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

[fable]

Heh. My wife's better at stuff like that than I am, too. But she's also the logic and mathhead in the family, while I'm the creative, brainstorming type. She's great a spatial perception; I'm good at color perception; etc.

[Shrylia]

Well, of course we are out here! How do you think the hard battles get won?! heh heh heh

[fable]

Hellion wrote:
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.

That's what I was taught, too. Problem is, the only evidence for this are the Mother Goddess figures that date from the Pre-Palace Period (roughly 2600-1900 BC). That's not much to go on. And our earliest records of rulers date from the First Palace Period (1900-1700 BC), showing kings in charge of four large palaces, at Knossos, Malia, Zakros, and Phaestos. The Mother Goddess theme remains constant, so we can agree that the Minoans were essentially Goddess-oriented (though the bull-leaping masculine theme is present, too, and they clearly had lesser masculine deities); but the rule appears in general to be masculine, and we don't have any evidence regarding sexual dynamics, or even clan hierarchy. They had at least two written languages. Only one has been translated--very dramatically, back in the 1950's--but it revealed only grain and irrigation reports and the like.

Understanding the Mycenaeans isn't much easier, I'm afraid. They essentially displaced Neolithic Greek residents, sometime around 2000 BC. They are considered a masculine culture, a seafaring warrior group. I've read that they destroyed the "peaceful, feminine-loving Minoans," but the evidence also shows that the Mycenaeans supported lots of completely independent colonies, while the Minoans had a strongly centralized grip on power--which can't be maintained by throwing flowers at cities who want home rule. And the destruction of Minoan civilization is now believed to have had a lot to do with the eruption of a major volcano on Crete, which disrupted all parts of the civilization which it didn't destroy, somewhere around 1500 BC.

One interesting point is that many modern scholars believe that Homer's Iliad actually glances back at late Mycenaean culture, in the manner of bardic literature, rather than dealing with contemporary matters. (By the time Homer was writing, Greek society was considerably more pastoral and had far less wealth than the remnants of sea-going Mycenaeans and Minoans display.)

Anyway, what the evidence on this issue seems to show is that the Minoans worshipped predominantly feminine gods, but to what extent they were integrated with masculine ones, and how they worshipped, is not known. Their royal family was largely masculine, and images from the period show men and women sharing a variety of tasks, but again, we don't know mcuh else about sexual roles in the culture. That's it.

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.

@Hellion, I've heard this from people like Z Budapest and the like, time and again, but I've never seen evidence for it, and I find it personally against logic and evidence. Consider: why do contemporary trade records (which are the oldest surviving documents in the Aegean region) show that around 2000 BC, people were trading bulls *to stud,* if they didn't realize at least that most basic, blatant fact about reproduction? I'm inclined to think, too, that if even one out of ten thousand people watched a b*tch go into heat, mate, and then produce a litter, the idea would eventually percolate through into the consciousness of most people at the time who (after all) built sophisticated dams/irrigation systems, astronomy towers, and extensive tax/trading systems that the male was required to impregnate the female.

I am *not* saying that ancient cultures weren't feminine oriented. I am suggesting that the evidence isn't conclusive one way or the other on most cultures, and that even if a given culture worshipped predominantly a Goddess form, it would not mean the culture itself was matriarchal, or even matrilinear.

[ 04-24-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

[vbarash]

@fable: I am ejoying this discussion. I can say it's by far the most intellectual argument I've had on this post, and I like itellectual arguments...

"back" to the tangent :
I take your point about the Mongols. I probably haven't done as much research as you on their culture, but I haven't heard of clear evidence, going one way or another, that there was a displacement of masculine figures with feminine ones.

I agree that we should stick to some definitions. I think that, if one tries to assess these concepts on a universal level, he or she will probably realize that there are too many varying definitions to make a single all-encompassing one possible. I derive my definition of masculinity (which, you are right, is different from the biological definition of male) from an interesting piece of physchological data I once came upon: "masculine" personalities tend to externalize their feelings, while "feminine" personalities internalize them. This is not strictly related to guys "bearing the pain" and "not showing weakness"; ironically, the latter two phrases are most frequently used when there is weakness to show, as a DETRIMENT against doing it(the normal response). For women, hiding their feelings seems to be the NORMAL RESPONSE.
Now, the questions is, how does one apply this very personal definition to a cultural level? In general, externalizing feelings leads to an open, active, even aggressive nature (sings of masculinity in European + American societies). Activity and aggressiveness can be interpreted as subconscious hostility to passivity and the passive contemplation associated with it. Hence masculine figures are more attracted to active, direct ways of thinking such as logical reasoning and analysis.
Feminine figures, on the other hand, by internalizing their feelings tend to be associated with more passive activities, symbols, and ways of thinking (i.e. synthetic, alogical reasoning)... WHEW

See if you like these definitions.

Finally, I just remembered that there was a (Russian) historian that wrote in the second half of our century, by the name of Lev Gumilev, who developed a unique (at least ot Russian history and sociology) theory: all cultures passed through a period of activity and passivity, "passionarism" and "apassionarism". Throughout history, active cultures have started out passive, then expanded, taken over passive cultures, settled down, become passive, and were taken over by yet new active cultures. Do you think this theory could parallel a gradual transition from matriarchy to patriarchy? Or (as I collect from your posts) do you think that a cultural change does not at all affect gender roles in society? After all, gender roles are (partly) socially defined... I would like to know what you think.

THX for the discussion (again), it's been great so far

[fable]

This is not strictly related to guys "bearing the pain" and "not showing weakness"; ironically, the latter two phrases are most frequently used when there is weakness to show, as a DETRIMENT against doing it(the normal response). For women, hiding their feelings seems to be the NORMAL RESPONSE.

This is an argument that was offered in several Renaissance Italian states, such as Mantua, Venice, and Florence. But in each of those cases, the women were strictly forbidden all regular schooling (with a few notable exceptions), and brought up to know only domestic chores. They were taught from the first to be submissive and docile.

The result? The women were passive and hid their feelings, not because it was natural for these to be hidden, but because they'd been schooled long and hard to avoid their display. I would suggest that the reticence you discuss is probably social in nature. I've honestly not noticed it in US culture, not even in sub-cultures that continue to practice forms of gender-based role-modeling like the Mormons or the Mennonites.

(As a side light, it's curious that in Renaissance Florence, the results of all this extreme female submissiveness and deliberately created ignorance was that young men came to regard the women around them as inferior animals, fit only for breeding. Homosexuality became rampant; and at one point, the Florentine gentocracy, fearing a dropping birthrate, actually voted monies for the erection of a state-run whorehouse, in an attempt to win the young rogue upperclass males "back to the truth." I can probably dig up a few more facts on this, if you'd like. It's thoroughly documented, and rather strange.)

Externalizing feelings is, if anything, more common, I'd suggest, among women than among men--at least, in the US; and even more so, in "macho" cultures. There's that "men don't cry" catchphrase, or "men don't express affection," or "men are always in control of themselves and the situation." I know that my father, who was born in 1920, grimaced when I said I loved him. He didn't like the sound of it. He expressed his love in other ways, but he couldn't say it. Other men, not so open, found no way to express that, at all; and it's still more than a bit of a problem in the US.

How is it in Russia? I suspect men show a great deal more emotion there than in the US. My Ukrainian maternal grandfather and granduncle never had a problem with crying or expressing great joy.

Perhaps we could agree that feminine is passive, and that masculine is active, without in any way associating these with men and women? It's a start. If we did, we could proceed from there.

[ 04-25-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

[vbarash]

@fable: I think you're misunderstanding my point. What I'm trying to say is that the stereotypes of men "not showing their feelings" may not be as accurate todya as they were, say, even a generation ago. Overall, throughout history, men externalize their feelings, often through violence: wars, murders, rape, even the school shootings of today are mostly committed by men (I think in the last two years there has been only one school shooting committed by a girl). Women, on the other hand, internalize their feelings: when something happens, they go into depression, get emotional, etc. As a result, women tend to engage in more passive activities, such as the arts, housework, etc.

Now about these stereotypes being socially formed. I agree that they are. Much of what I put in the last paragraph is some of the most cliche material you can find on men OR women in our society... but they are still the definitions of masculitinity and femininity that our society has come to accept. For the sake of continuing te discussion, I agree to stick with "active" and "passive"

In Russia, men are much less afraid to show their emotions, but I think it also varies from person to person. My father sometimes hugs me, but only on very momentous occasions (like if we were to part for several months); in other cases, he is strongly against showing emotion.

-Well, thats my two kopecks on this wildly tangetial topic

[Loredweller]

Well, if about sources of expected behavior regarding activity and passivity...
There are quite natural issues, IMHO, too. For one thing, historically and biologically female is more tended to settle down or to be bound to a place - due to self-evident reasons. There is some shift in the modern society, nonetheless it is true still.
Then, because a human always are and have been member of society, there are impact of economical factors. For example, in nomad cultures, when the main capital is cattle mastered, as rule, by males, female most often is closed in her household and have very little rights and authority (save her natural what wise women in all times have mastered to rule rulers ). In agricultural societies it is quite different, though may vary depending on what the base product is (see difference, say between Europe and East Asia, for example). European (and North American since it has European roots) culture has been grown on the basis of farming agricultural tradition.
Even in my little Latvia and even at the first half of XX century some trail of it might be tracked So, in regions, where the main production was cereal, horses have been fed better and the master had the full authority, in regions, where household were bound on milk and meat, the mistress more often have the last word and cows got the best food. Christian tradition (BTW, initially grown on the nomad ground and still holding the some imprint of it, as you may note) had the impact, of course, and although the man was formally always be counted as a head of family, nonetheless the trend was obvious.
L.

[fable]

What I'm trying to say is that the stereotypes of men "not showing their feelings" may not be as accurate todya as they were, say, even a generation ago. Overall, throughout history, men externalize their feelings, often through violence: wars, murders, rape, even the school shootings of today are mostly committed by men (I think in the last two years there has been only one school shooting committed by a girl). Women, on the other hand, internalize their feelings: when something happens, they go into depression, get emotional, etc. As a result, women tend to engage in more passive activities, such as the arts, housework, etc.

@Vbarash, I see--yes, I did miss this point, my apologies. I'd like to suggest that the issue is more complex than a more or less emotional response might provide. True, more men are involved in shootings and domestic violence (though I've read one scientific study whose conclusions state that approximately 25% of domestic violence is women-on-men, but that most men refuse to report it, for fear of ridicule) than women. But again, I suspect that's completely social.

Take where my wife and I have lived for the last three years: New Jersey, on the east coast of the USA. From a young age, boys are trained in competitive contact sports. The atmosphere created by the trainers is one of acrimony and barely restrained violence, as we've seen while walking by fields where they kids were playing in organized competition. Fathers are continually criticizing their sons to be tougher, not to cry, to beat the sh*t out of the other team, to maul 'em, to kill 'em, to make 'em beg and kick the dirt in their faces, etc. Bad sportsmanship and aggressive behavior are seen simultaneously, everywhere.

But note, this mode of conduct doesn't promote emotional expression. Instead, it shuts off emotional expression, substituting a series of blanket reactions to the world that are worn like a uniform. Put another way, if you're told that all conflict should be resolved by cursing, shouting, and abuse, you'll do this in small and large situations, in private and in public, whether you're feeling really, really bad, or just reaecting lightly to a mild irritant.

This aggressive behavior does not encompass the range of human emotion, nor is it an effective tool for emotional expression and communications. It is simply the results of a process of brutalization.

As to men externalizing emotion through war--I'd have to disagree, there, too. Wars are not fought by aggressive emotion, IMO. Wars are fought by political leaders convincing their people that there are good reasons to go to war. People may go to war to get back what they believe is theirs, or to protect what they believe is theirs, but they don't go to war to express rage. Armies are tightly controlled, cold-minded machines.

As to women surpressing their emotions, I've seen far too many examples--and not isolated ones--of the contrary. Women are quite as capable of physical violence, particularly around the home, and where domestic violence against children is concerned, women and men bring up similar figures. In the US, physically violent crime by women is on the rise. So is training in the use of violent weapons by women. I don't know what any of that means, but I do think that women aren't naturally emotionally internatlized. I think that such a condition, when it arises, is a cultural phenomenon. Now that the cultural conditions leading to that case are vanishing in the US, we're observing similar emotional reactions among men and women.

Just my POV. If I'm still misunderstanding yours, just chalk it up to a naturally dithering and opaque nature on my part, and (if you have the courage, and courtesy) try again.

[ 04-26-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

[fable]

Bump. (cough)

Sorry, I'll use the loudspeaker, next time.

[TheHellion]

@fable: I suppose I'll take your word on that. Unfortunately, way too much of what we youngsters learn is school is bullsh!t, and I dare say that you seem to more about this than my mythology teacher.

Just out of personal curiosity, what exactly do you do for a living? Most of your posts read like a newspaper; or better! Do you have lots of resources at your finger-tips, or are you just one extremely informed individual?

[TheHellion]

Originally posted by vbarash:
Women, on the other hand, internalize their feelings: when something happens, they go into depression, get emotional, etc. As a result, women tend to engage in more passive activities, such as the arts, housework, etc.

I hope you don't mind my throwing in a few cents here; I've got perhaps a different take on this whole active vs. passive thing.

You say that men tend to express their angst with "active" measures, and usually with violece, whether it's contact sports, going off to war, or engaging in rapes and shootings. Women, on the other hand, engage in "passive" activities like housework or art. Perhaps I'm missing the point, but the only real difference between these things is the violence. My mother is a prime example; when she's pissed off about something, she cleans the house. Not the 50's stereotype where Mom vacuums in a white dress, pearl necklace, and high-heels, but the quintessential modern working woman: a bandana, rag-tag jeans, and tennis shoes. She gives that dust hell. I can see it as being internal, since she's not affecting anyone but herself, but I hardly call it passive, even with the lack of violence (no one mourns the loss of perfectly innocent dust and cat hair).

Also, being a member of my generation, I can certainly tell you that women in general have changed. Girls that I go to school with are not sissies that get into cat fights; there's no clawing or hair-pulling here. They can throw a punch equally as well as most of the guys can, and they do. More and more women are playing sports, as well, even ones where it was previously unheard of for a woman to participate in, such as wrestling or football. None of this is to say that the barriers between men and women are falling, but simply that culturally imposed gaps are narrowing out, and it's a trend that I anticipate (and hope, somewhat) will continue.

[Loredweller]

Originally posted by TheHellion:
<STRONG>@fable: I suppose I'll take your word on that. Unfortunately, way too much of what we youngsters learn is school is bullsh!t, and I dare say that you seem to more about this than my mythology teacher.

Just out of personal curiosity, what exactly do you do for a living? Most of your posts read like a newspaper; or better! Do you have lots of resources at your finger-tips, or are you just one extremely informed individual?</STRONG>

@TheHellion
Begging pardon for intervention, but you may find it out [url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=000699&p=3"]here[/url]
@fable
My compliments. Just wonder if it might be happened i've read anything from under your quill, however i understand it might be not a board theme.
L.

[fable]

@Hellion, Thnks for the compliemtn, but I'm just an extremely curious person who made the mistake, very early in life, of asking "Why?" and never stopped. I questioned everything in school. and I wouldn't stop until I could piece together answers. I even questioned when my teachers tried to show me, over and over, that learning was boring. And I came out the, shall we say, other end, with my curiosity and amazement intact.

@Loredweller, I've written fiction, but nonfiction pays a lot better (unless you're doing mainstream or romance novels, and have a big following). I've freelanced for several magazines, and still do. Computer gaming is, IMO, a hell of a lot more interesting, interactive and clever than 90% of what's shown on television--but you never hear 'em criticizing levels of violence on the latter.

[jennabard]

hello i'm new to this forum since i just spent 2 weeks playing BG2 and just finished it. i want to add my 2 cents to this discussion. yes i am female. i been playing table top AD&D since high school. i met some of my best friends as well as my husband in the military, thru gaming. i've been playing vedio games ever since my husband introduced lunar on the sega cd and been playing ever since. i think that the reason why there isn't very many female gamers is because of the lack of confidence. i remember as a kid playing on the nitendo just how unbeatable my brother was, the only game i could beat him in was tetris. it was a blow to my fragile ego. but through incouragment, i got back in the game.

[Gruntboy]

That's a nice first post jennabard. Keep up the good work

[Loredweller]

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>Computer gaming is, IMO, a hell of a lot more interesting, interactive and clever than 90% of what's shown on television--but you never hear 'em criticizing levels of violence on the latter. </STRONG>

Agree. And there is one more thing rare mentioned (however, you have it recognized).
TV is somehow like brainwashing, hypnosis. Sometimes i even suspect there is a purpose and design behind it all. You're under uncontrolled stream of information and emotions and mostly, if you aren't professional in such of some kind, without any thinking. RPG, at least requires some awareness, doesn't it? Altogether, there is not comparison between money standing behind TV and RPG. There are much more TV sets in the world as computers, anyway...
L.

[fable]

@Loredweller, why don't you repost your last post, above, in a new topic down under Speak Your own Mind? I'd love to get into a discussion on the influence of television. If you do that, I'll jump in instantly.

[fable]

Jennabard wrote:
i think that the reason why there isn't very many female gamers is because of the lack of confidence. i remember as a kid playing on the nitendo just how unbeatable my brother was, the only game i could beat him in was tetris. it was a blow to my fragile ego. but through incouragment, i got back in the game.

@Jennabard, like Gruntboy said--welcome, and nice post. Sometimes women are discouraged in competition from an early age with their male peers, either at home, in school, or both. But at other times, the family atmosphere is either very encouraging, or very discouraging, to all the children--and the results can be easily confused with gender-specific results.

Consider my wife, for example. She comes across as a curious mix of quiet confidence and easily discouraged vulnerability; but you don't want to get her angry, or try to imply that she doesn't know what she's talking about. Her "encouragement background" is oddly mixed. Her father is somewhat emotionally stunted (his father was a son of German immigrants, an ironworker, heavy drinker, a harsh man and extremely strict), and used to lash out verbally and repeatedly at any mistake made by his wife or four children. He provided monetary support, and took the family on regular vacations, but has a very limited sphere of interests, and offered no emotional support to the family.

Her mother, on the other hand, provided close emotional support, but tended to be a rather passive sort. She wouldn't stand up to her husband in front of the kids. (They're retired, now, but though they travel a great deal by car, motoring all over the US and Canada, he still refuses to allow her to drive anything but locally, although she's never had an accident.) All four have issues, as a result, with self-confidence.

But this isn't gender-specific. My wife's brother perhaps had it worst, in fact--not only did they name him after his father, but they expected him to make the same choices as his father. Of course, he didn't.

As the first child, my wife also developed her own sense of independence. She therefore comes across at times as the quintessential "vulnerable female" stereotype, but can just as easily make a presentation that will floor a group, or provide support in a crisis which is like adamantine steel. (She was an RN for 12 years, working in hospitals with a speciality in intensive care. She's dealt on a daily, moment-by-moment basis with the dying, the dead, and the families of the dying and dead. Vulnerable, and confident.) She's very slow to anger, entirely without mallice, but when she does get angry, it is best to keep all combustibles at a safe distance.

Once you know a person really well like that it's pretty difficult to sit back and make generalities about how all women (or men) behave under given situations. Tendencies can be perceived, but I would hesitate before judging any aspect of something as remarkable as a human being.

[ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

[vbarash]

@fable: again, your insight on the issue greatly expanded the breadth of my point of view... acts of violence are indeed not necessarily related to the expression of emotions, but (when one is violent in conjunction with mimicking an established stereotype) may be devoid of any deep significance.

BTW, if I (like I was now) appear to be intentionally speaking in a high, complicated tone of voice, and if that annoys you at all, please excuse me. I have a somewhat chameleonic nature, namely, when I start a complicated discusion my stylistics change. Also, being Russian, my sentence structure tends to be long and complicated. Sorry to everyone who may have been trying to puzzle out my posts, which may (sometimes) appear even more cryptic than Craig's...

I think, though, that even thogh male violence may not always be related to the expression of emotions, male expression of emotions is almost always violent. I am ery grateful for the post about the house cleaning, but I think that may be a singular example, and it doesn't involve a male expressing his emotions in a "feminine" way. Now about women expressing their emtoions and acting in a masculine way, I am afraid that, despite the overwhelming number of cases describing such behaviour, I shall have to name it non-mainstream behaviour. That, I know, will raise an outcry from every corner of this board, but by naming "tomboyish" behaviour non-mainstream I am not demeaning it in any way. Let's take a look at Freud, for example...

In "Psychoanalysis of sexuality", Freud points out that, let's say deviating sexual behavior that is generally branded as "homosexuality" has a ton of equally important variations within itself. Freud mostly describes men, but I think his descriptions apply to women as well. Some homosexual men continue acting like men and seek other male partners. Other homosexual men, however, act like women and look at men as at actual sexual targets, as per normal reproduction. I think that the same applies to women. Some women (I am not saying lesbian women, necessarily) treat themselves as men and seek sexual targets in other women. One must remember that in sexual activity, the male (not only human) is the aggressor, and the woman, the acceptor of the male. That view is also cultivated by culture, cultivated, indeed, to the extent that the role of the male is overemphasized and some women, perhaps as a result of cultural influence, take up this role instead of the less advantageous role of woman.

To conclude (out of this labyrinth of thinking, the stream of thought bursts forth), men and women are different. Males, if one looks at the biology, especially in mammals, which family males are a part of, exhibit active sexual behavior, women exhibit passive sexual behaviour. That is why I am sticking to masculine activity and feminine inactivity as to the "norms". The biological practice of masculine aggressiveness is reinstated in society, so reinstated that it has, for the last 2000 years and in European cultures, been taken as some sort of an ideal. Some women even follow that ideal, and take on roles of men. This practice is in no way inferior to women acting passively, I am just calling it DIFFERENT. Now I''ll go home, think about what this means, and leave you to digest this shambling product of my mind.

[jennabard]

thank you gruntboy and fable for your post.
fable, you are right about family. being italian and korean (proud of it too), with both parents coming from the old countries. i grew up with a strong sense of family, with a history of strong women from both sides. but back to women and games, maybe it is just me being a bookworm as a kid (my, brother was the black sheep of the family, he doesn't like to read). for me to spend hours playing a game, the story has to have depth. the reason i play BG2 is because of the story, not for the graphics or game mechanics (it helps, though) and for the npc interactions. i absolutly love the fact that the npcs are 3 dimensional with their own faults. it makes them so human in the game and i came to love them all for their quirks. these are the reasons why i play games. to watch a story unfold. to understand the characters. to over come great obstacles. it's very cathartic for me. there are very few games that i'll spend a great deal of time with and they all have great stories like xenogears, final fantasy tactics, persona 2 to name a few. it may not be the reason why women don't play vedio games but it is the reason why i do. so i'll go ahead and ask instead why do women play vedio games in the first place? i'll keep a look out for your replies. here is also a side note, am i the only one who doesn't care for diablo? if i wanted to hack and slash, i'll play guardian heros or soul caliber before i'll touch diablo. at least they got style.