Civ6 Gender Biased?

[AJ1905]

I have played Civ 5 for a couple of years. I loved that I was able to choose science, arts or diplomacy to win. I felt terrible destroying barbarian villages (it took me a good 50 games to realise that barbarians could not be reasoned with no matter which civ type was pursued, I kept trying to leave them to their own devices. Query: why not grant them land to be who they are - I wish my distant ancestors had made this deal with the aboriginal people? ). I liked that I could keep a sensible defensive force while focusing on science, arts or diplomacy. Waging war made/makes me uncomfortable. I hated the mods for this reason and never got more than 70% of badges. Trying other games made me feel that at least Civ product accommodated a female (rational) perspective of rationality over war. It's devastating to me that this product is morphing to yet another war-based game. I've played several CIv 6 games and am underwhelmed. Everything but war is harder to work towards. The game is so slow I'm losing interest. The barbarians are so much more powerful and prolific that my efforts to create a balanced civ are utterly thwarted. Unhappy that I've spent USD$70/$90 aussie bucks.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Isn't it sexist to claim that rationality over violence is an inherently female trait?

 

[AJ1905]

A good point, my Civ friend! May all humans be Vulcanised to a rationalised perspective, regardless of their gender. I suppose from a purely biological point of view ... male humans are more at the mercy of their androgenic impulses.

 

[Vandlys]

Isn't it sexist to claim that rationality over violence is an inherently female trait?

Completely agree. Stating males are more disposed to violence is completely unbased.

A good point, my Civ friend! May all humans be Vulcanised to a rationalised perspective, regardless of their gender. I suppose from a purely biological point of view ... male humans are more at the mercy of their androgenic impulses.

1) I think you are confusing gender and sex
2) I think you don't know what androgyny means (quick google result: "Androgyny is the combination of masculine and feminine characteristics." So, you want to say male humans are more disposed to having impulses of a combined male and female characteristic. Your words are illogical.)
3) An impulse has nothing to do with the sexes, so androgyny is used doubly wrong here

I really have the feeling you're using fancy words to try to make a point, but don't really get what you want to say yourself. Using simple words to convey a message isn't dumber. The easier you can state your point, the easier people will get your point.

 

[AJ1905]

1) Androgyny was never mentioned by me? We here did you get this from?
2) I was posting from a perspective of identifying as Gender Female irregardless of what gender I was born with.
3) Why are games geared towards violence? Let us look to their gross market? My point was that Gender Identified Females want games too. Complex games which they may find enjoyable and not uncomfortable because of the level of warfare required. Perhaps I was presumptuous that women do not seek this kind of conflict. If the balance of GIFs disagree, so be it. I certainly have not undertaken an empirical study.
4) I am uncomfortable with high-production value games geared towards violence, again, irregardless of what gender I was born with. Because I identify as Gender Female I think this is disappointing. I believe Gender Female identifiers tend to be less inclined to war (however, I acknowledge war-maidens have existed in history, ie, Boudica)
5) From an evolutionary point of view (perhaps nay-sayed by religious view - and more power to you if you believe this is the case) females tend to be more peaceful in conflict resolution (for a fun read on this perspective Frank Herbert's sequels to Dune).
6) This is they way I speak. If it is beyond your level, I apologise. I did not mean to sound pompous ... this is my only post to a sci-fi-esque website. I'm regretting it already.

 

[Bro]

Not all people can be reasoned with. That's why they are called barbarians.

 

[Metecury]

This game is by no means historically accurate but it does rely on history and draw from it. If war is front and center is because it has been so in the history of humanity without exception and no successful civilization (by whatever metric you want to measure success) has ever been peaceful. I'm afraid what you are looking for is against the nature of the game itself.


Tropico, City skyline/sim city are more peaceful sandbox world builders where violence is not really present. I suggest you take a look at those because you will have a hard time finding a game based o history and nation building where violence and war are not a significant part if not the main aspect of the game.

 

[masda_gib]

What has civ having war/violence as one of its contents to do with gender?

As you wrote violent games or war in games make you uncomfortable. Thats alright and like others mentioned, there are better suited builder games for you then.
There are also males (or people identifying as males) that are of the peaceful-builder type in Civ and like peaceful games in general.

So thats more a problem of violence-in-games than gender.

 

[Haggbart]

You could easily say the opposite - that the game favours peace over history because all major powers can coexist for millennia without war, which never happened IRL. If the game is to be somewhat historically correct-ish, the player must be forced into violence/military action.

But sure, if generalizations based on gender are fair game, I could always recommend a good cooking sim

 

[Kwami]

A good point, my Civ friend! May all humans be Vulcanised to a rationalised perspective, regardless of their gender. I suppose from a purely biological point of view ... male humans are more at the mercy of their androgenic impulses.

How is this any different than saying that women are "too emotional" to run a country, or whatever? Sexism goes both ways. There are plenty of rational, war-averse males and plenty of irrational, blood-hungry females.

If you personally don't enjoy violence and war, then so be it. Argue for changes to the game to better suit your tastes, or find a new game. But, don't accuse the developers of sexism based on whatever ridiculous fantasy ideas you have about hormones.

 

[Felis Renidens]

I actually would have enjoyed Barbarians being more like the natives from colonization or the aliens of CivBE. Might attack you if you get on their territory or send civilians without escort. Sometimes you can bribe them or trade with them, sometimes your opponents will bribe them to attack you. But besides barbarians it's possible to play a peaceful game.

 

[Vandlys]

1) Androgyny was never mentioned by me? We here did you get this from?
2) I was posting from a perspective of identifying as Gender Female irregardless of what gender I was born with.
3) Why are games geared towards violence? Let us look to their gross market? My point was that Gender Identified Females want games too. Complex games which they may find enjoyable and not uncomfortable because of the level of warfare required. Perhaps I was presumptuous that women do not seek this kind of conflict. If the balance of GIFs disagree, so be it. I certainly have not undertaken an empirical study.
4) I am uncomfortable with high-production value games geared towards violence, again, irregardless of what gender I was born with. Because I identify as Gender Female I think this is disappointing. I believe Gender Female identifiers tend to be less inclined to war (however, I acknowledge war-maidens have existed in history, ie, Boudica)
5) From an evolutionary point of view (perhaps nay-sayed by religious view - and more power to you if you believe this is the case) females tend to be more peaceful in conflict resolution (for a fun read on this perspective Frank Herbert's sequels to Dune).
6) This is they way I speak. If it is beyond your level, I apologise. I did not mean to sound pompous ... this is my only post to a sci-fi-esque website. I'm regretting it already.

1) I was being an idiot : P I'm so sorry : D
2) Moot point since I was being an idiot. Again, sorry : P
3) I don't think games are geared towards violence, but towards competition and sport. True, often this happens in the form of violence and warfare since that is something we, humans, identify with quite strongly. Regardless, I don't think it's a matter of being a male or female. Personally, I enjoy non-violent games much more than violent games, almost always opt for diplomacy, culture, or any use of words over use of steel.
4) I honestly think you are using war / combat / etc. too fluently in combination with violence. Non-physical violence can be quite brutal too, and I still don't think males or females have more of a tendency to want war more than the other. So, yeah, maybe males tend to have higher levels of certain hormones, gearing them up for physical confrontation quicker, but that is something entirely different from desiring warfare, and also something different from wanting violence in general. Getting a biological influx making you ready for something, is entirely different from wanting said thing.
5) A science fiction writer, no matter how good his ideas, is not a source for 'females tending to be more peaceful in conflict resolution'. I have not read up on it the subject matter to claim I'm well versed in it, but in my experience conflict resolution does not work more peacefully from the side of females than from the side of males. Yes, different in certain aspects, but more peaceful? No. I know of as many women that go berserk in conflict as men, and I know as many men that are extremely peaceful in conflict, as I know of women. That, however, might be my personal experience, but without good sources I would be hesitant to proclaim such things if I were you.
6) I meant no disrespect, and I fear my sentence made me come off harsher than I intended. I apologise for that, and wish in no way to change the way you speak or write.

7) Have you ever thought about cultural influences on hormones? It might be a biological thing that males are more androgenic, but it's also a cultural stigma that perpetuates it. For example, crying is often seen as a sign of weakness, not only for men amongst each other, but also from women to men (as in: men crying, women going: men don't cry!). How often I've heard women use the sentence "Real men [fill in horrible stereo type]"... it's a sad state of affairs.

8) Have you tried the sandbox mod? It's not perfect, and I wish Civ had an 'Always peace' option, but it's rather peaceful still, although a bit empty : /

Again, I'm sorry if I came off to harshly, and hope you will find your time on this forum civilised and Vulcan : P

 

[bbbt]

Peaceful mode is still pretty easy to achieve on civ 6 past the early eras. Try the tsl earth and give yourself an isolated start (any non-european based civ more or less).

Also diplomacy is a game you have to actively play, not just a outcropping of your actions. Give gifts and send trade routes to Civs. Figure out what civ everyone hates and denounce them, it'll give you brownie points with the others.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

3) Why are games geared towards violence? Let us look to their gross market? My point was that Gender Identified Females want games too. Complex games which they may find enjoyable and not uncomfortable because of the level of warfare required. Perhaps I was presumptuous that women do not seek this kind of conflict. If the balance of GIFs disagree, so be it. I certainly have not undertaken an empirical study.

I find the level of violence in Civ a little hard to take at times, but I play anyway. From the perspective of someone who is a lifetime student of psychology, I tend to agree that women do not seek out conflict for the most part. However, once engaged in conflict, they are much more ruthless than men.

5) From an evolutionary point of view (perhaps nay-sayed by religious view - and more power to you if you believe this is the case) females tend to be more peaceful in conflict resolution (for a fun read on this perspective Frank Herbert's sequels to Dune).

I'm not going to quote empirical study after study here, but I would tend to agree with this. Women are natural conciliators.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

But sure, if generalizations based on gender are fair game, I could always recommend a good cooking sim

Congratulations on winning the title for the "Stupidest and Most Offensive Comment in Thread"

It's a prestigious award. You should be proud.

Moderator Action: This sort of comment is trolling under our rules. If you cannot address another poster in a civil manner, please consider refraining from posting. If you think another post is inappropriate, please report it and let us handle it. -- Browd
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[unpossible251]

on a related topic that might be of interest to the original post:

what do you think of Cleopatras opening blurb? you are cunning and full of tricks, cleopatra... and so on... and so forth. basically every word is dripping with faint praise. who the hell wrote that? Victoria and Tomyris have alright introductions, but Cleopatras is right out of a pick up artists forum.

Also, mind the flak.

 

[Silvtown]

The landscape of civilization in 4000 BC was quite a bit more brutal than the life we are all accustomed to now... Sure, an option to grant barbarians their own land would be great, but most likely, they would come back in force a few decades later. We can't deny the violent history of civilization, and Civilization VI is trying to somewhat simulate that. I don't think war in Civilization VI has anything to do with gender bias or marketing strategies. It's just an important part of the simulation.

Consider the many leaders in this game - Montezuma! He is literally designed as a war-mongering, jealous baby who initiates war because he doesn't have the shiny baubles that you have.

I do my best to play peacefully too - I've only won domination once and much prefer culture and science victories. However, history is full of insane, power-hungry leaders who would not listen to diplomatic reason and launched wars at their whim. You're going to have to play defense sometimes and I'm glad that it's part of the game (and always has been).

 

[CHP]

Congratulations on winning the title for the "Stupidest and Most Offensive Comment in Thread"

It's a prestigious award. You should be proud.

Who is the first offender ? At least, he made it clear that it was a (bad?) joke (smiley at the end of his message). By the way, his sentence is clear : "if generalizations based on gender are fair game", but you didn't see it, all you saw was a sexist joke. Sad.

 

[Haggbart]

Congratulations on winning the title for the "Stupidest and Most Offensive Comment in Thread"

It's a prestigious award. You should be proud.

I'm always proud to see some snowflake triggered.

But there was a rather serious point there: if we are to generelize based on gender, that is a two way street. And people should be threated as individuals, althought it's easy to find overwhelming evidence that generally speaking males are more prone to violence, and females do most cooking. Also history shouldn't be edited or cencored based on gender inequality.

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. Please do not label another poster as a 'snowflake' who has been 'triggered'. It's not conducive to any sort of civil discussion of the topic - Camikaze
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[nzcamel]

Trying other games made me feel that at least Civ product accommodated a female (rational) perspective of rationality over war. It's devastating to me that this product is morphing to yet another war-based game.

I have always loved that Civ is not a war game like so many others. It is a game in which war is but one option. Of course my opponents have this option too, so I will not always avoid it even if I have not chosen it directly.

Civ V upped the aggression anti, and VI has carried that on. In IV you could make a friendship with another Civ that lasted the entire game (you should check it out, based on what you have said you'll like it more than V). The criticism of that approach is that, as a game, another Civ should not be content to help you while loosing to you. I can see both sides of that discussion, as relationship building was an immersive feature I liked. So ironically it was V (which you like) that increased antagonism between the player and all other civs, especially if they were winning.
VI has actually dialed it back a little, as other leaders will no longer hate you for, say, being a war monger in a time when that was seen as being more acceptable.