Female leaders

[Loaf Warden]

This is why I don't like the choice of Wu Zeitian. Whether she was a good leader or not, she isn't one of the obvious choices for a Chinese leader - she isn't iconic enough, so her choice smacks of tokenism, regardless of her actual ability.

If I had to list the top choices for a Chinese leader, they'd be Qin Shi Huang, Taizong, Kangxi, Qianlong, Mao, and Sun Yat-Sen. The first was the first Emperor; the second was considered one of the greatest Emperors of Chinese history; the next two ruled the Chinese Empire at its territorial and economic height; and the last two are key players in China's modern history. They are all iconic in their own way, and as for Wu, it is clear that she was chosen simply because she was female and not because of her abilities given how many other iconic and important Chinese figures there are.

I disagree. Of course, with a civ as long-lasting as China, there will be a great deal of viable options, and any one of them would have caused someone to say, "I'd rather have x instead." But it's not as though Wu Zetian was an unimportant ruler with a lackluster reign. She was a good, strong ruler who left China bigger and better than she found it. I don't say she wasn't chosen because of her sex, but unlike, say, Theodora or Maria I, she actually makes sense on her own merits as well. I wouldn't have complained about Qin Shihuang or Taizong, but I'm perfectly happy with Wu Zetian, and she does not feel token to me at all.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I disagree. Of course, with a civ as long-lasting as China, there will be a great deal of viable options, and any one of them would have caused someone to say, "I'd rather have x instead." But it's not as though Wu Zetian was an unimportant ruler with a lackluster reign. She was a good, strong ruler who left China bigger and better than she found it. I don't say she wasn't chosen because of her sex, but unlike, say, Theodora or Maria I, she actually makes sense on her own merits as well. I wouldn't have complained about Qin Shihuang or Taizong, but I'm perfectly happy with Wu Zetian, and she does not feel token to me at all.

I actually don't think Wu really did much for China - Taizong and Xuanzong in my opinion were much more important rulers to the prosperity of the Tang Empire (though things got screwed bad at the end of Xuangzon's reign), and she isn't an iconic leader for imperial China in my opinion, although we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, I'm afraid.

For me it's more the issue of the fact that even if we assume Wu was a great leader, there's so many great Chinese leaders it's odd that they choose her. Think of it this way. Let's say we have 16 great Chinese leaders that could have been in (let's just say... Taizong, Qin Shi Huang, Kangxi, Qianlong, Mao, Sun Yat-Sen, Yongle, Hongzhu, the Yellow Emperor, Wudi, Wendi, Liu Bang, someone from the Three Kingdoms era such as Cao Cao or Zhuge Liang, Xuanzong, Deng Xiaoping, and Wu, for argument's sake, is counted as one of these great leaders. This means ignoring gender, she has a 1/16 chance of getting in. Compare this to another civ such as, say, Portugal - again, for argument's sake, let's just say Maria I is a "great" leader (whether she actually was is another story, but again, for argument's sake, let's ignore this). Known leaders would include Joao II, Joao I, Manuel I, Pedro I, Henry the Navigator, Afonso Henriques, Maria I, and Maria II. Ignoring gender, Maria I has a 1/8 chance of getting in. A female leader for Portugal reeks less of tokenism based on this than that with China. This goes even further with, say, Carthage. There's really a handful of choices here - Hannibal, Dido, and maybe Hamilcar. That means the chances of Dido, ignoring gender, are 1/3.

I know this is a bit arbitrary, but my point isn't so much the actual chances of them getting in but the fact that it is clearly tokenism when Wu, deserving or not, is chosen when there are also many good candidates.

Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily - I understand well this is just a game, after all. But does it annoy me? Certain. Will it cause me to hate the game? No, not at all. There's other things to criticize Civ 5 about (or, well, at least the vanilla version).

 

[Colmar]

To the people saying that Civs should have female leaders because it's a miracle for women to get that power, that sounds silly. The leader should be iconic and look like they would hold their own against Napoleon, Montezuma, and Catherine. It's nice to hear the opening with "Oh great X, you established W, fought Y and did Z for all the people! Will you stand the test of the time?" rather than "Oh magnificent X, you were able to become leader of all of Y despite being a woman! Your short-lived rule lacks notability for any reason other than you leading it! Will you stand the test of time?", which sounds patronizing.

 

[aluelkdf]

To the people saying that Civs should have female leaders because it's a miracle for women to get that power, that sounds silly. The leader should be iconic and look like they would hold their own against Napoleon, Montezuma, and Catherine. It's nice to hear the opening with "Oh great X, you established W, fought Y and did Z for all the people! Will you stand the test of the time?" rather than "Oh magnificent X, you were able to become leader of all of Y despite being a woman! Your short-lived rule lacks notability for any reason other than you leading it! Will you stand the test of time?", which sounds patronizing.

Women have had lots of power and influence throughout history. The "elites" who rule over us have been full of women. Elizabeth, Catherine, Victoria, Cleopatra, Isabella. And even the peasant class, women usually control the household and are the boss. The "man" of the house doesn't have much say in what happens in the day to day decisions of how things are done, he is just expected to be the protector and the breadwinner, but he is not the boss. The idea that women had no power is anti-male feminist propaganda.

 

[aluelkdf]

A famous male ruler gave the formula of how to take over a society when he said, "First you get the women. Once you have the women you have the children. Once you have the women and the children, the men will follow".

 

[Bakspatel]

Creating a female leader for every civ is impossible simply because of the lack of female leaders for many civs. Who would replace William of Orange? Otto von Bismark or Montezuma? And never mind the Arabs.

 

[phaethon16]

Oddly enough, I feel like Dido is fine while Evita is suspect. Here's my logic:

I don't think that Dido was purely legendary. Yes, she's been deified and mythologised a fair bit, but so were later female rulers like Tribhuwana Wijayatunggadevi of the Majapahit. It's possible that someone made up the story of a woman founding a city - but I can't think of another instance in which another legend was created about a woman doing the same - doesn't seem like an archetype. If she was Carthage's founder, she's got at least as much right to be featured as Hannibal Barca (who was technically only one among an oligarchy of rulers).

In the case of Evita - well, in the age of modern government, a First Lady is a very limited position in terms of actual political power. Plus, she died awfully early - she never took over as regent. Is she a "spiritual leader" like Gandhi? Maybe, but Gandhi was at least his own politician to some degree, and he was a thinker, a promulgator of his own ideas. I've always seen her as a cosmetic extension of Juan Peron's regime rather than being a leader in her own right.

(Maybe I'm also bothered by the anti-feminist implications here - that you can be considered a leader in the modern age if you're pretty, extroverted and marry well. That was revolutionary in Byzantium, but in Buenos Aires?)

I totally see where you're coming from, but I have to disagree. I can see how she might seem to be an extension of Juan, but Eva's charity work and her work towards getting women the right to vote was her own. Additionally, she was less of a dictator than Juan and was far more loved by the people. Eva Peron is a woman who genuinely deserves to be included in the next expansion for being the national heroine of Argentina, the most beloved in their history. She would not be in the game just for show, but because she would be Argentina's best choice.

 

[phaethon16]

Also, Theodora was co-ruler of the Byzantine empire and wielded almost as much power as Justinian. I'm not going to go into a lengthy description about her, but look her up. Once you do, you'll see that we have no token female rulers, so Elizabeth Bathory and other weird rulers are out of the question since theres no real precedence to it.

 

[yisheng]

I totally see where you're coming from, but I have to disagree. I can see how she might seem to be an extension of Juan, but Eva's charity work and her work towards getting women the right to vote was her own. Additionally, she was less of a dictator than Juan and was far more loved by the people. Eva Peron is a woman who genuinely deserves to be included in the next expansion for being the national heroine of Argentina, the most beloved in their history. She would not be in the game just for show, but because she would be Argentina's best choice.

Hmm. Are you Argentinean yourself? You seem to be more clued into their mindset than I am.

Thinking about it, it's probably a good idea to respect what the "contemporary cultural owners" of a civ say about the choice of leaders. If an Argentinean wants Eva Peron as leader, who would we be to contradict him/her?

On a similar note, I've seen a couple of Portuguese commenters responding positively to Maria I - they're familiar with her role in history and appreciate her contributions (while outsiders are grousing 'cos they've never heard of her before). And as a person of Chinese descent, I've heard loads about Wu Zetian, who looms large in the Chinese consciousness despite the presence of so many other remarkable leaders, so her choice doesn't seem misplaced either.

Not sure who the "cultural owners" of Carthage and Byzantium might be, if there are any!

 

[steveg700]

Creating a female leader for every civ is impossible simply because of the lack of female leaders for many civs. Who would replace William of Orange? Otto von Bismark or Montezuma? And never mind the Arabs.

Well, you just do what Firaxis seems to do currently with regards to female leaders. You lower the bar until the right person can slide in.

Generally, in the world at large it goes something like this:

Step 1: Put someone in a position of prestige specifcally to promote a demographic rather than an individual's accomplishments. This is actually a form of patronization that hedges the numbers so someone can say "look what the member of that group accomplished". Step 2: if somebody else says "well, yeah, but only because they were given a pass on the qualifications everyone else was required to meet", then the proper response is to impugn that person's character and label them a "___ist".

Some folks desire a similar approach to civ's. There are too many European civ's, so let's bring in some civilizations from other parts of the world. They don't have to have gotten out of the ancient era, have any buildings, or achieved anything special. They just had to have eked out an existence on an underrepresented part of the globe.

It's a case of admirable ends justifying disingenuous means. Fortunately, there are numerous accomplished civilizations outside of Europe that remain untapped.

 

[Eru Ilúvatar]

Why is Eva Peron a horrible choice?

She never ruled. Was only a wife of a dictator. Her as a ruler is the same thing as Jacqueline Kennedy as president of the USA.

Some female rulers were good choises, as Isabel, Maria Theresa, Elizabeth, Dido and Catherine. Others are aceptable, such as Boadicca (I personally prefer Vercingetorix, but the celts were never a united and organized group anyways). Theodora is a strange choise, but she is still influent in bizantine court.

But there are choises totally a crap, and Maria I was one of these. She ruled during a decadent period in Portugal`s history, got crazy, run away from Napoleon and she's only rememebered, as ruler, because she fired Marques de Pombal... Don Henrique o Enfante and Manuel o Venturoso were better choises from a most glorious period of Portugal as a main actor in the world stage.

I see no reason in choosing a ruler that is not a best choise. I see no reason to choise Wu Zetian and not Qin Shi Huang or Mao. Its the same thing, for me, as choose Prince Charles and not Elizabeth to rule the english civ.

 

[phaethon16]

Hmm. Are you Argentinean yourself? You seem to be more clued into their mindset than I am.

Thinking about it, it's probably a good idea to respect what the "contemporary cultural owners" of a civ say about the choice of leaders. If an Argentinean wants Eva Peron as leader, who would we be to contradict him/her?

On a similar note, I've seen a couple of Portuguese commenters responding positively to Maria I - they're familiar with her role in history and appreciate her contributions (while outsiders are grousing 'cos they've never heard of her before). And as a person of Chinese descent, I've heard loads about Wu Zetian, who looms large in the Chinese consciousness despite the presence of so many other remarkable leaders, so her choice doesn't seem misplaced either.

Not sure who the "cultural owners" of Carthage and Byzantium might be, if there are any!

I am not Argentinian, are you? I made those statements because I've put a bit of research into learning about her, and that's what I've seen and read. If you are Argentinian, please feel free to correct me, but I don't feel as if I'm wrong because everywhere I've looked, I've seen that what I said is true, and I've looked quite a bit. I sort of wish I was Argentinian so I could add that to my credibility.

 

[WChrisMullen]

If it were up to me I would bring back the multiple leaders mechanic of Civ IV for Civ VI so we won't run into this problem. We could have Qin Shi Huang and Wu Zeitan, Dido and Hannibal, Maria I and Henry the Navigator. We would diversify the playing field without making people angry that their favorite didn't get in. The only problem is making the leader screens for all of them.

 

[Eru Ilúvatar]

I don't see Hannibal as a good choise also. He was only a general.
Dido was a good choise. Her name originally was Elissa.

 

[trexeric]

I don't see Hannibal as a good choise also. He was only a general.
Dido was a good choise. Her name originally was Elissa.

He wasn't just a general. He also was a member on the council (forgot its name) in Carthage after the Second Punic War.

 

[Inhalaattori]

Dido was not worse or more ridiculous leader choice than Hiawatha in Civ V or Gilgamesh in Civ IV.

 

[PreLynMax]

So, Maria Thersa, Wu Zutien, Boudicca, Catherine, Elizabeth, Isabella and Dido wasn't enough females for you? Frankly, adding another skirt to the ring won't matter much.

 

[Cissnei]

New female leader is announced ^^ She will lead Portugal

 

[Arachnofiend]

Dido was not worse or more ridiculous leader choice than Hiawatha in Civ V or Gilgamesh in Civ IV.

There's apparently an actual Hiawatha that was actually influential in the construction of the Iroquois Confederacy. He was trumped up by folklore as leaders often are but he was a real person, separate from the fictitious character created by Longfellow.

Of course, there's evidence suggesting the same for Dido so the point is null.

 

[Blackknight1239]

Well, you just do what Firaxis seems to do currently with regards to female leaders. You lower the bar until the right person can slide in.

Generally, in the world at large it goes something like this:

Step 1: Put someone in a position of prestige specifcally to promote a demographic rather than an individual's accomplishments. This is actually a form of patronization that hedges the numbers so someone can say "look what the member of that group accomplished". Step 2: if somebody else says "well, yeah, but only because they were given a pass on the qualifications everyone else was required to meet", then the proper response is to impugn that person's character and label them a "___ist".

Some folks desire a similar approach to civ's. There are too many European civ's, so let's bring in some civilizations from other parts of the world. They don't have to have gotten out of the ancient era, have any buildings, or achieved anything special. They just had to have eked out an existence on an underrepresented part of the globe.

It's a case of admirable ends justifying disingenuous means. Fortunately, there are numerous accomplished civilizations outside of Europe that remain untapped.

I too would love to imagine the world as a prefect meritocracy, where only the proper people get ahead in life, and those people who aren't well suited for a position. However, evidence would suggest that white men who hold power tend to make sure that other white men are allowed these positions, and when a non-white man gets one of these position, it conveniently turns out that they aren't "good enough" to be where they are.