What do you think of my Civ 7 Civ and Leader Picks?

[LiamX]

I'm with you on Gorgo but Soendeok was actually a pretty great queen once I got around to researching her. She's no Sejong, but she's certainly a worthy pick in her own right.

I'm not sure about that. Koreans themselves hating the fact Seondeok was picked to lead their nation says a lot. Who's best to judge than the people themselves.

Here's the source. Though, my original source was from a different website.
https://attackofthefanboy.com/news/civilization-6-korea-queen-seondeok/

 

[Zaarin]

England: James II

Do you mean James I, or do you really mean the guy that got deposed?

Hmm.. I don't think adding female leaders for the sake of adding female leaders is a good thing. It has a fanbase of haters all around the internet just because they replaced historical significance with representation. That website with Koreans trashing Civ because of Seondeok gave me the chills man.
Though, I do have female friends who play Civ and they don't even mind the representation in the game. We play because the game is fun and we love history. In fact, every single one of them ignored Gorgo, Seondeok and Wu Zetian (during Civ 5) because they were insignificant compared to the many more significant rulers of their nation.

I think a distinction can be made between "choosing a female ruler for no other reason than she is female" and "choosing virtually no female rulers, even when they were clearly among the best rulers of their civilization or dynasty (like Isabella, Elizabeth I, or, yes, Wu Zetian)."

Good choice. But I wouldn't replace Pacal from Maya. He's the only one from that civilization who's significant enough to be in Civ. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Extremely wrong. Without slighting K'inich Janaab Pakal, who was a remarkably successful ruler and probably the most obvious choice for the Maya, he's hardly the only Mayan leader of note, nor was Palenque the only center of Mayan civilization. Indeed, Tikal was probably the heart of Classical Maya civilization.

I'm not sure about that. Koreans themselves hating the fact Seondeok was picked to lead their nation says a lot. Who's best to judge than the people themselves.

Historians. While Seondeok has a negative popular image due to centuries of slander by Joseon Confucian historians, scholars generally regard her as a strong and successful ruler, as did contemporary chroniclers. Popular rulers weren't necessarily good rulers and vice versa. Richard I is probably one of the most popular rulers in English history, but he was a horrible king who spent a few months in England before spending the rest of his reign (and bankrupting his country) in his Crusade.

 

[MantaRevan]

Do you mean James I, or do you really mean the guy that got deposed? .

James II lol, my bad

 

[LiamX]

I think a distinction can be made between "choosing a female ruler for no other reason than she is female" and "choosing virtually no female rulers, even when they were clearly among the best rulers of their civilization or dynasty (like Isabella, Elizabeth I, or, yes, Wu Zetian)."

Hmm, "choosing virtually no female rulers". I don't know if we're talking about my list. I for one am for meritocracy. I honestly didn't think about gender when making my list. They were there because they crossed the intersection of happen to be great enough and not overused. Isabella has appeared in 3 civ games which is why I didn't select her and she doesn't have as much star power as say.. Alexander. Elizabeth? Same. That's why it's Victoria this time. As for Wu Zetian, I can name at least 8 other Chinese Emperors more worthy of inclusion more than her.

Historians. While Seondeok has a negative popular image due to centuries of slander by Joseon Confucian historians, scholars generally regard her as a strong and successful ruler, as did contemporary chroniclers. Popular rulers weren't necessarily good rulers and vice versa. Richard I is probably one of the most popular rulers in English history, but he was a horrible king who spent a few months in England before spending the rest of his reign (and bankrupting his country) in his Crusade.

Would be nice if you could site sources. I just don't see how Seondeok was a great leader. I mean yeah she did some good things but her bad horribly outweighs her good. And my sources are from both scholars and the people has bad opinions about her so I don't know where you're getting this from.

 

[halfhalfharp]

Safe choices of leaders, but not enough fresh elements and new faces.

Shogunate Japan has enough presence in the game, I think we can move to other eras, like the He'ian period or earlier?

I would like to see Catherine the Great in game for Russia, one of the most legendary female choices of the world. But Ivan is also great.

I would also like to add Carthage into the Classical civ category, with Dido/Hannibal as leader.

However, I don't want to see Sumeria again. They don't have enough materials to create a solid civ and Gilgamesh in VI has barely nth to do with Sumerians currently.
Babylon/Akkadia will be a better choice, with Sargon or Hammurabi as leader.

Egypt with Thutmose III is a fresh and decent one. I do appreciate it.

Greece is seeing Alexander, for the seventh time? Oh good god.

Victoria is nice... but I think its better for her to rest a bit instead of appearing in 2 successive game.

And apparently your stage is packed with too many sausages. Can we see more female choices?

 

[MaryKB]

It is extremely important to not just graze the top of the barrel for the most recognizable leaders, ignoring what really went on in those times. "Not thinking about gender" and then selecting pretty much all male leaders is exactly the problem: this is known as unconscious bias, which is something that we have to actively work to overcome as a society. Many of the great men throughout history would have been very little without the contributions of the important women in their lives. Take as a simple example George Washington: our perception of him today could be drastically different if not for Martha's work. It is undeniable that our history is looked at through a patriarchal focus, that the contributions of women have often been ignored while the works of men inflated. The developers of this game series have clearly demonstrated an effort to work on correcting this.

That's why my recommendation is to do more research! For each nation you would like to add to the game, look up important women who played pivotal roles in shaping that nation's history. You will be surprised at how many you find. They don't have to be outright monarchs (many women were forced to "rule" by controlling their husbands), but they can be influencers, such as Theodora from Civilization 5 as an example.

 

[Zaarin]

Hmm, "choosing virtually no female rulers". I don't know if we're talking about my list. I for one am for meritocracy. I honestly didn't think about gender when making my list. They were there because they crossed the intersection of happen to be great enough and not overused. Isabella has appeared in 3 civ games which is why I didn't select her and she doesn't have as much star power as say.. Alexander. Elizabeth? Same. That's why it's Victoria this time. As for Wu Zetian, I can name at least 8 other Chinese Emperors more worthy of inclusion more than her.

So you choose your leaders meritocratically, but you choose Victoria, a figurehead with good name recognition but who did pretty close to nothing of note in her lifetime, over Elizabeth I, who was probably the most powerful monarch of England of either sex...? I'm afraid I don't even vaguely understand your meritocratic rubric. Also, if anyone is a tired out trope on this list, I'd say it's Alexander the Boring.

Also, I never claimed that Wu was the greatest emperor of China. Anyone chosen out of such a long history is going to be controversial and have people clamoring for their personal favorite. But I'd say that she and Taizong are both on more or less equal footing in the Tang dynasty.

I'm well aware that there aren't many female rulers in history, and many of them didn't last long. But that's also the reason why the female rulers who were successful usually stand out as among the better rulers of their civilization: they had to be twice as good as a man just to hold onto their power. Elizabeth I was one of the most magnetic, dynamic, and powerful rulers in history. Isabella essentially forged the modern Spanish nation (Ferdinand had some power and influence, yes, but Isabella was both the real power [as queen of Castile] and the driving force). Maria Theresa came to the throne woefully underprepared and still managed to drag Austria from a Central European backwater to one of the premier states in Europe. The point isn't to choose female leaders because they're female or to meet a quota of female leaders. That's patronizing. But your list A) included some dubious female leaders where better ones were available (like Victoria vs. Elizabeth I) and B) missed some opportunities to include genuinely great female leaders where the male leaders weren't objectively better choices (like Philip II [especially if he's portrayed as poorly as Civ6 did] vs. Isabella). If Civilization were a historical sim, it would be 99% male and I wouldn't have a problem with that. But it's not a historical sim. It's a 4X game with tongue-in-cheek historical flavor. Choosing a handful of interesting female leaders isn't about pushing a progressive agenda (I'm almost positive I'm the most conservative person on this board, by the way ); it's about having an interesting cast. Same reason why not all the civs should be from Europe + Babylon, Egypt, and China.

Would be nice if you could site sources. I just don't see how Seondeok was a great leader. I mean yeah she did some good things but her bad horribly outweighs her good. And my sources are from both scholars and the people has bad opinions about her so I don't know where you're getting this from.

You could start with her Wikipedia page, which is so glowing with praise that I didn't even realize she had a negative popular image in Korea, despite having lived there, until she was included in Civ6. Also, a favorable Korean perspective. And of course the Samguk Sagi, which was much closer in time to Seondeok than the later Joseon critics, was generous in its praise to Seondeok.

However, I don't want to see Sumeria again. They don't have enough materials to create a solid civ and Gilgamesh in VI has barely nth to do with Sumerians currently.

Not exactly true. We probably know more about Sumer than any other ancient civilization because they were meticulous record keepers. That the developers couldn't be bothered to use that information and instead created a fantasy civ based on a Babylonian epic isn't really relevant to the point that we actually know a great deal about the Sumerians.

 

[Karpius]

It is extremely important to not just graze the top of the barrel for the most recognizable leaders, ignoring what really went on in those times. "Not thinking about gender" and then selecting pretty much all male leaders is exactly the problem: this is known as unconscious bias, which is something that we have to actively work to overcome as a society.

I will admit that I am not one to actively look for strong women in history, but I think thats because I already know they exist. History, however, is predominantly patriarchal and despite what women may have been in the back round the fact remains they were not usually the decision makers or movers-and-shakers. It is in that sense that I do not seek to find a female for certain roles just for the sake of finding a female. But I'm a guy, so what would you expect?

That said, I would not bat an eyelash to see Martha Washington as the American leader, so long as it is her personality that is guiding America in game and not just for the sake of saying "oh look! We're diversified now!"

History is already filled with embellishments and bias because most official histories were written by people in power who had their own version to tell. Today, we seek diversity (never a bad thing in and of itself) but sometimes we swing the pendulum too far the other way as though it will correct the mistakes of the past. People like Martha Washington and Abigail Adams were very strong women, all the more because of the society they lived in. What I personally find more interesting than what influence they might have had on the men who *did* make the final decisions is speculating on how differently they would have done things. It could have been magnificent, or it could have been disastrous (because female or not they were still only human) but having an America in our game guided by either of those personalities would be fascinating!

I suppose, in the end, I am the worst at developing criteria for leaders precisely because I never seek to include anyone based on gender, race, ethnicity, religion or anything beyond what I feel they can bring to the game. So if someone shows me a leader I am unaware of and I do a bit of research and find them interesting then I am all for their inclusion.

I look at the above list and find it generally lackluster for a number of reasons and never once thought it was too Eurocentric, too androcentric or too any-centric. I don't look at a list and think "we need to fill more slots with x, y and z to make it better." Had the above list been all females from all southern hemisphere civilizations I would have been happy as a clam. I would not have despaired over the lack of ...anything.

Its funny, if Civilization had originally come out with all females leaders and not a single European civ, I would have said nothing, I would have enjoyed it and been quite happy. If someone then complained about the lack of men or Europeans, I would have had the same sentiments I do now. Don't pick your leaders and civs BASED on gender and ethnicity.

Now one criteria that is of some interest to me when it comes to leaders is how closely they are associated with the civ in question. Sometimes, for me at least, it is not simply about their power or forcefulness or what they accomplished, but whether or not they became an enduring symbol that, for good or bad, can never be divorced from their country/empire. This is why I never balked at Cleopatra as leader for Egypt, nor Victoria (despite her very real status as a figurehead) for England. Victoria was, quite literally, the face of the British Empire for longer than most anyone ever ruled a realm in history. Elizabeth, however, goes down in history as one of the most powerful rulers of any gender, of any nation in all of history. Elizabeth also meets the criteria of forever being an enduring symbol of England and would be my first choice as leader for England.

It would, of course, not be hard to do some research and find female figures throughout history to be leaders for most any civilization we can come up with. I just don't like doing it for gender sake alone rather than what bubbles up organically on its own. Whatever we do for the sake of some "anti-bias" becomes a different sort of bias all its own.

 

[MaryKB]

Thank you Karpius for such a wonderful reply to this discussion!

It's not so much about "We need 50% female, so any women will do", it's about making a decision to look for them. It might be more difficult to see for someone who is not part of an overlooked demographic, but from your message I do feel you would understand that our society has a default to just look at men. If we don't actively work at it, we might just take a cursory glance at history and select the male leaders and influencers who most easily rise to the surface. By setting a goal that we will have X many women leaders, it then forces us to look deeper and go past that cultural bias to find worthy personages who can fill the role of a national leader. Exactly what you did with Martha Washington and Abigail Adams! There is no reason either of these women should be automatically excluded from the conversation. But if we hadn't made a conscious decision to find suitable women, we might have just taken the easier route of either George or John respectively.

We don't have to look at a list and try to find fault, but sometimes something really stands out to us. I felt the original poster's list was very inclusive of world cultures, but imagine if it was a list of just 10 civilizations as such: China, Japan, Indonesia, India, Siam, Mongolia, Korea, Afghanistan, England, and Australia? It would really stand out that this list is very heavily Asiacentric and would need to be re-balanced. That's how I felt when I looked at the original list and saw they were pretty much all men. I was particularly concerned when the original post mentioned that there were "bad" leader choices in the most recent game, and all those listed were female leaders. I am not faulting the thread creator personally, as this is a general issue with our culture that we are all simply part of. It is something we need to actively work to change though, and companies such as Firaxis definitely feel like they are trying to do their part!

I don't believe that every nation should have a female leader. But it would definitely be nice to see an active effort to make it more even!

 

[Karpius]

But if we hadn't made a conscious decision to find suitable women, we might have just taken the easier route of either George or John respectively.

My point was that I never had to make a conscious decision to find suitable women. In general reading I find them. They come to the surface organically and not because anyone had to point me in their direction. Throughout history such women have risen to the surface despite the odds that may have been arrayed before them. They made their mark and their marks were accordingly recorded for posterity. Were there more men who managed to reach the history books? Yes, because that was simply how things were, Therefore, it is a given that we have a far larger pool of men as historical figures than women. Not because of any natural superiority, but simply the general nature of most societies and most regions throughout history. Still, some women did manage to achieve historical immortality, which tells me the historians were not entirely opposed to writing about strong women. If they existed, they were written about.

Today, for the sake of diversity and inclusiveness, we reach and grasp for these various examples just to somehow balance the books. To me, it begins to feel less organic and more artificial. Important figures of history stand out on their own. I didn't become aware of Martha Washington or Elizabeth I because someone wanted to show me great 'women' in history. I learned about them in the due course of reading about history. Because the historians wanted me to know about their role because their role had some importance in the course of history.

China, Japan, Indonesia, India, Siam, Mongolia, Korea, Afghanistan, England, and Australia

Maybe its just me, but if that were the list of the civs available in our game, I would just say, "Cool! Lets play!" Each one of them brings a different flavor and could be interesting in their own right. I celebrate them because they are interesting, and not because eight of ten are Asian.

I don't know. Maybe I'm just an old white guy, but sometimes it feels that the same forces that created and perpetuated racism and sexism in the past are now creating a new sort of sexism and racism. We are on the verge of making the same mistakes, but with a new set of labels and heroes and victims.

As the Who once sang..."Meet the new boss....same as the old boss."

 

[Zaarin]

That said, I would not bat an eyelash to see Martha Washington as the American leader, so long as it is her personality that is guiding America in game and not just for the sake of saying "oh look! We're diversified now!"

I think Abigail Adams would make a little more sense, as she was more directly involved in politics than Martha Washington.

My point was that I never had to make a conscious decision to find suitable women. In general reading I find them. They come to the surface organically and not because anyone had to point me in their direction. Throughout history such women have risen to the surface despite the odds that may have been arrayed before them. They made their mark and their marks were accordingly recorded for posterity. Were there more men who managed to reach the history books? Yes, because that was simply how things were, Therefore, it is a given that we have a far larger pool of men as historical figures than women. Not because of any natural superiority, but simply the general nature of most societies and most regions throughout history. Still, some women did manage to achieve historical immortality, which tells me the historians were not entirely opposed to writing about strong women. If they existed, they were written about.

Today, for the sake of diversity and inclusiveness, we reach and grasp for these various examples just to somehow balance the books. To me, it begins to feel less organic and more artificial. Important figures of history stand out on their own. I didn't become aware of Martha Washington or Elizabeth I because someone wanted to show me great 'women' in history. I learned about them in the due course of reading about history. Because the historians wanted me to know about their role because their role had some importance in the course of history.

Maybe its just me, but if that were the list of the civs available in our game, I would just say, "Cool! Lets play!" Each one of them brings a different flavor and could be interesting in their own right. I celebrate them because they are interesting, and not because eight of ten are Asian.

I don't know. Maybe I'm just an old white guy, but sometimes it feels that the same forces that created and perpetuated racism and sexism in the past are now creating a new sort of sexism and racism. We are on the verge of making the same mistakes, but with a new set of labels and heroes and victims.

As the Who once sang..."Meet the new boss....same as the old boss."

Yeah, I think this is a valid concern. I think it's good to look for a diverse roster of rulers--men, women, young, old, etc.--but I don't think meeting a "diversity quota" is at all healthy. Leaders should be chosen because they're interesting and ideally accomplished something, not because they meet a checklist. Like I said earlier, that's tokenism and extremely patronizing. TBF, I don't think Firaxis on the whole has done this--really Gorgo and CdM are the standout dubious inclusions on that front, IMO, though CdM at least has an interesting in-game persona. (I object to Cleopatra and Victoria on other fronts: Victoria was never the queen of England [her style was queen of the United Kingdom] and she was a figurehead and her personality was dull as bricks; Elizabeth I would be a better choice on every front; Cleopatra wasn't Egyptian--was the first Ptolemy to even pretend to be Egyptian--represented the collapse of independent Egypt [which wasn't her fault and indeed was probably delayed by her, but it still isn't exactly a recommendation], and even if we want a female ruler of Egypt she's still an inferior choice to Hatshepsut or even co-regents like Nefertari or Nefertiti.)

 

[MaryKB]

My comments were not all directed to you Karpius. It really does sound like you're being much more fair than others. There were some others who I felt were being more dismissive.

I do disagree about quotas, and I don't feel there is anything wrong with setting them for ourselves. It is easy for one whom is in the dominant group to dismiss the need, because their demographic is being fully represented. Oftentimes when we hear men for example saying "we do not need to create a quota to ensure equal representation", the actual effect ends up being that the status quo is maintained and male domination continues. If diversity is important to us, then there is nothing wrong with saying for example "We want 75% of the civilizations to be non-European", or "We want half the leaders to be female", and then using that as an outline for deciding what nations and leaders are chosen. It's not the same as forcing something in just to check a box. There are hundreds of good examples for leaders of world civilizations out there! Since we are only going to have a few dozen at most in the game, the criteria is then set to decide which ones get picked this round. Setting a demographic target forces us to look harder at history, and not just take the easy picks (which are almost all male Europeans).

It's the difference between "Thomas Jefferson was a great President, let's pick him to lead America" and "Thomas Jefferson was great, but Abigail Adams also played a significant role in the creation of America. We would like to include more female leaders, so let's give her a chance this round." I don't feel that is tokenism or patronizing, but it's simply a mindset of inclusion.

Now I really want Abigail Adams lol

 

[Guandao]

Hmm.. I don't think adding female leaders for the sake of adding female leaders is a good thing. It has a fanbase of haters all around the internet just because they replaced historical significance with representation. That website with Koreans trashing Civ because of Seondeok gave me the chills man.
Though, I do have female friends who play Civ and they don't even mind the representation in the game. We play because the game is fun and we love history. In fact, every single one of them ignored Gorgo, Seondeok and Wu Zetian (during Civ 5) because they were insignificant compared to the many more significant rulers of their nation.



Good choice. But I wouldn't replace Pacal from Maya. He's the only one from that civilization who's significant enough to be in Civ. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, Japan should get someone from the Samurai era all the time. Japan/post-Samurai is just not fun anymore.



Well, we still have the Khmer and Siam for the two different expansions. It would be nice to have both of them in 1 game since people always think they're the same (like Songhai and Mali) when in fact, they are very different.

Name a bunch of more significant male rulers for Korea. Only ones I can think off the top of my head are Sejong, and Gwanggaeto the Great. Wang Kon, who appeared in Civ3 and Civ4, barely counts. He started the Goryeo dynasty, but nothing much about him stands out. Americans barely know anything about Korean history, and it seems like Seondeok and Wu Zetian received a lot of negative criticism from Asian historians simply for being female/daring to rule the nation by themselves. This definitely colors the views of certain modern day Koreans or Chinese. How come the Koreans made a drama for Seondeok if they hate her so much? Same goes for Chinese people putting out dramas about Wu Zetian. Putting them in every Civ game is too much, but having them appear once in a while can't hurt.

Pacal is hardly the only significant leader for the Maya (he's more famous than other Kings because his tomb was discovered). Please do some more research on Maya Kings/Queens. Not all the information is on the Wikipedia pages. Maya stelae inscriptions don't list every detail of their rulers' lives. Same goes for Pacal.

Well, we have other potential SE Asian Civs as well, like Burma, or the Philippines (I'm interested in the pre-Colonial period more than the Colonial one). To the average American, the Khmer and Siamese seem similar. They practice Buddhism, built Wats, etc. Siam was influenced a lot by the medieval Khmer Empire.

Seeing your name LiamX reminds me of some youtuber named Liam Lee, who was vocal to the point of being sexist against female leaders being added to Civ. I hope you are not the same person.....

 

[Zaarin]

It is easy for one whom is in the dominant group to dismiss the need, because their demographic is being fully represented.

I am white and male, but I'm also autistic, which means I'm pretty certain my neurotype is presently unrepresented in the game, and I regard my neurotype as a far more significant part of my identity than the color of my skin or arrangement of my chromosomes. (I'd love to see an autistic ruler in game--or, well, hypothetically autistic ruler in game--but I would feel pretty patronized if that were their only qualification. Plus off the top of my head I don't know any. At least there are some hypothetically autistic writers, musicians, and painters in the game...)

My comments were not all directed to you Karpius. It really does sound like you're being much more fair than others. There were some others who I felt were being more dismissive.

I do disagree about quotas, and I don't feel there is anything wrong with setting them for ourselves. It is easy for one whom is in the dominant group to dismiss the need, because their demographic is being fully represented. Oftentimes when we hear men for example saying "we do not need to create a quota to ensure equal representation", the actual effect ends up being that the status quo is maintained and male domination continues. If diversity is important to us, then there is nothing wrong with saying for example "We want 75% of the civilizations to be non-European", or "We want half the leaders to be female", and then using that as an outline for deciding what nations and leaders are chosen. It's not the same as forcing something in just to check a box. There are hundreds of good examples for leaders of world civilizations out there! Since we are only going to have a few dozen at most in the game, the criteria is then set to decide which ones get picked this round. Setting a demographic target forces us to look harder at history, and not just take the easy picks (which are almost all male Europeans).

It's the difference between "Thomas Jefferson was a great President, let's pick him to lead America" and "Thomas Jefferson was great, but Abigail Adams also played a significant role in the creation of America. We would like to include more female leaders, so let's give her a chance this round." I don't feel that is tokenism or patronizing, but it's simply a mindset of inclusion.

Now I really want Abigail Adams lol

While we're coming at it from different angles, I think we're both saying the same thing. When I said I don't think we should have quotas, I meant we shouldn't simply select a leader because they belong to a certain demographic, not that we shouldn't have a variety of demographics represented. As you say, there are plenty of qualified leaders to meet any desired demographic without shoehorning or stooping to tokenism.

 

[MaryKB]

I just did a quick Google search, and the result I found is that people think Thomas Jefferson displayed many characteristics of Asperger's Syndrome. This is the kind of research I was talking about: when you make the effort to specifically look for something, you may be surprised at what you will find! I would be very interested to see a leader portrayal of someone autistic. I do not have that experience to understand, so we would need someone on the team to properly design that respectfully. How do you feel you would like to see an autistic leader portrayed?

I also feel that we are saying basically the same thing, but coming from different sides as you said. "Quota" might be the wrong word, perhaps "goal" might be better. I don't believe in selecting an inappropriate leader just because they fit a certain demographic. I do believe however in making a concerted effort to look for more diverse options. There is a difference I believe between "This person is African, we want some Africans in game, so they'll do" and "We already have enough Europeans, so let's start looking for some good choices for African leaders".

 

[Karpius]

My comments were not all directed to you Karpius. It really does sound like you're being much more fair than others. There were some others who I felt were being more dismissive.

No worries! I certainly didn't take it personally. One should never take a healthy, civil discourse personally.

I do disagree about quotas, and I don't feel there is anything wrong with setting them for ourselves. It is easy for one whom is in the dominant group to dismiss the need, because their demographic is being fully represented.

I certainly understand the desire for quotas, though I still feel they are ultimately detrimental. As far as being part of the dominant demographic, I may have felt that way as recent as twenty years ago (which made it far easier to champion everyone else's rights) but today it is far less clear. Most importantly, however, is that there is no 'legal' dominant demographic. There are no laws in place (at least no major laws I am aware of) that promote 'white maleness' over anything else. There are no major laws (aside from some antiquated military policies that are slowly changing) that exclude people based on gender or race. That, to me, is the true definition of a level playing field. In any and all situations merit and merit alone is a deciding factor. I am also aware that is not always the case in practice and that there are still people out there who cling to old ideals. But they are disappearing and we don't make them disappear any faster with quotas.

Quotas, by very definition, become exclusive by their attempt to be inclusive. Someone must be left out for a reason other than merit simply because the numbers didn't work. This can create resentment in the person who was left out for such a reason. People were left out for worse reasons in the past - race, gender, religion - and we did not think it was right then. We grew to sympathize with those who were left out and marginalized and we championed their cause. Why is it right to put a new group through that now? Yes, I know its not quite the same; white men are not being lynched or forced to sit in the back of the bus or being underpaid compared to their female counterparts. But the individual who is left out knows nothing of that and only knows they were left out because they didn't fit the quota. They become resentful. they become far less willing to listen to or even understand the original (and sometimes even sound) reasoning behind quotas.

There is another effect of the quota system I believe is far less known or understood. I only became aware of it recently through my daughter. My daughter is a highly successful college administrator. She has worked very, very hard all her life. She was raised to! She was raised to believe that there was nothing in the world she couldn't be, but she had to work for it. She was raised to never expect to be given anything. A little more than a year ago she was appointed to oversee the creation of a brand new department. Big raise, elevated prestige, everything she's been working for. She was so proud! She was given a budget and told she could hire four new people. After all the interviews, she had chosen four young men to hire, but the dean stepped in and put the brakes on. Apparently, they insisted she hire at least two women and preferably women 'of color'. Now you have to understand my daughter. There ain't a biased bone in her body! She is an avowed feminist. She has always championed equal opportunity (much like her parents in that regard). So she fought for the decision she made based on merit and thats when she was delivered the real blow. She was told her appointment was about her gender and specific hiring policies the Trustees wanted to see more of. While they tried to assure her they all believed she was eminently qualified for the job and was doing great, my daughter was nonetheless devastated to learn they had originally preferred a certain professor who did have a few years experience on her, but my daughter always believed was less creative. The very idea that she did not get that appointment on merit alone upset her to no end. Perhaps I never should have taught her that you only get what you earn in this life. Its been a year now, and her husband managed to talk her off the ledge and not quit the job. She has largely gotten over it and since managed to get the staff she believes is best suited going forward. Which just so happens to include a transgender black female who my daughter claims is light years ahead of anyone else in her field. Oddly enough (and rather funny to me) the university originally balked at hiring a transgender because of potential bathroom issues!

Well, I certainly ran on with that story there, but I wanted to illustrate one of the side effects of making choices not based on merit alone. I know it all looks good on paper. I can even understand the willingness to do so. But I also feel we are never careful enough with these things. We cannot and never will right the wrongs of the past, we can only go forward doing things they way they should be done. To me, quotas are just a gentler form of discrimination, and discrimination of any kind never breeds anything good.

It's the difference between "Thomas Jefferson was a great President, let's pick him to lead America" and "Thomas Jefferson was great, but Abigail Adams also played a significant role in the creation of America. We would like to include more female leaders, so let's give her a chance this round." I don't feel that is tokenism or patronizing, but it's simply a mindset of inclusion.

For me, Abigail Adams would be a good choice ONLY because she was an interesting human. Not because we want to find a woman so here is an interesting woman to include. To me, that is exactly tokenism and patronizing and even demeans Abigail Adams in the eyes of anyone who doesn't know her. What are the whispers then? "You know why she got the spot, right? She ain't got a penis!"

 

[MaryKB]

I am sorry your daughter has had struggles, but am glad to hear she is doing better now. You must be very proud of her.

The story is anecdotal evidence however, which does not discount the scientific proof that unconscious (or implicit) bias is a real thing. We don't even know we have it! I would highly recommend doing research on unconscious bias and how it affects decision making.

Unfortunately most people do not attempt at all to be enlightened like yourself, and bias in practice is still the norm. Concepts such as "merit-based" and "tokenism" are frequently used by the old patriarchal power structure to justify maintaining the status quo. Tokenism happens when attempts at diversity are done very lazily. Instead of really trying to spread out, they just try to quickly make a show of an effort, as it sounds they may have done when meddling with your daughter's hiring practice. I would say that the female leader choices in the original post may be a demonstration of the tokenism you are afraid of: the poster chose all males as leaders, but then selected a couple female leaders just to include a few. The type of effort I am talking about is when we make a conscious decision that we will look past our comfort zone and deliberately try to look where we might not normally have done so. We have to intentionally set out to do that though, or else it won't happen!

I am very glad that you feel Abigail Adams would make a good leader choice because of her merits! I wouldn't want a woman leader put in place on the sole basis of her gender either. What you must realize however is that many men would not even have considered her as an option without someone asking them to consider women options. They would simply pick from a list of famous (male) presidents. They would even look at someone like Benjamin Franklin long before Abigail Adams or Martha Washington would even cross their minds.

The word "quota" does unfortunately have a negative connotation to it! And it's probably not even the right word to use for what I am trying to say. "Diversity goal" is probably much better.

 

[Zaarin]

I just did a quick Google search, and the result I found is that people think Thomas Jefferson displayed many characteristics of Asperger's Syndrome. This is the kind of research I was talking about: when you make the effort to specifically look for something, you may be surprised at what you will find! I would be very interested to see a leader portrayal of someone autistic. I do not have that experience to understand, so we would need someone on the team to properly design that respectfully. How do you feel you would like to see an autistic leader portrayed?

Oh, I didn't know that Thomas Jefferson was was speculated to be Asperger's. The only leader I'd heard speculation on was Hitler, and I've just sort of stashed that away in the "let's blame everything bad on autistic people despite a total lack of evidence" file...

If an autistic leader were included, I'd like to see a lot of research done on that individual leader's personality, because people on the autistic spectrum have every bit as much diverse personalities as those off it (there are even a few autistic extroverts, though we do seem to have a higher rate than the general population of rare personality types like INFJ [mine] or INFP). I'd like to see the hypothetical leader sort of avert his (I'm just assuming the leader in question is male because there's a 5:1 male-to-female ratio on the spectrum, with the caveat that girls are believed to be under-diagnosed) eyes from the screen, since most of us have trouble making eye contact (I simply can't, though I can sort of fake it if I'm relatively comfortable with the person I'm talking to). I don't think the leader necessarily needs to be otherwise obviously socially awkward--a lot of people on the spectrum are good actors and can come across as fluent if a little stilted (again, I'm one of them--"high-functioning" is the usual term, but I prefer "normal-passing"). If they managed to make the leader subtly stim in some fashion when he doesn't like you, I think that would be appropriate (something like fidgeting lightly with both hands [stims have a tendency to be symmetrical], rubbing something between his fingers, gently rocking [a lot of the media exaggerates this one], etc.). I'd be a little annoyed if the leader were portrayed as excessively cold (unless that was that particular leader's well-known personality), since that's a popular media stereotype that doesn't really bear out for most people on the spectrum, but I'd like to see him rather quirky.

 

[MaryKB]

I read some interesting things about Jefferson in this article. It says that while he was a very eloquent writer, he had difficulty expressing himself orally. He was apparently very shy, and Alexander Hamilton called him "shifty eyed" because he had an aversion to making eye contact. He was an inventor and mathematician, and seemed obsessed with making changes to his home. They also think that his relationship with his slave Sally Hemings might have been due to him having difficulty engaging in social conventions with women.

I read something interesting a while ago about the male-to-female ratio for autism and learning disabilities. Apparently the reason has to do with women having the two X chromosomes: they act as a backup for each other. If I had an abnormality in one of my genes, the other X chromosome would then replace it, so there would need to be the same issue with both. Men don't have the backup, so it is much more common.

I am very glad you shared your thoughts on this subject. I am now even more interested in seeing Thomas Jefferson explored in the game, as long as it is handled respectfully.

Do you have an interest in Myers-Briggs styles of personality studies?

 

[Zaarin]

Most of that sounds pretty familiar, except that I'm a lot more comfortable socially with women than men (my friends have pretty much always been female, except my best friend) and the interest in math (I buck the stereotype there ).

Do you have an interest in Myers-Briggs styles of personality studies?

I've studied it a little. I've found it more useful than most other personality metrics I've seen (like the uselessly vague "enneagram" I've noticed has become popular lately). At any rate, when I take a personality test and it tells me I'm an INFJ, I can say, "Yes, that sounds like me." When I take a personality test and it tells me I'm a 4 on the enneagram, it's more like, "Well, if I squint a little, fill in the gaps with my imagination, and ignore half of what you said...sure, maybe that sounds sort of like me."