Poll: Are there any other females out there that play BGII??

[Debbie]

Originally posted by GrimReaper:
<STRONG>I believe that the reason women do not play video games is because of the general roles in society about attitude. In other words, girls are supposed to be the sensitive type, and guys are supposed to act like they don't care about anything. Using this, you can see why girls play less video games than guys. Most video games are based around killing, and killing requires a desensitized attitude to watch or do in this case. I guess that girls almost subconsciously assume that killing things is not something they should do in any form and therefore try to stay away from anything involving that. For example, I know a few girls that play a small amount of video games. I know a couple that own console systems. The thing all of them have in common is the type of games they prefer to play. Most play racing or puzzle games because these involve no killing. Actually, I think there would be a lot of girls playing puzzle games, because those require serious thought, more so than most other games. Girls generally prefer to use their minds to solve problems rather than getting their hands dirty. Anyways, I mean no offense to anyone with this, so please don't take it that way. These are just my thoughts on the subject, and I'd like some response also. Anyone agree/disagree?</STRONG>

Actually, I completely agree with GrimReaper, and so do many sociolinguists (can you tell I've taken a class on this?? ) Males, as well as females, are raised with certain expectations placed on them by society. However, it's also a well established fact that men and women are genetically different. If you look at the games that little boys play vs. the games little girls play, you can see that boys are generally more interested in competitive games (like sports, playing war, or whatever boys like to do for fun), while girls play games that are more based on cooperation (like barbies, playing house, etc.). I personally was raised as 'daddy's little girl,' and I was the substitute son since there are no boys in my family. So, I was sort of like the tomboy, I guess. I think that many of the girls that play RPG's are also kind of tom-boyish (like having lots of guy friends, liking sports, etc.). I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. What do you guys think??

[fable]

If you look at the games that little boys play vs. the games little girls play, you can see that boys are generally more interested in competitive games (like sports, playing war, or whatever boys like to do for fun), while girls play games that are more based on cooperation (like barbies, playing house, etc.)

I think it depends on the society, on the local sub-culture, and ultimately, on the family...and the individual.

I'm intensely competitive with myself, and very cooperative with others. I prefer "thinking" games, like RPGs and strategy titles. Hate television--mindless violence and poor writing. My wife enjoys violent films, 1-on-1 fist fight type films, however, and she's still less competitive than me.

I think the bottom line is that there's no way to figure out a complex question like this with a few very simple parameters.

[ 04-23-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

[Loredweller]

Well, just MO and observations
First, there are some expectations the society addresses to males and females, they have some impact. It's not a great secret the gamers for the most part are in age when opinions of one's referent groups are very important. So a girl should have a bit of independence in her thinking to start.
The second is the funds IMO, girls are more concerned with their appearance, and it costs something, doesn't it? More funds to dresses, less to computers and computer games.
The third is games themselves. The *are* more targeted on boys. I hardly expect a girl playing Diablo (never understand why it is advertised as rpg), not mentioning Doom etc. (although i know ones enjoying it, but it is rather exceptions). I have three boys and (the youngest) doughtier. All guys more or less have been enjoyed Diablo, while my apple of the eye tried and stayed indifferent. She enjoyed some Barbie related games in her nine, altogether, my boys never paid attention to. The womenfolk is the sanest half of mankind, after all Nevertheless, she likes BG very much. I guess the very possibility to create a hero of her own is half of the joy, altogether (She is 11, BTW, and having three brothers, the youngest of them 17, might have some influence, of course.) The games of BG style require more patience and attention, females in general are stronger in it. Pity, there is only one BG, and games of such sort are rare altogether. Though maybe it's for good, they take so much of time ...
Also, the games of sort of BG is rare, i'm aware there is a opinion in the industry that RPG is dying genre and less profitable as others. Hope the BG might prove the converse.
The last but not least regarding the youngest part of our society - girls grow and become adult (in their thinking and conception) earlier, and (see the first) they are more sensitive to public opinion. Well, and it is not assumed to be very serious and decent to be fond of computer games. Oh, business games in serious company for the lot of bucks - it's something different and very serious (in fact it is the same save but often more wearily). It might take some courage to full-grown one or pretending to be such to admit the fondness of computer games <vbg>
Hope i haven't got you tired if you are so far,
May your Protection from Evil never wear out,
L.

P.S. Dear Ladies, BTW, do you care to request more romances for most beautiful part of mankind in ToB? In BG II there is three for male character and only one, moreover poor, for female hero


Let's forget about tomorrow ...

[ 04-23-2001: Message edited by: Loredweller ]

[Rail]

Originally posted by Silmarie:
<STRONG><snip>Males, as well as females, are raised with certain expectations placed on them by society. However, it's also a well established fact that men and women are genetically different. If you look at the games that little boys play vs. the games little girls play, you can see that boys are generally more interested in competitive games (like sports, playing war, or whatever boys like to do for fun), while girls play games that are more based on cooperation (like barbies, playing house, etc.). <snip> </STRONG>

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>I think it depends on the society, on the local sub-culture, and ultimately, on the family...and the individual. <snip></STRONG>

I agree with fable, here. While males clearly are different genetically from females, I think genetics has far less to do with it than culture and background. In my family (I know, I'm being an amateur sociologist, here ) I have 3 sisters, all of which are interested in RPGs and video games. In our extended family, no others girls hold interest in such activities. We used to play PnP DnD together with a few friends, and were encouraged early on by our parents that such things were good and inspired healthy imagination. I believe it was this behavior, the early encouragement and reinforcement of seeing the older siblings participating in these games that overrid the culture of "video games are only for boys". It was surprising to us to find out most girls weren't interested in the same things we were. So, the moral of the story is... we were pretty naive kids!

Anyway, society in general fosters an attitude of "video games aren't for girls", both by gearing their games toward aggression and ambition, and by discouraging those traits in girls from an early age. I think it is sad. Deep down, we're not as different as it would seem, though nearly every society would have us believe otherwise. I'm not saying there's very little difference genetically in the behavior of boys and girls. I just feel society drives a wedge into those differences and magnifies them. We're often told, "You can't figure out women" or, "Who knows why a man thinks that way". We've heard these things so many times we've begun as a culture to accept them as truths.

[TheHellion]

I've asked this very question of a lot of girls I know, and they all answered pretty much the same: they've just never tried it out. Not being female myself, I cetainly can't answer for females in general, but the ones I've talked to about it would tell you that it has nothing to do with violence or competitiveness; it's simply that girls aren't encouraged to play them in the same way that guys are. Once they got a taste, though, every girl in my A+ class was deathmatching with the rest of us.

Human beings are odd animals. We're one of the very few in which the males are dominant (even if only in our heads ). Long ago, even we used to live in a matriarchal society. What happened?!

[fable]

Human beings are odd animals. We're one of the very few in which the males are dominant (even if only in our heads ). Long ago, even we used to live in a matriarchal society. What happened?!

Whoa--going off on a real tangent, there! This may belong down in the Speak Your Mind area...but I'll just throw in my 2 cents here, and see if the Flagg, Buck or Nightwing wants to move it:

There's no proof that human society was initially matriarchal. There are Great Mother statues that are extremely old, but there are also phallic statues of equal age. I'd hazard a guess that probably matriarchal, patriarchal, biarchal and all sorts of -lineal arrangements were common at a time when prehistoric societies were very small units without much outside contact.

Males being the dominant sex seems to have been in general a concept of herding/nomadic communities, while agrarians went the female-as-dominant route. But there were and remain exceptions: the Vikings, for instance, were agrarians and fishers who took time off from managing the land to trade or raid other communities, and who believed that males were and should be dominant. The pre-medieval Japanese were also a strongly agrarian society, who evolved a very masculine-oriented culture.

And then, there's my brother-in-law, with his Irish ancestry, and constant sneering at women. But let's not go there.

For what it's worth, my opinion is that if someone rates another person's worth on the basis of their sex, the rater deserves to be rated, in turn, on their lack of intelligence.

[dafreak]

My last girlfriend got really pissed off when I played video games. I tried to get her to get into playing video games but that did not work out too well. She told me that I should get a computer with a built in vagina so I wouldn't have to worry about any interruptions while gaming. Needless to say, she got the boot.

dafreak

[vbarash]

@fable: I can't claim to have as much knowledge in this subject as you see to have, but I would like to make a couple of comments:

1st, If agrarian societies were more geared towards matriarchy, then why is it that when these societies becme prevalent that they were generally patriarchies (for almost all over the globe, nomadic societies were either displaced by or turned into agrarian ones)?

2nd, in my humble opinion the earliest secondary sources we have of such ancient cultures,most notably legends and fairy tales, all progress from a matriarchal to a patriarchal nature. I am Russian, and have had decent enough exposure to the fairy tales of my country and their analysis to surmise that the earliest of these contain definite matriarchal elements (such as a female main character, portrayed by a warrior princess of awesome prowess), while later examples show patriarchal forces displaceing matriarchal ones (new male main characters, sometimes even negative portrayal of women that are deemed "too powerful"). The same applies to not only fairy tale, but to surviving rituals, etc. This phenomen is not limited to Russian culture: I am not as familiar with the traditions of other nations, but the example of Greek amazons (who, in fact, are sometimes portrayed negatively, leading one to think that their description is reactionary against an earlier element of women worship in the same culture) and the ancient matriarchal culture on Cyprus, as well as similar elements in Roman myhtology and rituals are possible indications that these cultures, too, underwent the same transition.

THAT WAS A RANT

[Bloodstalker]

well....maybe people just do what they like. I mean most girls I know don't play a lot of games...but I never took that to mean that most women don't. I just figured if you like it you do it regardless of sex. Who knows...maybe a lot of guys just wanna be like the movies...you know....see bad guy...kill bad guy...grunt and spit....see whole army....kill whole army(without reloading)...go home. Well, I'm a guy too so I'm gonna go kill something.... hehehe

[dafreak]

I just want to respond to vbarash by saying:
HUH?

dafreak

[Torotorotorotix]

Female BG gamer reporting-- uh, read BG veteran.

[Georgi]

Originally posted by Sojourner:
<STRONG>BGII is a thinking game. Girls are generally encouraged to not think at all. Pay attention to the advertisements on TV and in magazines. What is the overall message they send?</STRONG>

I think you'll probably find that a lot more women play "thinking games" like BGII than they play non-thought, run around and blow up everything in sight games, hmmm?
So, wouldn't that suggest that women are more interested in games which require a little brain power?

[Minerva]

It is not necessarily women don't play computer games... They may just not interested in the message boards.

[fable]

1st, If agrarian societies were more geared towards matriarchy, then why is it that when these societies becme prevalent that they were generally patriarchies (for almost all over the globe, nomadic societies were either displaced by or turned into agrarian ones)?

Just because a culture moves from nomadic to agrarian (or, sometimes, the reverse) doesn't mean their cosmology shifts. I think that's set very early on. The Dorians, for example, were patriarchal. Even after they took over Greece and settled down, that really didn't change. I'm not suggesting this for a hard and fast rule, but only as a general probability.

2nd, in my humble opinion the earliest secondary sources we have of such ancient cultures,most notably legends and fairy tales, all progress from a matriarchal to a patriarchal nature. I am Russian, and have had decent enough exposure to the fairy tales of my country and their analysis to surmise that the earliest of these contain definite matriarchal elements (such as a female main character, portrayed by a warrior princess of awesome prowess), while later examples show patriarchal forces displaceing matriarchal ones (new male main characters, sometimes even negative portrayal of women that are deemed "too powerful"). The same applies to not only fairy tale, but to surviving rituals, etc. This phenomen is not limited to Russian culture: I am not as familiar with the traditions of other nations, but the example of Greek amazons (who, in fact, are sometimes portrayed negatively, leading one to think that their description is reactionary against an earlier element of women worship in the same culture) and the ancient matriarchal culture on Cyprus, as well as similar elements in Roman myhtology and rituals are possible indications that these cultures, too, underwent the same transition.

It's a tough call. My own ancestry, by the way, is Ukrainian, from my grandparents, and we've probably read some of the same legends. Perhaps we're looking at some agrarian cultures, again, that were swamped by nomads, who imposed their own religious views on the defeated? In other cultures, the male/female elements are more balanced. Could we speculate that males become dominant because the need for a strong offense/defense grew as proto-societies grew in turn, and eventually located one another? I'm not suggesting men are more aggressive--they aren't--but that women must take out time due to pregnancy and childrearing; also, men tend to have more upper body strength.

This is not an easy issue to discuss. Information is scarce, and what's out there tends to be colored by the views of the people who report it.

[TheHellion]

Originally posted by fable:
Whoa--going off on a real tangent, there! This may belong down in the Speak Your Mind area...but I'll just throw in my 2 cents here, and see if the Flagg, Buck or Nightwing wants to move it:

There's no proof that human society was initially matriarchal. There are Great Mother statues that are extremely old, but there are also phallic statues of equal age. I'd hazard a guess that probably matriarchal, patriarchal, biarchal and all sorts of -lineal arrangements were common at a time when prehistoric societies were very small units without much outside contact.

Males being the dominant sex seems to have been in general a concept of herding/nomadic communities, while agrarians went the female-as-dominant route. But there were and remain exceptions: the Vikings, for instance, were agrarians and fishers who took time off from managing the land to trade or raid other communities, and who believed that males were and should be dominant. The pre-medieval Japanese were also a strongly agrarian society, who evolved a very masculine-oriented culture.

And then, there's my brother-in-law, with his Irish ancestry, and constant sneering at women. But let's not go there.

For what it's worth, my opinion is that if someone rates another person's worth on the basis of their sex, the rater deserves to be rated, in turn, on their lack of intelligence.

I'm afraid that, not surprisingly, you're quite beyond me, fable.

Although it was intended as merely an aside, I suppose I'll try to elaborate a bit. My knowledge on the subject is extremely limited; most of it comes from a single mythology class I took my junior year, and a few speeches given by Gloria Steinem.

Far be it from me to believe something I learned in school, but it's my understanding that there's an abundance of evidence that Minoan and Mycenaean Greece were matriarchal. At the time, there was no knowledge of pregnency or birth, or of the male's role in giving life. Women were a mystery for their ability to create offspring, and were worshipped for it. Women were the major political leaders, Goddesses were dominant, and men were simply workers and hunters. Granted, Greece is only one example, but it's the only one I recall.

I definitely remember certain faces, though, as my instructor gave her lecture about it. Some people are so easily read: "What?! She's telling me that a woman could actually do anything right? Ridiculous. If that's true, it's a good thing we guys came along to usurp that throne."

I guess I'm rather inclined to believe it, which would perhaps make my opinion slightly biased. But hey, whose isn't?

[vbarash]

Continuing on the tangent...

@fable: First of all, I greatly appreciate the discussion. It's extremely thought provoking, especially since I haven't really seen the point of view I hold (and presented in my post) challenged, and challenged so well that I am no longer so convinced of the standrad matriarchy-patriarchy transition. I agree with you on the example of the Dorians, but if one looks at the Mongols, who invaded mine (and your) land in around the 13th century, he or she will discover a different scenario. The Mongol culture came into existence around that time, so I think it's suitable to talk about the 13th century as a period of culture formation (althoug it's a fairly recent time from the anthropological point of view). Initially, the Mongols were a fierce nomadic tribe with clearly superior male figures. After their conquests had ceased, however, the culture underwent an almost complete turnaround. Now I may be wrong in saying that with their culture, their cosmology changed, but if one takes a look at the fierce, live-on-the-go, ruthless culture they were and the leisurely, almost lazy, opulently rich culture they became, isn't it possible that the cultural emphasis shifted to the more passive, reflexive female? Of course, by saying this, I'm implying that the mogols actually underwent a reverse transformation, but one may look at this phenomenon as at the waning, not the maturation, of a culture. Other examples, again, would have to include the Greeks (prominence brought emphasis on leisure, love - even between the prieviously warrior-like males, and such works of "feminism" as the Lisistrata of Aristophanes) and the Romans (pretty much the same effects, I can also add that wives generally became A LOT more prominent in the later Empire, even at the level of the emperor).

That's my two kopecks

[Sir Percy]

Yeah, Silmarie, I'm with you on that.

Having witnessed a bit of life, I have recently come to the conclusion that women, due to their biology and resulting social bias, are more interested in the mundane, the practical, the down-to-earth.

Also, they apparently have a biological explanation for their affinity with verbal communication and their lack of spatial sense. Again, though, these characteristics could be 'learned' to some extent.

Give most guys a map, and they can read it and derive enjoyment from that 'reading'. Most girls, on the other hand, find map-reading a terrible and often impossible chore. (I'm currently conducting an experiment in this regard with my 2-year-old daughter to see if I can teach her to enjoy map-reading - I gave up on her mother ever getting it!)

Anyway, these kinds of games, although often characterised as merely 'violent' could perhaps more accurately be described as games that require a strong spatial sense while suppressing one's verbal communications.

Most women simply don't want to spend inordinate amounts of time (like us guys do) doing something they don't enjoy (spatial/conceptual exercises) at the expense of something they *do* enjoy - like spending 2 hours on the 'phone with their sister every other day.

[C Elegans]

This subject surely belongs to the SYM forum by now, but here are my 2 kronas as well, and we'll se if Flagg of Buck moves the thread.

I very much agree with Rail, Fable and several others on the socioculture impact on the shaping of gender roles. Of course there are many biologial and genetic differences between males and females, but the question is: how much do these physiological differences contribute to our gender role specific behaviour?

If we look at the huge body of scientific literature in this area, the anwer is: not very much. Most of the genes we have found so far that differ between the sexes are coding for hormonal and anatomical differences. If we look at the human brain, the only consistent finding I know of is that women have less lateralisation in language function (in males language function is more localised to left hemishere, in women it's more equal in both hemisheres) and thicker corpus callosum (a cluster of nerves going between the hemisheres). Do these physiological features say anything about how the brain in functioning? Maybe to a very limited extent, but so far very little has been found although thousands of studies has been carried out to find such differences.

The conclusion of this huge body of scientific literture is as follows, (but please remember the differences are on gruop level, ie if you take 1000 men and 1000 women and compare the aritmethic mean, you'll se a statistically significant difference. Variabilty between individuals are much larger than between the sexes, and for instance, left handers and right handers differ more than men and women on group level! )

1. Males have somewhat better visuspatial ability.
2. Women have faster visual perception.
3. Women have faster and more accurate hand motorics.
4. Women score somewhat better aritmethic ability.
5. Women score higher on tests of verbal fluency.

(No evidence has been found for some popular believes spead by media, for instance that men have better simultaneous capacity or women have better language ability.)

Is this due to aquired social values or biology? It's very difficult to say, but one conclusion can safely be drawn: the differences are so small so they are of no importance in life. The values in the society and culture we live in, our family, school, peers, and our individual personality affect our choices and preferences probably 100-folds more.

Sorry for the long post...

[ 04-23-2001: Message edited by: C Elegans ]

[fable]

I agree with you on the example of the Dorians, but if one looks at the Mongols, who invaded mine (and your) land in around the 13th century, he or she will discover a different scenario. The Mongol culture came into existence around that time, so I think it's suitable to talk about the 13th century as a period of culture formation (althoug it's a fairly recent time from the anthropological point of view). Initially, the Mongols were a fierce nomadic tribe with clearly superior male figures. After their conquests had ceased, however, the culture underwent an almost complete turnaround. Now I may be wrong in saying that with their culture, their cosmology changed, but if one takes a look at the fierce, live-on-the-go, ruthless culture they were and the leisurely, almost lazy, opulently rich culture they became, isn't it possible that the cultural emphasis shifted to the more passive, reflexive female?

Vbarash, if you're enjoying this discussion, so am I; and since the moderators haven't seen fit to stop it, I'll gladly follow your lead. Bringing up the Mongols raises a very interesting cultural example. I did a little research on 'em a few years back, in preparation for a project.

Just my POV, but I think of the Mongul horde as extreme cultural chameleons. When Temujin was named Genghis Khan, and led his people rampaging across Western Asia and Europe, they were a lean, hard, nomadic people (as you state), almost impossible to defeat on an open plain where numbers and mobility were expertly handled by their leader.

A generation later, the empire was in a shambles. It wasn't because the Monguls were unsuccessful. It was because they were too successful. Genghis' sons took on different areas to rule, and in an effort to better identify with the respective peoples, their problems, goals, etc, turned themselves into literal representatives of the ruled. The Monguls in Persia became Persians; the Monguls in China, Chinese. As the Monguls had home became to complain, the various local groups appreciated better their "Mongul masters."

I don't see any masculine/feminine duality, here, but rather, a shift in cultural references. Kubilai Khan is a good example. He extended amnesties wherever possible to enemies of Mongul rule that accepted his sway instead of that of the old rulers, the Sung, who had moved south. He then reinstated many of the old advisors and officials, including the various prefectures and sub-prefectures whose immense, well-governed Chinese bureaucracy was a hallmark of that time.

I wonder if we shouldn't at some point define what we mean by "masculine" and "feminine" in this discussion, since they aren't the same as male and female. In many cultures, passive/dark/earth/wet/sensitive/emotional/creative are attributes associated with feminine, while active/light/fire/dry/logical/math are associated with masculine. But again, this isn't universal; and I recall reading that are still matriarchal cultures in southern India where the attributes would be reversed.

[C Elegans]

Oh, I forgot something - I play Diablo II, and I'm beating my husband at it. Problably due to my faster visual perception and hand motorics...