Is having gender choice important to you?

Blockquote So if you are a warrior and like heavyweight lifting you have to be male gender?

Of course not. But a female warrior is a female warrior. A female weight-lifter is a female weight lifter. They are qualitatively different from their male counterparts. The life experience and societal position of a dahomey amazon was completely different from that of your normal male tribal warrior. Joan d’Arc was an exceptional individual and we should celebrate this. Shield maidens didn’t go off viking like their drunken husbands.

Sure then all women that sacrifice her lives to protect us are male…

What? History and mythology is filled to the brim with fierce and powerful protective females, warrior women included. However, the way this fierceness and protectiveness is expressed is qualitatively different from that of the males. Who is Athena, the noble warrior goddesses male counterpart? Mars, the bloodthirsty brute…

In this sick modern society it is YOU who have been brainwashed into thinking that this destructive male warrior archetype is the only correct one. THIS is real sexism. The degenerate modern version of feminism has managed to convince both men and women that it is women who should ape the very worst aspects of masculinity in order to prove their “equality”…

By doing so, both men and women have been sold short in a most terrible way. There are positive and negative aspects to both masculine and feminine. Read literature of chivalry and its analyses. The noble knight who manages to finally find the object of his quest is always the one who embraces his female side, brutes all meet ignoble ends. The female (warrior goddesses included) has always been the civilizing force in societies, instead of celebrating and nurturing this we seek to make females as crazy as the worst of males. Greek women were those who stopped their husbands from butchering each other endlessly, not the ones who insisted on their “right” to participate in this senseless butchery.

It is so wrong and so bigotry in all levels. Women fight, women have power and guys can have sensitive personality like dance and music. Gender identity has nothing to do with archaeological societies

I don’t know who you are arguing with but that ain’t me. I don’t care for name calling and strawmanning.

Yes they did. Even recent archeology studies of Viking burial mounds show that females “went off viking.” You need to re-examine your research if you are using this in your writing.


Everyone -

This is a gentle reminder to please keep conversations directed at the topic at hand and not at the individuals themselves. Focusing replies on the individuals themselves instead of the topic at hand can lead to friction between members and often causes the thread to derail.

Personal comments lead to friction and flaming. Please remember that we can always agree to disagree.

Finally, if you see disrespectful posts please do not reply to them. Rather please use the report feature and let forum staff de-escalate friction.

14 Likes

While archetypes do have “soft” boundaries that define them, they still do exist and are definable. You cannot have a Mother archetype who has no children or child-like dependents or a Maiden archetype who happens to be a 70 year old guy. And the same goes for gods in greece and elsewhere.

Anima, animus and shadow… won’t go much into that but their position as archetypes has been contentious from the start. Just like gods in polytheistic religions, archetypes can have narrower or wider sphere of influence. These three have scopes so wide as to be almost undefinable and as I recall even Jung admitted as much.

Anyways, archetypes are broad strokes. But just because they are so broad it doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

Yes they did. Even recent archeology studies of Viking burial mounds show that females “went off viking.” You need to re-examine your research if you are using this in your writing.

I stand corrected, but it still wasn’t the norm. There certainly wasn’t 50-50 gender equality on longships setting off for some casual rapine and looting in the white-christ lands… Also, shield-maidens were still qualitatively different from their male counterparts. I don’t imagine shield-maidens did as much rape and genocide as their husbands did. Their role was more defensive one (hence the “shield” in shield-maidens), defenders of the hearths or in wars with other scandinavian tribes or colonizing expeditions rather than rapey drunk hooligans off to have some rough fun with those nuns and friars down yonder.

Of course, exceptional individuals are a special case. But in order for exceptional individuals to be exceptional, they have to have something to be exceptional from. Norms and stereotypes, limitations and mandated roles exist in every society. if we deny this, then we deny our characters opportunity to be exceptional. This is a very powerful tool in every writer’s box, especially if you plan to write heroic and adventure fiction.

I still can not quite grasp your refusal of characters having a different gender yet still functioning as the same character. Why is this an impossibility in a mostly fictional society?

This would imply that gender is a (very) restrictive component in character and personality. I personally disagree. In a world where you pen fiction and weave
fates, I see no reason why they absolutely cannot be the opposite gender. Exploration outside of normes and archetypes can be very insightful and bring forth uniqueness I feel.

But of course, if you simply do not wish to make your characters another gender because well, you dont want to, thats fine! But the reason should not be because of whatever self imposed impossibility but rather, your wishes as a writer. And by not conflating the two.

13 Likes

I’m not saying that this is impossible or even that I wouldn’t do it. I’m just saying that it depends on the story you plan to tell. Hamlet wouldn’t work with a female protagonist. Or maybe it would but the dilemmas, reactions and solutions would be completely different from those in Hamlet. And no, I do not agree that Elric could be female, well maybe he could but then it would be a completely different character. (Incidentally Moorcock explores this somewhat with Jerry Cornelius/Una Persson duo, but you can see that while they are a kind of mirror image to each other, how quintessentially different their characters are, how different the way they operate is) Hamlet and Elric’s thought processes are so quintessentially adolescent male that simply substituting “he” for “she” would make the characters utterly unbelievable. A female character in such a situation would behave in a completely different way… unless we’re talking about a REALLY “exceptional” individual… so “exceptional” we would probably feel aversion to it. A historical example, Joan d’Arc and her visions, her utter conviction, her virginity… Now make her a boy. Omfg… What a sicko! What a creep! There’s something seriously wrong with that dude… See?

So anyway, what I was saying from the beginning… it depends on the story. I feel that if you really plan to explore the inner landscape of a protagonist (as opposed to outward-oriented “adventure” story where you basically invite the readers to play themselves) then gender plays a significant role. We can’t go on praising Stephen King for writing masterful female characters and then in the same breath claim that character’s gender doesn’t matter at all and that boys and girls are exactly the same. Just add an “s” in front of a pronoun and you’re golden… No, it does not work that way.

I think it best to let this rest and agree to disagree. It is clearly that you have a strong opinion in regards to the topic on hand that cannot be swayed so it’s best that we leave it at that since all of these are a matter of viewpoint.

3 Likes

Sure. But I have a feeling that we’re not that off in our basic positions. While I’ll admit that exceptional individuals do exist (and are the staple of adventure fiction) I’m sure you’ll concur that in order for a character to grow you have to present her with meaningful obstacles and challenges, and not only physical ones.
Personally I detest prejudice and any kind of limitation to personal actualization… but in order to explore these themes, even on the most basic level, the fictional setting has to present meaningful obstacles to be overcome. Conan wouldn’t be such a powerful character if he weren’t an uncouth barbarian, basically an “economic migrant” constantly put down and even racially discriminated against by his civilized “betters”. Red Sonja wouldn’t be the character she is if there wasn’t gender prejudice in the world that she could gleefuly smash.
But to be frank, most barbarians in Howard’s world are not exceptional individuals and nor are most women (or men). And that is exactly what makes these two so appealing. Heroism is defined by adversity, not by simply being given a sword and a dragon to fight.

From the examples you gave, in my view Conan, Hamlet and many others were already introduced to the audience as male so in some people’s mind, they can’t imagine them otherwise.

In my opinion, the reason for IF was appealing for me is being able to play the gender I am since one of the appeal of IF was being able to choose and any obstacles could cater to all genders or simply give them individual obstacle depending on how you shape the world you want to create in. That’s just my view on the matter. If the author don’t want to do so, they have the right since they are the one writing it. :thinking:

3 Likes

Back to this point, I believe it is the key one. There is a vast difference between reading about bigotry and actively being placed in the role of a bigot. Especially if you’re proposing a character who is automatically preset as bigoted (i.e. “I would love a game which I could replay as, for an extreme example, a homophobic bigot and then as a gender-fluid progressive”). Even if the character selection is varied, that’s still putting the player in that role.

As far as portrayal of bigotry, I would say that, for the most part, what helps is to portray the people who are adversely affected by that bigotry and how it impacts them, rather than to focus mainly on the people who benefit from or perpetrate it. (I’m not saying you must avoid portraying the latter, but to focus entirely on them would be a distortion.) As a loaded but illustrative comparison, look at Gone with the Wind and Roots… one is a story about people who benefited from slavery, and leaves a mistakenly positive impression of the pre-Civil War south; the latter gets into the lives of the people who were hurt by that regime.

And, well, you don’t have to portray bigotry at all—just portraying members of marginalized groups as people who can have their own stories is really helpful—but those would be things to consider if you do wish to.

I mean, I would say that Game of Thrones and Rome (Ancient Rome, I presume) are particularly sexist. Both would force people into very narrow roles based on sex, only allowing the “exceptional individual” you like mentioning to break out, and pushing unjust obstacles, complications, and hurdles at them—and that still is no good for the rest of everyone.

Strong agreement. This is important for interactive fiction, too; if the narrative starts making assumptions based on the main character’s gender, then it will be making incorrect assumptions for a vast number of players and characters. This was a big problem in Alter Ego, in which the male and female versions included significant differences in reactions in ways that really should have been up to the player.

I could see a gender-flipped take off of Zeus and Hera being an interesting character dynamic, really… wife keeps going off and seducing mortals, husband gets angry at them…

I really wouldn’t say one is the counterpart of the other. They’re different deities. They have different personalities. Yes, they are both war deities, but they have additional dimensions to their portfolio.

Plus, Greek and Roman cultures were notably sexist even among ancient cultures (with some variation, e.g. Athens was quite a bit more misogynist than most Greek city states) so their portrayal of gods (and humans, for that matter) were very much steeped in their assumptions. These are not objective portrayals of what men and women are like; all it tells us is what their stereotypes were.

No. The goal is that women and men do not all have to be stuck in some preset dynamic. The women should not have to be responsible for restraining the men. The men should be responsible enough themselves. Men should be able to be the nurturing, civilizing force too. Women should be able to pursue their own way too. It’s unhealthy when people are pigeonholed into one or the other, regardless of demeanor or preference… and, for that matter, people can be both, or neither. People are more complex than any “men are this, women are that” scheme.

Not seeing it. Adolescent girls can be just as angsty, full of raging hormones, indecision, self-doubt, pontification, etc.

If someone is feeling aversion to a character because of their gender, in a way that that person would not feel aversion if that character were a different gender, that is sexism. That is literally what sexism means.

I see no reason why such a character should be considered a sicko or creep :confounded: Certainly, such a character would’ve had a rather different life in Medieval France, because he would’ve had a different background in fighting, the attitudes around virginity would be a bit different, though he could still be considered as a chaste and virtuous knight, and he wouldn’t stand out in the same way… so it would’ve made for quite a different story, yes. But not a sicko.

I’ll say that a man wrote female characters well when he doesn’t focus on making boys and girls different. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: the worst male-written female characters are ones that tried too hard. Ones that just go on into internal monologues about boys and clothes and makeup, and then become flighty jelly. Authors who give their women fully developed personalities, with a wide range between different characters; those are the ones who write them well.

13 Likes

For me personally i don’t see the appeal of gender choice, i get if the gender of the mc is important and without it the game would be awkward(like if there’s any (explicit or not) sex scenes, sexism involving one or both (or all) sexes or if there’s an questioning RO in the game (as in a man who had only dated females but does have some kind of interest in males too.)

But outside of that gender choice kinda seems awkward definitely if the main character is supernatural(since in most supernatural mythology the gender is left ambiguous)
Though i’m not going to be hypocritical, since most games or wip i liked do involve gender choice(and supernatural gender choice.) and the games I’m planning on writing involve gender choice.
So I would still play a game involving gender choice, but i also wouldn’t mind playing a game where the gender left ambiguous or male or female. (Aka it’s up to you.)

Question: couldn’t you join the KKK in COV and own slaves or am I misremembering? And generally having rascist main characters who reacted to you differently.
And I definitely remember coming across the word Shylock recently.

That doesn’t fit, the Romans reduced Athena’s war aspect and upgraded Ares. They both have domain over war, Ares was just a wimp in Greece. He was stupid bloody warfare. While Athena was smart.

Depends where you’re talking about.

Sewer gangbang! A obsessive girl… An obsessive car… Symbolically pedo clown. Ok my jokes are done. Those are just the top of my head ones. I got the more mainstream stories in my head

I think cog since then changed the rules.
Nowadays the games are much much better and I know CoG is working constantly on improving things

occassionally, unfortunately we get games though, where your gender determines who proposes in a relationship, and where a trans NPC’s ‘arc’ is that she starts out as one of the villains because she’s the dominant part in a relationship an is only considered ‘redeemed’ once she takes the submissive role.

4 Likes

What? That’s sounds terrible what game is that!!

I would rather have the option to choose. Especially if it’s first person perspective.

1 Like

Let me guess I as women has to be submissive. It will be submissive … the ginger bread. Submission or dominance aren’t determined by gender identity people!!! in wht century we are … That’s sick in all senses. And the trans that is …

1 Like

Heroes Rise. That’s what happens to StageShow throughtout the games (and this is something a couple of trans friends pointed out to me. YMMV, of course.) She starts off as the dominant part in the relationship with fumble (and is constantly reduced down to her looks on top of that, with the typical ‘you couldn’t tell she’s amab’ undertone) to then be one of the traitors at the end of game 2 (while fumble is portrayed as a joke and pretty much failure throughout the game with the undertone of 'because he’s not the dominant part in the relationship). in game 3 Monk (a cis zehir who by all means is hetero given everything we learn) fights her and in the course lectures her about how bad she is for not using her position to fight for lgbtq+ rights (keep in mind how the game keeps reminding the player that there is NO oppression based on gender race, etc anymore) and beats her. Also this is AFTER Monk and Fistful came out as couple (because being in a relationship where bystanders can’t identify what you are visually is a no-go in HR (i’m not kidding) and Monk is presenting as stereotypical submissive female now. Fast forward to Open Season, where Stagey takes a backseat to now dominant fumble and the game makes some fuss about him proposing to her.
In the same game, if your old main character ended up with one of two certain chars, the game will tell you you are engaged to them, and say who proposed. Said who is determined by the old MC’s gender. If they’re male, they’ll have proposed. If not, the other will have…

But this aside: CoG is steadily getting better with all these matters, stuff like the above is the utter exception.

1 Like

PMCID: PMC3082140
NIHMSID: NIHMS238413
PMID: 21528097

1 Like

Lol I always skip those parts because well Sergei is an amazing writer but he has a certain way of presenting women or trans as Submission good Dominance bad… In the second part of versus the scene of Veruna is the worst. If you are in romance with her you has to have sex and let her have sex with all humanity. She will sex mark you and choose other romance partners for you… No thanks. I just breaking and even restart all series to not even touch Veruna. Really Dominance vs Submission has nothing to do with gender identity

2 Likes

Ewwwwww

But yeah, dominance etc are… I try to write my chars as equal with each other / balance things.

1 Like