Civ6 Gender Biased?

[SMcM]

You're trolling, right? I realise young people can be quite impressionable, but I'm sure any reasonably intelligent young people are nowhere near as impressionable as you make out, and why would you want girls to 'like war' anyway? Furthermore, if young people are as impressionable as you claim, and gender representation in video games really mattered, wouldn't young boys feel discouraged by 70% of characters in a game being female?

Also, how do Civ games remove the negative aspects of history? There is espionage. You can play as brutal leaders like Bismarck, Stalin and Mao. You can conquer less advanced neighbours and civilisations around the world. You can starve cities. You can wage nuclear war. In Civ 6 you can use the Spanish Inquisition, bringing civilisations to your faith through conquest. Admittedly you can't zoom in to see the brutality of war or appreciate the impact of your decisions on a more personal level, but you can do some nasty stuff nonetheless.

 

[MantaRevan]

For this goal, we should overrepresent female leaders to equalize the image drawn by history.

Whaat? This makes no sense. Even in the context of Civ being historical fantasy, the only thing setting an unequal and ahistorical cast of leaders would do is enrage the anti-SJWs, cause even most liberals to roll our eyes, and force Firaxis to leave out important civs because they don't have a leader to use. I though you were joking at first. How are Catherine, Wu Zetian, Maria Theresa, Theodora or Boadicea "Disney Princesses". Obviously civ can succeed with "role models" without an absurd gender ratio.

 

[Depravo]

He's obviously having a larf, chaps.

 

[SMcM]

He's obviously having a larf, chaps.

Ryika is male?

 

[Ryika]

Careful now.

 

[Karmah]

I have a strong feeling that the OP sneakily dropped a troll bomb on the forum , and it was quite successfull ! Incredible how people are still going at it on this subject days after days. I ran out of pop corn a long time ago. So basically take a fundamental clashy subject (gender and videogames) add it a grain of a controversial civ feature ( the barbs in civ6) and you get hours of fun.

Next should be a post denouncing something about race representation in videogames combined with some 'facts' about 1 Upt or something ...

 

[God of Kings]

Likewise, immigration isn't in Civ VI.

Civs with high average amenities would receive population from civs with low average amenities if immigration were implemented. Note that it's not the same as culture-flipping in Civ IV.

 

[Battlehelm043]

I have a strong feeling that the OP sneakily dropped a troll bomb on the forum , and it was quite successfull ! Incredible how people are still going at it on this subject days after days. I ran out of pop corn a long time ago. So basically take a fundamental clashy subject (gender and videogames) add it a grain of a controversial civ feature ( the barbs in civ6) and you get hours of fun.

Next should be a post denouncing something about race representation in videogames combined with some 'facts' about 1 Upt or something ...

This happened a while back in the 40K forums.... suffice it to say, the thread was purged successfully... Honestly I refuse to take part in politicizing or raising gender issues in a game so dear to my heart. If the OP has a crusade they can take it somewhere else. I highly doubt the people at Firaxis or 2K for that matter have some nefarious gender specific or political agenda they are pushing.

Remember... the Emperor Protects....

 

[Galbias]

I have a strong feeling that the OP sneakily dropped a troll bomb on the forum , and it was quite successfull ! Incredible how people are still going at it on this subject days after days. I ran out of pop corn a long time ago. So basically take a fundamental clashy subject (gender and videogames) add it a grain of a controversial civ feature ( the barbs in civ6) and you get hours of fun.

Next should be a post denouncing something about race representation in videogames combined with some 'facts' about 1 Upt or something ...

The OP wasn't really related to gender in the first place, the shoehorning (real or perceived) of female leaders who may not deserve it into the game was and is something of a hot topic though so it doesn't surprise me that that's where the discussion seems to have gone.

Honestly I can sympathize with the devs in wanting to make it less of a sausage fest and give women a bit more representation, and the roster is still male dominated anyways.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I have a strong feeling that the OP sneakily dropped a troll bomb on the forum , and it was quite successfull ! Incredible how people are still going at it on this subject days after days. I ran out of pop corn a long time ago. So basically take a fundamental clashy subject (gender and videogames) add it a grain of a controversial civ feature ( the barbs in civ6) and you get hours of fun.

Next should be a post denouncing something about race representation in videogames combined with some 'facts' about 1 Upt or something ...

I've had good fun here TBH. Gouging logic in threads like this is always good times.

Though OP's genuine inconsistency is likely the greatest cause of the mess in the first place. An incoherent rant about barbs/warfare in civ 6 is strange given the game's advertising. For this incoherence to be intentional would take a tremendous amount of skill. I would rather take things at face value, at least initially/unless evidence to the contrary exists. I do actually have a problem with very early game barb design for example; it *is* trashy that you can get scouted so fast that you can't possibly build a unit that can intercept it, then eat HAs in your face. Early turn efficiency is really important and that's a deceptively large blow on PURE RNG, not the kind of thing that fits a genre such as "strategy".

Likewise, immigration isn't in Civ VI.

Given the time scale involved you can make a case that it's abstracted as part of city growth.

The OP wasn't really related to gender in the first place, the shoehorning (real or perceived) of female leaders who may not deserve it into the game was and is something of a hot topic though so it doesn't surprise me that that's where the discussion seems to have gone.

The shoehorning is more a matter of just giving different leaders from previous games at all + insistence of spamming the "popular" civs and including crap like Gandhi because reasons. I'd estimate that they were trying to cram as much stuff that sells as possible while still mixing it up.

 

[Jarms48]

Likewise, immigration isn't in Civ VI.

Civs with high average amenities would receive population from civs with low average amenities if immigration were implemented. Note that it's not the same as culture-flipping in Civ IV.

I wouldn't mind seeing internal immigration, having settlers have the ability to found new cities or be added as a new city to an existing one would be nice

 

[Warwolf22]

Civ is based, loosely on history. Look at the leader traits.
Now, crack open a history book, and tell me war is not a huge part of history. If there was no war, this would be farming simulator.

But, as I’m sure you’ve searched and searched, have you tried.... turning barbarians off? That’s a thing

 

[Bibor]

If civ6 is anything, compared to all previous iterations, its gender biased toward women.

On the topic of men vs women, I don't know how much shallower the discussion can get -- will probably need flood barriers soon.

I think generally people are under the wrong assumption that conflict is something inherently violent and/or that violence is always manifested outside of human mind to be classified as violence.
In the amount of conflict generated by our minds, I find no difference between women and men (my lifetime observations).
Women and men might express conflict differently (violence vs. non-violence) and there might even be a gender bias in who's more likely to keep conflict inside or expressing it (perhaps males are more likely to express conflict -- I have no basis for this claim whatsoever).

The other misconception is that projecting non-violent conflict is something inherently good (compared to violent conflict).
Some conflicts are better resolved with violence (for example quitting your job), while others are better if resolved in a peaceful manner.

Both women and men should take a second look at both of these methods and realize their merits, instead of dismissing them as "non-feminine" or "non-masculine".


If I want to be truly terrible, I could imagine a female leader non-violently accepting a barbarian tribe into her society and then ruthlessly pyschologically antagonizing its "integrated barbarian female population" for several centuries, based on class, birthright, color of your freckles or whatever nastiness they can come up with.

 

[CivLuvah]

I have a feeling this thread will close any day now. It's been fun skimming. Time to unwatch.

It most definitely is sexist to claim that rationality is an inherently female trait .

I am also distressed to see that anyone would talk in such a manner and I have not read any further in this post and will not.

I am sure EaglePursuit meant it as a rhetorical question, not a interrogative one.

 

[jozef57]

this gender dis=cussion is getting to crazy

 

[Sagax]

I have a feeling this thread will close any day now. It's been fun skimming. Time to unwatch.

I'm not sure how this thread got necro'ed to begin with... It's been resting in peace since last March.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Closed necro.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889