I seem to remember quite a few complaints about Ghandi as leader of India over the years.
I'm happy there are female leaders. My objection to Eleanor, Gorgo and Roxelana is the same as why I don't like Ghandi for India, they weren't leaders.
I have no problem with CdM who was the effective ruler of France.
Plenty of people complain about Gandhi and Gilgamesh, people complained about Barbarossa over Bismark too. This fixation based on gender alone does not exist, complains arise when female leaders are shoehorned like Catherine de Medici. No one complained about Tomyris, very few about Wilhelmina and pretty much no one about Victoria. People complain when obscure women get picked over more prominent and relevant men just to fill a quota.
Particularly from western Christian cultured nations? Do you mean Europe? I'm sorry were the rest of the world better at selecting female leaders based on merit? The Islamic world or China or India perhaps? Europe has had several female leaders throughout history. As an Englishman I can proudly say that two of our most successful monarchs were women and we have had two female prime ministers in the last 30 years.
There are plenty of complaints over the validity of male leaders and there was for Gandhi. I think if a civ has two alternate leaders it is only fair that one is male and one is female. For me Chandragupta is a much better leader choice than Gandhi and India should have had Chandragupta and a female leader as alternate. If Firaxis want to do this they should have plenty of Indian female leaders to choose from when compared to the male dominated 'western christian nations' after all.
Some interesting notes in here. My experience on here specifically has primarily been from Beyond Earth and onwards, which skews any comparisons I can make. In a vague order:
1. People have
accepted Ghandi, at this stage. People expect him, even. But you raise an interesting point about what qualifies a leader. Is it the historical fact of them sitting upon a throne or other such decreed position. Or is it about the soft influence they had - which becomes harder to define, especially given how patchy and subjective history can be - which of course leads to these kinds of debates. And if the latter, why have people at this stage (mostly) accepted Ghandi? It's a fun exercise in self-examination. My position is simple. If we accept that Ghandi (or any other similar figurehead) can be put into the game, then I have no problems with others in the same vein, regardless of how well-known they are.
2. "shoehorned" is invariably a personal description used to hide other arguments against the leader choice.
@Metecury, why do you think de Medici is "shoehorned"? Because she wasn't the actual ruler? Or because she's not known for warmongering? What is the specific shoe these leaders are being horned into here, to absolutely mangle the word (sorry
)? What is wrong with a "quota" considering the historical of mankind (and indeed the word) fills entire libraries with the deeds of "relevant men"? Don't Firaxis have the right to choose whomever they want for their own game franchise? Why do you get to decide who is and isn't relevant? Isn't that a choice Firaxis make? You can disagree, but it's an opinionated choice by design. There is no "good fit" beyond our own personal knowledge and ideological biases.
3. I never said anything about the faults (or merits) of non-Western cultures. It's funny that that's pointed at me,
@Stomper66, like it somehow is a "gotcha" that invalidates my arguments. We're writing in English, about a game made by an American company. Western cultural bias abounds, for better or worse, which is why Firaxis often take the time to at least try and expand their leader and faction choices in this vein. They don't always succeed, and could always do better, of course. But still.
When people say "I want the most qualified leader", they draw from historical record. Historical record is invariably biased against women due to both the divine right of kings in Western nations (prominent exceptions being, naturally, exceptions. Elizabeth I, the one you cite positively, only ascended to the throne because her older half-brother literally died on the job. A job he received automatically because he was a dude. A boy, even) and other relevant factors. Civilisation has a lot of historians in its fans, this isn't exactly me being radical or injecting my politics here
I try to avoid politics for the sake of the forum rules and off-topic tangents more than anything. I relate it to Firaxis and their leader choices, and no further. But I'm confident in saying that the correlation often goes like this: people understand and read history, but the fact is history is written primarily by men, recording the exploits of men, and we're still in 2018 only really (academically) uncovering the impact this has had on the written record. But this is ignored in popular discourse; history is just taken As Is, That This Is The Way Of Things, and that any deviation from "the better choice" by Firaxis (or any company) is seen as some kind of "political correctness" or "quota-driven" metric. This ain't it, chief. Firaxis are choosing the leaders they do to fit both the game itself, whatever content they're working on at the time (I'd imagine they at least try to tie leaders to the appropriate faction mechanics for the expansion they're working on at the time), while at the same time uplifting lesser known historical figures for the sake of education.
I like it. It's a good trend. Other people have different opinions, of course. I still find it funny to the extent, though, that people scrutinise women in these choices. I'm not saying male choices don't get scrutinised, or any other such fallacy people want to project on me. I'm saying it's undeniable that women are scrutinised
more when it comes to Firaxis' choices, because the default assumption folks seem to make is that simply because there might arguably be a more relevant male choice, that makes them the
better choice for inclusion in Civilisation. And I disagree with that perception.
It would totally ruin the fun of the first looks.
