1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Civ6 Gender Biased?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by AJ1905, Mar 15, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,902
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    I agree with your view of the OP, yet we are a mix of nature and nurture. Testosterone and estrogen impact our bodies and minds very differently, and from before we are born. The sexes are equal, but very different; even though there is also significant overlap. Many women will be better at working on their cars than I am! But my brain is still wired closer to most mechanics than theirs (said practical women) is.
     
  2. masda_gib

    masda_gib Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    198
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    If an AI leader adresses me as "filth" or "a plague" when denouncing or DOWing I think he/she/it might assume me being Neutrois.
     
  3. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    11,319
    How very very true

    There will always be variety in all genders but in general it is the men that enjoy the war games from what I see through observation.

    There are many victims but WASP males are by far the least. At least currently.

    To the OP... What were you thinking would happen posting such a thread on a fanatics page. R U trolling because it is not appreciated.
     
  4. Kwami

    Kwami Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    1,868
    Who said anything about WASPs? In a game with players from all over the world, that's quite an assumption on your part.
     
    HF22 and nzcamel like this.
  5. Gorbles

    Gorbles Load Balanced

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    4,802
    Location:
    UK
    You're saying things I literally never said. You might want to tone down the projection slightly.

    You're trying to tell me stuff that I already know that has no relevance on what I actually said in the first instance to another poster.

    And no, the OP is actually saying that they don't like the violence inherent to the game. That's their personal opinion, and they're allowed to have it. You're the one trying to make it sound like some kind of overarching generalisation and thus framing it as a bad thing.
     
  6. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,902
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    What tag did the OP include with the thread Gorbles?
     
  7. Trias

    Trias Donkey with three behinds

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    594
    It is great that your already knew this. Your comment suggested you might not (or chose to ignore it).

    It would be fine if the OP phrased it as her opinion. (As has been stated, the opinion that civ6 is too geared towards war is shared by many users on this board regardless of their gender. However, the OP chose to phrase it if her opinion was intrinsic to her being female, thereby implying that not sharing said opinion would a make a person less female. And yes that is a bad thing.
     
  8. Abraxis

    Abraxis Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,312
    Location:
    Ottawa, Canada

    -Eagle Pursuit is not the absolute authority on truth whos statements may be substituted for rational arguments.
    -There are behavioral differences between men and women, to acknowledge this is not sexist.
    -I never implied rationality and aggression were antithetical.
    -You say you disagree with me, yet demonstrate no understanding by continuing to drive conversation away from OP's objective in favor of contentious triviality.
    -She wanted a harmonious approach to working with aboriginals, she does not want to remove barbarians.
    -Here we are discussing trivialities


    Instead of telling her how wrong all of her opinions are, and attacking her presentation. Maybe y'all should be asking questions to better understand her "wonky premise", and where she's coming from, so you can contribute rather than detract from her conversation. Of course it's probably too late for that as it seems likely y'all succeeded in chastising a new member away from the forum with this pointlessly contentious behaviour.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2017
  9. masda_gib

    masda_gib Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    198
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    The first answer in this thread WAS a question. Maybe not a perfect question but one that was related to the starting post. The OPs answer wasn't really continuing the dicussion but was a rather snippy comment that (I think) started derailing the thread.
    That makes my doubt the OPs interest to talk about 'working with the barbarians'.
     
    nzcamel likes this.
  10. Felis Renidens

    Felis Renidens Prince

    Joined:
    May 25, 2016
    Messages:
    542
    Location:
    Israel
    Which is a shame, barbarians one can work with (to some extant) can be interesting.
     
    nzcamel likes this.
  11. Bigv32

    Bigv32 Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    567
    I think you hit the nail on the head. While it may not be true, this is the internet, and we have been conditioned (both males and females) to troll and be trolled. Evidence is new account with only posts being in this thread which would imply throw away account, controversial topic/statements. However, the lack of provocative follow up comments would tend to disagree with the idea of troll.

    Since I am bored, lets have a go at this:

    @OP: I got news for you, this game is about allowing people to recreate history/lead a civilization in another what-if scenerio. History is defined by war and violence. There is a reason that the Romans, Greeks, Persians, etc. made history and significant advancements compared to tribes of people who live peacefully in the mountains somewhere. War and violence spur innovation and progress much more than anything else period. Not sure what you expected as you stated you played civ before.

    A woman's perspective is not more rational than a mans. A mans perspective is not more rational than a womans. They are different. Now, the history of how society became more male dominant etc. is a long story, but let's boil it down to this:

    Caveman and Cavewomen are living together:
    The male is naturally physically stronger (based on biology/genetics this is true in general)
    The woman is the one who carries the offspring:
    Now, they need food (go hunting).
    To better preserve the species by reducing the risk to the offspring, the males goes hunting. This is also efficient use as he is stronger and stands a better chance of killing something or preventing something from hunting him.
    A rival group from another cave does not have enough food so attacks the male and female.
    Again, since he is the strongest, the male fights them off while the female protects the offspring.
    The woman takes care of the cave and protects the offspring while the male is away.
    Due to strength and being the ones who actually provide the food and protection, males become more dominant in society.

    Fast forward a few thousand years:

    Society has advanced to the point where females do not need the protection of males due to society setting up rules (laws, police forces, etc.)
    However, because society has been operating under the old ways for thousands of years, and only a few decades have passed since the genders reach this level of mutual independence, traditions, stereotypes (whatever you want to call them) stay the same.
    Women are more willing and able due to their independence to speak their mind and be heard.
    New ideas are formed and passtimes for people are created.
    People use there free time (or bored time at work) to debate male and female issues on an internet forum about a video game where people pretend to go back in time and take control of the first caveman and woman.

    TLDR: It took us thousands of years to get to this point in history, so video games, etc. are going to reflect ideas that have been prevalent in that history. Men and Women are equal with neither group having a "true" perspective. Civ is a game about the past and the past is full of war and violence. I have to go to a meeting now, so this post now ends.

    EDIT: Noticed I interchangably used the terms male, female, man, woman. You get what I am generally saying here so chill before I hear any arguements about generalizing the genders.
     
    Photi, Stringer1313 and nzcamel like this.
  12. demidyad

    demidyad Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2007
    Messages:
    229
    The 'wargame vs. builder dove' debate is as old as the Civ series itself, it has nothing to do with gender. The End.
     
    Honor, Photi and TheMeInTeam like this.
  13. TapewormLondon24

    TapewormLondon24 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2016
    Messages:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    This entire thread made me die a little inside.
     
  14. PeteBDawg

    PeteBDawg Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    39
    Location:
    New York City
    Not really reading all this, but the game does give you some pretty clear hints about its gender politics.

    By giving the Greeks two leaders: the warlike, female Gorgo and the peaceful, male Pericles they are deliberately trying to confound conventional gender expectations.

    By picking Tomyris of Scythia over the more conventional Darius or Cyrus of Persia, and picking Jadwiga of Poland over Casimir, Sobieski, Kosciusko, or any number of much more famous male Polish leaders they are saying that they think female representation in history and in past games isn't enough, and they want to actively correct that by working to represent more women.

    By including both Cleopatra, who is superficially conniving, and Catherine, who is conniving in a more sophisticated, modern way, they are problematizing the idea of "feminine wiles" - presenting it, but also critiquing it.

    Also all the male modern monarchs look like cartoon goofs (Pedro, Philip, Frederich), and Catherine and Victoria are stately and serious by comparison.

    The engagement with sexism is more along the lines of "we know sexism exists, and we want to confound and frustrate it in this game to show you we don't think it is good" than the lines of "we imagined a world where sexism doesn't exist and we want to show that to you."
     
  15. Gorbles

    Gorbles Load Balanced

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    4,802
    Location:
    UK
    Tags are for search terms, not for debate.

    C'mon folks, we're better than this.
     
  16. CPWimmer

    CPWimmer King

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2016
    Messages:
    842
    Gender:
    Male
    In a sense, I think that you could make a case that there are 2 sets of aboriginals in this game: Barbarians and City States.

    To create a "harmonious approach to working with aboriginals" I would highly recommend turning off barbarians while also increasing the # of city states in the game, to compensate for the area of land that would normally be inhabited by the now missing barbarians.

    Although barbarians have gotten tougher in Civ 6. The fact that they are always hostile is not a change from Civ 5 to Civ 6 (which the OP has played "for a couple of years").
     
    nzcamel and masda_gib like this.
  17. ShakaKhan

    ShakaKhan King

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Messages:
    857
    Maybe moving forward with expansion packs, there might be different ways to interact with barbarians. Maybe for some cost to the player, you could develop different levels of interaction with a barbarian camp. Something like the following:

    STEP 1: MERCY AND BEFRIENDING: If you attack and reduce a barbarian inside an encampment into red health, you have the option of befriending instead of taking the encampment and money. You pay the barb encampment X gold, and then the unit inside disappears (it's off healing at your nearest city.) It's then your responsibility to defend that encampment from other barbarians and civs for X turns. After X turns have passed, the barbarian that was healing in your city has to make it back to the encampment without being captured (it functions as a civilian at this point.) If it makes it back and the encampment is still there, you move on to step 2. (If it fails or you fail to defend, you lose the gold investment.)

    STEP 2: PEACE, DEVELOPMENT, AND MERCENARY: During this stage, the barbarians will not attack you. You can pay them to send a scout in a direction and attack whatever they find there (that isn't your property.) You can pay them more to send a scout in a direction and only attack a certain target civ or city state or barbarians. You can also purchase units at the barb encampment under their control (to protect your investment and increase the mercenary output.) You can also send trade routes (for no personal yield gains) to the encampment. Once you have invested X amount of gold into the barb encampment and have sent X amount of food and hammers to the encampment via trade routes, you move to step 3.

    STEP 3: MERCENARY OUTPOST: the barb encampment appears as just that to other players, but to you it's under a (insert color that isn't already in use) banner. You can continue to pay the encampment to send raids at reduced costs. Anything that they pillage is theirs (except if you're playing as a new civ, maybe Alexander, who receives pillage yields and can steal great works via mercenary raids.) You can also pay for walls and other fortifications at the barb camp, and once you do so, your units can heal at the camp as if within one of your cities. Once you have invested X gold into mercenary projects and have sent X food and hammers via trade route, you have the option of paying X gold to move on to step 4.

    STEP 4: CAPITULATION: The barb camp becomes one of your cities.

    BTW, let's try to keep this thread more creative and less judgemental and finger-pointing.
     
  18. juanpavo

    juanpavo Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2010
    Messages:
    131
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    Some interesting ideas here. That could help to defuse the "barbs are bad" hysteria that many are feeling.
     
  19. ShakaKhan

    ShakaKhan King

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Messages:
    857
    I also miss the passive-aggressive, "war without being at war" element that had been in previous civ games, I think it was Civ3 that had a pirate naval unit you could build that flew under a pirate flag and you could mess with people that you were at peace with. Sure, spies can do that to a degree, but it's too little to late, I want to be able to mess with someone without being at war with them and it seems that alternate barb interactions would be a good way to go.
     
  20. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,716
    Even so, responding with an ad hominem generalization to another ad hominem generalization is a response in kind. OP and the post you quoted (along with the cooking one) all freely committed this fallacy, and I'm not willing to give such generalization the time of day. It doesn't deserve it.

    Rather, in a game that abstracts mechanics around a historical theme, I question how one could place avoidance of war as a "rational" anticipation. The vast majority of civs in the game, if not all of them, made or preserved their existence through war. That is reality independent of social construct surrounding the creation of this game. In a game that models these civs, even poorly and within bounds of a video game rather than pure historical representation, anticipating war *is* the rational conclusion, and so is using it.

    Assigning gender bias to this is click-bait levels of red herring, akin to claiming chess is gender-biased towards women because you don't have war/violence or gender-biased towards men because you capture pieces. The irony here is that someone making a similar claim about civ goes on to make a generalization about rationality :D.

    There are sound arguments to be made that barbs are a poor implementation in this game, including strict gameplay ones (especially their influence on opening build decisions --> overwhelmingly pushing incentive to doing the same openings each game). However OP hasn't made these arguments, or any about why besides personal preference war should not be a central theme in the game. There are indeed other titles where war is outside the scope, both within and beyond the strategy genre.

    Indeed, and so long as this series is modeling historical civs the doves are wrong no matter who they are :p.

    Balancing is another matter of course.
     
    grandad1982 and nzcamel like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page