Don't get me wrong, I love having games with a female protagonist. But isn't this going a bit overboard to the level that it reeks of trying to push an agenda? Couldn't they have just made one of the kids to be a guy?

Not really. Can't a game have two female options? I am a guy, pretty much always play games with a character creator as a guy since I am a bloke, but I am just as happy playing female characters in narrative driven games as guys. This looks great.

Of course, I have nothing against playing as female characters. In any RPG that lets me make my character, I have always played the female character even though I am a guy lol (Mass Effect, Dragon Age etc).

My issue with this is that it reeks of the agenda to promote the idea that women are as strong as men, or perhaps even stronger. I just disagree with the idea behind the agenda (because its false), and seeing it thrust down the throat so hard today is annoying. While I am too old for these games to shape my expectations and outlook toward women, I am pretty sure these games will have influence on the younger folks and that is dangerous. It will create a society that is distorted in its values in the future.

fucking yikes!

Oh boy *rolls eyes* I've seen women practising crossfit that would break you in two like you were a simple twig. Hate folks with such outdated mindset as yours.

100% agree with you.

Thing is, most games make characters do things that are equally impossible for men to do as women. In such a case, it is just as realistic / unrealistic that a woman can do it as a man. I mean anybody who has pushed their limits a little bit knows the limits of individual strength / capacity. Most games and blockbuster films are pure fiction in how they portray the agency of the protagonist. In such a way, the idea that individuals can change society in the way portrayed in stuff like marvel is laughable, but on the other hand, it is just as realistic / unrealistic to have that power ini the hands of a woman as a man. So yeah, I don't quite accept that in the context of games. Also, most men aren't that fit / strong these days...stronger than the average woman, but there are woman who are stronger than most men. I bboy and that is the case there where in terms of technical difficulty, the top guys are above the top ladies. But some girls absolutely kill it and have more power than most of the guys in the scene.

My friend, I am sure there are women who are stronger than me. But what I am pointing out is that biologically speaking, women are physically weaker than men. What this means is that if 100 randomly sampled men and 100 randomly sampled women were to receive the same cross-fit training, and were in the same weight class, the average man would be physically stronger than the average woman. You can't just call that an outdated mindset when it is grounded in biology.

I suspect that what most men end up thinking as a counter-example to this biological fact is that they know a woman or two who are much stronger than them. What they don't realize is that their comparison in that particular case is not valid. Given the same level of training, and granted that the weight classes are equal, the average man is stronger than the average woman.

I completely agree with you. But that is not what I am really speaking about. Traditionally, such over-the-top action and such was not seen as male empowerment. Such media merely catered to the male fantasy/imagination of "bad ass", "entertainment" etc.

So my issue is with the idea of using an innocent medium to promote an agenda of "women empowerment". The fact that it is their intent is explicitly stated by game companies and movie makers quiet often today. In other words, these forms of media are not out to merely entertain, but actually shape the thinking of young women (or what they would say, "empower"). But if we are to get on board with such an agenda, then we have to ask if such form of social engineering is acceptable and sustainable. My point with it being out of touch with reality applies to this particular point. That is why I said its dangerous. Back in the day, we didn't expect young males who watch action movies or read comics are going to take that as inspiration to becomes superhero vigilantes in real life. BUT, today, there is the expectation that young women will want to be soldiers, warriors, or at least strive themselves to be physically strong as men. Why? That is unhealthy!!! More importantly, it is not even sustainable within a society because women are needed as mothers more than as warriors to sustain any healthy society. By making them feel that their value is measured in terms of how cool they are in terms of physical strength, we devalue motherhood as well. So this entire agenda promotes in women a mindset that is grossly incompatible with what their right mindset should be.

so a woman's correct mindset should be motherhood? i assume kitchen duties too? maybe cleaning?

you are one old fashioned dude lol

Jesus, I wish this website had an "ignore" feature because reading your inane conservative ranting really makes me want to vomit. Also, ironic that you say that they are pushing an agenda when you are the one who obviously has one.

Haha. Well, suppose that we go with the new fashion for an example.... :)

Now once women are conditioned by society to be more interested in strength and value being strong, how is society going to maintain the necessary birth-rates to sustain the population? We could of course rely on immigration for now. But once this empowerment agenda goes global, even immigration will not work.

I am merely pointing out that the traditional roles (i.e. man worked to put food on the table, and woman held the family together by having and raising kids) actually made sense and actually formed a sustainable social framework. The currently promoted mindset pretty much leads to extinction.

And the thing with shaping peoples minds is that once you shape them, they are very hard to change back even in the face of extinction haha. So that is why I say its dangerous....

Well, everyone has an agenda (even you in this case as you wish to find a way to ignore my posts lol).

My point isn't that having an agenda is bad. Human beings obviously should have an agenda and not just wander around aimlessly. So what I am actually saying is that the issue here is that this particular agenda is dangerous and out of touch with reality. That is what makes it annoying to have it shoved down the throat so hard.

I hope that clarified my position better :)!

For starters there is no population to sustain. The earth is overpopulated.

Secondly. This isn't about female empowerment. Its about female representation. Do women not deserve the same treatment as men in media? Why is it the untrained every-man is saving the world all the time? why can't an untrained, every-woman instead?

Click the little green ignore button next to his name. I just did the same. Can't listen to that outdated trash anymore.

Because don't you see, it's going to cause mass extinction. We can't let women do and be whatever they want. IT'S DANGEROUS!!! Equal rights, what the fuck are those? Choice, agency, the fuck is that? Women were put on this earth to carry ddarko's seed. How are you not getting this.

So for your first point, supposing the earth is overpopulated right now, the solution isn't depopulate it, right? The thing with not having enough children (>2 to be accurate) is that it leads to depopulation. Now maybe you are thinking that we will depopulate for sometime, and then restart with a birth rate at >2. But the problem with that idea is that you cannot change peoples mind when you want to like that. After you drill it into the mind of a woman (and a man) that women are to be valued in-terms of their physically strength, success in doing what men can do, then you are not going to be able to turn them back (even when faced with the threat of extinction).

For your second question, there is nothing inherently wrong with having women in such roles. It is the intent that ends up making it wrong (for reasons I explained above to Catfish). Perhaps I should also add, the idea of a man saving the world is not that bad of a mindset to reinforce because for the traditional model, you do want altruistic men who are willing to selfless sacrifice their happiness for that of protecting their wife and children. It is so entertaining for us men to watch such movies/games because it resonates with what we are biologically made to do as well. On the other hand, women used to love the stories of romance, drama etc. because it resonates much better with what they are biologically inclined to do as well. By trying to make them like what men like, we are essentially asking them to be men!

So yes, there is nothing wrong with a woman that saves the world for entertainment. But it is problematic when it is done to serve the agenda of empowering women or with some presumption that we must have a 50-50 split in representation in such roles.

LOLz. This was a good one haha!

But in all seriousness, if women don't have children (on average, more than 2), it does lead to extinction. I mean, its obvious, right? I am not saying they should all carry my seed. Neither am I saying that men are off-the-hook. I am merely saying that women are needed as mothers, rather than warriors or in some manly role. Men on the other hand need to stop being selfish and caring for the women in their lives by putting them first! *So its not just women who can't be whatever they want. Men can't either!!*

Also, I forgot to mention to KORNdog above, when you lower birth rates and move toward depopulation, what happens first is that you will have a large old population with a small younger population. At that point, the younger population will essentially have to sustain the large old population as they become too old to work. At such a junction, usually you end up with economic collapse and the complete destruction of social umbrella structures like heath care. There might even be food shortages and such. So it will be a grim end.....

Well I can only hope for this grim end you speak of so people like you don't get a chance to breed.

Seriously, God help any potential daughters you may spawn with any sort of asperations besides motherhood and house duties. Fucking Christ almighty.

It depends on how you see the world. If you believe that all aspirations are to be realized, then yes, you would be right. But I would argue that your position is unrealistic. The world is such that your child (if you were to have any) would always have at least a single aspiration that cannot be actualized. So the measure of a man (or a woman) is not in terms of whether they achieved what they aspired to, BUT, it is in terms of how well they were able to tame their aspirations to the needs and duties of reality.

Of course, the more grave issue is that your position leads to extinction, while mine will sustain society.... If I may ask, do you think extinction is better than being unable to just accomplish whatever it is we aspire?

Enjoy your upcoming Boulet Times.

Korn, if I may also add, your position is a good example of what I meant by "once you shape a mind, it is hard to change it even in the face of extinction".

If you tell children that they should pursue whatever it is they aspire to without limits, then you cannot later tell them to do the opposite. My point is that rather than tell kids to be "whatever you want to be", we as parents should teach them what they should be, and how they can be good at what they should be. That way, their aspirations are in sync with reality. Rather than being unhappy, they live happy lives.

A person who just pursues all of their aspirations and tries to be whatever it is they want to be would be fickle. Our desires change like the climate. To decide to live like that can only lead to disappointment and sadness in the long run.....

What is Boulet Times?

People are so paranoic this day that they see an agenda on everything. FFS

Games has had female protagonist for a long time. There is no agenda about it.