195 replies to this topic

[Emilio Lizardo]

I would agree that the majority of BT female characters are shallow, but so are the majority of BT characters. The only real exception that comes to mind from the canon fiction is Cassie Sutthorn, but that's primarily because she had three novels written about her. Victor Milan has his particular style, and it reads kind of like a space version of Walker Texas Ranger, but they weren't bad. That said, Cassie's two primary female confidantes (names escape me, Atlas and Shadowhawk pilots) were both caricatures. Rhonda Snord was OK, in my recollection, but I don't remember her having any books written about her. She was kind of a Black Widow-Lite, more of a new wave to her glam rock, and wasn't used as a sex symbol to the same extent.

But most male characters were also caricatures. They were just meat for mechs and heads of state to sign the orders. So many of them (Victor, Jaime, Grayson, Morgan, Theodore, Phelan...) were paragons. They epitomized warrior virtues and that is why they had more than two page of personal data created on them (and to be fair, more than a little character development). But the game, the way it played and even the RPG, was about mechs. Characters were just created to get better piloting and gunnery skills (and add a little flavor for the rest of us).

The tragedy of BT, to me, is that it has such rich potential and great written source material that was never truly realized in the stories. It could have had so much more depth. The story line was good, don't get me wrong, but it was largely a retelling of world wars and medieval conflicts. I used to picture FASA designers sitting in a living room, skimming through old historical atlases for ideas.

Huns? Mongols? Clans.

Vatican? Crusades? Comstar.

Ten years later: "So, fellas, what do we do next? The crusade [TF Serpent] stopped the invaders."

"Well... let's just start it all over again, but around 70 years in the future. We'll just ruin the story for everyone else because they don't really care what happens, anyway. We'll call it DARK AGE."

And then, in light of the terrorist attacks of 2001, they decide to call the Word of Blake attacks that brought about the dark age the "Jihad". I guess the historical atlas got old and they had to settle for the NY Times instead.

So, all that to say that, you're right, female characters were very poorly represented and had painfully little thought put into them, but then again so did the majority of the other writing. The details (sourcebooks like Objective Raids, Invading Clans, Jumpships and Dropships, etc) were fantastic. They were a very detail-oriented bunch and could flush out the BT universe in a delightful way, but perhaps not the most creative; the story is what was lacking.

[bad arcade kitty]

omg, feminists found mechwarrior... and found its world not 'gender equal' enough
i don't even know if it is funny or sad

[Faith McCarron]

Morang, you don't need a man's society for this or that because by default, that's what you already have. And I'm not advocating for anything exceptional, just accurate, dynamic inclusiveness.

Arcade kitty, I'm sorry if the phrase gender equality is threatening to you. Would you feel more comfortable if it were replaced with something else, like "gender inclusiveness", for example?

[bad arcade kitty]

>Arcade kitty, I'm sorry if the phrase gender equality is threatening to you.
>threatening

serious
'annoying' is a better word
modern feminism is a joke, and when they question 'gender equality' in a series like battletech with its male and female leaders, warriors, khans etc, but they still begin to count percentage of characters of each gender they only prove how much joke they are

btw, i usually hate to state it on a forum like this, i'm a girl too. it doesn't prevent me to dislike feminists

[Faith McCarron]

Who counted percentages or ratios or anything of the sort? I'm not in favor of any kind of quota. I'm in favor of adding diversity.

[Faith McCarron]

And feminism is only a joke if someone chooses to make it so. I'm being quite serious and sincere in my posts and trying to treat it in a reasonable way.

[0Carbon0]

SJW pls go.

Girls don't play with GI Joes.
Girls don't play MWO tabletop.

ergo

MWO lore isn't going to market to female players because they aren't the target market.

lrn2marketing. It's like saying men are under-represented in makeup commercials. totally different market.

[Nathan Foxbane]

Bit sad this thread has devolved so. It started out as an academic discussion of the portrayal of women in dated literature spawned by a game with a dynamic and interesting universe whose basic tenants concerning gender equality were not completely reflected in the lore establishing literature. The OP is well aware of the original target audience and was simply asking for opinions on her thoughts.

I am really disappointed in the response the question is receiving. Reading comprehension, gentlemen (and I use the term lightly), have you learned it?

0Carbon0, on 17 May 2015 - 09:24 PM, said:

Girls don't play with GI Joes.

"Action Figure" is a marketing term created to make dolls targeted for boys more appealing, and disassociate them with dolls made for girls. Why? Because most of the original target age group found girls to be "gross" and wanted nothing to do with anything which might be considered "for girls". There is a reason the phrase "They're called action figures" is always used with comedic irony.

0Carbon0, on 17 May 2015 - 09:24 PM, said:

Girls don't play MWO tabletop

An MWO tabletop game does not exist as it is an iteration of a video game series, which itself is derived from a table top game. Should CGL and Topps ever be so foolish as to make such, the rules for "MWO:The Tabletop" would probably be infinitely more convoluted than legacy or current CBT rules. The OP has stated she is a CBT player and I would not be the least bit surprised if she has played the MW RPG game as well.

I think DERP needs a new Community PR Officer unless they like coming off as immature or ignorant. Public relations do require a measure of tact.

Stereotypes are really the ultimate matter under discussion here and do not become any of us. Can we at least try not to live up to them?

Edited by Nathan Foxbane, 17 May 2015 - 10:21 PM.

[-Natural Selection-]

Nathan Foxbane, on 17 May 2015 - 10:19 PM, said:

I think DERP needs a new Community PR Officer unless they like coming off as immature or ignorant. Public relations do require a measure of tact.

lmao, and you think he was chosen because he is a people person? because dealing with inet people is a big deal..

[Sparks Murphey]

Nightmare1, on 17 May 2015 - 10:20 AM, said:

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.

Sigh. I'd considered you a nice person and friend up until this point, Nightmare. I guess I still generally do, but you've certainly tarnished that.

Nightmare1, on 17 May 2015 - 01:08 PM, said:

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

That... that was the same person you quoted twice.

---

Let's go back to the original proposition:

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?

None of that is saying that BT needs to be more serious, or that the men can't be men, or even that it has to be well-written. Just that the OP can't find any good kick-ass heroines in the BT fiction, and would like people to discuss where they are. Some people have responded to that, answering with their opinions on characters who are strong heroines (Joanna, Rhonda Snord, Arianna Winston, Sarah McEvedy, amongst others), or with their opinions on why strong heroines aren't represented.

Then there are a third group of people who seem to think that any of the above is somehow a requirement that men stop bench-pressing, that organisations be forced to legally be made up of a perfect gender split, that women will force their agenda on all of mankind, etc. To that third group of people: this is the only paragraph I'm wasting on you. But I'll put it in italics so you can feel special.

There was a discussion earlier about how the examples Faith mentioned earlier seemed mostly to focus on their flaws, and of course the female characters had flaws, otherwise they wouldn't be interesting characters. While I broadly agree with that proposition, it's the nature of those flaws that is the issue here. Namely, for the most part, the go-to flaws that BT authors have given their female characters fall into one of three categories:

• The character is innocent
  
• The character is focused on their image
  
• The character is manipulative and spiteful

That's not to say that female characters shouldn't be innocent of image-obsessed or manipulative or spiteful. It's that when that's the only thing we keep seeing, it's getting old.

Of course, the male characters don't really do much better with their flaws. Most are either anti-authoritarian, self-depreciating, or (yet again) manipulative and spiteful. Fairly stereotypical stuff that mimics a lot of the stereotypes from the '80s. I don't think it's being specifically sexist, just that that's what it wound up subtly being because it didn't try for deeper characters. They rarely reached for characters who were gullible, or suffering addictions, or impetuous, or any of hundreds other possible flaws.

I'll admit I haven't read any of the Dark Age stuff, but a lot of the fiction accompanying Catalyst's newer publications is much better at avoiding cliches and stereotypes. So there's hope for the future.

[Faith McCarron]

Carbon, I've played the tabletop game for close to 13 years. And no, I didn't grow up with it, I wasn't exposed to the Battletech universe until I was around 18. That doesn't mean I love the universe any less. I've played every MW title since the original with Gideon Braver. If you take the totality of FASAs sourcebook material, I own at least 90% of it. I've written God knows how many pages of my own fiction and RP material. I'm not hating on the ip, trust me. And females can play and enjoy it, in spite of people with attitudes like yours.

[Triordinant]

0Carbon0, on 17 May 2015 - 09:24 PM, said:

Girls don't play MWO tabletop.

Are you kidding me? I've played tabletop Mechwarrior with 4 of them in person. Where did you get such a stupid idea?

[Faith McCarron]

See, I also feel like a lot of the insensitivity comes only from ignorance (and I don't mean that in an insulting way). But just because you may not have considered something before, doesn't mean you shouldn't honestly consider it now.

[Catalina Steiner]

I have read most of this thread and to be honest, I don't get the point.
BattleTech has indeed very superficial characters, the stories are not a great moment of modern novel history.
But when I entered the BT universe, I wondered how much female characters are available here.
When I give names to my mechs, I try to choose famous female pilot names and I read Sarna a lot. And I can find more famous female pilots than men!

When this character, Catalina Steiner, was found, it was easy to find lots of informations about the numerous Steiner females, especially Katrina. Catalina Steiner is a female descendent and like all members from such a family she is surely used to assert her claimes by all available means. Nothing wrong with that... all people with power use their power. I don't think, this is a male or a female problem.

I'm really sure that BT was indeed written by a couple of nerds, for a couple of nerds. I'm really surprised that there are even females!

BattleTech is from the 1980s. Manowar is also a band from the '80s. I guess you can imagine now, what kind of luck we had with these female BT characters.






As a moderator, I strongly recommend to stay close on topic. We don't want any political discussion here and no insults. Some posts are already sailing close to the wind... don't continue with this kind of discussion. It's about BattleTech and their female characters... not feminism. There are lots of other places where you may discuss it. I'm also very sure, Facebook has a group for it. Join them.

Edited by Catalina Steiner, 18 May 2015 - 01:44 AM.

[Faith McCarron]

The point is to not just wring your hands in the air and say, oh well, it was the 80s. It's a rich and fulfilling universe, but there are facets that can be better filled out. I do my best to contribute to that goal in some small way.

[Faith McCarron]

Also Catalina, if all you are doing is comparing numbers and statistics, you are missing my point. It's not about weight of numbers but about having meaningful representation of female characters in a realistic way, and how that can help to create a more welcoming atmosphere for players of different backgrounds.

[Domoneky]

I found this little Gem

[Catalina Steiner]

Well, it was the 80s! But yes, let's try to contribute something better now. There are lots of female pilots here that love to give their characters a deep background and a lot more attributes. Roleplay in 2015 means something completely different than roleplaying in the 80ies. BT stories would be leftovers if they wouldn't have that big fanbase since so many years.

Let's do it differently. But as for me it doesn't help to part the community into "political correct ones" and the others. Maybe that was not your intention but it's the result of every discussion with this topic.

[Sparks Murphey]

Catalina Steiner, on 18 May 2015 - 02:08 AM, said:

Well, it was the 80s! But yes, let's try to contribute something better now. There are lots of female pilots here that love to give their characters a deep background and a lot more attributes. Roleplay in 2015 means something completely different than roleplaying in the 80ies. BT stories would be leftovers if they wouldn't have that big fanbase since so many years.

Let's do it differently. But as for me it doesn't help to part the community into "political correct ones" and the others. Maybe that was not your intention but it's the result of every discussion with this topic.

Catalina, I think you'll find Faith has generally been encouraging people to stay on topic. You've summed up her points nicely, though: the 80's were a bad time for the representation of female characters in BattleTech, and we're moving on from that. Some people have even found counterexamples to Faith's original suggestion, bringing forward constructive examples of heroines they like. It's others who have been attempting to hijack the thread with discussion outside BT, to whom Faith has generally replied courteously but which has the unfortunate appearance of making it look like they are engaging in intellectual argument. In future, I take it we can simply ignore these people and you'll be around to moderate them out of the conversation. Thank you.

[Catalina Steiner]

Absolutely, there were other attempts to derail the thread, I agree. But this whole discussion tends to lead in this direction, every time! We need to be careful not to leave the topic, all of us. It would have been easy to close this thread, there were reports and there are posts that already justify a closure of this thread but I don't think this is the right way.

Yes, be sure all political motivated statements will be removed. It doesn't belong here, it never has.

Edited by Catalina Steiner, 18 May 2015 - 03:08 AM.