Not many women...

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by Lumpx
It seems to me that some of Ghandi was never the leader of India but he is included in the game so why not Joan of Arc?

Stop it, your making too much sense.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally posted by FireWalkWithMe


Um, wow. What an ignorant thing to say there at the end.

If you think that then you don't know many hard-core feminists. Get some experience and talk to me again in twenty years.

[Melloj]

What I dont understand is why there is so much debate about having a female/male leader as the one you play with. You can change the name in the game setup screen, and the only time you really see the face of your leader is in the foreign advisors screen (a tiny little picture).

Currently Im playing as the Japanese. I totally forgot that its the Japanese leaders face that the AI is 'seeing" by about turn 20.

Every time the AI talks to me, they say my name...so is it that the original poster is sitting there throughout the whole game thinking to herself that "oh im not really a woman because the AI "sees" my male characters face"? If so, then methinks you should just enjoy the experience more and not worry about such a minor detail. I personally would not care if my fav nation had a female leader, cause the name is the first thing to be changed in my games....poof problem gone.

I just dont see the problem. Unless she is saying that she wants to see the faces of female leaders of the AI whom she meets. In that case, would she select that every AI have a female face? Would we need a slider that allowed us to adjust the ratio of AI that are women and men???? I think this would be going a bit too far, same as this thread....

[Malleus Dei]

Okay, I'm going to say it: this entire thread is pointless, PC, and unnecessary. If any of you want more ahistorical female leaders, then, fine: make a mod that does that. But trying to oppress other people for the sake of your own Political Correctness is just wrong.

Can we have this thread closed now?

[Imran Siddiqui]

While I won't be as blunt, I will say that the issue is decided. Firaxis picked the leaders. Maybe there will be a few more female leaders in an expansion, but I doubt it will be more than a couple.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Gandhi was indeed the head of the Indian National Congress before independance. I doubt that anyone would have disagreed that he was the leader of the Indians.

I do... even when he was alive, he was always thought of as more than a mere "leader;" a sort of mascot, or embodiment of the aspirations of the Indian people, not a leader in the Civ sense of the term. Ever since Civ 1 I've wanted to see someone else as the Indian leader.

[Ulmo]

Oh please...oh please

Why would Firaxis waste time making multiplayer Civ when this is the pool I have to pull from?

Including women leaders would be done not for a PC reason but for a marketing standpoint to make it more attractive to buyers of the game. Probably the same reason the women that are included happen to be (except for one case) presented in way to flatter their features and appear attractive to the players of the game.

This is not historical simulation. For one thing, you are playing it. Second, if it was historical simulation the Americans cant start until the 1650s and have to start off with whatever England had learned up to that point. Australia, is even worse shape. This is seperate from the whole idea that your leader never dies and lives thousands upon thousands of years. Want a historical simulation? Well then the leader of your country should come and go every X amount of years. Internal wars should be fought over who that leader is. Other countries should be given the opportunity to back the "real ruler" in civil wars.

I swear, simulationists have got to be some of the dumbest people alive.

To those that complained about having "good" female leaders. Are all the male leaders included in the game "good" leaders? Kublai Khan? Juluis Ceaser?

Someone used the phrase oppress when refering to the idea that women would be added as leaders to the game. If women oppress you, that would explain your hobby of playing civ all day and night. Just so you know, women are more fun than games buddy.

Should Firaxis have included more, depends on the sales numbers now doesnt it? If marketing surveys show that they would have received more sales to the female players if they had done this then that will tell the tale. I guess I am happy they arent or I would just hear you complain that Firaxis sold out to be PC. When really they just sold out to sell more.

BTW, when Hillary Clinton *IS* elected, (or Condolezza), to be President in 2012 because all the male choices are bunk, Civ VI better include her.

[ruby_maser]

Why should I be made to sacrifice historical realities that are generally but by no means universally associated with leadership, distasteful as they may be, when they have existed for thousands of years and only recently on the historical timeline begun to be repudiated by civilized society?

War was not omitted because it is distasteful. Slavery was not omitted because it is vile.

Furthermore, the mod capabilities of this game were not written in some sort of male code. Dissenting females can use them to skew history as much as they see fit to placate their vanity.

[FoolishOwl]

Thanks to the long, bitter history of sexism, there are fewer famous leaders who were women then famous leaders who were men. However, it's hardly the case that there weren't enough women who were political leaders to fill out the game.

There's no point in arguing that it's ahistorical to feature women as leaders of nations, when playing out alternative histories is the ENTIRE POINT OF THE GAME.

Really, if you can imagine Julius Caesar living for 4000 years and commanding tanks, why can't you imagine Rosa Luxemberg as President of Germany?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Including women leaders would be done not for a PC reason but for a marketing standpoint to make it more attractive to buyers of the game.

And obviously marketing showed that including important historical leaders would sell more rather than simply including women for no reason other than their gender. This is why the makeup of the leaders is how it is.

This is not historical simulation. For one thing, you are playing it. Second, if it was historical simulation the Americans cant start until the 1650s and have to start off with whatever England had learned up to that point. Australia, is even worse shape. This is seperate from the whole idea that your leader never dies and lives thousands upon thousands of years. Want a historical simulation? Well then the leader of your country should come and go every X amount of years. Internal wars should be fought over who that leader is. Other countries should be given the opportunity to back the "real ruler" in civil wars.

Well, in that case, why have such discussions and decision making about which civ should make it in? Why not include the Canadian civ, a la CTP, because, after all, it isn't a historical simulation.

Put it to you this way, it is like reading a fantasy novel where all of a sudden, for no reason, the heros start to fly to win the big battle at the end. No explination, just flying. Now when you ask, the author says, SHUT UP, you are a reading a fantasy novel, why do you think you should get an explination. The answer is because you've bought into the story and the story has self imposed rules, and you've bought into those rules. When those rules are deviated from, you've lost the suspension of disbelief.

Civ is not a historical simulation, but it uses history as its canvas. It has certain historical 'rules' to provide a feeling of going through human history. The argument is that including Civ leaders who really weren't leaders in history loses that suspension of disbelief and takes away from one of the game's strength (the story... and yes, there is one.. it isn't just SMAC's domain, though SMAC's was far deeper).

Are all the male leaders included in the game "good" leaders? Kublai Khan? Juluis Ceaser?

Why aren't Kublai Khan or Julius Caesar good leaders to include in the game? Why are they unworthy?

BTW, when Hillary Clinton *IS* elected, (or Condolezza), to be President in 2012 because all the male choices are bunk, Civ VI better include her.

Why? Is George W. Bush the leader of the Americans in your copy of CivIV?

There's no point in arguing that it's ahistorical to feature women as leaders of nations, when playing out alternative histories is the ENTIRE POINT OF THE GAME.

Read my response on the suspension of disbelief. If you are playing out the story of history, having a number of female leaders who really weren't leaders of their nation and/or state starts to lose that suspension of disbelief. Just as it would be if Martin Luther King, Jr. or Benjamin Franklin was the Civ leader for the Americans.

[FoolishOwl]

Read my response on the suspension of disbelief.

Ah. So you can imagine America as a feudal state on a small island during an ice age, but you can't imagine a woman being president.

Also, I was partial to writing in "Jean-Paul Marat" when I'd play as the French in Civ III, since if I'm going to have an imaginary history, I may as well have someone I admire as its leader.

[Malleus Dei]

It's always been amazing to me how the Left manages to try and insert their agenda into EVERYTHING.

[Malleus Dei]

Once again, can we get this thread closed? Or, alternatively, would someone please keep posting a graphic here of someone beating a dead horse?

[Ka Plewy]

Originally posted by Malleus Dei
It's always been amazing to me how the Left manages to try and insert their agenda into EVERYTHING.

Now who's inserting an agenda?
Issues of sexism aren't related to liberal/conservative discussion, though one side has co-opted the equality movement. The choice is to reflect history, or to reflect current values. Whatever choice is made is actually quite realistic and rational.
I would hope that most of us believe that women are just as capable as men at running companies, countries, what have you.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Akaoz
Didn't Civ2 have a women and a man for every civ?

Yes it had. Most of them were horribly ahistorical or outright fantastic (like Hippolita for Greeks, who was a mythical leader of equally mythical Amazons).

Personally, I'm glad Civ 4 has a fair share of female leaders that indeed were all influential and powerful in their own right, rather than introducing some questionable choices like Joan of Arc or Theodora.