|
Aw, I forget which philosopher said that human life is "nasty, brutish, and short." English dude, I'm not googling it.
*HE* was right on, too. Life sucks for everyone, and in the immortal words of Denis Leary, "Get a F*****g helmet."
Prof1515, you seek to smooth out something that is impossible: you seek 'realism' and yet claim my (or other womens' ) reactions are 'knee-jerk.' Guess what... *that's* how women function.
You and Maraz are very correct in saying that life is/was pretty crappy for all involved. I've been trying to point out that the inequalities *still* exist. But on a fundamental level, realism in a game means that life's gonna suck for EVERYONE. Prof1515, I've no idea what your game is like, and if it is as in depth as you describe, then, why are you *worrying* about what females think? Why are you trying to cater to that demographic? They will either like/accept the world you have, and play there, or they won't.
Chicks will suck it up, just like the guys will. They will find the way they fit into the world, into the economy, and they will do it in as 'realistic' a fashion as your world allows. MU*s are not a democracy... they're a dictatorship. The owner/head IMM has final say. Shoot for the 'accuracy' that *you* perceive is necessary, and let what players who will come fill out the roles there are for them.
And if you don't like/expect knee-jerk reactions, then, don't try and cater to women. Put the roles of each gender/race/anything as YOU see fit, and those who agree with you and are willing to play what is there will play. Women know what they do. They know who they are, and what roles they are willing to accept. Don't short-change your realism, if it gives you heartache, to try and placate the 'fairer sex.'
Prof1515, your response to my 'knee-jerk' reaction just saddens me. Watching you miss the point what I'm trying to get across makes me sigh. You, like so many men, still today, think 'power' IS wealth. See, me, *I* think 'power' is getting my husband to help with the dishes. Women's power *is* their emotional and mental grasp of relationships and societal responsibilities. Women and men's very CONCEPT of 'power' differs. A female in a game can wield a LOT of power, through the things she does entirely behind the scenes. This is not so much different than the 'woman behind the man' who smoothes his troubled brow late at night, when he comes home from the politician's (or whatever 'high-powered position) office. It is not so different than the reasoned-if-emotional response a woman gives to a man, when he has a troubling situation that he needs to talk out.
<edit>
Upon re-reading your post, I see that on some level you *do* comprehend this. Your problems seem to come from not being able to make women understand that this is how they really function. I can understand your frustration with this situation, as a lot of women I know don't know how to use or wield their own personal power. If you want your game to encourage this, make sure the behind-the-scenes things get some in-game reward.
<end edit>
So, build your realism. Maraz is *right* when s/he says female characters tend to advance more slowly, and the reasons s/he gives are right, too. The things that female players *do* in-game are not the things that tend to be part of the game's advancement structure. But, you all seem to want us there, nonetheless. We *add* that social dimension to the game. It seems to be difficult to quantify that added value, since it tends to be more private. I find myself in this hole on my home game: I spend a LOT of time 'telling' to folks, because THAT is what I do best. I HELP them, but silently. That time cannot be captured in my session, and in fact, in my game, it is *detrimental* to my character, because time spent killing is a valid 'toplist' ranking, and my chat time drags down my kill ratio, thus aging my character without the amount of kills that male players might have made within that same time frame. My game and its toplist rankings are male-centric, not because they *meant* it to be, but because a guy coded what he could QUANTIFY. I'm pretty dang sure he didn't *mean* to hold back female characters/players, but in essence, quantifying what the code can capture has simply put chatty females at a disadvantage. (We're hack-n-slash, we should be out killing, not interacting, so this is a valid thing, and I don't complain about it in-game. But it IS an example of how male coders work with the quantifiable, and how difficult it is to reward the intangibles women provide.)
My basic point is this: it is very difficult for men to acknowledge and reward the contributions of women, whether the setting is whatever historical time period, or the world we live in right here, right now. We *do*, as Greenstorm mentions, look for a mate/husband, and we use our power and influence over that ONE man. And, men are HAPPY to BE the center of a woman's attention. You can give a man all the power in the world, he's still gonna leave his semen on some intern's skirt, because she told him how wonderful he is. So, make your world what you want. Adjust it as problems arise. You may find, to your surprise, that the women will cope and play, no matter how much forethought you try and put into it. Toughen up, man. When the chicks whine about 'inequality,' say what you'd say to a guy: "This is MY game, if you don't like it, find somewhere else to play."
|