195 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Faith McCarron, on 14 May 2015 - 06:33 AM, said:

Yeah, that's true. Thinking about it, she's probably the number one example in all of the canon.

Marthe Pryde? Diana Pryde?

[Catalina Steiner]

This thread won't die because some are demanding this. Stay out of this thread if you don't like it.

I deleted political posts (as I told you), I deleted unconstructive posts (as I told you) and I deleted posts about Faith's ban (as I told you too). Stay out of this thread if you don't want to discuss the topic. It's wasted time to post here.

[Orion Starion]

Geist Null, on 27 May 2015 - 03:43 PM, said:

times have changed. women in frontline combat, ponies that have well written adventures interesting enough to keep young boys attention, its all becoming interchangeable with regards to what kids like to play with. marketing can easily keep up with that by running one campaign focused on everyone and not two campaigns focused on two genders. all you have to do is show mechs in combat, have the mechwarriors be of different genders, and kids of both genders will be all over the IP again for little cost. mech combat sells itself.

I can't agree with this more! More equality in marketing won't detract from the target demographic and will attract a larger audience, which is what makes successfull products.

As a grandfather with 4 grandaughters I want them to be able to enjoy whatever the heck they want as they grow up. If they like LEGOs and GI Joe and working on cars, that's exactly what they should be able to do without anyone making snide comments or trying to force them into something "more girly".

And if they want to have tea parties and dress up as princesses and some day join me and their dads playing MWO I really hope no one bats an eyelash at it.

My daughter is a "girly" girl but she still loves to play with LEGOs and to rough house with her brothers and play RPGs. She doesn't want to play MWO but positive female role models in the game and from BT lore do have an effect on her and one of these days they may even entice her to try it out. She has played and enjoyed the TT game after all.

A persons gender, assigned or chosen, should have ZERO affect on what they are allowed to like or do. Equality in marketing is easy and should pass almost unnoticed even if it's not the demographic you're shooting for. Just like gender should go practically unnoticed is ones job, hobby or whatever.

--Col. Orion Starion
NZDL, Commanding

[Peiper]

MechregSurn, on 29 May 2015 - 09:04 AM, said:

http://www.cbsnews.c...-complete-myth/. This thread is horrible, one poster quoted the fake "gender pay gap" that has been debunked repeatedly. [redacted]

We're talking about a fictional universe here, 1,000 years in the future. Sure, because of the time which, especially early battletech was written, we're going to see some parallels in values - especially the style of clothing/hair in the artwork. We're going to see some author bias. We're especially going to see targeted audiences. Using modern (and biased) statistics to back up what happens a thousand years from now is just silly.

Okay, to your other issue, we're NOT here to debate Faith McCarron. That's mostly what the moderators are concerned with. I'm not here to debate or talk about Faith. She simply started a subject and we started talking about the subject. The SUBJECT is Gender Equality in Battletech. Thus, gender roles - and by extension - character development in a FICTIONAL universe. If a comic book artist is caught cheating on his/her spouse in real life, do you by extension, think that everything written in a discussion of his or her work has to revolve around adultry? Or can we separate their personal lives with that of the lives of superheroes? Don't answer that, MechregSurn. That's call a rhetorical question. Let's talk about Battletech fiction here and leave the real world out of it. Stay objective. Enjoy the debate.

Edited by Catalina Steiner, 29 May 2015 - 12:10 PM.

[Peiper]

Nightmare1, on 29 May 2015 - 11:18 AM, said:

That's because the moderator has a personal interest in the thread, lol.

Not really. She's simply trying to keep the thread on topic, which is debating character roles and writing in a fictional universe. If a thread is about one thing, and a person responds to both what the thread is about AND is concerned with the personal problems of the original poster AND is concerned about moderator bias, then the post will be killed. If you can't separate the issues and speak objectively about the subject of the thread, then expect someone to zap the posts that are derailing the thread. Hell, if this post gets zapped because I'm not talking about the subject of the thread, I'm okay with that. Why? Because now I'm personally defending the moderator and the original poster, and not talking at all about the subject. I just have a beef with people who troll for reactions, or troll to destroy threads. As Catalina Steiner said above: if you don't want to talk about the subject of the thread (might I throw in an 'objectively talk about' in there) then find another thread. YOU don't have to be part of this debate. That you can't seem to help yourself suggests something deeper going on.

The moderators aren't defending the original post. They are not defending any point of view expressed about or against the original post. The moderators are defending US, those who have invested in the thread and are interested in the debate brought up by the original post. Not the original POSTER, the original POST. That's it. If you can't play nice or debate rationally and objectively about the post, then go away. Hell, you're welcome if you debate subjectively, too, as long as it's about the POST, and not about attacking the PEOPLE behind the posts. I think a ban is enough punishment for the original poster. She's gonna remember this forever, and to put salt in her wounds is cruel. To extend those negative feelings to the moderators suggests that you're more concerned with punishing or putting people down than debating the topic. I'm not just speaking to you, Nightmare1. I'm speaking to everyone who's been trying to damage this thread with their own personal agendas.

And for those of you who argue that the moderator is taking sides because she's female: well how sexist is that? Go back to your basement, make some hot pockets, and stay out of adult conversations.

Edited by Peiper, 29 May 2015 - 11:42 AM.

[Judah Kardaan]

Jez Howell

Judith Faber

Ranna Kerensky

Diana Pryde

Marthe Pryde

Wasn't there also a Falcon in the JF rememberance who gets a few lines?

There are some more in there, but I can't remember their names because I read the books a while ago.

Edited by Judah Kardaan, 29 May 2015 - 11:55 AM.

[Mazzyplz]

ok so it won't go away, fine - the truth will stand on it's own merits.
this whole thing is a disgusting and misguided sense of entitlement;
take this for example - these are the battletech novels


http://en.wikipedia....ttleTech_novels

look at the authors and tell me how many of them are female? around 0?
(loren l. coleman is male btw) (edit: only ardath mayhar is female among the writers of the novels, and her main character is MALE... ardan sortek)

so what if they want to write male characters? what's wrong with that? absolutely nothing wrong. ZERO. it's their creative right to write whatever they feel like writing as long as it's not offensive. maybe they didn't know how to write a realistic female character in a main role, maybe they just didn't want to!!!! and that's perfectly fine. it's not misogyny, it's perfectly fine if they just have no interest in writin a female character, are you going to force them to meet your diversity quota? what is this a dictatorship?

are we going to bully the creator of strawberry shortcake into putting more male characters in her fictional world by calling her sexist? https://s-media-cach...255f6006d64.jpg
that's the same kind of fallacious thinking that we got going on in this thread

maybe she was creating strawberry shortcake for females, is that wrong? NO. that's totally fine.
even if 15 years later it suddenly gains a 50% male audience composed of bronies, that doesn't give them the right to accuse the author of anything or try to bully the intellectual property holder into making it more varied, or picking it apart as some sort of sexist manifesto. only someone with very little gray matter or who is actually 'trolling' would do such a thing.


so what you're essentially saying here in this thread - is that you want these authors to write what you want them to write.
even though you personally do not possess any creative writing skills, and also even though you are new to the franchise you nevertheless feel the entitlement to demand they write things your way -

if more females are coming to battletech that's something that will happen naturally, not because you act offended - my own personal belief is nobody should care at all if you're offended at something, especially this.
it's just freedom of speech you want to censor/silence or outright change



i am ENTITLED for your fiction and creative works to pander to MEEEE, not you or what you want to write.
they should appeal to MEEEEEEEEE, MEEEEE, MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE WAAAAAAAH

Edited by Mazzyplz, 29 May 2015 - 07:32 PM.

[Nightmare1]

Mazzyplz, on 29 May 2015 - 05:40 PM, said:

ok so it won't go away, fine - the truth will stand on it's own merits.
this whole thing is a disgusting and misguided sense of entitlement;
take this for example - these are the battletech novels


http://en.wikipedia....ttleTech_novels

look at the authors and tell me how many of them are female? around 0?
(loren l. coleman is male btw)

so what if they want to write male characters? what's wrong with that? absolutely nothing wrong. ZERO. it's their creative right to write whatever they feel like writing as long as it's not offensive. maybe they didn't know how to write a realistic female character in a main role, maybe they just didn't want to!!!! and that's perfectly fine. it's not misogyny, it's perfectly fine if they just have no interest in writin a female character, are you going to force them to meet your diversity quota? what is this a dictatorship?

are we going to bully the creator of strawberry shortcake into putting more male characters in her fictional world by calling her sexist? https://s-media-cach...255f6006d64.jpg
that's the same kind of fallacious thinking that we got going on in this thread

maybe she was creating strawberry shortcake for females, is that wrong? NO. that's totally fine.
even if 15 years later it suddenly gains a 50% male audience composed of bronies, that doesn't give them the right to accuse the author of anything or try to bully the intellectual property holder into making it more varied, or picking it apart as some sort of sexist manifesto. only someone with very little gray matter or who is actually 'trolling' would do such a thing.


so what you're essentially saying here in this thread - is that you want these authors to write what you want them to write.
even though you personally do not possess any creative writing skills, and also even though you are new to the franchise you nevertheless feel the entitlement to demand they write things your way -

if more females are coming to battletech that's something that will happen naturally, not because you act offended - my own personal belief is nobody should care at all if you're offended at something, especially this.
it's just freedom of speech you want to censor/silence or outright change

Could have been a bit more diplomatic, but I still feel it's a fairly accurate portrait.

There's a lot of female characters in the BT Universe; I really don't see a diversity problem.

[jlawsl]

You represent your mechwarrior in the BT universe, so it is up to your discretion whether that identity is for some reason, of your own, female or male. It isn't up to anyone who creates a work to equalize anything because it is their idea, their time and their project. I don't get the point of diversifying something that doesn't need it. If 50% of the players were female, then that is what 50% of the characters in our own BT universes would probably be. If it is not, and there is a majority of one gender, there is no need to shove stuff in for PC sake. Its like saying a Victoria's Secret should have 50% male oriented underwear or models simply because they may have a minority of male customers. Doesn't make sense. I have read a good amount of BT fluff, and there are plenty of women represented. It doesn't need to be forced to some great extent based on hurt feelings or political correctness. We are our own pilots, that should count as enough.

And, I am pretty late on this one, but if anyone says that the only female characters are objectified, how many "unmanly, unbuff" male characters are running around? None. Its as much of an objectification. So, that isn't really and excuse. Genders aren't the same and target audiences aren't either. Its why there are tons of topless male scenes in the Twilight series, but none depicting females. That story was written around the premise that females would be the target audience, so there are plenty of buff dudes show off their AAAABBBS. There are some sketchy works of art from decades ago that depict female mechwarriors in some skimpy clothes, but even in the card game, these depictions generally disappear, even though the target audience is male.

[S3dition]

Now for the part of battletech you don't get to see. Be prepared to see women included only for the sexual gratitude of men and never in any important/combat roles:














And before the comments on the speedo - that's BT lore. The men wear them too:

[jlawsl]

S3dition, on 29 May 2015 - 08:19 PM, said:

Now for the part of battletech you don't get to see. Be prepared to see women included only for the sexual gratitude of men and never in any important/combat roles:














And before the comments on the speedo - that's BT lore. The men wear them too:

Spot on there. That's a lot of the art I was talking about. If anyone has anything else then the Katrina pic as proof of objectification, in greater quantities, I think that is solid evidence. Especially the "guys in speedos" thing.

[SnagaDance]

Mazzyplz, on 29 May 2015 - 05:40 PM, said:

are we going to bully the creator of strawberry shortcake into putting more male characters in her fictional world by calling her sexist? https://s-media-cach...255f6006d64.jpg
that's the same kind of fallacious thinking that we got going on in this thread

maybe she was creating strawberry shortcake for females, is that wrong? NO. that's totally fine.
even if 15 years later it suddenly gains a 50% male audience composed of bronies, that doesn't give them the right to accuse the author of anything or try to bully the intellectual property holder into making it more varied, or picking it apart as some sort of sexist manifesto. only someone with very little gray matter or who is actually 'trolling' would do such a thing.


so what you're essentially saying here in this thread - is that you want these authors to write what you want them to write.
even though you personally do not possess any creative writing skills, and also even though you are new to the franchise you nevertheless feel the entitlement to demand they write things your way -

A point I can't help but notice is that almost every person who opposes the point of view laid out in the OP, is saying that the OP (or any of the follow-up posts by that person) is demanding the inclusion of more female characters, in more central roles.

That is something that is never stated. In the OP a personal desire is expressed to see a deeper female representation in BattleTech fiction. How that would appeal more to her as a woman and how it might appeal more to possible future female BattleTech fans (or possibly enable the growth). In it and subsequent posts there is talk about how BattleTech is a product of the 80's (come on people, that hair!!), and its obvious targeting of boys as a target audience because, you know, big robots and combats means girls can't like it. Which today is saying something like girls do not play video games and if they do its only the cute ones and never a shooter of some kind.

But NEVER is a demand stated that future BattleTech novels/publications should feature more attention to female characters. There is no bullying to have that happen. There is no call made for retconning existing publications. And there are no authors attacked for their lack of female characters with significant roles.

A personal desire is stated, YES, but nowhere is there a call for some kind of crusade against the BattleTech franchise. It's really more of a "You know what I'd like to see more of.....?" statement, and others chiming in on it, or disagreeing. Personally I like reading stories about well developed female characters as much as I enjoy reading stories about well developed male characters. It doesn't make me feel any less masculine in doing so. I just want the writing to be of a sufficient quality.

I know SJW threads have been a hot thing around the internet for the past ~6 months or something but that doesn't mean that any thread on any discussion board that talks about female representation is automatically a SJW thread.

God knows I hate those Anita Sarkeesian-esque (sp?) like threads as much as about any sane person does. They just go to show that anything where you put the word 'radical' in front of, is never a good thing. Radical feminists, radical muslims, radical christians, radical sports fans, radical grey alien lovers....... it's never a good thing. And we should keep in mind that those kind of people always tend to form a minority of any population, even though they attract a majority of the news attention.

And keeping that in mind I don't believe this thread, in its origin, or intent, or discussion, has ever been a SJW thread.

But, with the glut of those kinds of threads around the internet, I think some people have almost automatically shifted into 'hyper defense mode', as they perceived the threat of an actual SJW thread to their beloved franchise. And because of this have read more nefarious and ulterior motives into opinions that have been stated.

I'm just seeing an interesting discussion about female characters in BattleTech fiction here, and nothing more.

Quote

Ha, had to leave that pic here! Great example of the way BattleTech characters are portrayed. Look at that speedo, man! Nowadays that would totally be more like a pair of tight shorts, that guy is way behind the fashion. Let's go tell him the 80's want their underwear back.

[Mazzyplz]

it seems it is making demands when you point out female characters in battletech that are legitimate warriors or politicians and the OP dismisses them because they are not the lead character in a novel.

that screams "write the novel the way i want to read it in the future" - it is heavily implied, when OP goes around saying yea yea but those aren't the lead in a story. does that mean the universe of battletech does not have gender equality? to the contrary, that's a knock on the authors for not including gender equality in their stories. why should they anyway if that's not what they want to do? so everyone can be happy? we can give the winners and losers a medal as well if we're being so politically correct

i know they are not asking for a retcon, that would be out of the question anyways;

but at the end of the day even if we assume just for the sake of argument that females are underrepresented in battletech lore (even when they are not) then what's wrong with that? like i said - why would i go to a jem and the holograms or whatever 80s property that was originally for females (even though jem and the holograms has a huge male following) and say you know what i'd like to see? more males in jem and the holograms.
NO.

it doesn't matter what i'd like to see, people might want all sorts of things, for some maybe the idea of the smurfs appearing in warhammer 40k is appealing, who cares? it's what the author does with the universe they create what matters, myself - i am working in an intellectual property of my own; even if i wanted to make it about a ship at sea with no females, why should i have to be subjected to someone who feels entitled to criticize my work with stuff they'd like to see just because they happen to read it?

did people go to steve ditko when he created spiderman and said hey i love spiderman, but you know what i'd like to see in it? politics!!!
who cares what you'd like to see in it? it's up to ditko and whatever he feels should go in his universe, not up to you because you read it and that somehow gives you the right to tell the authors what the fictional work needs - jesus. that's what fanfic sites are for, go and file it next to all of those E. L. James wannabes, or make your own fictional universe. let the people who envisioned the universe have their creative freedom

[SnagaDance]

Mazzyplz, on 01 June 2015 - 01:10 AM, said:

it seems it is making demands when you point out female characters in battletech that are legitimate warriors or politicians and the OP dismisses them because they are not the lead character in a novel.

It's not dismissing them. It's actually central to the point. The expression of a personal wish to see some female characters have a lead role. It was never about there not being any women in the BattleTech universe, they are very well represented and in all strata of society, but it is about one of them getting the full 'feature film' treatment. In other words, a lead character whose motivations, ideas and circumstances are central to the plot, so you can enjoy them to their fullest.

Mazzyplz, on 01 June 2015 - 01:10 AM, said:

but at the end of the day even if we assume just for the sake of argument that females are underrepresented in battletech lore (even when they are not) then what's wrong with that? like i said - why would i go to a jem and the holograms or whatever 80s property that was originally for females (even though jem and the holograms has a huge male following) and say you know what i'd like to see? more males in jem and the holograms.

Because franchises evolve and adapt to the times. With BattleTech it can be clearly seen in the way fashion evolved in the source material. And a bit more surreptiously in the abscence of titilating female depections. It's no longer needed to sell the product. Also, the internet supplies enough of that. When franchises evolve it can help keep players in and entice new fans to join. And of course it can have people turn away from it because it no longer fits their view (looking at you Star Wars) and they yearn for an earlier version. But change isn't bad. Star Trek did away with the TOS mini skirts for the female personel, and I thought it was for the better. But I like my women strong and confident. And that, like all we're discussing here, is personal opinion.

Mazzyplz, on 01 June 2015 - 01:10 AM, said:

i am working in an intellectual property of my own; even if i wanted to make it about a ship at sea with no females, why should i have to be subjected to someone who feels entitled to criticize my work with stuff they'd like to see just because they happen to read it?

It's called personal opinion and freedom of speech. And it's up to the holders of an IP to see what they do with it. But unless it's expressed an IP holder can be completely unaware of the sentiment existing in the first place. And to hook in with your ship at sea example; maybe you make such a gripping setting that people would actually want to see a female lead. Now, unlike the BattleTech universe your ship setting clearly leaves no equal opportunities for such a role on the ship itself, unless you'd go for the cabin boy/girl or captain's mistress tropes, which IMO would be horrible.
So what if someone suggested to flesh out the tough brothel madam, who with her intricate web of information and spies is actually the big crime boss of the port and the power behind a lot of events, why would that be a bad suggestion? People Always point to interesting side characters within any franchise and point out their hope how they would love to see it fleshed out. Doesn't mean it will happen. But IMO it would be wrong to state it SHOULDN'T happen from the start.

Mazzyplz, on 01 June 2015 - 01:10 AM, said:

did people go to steve ditko when he created spiderman and said hey i love spiderman, but you know what i'd like to see in it? politics!!!
who cares what you'd like to see in it? it's up to ditko and whatever he feels should go in his universe, not up to you because you read it and that somehow gives you the right to tell the authors what the fictional work needs - jesus. that's what fanfic sites are for, go and file it next to all of those E. L. James wannabes, or make your own fictional universe. let the people who envisioned the universe have their creative freedom

I find it rather interesting that you point out a superhero example. With all the franchise reboots (often multiple for the longer running big ones), fleshing out of side characters and the changing way in which female characters are handled throughout the years this is actually an excellent example of the franchise changes I'm talking about.

And no, I'm not talking about 'making it about politics'. There are some basic things that make up a franchise that cannot be taken away or altered without effectively turning it into something else. Startrek/Star Wars should be mostly about space for instance and BattleTech revolves around a universe of stompy mechs. But taking something a franchise already has, (in BattleTech's case independent, strong and empowered female characters) and further fleshing them out, can IMO only add to a franchise, and never detract from it.

[Nebfer]

Sigh... IIRC From what I can tell what the OP was really going after was better writing of woman, which is the fault of the writers not the universes treatment.
As if you look at who is in charge, you will find plenty of Woman, Military wise you will find Woman as Infantrymen, mechwarriors, tankers, fighter pilots, battlearmor troopers as Spec ops personnel, and even as Regimental and Brigade commanders. Heck the Head of the AFFSs Rabid Foxes (Spec forces) in 3055 was a Woman (Stephanie Day). You will also find them as heads of state and other such government positions. So in the B-tech universe Woman can be in just about any position one wants. Some factions being better than others, but thats true of real life.
As for portrayals well that's an issue of the writers being lackluster at writing woman.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

The trouble is ... when the most women are not forced by external influences, to behave differently, they behave exactly as the evolutionary Sterotyp programs

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Ok, I'm not sure if this was mentioned because the thread got a wee bit hijacked and I decided to just skip the rest but the battletech novels aren't us the reader watching events unfold. Instead the battletech novels, the stories in the scenarios, and all the rest of the fluff are a collection of reports, retellings, propaganda, and historical reconstructions.

Victor Davion is a pure hero not because he was, but because it's Davion propaganda. This is why Katrina Steiner-Davion is portrayed without redeeming qualities as well.

A lot of the task force serpent and bulldog related books are Comstar reports. Reports that emphasize the roles of whoever Comstar wants to gain a bit more power for their long (genocidal) game.

The cartoon? Literally propaganda.

As with all retellings of events they are colored by those doing the retelling.

This is why the Kurita focused books really ham up the Bushido ideals and downplay the roles of mercenaries when reality was most likely a bit different.

The clan focused books glorify a warrior's exploits because it's part of the remembrance.

The books focused on individuals often appear larger than life and are most likely told either by the main character or by their children.

One could say that simplifying the women in battletech either to effectively gender neutral (it doesn't matter, she got the job done) warriors, female baddasses (Cassie Suthorn), or a collection of obviously stereotypical negative traits could be said to be a reflection of the biases in the world of Battletech as much as a reflection of the difficulty most male authors have in writing complex female characters (often writing them as men but with like **** or as paragons of female literary tropes rather than as people).

Well that's my $0.02.

[Koshirou]

Narcissistic Martyr, on 12 July 2015 - 01:19 AM, said:

Ok, I'm not sure if this was mentioned because the thread got a wee bit hijacked and I decided to just skip the rest but the battletech novels aren't us the reader watching events unfold. Instead the battletech novels, the stories in the scenarios, and all the rest of the fluff are a collection of reports, retellings, propaganda, and historical reconstructions.

They are not really written like that, however.

I believe the OP was mostly concerned with the "old" BattleTech novels, most notably by Stackpole, which defined the 3025-3050 eras of the BTU. If you look at these works, the point that female characters are badly represented holds up quite well, IMO. The Stackpole novels are mostly small chapters of dialogue between two characters, sometimes with more characters who usually have a more minor role.
Just a fun game: Count how many of these dialogue pieces concern two female characters talking to each other. (And if you want to complete the test "... about something other than a man.")

But then again, I can't get too worked up about the gender inequality in these novels. It's not because of the "The IP holders can do what they want!" or "It's just fiction!" fallacies. It's because the writing was terribad in just about every single other aspect as well, and I now cringe at the thought that I used to enjoy reading these books anyway.

[MechWarrior3671771]

I think the premise is wrong - why is it "gender inequality" because a writer chooses to spend more time developing male characters instead of female ones? By that standard, the OP's own fan fiction is guilty of "gender inequality".

[Koshirou]

Fenrisulvyn, on 12 July 2015 - 06:10 AM, said:

I think the premise is wrong - why is it "gender inequality" because a writer chooses to spend more time developing male characters instead of female ones?

Because one gender is given considerably more time and attention than the other? That's what "inequality" means. If you want to say that is okay, go ahead. But don't go claim it's not inequality. Because it is.