Sexism?

[Slaunyeh]

In most fantasy games it seems to be the norm that sexism doesn't exist and that women and men have the same basic rights and societal roles in the world.

 

Women can do anything men can do, while wearing chainmail bikini. Now that's gender equality.

[quechn1tlan]

Where they did this(Arcanum I think, but not sure)...men get +1 strength, women get + 1 endurance. This is good sexism.

 

No oooh it's happy rape time! for the sake of just being "gritty".

[TrashMan]

MEh.

 

I think men and women have their pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages, and socieltal roles are mostly a product of that.

In other words, roles are more the result of efficency and common sense rahter then malice/ego or whatever.

Super-warrior women alwaysed seemed silly to me, but I can work with that.

 

*runs from the inevitable feminist reponse*

[Durinax]

Where they did this(Arcanum I think, but not sure)...men get +1 strength, women get + 1 endurance. This is good sexism.

 

No oooh it's happy rape time! for the sake of just being "gritty".

Men +1 strength, women +1 Constitution

 

which made women superior mages and men superior warriors.

[sparklecat]

My thoughts are that it's awesome you're all concerned about realism in this specific situation and roleplaying opportunities and such, but I'd kind of like it if I didn't have to have my entertainment shoving yet another reminder of just how many ways I'm prejudiced against and negatively viewed for being female every day of my life.

 

 

 

Basically I'm saying that what's an interesting intellectual exercise for a guy is sort of depressing (and potentially upsetting, depending on how it's handled) for me. It's not fun. There are ways to explore themes of societal discrimination towards a large proportion of the population other than discrimination against women. It's possible to have a world that's internally consistent and realistic without that type of prejudice being necessary. I'd really like it if we could have that, spend less time talking about how obviously the way our world works is the only one that makes sense and we just have to mirror it to be realistic, and more time talking about what sort of worlds we can imagine that wouldn't be that way.

 

I've seen a few suggestions in other threads like magical ability being biased in favour of women, but there are plenty of other possibilities. Different understandings, or different realisations in the world of gender altogether - unigender races, races where you naturally change, develop and/or decide upon a gender later in life. Situations like we had in our own society wherein the need for more women to work in factories during wartime eventually contributed to greater equality in general; what if that had happened much earlier? Magically transferrable pregnancies and surrogates as standard, no need to try and protect the woman bearing your child or try and keep her from being exposed to any risk. A society so constantly at war that doing anything except training up every able-bodied person to fight was just infeasible; let's see how disability discrimination is handled amongst those people. Whatever.

[mcmanusaur]

Redundant thread is redundant. Everyone knows the guys advocating for sexism and rape are creeps, no matter how they try to justify it.

[Amentep]

Should being a female knight mean that you had to impersonate a man Joan of Arc style or that you had to prove yourself the equal of the other knights, or that they just all accepted you right away?

 

AFAIK, Joan of Arc didn't impersonate or present as being a man. She was commissioned by the king of France, who did so knowing she was a young woman. The example you're looking for is someone like Brita Olofsdotte who impersonated being a man to get into the Swedish cavalry (and after dying in battle the king approved her family receiving her pay) or Frances Clalin joining the Missouri Artillery and Cavalry alongside her husband. The adoption of wearing men's clothing in Joan's case (and in the case of, say, Joanna of Flanders) was more practicality than anything else (for a couple of different reasons) as they weren't trying to hide who they were.

 

RE: Sexism - its a slippery slope; certainly it could add something to the complexity of society but it also runs the risk of seeming like a developer statement of approval to media pundits looking for a story and probably never able to justify its inclusion, IMO.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Amentep

[Osvir]

^Here's for hoping that media grows more mature and stops their childish games til April 2014 and starts using their tools to communicate with people rather than influencing an image onto the people. When they start doing their job, knowing what powerful force that they are (and treat the people as people and not dollar signs), perhaps there will be actual intellectualism in what they say. If not: we don't need to care wtf about the blasphemy they portray.

 

Let Obsidian make their game with their vision, without feeling hampered about "I wonder what the media will say". Something that should be more important, and most important, would be "I wonder what the people will say". And I think Obsidian is on the right track.

 

We'll all be friends on Planet Earth at some point. Naive dream, but I believe it

Edited December 4, 2012 by Osvir

[Sacred_Path]

the inclusion of issues like sexism in an alternate world is probably easier to justify than its exclusion. Unfortunately in the latter case noone asks you for justification.

[Dragoonlordz]

There should be sexism when appropriate to that culture's history.

That goes for racism too.

Cultures all have their own behavior and expectations of their people, I want to see different cultures in this game.

And it should absolutely change the way they act towards your character.

If your rolling a female who comes in contact with a barbaric type culture where females are held in lower respect, I better have some males in my party to get some respect.

If it's a society where woman rule the government and men are viewed as low brow food providers, I better have a female in my party to get some respect.

What I don't want to see are a bunch of bland cultures with views that remain PC in our real world to play it safe.

 

They pitched this as a mature game, I expect the cultures to be defined in a mature perspective.

 

Seems like we all share the same expectation in this regard.

I think Obsidian is aware that we don't want a sugar coated PC world to inhabit.

 

I agree.

 

To be honest this thread will probably be locked at some point in the future as almost every other gender equality and sexism thread has tended to go downhill very fast. They always also end up on the same result for most people in that it is best to leave it to Obsidian and not meta this aspect. I imagine most people on these forums backed the project on KS so one would assume you had faith in their ability prior, there is no reason to doubt their ability now as far as I am concerned. They will approach and contain such mature themes when appropriate to the story, characters or cultures in the game, I do not think they will turn it into a generic PC compliant world just because someone on here wants to promote a potentially political or real world agenda.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Dragoonlordz

[Amentep]

^Here's for hoping that media grows more mature and stops their childish games til April 2014 and starts using their tools to communicate with people rather than influencing an image onto the people. When they start doing their job, knowing what powerful force that they are (and treat the people as people and not dollar signs), perhaps there will be actual intellectualism in what they say. If not: we don't need to care wtf about the blasphemy they portray.

 

Let Obsidian make their game with their vision, without feeling hampered about "I wonder what the media will say". Something that should be more important, and most important, would be "I wonder what the people will say". And I think Obsidian is on the right track.

 

We'll all be friends on Planet Earth at some point. Naive dream, but I believe it

 

I dunno, I think perceptual problem can hurt a game or companies reputation and while it'd be nice for a game to be able to include something like sexism or more nuanced cultural perspectives between major and minor groups, the truth is I think that there will be a certain group of people who'll see it as being "anti" something rather than an attempt to create some complex scenarios.

 

Maybe I'm wrong; I tend towards pessimistic on these sort of things.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Amentep

[Osvir]

Amentep: I think a fantasy setting and cultural background for these fictional races is fine, as long as it can be backed up in a good way in the Lore of the world. Something that makes it authentic to the world. However, if there were some sort of obvious or subtle propaganda in the game that's another issue.

 

There's a great video on Extra Credits about the subliminal message. Can't find it now. But it's out there somewhere. Something about propaganda games.

 

EDIT: Found it.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Osvir

[Hormalakh]

To further illustrate my point, here is some real-life cultural clashes that are perceived as sexism and oppression to those who look at things from a singular point of view.

 

And women in Saudi Arabia having acid thrown into their faces for going to school? Would you say that's sexist, or is it just my western perception that makes me think that's horrible?

 

This isn't to say that there aren't evils being done in the world and that some of these run in the "sexist" department.

 

Learn to read.

[rjshae]

In other words, roles are more the result of efficency and common sense rahter then malice/ego or whatever.

Mmm, they may have developed as the result of efficiency and common sense at one point, but cultural inertia tends to maintain those roles even after technological developments have rendered them obsolete and even counter-productive. You may find the idea of a warrior woman silly, but a female pilot flying an apache gunship is still going to turn you into hamburger.

[jezz555]

Should being a female knight mean that you had to impersonate a man Joan of Arc style or that you had to prove yourself the equal of the other knights, or that they just all accepted you right away?

 

AFAIK, Joan of Arc didn't impersonate or present as being a man. She was commissioned by the king of France, who did so knowing she was a young woman. The example you're looking for is someone like Brita Olofsdotte who impersonated being a man to get into the Swedish cavalry (and after dying in battle the king approved her family receiving her pay) or Frances Clalin joining the Missouri Artillery and Cavalry alongside her husband. The adoption of wearing men's clothing in Joan's case (and in the case of, say, Joanna of Flanders) was more practicality than anything else (for a couple of different reasons) as they weren't trying to hide who they were.

 

 

Been awhile since I saw the Milla Jovovich movie but skimming over the Wikipedia article, she did dress up as a man at some point. Still you're probably right, I don't claim to be an expert on these sorts of things.

 

 

 

First off, no, what ever the hell you're talking about does not exist. There is no story involving women being unable to go to school because someones throwing acid at their faces. There are however stories of insane **** from the UK, to Cambodia, Afghanistan, to Ethopia. It is not a reocurring thing in Islamic, or Abrabian cultures.

 

Edit: Whoop, looks like there was one

 

http://www.cnn.com/2...hool/index.html

 

Sorry Jez. But still, my point does stand that its not somehow exclusive to the Middleeast, its considered ****ing nuts in the Middleeast, and it isn't really indictive of Muslim culture any more than the West Boro Church protesting funerals of Christians, or Scandinivan church Bombers were of Athesists.

 

Second, have you ever actually asked a woman in Burka why she wears it, or if she feels oppressed? Because I actually have, and funnily enough, she didn't wear it because of her family, with her parents both opposing it. She didn't feel oppressed, and she didn't do it because she felt she was better than those western women she knew, and were friends with. For her, it was a choice she made because of who she wanted to be, simple as that.

 

It is exclusive to Muslim countries actually(the acid attacks specifically) I'm not saying other religions/people aren't also horrible, but he brought up Islam so that's what I'm talking about, and these are attacks are specifically inspired by Islam. The testimony of somebody raised in a muslim culture is not really reliable as they've never known anything else. I wouldn't ask somebody with Stockholm syndrome if they thought their kidnapper was a bad guy, either. They may say it's because their family "respects them" or whatever but try going outside without one and you get stoned, that's not respect thats oppression. There are groups of women from these countries fighting this kind of opression now so the fact that some of them claim indifference doesn't really say anything. I'm sure back in the 1800's you would find a few slaves who didn't mind slavery all that much( at least with their masters standing menacingly behind them), but I assure you the vast majority of them were pretty pissed about it. You seem preoccupied with Burkha's but what about stopping women from going to school? Is that respect?

 

Anyway this is getting way off topic, TL;DR you are explosively wrong.

 

To further illustrate my point, here is some real-life cultural clashes that are perceived as sexism and oppression to those who look at things from a singular point of view.

 

And women in Saudi Arabia having acid thrown into their faces for going to school? Would you say that's sexist, or is it just my western perception that makes me think that's horrible?

 

This isn't to say that there aren't evils being done in the world and that some of these run in the "sexist" department.

 

Learn to read.

 

I did buddy, just disagreeing with your premise.

Edited December 4, 2012 by jezz555

[jivex5k]

Look at it this way:

We don't want bland, politically correct cultures in this game, it's boring, and seems very artificial.

 

This game isn't going to be about sending a message in regards to the real world. In fact, it has nothing to do with the real world. (Aside from using the real world as a firm base of world creation) So there is no reason to get bent out of shape over suggestions of having cultures that may not be politically correct.

 

It's a fictional world they are creating, and how unbelievable would it be if there were no inequalities in the cultures, and everyone treats everyone exactly the same. That reeks of "trying to stay PC and not step on toes", and it's detrimental to the world they are creating.

If you are offended by a fictional culture in a video game then you need to take a step back and realize what it is your offended by. None of it actually exists, they are characters in a made up world.

 

It's not about including rape, sexism, racism, or anything like that for the sake of being mature and edgy, or to appeal to some creeps. It's about creating a believable world. And a believable world will have cultures and characters that view others as lesser than them.

 

A believable world will have crime and extremely unsavory characters. It will have inequalities of rich and poor. It will have people who are cowards, people who are brave.

 

And yes, it will have people who are sexist.

 

These people exist today, and throughout the history of mankind itself, to avoid it completely would make the whole world seem alien and arbitrary.

In essence, we wouldn't feel as connected to the world, and that's pretty damn important on my list.

 

Let's keep the topic to why PE should or should not include sexism. The real world examples serve no purpose other than arguments about the real world.

 

There's no reason to cite specific examples of real world cultures exhibiting sexist behavior...we already know this exists, the question is should we include sexism in PE.

Edited December 4, 2012 by jivex5k

[Grrul]

I think some sexism is good but I'd try and balance it if at all possible since I feel that it's generally woman always getting the shaft. For example I know that in one book I read that handling money and bartering was seen as unmanly, in another it was reading that wasn't something men did. I'd rather see culturally related sexism along those lines rather than the typical men do the fighting women make the babies sexism.

 

Of course this could all work the other way. We could also see matriarchal societies, where men are the ones facing discrimination.

 

isn't that more of a sci-fi trope?

 

no, dark-elf society is matriarchal in D&D IIRC.

 

If anyone never watched a cartoon "Jyo-Oh-Sei: Planet of Beast King" you need too. Man and women are very different and its only normal. I respect everyone equally when I first meet them and for me .. I can't help but to understand how wonderful women are.. becouse they are so trully special to carry our children and no man can love a child like a women and love is a true good, yet thats my person opinion.

 

I don't believe there shuld be sexism or any descrimination.. in character creation way.. I do think that both male and female characters shuld be different from one another... and all different to each other based on a race. When it comes to Role-Playing.. and story ... I always want to play a good character.. and there is so many ways of doing so.. no matter of how dark a story could be as long as my good hero can make me feel like the light in that story.

 

I always say this.. when I am not sure .. and I am mostly unsure becouse I know .. now well that I don't know much but I do like to speak my mind ones in a while... so I hope I am not being too silly.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

How the **** did this thread go from "Sexism in Project Eternity" to "Buffy the Vampire Slayer and other things by Whedon" to Political Correctness? Anyways I'd like to address a few things.

 

The world should be consistent. The laws of the world should be firmly established and apply evenly throughout the setting. If having strength lower than X incurs a penalty for a certain race or class, that needs to be true in all situations involving those variables. There shouldn't be people who are immune to x element simply because the difficulty was set higher(like in the crapheap DA2) or bandits suddenly being able to take 10 times the damage they used to(level scaling).

 

Motivations and actions should be realistic. Bandits should be in to the whole plundering thing and exist to do that, they should not be motiveless badies for the PC and party to slay to get XP. I'm tired of motivation-less(or even worse bull**** motive) characters.

 

The world should take as little influence from real life as possible. I don't want to travel to a "sort of France" or adventure in "not quite Spain" or whatever. I want to see a world that is original and was designed without trying to emulate cultures from the real world.

[Sacred_Path]

I can't help but to understand how wonderful women are..

I take it that you for one welcome our Amazonian overlords

[Alexjh]

While I see the general point of this, and I do love Brienne of Tarth, the primary problem is that it creates massive amounts of work in terms of a female PC if all of society is dismissive of women. Which isn't to say a largely different set of dialogue for women wouldn't be worthwhile, but I don't think it's necessarily the most worthwhile thing that could be done with equivical time and money.

 

At a compromise, I'd suggest the best option would be to have certain environments where it is an issue, perhaps in certain tribes or in certain courts, but not be something that it pervasive throughout the entire setting.

 

I do definitly think it is a worthwhile set of themes to explore, but it's realistically have to be instead of multiple sentient species if you wanted to explore it enough to do it justice and not have completely insane quantities of dialogue options.

[Grrul]

I can't help but to understand how wonderful women are..

I take it that you for one welcome our Amazonian overlords

 

Take my lady for one.. lol

[Dream]

Been awhile since I saw the Milla Jovovich movie but skimming over the Wikipedia article, she did dress up as a man at some point. Still you're probably right, I don't claim to be an expert on these sorts of things.

 

Seriously? That's where you're getting your history from? An action flick? When you argue with people it's usually a good idea to know what the **** you're actually talking about (whether it's history or fiction). I do like how anytime someone calls you out on your BS you just go "I never claimed to be an expert!" like that's some kind of defense (especially considering how adamant you were in your statements).

 

 

It is exclusive to Muslim countries actually(the acid attacks specifically) I'm not saying other religions/people aren't also horrible, but he brought up Islam so that's what I'm talking about, and these are attacks are specifically inspired by Islam.

 

Except India is one of the biggest offenders of such attacks and there the overwhelming majority is Hindu. But I guess you probably never claimed to be an expert at that either, right?

Edited December 4, 2012 by Dream

[NoxNoctum]

I'd rather have a believable world rather than trying to fill some PC quota.

 

As some other people said, gender roles evolved that way because men and women have different strengths. Like it or not, most men will be better at fighting and wielding heavy armor etc. Because the average man is physically stronger than the average woman. In a fantasy setting with Renaissance level tech, it would make even less sense to try to be "PC" about that kind of thing because technology had not evolved to the point where having women in roles traditionally occupied by men is logical. (i.e. the female Apache pilot example)

 

I also am not a huge fan of the trend I see in our culture of "hey let's pretend men and women are exactly the same". It's just not true, and it infects entertainment/media with a bland aftertaste whenever I see it being "pushed". Not accusing anyone in this thread of saying that, but that's my bias, so I don't like anything that "feels" that way.

 

I didn't feel that way with Brienne, because GRRM clearly was not trying to do it to fill some PC quota. I hope it's the same with PE is all I'm saying. Don't do ANYTHING to try to cater to some quota. If you do characters/settings/whatever come off as unbelievable and not "real". It's just like how when you see some corporate advertising where they're talking about their diversity and you see one person of every possible racial background in a warm, fuzzy "let's all work together on this project" picture. It's just silly and makes it hard to take seriously because it's so clearly staged. That's the same vibe I get whenever I see media trying to be "inclusive" for the sake of it.

Edited December 4, 2012 by NoxNoctum

[jivex5k]

Dream why are you still talking about that?

Your derailing this thread more than it already has been.

Lets get it back on track!

[Amentep]

Should being a female knight mean that you had to impersonate a man Joan of Arc style or that you had to prove yourself the equal of the other knights, or that they just all accepted you right away?

 

AFAIK, Joan of Arc didn't impersonate or present as being a man. She was commissioned by the king of France, who did so knowing she was a young woman. The example you're looking for is someone like Brita Olofsdotte who impersonated being a man to get into the Swedish cavalry (and after dying in battle the king approved her family receiving her pay) or Frances Clalin joining the Missouri Artillery and Cavalry alongside her husband. The adoption of wearing men's clothing in Joan's case (and in the case of, say, Joanna of Flanders) was more practicality than anything else (for a couple of different reasons) as they weren't trying to hide who they were.

 

 

Been awhile since I saw the Milla Jovovich movie but skimming over the Wikipedia article, she did dress up as a man at some point. Still you're probably right, I don't claim to be an expert on these sorts of things.

 

The point I was making wasn't that she didn't dress as a man (she did) but she did so for reasons other than pretending to be a man to do armed service - she was commissioned as a woman. Part of the wearing men's clothes was just plain sense for wearing armor to protect arms, legs and chest, but supposedly pants also made it harder for her to be molested by less than scrupulous men who might be under her command.

 

It did also become a point of the heresy trial in England as I recall that she wore trousers. But passing herself off as a man wasn't the reason she did so.

 

Clearly, though, historical precedent show Joan of Arc or Joanna of Flanders are the exceptions in medieval times.