Writing about gender, power, and privilege

Game Development
341

@Havenstone France would have been a very difficult nut to crack for a woman seeking to take it over due to Salic Law which prohibited women from inheriting or owning land. And to fend off the English claim to France’s throne, Salic law had recently been reaffirmed and strengthened during Joan of Arc’s time. England would have been easier, and Spain would have been even easier yet.

Is it entirely inconceivable that Joan of Arc could have taken over France? No, I can see a path, albeit a difficult one to the throne. She’d have to win every single battle she fought so that everyone would think she had the support of almighty God himself (to the point where they had more faith in her than in the King and Church combined). She’d have had to win a decisive victory over the English forcing them to leave France permanently. All during this time she’d have needed to build a loyal cadre of officers that reported to her directly, and not to the King or to other nobles. And then once the English were gone, but before her troops dispersed, she’d need to turn around and pre-emptively accuse both the King and much of the high ranking church clergy of corruption, and use her army of followers to take over in the name of God. Despite all her heroic qualities, I don’t think the real Joan of Arc had the big picture understanding or mental flexibility needed to pull it off. She was still an illiterate and somewhat naive peasant girl at heart. Unfortunately for her, a combination of overconfidence and recklessness resulted in her capture by the Burgundians, and subsequent execution by the English before she could develop much beyond that.

342

@P_Tigras

I asked about the Necroscope series as you mentioned liking the Evil non sparkly vampires and I believe its a great vampire series and the vampires in it are quite evil in it (and I love the ideas behind the vampires themselves)

regarding an Anti S.R.T. group member losing their virginity I’d assume they’d be kicked out (they are going to be quite zealous about it, although I suppose they don’t go around checking whether everyone is still a virgin so I’d have to see when I start writing that particular case)

343

Look at marilyn monroe

344

Simply put, I absolutely HATE gender-locking. I’m a man, so when someone does FEMALE ONLY, I don’t like it. And when someone does MALE ONLY, I don’t like that either. So whatever people have been starting to think of me…BACK OFF! I’m just thinking of everyone here.

345

I don’t think anyone thinks badly of you. I do find your view a little narrow. Almost all media “gender locks,” particularly video games, which are the closest mainstream equivalent to COG games I can think of. When you play the Witcher you are locked as a male. When you play Tomb Raider you are gender locked as female. The issue isn’t of sex. Sex is simply another trait that the author can predefine or allow the players to define. The issue is of predefined characters, which is what the author is nodding towards when they gender-lock the game.

Your anger seems to stem from the expectation that every COG game allow Bioware-like customability, which may not be right for every game.

346

-Farside

In my opinion, gender in mainstream games has little to with a chosen narrative, but marketing, cost and budgeting.

“Hardcore” video games are predominantly aimed and bought by males. So they will always tend to be gender-locked and partial to the male narrative. Or crucially, a sparse fewer care about a female choice.

Casual games (Hogs/dash/match3) on the other hand, are women aimed and bought. Thus they are often gender-locked to female, or the option is mostly present.

It is quite funny, but most men almost always want to play as a male. Women on the other hand are the opposite. A good half really don’t care what gender they are given a role in, as long as the game is fun. Only a smaller fraction of women like myself, actually do want the choice of a female option, as often as possible. For this, I’m mostly talking about RPG-ish or Action games, where you are thrust as a hero. Not so much strategy, where gender is rather irrelevant.

Hence, despite criticism over Bioware’s games for example, I thought it lovely that game developers like Bioware, Bethesda and the Fallout crew do bother to include a female point of view, when it would’ve saved them budget (female textures, voice acting, storyline writing) and cost them little in sales, by wiping out a female option completely.

The Witcher franchise isn’t purposely gender locked per se, actually. The game is not original but adapted from Witcher’s line of novels, where Gerald is the title male character. So it’d be rather impossible to swap him to become a Geraldine, or the story would not have made sense.

CDprojecktRED are in the midst of developing an original Cyberpunk RPG game, where I’m pretty sure they’d include a female option, from what they’ve been hinting at least.

@Martin_Brody

I agree with that. And support both a male and female option, wherever possible.

347

Well, gender options aren’t really necessary in all games, imo. IMO The Fleet is the best COG of last year, and it doesn’t have a gender option. In Sabers of Infinity, Vendetta, Heal, and in a few hosted games, gender options aren’t available.

This doesn’t make the game less fun. IMO, the lack of gender options does not make any game sexist. In games like Choice if Broadsides, I can’t help but think that the gender option seems forced and makes the game a lot less believable. In The Fleet, gender doesn’t really matter, and the writer therefore didn’t have to put in a gender choice, choosing to never mention your gender, referring to you only as the captain. True, some say that this makes the game vague, but I think it gave the reader more space to imagine.

A gender option should not, in my opinion, be implemented like in Choice of Broadsides, but would have to be carefully thought out to fill in the historical gaps. If you simply make an alternate universe where women are marines while men stayed home and did housework, it is not a gender option at all.

A gender option would pretty much mean an entirely different story if it were to be implemented. Whole scenes would have to be rewritten, as characters must have very different reactions for a true gender option. A story in which the words “he” and “him” were turned to “she” and “her” does not have a gender option.

Therefore, for purely practical reasons, I state that gender options are difficult to write and the best policy for gender choices might be to not mention it at all, like in the fleet, or maybe give no option, like in the WIPs Heal and Sabers of Infinity.

P.S. one example of what I consider a good gender option is in Alter Ego, where almost all the scenes were slightly different for the two genders.

348

I mean look at Eowyn in lord of the rings. She has a shield literally demolished off her arm, yet she sustains no real injuries that is fairy magic paladin female hero nonsense.

In a Song of Ice and Fire, Brianne of Tarth is believable, she’s a she-hulk for one, even bigger than a lot of males, and she’s been trained to fight since childhood. Yet she still blushes at the sight of a naked man.

When it comes to females as assassins however oh they’re the best…hands down in a lot of cases. Especially in as I said before a sexist setting. Since any man will be of the nature “tis only a lass”.

Of course over-all LOTR is a bad example as the male Aragon blocked a Troll attack head on might against might which was just as ridiculous considering the troll’s size.

349

What gender choices can be made is entirely up to the writer and his/her vision of their world. Though I do understand women being wide spread in fictional militaries based on historical ones, to break immersion because it’s simply ridiculous. Even in the modern U.S. Army women can’t pick 42B(infantry) as their MOS. However I don’t mind the occasional powerful female figure. My real problem is the high fantasy paladin female characters. Characters who are beautiful and graceful, more than likely slender, yet can swing weapons and fight like a two-hundred thirty pound male warrior. The character should be more like a Brianne of Tarth.

Honestly the strongest female characters are set in biased, sexist settings. They have that much more adversity to overcome and shine, and truly sets the character apart from the generic. Also let’s face it, their have been several powerful female characters in literature who did far more damage with her womanly charms than swinging a sword.

I don’t think anyone has any problem with powerful female characters, more or less it’s the fact at times it’s plain unrealistic.

350

@TKOPENDERGRASS While I’d normally be inclined to agree on a lot of your points, methinks you need to crack open a few medieval chronicles, or modern accounts of war. Yes, believe it or not, you can do a hell of a lot of pulling and swinging.

Really, let’s get down to the basics: gear is produced for the lowest common physical denominator, even at the higher levels. You didn’t cater to a specific body type because you didn’t always get that even from-say- the elite foo foo aristocrats paying for it. Ergo while mail and the other gear might have been pretty weighty, it was designed to be relatively accessible (as long as you tailored one to your specifics). This hasn’t changed one whit in at least a thousand years: if your gear is wholly dependent on the user being a specific type of body, you’re in trouble.

Couple this with the fact that YES, YES YOU CAN be crazyabsurdly strong while having a relatively slender frame? And you’d be amazed at how much you can do.

Now, I’m not saying a sack of flab like me would be able to do just about anything, but with enough proper training and tailoring of the gear you don’t have to be she-hulk to do it. Hence the number of beauty queens that have served in the IDF and other militaries where you do have to lug hundreds of pounds of gear on your person.

And as for getting shields demolished on your arm with no real injuries? Why yes, yes that has indeed happened. Not as likely as you’d believe for obvious reasons, but yes it has happened.

As for assassins, the answer of gender is of course “It Depends.” Any spymaster worth their salt will know that not all types are suitable or at least *optimal* for all situations. A female assassin in a tavern or what have you is good. One trying to get into-say- a gender segregated area isn’t. Of course, there are always exceptions and special conditions and etc etc etc, but making a blanket statement like that is just ludicrous.

351

Given the reality that the male hormone testosterone is responsible for increased bone and muscle density, a lightly built woman with a slender frame in the real world is not going to be “crazy absurdly strong”. Women such as Brianne of Tarth who can compete with men in terms of physical strength look very masculine for very good reason, they have high levels of male hormones.

While the IDF does have one infantry batallion that’s fully integrated and considered “combat ready”, the women in that unit don’t “lug hundreds of pounds of gear” on their person’s. That’s something of an exaggeration. Forty five to sixty five pounds is more typical of a fully loaded rucksack. While paratroopers often carry significantly more, to my knowledge the IDF doesn’t have any female paratroopers.

352

@P_Tigras Sorry, but you are wrong. You’re ignoring several centuries of physical, historical, and military development and evaluation, and I suggest you stop by the average “ultra-authentic” medieval fantasy troupe or read a few studies. In addition, you have a VERY overly restrictive definition of what it means to be able to “compete with men in terms of physical strength.” There are a hell of a lot of other factors at play beyond “How many kilograms of muscle do you have on your body”? Entire martial traditions have been built on the fine principle of “Wrongfoot and kill the big lug.”

And that’s before I even get into the fact that not every man who wore a suit of mail and swung a sword was a hulking colossus either. The military demands a certain amount of uniformity even in an era before things like mass produced equipment came into being the fad, and just because the heir to the throne is rather scrawny doesn’t mean he’ll be able to get exempt from a military campaign, or that he won’t need protection. Lugging around a mail and mace certainly help build muscle to say the least, but the boost to testosterone doesn’t mean that you won’t get slender females and slender males that can and do have to do it on at least some level.

Also, there’s a heck of a lot of shades of grey in terms of physical abilities and how personal strength matches up to a “slender” or more womanly figure. Especially since the definition of a "womanly figure’ has changed god only knows how many times depending on the situation. But issuing flat blanket statements just makes me point you to little things like re-entactors guilds and physical studies that show this.

Yes, the hundreds of pounds of gear was an overstatement. However, the basic point remains the same: it coupled with the realities of medieval equipment mean that the conceit that someone that doesn’t look like BoT couldn’t handle the average higher end Medieval kit AND it goes back to the standardization issue I pointed out earlier: equipment’s designed for all kinds of handlers. If it could be swung by an extremely meek Dauphin of France, chances are it could be swung by a woman too. A sword, mace, pike, or what have you ways at *most* lower double digits, by simple virtue that anything heavier starts getting in the way of what it intends to do. A shield varies so wildly it could be anything from well above that number to well below it, depending on what role we’re talking about. The actual armor again varies wildly, anything from leather armor wearing maybe a dozen or so pounds to mail colossi tipping in at around or over a hundred, so again we’re talking about what role we’re talking about. But NONE of that in and of itself prevents someone from being able to use them in battle- and even do so effectively- even if they have a build that’s more slender than BoT. Male Hormones ARE NOT the end all to be all of “ability to wear mail and swing a warhammer.”

This is why I headdesk when I read about someone belittling some fantasy female Paladin able to fight like a two hundred fifty pound male. As though ALL 250 lbs men ALL somehow fight the same way. Sorry, but that don’t cut it. Yes, a lot of them fight like a stereotypical heavy wearing big equipment and smashing heavy hits home, but not all of them do. And even those that do aren’t necessarily going to fight in the same way.

That’s why fighting styles outside of rigid group formations- like the Tercio or pike wall- tend to be more individualized: because of the need to take advantage of or minimize the advantages and problems that come with each individual person. Take a good look at the preponderance of martial arts around, from Judo to Pank, and realize that those all derive from *just* a subsection of training focusing on unarmed combat.

I’m not knocking BoT or any other bruisers (female or male). That’s a perfectly capable form of combat, and one that works as well as any other. It’s just that it’s A: Not for everyone an B: can be swapped out for something more fitting to the individual’s abilities.

353

@Turtler You tell me that I’m wrong and then shift the subject to something you’re better able to defend. Nice try, but that strategy doesn’t fly. I never said a slender woman couldn’t fight. My initial point that slender women didn’t have the same physical strength as the overwhelming majority of men stands and is born out by cold hard facts. Your statement that “beauty queens” in the IDF are carrying “hundreds of pounds of gear” was nothing short of an exaggeration. I’m glad you were able to finally admit that in the middle of your reply.

As someone who has been involved with the martial-arts for decades, and who is intimately aware of both the facts and myths surrounding them, I’m used to dealing with all sizes of men and women, and lightly built men are still usually stronger than women who -look- larger and stronger. Your physically fit 6’ amazonian beauty queen will still have less upper body strength than a fit lightly built 5’4" adult male nineteen times out of twenty. That doesn’t mean she can’t learn to fight, but it does mean she’s at something of a disadvantage unless she is significantly more skilled or sneaky. Men have a higher muscle to mass ratio, even the more lightly built ones, and that gives them a significant advantage, all other things being equal. Give a woman a man’s shoulders, chest and arms, and that advantage will disappear, as in BoT’s case, but then she won’t look so feminine any more. I suggest you spend some time in the martial-arts yourself before dismissing the significance of a strength advantage. Women aren’t separated from men in competitions due to sexism, they’re separated because the very best men would destroy the very best women. When skill is comparable, and even sometimes when it isn’t, power wins the day.

There has been some historical revisionism regarding the weight of medieval weapons. They are now thought to have been much lighter than previously believed, which makes it far more plausible for women to have wielded them. Nevertheless, medieval weapons had notoriously bad points and edges, and that made them poor at thrusting, and not great at getting around armor either. In a slashing game with bad edges where one’s opponent is armored or wearing a shield, and you’re both pounding on each other, upper body strength is still highly important, and so, your slender beauty queen would still have been at a major disadvantage. Women would do better with renaissance weapon tech than medieval weapon tech. A woman can be just as deadly with a firearm or rapier as a man. The problem with working with renaissance tech is the presence of canons and increasingly accurate firearms, which rendered castles, armor, swords, and shields obsolete.

The Dauphin is a rather poor example. No sane King is going to send his heir, no matter how strongly or weakly built, out to fight on the front lines with a sword, but that doesn’t mean his father wouldn’t outfit him with the best trainers, weapons and armor that money could buy. Barring a heroically stupid act of rebellion, at most his father would have allowed him to trample and skewer some peasants with his horse and lance, safely ensconced amid a large protective wedge of knights. That’s not particularly challenging, and in most cases, not particularly dangerous either. Furthermore, by the time France started calling it’s heir “the Dauphin” the medieval ages were nearly at an end.

354

@P_Tigras I don’t know what your opening sentence is trying to prove, but it’s a glorified misfire. First, you accuse me of accusing you of being wrong (which is correct), then you accuse me of trying to shift the topic to “something I’m better able to defend.” (Which is wrong; I don’t see how the topic is different in any way, shape, or form). As though there is a serious division between the two topics. At which point you insinuate I was saying that* you* were saying that women couldn’t fight. At which point you prop up a strawman of how “slender women didn’t have the same strength as the overwhelming majority of men” which is wrong on two counts: At which point you try to dance a happy jig over the “hundreds of pounds” throwaway line, give a crocodile smile about being “glad I could admit it”, and then act like you’ve proven your point.

You have not. In fact, you have DISproven your point, and in doing so just made yourself look incompetent. Let’s go through this exactly, shall we?

A: Good bloody luck arguing in the abstract like that; I’m assuming you’ve taken measurement of the majority of slender women and the majority of men? Including concrete definitions of what constitutes “slender”? You’re literally trying to argue that every single slender woman is weaker than the majority of men?

Yes, that’s hyperbole and I doubt you’re doing so, but that’s what your argument is phrased to look like, and for future reference people might be inclined to take you at face value for it.

B: The idea that even if you can draw a meaningful conclusion from that (even if we agree that in general men are stronger than women by most measures and studies), that it supports your point. You are acting like that factoid agrees or supports your point. In reality it eviscerates it.

I was never trying to argue that *most* or *all* slender women were equally strong or stronger than most men. Just that there is the *Potential* for some SWs to be as strong or stronger, and thus capable of doing so. Unless you’re argument that yes, every single slender woman is weaker than “the majority of men” (which is something I’d like to see, if only because it would fall apart so very quickly), you’re still effectively saying that *some* do not fit in to that pattern. Ergo proving my point.

All I can say is thanks. Tying the point you were trying to prove and then obliterating your own argument certainly saves me time and hassle, and I much appreciate it.

No, what won’t fly is the asinine conjecture that muscle mass is the only thing that determines strength, and that testosterone is the main determination of muscle mass and which you *specifically* cited as being the reason for why stronger women like BoT cut a larger or more boyish figure.

No, I am sorry, but just visit a gym or a doctor’s office. That is certainly a contributory factor to overall muscle mass and strength, or why some look more boyish than others, but it isn’t the end all to be all. Which is precisely what I’m saying. First and foremost, just about any doctor can tell you that you’re spitting out what look like absolutes when there aren’t (“men have a higher muscle to mass ratio, even the more lightly built ones”? Sorry, nice try. On average that’s probably true, but there are always outliers. And that also doesn’t change the fact that isn’t the end all to be all of strength). You’re trying to lecture an amateur historian, military enthusiast, and part time student- and swim team counselor- who has to deal with the finer points of the local sports programs *all the bloody time*- about that and expecting me to be impressed.

Suffice it to say, I’m not. The fact that you can barely go a paragraph without shooting your argument full of holes *In Your Words* doesn’t help matters.

Again, I agree that I think anybody who thinks Gulia Farnese or Jean D’Arc or any other random peasant or noblewoman would be able to pick up a weapon and be able to use it effectively. I would go further and say that even with training, expecting them to have as much strength as the average soldier or militiaman is also probably not going to work at all. This would be a problem for me if I was trying to argue law of averages. Fortunately, I’m not and never have been. I’m arguing specifics, and exceptions against absolutes like the ones you’ve thrown out.

JJust because most or even a vast majority of women- especially those with a slender frame- would suffer inferior upper body strength in comparison to any “average” male opponent they’d be likely to face doesn’t mean *all* of them would. The fact that various women can meet or exceed the average male requirements of various physical programs (say, for the PFT) without having as much apparent muscle mass as BoT proves this beyond a doubt. Now, for obvious reasons this is unlikely in settings much like our own history, given things like standards of beauty, cultural attitudes towards it and the fact that if you had a slender, beauty queen daughter you’d want to keep her that way, etc. etc. al., that doesn’t change the objective reality. It might not be typical, but I’m not trying to argue typical. I’m arguing “Yes, it can happen.”

The Dauphin might be a less than perfect example for a number of reasons (the consolidation of the French crown late into the medieval era under the Spider King due to the conflicts with England/Burgundy/the Nobles, late adoption of the title, the fact that I don’t know of any Dauphins who fought personally in a major battle unlike-say- the Black Prince, etc), but he serves my point well enough for a more or less random figure I threw out there. If we’re going to argue that no king in his right mind would have sent his heir apparent to fight on the front lines, we’re also going to point out that even if that’s true (and that’d be disputable, given the power such an inspirational figure can wield, and the generally higher quality of equipment and training as you pointed out) there weren’t that many indisputably sane kings. Especially given the chivalric ethos and the glory of fighting directly in some capacity, even if not as the main holding force. The death of Edward of Westminster proves that much, even if it was a major aberration. Saying that they’d only ever be limited to running down a few rebelling peasants… at beeest might be something limited to France, and at worst might be another errant oversimplification.

The point I was trying to make was that A: equipment is made to be usable, ergo the general types are made to be usable by as wide a range of people as it can be. Therefore, the strength of the Dauphin of France and whether or not a King would allow him to fight in serious combat are equally irrelevant to the point: they’d still make the best possible for him, which if he was particularly physically feeble would be tailored to suit him. Even if he can’t put it too *as good* a use as another, stronger fighter doesn’t change the fact that it’d be made so he could still put it to use.

And B: The bottom line is that no matter how you cut it, just having more testosterone and a bulkier body is no guarantee of superior strength, while having a slighter build with estrogen is no guarantee of inferior strength. Is the deck stacked to the former? Good God yes, and I’m not about to deny it or pretend it doesn’t exist. However, there’s a difference between accepting that and assuming that it is an absolute law of nature that a person with a slimmer build is always weaker than one with a bulkier one.

355

Again, as I’ll get back here: you yourself proved my point, in your own words:

“I’m used to dealing with all sizes of men and women, and lightly built men are still USUALLY stronger than women who -look- larger and stronger.”

Emphasis mine.

Even if that in and of itself is disputable (especially given the sampling bias), it proves my point: no, slender ladies are *Not Always* physically weaker than every gentleman, and *not all* of them are incapable of preforming in combat using medieval weaponry like *a* 250 pound man would. (Which was the evidence over why I personally don’t have my suspension of disbelief broken, and think some expansion of it is good.)

You Are Wrong. You even said so yourself. However, I’m not going to give faux modesty or politeness (if it’s from me, I’m going to give it genuine or not at all): are you going to admit that?

356

@Turtler I recognize that you’re upset that I pointed out your exaggeration, but you’re not only twisting my words out of context in an effort to create convenient straw men that you can then knock down, but you’re also getting way too personal. I’m not going to wallow in the mud with you so I’m bowing out. This is not a productive discussion.

357

Allright… Let’s get back on topic here… WRITING about gender, power, and privilege. Not whether women can use medieval weapons. Although it is a fascinating subject, and I believe it depends on which kind of medieval weapon. A bow, or a shortsword, or a pair of daggers, no problem. A longsword… Perhaps. Full battle armour? Dubious, unless it was specially designed. Full battle armor, a two handed mace, and helmet… No, probably not.

In the end, though… There aren’t much women that feature in medieval legends as heroes, or really much of a character. Therefore, I’m of the opinion that our own history should be rigorously observed, and everything should be historically accurate.

358

It was on topic, @Wyrmspawn. Writing about gender has everything to do with what people believe women can/can’t do with weapons in the real world.

Edit: reading your edit, let me rephrase: medieval legends have a lot to do with what people believe women can/can’t do with weapons. And as you’ve pointed out, those legends didn’t feature women much at all; they were written in a cultural context that (from our vantage point) clearly deprecated and ignored women’s contributions. So why on earth should we take them as touchstones of historical rigor?

Now, writers of historical fiction set in medieval Europe may well decide (assessing the evidence as a whole) that it’s unlikely that those legends are suppressing the historical existence of lots of D&D-style swordswomen. When it comes to alternate universe medieval fiction, though – like Eowyn, where this thread started – I don’t see why we should let characters’ weapons be limited by the sexism of medieval legends.

359

And in response to your earlier post on gender options: I’d distinguish between (1) a gender option whose point is simply to give readers the choice to play a character of their own sex and sexual preference, and (2) a gender option that gives readers insight into how historical gender roles have shaped people’s experience of the world. You’re enthusiastic about the latter, which is great – done well, (2) can be very powerful.

But maybe you underestimate the importance of (1) – especially for people who don’t get to play a lot of games that have someone of their sex/preference in the protagonist’s role. They may be happy to trade some realism for the pleasure of the right pronoun.

(2) is, as you point out, hard. By contrast, (1) is pretty easy for writers to implement, either coding as they go or with some judicious Find/Replace work when they’re done. And as far as I can see, there’s really no reason why the mere existence of a gender-flip should bother any reader who wants to “play it straight”… no need for them to choose a historically inaccurate gender.

CoBroadsides, of course, is (3): an alternate-universe genderflip meant to amusingly challenge the idea that men’s and women’s roles are set in stone. IMO, it works quite well.

360

A simple gender-flip story, to me, can either be a compromise solution, or like what @Havenstone mentioned — a way for the author to challenge the gender roles of our society.

@Havenstone
By saying that there’s no reason for any reader to be bothered by a gender-flip story, I feel that you are (unintentionally) ignoring that there are female readers who want to “play it straight”, as a female character.

Are there more female who wants to play as a female in a more realistic setting and overcome the challenges, or are there more female that will gladly trade realism for the use of the ‘right’ pronoun?
We will never come to a conclusion.

Therefore, I believe that there’s no one best way and it really depends on what the author wants to achieve, the ability/time of the author, and the target audience.

Edit: FWIW, I prefer a more realistic setting to CoB-Style gender flip. I suppose my opinion is similar to what @Wyrmspawn had mentioned above.