have to constantly prove themselves based on their gender. As such, they escape from the struggles they face in the real world. Making a fantasy world where women have to constantly prove their worth relative to males and have to live with the threat of sexual assault just brings all the baggage that they would probably rather leave behind them at the loading screen into what is supposed to be their escape from these issues. It's the same reason I wouldn't want to play a game about paying bills and having no job--because it would be way too much like my real life. Computer games are my time when I can stop worrying about that stuff.

 

You make a good point.

buuuut....

Not to say your desires and prefferences are wrong, but pertty much every RPG out there is exactly as you described.

What about variety? What about people who don't want to escape to a perfect world, but a different world? A world taht's similar to the real one, a world in whch they can immersive itself and see it it's entirety - good AND bad.

When will they ever get their fix? According to you, never.

[TimMc]

Could be interesting, but most likely will be mishandled and lead to alot of anger. Most developers side-skirt the issue for a reason.

[TrashMan]

When you create a character you can create people that are unusual, of course a system like that doesn't accurately represent averages. What would be the point of a system that conforms to averages?

 

I think we have a faliure to communicate here...

 

Let me put it in far simpler terms - the female PC is not average? Neither is the male one. Neither are your other party members.

[Giantevilhead]

But do you do have to take into consideration how social factors/environment affects sexual dimorphism.

 

If you asked the same question about the physical capabilities of men and women 100 years ago, there was an even bigger difference. If you asked the question during the Victorian Age, there would be no comparison at all.

 

Ever heard "form follows function?". Social roles are not just a product of someone thinking "hey, this would be great". There's practical reasons behind it.

 

Now I know some may think that the following will be chauvinistic/insulting. It is not. It's how things are. Physical prowes has no bearing on the individuals worth, so if anyone thinks I'm demeaning women or something, that is only because they place so much worth in physical attributes themselves.

Do women think men are worth less because they aren't as good at multi-tasking? Do you hear us ever complaining about it?

 

 

moving on...

 

Let's take for example Delta Force. You have to be a prfect human speciment to get in. Recruits are usually taken from other special forces (whos tests are grueling as hell). And even then only 1 out of 10 pass. You heard me.

Out of 100 special forces candidates only 10 pass.

 

 

If you want some numbers (taken from the CRC data)

Men have 40% higher upper body strength and roughly 20-30% higher lower body strength.

During boot camp and regular training, women have shown to be twice as likely to sustain injuries (from training) because they have to strain themselves harder to keep it with the male counterparts. Most of those injuries are back injuries. And those are nothing to sneeze by, I assure you.

 

You may think that physical strength or endurance don't have a big role in modern combat. But they do.

If you have to run from cover to cover - speed matters.

If you have to carry a wounded friend or lob grenades - strength matters. A lot.

If you have to walk 70 miles across the desert in full comabt gear - everything matters.

 

Women can be decent, even great soldiers, I said so before.

But they are at a disadvantage and will remain so, no matter how hard they try and train. Becasue there will always be men who will train just as hard, and with their inborn advantage they will outperform a woman.

 

And I never denied the fact that men and women are physically different. Nor did I make any statements about the worth of men or women based on their physical differences. My point was that the amount of difference has been affected by social factors.

 

The statistics on the difference between men and women are not "absolute" differences because they are gathered in societies in which men and women have significantly different upbringings. The only way to know the real difference in physical, as well as mental, capabilities between men and women would be to conduct an experiment in which a sample of male and female infants are raised in the exact same environment and treated exactly the same. Of course, that's not ethical nor is it really possible.

 

However, there have been societies in which men and women have been treated more similarly. For example, in some cultures that had slavery, many female slaves had very similar upbringings, similar diets, and had to perform the same type and amount of hard labor as the men. In fact, women were expected to maintain that level of labor for the first few months of pregnancy. If you took those people and compared their physical capabilities, would you expect the same amount of difference compared to men and women in today's society?

[Jarmo]

he only way to know the real difference in physical, as well as mental, capabilities between men and women would be to conduct an experiment in which a sample of male and female infants are raised in the exact same environment and treated exactly the same. Of course, that's not ethical nor is it really possible.

 

About chinese athletes.

I don't think any harder training would really add positive results.

It's just not possible to spin this around to having women have the same body size & strength as men.

[Giantevilhead]

he only way to know the real difference in physical, as well as mental, capabilities between men and women would be to conduct an experiment in which a sample of male and female infants are raised in the exact same environment and treated exactly the same. Of course, that's not ethical nor is it really possible.

 

About chinese athletes.

I don't think any harder training would really add positive results.

It's just not possible to spin this around to having women have the same body size & strength as men.

 

And where did I say that it would be possible for women to have the same strength and men?

[TrashMan]

However, there have been societies in which men and women have been treated more similarly. For example, in some cultures that had slavery, many female slaves had very similar upbringings, similar diets, and had to perform the same type and amount of hard labor as the men. In fact, women were expected to maintain that level of labor for the first few months of pregnancy. If you took those people and compared their physical capabilities, would you expect the same amount of difference compared to men and women in today's society?

 

Pretty much, yes.

 

Potential is there, and that doesn't change depending on social factors (which stem at least partially from it).

Again, look at the top athletes or any sport there is.

 

 

If a female PC is the top performer among woman, then the male PC is hte top performer among males, and should still physicly outperform the female PC...if you want to be realistic about it.

[DeDaL]

I might be wrong, but I think it's important to ask "Is this interesting?" as well as "Is this fun?". Interesing and fun are different things, but both can be equally engaging. Reading "War and Peace" certainly wasn't fun, but it was interesting. "Crime and punishment" was not fun, but it was interesting. Watching "American History X" wasn't fun at all, but it was interesting.

 

Wait a minute, now it sounds as if I don't want the game to be fun. I do. I really do want it to be fun. But I also want it to have something beyond fun, something that would make me think and learn something new about myself, rather than something to forget about the day after I beat the game.

 

I didn't start this thread to figure out if women are not as strong as men, or that there were wealthy women who could reign armies. No. It's not about that.

 

I wanted to see people think and see past real world, past the hype. I wanted to see theories about how gender would have an effect on different cultures of a fantsy world. It doesn't have to be a copy of our world. It can be something completely different:

 

Could there be a society where men and women live in separate villages and are forbidden to see each other for anything other than conception?

Or could there be a society with only one gender? Or three!? How would they react to other societies?

Or maybe there's a species in which sexual dimorphism is so great that they actually seem as two different species? How would they see human or elven visitors?

Or is it simply a smal closed society with desperate need of new blood, so that visiting men would be urged by local men to sleep with their wives?

Or maybe it's a society with no prejudices at all, and the hero himself/herself would be the one with strange notions about gender roles?

 

Think about it. Fantasize! It is REALLY interesting to ponder about these things. Maybe you'll even learn something new about youself in the process.

[Giantevilhead]

However, there have been societies in which men and women have been treated more similarly. For example, in some cultures that had slavery, many female slaves had very similar upbringings, similar diets, and had to perform the same type and amount of hard labor as the men. In fact, women were expected to maintain that level of labor for the first few months of pregnancy. If you took those people and compared their physical capabilities, would you expect the same amount of difference compared to men and women in today's society?

 

Pretty much, yes.

 

Potential is there, and that doesn't change depending on social factors (which stem at least partially from it).

Again, look at the top athletes or any sport there is.

 

 

If a female PC is the top performer among woman, then the male PC is hte top performer among males, and should still physicly outperform the female PC...if you want to be realistic about it.

 

And you still have to keep in mind that those athletes were not raised the same way. Diet, exercise, leisure activities, etc., diverge between boys and girls very early. For example, the suggested caloric intake are different for boys and girls just one year old, when there's practically no sexual dimorphism. A one year boy is certainly not stronger than a one year old girl and yet it's suggested that one year old boys have a 5% greater caloric intake than girls. A 5 year old boy is not likely to be much stronger than a 5 year old girl and yet it's suggested that 5 year old boys have a 10% greater caloric intake than girls. That difference increases to about 15% at the beginning of puberty, up to 20% during and after that.

 

So while there may be a 40% difference in upper body strength and 30% difference in lower body strength between men and women in this society, would the difference be that great in a society in which men and women were raised the same?

Edited October 3, 2012 by Giantevilhead

[BSoda]

However, there have been societies in which men and women have been treated more similarly. For example, in some cultures that had slavery, many female slaves had very similar upbringings, similar diets, and had to perform the same type and amount of hard labor as the men. In fact, women were expected to maintain that level of labor for the first few months of pregnancy. If you took those people and compared their physical capabilities, would you expect the same amount of difference compared to men and women in today's society?

 

Pretty much, yes.

 

Potential is there, and that doesn't change depending on social factors (which stem at least partially from it).

Again, look at the top athletes or any sport there is.

 

 

If a female PC is the top performer among woman, then the male PC is hte top performer among males, and should still physicly outperform the female PC...if you want to be realistic about it.

 

And you still have to keep in mind that those athletes were not raised the same way. Diet, exercise, leisure activities, etc., diverge between boys and girls very early. For example, the suggested caloric intake are different for boys and girls just one year old, when there's practically no sexual dimorphism. A one year boy is certainly not stronger than a one year old girl and yet it's suggested that one year old boys have a 5% greater caloric intake than girls. A 5 year old boy is not likely to be much stronger than a 5 year old girl and yet it's suggested that 5 year old boys have a 10% greater caloric intake than girls. That difference increases to about 15% at the beginning of puberty, up to 20% during and after that.

 

So while there may be a 40% difference in upper body strength and 30% difference in lower body strength between men and women in this society, would the difference be that great in a society in which men and women were raised the same?

Considering that this physical difference stems from nature and not society -Yes. Yes, it would.

Edited October 3, 2012 by BSoda

[Giantevilhead]

Considering that this physical difference stems from nature and not society -Yes. Yes, it would.

 

Except physical differences do not stem entirely from nature. If you separate identical twins and have one work on a farm doing hard manual labor and the other sit in an office, they will no longer be physically identical after a while.

 

There is practically no difference in physical capabilities between young boys and girls. However, as I mentioned before, their diets begin to diverge at age one. Similarly, their physical activities also begin to diverge at a very young age. Do you honestly not think that contributes to physical differences developed later in life?

 

To say that physical differences stem entirely from nature and is not at all affected by society is extremely, not to mention willfully, ignorant.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Giantevilhead

[BSoda]

Considering that this physical difference stems from nature and not society -Yes. Yes, it would.

 

Except physical differences do not stem entirely from nature. If you separate identical twins and have one work on a farm doing hard manual labor and the other sit in an office, they will no longer be physically identical after a while.

Both will still have the same physical potential, however. This doesn't change just because one of them isn't tapping into it.

 

There is practically no difference in physical capabilities between young boys and girls. However, as I mentioned before, their diets begin to diverge at age one. Similarly, their physical activities also begin to diverge at a very young age. Do you honestly not think that contributes to physical differences developed later in life?

 

To say that physical differences stem entirely from nature and is not at all affected by society is extremely, not to mention willfully, ignorant.

The maximum physical potential stems entirely from nature...only what you achieve inside of that potential stems from society...also nature outfitted men with greater potential on the physical level. That's just how it is.