[Fifi]

Originally Posted by (Earthmother @ June 18 2005,16:52) Greenstorm and Chia's ideas are right on the money. If you want women to play, you have to find ways to acknowledge their contributions. You have to understand a woman's world. You have to value the things that they do naturally: interaction, community, housework, raising children. I suspect it helps to have women on staff. I also suspect that it helps to acknowledge the importance of emotions within females. The 'little things' that males blow off can be some of the most IMPORTANT things that women deal with. The town gossip is a staple of ANY community, no matter how poorly she may be looked upon. Hookers will tell you that 3/4th of their job is *talking* to the guy, not the sex. Women function one-to-one very often, men tend to depersonalize situations, so that they don't HAVE to deal with others' emotions. (Example: war. 'nuff said.) The old saying that, "Behind every great man is a good woman" has great truth. I applaud Chia for giving these 'women's roles' the importance and recognition they deserve, and for giving them playspace within the game.

I disagree. I don't want to be relegated to some new agey cut out of "what a woman should be."

[Fifi]

Finally, referencing my earlier post where I said that all classes should be open to female pc's, I wanted to elaborate and say that this doesn't mean that playing those classes would be as accessable socially. In a realistic world of chivalry there might be some cultural bias against women in certain roles, and part of the fun could having to suck it up and deal with it. Conflict is an essential tool in any type of story telling. Conversely it shouldn't be so unprecidented as to be impossible.

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by (Fifi @ June 20 2005,20:43) Finally, referencing my earlier post where I said that all classes should be open to female pc's, I wanted to elaborate and say that this doesn't mean that playing those classes would be as accessable socially. In a realistic world of chivalry there might be some cultural bias against women in certain roles, and part of the fun could having to suck it up and deal with it. Conflict is an essential tool in any type of story telling. Conversely it shouldn't be so unprecidented as to be impossible.

I'm working on a RPI MUD with as few elements as possible of H&S-style format. So, when I say classes, I'm refering to social classes of society, not D&D-style classes like warrior, thief, etc. (yes, I realize that Armageddon is considered RPI and it does have classes, but the nature of their "classes" is a discussion for another topic).

But as far as different occupations, you're on the mark as to what I'm asking about.

Initially, I found about 80% of female players I'd spoken with opposed to the idea of a more realistic portrayal of gender inequality in its cultural context. After pointing out the conflict potential of the RP, I've seen that number drop to about 70% and through these forums, I've seen that number decline even further. I'm around 50-50 now in terms of female players in favor and opposed to such realism in the game culture, perhaps even leaning in favor of the idea.

Continued input is appreciated though.

Take care,

Jason

[Fifi]

[quote= (prof1515 @ June 20 2005,20:57)]

Originally Posted by Fifi,June 20 2005,20:43 But as far as different occupations, you're on the mark as to what I'm asking about.   Initially, I found about 80% of female players I'd spoken with opposed to the idea of a more realistic portrayal of gender inequality in its cultural context.  After pointing out the conflict potential of the RP, I've seen that number drop to about 70% and through these forums, I've seen that number decline even further.  I'm around 50-50 now in terms of female players in favor and opposed to such realism in the game culture, perhaps even leaning in favor of the idea. Continued input is appreciated though. Take care, Jason

Inequality can be a great rp too. An impetus. Total repression might be harder to sell.

[prof1515]

[quote= (Fifi @ June 20 2005,21:07)]

Originally Posted by (prof1515 @ June 20 2005,20:57) Originally Posted by Fifi,June 20 2005,20:43 But as far as different occupations, you're on the mark as to what I'm asking about.   Initially, I found about 80% of female players I'd spoken with opposed to the idea of a more realistic portrayal of gender inequality in its cultural context.  After pointing out the conflict potential of the RP, I've seen that number drop to about 70% and through these forums, I've seen that number decline even further.  I'm around 50-50 now in terms of female players in favor and opposed to such realism in the game culture, perhaps even leaning in favor of the idea. Continued input is appreciated though. Take care, Jason Inequality can be a great rp too. An impetus. Total repression might be harder to sell.

"Total repression" is far more likely in cultures based on economics (or in a few cases like the U.S., race) than gender. That's not to say it hasn't occured. But fear not, the time period I'm looking at wouldn't fit that mold.

Take care,

Jason

[Earthmother]

Originally Posted by (Fifi @ June 20 2005,20:28) I disagree. I don't want to be relegated to some new agey cut out of "what a woman should be."

Hrm, ok... wasn't really what I *meant* there, but fair 'nuff.

Anyhow, would you play in a society where gender inequalities were one of the 'forefront' issues? Where pushing/challenging the expectations of 'what a woman should be' could be one of the main ongoing storylines/issues?

Basically, say gender inequality was a 'given,' but challenging this inequality was something you could do without being outside a historical context?

(I might, that'd be a cool thing to me, but I don't do RPI. )

[Iluvatar]

I dunno, I'm just an old man who likes to create worlds and MUDs, but don't we provide an environment where anybody can be anyone or anything they really wish to be based on available choices? They do it because it's FUN! They are challenged, they have aspirations, they have MUD lives and way too often real lives insinuates itself into that make-believe world.

If we design our worlds where every woman has the potential to be Joan of Arc or Jackie Kennedy or Xena types and every man has the potential to be Napolean or Conan or Andy Warhol types, it's out of our hands and we can sit back and watch and learn how each settles into a role they choose for themselves. I realize you're doing a RP model Prof, but sheesh, how about enabling the base parameters and just let the players seek their own level regardless of gender. I honestly don't think you can construct ANY positive reinforcement tools for expected gender behavior within RP yet without making wrong assumptions.

Earthmom, you're simply amazing with the rhetoric and I applaud your comments and endorse the non-flame aspects wholeheartedly.

Fern, you busy next Saturday night young lady?

[prof1515]

1-->

Originally Posted by (Iluvatar @ June 21 2005,04[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img]1)]I dunno, I'm just an old man who likes to create worlds and MUDs, but don't we provide an environment where anybody can be anyone or anything they really wish to be based on available choices?  They do it because it's FUN! They are challenged, they have aspirations, they have MUD lives and way too often real lives insinuates itself into that make-believe world.

It's all dependent upon what kind of environment your'e creating.  If you're creating an environment where people can role-play within a specific type of cultural setting, you have an obligation to create a setting that reflects the various aspects that make that culture function.  Taking out or greatly modifying one or more of the aspects can have a detrimental affect upon the way the culture functions.  See cultural relativity in any anthropological textbook if you want further information on what I'm talking about.

Now, if you're creating a fantasy setting with the familiar elements and themes, you can probably go thin on the cultural aspects, since you're not really recreating any culture that has ever existed and thus its functionality isn't dependent upon the culture (I always look at the massive flaws in Tolkien for example...while he had quite an imagination and a good knowledge of folklore and myth, he didn't have a good grasp of how societies function).  But still, you're probably going to have to keep elements of the variety typical in the MUD style you are creating (say for example, creating combat code in a PK MUD).

Originally Posted by If we design our worlds where every woman has the potential to be Joan of Arc or Jackie Kennedy or Xena types and every man has the potential to be Napolean or Conan or Andy Warhol types, it's out of our hands and we can sit back and watch and learn how each settles into a role they choose for themselves.

If your MUD features people who behave like all of those types, you might find some serious plausibility problems.  True, in a fantasy setting you can have whatever you want.  But then you probably don't have a well-designed setting, just randomness linked together via additional randomness.

Originally Posted by I realize you're doing a RP model Prof, but sheesh, how about enabling the base parameters and just let the players seek their own level regardless of gender.

Because gender roles play a role in how societies function.  Even today they still play a role (Don't think so?  The why would most boys who played with a Barbie doll probably find themselves the subject of ridicule from others?) and any attempt to recreate a historical culture has to take that into consideration (otherwise, you're not really recreating the culture).

Originally Posted by I honestly don't think you can construct ANY positive reinforcement tools for expected gender behavior within RP yet without making wrong assumptions.

You don't believe in a RPI MUD, where role-play isn't optional, you can't construct ANY positive reinforcement tools for expected gender behavior without making wrong assumptions?  Have you played any RPI MUD before?  If people are playing a RPI MUD, they actually expect behavior to conform to the game world.  That's why OOC conversation isn't allowed.  That same principle can be applied to whatever culture is created within the game.  Players role-play within the parameters of the game's culture.  And if you're the one who created the game's culture, you can't make a wrong assumption about what behavior is expected in that culture because you designed it (you can make rather unbelievable expectations, but that's not the same thing).  Now, if you're attempting to model the game culture after a historical one, you can make wrong assumptions.  However, that's ultimately your fault for not studying that culture more in depth before designing the various elements of it.

Take care,

Jason

[Fifi]

Since the middle ages for women was a life of needlepoint, prayer and waiting to die (if you were rich and lucky. Other wise it was pushing out pups, and potato farming, cooking and cleaning and waiting to die) how are you planning to sell that? Why would it be fun?

[Fifi]

Originally Posted by (Earthmother @ June 21 2005,00:34) Anyhow, would you play in a society where gender inequalities were one of the 'forefront' issues? Where pushing/challenging the expectations of 'what a woman should be' could be one of the main ongoing storylines/issues? Basically, say gender inequality was a 'given,' but challenging this inequality was something you could do without being outside a historical context? (I might, that'd be a cool thing to me, but I don't do RPI. )

That's a great idea. That sounds like fun.

But Prof, it means that the opportunities have to be there. If women are coded not to be able to do these things, what are you offering the female pc?

[Maraz]

Originally Posted by I dunno, I'm just an old man who likes to create worlds and MUDs, but don't we provide an environment where anybody can be anyone or anything they really wish to be based on available choices? They do it because it's FUN! They are challenged, they have aspirations, they have MUD lives and way too often real lives insinuates itself into that make-believe world.

I'm not sure if others would agree, but I see the point of a RP orientated MUD of being a chance to tell the story of a character. The best thing about it is that you are telling the story with other people. As you are playing with other people you have a responsibility to others to keep in character. If the world is supposed to be based on real historical culture it is fair to expect people to abide by it.

MUDs should provide a variety of settings in which to tell the story of your character. If the setting you want for your story is one where gender inequality exists then what's the problem. MUDs can be about creating your idealised self - but they don't have to be. I never found much enjoyment in creating an idealised character, because I learnt nothing from it and couldn't feel any link to that character. Instead I like to roleplay someone who has faults, emotions and weaknesses that I can explore.

I have no problem with MUDs that allow for self-realisation, that's great, but there is a demand for "realistic" (I don't like using that word but I couldn't find anything better) atmoshperes. Simple market forces dictate that MUDs will emerge that restrict what you can achieve, because there are people who want that.

In intensive roleplay the actions of the character should be based on their own aspirations, rather than the player's. I don't see why a female character should be told what their aspirations should be, but I do think that in an accurate historical world it would be reasonable for the world to work against their achievement of their aspirations. As unfair as this is, it shouldn't lessen the enjoyment of the game if it is for the sake of roleplay. Infact if anything, like others have mentioned, it should increase the enjoyment because roleplaying the struggle of a character is usually more interesting than roleplaying a character who has achived their aspirations. After all if roleplay is seen as the process of telling a story (which it may not be for everyone) it requires an element of struggle and transformation for the character.

I don't think that creating a gender gap (in a roleplayM MUD at least) is anti-feminist. Infact a MUD where gender roles played an important part would more rightly be seen as of interest to feminists. If you read a book about a woman struggling to achieve her goals in a male orientated world you would rightly consider it to be adressing a feminist issue. A MUD which effectively does the same thing is no different.

-PS One in the morning where I am and I've just been out so I appologise for any of this post that is unclear.

[Ilkidarios]

Alright, this thread is careening off the track and is about to crash into an out and out flame war between the genders.  The fact is, men and women are different.  Whether or not it is conveyed in a MUD, it is a fact in real life.  But people play games as an escape, the same way someone might take pain-killers to "escape" from the real world.  
  I don't think women would want a real-world simulation in a video game because they don't want the real-world, they want someplace where they can be a cowgirl, or a knight, or a warrior.  I can understand why someone wouldn't be keen on an imaginary world where they were barred from doing what they want to do.  I would be pretty ****ed if Rise of Nations forced me to play as Somali Bantu every game because of the color of my skin.
  What I want is an end to the arguing about real-life issues we can't change, and getting back to the subject matter instead of a petty gender war.

[Ilkidarios]

Originally Posted by (Maraz @ June 21 2005,20:41) -PS One in the morning where I am and I've just been out so I appologise for any of this post that is unclear.

It's one in the morning? Where do you live, China?

[Maraz]

>Ilkidarios

Originally Posted by I would be pretty ****ed if Rise of Nations forced me to play as the Bantu every game because of the color of my skin.  What I want is an end to the arguing about real-life issues we can't change, and getting back to the subject matter instead of a petty gender war.

Firstly I don't think the idea was that women were forced to play a female character. I don't really understand the point you a trying to make if that's not what you thought.

Secondly I don't think that there has been really much gender war or flaming in the posts I read. Infact for such a sensative issue I thought the thread had stayed remarkably civil.

>Fifi

Originally Posted by Since the middle ages for women was a life of needlepoint, prayer and waiting to die (if you were rich and lucky. Other wise it was pushing out pups, and potato farming, cooking and cleaning and waiting to die) how are you planning to sell that? Why would it be fun?

I think you answered this question with your second post, the struggle could be one way in which it is interesting. However I don't see why it shouldn't be interesting to play out the life of someone who is opressed and accepts it. Sure you wouldn't want to be that person, but roleplay can be simply about exploring different cultures and lives. It might not be fun for everyone, but I think it is fair to challange the idea that MUDs have to be an escape where you live a better life. I don't play MUDs because I want to get away from the real world, I play MUDs because I want to make up characters and create stories. Maybe I am in a minority, but I know I'm not alone.

Originally Posted by It's one in the morning? Where do you live, China?

No, England.

[Fifi]

Maraz,

I hear you. You make some good points. I'm not saying someone shouldn't make a mud that's reflective of a time that is restrictive. However, I don't know if I want to play there. It's not that I want a fantasy world to be better than real life, but I do want it to be interesting. If I'm going to tell a story, I want to tell a story that appeals to me on some level. Other people can write those other stories. I wonder too, if this society that Prof envisions is restrictive only to women. I think the real glaring differences between the modern world and the middle ages are things like bad teeth, a lack of comfort, entertainment and fullfilment. Even the idea of fullfillment. Most people in the time of chivalry were not knights. They were tenant dirt farmers eeking out an existence and hoping for a better one in the afterlife. And even the knights had lice and wiped their hands on dogs instead of napkins. Gender inequality was a privlege. Most men didn't have enough for women to envy them for it.

[Ilkidarios]

Originally Posted by (Maraz @ June 21 2005,21) >Ilkidarios Originally Posted by I would be pretty ****ed if Rise of Nations forced me to play as the Bantu every game because of the color of my skin.  What I want is an end to the arguing about real-life issues we can't change, and getting back to the subject matter instead of a petty gender war. Firstly I don't think the idea was that women were forced to play a female character. I don't really understand the point you a trying to make if that's not what you thought.

You don't understand the idea of who a Bantu is.  In being a Bantu, there is much that is entailed in African society.  A Bantu man would be discriminated against by other Africans as an adoo, or "slave" in the native language, becuase historically we were the lower class of African society.  Essentially what I am in modern day America.  I would not want to be a Bantu in Africa.  
Rise of Nations is a poor example because there are other nations in the game that were non-African.  The point I was trying to make was that if I played a game which was composed entirely of African peoples, I would not want to choose Bantu (my ancestors) and be discriminated against, I would want to choose what I am and be equal to other Africans.  Does that clear it up?

[Estarra]

Originally Posted by (prof1515 @ June 17 2005,21:45) What can one do, in creating a historically accurate or at least semi-historical MUD, to maintain elements of the relevant cultures while not turning off female players?  I've heard several female players comment that if men and women weren't equal in every way in the game, they'd not play the said game. Additionally, what is the general consensus as to how far gender differences, physically and far more importantly culturally, can be realistically depicted in accordance with the time period one is attempting to reproduce?

Research! Research! Research!

There are plenty of historical precedent for strong female roles. Of course, if you're bound and determined to stick to a European medieval theme, you may be somewhat limited. But if your willing to look a little further afield, especially in a fantasy realm, you'll find lots of interesting facts to inspire you. Of course, there are many "wise woman" roles, and many societies that revere the magic of childbirth.

But perhaps it is the role of warrior that may trip you up. However, even then, there is a lot about female warriors which may help you gain other perspective. My favorite is the King of Fanti's elite female warriors (circa 1800's), who at their height were 2500 strong and enjoyed equal status with male warriors. They had different divisions, such as the 'blunderbuss women' and the 'razor women'.