195 replies to this topic

[Faith McCarron]

Nightmare1, on 17 May 2015 - 09:47 AM, said:

I'm not sure which is funnier, the fact that this thread exists, or the fact that it actually made it to three pages.

Believe it or not, my intent in creating the thread was totally serious. Sorry if you don't see it as such.

Nightmare1, on 17 May 2015 - 09:47 AM, said:

I mean, seriously, BT Fiction isn't exactly the Landmark Series or a great classical work. It's discordant. It's written primarily by guys who wanted to put their imaginations on paper. They couldn't even be consistent with which weapons had what effects. Stackpole made everything explode. Coleman made the reactors melt and burn out of their chassis and fall to the ground. Long made Gauss Rifles something of a joke, but made PPCs into ultimate weapons of death (Think D.R.T). Complaining that the authors didn't imagine enough equality is really funny to me and demonstrates a willingness to ignore the more glaring problems that exist with the series. It also shows a lack of understanding of the male mind.

I'm not ignoring any of those other issues. You are free to discuss them on the forums here to your hearts content. Nor am I claiming that the totality of the Battletech canon constitutes some artistic masterpiece. But clearly it is a compelling fictional universe, or else we wouldn't all be here 30 years after it's creation. I'm just discussing issues that I have with how it's been treated over those 30 years in a particular area. If you find that laughable, don't participate. Simple solution.

And you're still missing the point. You think I'm treating "equality" like an endgame, something useful in and of itself. I'm not. Equality and diversity are good for the IP in that they make it a richer and more fulfilling environment, and include more people in it's enjoyment. How is that a bad thing?

[Nightmare1]

Marack Drock, on 17 May 2015 - 09:57 AM, said:

Once again a troll and once again, this IP was never targeted or stated to be targeted at any one gender. Robotech was marketed to boys and girls, same as Gundam, Dougram, Votoms, etc. BattleTech was the offspring of all of those and by that alone means it was for everyone. I have a copy of BattleTech the Third Edition and never once does it specify it is for boys or men alone or that that is its target audience. The reason for this was because, it was a series made by men for EVERYONE!

I am not trolling; I am serious. This really isn't that big of a deal unless you choose to make it into one. If the series had been written primarily by women, then we would see the exact opposite; too many female characters and not enough male ones. That's okay because the authors write about what they know. Males authors generally write more to male audiences and with more of a male intention. Females do the same but with respect to their own gender. That's not a bad thing nor is it anything to get upset over. All I'm saying, is that this thread is hyping a problem that really isn't a problem if you take a step back and look at the books from a big picture perspective. If you consider literature genres, trends, culture, and personal behavior, it also makes it less problematic to accept the BT novels as they are. Nowhere in the novels does it indicate that it is anti women. There are many strong female characters in the books. It just happens that the male leads are generally male because the authors are generally male. That's due largely to the fact that an author will write the lead while imagining him/herself as the hero/heroine. That's natural. Complaining about it illustrates a lack of understanding of the writing process and literature, as well as a lack of appreciation for the author's message, hard work, and intent.

Also, I'm not talking about the games here Marack; strictly the books. The games are meant for everyone. Having played the MW4 Series, MechCommander, and MWO, I'm really not seeing a bias against women here. There are strong female characters in all the stand alone games, and MWO doesn't discriminate either.

No idea what a Dougram or Votom is, so I can't speak to that. I only know of Robotech from a GameBoy game I used to play as a young kid. I do recall female characters in it though.

Faith McCarron, on 17 May 2015 - 09:57 AM, said:

Believe it or not, my intent in creating the thread was totally serious. Sorry if you don't see it as such.

I'm sure it was.

Faith McCarron, on 17 May 2015 - 09:57 AM, said:

I'm not ignoring any of those other issues. You are free to discuss them on the forums here to your hearts content. Nor am I claiming that the totality of the Battletech canon constitutes some artistic masterpiece. But clearly it is a compelling fictional universe, or else we wouldn't all be here 30 years after it's creation. I'm just discussing issues that I have with how it's been treated over those 30 years in a particular area. If you find that laughable, don't participate. Simple solution.

And you're still missing the point. You think I'm treating "equality" like an endgame, something useful in and of itself. I'm not. Equality and diversity are good for the IP in that they make it a richer and more fulfilling environment, and include more people in it's enjoyment. How is that a bad thing?

It's not, I'm just pointing out the reason why it appears that there is a lack of it to you. Personally speaking, I really don't see a lack of equality in the books. There are a lot of female characters in them. The only thing I can figure, is that you are upset over the lack of female leads, and are disappointed that females are generally only supporting characters rather than the actual hero himself. All I'm trying to do, as someone who is an author, is explain why it is like that. I'm also trying to show why this isn't a problem.

Frankly, considering the BT/MW Universe's incredible resilience to time and the large and diverse following it has, I would say that this actually proves that the "issue" you highlighted has not affected it significantly in any sort of detrimental fashion. If diversity, as you put it, were such a large factor in people's decision to participate in or follow the Universe, and if the diversity was as bad as you and others have made it out to be, then there would be a preciously small group of followers and the Universe would not have lasted thirty years.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Catra Lanis]

Females are not excluded from gaming, they exclude themselves by their own choice. A lot of women/girls don't do gaming simply because they are interested in other things. The same applies to men.

I read a very interesting essay about how men like team sports because it's essentially ritualized warfare but dressed up to be more palatable in our modern society. Games often do away with the dressing up and euphemisms and let one live out war in a safe environment but the underlying mechanisms are the same as in sport.

The competitive factor is something that men even as young boys enjoy to a higher degree which has been shown in studies.

There is also a good book, called "Why men fight" that is about MMA but once again the underlying biological mechanisms are the same.

As an anti feminist but staunch supporter of equal rights (and equal obligations) I feel that females are more than welcome to come play with the boys as long as they do it on a level playing field and don't come barging in demanding that the environment or the rules be altered and tailor made for them (which is what many radical feminist do, no I'm not accusng anyone in this thread to be a radical feminist). If our games are not interesting or good enough for you then don't play or go make your own games but leave ours alone.

Play or do not, it's that simple.

Edited by Catra Lanis, 17 May 2015 - 10:41 AM.

[Faith McCarron]

Quote

Nowhere in the novels does it indicate that it is anti women.

Nor do I accuse it of being anti women. Pointing out areas for improvement is different from just hating on the IP.

Quote

The only thing I can figure, is that you are upset over the lack of female leads, and are disappointed that females are generally only supporting characters rather than the actual hero himself. All I'm trying to do, as someone who is an author, is explain why it is like that.

I think disappointed is the better term as opposed to upset. And I understand perfectly the institutional biases and how they explain a preponderance of the characters being male, but understanding the reasons behind a problem and is different from excusing the problem.

Quote

I'm also trying to show why this isn't a problem.

Perhaps to you it isn't. But that doesn't mean that a problem doesn't exist, or that there is not an opportunity to make it better.

Quote

If diversity, as you put it, were such a large factor in people's decision to participate in or follow the Universe, and if the diversity was as bad as you and others have made it out to be, then there would be a preciously small group of followers and the Universe would not have lasted thirty years.

No, that's an illogical conclusion. The audience is the size that it is because there are a large portion of people, such as yourself, who don't factor diversity into their decision making process. That doesn't mean that there isn't an opportunity to be more inclusive. And there is a "preciously small" group of followers when you're talking about female fans of the game. I think it's a great universe to play around in, and I would like to see MORE women get involved in it. I'm only trying to be positive and inclusive here, not negative and accusatory.

[Faith McCarron]

Quote

Females are not excluded from gaming, they exclude themselves by their own choice.

That is a pretty broad statement, and honestly shows a lack of understanding of the situation. Yes, a lot of females choose to stay away from gaming, but the reason they make those choices is complex. Some of it has to do with societal norms funneling people of a certain gender in a certain direction. But you can't pretend that the universe and the community have nothing to do with it. I'm not faulting you for not considering another viewpoint, there is not really a reason that you should. But you also should, if you're being intellectually honest, try to think about the experience from other people's perspective.

I really think that one of the best experiments that could ever happen would be if there were a way to allow a male to partake in the experience of going to a gaming convention as a female. I literally think that if there was a way to do that, it would be the most eye opening, transformative experience you could imagine. It would flip your world on it's head.

Quote

As an anti feminist but staunch supporter of equal rights (and equal obligations) I feel that females are more than welcome to come play with the boys as long as they do it on a level playing field and don't come barging in demanding that the environment or the rules be altered and tailor made for them (which is what many radical feminist do, no I'm not accusng anyone in this thread to be a radical feminist).

Nobody is demanding that the core game experience somehow be changed. I'm pointing out ways to be more inclusive and make people feel more invested in the IP.

I'm curious though what "equal rights and equal obligations" means to you. Too often that is a euphemism for "conform to our standard". Not saying that's the case with you, just asking for clarification.

And yes, this topic is devolving into a more general discussion of inclusiveness in gaming, and i'm fine with that. I think it's a discussion that needs to be had more often.

[Catra Lanis]

Radical feminists have a lot of say in my country right now. The have pull with the media, politicians and in the universities. A report from a female feminist professor wanted to remove parts of the physics from the physics classes and replace it with subjective content because it was to masculine. A subject with stringent demands on proof was anti feminist and anti democratic.

Men are demonized and hounded in media every day here. If someone dares to speak up and say this isn't right he is labeled as an extreme right winger and woman hater. Politicians are scared to death of the feminists, I don't know how it's in your country but here a lot of the feminists are journalists and they use the exact same dirty methods that they accuse men of, only they never have to answer for it. Dissenters will be executed in media and their career is over if they voice another opinion.

As for equal rights. In order to have more women as firefighters the entrance demands on physical strength and stamina have been lowered. This despite reports of women having problems handling some situations. One of our minsters said that 50% women were important in order for the public to have confidence in the fire department. No ****. I can only speak for myself but my confidence is built upon their ability to carry me out of a burning building if need be. The demand should be decided based on the actual situations that a firefighter might encounter nothing else. A man that didn't fulfill the old requirements weren't accepted as a firefighter either so how was the old requirements unfair?

Our military will phase out the old assault rifles because they are to unwieldy for women with no thought about how range, ruggedness and accuracy might be affected. They will try to find extremely light and short replacements. The rifles didn't weigh X kilos to spite women, they were designed to fulfill certain requirements.

Jerry cans will have to be lighter and so on.

Another minister recently wanted to have 50/50 in boardrooms and companies that didn't respect that would be disbanded by the state (he had to backtrack). It's funny, it's never a problem when there are to few women as oil rig workers, miners etc.

The goverment funded a reserach project that should ivnestigate wheter a trumpet was male or female coded.

I could go on and on and on. Are you Swedish I could direct you to sites reporting enough madness to provide you with a lifetime of reading.

Edited by Catra Lanis, 17 May 2015 - 11:30 AM.

[Faith McCarron]

No, I am not Swedish.

I'm not advocating any kind of forced anything, any kind of perfect ratio, or anything along those lines. what I am saying is that by being aware of issues and problems, we can deal with them in a natural way, not a forced or artificial way. The VAST majority of issues that I have ever had in this area come from plain old ignorance. There isn't some deliberate effort to exclude females from gaming or the Battletech IP. Rather, the issues that keep females away often exist because people aren't aware of them. That simple step of awareness is the biggest positive step of all, and discussions like this are critical to that awareness.

[Catra Lanis]

Marack Drock, on 17 May 2015 - 11:48 AM, said:

Hey we had the same bloody problem in the 1910's -1970's in the USA. We are not new to the field. Yeah men are demonized but in case you haven't noticed for most of our lives in all of history we deserved it. When you consider that women were regularly sold as sex slaves, beaten like cattle, etc until the 1700's (and they still had no actual rights unless they were royalty). Women didn't get rights until recently and that is because of one singular reason: Men are pigs. We crave power, and as Conan the Barbarian puts it most accurately when asked what is best in life "To crush the enemy, to see their forces driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women" that was basically the slogan of every man of any form of power over any woman or slave until it was illegal to beat your wife in most of society.

I personally think men and women should not fight together in the military. Separate units would be better IMO. I will never deny them the opportunity to serve but look at it this way: Men instinctively will defend a woman no matter what. It is ingrained in our nature. Women are not as strong as men. Doesn't mean they can't serve. You make the point here that women are hindering the world because they want to do things men do. Well that is sexist. Yeah it is partially true that some things that shouldn't be changed are being changed. My opinion, let them serve. Let men keep their stuff, and make stuff for women. They may want to act like men but sooner or later they will realize that they can't always do what we can. We are naturally stronger. Women however 60% of the time have more brains than 5 men put together.

Also as my SISTER is a paramedic who is capable of with just the help of one other person lifting a 350 pound man out of a house, I can safely say: a trained woman will easily carry your sorry ass out of a burning building. My sister need be would sling you over her shoulders to do it if she had to. Any heavily trained woman could lift any average weight man alone, my sister (who has no weight lifting or weight training) is proof of that (she is also only about 5 foot 3 inches tall and she can lift my nearly 200 pound dad... who is 6 foot tall). Size is not a measure of strength. You meet my 6 foot tall half sister Ally and say that she will deck you like you are a twig.

I get where you are coming from completely. I do not riot for women's rights. I have never once campaigned for them. I am a supporter of EQUAL rights. I support women's rights to fight, serve, and defend for our country, same as in any other field. I think there should be a segregation between the two in these fields, Women should have Women outfitted units and stay together as women, same as men. Doesn't mean they can't serve though.

I am not a feminist because I don't want to force my opinion on anyone. Like Faith said, it needs to be approached naturally, and without bias.

No we don't deserve **** because of what happened x centuries or more ago. I am talking about the western world now today. Besides the society looked like it did because of a lot of factors and it might have been the only practical solution at the time, Furthermore male farmer Smith didn't have much more say than his wife when interacting with Count Croft. Feminsts take 1% of the 1% and use that as proof that they are disadvantaged. Look he is a powerful corporate fat cat, all men are privilegied! conveniently forgetting the homeless guy lying on the sidewalk that she avoids on her way to the mall and conveniently forgetting that there are a lot of rich and powerful women around too.

No women don't have better brains, they have different brains which doesn't mean worse either. However those differences might very well make them less suited for warfare. Now I'm talking about big samples and general stuff here not exceptions.

Not every woman can do what your sister can do. If they have problems as I mentioned handling the hooses how will they carry someone heavy when they are also weighed down by their oxygen tube and other equipment.

I don't doubt that there are women that can do it but the entrance demands should be:

You must be able to carry x kilograms, do this and do that under these conditions. In other words it's the profession itself that should set the bar not some arbitrarily set standard by social justice warriors. If you can do that fine, then you can apply for the job no matter who you are. That is real equality to me.

What is not equality is demanding that the bar be lowered so I can pass because I can't do it on my own.

Edited by Catra Lanis, 17 May 2015 - 12:17 PM.

[Catra Lanis]

I want to add that a female soldier here was angry at the guys for bulking up. If I have to drag them when they are wounded I can't it's irresponsible of them she said.

The police have also lowred the entrance demands on physical strength but here's the kicker. It is only lowered for females. The politicians said it's no problems with physically weak females as police becauase it takes brain too. I agree with that but how come physically weak men is a problem in the police force, don't they have brains? A woman can be a good police because she brings other stuff to the table they say but a skinny guy can't be a good policeman.

That is double standard pure and simple. It is also sexism.

Edited by Catra Lanis, 17 May 2015 - 12:24 PM.

[John Wolf]

Faith McCarron, on 14 May 2015 - 03:42 AM, said:

I came to Battletech in the early 2000's, discovered it at college amongst various games played by the gaming club, and for whatever reason, I just took to the IP. Keep in minfd by this time, the Clans were firmly established and all of that. After shooting lots of stompy robots in video games and tabletop, I started diving into the fiction and the roleplaying side, which to me, is the strength of the Battletech universe. But occasionally over the years I have come back to the question, where are the kick-ass hertoines in Battletech? I get that it's roots are in a robot shooter for teen boys in the 80's, but still, a lot has happened in the world and the Battletech universe since then. So I just wanted to throw the topic out there for discussion. Am I on target here, or am I just being a feminist boogeyman? Let me start by looking at some of the major female characters that we have had, and I'm going to take this in a roughly chronological order.

Lori Calmar Carlyle: Ugh. When I first started reading the novels, the Gray Death trilogy was recommended to me, and I started there. I absolutely hated Lori. First of all, not only was she bested by Grayson Carlyle, but she wasn't even beaten in combat, she got threatened with an inferno round, and went all girly, succumbing to her emotions and fears.

Katrina Steiner (The first one): She is sometimes pointed to as a great warrior Archon, but we don't really get to see this. What we see of her is in her later life when she is politician, and what do we have her doing? That's right, she gives her daughter away to Hanse Davion like some kind of prize to secure an alliance. Yes, Stackpole tries to soften it by making sure that Melissa agrees, but it is still an arranged marriage.

Melissa Steiner: The Warrior Trilogy follows her pretty thoroughly, and she is a pretty weak character. We see her go through the whole 'learn to be a leader' trial, but most of the time, she serves only as a weak-kneed teenager who swoons over how noble and honorable Hanse Davion is.


Candace and Romano Liao: These two were the archetypal fighting sisters. We see them portrayed as insanely jealous, backstabbing, and petty. And while they are both royalty, we see them getting their power from the men they attach themselves to. Romano fawns all over her father, and Candace's influence and power are shown as unfocused until the brilliant Justin Xiang comes into play.


Natasha Kerensky: This is the big one I always hear. "But what about Natasha Kerensky? She's the Black Widow, and black widows eat men!". In reality, Natasha is probably one of the worst offenders. She wasn't even thrown into the mix as a political leader or military figure so much as she was just thrown in as a sex symbol. Let's have a red-head run around in leather pants, what could be more stereotypical than that? It's often mentioned that she underwent cosmetic surgery, because, well, we can't have the black widow not looking hot, right? And if there is any doubt, I'll just say:



I mean, how do those things even stay on??? Anyone?


Katherine Steiner-Davion: She is probably (sadly) the closest thing we get to a powerful female figure, and she is evil to the bone. Not only that, but she is always portrayed as image conscious and vain, and her true power lies in manipulation and subterfuge. She kills her own mother, and she is the opposite of goody-two-shoes Victor.

Omi Kurita: Double ugh. First we start off with a shy, quiet, demure Asian woman. Then we have her become infatuated with the white knight Victor. Of course, the whole time she is subservient to her father, as the combine is an incredibly misogynistic society. And to Victor, she is just like some unattainable prize, a precious little flower to be plucked.


This is all just a starting point, a few of my own thoughts on the subject. I'm curious as to what the general consensus is on this issue. Discuss amongst yourselves.

Hello Faith,

Been a while since i've posted on a topic on the forums but this one came to my attention. While I agree on some points, like all things.. it was designed in a time when the male military image was a dominant one. This was not something that was ground breaking at the time, though for its time, it did have 'strong' female characters.

Now, I strongly disagree with your view on Lori. This one stood out for me, because it was the first novel I found and so the most memorable. You say that when threatened by an inferno rocket, she went 'girly'? This is a poorly formed opinion on your part, and one that I sadly think puts women in their own negative light.

Lori did not go girly, and give up. Lori basically had PTSD from being in a fire before (I believe), when faced with the idea of being cooked alive again, she gave up. If your greatest fear is staring you in the face, its not girly, or manly, to give up. The mind has limits, and she couldn't face the idea of dying that way. I feel her reaction was a strong one, to give up to someone who may kill you anyway.. just to not face that inferno rocket she couldn't escape.

Your opinion and view there feels very narrow and lacking in understanding. Perhaps you have a friend, or know someone who suffers from anxiety? Are they girly or less of a person for giving into anxiety attacks? For not crawling through 300m of a small tunnel they truly could get stuck in?

Anxiety, PTSD, or any other mental issue that causes your fear to completely overwhelm you is not easy for anyone to deal with.

Now while I understand that this is perhaps more of a discussion on women in the battletech genre, which I agree.. if these novels were made today would be lacking of progress and perhaps guilty of looking backwards.. but I am certain that if we got more novels, you would see some more fitting female characters, though still a focus on males.

That's my 2 cents on the matter, a great discussion topic though Faith. Drop me a line if you'd like to discuss it something.

John.

[Catra Lanis]

Marack Drock, on 17 May 2015 - 12:36 PM, said:

Obviously you haven't been around America where this literally is what is required. But that doesn't actually mean equality. I don't believe we should lower the bar, I think we should stop sitting around like you having a snobby attitude cause some feminists cause problems in your country (like they can do EVERYWHERE). Yeah there is always a double standard. NO MATTER WHERE THE HELL YOU GO THERE WILL BE DOUBLE STANDARDS BECAUSE OF GENDER, RELIGION, ETC. Always. so stop griping about it.

I am not going to debate double standards with someone who just used a double standard to prove his point. Any man in the same situation would say the same. Come back with logic.

So you are saying that it's fair that a male police aspirant has to benchpress 90 kg to be eligble but a woman only has to make 60 kg because some politician decided that if she can't bring brawn she can bring brains but the same politician says that the male who only can make 78 kg. can't bring brains and thus is not suitable to join the force?

[CyclonerM]

John Wolf, on 17 May 2015 - 12:38 PM, said:

Lori did not go girly, and give up. Lori basically had PTSD from being in a fire before (I believe), when faced with the idea of being cooked alive again, she gave up. If your greatest fear is staring you in the face, its not girly, or manly, to give up. The mind has limits, and she couldn't face the idea of dying that way. I feel her reaction was a strong one, to give up to someone who may kill you anyway.. just to not face that inferno rocket she couldn't escape.

Well said.

The Hound had the same thing in the Battle of the Blackwaters, if you know what i mean. Same fear of fire because of a past very negative experience.

For sure, if those novels were written today, they may have more and better written female characters. It may not be a surprise that the Dark Age has a few good and scary women..

I am really curious to see how George R.R. Martin would write a Battletech novel. He writes very good grey characteres and creates good female characters, too. For sure, more "good guys" would die , lol.

[Faith McCarron]

Marack and Catra, I'd like to TRY to keep it from exploding into a real world social climate kind of issue if at all possible, maybe can we try to reel it back into the battletech/gaming theater of operations?

John, I'm guilty of some hyperbole there, I admit. And it wasn't my intention to denigrate anyone who suffers from any type of anxiety disorder. But my broader point was that Lori was a very weak character, and I never liked her for that reason. I always got the "see, girls shouldn't be mechwarriors!" vibe from her character arc. Maybe I'm just reading it wrong or being influenced in some other way towards the negative with her, I don't know.

[Faith McCarron]

CyclonerM, on 17 May 2015 - 12:52 PM, said:

Well said.

The Hound had the same thing in the Battle of the Blackwaters, if you know what i mean. Same fear of fire because of a past very negative experience.

For sure, if those novels were written today, they may have more and better written female characters. It may not be a surprise that the Dark Age has a few good and scary women..

I am really curious to see how George R.R. Martin would write a Battletech novel. He writes very good grey characteres and creates good female characters, too. For sure, more "good guys" would die , lol.

I'm not as rock-solid versed in the Dark Age characters as I could be, so hopefully there are possibilities. Malvina Hazen just seems like a sociopath in the Myndo Waterly/Katherine Steiner-Davion vein to me, but I haven't read all that there is on her, I'm sure.

And I think we can all agree that it would be awesome to get some more novels in the Battletech universe, it's one of the things I miss most about the recent offerings in the Battletech line.

[CyclonerM]

Faith McCarron, on 17 May 2015 - 12:56 PM, said:

John, I'm guilty of some hyperbole there, I admit. And it wasn't my intention to denigrate anyone who suffers from any type of anxiety disorder. But my broader point was that Lori was a very weak character, and I never liked her for that reason. I always got the "see, girls shouldn't be mechwarriors!" vibe from her character arc. Maybe I'm just reading it wrong or being influenced in some other way towards the negative with her, I don't know.

I see what you mean, but to be honest i did not see her that way when i read that novel.

Faith McCarron, on 17 May 2015 - 01:01 PM, said:

I'm not as rock-solid versed in the Dark Age characters as I could be, so hopefully there are possibilities. Malvina Hazen just seems like a sociopath in the Myndo Waterly/Katherine Steiner-Davion vein to me, but I haven't read all that there is on her, I'm sure.

And I think we can all agree that it would be awesome to get some more novels in the Battletech universe, it's one of the things I miss most about the recent offerings in the Battletech line.

I tried to read a Dark Age book but i just stopped because, for some reason, i disliked the very way it was written. However, i managed to read a bit about non only Malvina Hazen, but also Tara Campbell and Anastasia Kerensky , both already mentioned by someone. They are the ones i was referring to Maybe someone who has actually managed to read a whole DA book can enlight us even more

Edited by CyclonerM, 17 May 2015 - 01:04 PM.

[Catra Lanis]

This will be my last entry. No a male would not complain about that, if you refer to the guys bulking up. When I did my service some guys went to the gym, some didn't but no one said you are getting to big and heavy and I won't be able to/will have difficulties to carry you in case of an emergency so please stop working out. Maybe she would be the one wounded and I bet anyone be they man or women would be glad that their comrade was big and strong enough to get them to safety.

[Nightmare1]

Catra Lanis, on 17 May 2015 - 10:38 AM, said:

Females are not excluded from gaming, they exclude themselves by their own choice. A lot of women/girls don't do gaming simply because they are interested in other things. The same applies to men.

I read a very interesting essay about how men like team sports because it's essentially ritualized warfare but dressed up to be more palatable in our modern society. Games often do away with the dressing up and euphemisms and let one live out war in a safe environment but the underlying mechanisms are the same as in sport.

The competitive factor is something that men even as young boys enjoy to a higher degree which has been shown in studies.

There is also a good book, called "Why men fight" that is about MMA but once again the underlying biological mechanisms are the same.

As an anti feminist but staunch supporter of equal rights (and equal obligations) I feel that females are more than welcome to come play with the boys as long as they do it on a level playing field and don't come barging in demanding that the environment or the rules be altered and tailor made for them (which is what many radical feminist do, no I'm not accusng anyone in this thread to be a radical feminist). If our games are not interesting or good enough for you then don't play or go make your own games but leave ours alone.

Play or do not, it's that simple.

Catra Lanis, on 17 May 2015 - 11:27 AM, said:

Radical feminists have a lot of say in my country right now. The have pull with the media, politicians and in the universities. A report from a female feminist professor wanted to remove parts of the physics from the physics classes and replace it with subjective content because it was to masculine. A subject with stringent demands on proof was anti feminist and anti democratic.

Men are demonized and hounded in media every day here. If someone dares to speak up and say this isn't right he is labeled as an extreme right winger and woman hater. Politicians are scared to death of the feminists, I don't know how it's in your country but here a lot of the feminists are journalists and they use the exact same dirty methods that they accuse men of, only they never have to answer for it. Dissenters will be executed in media and their career is over if they voice another opinion.

As for equal rights. In order to have more women as firefighters the entrance demands on physical strength and stamina have been lowered. This despite reports of women having problems handling some situations. One of our minsters said that 50% women were important in order for the public to have confidence in the fire department. No ****. I can only speak for myself but my confidence is built upon their ability to carry me out of a burning building if need be. The demand should be decided based on the actual situations that a firefighter might encounter nothing else. A man that didn't fulfill the old requirements weren't accepted as a firefighter either so how was the old requirements unfair?

Our military will phase out the old assault rifles because they are to unwieldy for women with no thought about how range, ruggedness and accuracy might be affected. They will try to find extremely light and short replacements. The rifles didn't weigh X kilos to spite women, they were designed to fulfill certain requirements.

Jerry cans will have to be lighter and so on.

Another minister recently wanted to have 50/50 in boardrooms and companies that didn't respect that would be disbanded by the state (he had to backtrack). It's funny, it's never a problem when there are to few women as oil rig workers, miners etc.

The goverment funded a reserach project that should ivnestigate wheter a trumpet was male or female coded.

I could go on and on and on. Are you Swedish I could direct you to sites reporting enough madness to provide you with a lifetime of reading.

There's two people who get what I'm driving at.

Frankly, inclusiveness is a joke. You have the NAACP, the Black Society for Engineers, the Women's Society for Engineers, the Hispanic Society, the Native American Society, Women's Sport Clubs, etc. Just pick any college and search the organizations there. The only thing you don't have is a Men's Society of something-or-other. So, when I see someone griefing about a series of fiction not being "inclusive" enough it rubs me the wrong way. If everyone can have their own clubs except for men, then hands of our literature, lol.

Seriously though, inclusiveness really is a joke in modern society.

[Nightmare1]

Marack Drock, on 17 May 2015 - 11:48 AM, said:

Hey we had the same bloody problem in the 1910's -1970's in the USA. We are not new to the field. Yeah men are demonized but in case you haven't noticed for most of our lives in all of history we deserved it. When you consider that women were regularly sold as sex slaves, beaten like cattle, etc until the 1700's (and they still had no actual rights unless they were royalty). Women didn't get rights until recently and that is because of one singular reason: Men are pigs. We crave power, and as Conan the Barbarian puts it most accurately when asked what is best in life "To crush the enemy, to see their forces driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women" that was basically the slogan of every man of any form of power over any woman or slave until it was illegal to beat your wife in most of society.

What's this "we" business? Have you been doing those things? I haven't, so I can say quite positively that I don't "deserve it."

The dead are gone and buried. Nobody here was alive or had relatives alive in the 1700s. Griefing over that and then using that time period to indict men in today's time period is stupid. "A mill does not turn or yesterday's water, nor does a ship sail on yesterday's wind."

Edit: This thread is heading for K-Town. I'm out.

Edited by Nightmare1, 17 May 2015 - 01:14 PM.

[Morang]

Faith McCarron, on 17 May 2015 - 12:56 PM, said:

Marack and Catra, I'd like to TRY to keep it from exploding into a real world social climate kind of issue if at all possible, maybe can we try to reel it back into the battletech/gaming theater of operations?

No you can't. Because Battletech franchise, its authors and its target audience abouth which you're speaking all reside in real world. So it's YOU who brought a real world political issues on this forum.

[Morang]

Marack Drock, on 17 May 2015 - 01:34 PM, said:

I don't see why we can't logically debate Women's rights in a fictional universe without it becoming real world. That is like saying we can debate Vlad Ward vs. Phelan Kell without it becoming real world. Exact same principle. Both set in a fictional setting with fictional governments, but the difference is that people take offense to this subject cause a bunch of us have our thumbs up our butts or as Nightmare1 said "rubs me the wrong way" despite being a perfectly viable conversation that doesn't require any angst or rubbing to discuss logically. You are being illogical. If we can discuss fictional politics, we can discuss fictional Women's rights in a fictional society. Again another case of a double standard.

Except that you and OP never discussed women's rights IN said fictional universe. You were discussing real-world works of fiction based on said universe and preferences of their real-world authors concerning male or female characters. Then presumed real-world target audience of the franchise and implied need to broaden it via inclusiveness were mentioned. So you are not being illogical, you just attempted a lie.

I'm out for a night but will be back most surely. Sly attempts to enforce the same mainstream agenda on all works of art and fiction should not be tolerated by those who really like the diversity of worlds and cultures or particular aspects of said diversity, not the subdued blend of superficial attributes inoculated with the same message to infect the broadest possible audience with it. Feminist stompy robots are afroamerican mutant witchers are paralympic spartan hoplites... no, I don't buy.

Edited by Morang, 17 May 2015 - 02:18 PM.