Gender Parity in Birthright

[Sheigh]

Nobody's stopping you but you.

[Sorontar]

Nobody's stopping you but you.

Indeed, a number of campaigns have made good work of extending Birthright beyond Cerilia's borders or into another world. I don't see the difference between that and having a homegrown version of Cerilia itself. However, on this site we will always have to distinguish between canon-based Cerilia and any other Cerilia on the wiki/downloads etc.

As to parity. We have been talking about approaches to take to change the role of women in Birthright [1] but part of the problem seems to be that not everyone can see where the problem is, hence the stats. I am not reading the stats as saying "see there is no problem". I am seeing the stats as saying "we are having a problem defining the problem". If we can't define the problem then it is hard to solve.

Sorontar

[1] Though some now seem to be talking about the amount of female players who play Birthright, which may be related but a separate problem.

[Fizz]

I am not reading the stats as saying "see there is no problem". I am seeing the stats as saying "we are having a problem defining the problem".

That's how i read it too. You can't address an issue without understanding it.

Plus, the OP expressed a desire to achieve a 50:50 balance. You can't achieve that if you don't know from where you're starting. It's like saying X+Y=100, solve for X. To get a value for X, you've got to know what Y is.


-Fizz

[arpig2]

Nobody's stopping you but you.

I've been doing it for 20 years now, several times in fact.

[Rowan]

I'd like to add that the setting never has seemed to assume any sort of strict male primogeniture. In fact, it implicitly has most realms accepting without question the possibility of female rule. So creating more of a statistical balance doesn't really violate canon assumptions, I don't think. Just switching the sexes of rulers or replacing them with female characters seems easy enough to do, if potentially a lot of work. I think it would be easier to replace with new characters than to try to change peoples' common understanding of canon material.

I was questioning earlier whether filling a quota was really what was necessary to attract female players. That assumption itself seemed somewhat sexist to me. It also potentially opens other doors. Do we need to fill racial quotas as well?

While game-by-game modifications are easily made (and just about everyone makes changes), at some point, it does begin to seem like a "social justice crusade" as mentioned rather than just playing a game. At that point, should we not be also arguing for democracy and the freedom of serfs? Where does it end?

In fact, I think part of the charm of Birthright is that it while it IS more modern in attitude than medieval times, it still preserves more of the feel of that setting than most RPGs. That means that it includes warts and injustices. That realism is something that I find appealing, a recognition of the human condition, tension that can be played out in the game. In fact, I'd argue it's partly that kind of brutal realism and injustice that makes Game of Thrones appealing to so many. As The Matrix pointed out, humans have a hard time accepting a utopia (and we likely would not be interested in playing one in BR).

And there's also the problem of changing canon, both legal and because people are so used to the story and characters. Might be easier to do a reboot and rewrite with advancing the timeline at least a generation, maybe 100 years, like has been done with FR. If such a thing were to occur, you could maybe more easily incorporate some of the goals like in the OP in a "new canon" type scale--though consensus would be difficult over the changes that should occur over that 20-100+ years.

I find the OP question intriguing as more than just looking for a statistical parity, as in achieving a quota. I find it more interesting to consider the deeper differences between men and women and what appeals to each as far as style of game and types of game play and story. I find explanations in the story of those differences more appealing than merely switching the sexes of some characters.

So I'm actually advocating for a deeper consideration of the question, more than a cosmetic solution.

[arpig2]

I am not reading the stats as saying "see there is no problem". I am seeing the stats as saying "we are having a problem defining the problem". If we can't define the problem then it is hard to solve.

The problem has been more than adequately defined, more than once.

[Rowan]

The problem has been more than adequately defined, more than once.

As I was just saying, and several others have said here, there may be more to the issue than superficial changes. So yes, we're still trying to define what that "something else" is.

I've played with quite a few women over the years. Different things about RPGs tend to appeal to them more than what appeals to men. And it hasn't been equal statistical representation of the sexes that turns them on (or off) to the game.

So lets go deeper. Deeper in to the story elements, deeper into the gameplay elements.

[Thelandrin]

The problem has been more than adequately defined, more than once.

At the risk of sounding petty, clearly it hasn't been so, otherwise there wouldn't be a discussion about this very point. Failures to communicate and/or understand can be entirely bilateral.

[arpig2]

So yes, we're still trying to define what that "something else" is.

No you aren't nobody is doing anything of the sort. Sorry, but I have seen this same BS response in a hundred different contexts when the question of gender equality or parity is raised, so you go ahead and keep telling yourselves that.

And I'll keep shaking my head in disgust.

clearly it hasn't been so

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[Thelandrin]

Smugly refusing to engage with others if they don't agree with you does not make for a very good conversation.