Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion General Discussion => Topic started by: Jeebus on April 10, 2015, 12:26:28 pm
-
I made a thread (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11646) about this before, but unfortunately it turned into a discussion which was moved to RSP. There had already been some threads about it before that, which were not moved, so I think it's okay to have a thread about it in the general discussion. Just don't turn it into a... discussion, I guess - unless it's general?
Anyway, I just want to note the current statistics, and do a tentative one for what has been revealed from Adventures. If you think the distribution of male and female cards in Dominion is super-lame, or super-cool, or you are super-indifferent to it, and you want to argue why, go to the other thread. I'll allow myself to note that I think it's cool that for Adventures, "they" (I assume Donald, Jay and their cohorts) for the first time specifically asked the artists for some wimmin. That the fans are talking about it online (even giving many different opinions about it) must have contributed somehow to that decision.
I made a couple of updates on the previous list. (I changed Wishing Well, Shanty Town and Herbalist from Unknown to Both [either 1/3 male 2/3 female or vice versa], Forager from Male to Unknown, and Band of Misfits from Male to Both.) UPDATE 2015-05-04: I added Expand as a female card.
As before I only include cards with people who are clearly displayed.
UPDATE 2016-07-07: New complete list including Empires is here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12971.msg617152#msg617152
UPDATE 2017-11-28: New complete list including Nocturne is here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12971.msg735370#msg735370
UPDATE 2019-04-02: New complete list including Renaissance is here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12971.msg796998#msg796998
BASE
Male: Bureaucrat, Chancellor, Laboratoty, Militia, Mine, Moneylender, Smithy, Spy, Thief, Woodcutter (Spy and Thief look very male to me)
Female: Witch
Both: Feast, Festival, Market(?)
Unknown: Adventurer, Library
INTRIGUE
Male: Baron, Conspirator, Coppersmith, Duke, Ironworks, Minion, Nobels, Pawn, Saboteur, Scout, Steward, Swindler, Torturer, Tribute
Female: Courtyard, Harem
Both: Shanty Town (both are men, or one of each), Wishing Well (both are female, or one of each)
Unknown: -
SEASIDE
Male: Ambassador, Bazaar, Cutpurse, Embargo, Fishing Village, Haven, Lookout, Merchant Ship, Navigator, Pearl Diver, Salvager, Smugglers, Tactician, Wharf
Female: Explorer, Sea Hag
Both: Native Village
Unknown: -
ALCHEMY
Male: Alchemist, Apothecary, Golem, Transmute
Female: Scrying Pool, Possession
Both: Herbalist (either the man is the herbalist or both are)
Unknown: Apprentice, Familiar
PROSPERITY
Male: Bank, Bishop, Counting House, Goons, Loan, Mint, Mountebank, Venture
Female: Expand, Forge, Peddler
Both: Grand Market, King's Court, Rabble (there are two women in the back, right?)
Unknown: -
CORNUCOPIA
Male: Horse Traders, Hunting Party, Tournament
Female: Fairgrounds, Farming Village, Fortune Teller, Harvest, Princess, Young Witch
Both: Followers, Menagerie
Unknown: Jester
HINTERLANDS
Male: Cartographer, Develop, Haggler, Jack of All Trades, Mandarin, Margrave, Noble Brigand, Nomad Camp, Scheme, Spice Merchant, Stables
Female: Duchess, Oracle, Trader
Both: Embassy
Unknown: -
DARK AGES
Male: Armory, Bandit Camp, Beggar, Count, Graverobber, Hermit, Hunting Grounds, Ironmonger, Junk Dealer, Madman, Marauder, Mercenary, Necropolis, Pillage, Procession, Rogue, Sage, Scavenger, Squire, Urchin, Vagrant, Wandering Minstrel
Female: Market Square, Mystic
Both: Band of Misfits, Survivors, Knights
Unknown: Death Cart, Cultist, Forager
GUILDS
Male: Advisor, Butcher, Candlestick Maker, Doctor, Herald, Journeyman, Merchant Guild, Stonemason, Taxman
Female: Baker, Soothsayer
Both: Plaza
Unknown: -
PROMOS
Male: Black Market, Envoy, Governor, Prince
Female: -
Both: -
Unknown: -
Totals (with "Both" included):
MALE: 107.1 = 78.2%
FEMALE: 29.9 = 21.8%
UNKNOWN: 8
Breakdown for each set, percentage of female cards:
BASE: 17.9%
INTRIGUE: 16.7%
SEASIDE: 14.7%
ALCHEMY: 33.3%
PROSPERITY: 32.1%
CORNUCOPIA: 61.7%
HINTERLANDS: 23.3%
DARK AGES: 12.4%
GUILDS: 20.8%
PROMOS: 0.0%
-
Here's what I got so far for Adventures. Just 11 of the 20 known cards show people.
ADVENTURES
Male: Duplicate(?), Hireling, Borrow, Transmogrify, Giant
Female: Page/Treasure Hunter/Warrior/Hero/Champion, Guide, Messenger, Swamp Hag, Lost Arts, Storyteller
Both: "Tracking"
Unknown: "Quest"
Percentage of female cards: 54.2%
This changes the total to 24.5% female cards for now.
EDIT: Learned from Donald that Messenger is a woman, and added "Tracking" and "Quest" (cards leaked in French)
-
Must everything be about identity politics?
-
Must everything be about identity politics?
It's about visibility. Why is "male" the default? And that's all I'm going to say on that subject.
-
Unknown: Messenger
The Messenger is a woman. It's clearer on the big art.
For Guilds, most of the cards were illustrated by women. They still mostly drew men though (with only Taxman demanding one in the title).
-
Where are all those similar threads complaining about, or at least pointing out, the unequal share of Blacks, Asians, Muslims, animals, species of flowers and trees, etc.
I wonder what it is about women that makes disinterested 3rd parties suddenly want to leap to their defense...
-
Possession also shows a man in that pretty lady's crystal ball.
-
Where are all those similar threads complaining about, or at least pointing out, the unequal share of Blacks, Asians, Muslims, animals, species of flowers and trees, etc.
I wonder what it is about women that makes disinterested 3rd parties suddenly want to leap to their defense...
Animal and plant species are a subject for biologists. The lack of other races (Mandarin not withstanding) can be waved away by saying Dominion ostensibly takes place in Europe, which is mainly white people. Same reason there's no real clamor for a black or Asian Robin Hood or King Arthur.
But women make up half the population everywhere. By just portraying men, you're ignoring half of the entire population. And that's just kind of silly.
As for being a disinterested 3rd party, being part of a minority (I'm gay) leaves me with a particular empathy for other under-represented groups.
-
Oy, people, stay on topic!
Just don't turn it into a... discussion, I guess
-
Quite pleased to see the (apparent) change with Adventures. Huzzah!
-
Where are all those similar threads complaining about, or at least pointing out, the unequal share of Blacks, Asians, Muslims, animals, species of flowers and trees, etc.
I wonder what it is about women that makes disinterested 3rd parties suddenly want to leap to their defense...
Similarly, why isn't there a poster named AsiansCantSayNo?
-
And yet the cards continue to assume that all the players are male.
-
And yet the cards continue to assume that all the players are male.
At this point, it's for consistency. There's also some precedence for "he" serving as a gender neutral pronoun.
-
And yet the cards continue to assume that all the players are male.
At this point, it's for consistency. There's also some precedence for "he" serving as a gender neutral pronoun.
I can believe it's a reason, but it doesn't strike me as a particularly good one. And that precedent stems from that same "male as default" assumption you just pointed out. People may recognize its use as such, but it's still rather dismissive.
-
I wonder what it is about women that makes disinterested 3rd parties suddenly want to leap to their defense...
As a human, I actually have a vested interested in seeing other humans treated like humans!
-
Quest seems to be indeterminate, and Tracking quite obviously has both.
-
People! With just a few exceptions, your posts should all be going in the other thread. Here you go: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11646
I'd rather not have this thread disappear to RSP too.
Let's just talk about whether the cards are correctly categorized or something. I know that means this will be a mostly silent thread, but that's okay. I just want to document this.
-
Quest seems to be indeterminate, and Tracking quite obviously has both.
Ooh, haven't seen those cards! Where are they?
EDIT: Found the "French" thread, thanks.
-
It's true that half the population in the depicted time were women, but less than half worked in the jobs depicted in dominion. (the patriarchy made it extremely difficult for women to do anything but household management. This is why I don't have a problem with the imbalance - it realistically portrays the gender imbalance in jobs at that time. Similarly, I wouldn't have a problem with a modern library card game having mainly women - that's just the way things are, and the 'should' doesn't get into it.
-
It's true that half the population in the depicted time were women, but less than half worked in the jobs depicted in dominion. (the patriarchy made it extremely difficult for women to do anything but household management. This is why I don't have a problem with the imbalance - it realistically portrays the gender imbalance in jobs at that time. Similarly, I wouldn't have a problem with a modern library card game having mainly women - that's just the way things are, and the 'should' doesn't get into it.
What about demand? There are quite obviously players who want to see women in the card art, including Donald X himself.
-
It's true that half the population in the depicted time were women, but less than half worked in the jobs depicted in dominion. (the patriarchy made it extremely difficult for women to do anything but household management. This is why I don't have a problem with the imbalance - it realistically portrays the gender imbalance in jobs at that time. Similarly, I wouldn't have a problem with a modern library card game having mainly women - that's just the way things are, and the 'should' doesn't get into it.
What about demand? There are quite obviously players who want to see women in the card art, including Donald X himself.
I'm for equality too, but it's not as big a deal as people make it to be, at least here in the US.
It's true that half the population in the depicted time were women, but less than half worked in the jobs depicted in dominion. (the patriarchy made it extremely difficult for women to do anything but household management. This is why I don't have a problem with the imbalance - it realistically portrays the gender imbalance in jobs at that time. Similarly, I wouldn't have a problem with a modern library card game having mainly women - that's just the way things are, and the 'should' doesn't get into it.
...The patriarchy?
-
It's about visibility. Why is "male" the default? And that's all I'm going to say on that subject.
EDIT: I was responding to wero but I just noticed the OP said that "if you want to argue why, go to the other thread."
Whoops. I'll leave what I had here in 1pt font, carry on
The reasons are biological and unavoidable, but it gets a big rise out of a lot of people to say and explain this. Politically correct people would rather pretend the reason is some mix of:
(a) stupidity/ignorance
(b) old-fashioned social constructs
(c) malice, i.e. from some secret -- or subconscious! -- male-promoting cabal who don't want women to do meaningful things in society.
But, the simple reason is biology.
When you picture a woman, you're depicting something that half of the population (i.e. men) either instinctively desires or instinctively wants to protect from harm. And the other half (i.e. women) are well aware of those instincts and how much it affects everything. These instincts exist for reasons that are 100% biological, as sex and reproduction are always key biological drivers. There are certainly many social constructs that echo this biology, but that is because biology drives them to develop, so biology is still the root cause for pretty much all the male and female stuff you see expressed (in many different ways across many cultures)
So when you want to picture something more neutrally, you use a man for the scene. Using a woman for the same scene changes the audience's impression of a scene, either marginally or more intensely, which the artist may not want - or may just not want to risk, even if it's minor to what they're doing. Also depicting women is more complicated in many ways, as immediately people start judging the work partly based on how attractive or unattractive she is or how safe or dangerous the situation appears to be for her. When you use a man, such variables matter less, and people will focus more on whatever else you're trying to convey.
So biology is the reason. Some of the people reading this may not want to accept or choose to acknowledge this reason. But it is the reason nonetheless. I'll go out on a limb and suggest it makes a heck of a lot more sense than anything else you'll hear in this thread as an explanation.
It's funny to think of how all the male-female stuff we see would disappear if male and female sexuality disappeared. It really would! We'd all be androgynous and just not give a damn. You'd get to see much closer to idealized 50/50 splits everywhere. And that includes Dominion card art.
-
Please keep this related to Dominion specifically. General discussion about gender issues belongs in RSP.
-
Where are all those similar threads complaining about, or at least pointing out, the unequal share of Blacks, Asians, Muslims, animals, species of flowers and trees, etc.
I wonder what it is about women that makes disinterested 3rd parties suddenly want to leap to their defense...
The lack of other races (Mandarin not withstanding) can be waved away by saying Dominion ostensibly takes place in Europe, which is mainly white people. Same reason there's no real clamor for a black or Asian Robin Hood or King Arthur.
But women make up half the population everywhere. By just portraying men, you're ignoring half of the entire population. And that's just kind of silly.
Women make up half the population everywhere, but they haven't made up half the action everywhen, sadly. Males were very dominant for all but the last, like, two hundred years or so? Powerful queens or Joan of Arcs were the exception, not the rule. And Dominion seems to me to take place even earlier in the middle ages than when queens started getting some appreciable bits of power over affairs. Portraying a man on most every card is just as historically accurate as portraying a white guy on most every card. The cards almost all represent someone who has a job, or power, or military role, so given the time period that's going to be a man. The knights stack already has five more women than is historically accurate, so why doesn't it have two more black horseman or asian horseman than would be accurate too?
If you want Dominion cards to represent women to an extent that is knowingly disproportionate to historical knowledge about the time period, then it is only fair to do the same with blacks, asians, paraplegics, arabs, indians, and everything (I didn't capitalize enough words in this post, sorry).
-
Unknown: Adventurer
Man, I thought for sure it was a dude!
(http://i.imgur.com/kZwgU2f.png)
:))
-
Unknown: Adventurer
Man, I thought for sure it was a dude!
(http://i.imgur.com/kZwgU2f.png)
:))
Cover up those man booblers. This ain't RSP!
-
XerxesPraelor, werothegreat, Seprix, Gherald, popsofctown.
PLEASE stop posting about this topic here. Go to the other thread: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11646
I said so in the OP, and three people have repeated it. What is it going to take?
Theory, instead of moving this thread too, can you just delete the offending posts? (Or move them to the other thread)
-
I don't really see how this thread is about dominion anyway. Just merge both threads and throw the whole thing in RSP
-
XerxesPraelor, werothegreat, Seprix, Gherald, popsofctown.
PLEASE stop posting about this topic here. Go to the other thread: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11646
I said so in the OP, and three people have repeated it. What is it going to take?
Theory, instead of moving this thread too, can you just delete the offending posts? (Or move them to the other thread)
Out of curiosity, what kind of discussion were you hoping for? I don't see how this leads into anything other than RSP, unless you wanted just a post with stats.
-
Since the dawn of time, whenever I have pictured women, witches, hags, possessors, harems, and most of all bakers were what came to my mind. Now that adventures is coming out I must also imagine guides, messengers, even heroes!! My mind will be very tired indeed. (P.S. How did i do staying on topic??)
-
The possessor on Possession...is a woman?
-
XerxesPraelor, werothegreat, Seprix, Gherald, popsofctown.
PLEASE stop posting about this topic here. Go to the other thread: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11646
I said so in the OP, and three people have repeated it. What is it going to take?
Theory, instead of moving this thread too, can you just delete the offending posts? (Or move them to the other thread)
(https://i.imgflip.com/k0d2e.jpg)
-
XerxesPraelor, werothegreat, Seprix, Gherald, popsofctown.
PLEASE stop posting about this topic here. Go to the other thread: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11646
I said so in the OP, and three people have repeated it. What is it going to take?
Theory, instead of moving this thread too, can you just delete the offending posts? (Or move them to the other thread)
Out of curiosity, what kind of discussion were you hoping for? I don't see how this leads into anything other than RSP, unless you wanted just a post with stats.
Well I'm not him, but a post with stats and discussion trying to improve the accuracy of the stats sounds just fine to me! For example, a reply like this is very much on topic and not RSP at all:
The Messenger is a woman. It's clearer on the big art.
As an analogy, in the thread http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12964.0, "Probabilities of a hand", the discussion is of exactly that nature. Imagine if it instead had replies like
Must everything be about math politics?
Where are all those similar threads calculating the probabilities of revealing a moat, ending the game in 10 turns or less, etc.
I wonder what it is about hands that makes disinterested 3rd parties suddenly want to calculate their probabilities...
-
Out of curiosity, what kind of discussion were you hoping for? I don't see how this leads into anything other than RSP, unless you wanted just a post with stats.
I wrote that already. Just scroll up. (Edit: Ok, it's on page one. The point is, you haven't read the thread.)
-
Here's the total score for Adventures. 34 out of the 50 cards show people. (Counting each set of 5 Traveller cards as one card for these purposes.)
ADVENTURES
Male: Alms, Borrow, Bridge Troll, Duplicate, Ferry, Giant, Hireling, Miser, Pathfinding, Peasant/Soldier/Fugitive/Disciple/Teacher, Quest, Ratcatcher, Raze, Training, Transmogrify, Travelling Fair, Wine Merchant
Female: Artificer, Caravan Guard, Guide, Lost Arts, Messenger, Page/Treasure Hunter/Warrior/Hero/Champion, Ranger, Save, Storyteller, Swamp Hag
Both: Ball, Bonfire, Pilgrimage, Plan(?), Royal Carriage, Scouting Party
Unknown: Raid
Percentage of female cards: 39.4%
Most of the female cards had been previewed already when I last did the count, so we have a more traditional (for Dominion) distribution than it seemed then. It's a higher percentage of female cards than most other sets, but not close to Cornucopia's 61.7%. Adventures does have the highest number of female cards though (13).
This changes the total Dominion score to:
MALE: 127.1 = 74.7%
FEMALE: 42.9 = 25.3%
UNKNOWN: 9
EDIT 2015-04-28: Changed Royal Carriage to "both", and Raid to "Unknown".
EDIT 2015-05-04: Added Expand (from Prosperity) as a female card, changing the total slightly.
-
Royal Carriage has a ladygirl in the carriage.
-
Most of the female cards had been previewed already when I last did the count, so we have a more traditional (for Dominion) distribution than it seemed then. It's a higher percentage of female cards than most other sets, but not close to Cornucopia's 61.7%. Adventures does have the highest number of female cards though (12.5).
I only specified for kingdom cards specifically showing a person. It does better there.
-
I'm glad to see counting happen; I made a similar thread right after Dark Ages I think. But I disagree with the original post assigning maleness to Thief and Spy (and probably some others as well).
There are no clear gender signifiers on either of those cards, and I don't think it's reasonable to be unhappy about the 'default is male' attitude that leads to these disparities while simultaneously assigning a default gender of male to images that don't really assign it for you.
-
I'm glad to see counting happen; I made a similar thread right after Dark Ages I think. But I disagree with your assigning maleness to Thief and Spy (and probably some others as well).
There are no clear gender signifiers on either of those cards, and I don't think it's reasonable to be unhappy about the 'default is male' attitude that leads to these disparities while simultaneously assigning a default gender of male to images that don't really assign it for you.
I'm pretty sure Donald has only specified gender for recent cards (only Adventures maybe?). Sorry, I misunderstood.
-
Royal Carriage has a ladygirl in the carriage.
Yeah, I know. The question is what represents the Royal Carriage. The driver is a man, so I went by that. It's like if the card was named Taxi and the taxi driver was a man, with a male and a female passenger. But this one is certainly not clear.
I'm glad to see counting happen; I made a similar thread right after Dark Ages I think. But I disagree with the original post assigning maleness to Thief and Spy (and probably some others as well).
There are no clear gender signifiers on either of those cards, and I don't think it's reasonable to be unhappy about the 'default is male' attitude that leads to these disparities while simultaneously assigning a default gender of male to images that don't really assign it for you.
I looked at the faces of the Thief and the Spy, and they looked pretty male. I did the same for some other cards, and found they looked female, mostly in Adventures I guess.
-
Here's the total score for Adventures. 34 out of the 50 cards show people. (Counting each set of 5 Traveller cards as one card for these purposes.)
ADVENTURES
Male: Alms, Borrow, Bridge Troll, Duplicate, Ferry, Giant, Hireling, Miser, Pathfinding, Peasant/Soldier/Fugitive/Disciple/Teacher, Quest, Raid, Ratcatcher, Raze, Royal Carriage, Training, Transmogrify, Travelling Fair, Wine Merchant
Female: Artificer, Caravan Guard, Guide, Lost Arts, Messenger, Page/Treasure Hunter/Warrior/Hero/Champion, Ranger, Save, Storyteller, Swamp Hag
Both: Ball, Bonfire, Pilgrimage, Plan(?), Scouting Party
Percentage of female cards: 36.8%
Quibbles:
Raid -- Too much armor to distinguish male vs female. Everybody's going to look the same in that armor. Suggestion: unknown.
Royal Carriage -- Since the passengers put the "royal" in "royal carriage", and the most visible passenger is female, I'd argue this should be classified as both.
Travelling Fair -- The person doing a handstand is plausibly female. Granted, even with that it's still 4 male to 1 female, and the most prominent character is male. But they're all part of the travelling fair. Suggestion: both?
-
I looked at the faces of the Thief and the Spy, and they looked pretty male. I did the same for some other cards, and found they looked female, mostly in Adventures I guess.
I guess this is a thing I might never have thought through unless I had written my own similar list, but the question I came to is what actually signifies male?
Thief and Spy are good examples, in that they are intimidating, brutish faces, but with no facial hair, no male pattern baldness, and no visible junk-bulge. Yes, brutishness is a masculine quality, but it isn't really a male quality. Thief has broad shoulders, but is also clearly wearing a cape or something that is exaggerating their shoulders.
I guess an argument could be made that Spy looks like they have stubble, and I guess I would respect that, but for Thief I can't see that at all.
I would argue that in these cases (as well as comparable Adventures cases you ruled as female but I haven't really looked), the absence of biological signifiers should outweigh the presence of cultural signifiers... otherwise you might as well just decide that most thefts are performed by men so Thief is a male card.
-
Quibbles:
Raid -- Too much armor to distinguish male vs female. Everybody's going to look the same in that armor. Suggestion: unknown.
Royal Carriage -- Since the passengers put the "royal" in "royal carriage", and the most visible passenger is female, I'd argue this should be classified as both.
Travelling Fair -- The person doing a handstand is plausibly female. Granted, even with that it's still 4 male to 1 female, and the most prominent character is male. But they're all part of the travelling fair. Suggestion: both?
Raid: I admit that here I went by what the intention most likely was. The type of armor and helmet looks like it would be worn by a man. But, since historically there were no female knights in the first place and that didn't stop the Dames of Dark Ages, I guess you can't really say what the gender of this person is either. I'll change it to "unknown" (although I'm 95% sure the artist thought of a man).
Royal Carriage: Ok, I'll change it to "both".
Travelling Fair: One person of unknown gender in the back, and the rest more clearly depicted men? I think I'm keeping this "male".
-
I guess this is a thing I might never have thought through unless I had written my own similar list, but the question I came to is what actually signifies male?
Thief and Spy are good examples, in that they are intimidating, brutish faces, but with no facial hair, no male pattern baldness, and no visible junk-bulge. Yes, brutishness is a masculine quality, but it isn't really a male quality. Thief has broad shoulders, but is also clearly wearing a cape or something that is exaggerating their shoulders.
I guess an argument could be made that Spy looks like they have stubble, and I guess I would respect that, but for Thief I can't see that at all.
I would argue that in these cases (as well as comparable Adventures cases you ruled as female but I haven't really looked), the absence of biological signifiers should outweigh the presence of cultural signifiers... otherwise you might as well just decide that most thefts are performed by men so Thief is a male card.
I don't agree. We have to consider that the artist had a gender in mind. They didn't just draw a person without deciding on the gender. Maybe if they drew a robed figure, that would be the case, but in 99% of these cards they had a gender in mind. Take a look at Caravan Guard. If this was a photo, there would be no way of knowing if this was a woman or an androgynous looking man. Or Messenger, which Donald has confirmed is a woman. So we have to realize that the artist would not choose to draw an androgynous looking man if they were drawing a man (without there being specific reasons for doing so). The same applies for Thief and Spy, the other way around.
-
I looked at the faces of the Thief and the Spy, and they looked pretty male. I did the same for some other cards, and found they looked female, mostly in Adventures I guess.
I guess this is a thing I might never have thought through unless I had written my own similar list, but the question I came to is what actually signifies male?
Thief and Spy are good examples, in that they are intimidating, brutish faces, but with no facial hair, no male pattern baldness, and no visible junk-bulge. Yes, brutishness is a masculine quality, but it isn't really a male quality. Thief has broad shoulders, but is also clearly wearing a cape or something that is exaggerating their shoulders.
I guess an argument could be made that Spy looks like they have stubble, and I guess I would respect that, but for Thief I can't see that at all.
I would argue that in these cases (as well as comparable Adventures cases you ruled as female but I haven't really looked), the absence of biological signifiers should outweigh the presence of cultural signifiers... otherwise you might as well just decide that most thefts are performed by men so Thief is a male card.
I would say Thief's very square jaw is a weak biological indicator for maleness.
-
Where are all those similar threads complaining about, or at least pointing out, the unequal share of Blacks, Asians, Muslims, animals, species of flowers and trees, etc.
I wonder what it is about women that makes disinterested 3rd parties suddenly want to leap to their defense...
I've noticed that horses are vastly overrepresented compared to other nonhuman animals. Though if you group all birds together, they might be doing okay. Rats too.
-
I just noticed this after years of Dominion, but there's an unambiguous female on Expand.
-
I guess this is a thing I might never have thought through unless I had written my own similar list, but the question I came to is what actually signifies male?
Thief and Spy are good examples, in that they are intimidating, brutish faces, but with no facial hair, no male pattern baldness, and no visible junk-bulge. Yes, brutishness is a masculine quality, but it isn't really a male quality. Thief has broad shoulders, but is also clearly wearing a cape or something that is exaggerating their shoulders.
I guess an argument could be made that Spy looks like they have stubble, and I guess I would respect that, but for Thief I can't see that at all.
I would argue that in these cases (as well as comparable Adventures cases you ruled as female but I haven't really looked), the absence of biological signifiers should outweigh the presence of cultural signifiers... otherwise you might as well just decide that most thefts are performed by men so Thief is a male card.
I don't agree. We have to consider that the artist had a gender in mind. They didn't just draw a person without deciding on the gender. Maybe if they drew a robed figure, that would be the case, but in 99% of these cards they had a gender in mind. Take a look at Caravan Guard. If this was a photo, there would be no way of knowing if this was a woman or an androgynous looking man. Or Messenger, which Donald has confirmed is a woman. So we have to realize that the artist would not choose to draw an androgynous looking man if they were drawing a man (without there being specific reasons for doing so). The same applies for Thief and Spy, the other way around.
If the thread is about persecuting artists, then sure, but the end result should matter more than that.
There's the whole, how separate is interpretation of art from the artists' intent debate and all that jazz, but for practical purposes like this thread and just tabulating things, the end result is what matters.
_________________________________________________________________
Royal Carriage should be female because clearly the female is the one who "called" the Royal Carriage and will get to play her action card an additional time.
-
I'm really glad that there's more female representation in Adventures. Even though the ratio is not that much higher, I think the inclusion of a female ARC CHARACTER (who I just absolutely love as seen by my avatar), and one in a position of power at that, is a big step for the female gaming community. Plus Alayna Lemmer (http://www.alayna.net/portfolio.html) is so talented it hurts.
What I'm a bit worried about, though, is the abundance of male pronouns in the card descriptions. "Each other player takes his -$1 token", "reveals the top card of his deck", "he gains a Curse", etc. This is true on cards from other sets too but somehow it hasn't been so apparent as in Adventures. DXV, I don't want you to think I'm being rude, but was there anything stopping you from, say, using the singular "they" on those cards?
-
DXV, I don't want you to think I'm being rude, but was there anything stopping you from, say, using the singular "they" on those cards?
RGG (Jay) changed it to sound more professional.
-
DXV, I don't want you to think I'm being rude, but was there anything stopping you from, say, using the singular "they" on those cards?
The pre-publication prototype said "they" or "he or she," not entirely consistently. You can see examples on the oldest cards in the outtakes article: http://dominionstrategy.com/2013/06/24/dominion-outtakes/. When I showed the prototype to RGG, it was consistently "they." It turns out this is another thing the game designer does not get to decide.
Jay went with "he" as a common way of trying to look professional. "Edited English" uses "he." I strongly favor "they," since it's not sexist, people have been saying it for hundreds of years, and in conversation people rarely say "he or she." People trying to look professional tend to not want to use "they" though, and generally aren't looking to make a statement about the issue either. Anyway that's a discussion for the Religion, Sex, Politics, and Language Prescriptivism forum.
-
DXV, I don't want you to think I'm being rude, but was there anything stopping you from, say, using the singular "they" on those cards?
RGG (Jay) changed it to sound more professional.
A few of the later cards, particularly Soothsayer, are worded so that pronouns aren't even needed ("this player", etc), but with a lot of the Adventures stuff there's just really no way around it.
-
If Dominion started using "they" on theoretical future cards, that's an "inconsistency" that would get my full support.
-
It's not even sexist to use 'he'. I don't think it's a problem.
-
It's not even sexist to use 'he'. I don't think it's a problem.
I think you're going to get a lot of disagreement on this point, but I also recommend that this discussion not happen in this thread as the OP has already indicated that they would prefer to keep this thread just about discussion of the data and data gathering itself.
-
I think they should use "he" and "she" for different specific things, just to mess with people. "Why does 'she' always get to draw a card, but 'he' has to take a Curse? It just isn't fair."
-
If Dominion started using "they" on theoretical future cards, that's an "inconsistency" that would get my full support.
I think it's okay to discuss the cards or how they could have been here, as long as we don't get into the politics (arguing why the cards should or shouldn't be a certain way).
I think "he or she"/"the player"/"that player" could have worked, maybe it would just be a bit more awkward. But "they" is a bit more difficult.
"Each other player may reveal a Bane card from their hand. If they don't, they gain a Curse." (Young Witch)
"Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck [...] If they didn't reveal a Treasure, they gain a Copper." (Noble Brigand)
At least it would seem to change the order of resolution for cards like Spy and Saboteur (but that may not be very important).
-
It's not even sexist to use 'he'. I don't think it's a problem.
I think you're going to get a lot of disagreement on this point, but I also recommend that this discussion not happen in this thread as the OP has already indicated that they would prefer to keep this thread just about discussion of the data and data gathering itself.
I think you're right in this case, but it's inconsistent to say this just to him and not to Jeebus, Elanchana, and Voltaire, just to name a few people who have been talking about non "data and data gathering" recently in this thread.
Also, I can't wait until singular they is finally accepted. There's basically no good argument for it besides "it's what I was taught".
-
Also, I can't wait until singular they is finally accepted. There's basically no good argument for it besides "it's what I was taught".
When you say "for", do you mean 'against'?
-
It's not even sexist to use 'he'. I don't think it's a problem.
I think you're going to get a lot of disagreement on this point, but I also recommend that this discussion not happen in this thread as the OP has already indicated that they would prefer to keep this thread just about discussion of the data and data gathering itself.
I think you're right in this case, but it's inconsistent to say this just to him and not to Jeebus, Elanchana, and Voltaire, just to name a few people who have been talking about non "data and data gathering" recently in this thread.
Also, I can't wait until singular they is finally accepted. There's basically no good argument for it besides "it's what I was taught".
I would like a singular they. I am however afraid it's going to sound stupid, like some made up word.
-
It's not even sexist to use 'he'. I don't think it's a problem.
I think you're going to get a lot of disagreement on this point, but I also recommend that this discussion not happen in this thread as the OP has already indicated that they would prefer to keep this thread just about discussion of the data and data gathering itself.
I think you're right in this case, but it's inconsistent to say this just to him and not to Jeebus, Elanchana, and Voltaire, just to name a few people who have been talking about non "data and data gathering" recently in this thread.
Also, I can't wait until singular they is finally accepted. There's basically no good argument for it besides "it's what I was taught".
I would like a singular they. I am however afraid it's going to sound stupid, like some made up word.
Can we all just blame Proto-Indo-European for not having a gender-neutral animate third person singular pronoun?
-
It's not even sexist to use 'he'. I don't think it's a problem.
I think you're going to get a lot of disagreement on this point, but I also recommend that this discussion not happen in this thread as the OP has already indicated that they would prefer to keep this thread just about discussion of the data and data gathering itself.
I think you're right in this case, but it's inconsistent to say this just to him and not to Jeebus, Elanchana, and Voltaire, just to name a few people who have been talking about non "data and data gathering" recently in this thread.
Also, I can't wait until singular they is finally accepted. There's basically no good argument for it besides "it's what I was taught".
I would like a singular they. I am however afraid it's going to sound stupid, like some made up word.
Can we all just blame Proto-Indo-European for not having a gender-neutral animate third person singular pronoun?
Yes. They're bastards.
-
It's not even sexist to use 'he'. I don't think it's a problem.
I think you're going to get a lot of disagreement on this point, but I also recommend that this discussion not happen in this thread as the OP has already indicated that they would prefer to keep this thread just about discussion of the data and data gathering itself.
I think you're right in this case, but it's inconsistent to say this just to him and not to Jeebus, Elanchana, and Voltaire, just to name a few people who have been talking about non "data and data gathering" recently in this thread.
Also, I can't wait until singular they is finally accepted. There's basically no good argument for it besides "it's what I was taught".
I would like a singular they. I am however afraid it's going to sound stupid, like some made up word.
Funny story. In the past, the second-person singular pronoun was "thou", and second-person plural was the context where "you" was used. Over time, "you" got absorbed into being used for both, to the point where no one even questions it because it's what we're all used to.
"They" could be used the same way for third-person. Just like with "you", it'd be perfectly viable for it to get accepted as a regular singular pronoun, and once people got used to it they wouldn't question it. In fact, it could even become the only third-person pronoun used, just like how "you" is the only second-person pronoun used, but that's getting into some whole other topics.
-
Funny story. In the past, the second-person singular pronoun was "thou", and second-person plural was the context where "you" was used. Over time, "you" got absorbed into being used for both, to the point where no one even questions it because it's what we're all used to.
"They" could be used the same way for third-person. Just like with "you", it'd be perfectly viable for it to get accepted as a regular singular pronoun, and once people got used to it they wouldn't question it. In fact, it could even become the only third-person pronoun used, just like how "you" is the only second-person pronoun used, but that's getting into some whole other topics.
The lack of two different words for singular-you and plural-you is a problem in English though. It easily leads to misunderstandings. Which is why many dialects of English have created their own version of plural-you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You#Informal_plural_forms
-
I don't agree. We have to consider that the artist had a gender in mind. They didn't just draw a person without deciding on the gender. Maybe if they drew a robed figure, that would be the case, but in 99% of these cards they had a gender in mind. Take a look at Caravan Guard. If this was a photo, there would be no way of knowing if this was a woman or an androgynous looking man. Or Messenger, which Donald has confirmed is a woman. So we have to realize that the artist would not choose to draw an androgynous looking man if they were drawing a man (without there being specific reasons for doing so). The same applies for Thief and Spy, the other way around.
If the thread is about persecuting artists, then sure, but the end result should matter more than that.
There's the whole, how separate is interpretation of art from the artists' intent debate and all that jazz, but for practical purposes like this thread and just tabulating things, the end result is what matters.
For practical purposes we have to figure out what the hell the artist intended to draw. If we were counting horses and a card had a badly drawn horse which could also be a dog, the fact that a person is riding it would be a clue to the artist's intention. But actually of course it's possible for a humam being to sit on a dog. It might be a small human being and a big dog. That consideration would not make me put the card as an "unknown".
-
Funny story. In the past, the second-person singular pronoun was "thou", and second-person plural was the context where "you" was used. Over time, "you" got absorbed into being used for both, to the point where no one even questions it because it's what we're all used to.
"They" could be used the same way for third-person. Just like with "you", it'd be perfectly viable for it to get accepted as a regular singular pronoun, and once people got used to it they wouldn't question it. In fact, it could even become the only third-person pronoun used, just like how "you" is the only second-person pronoun used, but that's getting into some whole other topics.
The lack of two different words for singular-you and plural-you is a problem in English though. It easily leads to misunderstandings. Which is why many dialects of English have created their own version of plural-you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You#Informal_plural_forms
Y'all.
-
Funny story. In the past, the second-person singular pronoun was "thou", and second-person plural was the context where "you" was used. Over time, "you" got absorbed into being used for both, to the point where no one even questions it because it's what we're all used to.
"They" could be used the same way for third-person. Just like with "you", it'd be perfectly viable for it to get accepted as a regular singular pronoun, and once people got used to it they wouldn't question it. In fact, it could even become the only third-person pronoun used, just like how "you" is the only second-person pronoun used, but that's getting into some whole other topics.
The lack of two different words for singular-you and plural-you is a problem in English though. It easily leads to misunderstandings. Which is why many dialects of English have created their own version of plural-you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You#Informal_plural_forms
I would use this as an example of how out-of-our-control this all is. It was clearly better to have separate words for you singular and you plural, and yet the language ended up with the same word. It would be nice to have separate words for they singular and they plural, but we've had singular they for hundreds of years and it shows no signs of vanishing from use.
-
Funny story. In the past, the second-person singular pronoun was "thou", and second-person plural was the context where "you" was used. Over time, "you" got absorbed into being used for both, to the point where no one even questions it because it's what we're all used to.
"They" could be used the same way for third-person. Just like with "you", it'd be perfectly viable for it to get accepted as a regular singular pronoun, and once people got used to it they wouldn't question it. In fact, it could even become the only third-person pronoun used, just like how "you" is the only second-person pronoun used, but that's getting into some whole other topics.
The lack of two different words for singular-you and plural-you is a problem in English though. It easily leads to misunderstandings. Which is why many dialects of English have created their own version of plural-you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You#Informal_plural_forms
I would use this as an example of how out-of-our-control this all is. It was clearly better to have separate words for you singular and you plural, and yet the language ended up with the same word. It would be nice to have separate words for they singular and they plural, but we've had singular they for hundreds of years and it shows no signs of vanishing from use.
"Thou" actually fell out of use because it was used as an insult. It was supposed to connote familiarity, which turned into "I have no respect for you." So everyone just started using "you", which could be used as a singular pronoun to connote respect.
-
I think "he or she"/"the player"/"that player" could have worked, maybe it would just be a bit more awkward. But "they" is a bit more difficult.
"Each other player may reveal a Bane card from their hand. If they don't, they gain a Curse." (Young Witch)
"Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck [...] If they didn't reveal a Treasure, they gain a Copper." (Noble Brigand)
For Young Witch, I'd try
"Each other player may reveal a Bane card from hand. Each player who didn't gains a Curse."
The ordering might be slightly different from the existing Young Witch. (Doesn't the current ordering interleave revealing banes and gaining curses?)
-
I don't agree. We have to consider that the artist had a gender in mind. They didn't just draw a person without deciding on the gender. Maybe if they drew a robed figure, that would be the case, but in 99% of these cards they had a gender in mind. Take a look at Caravan Guard. If this was a photo, there would be no way of knowing if this was a woman or an androgynous looking man. Or Messenger, which Donald has confirmed is a woman. So we have to realize that the artist would not choose to draw an androgynous looking man if they were drawing a man (without there being specific reasons for doing so). The same applies for Thief and Spy, the other way around.
If the thread is about persecuting artists, then sure, but the end result should matter more than that.
There's the whole, how separate is interpretation of art from the artists' intent debate and all that jazz, but for practical purposes like this thread and just tabulating things, the end result is what matters.
For practical purposes we have to figure out what the hell the artist intended to draw. If we were counting horses and a card had a badly drawn horse which could also be a dog, the fact that a person is riding it would be a clue to the artist's intention. But actually of course it's possible for a humam being to sit on a dog. It might be a small human being and a big dog. That consideration would not make me put the card as an "unknown".
I'm going to acknowledge your post and stop responding further.
-
I would like a singular they. I am however afraid it's going to sound stupid, like some made up word.
Don't worry, they're all made-up words.
-
I just noticed this after years of Dominion, but there's an unambiguous female on Expand.
If the square jaw on Thief isn't unambiguously male, the long hair on Expand certainly isn't unambiguously female.
-
I'm going with female or elf.
-
I lost some interest in this, but thought I should update it for Empires anyway. Here is the whole list.
To be consistent with how I did it for Knights, Prizes and Ruins, each card in a split pile counts as half a card. Cards with "both" count 0.5 male and 0.5 female. As before I'm going with who is being, doing or engaging with whatever's described in the card name.
I was unsure how to catergorize Advance and Tax. Both have men and women, but who is doing the thing? For Tax, the tax collectors are for sure the men, and the couple are just some hapless people getting taxed, so it seems correct to call it a "male" card. For Advance, there is a woman doing something very actively towards a man. But who is advancing? Is she advancing him, or is he advancing? In any case it seems better to call it a "both".
UPDATE 2016-10-06: Updated for base and Intrigue 2nd edition, and Sauna/Avanto promo.
EDIT 2016-10-07: Mistake in Intrigue corrected (Patrol)
UPDATE 2017-10-28: Updated based on new grouping method, see this post (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12971.msg729711#msg729711). (No new cards.)
UPDATE 2016-11-28: New complete list including Nocturne is here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12971.msg735370#msg735370
BASE (2nd edition)
Male: Bureaucrat, Laboratoty, Militia, Mine, Moneylender, Smithy, Vassal
Female: Artisan, Bandit, Harbinger, Merchant, Poacher, Sentry, Witch
Both: Festival, Market(?)
Unknown: Library
INTRIGUE (2nd edition)
Male: Baron, Conspirator, Duke, Ironworks, Minion, Nobels, Pawn, Replace, Steward, Swindler, Torturer
Female: Courtyard, Diplomat, Harem, Lurker, Patrol
Both: Courtier, Shanty Town (both are men, or one of each), Wishing Well (both are female, or one of each)
Unknown: -
SEASIDE
Male: Ambassador, Bazaar, Cutpurse, Embargo, Fishing Village, Haven, Lookout, Merchant Ship, Navigator, Pearl Diver, Salvager, Smugglers, Tactician, Wharf
Female: Explorer, Sea Hag
Both: Native Village
Unknown: -
ALCHEMY
Male: Alchemist, Apothecary, Golem, Herbalist, Transmute
Female: Scrying Pool, Possession
Unknown: Apprentice, Familiar
PROSPERITY
Male: Bank, Bishop, Counting House, Goons, Loan, Mint, Mountebank, Venture
Female: Expand, Forge, Peddler
Both: Grand Market, King's Court, Rabble (there are two women in the back, right?)
Unknown: -
CORNUCOPIA
Male: Horse Traders, Hunting Party, Tournament
Female: Fairgrounds, Farming Village, Fortune Teller, Harvest, Princess, Young Witch
Both: Followers, Menagerie
Unknown: Jester
HINTERLANDS
Male: Cartographer, Develop, Haggler, Jack of All Trades, Mandarin, Margrave, Noble Brigand, Nomad Camp, Scheme, Spice Merchant, Stables
Female: Duchess, Oracle, Trader
Both: Embassy
Unknown: -
DARK AGES
Male: Armory, Bandit Camp, Beggar, Count, Graverobber, Hermit/Madman, Hunting Grounds, Ironmonger, Junk Dealer, Marauder, Necropolis, Pillage, Procession, Rogue, Sage, Scavenger, Squire, Urchin/Mercenary, Vagrant, Wandering Minstrel
Female: Market Square, Mystic
Both: Band of Misfits, Survivors, Knights
Unknown: Death Cart, Cultist, Forager
GUILDS
Male: Advisor, Butcher, Candlestick Maker, Doctor, Herald, Journeyman, Merchant Guild, Stonemason, Taxman
Female: Baker, Soothsayer
Both: Plaza
Unknown: -
ADVENTURES
Male: Alms, Borrow, Bridge Troll, Duplicate, Ferry, Giant, Hireling, Miser, Pathfinding, Peasant/Soldier/Fugitive/Disciple/Teacher, Quest, Ratcatcher, Raze, Training, Transmogrify, Travelling Fair, Wine Merchant
Female: Artificer, Caravan Guard, Guide, Lost Arts, Messenger, Page/Treasure Hunter/Warrior/Hero/Champion, Ranger, Save, Storyteller, Swamp Hag
Both: Ball, Bonfire, Pilgrimage, Plan(?), Royal Carriage, Scouting Party
Unknown: Raid
EMPIRES
Male: Arena(?), Battlefield, Catapult/Rocks, Chariot Race, Conquest, Delve, Dominate, Gladiator/Fortune, Legionary, Overlord, Patrician/Emporium, Royal Blacksmith, Sacrifice, Tax, Triumph, Triumphal Arch
Female: Baths, Donate, Enchantress, Engineer, Farmers' Market, Groundskeeper, Wedding, Windfall
Both: Advance, Annex, Banquet, Basilica, Salt the Earth, Settlers/Bustling Village
Unknown: Encampment/Plunder, Bandit Fort, Wild Hunt
PROMOS
Male: Black Market, Envoy, Governor, Prince
Female: Summon
Both: -
Unknown: Sauna
Totals (with "Both" included):
MALE: 139 = 68.7%
FEMALE: 65 = 31.8%
UNKNOWN: 12
Breakdown for each set, percentage of female cards:
BASE (2E): 50.0%
INTRIGUE (2E): 34.2%
SEASIDE: 14.7%
ALCHEMY: 28.6%
PROSPERITY: 32.1%
CORNUCOPIA: 63.6%
HINTERLANDS: 23.3%
DARK AGES: 14.0%
GUILDS: 20.8%
ADVENTURES: 39.4%
EMPIRES: 36.7%
PROMOS: 20.0%
-
I did an update of the post based on the new editions of the base game and Intrigue. The old (replaced) cards are not included.
Base goes from 17.9% to 50.0% (and is now only second to Cornucopia as the most woman-filled set).
Intrigue goes from 16.7% to 34.2%.
This changes the total from 27.2% to 31.3% female.
Edit 2016-10-07: Corrected because Patrol was incorrectly counted as male.
-
It's a nice improvement. I think the real questions is, are the women get paid the same as the men?
-
Some of them are only getting paid $3!
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/7/78/Merchant.jpg)
-
At the very least there doesn't seem to be any sexual harassment on the cards.
-
It's a nice improvement. I think the real questions is, are the women get paid the same as the men?
The female-art Base cards cost on average slightly more than the male-art ones:
Male: Bureaucrat 4, Laboratory 5, Militia 4, Mine 5, Moneylender 4, Smithy 4, Vassal 3, total = 29
Female: Artisan 6, Bandit 5, Harbinger 3, Merchant 3, Poacher 4, Sentry 5, Witch 5, total = 31
-
At the very least there doesn't seem to be any sexual harassment on the cards.
Harem is pretty objectifying, and kind of racist! I feel like the white woman in the back of the art was ham-fisted in to make it seem less terrible that some of the only women of color in the game are sex slaves. Oh well.
-
At the very least there doesn't seem to be any sexual harassment on the cards.
Harem is pretty objectifying, and kind of racist! I feel like the white woman in the back of the art was ham-fisted in to make it seem less terrible that some of the only women of color in the game are sex slaves. Oh well.
It's also... kind of accurate? Harems would actually include European women. There's actually a very long and complicated (and certainly horribly misogynistic :( ) history associated with harems.
EDIT: Also, I think this is exactly the card that needs cartoony art so you kind of forget about the actual subject matter, it gives the vibe of "please don't take this too seriously, it's just a game, folks"
-
At the very least there doesn't seem to be any sexual harassment on the cards.
Harem is pretty objectifying, and kind of racist! I feel like the white woman in the back of the art was ham-fisted in to make it seem less terrible that some of the only women of color in the game are sex slaves. Oh well.
Oh yeah, forgot about Harem.
It's so hard to get feminists to shut up. :P
-
At the very least there doesn't seem to be any sexual harassment on the cards.
Harem is pretty objectifying, and kind of racist! I feel like the white woman in the back of the art was ham-fisted in to make it seem less terrible that some of the only women of color in the game are sex slaves. Oh well.
Isn't this pigeonholing this a bit?
I literally never looked at art of cards more than half a second. I mean, I remember what cards do based on sort of overall recognition, not even necessarily names.
'I was drawing a lot of cards with that brown card that gives 2 cards and an action' is a typical sentence. (Although, by now, I know the name of laboratory pretty good.)
-
At the very least there doesn't seem to be any sexual harassment on the cards.
Harem is pretty objectifying, and kind of racist! I feel like the white woman in the back of the art was ham-fisted in to make it seem less terrible that some of the only women of color in the game are sex slaves. Oh well.
Isn't this pigeonholing this a bit?
I literally never looked at art of cards more than half a second. I mean, I remember what cards do based on sort of overall recognition, not even necessarily names.
'I was drawing a lot of cards with that brown card that gives 2 cards and an action' is a typical sentence. (Although, by now, I know the name of laboratory pretty good.)
Sure, not everyone is conscious of or pays attention to the art or card name. That doesn't mean they have no purpose or leave no impression on the user; why even have those attributes if they are actually not used at all by anyone? Clearly some people (that aren't you, I guess?) look at this stuff. Might as well try to suck less.
I don't mean to single out Harem because I remember reading a post where DXV offered to change the name or the art or something but the original artist said no, but it is an example of a problematic element of the media. That doesn't like make Dominion shitty overall or not worth buying or whatever, but it's something to note while we're talking about the portrayal of gender in cards.
-
At the very least there doesn't seem to be any sexual harassment on the cards.
Harem is pretty objectifying, and kind of racist! I feel like the white woman in the back of the art was ham-fisted in to make it seem less terrible that some of the only women of color in the game are sex slaves. Oh well.
It's also... kind of accurate? Harems would actually include European women. There's actually a very long and complicated (and certainly horribly misogynistic :( ) history associated with harems.
EDIT: Also, I think this is exactly the card that needs cartoony art so you kind of forget about the actual subject matter, it gives the vibe of "please don't take this too seriously, it's just a game, folks"
I was slightly disappointed that the new version of intrigue didn't include a new name and art for Harem. I mean, it milled great hall.
-
At the very least there doesn't seem to be any sexual harassment on the cards.
Harem is pretty objectifying, and kind of racist! I feel like the white woman in the back of the art was ham-fisted in to make it seem less terrible that some of the only women of color in the game are sex slaves. Oh well.
The art wouldn't have been made in the context of knowing the art on all the other cards.
-
There is a thread about Harem and whatever implications it has. I think maybe it was started by me, but I'm not sure. Donald talks about it there too. I would give the link, but I'm on my phone so it's too much hassle. Anyway, I'd appreciate it if you didn't discuss the politics of gender and stuff here, because it easily ends with the thread being moved to RSP.
-
Jeebus, your Intrigue count is wrong. Patrol is female.
-
Take a close look at Witch. I think there is a man under that veil. That chin!
-
Jeebus, your Intrigue count is wrong. Patrol is female.
Agh. I actually checked it in large size and confirmed that it's indeed a woman, but then somehow screwed up and put it in the wrong column anyway. Thanks! Corrected.
-
Harem is pretty objectifying, and kind of racist! I feel like the white woman in the back of the art was ham-fisted in to make it seem less terrible that some of the only women of color in the game are sex slaves. Oh well.
Whatever other line of reasoning the artist may have used, he had to include the white woman; it's Valerie Putman, developer for the main game.
Then, when I suggested renaming Harem in 2E, Jay said no, because Valerie had appreciated being on Harem. Couldn't Valerie be depicted on the new card? I don't know if he asked or what but he did not agree to it.
-
I'm looking at this again. There's a lot of non-kingdom cards coming in Nocturne. Previously I was counting Prizes, Knights, Ruins and split piles as one pile each (so that Princess would be 1/5 of a card, a card from a split pile would be 0.5 card, etc), and also factoring in how often a non-Kingdom card would appear. I've decided that this method isn't tenable anymore.
I'm now basing it more on thematic content. Prizes and Ruins now count as separate cards, but the Knight pile still counts as 1 card, Hermit/Madman is just 1, so is Urchin/Mercenary, and each Traveller line is just 1. Split piles count as 1 pile (considering both images). In Nocturne, Boons and Hexes count as separate cards, Ghost/Haunted Mirror is 1, so is Vampire/Bat, the other non-Kingdom cards each count as separate cards.
This produces the following changes in the current list (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12971.msg617152#msg617152): Cornucopia changes from 61.7% to 63.6%, Dark Ages changes from 12.4% to 14.0%, and Empires changes from 37.3% to 36.7%. Total female cards go from 31.3% to 31.8% The list is updated.
For now I haven't added any Nocturne cards or the new promo. But factoring in all cards known so far gets us to 45.7% female cards in Nocturne, the highest except for Cornucopia and the revised edition of the base game. New total would be 33.1% female.
-
Noting the irony how Adventures doesn't have Adventurers! :o
-
No comment on the general gender issue, I feel the same way about all hrethgir.
I will note that all the "Witch" cards (Witch, Sea Hag, Young Witch, Soothsayer, Swamp Hag) are female, with the exception of Familiar, which appears to be male, and Mountebank. I'm counting a "Witch" card to be one that explicitly has the mechanic of giving other players curses and is an attack, disagree if you wish.
That said, I'm surprised that a "Warlock" hasn't made it into Dominion yet. I'd like to see something like that, perhaps in conjunction with some female witch apprentices maybe.
-
No comment on the general gender issue, I feel the same way about all hrethgir.
I will note that all the "Witch" cards (Witch, Sea Hag, Young Witch, Soothsayer, Swamp Hag) are female, with the exception of Familiar, which appears to be male, and Mountebank. I'm counting a "Witch" card to be one that explicitly has the mechanic of giving other players curses and is an attack, disagree if you wish.
That said, I'm surprised that a "Warlock" hasn't made it into Dominion yet. I'd like to see something like that, perhaps in conjunction with some female witch apprentices maybe.
A Warlock would give out 1.266 curses when you played it.
-
No comment on the general gender issue, I feel the same way about all hrethgir.
I will note that all the "Witch" cards (Witch, Sea Hag, Young Witch, Soothsayer, Swamp Hag) are female, with the exception of Familiar, which appears to be male, and Mountebank. I'm counting a "Witch" card to be one that explicitly has the mechanic of giving other players curses and is an attack, disagree if you wish.
That said, I'm surprised that a "Warlock" hasn't made it into Dominion yet. I'd like to see something like that, perhaps in conjunction with some female witch apprentices maybe.
A Warlock would give out 1.266 curses when you played it.
Debatable; Witchery is a traditionally feminine career, so it's reasonable that there wouldn't be a gender-based Curse gap.
-
A Warlock would give out 1.266 curses when you played it.
I figure he would do equal work, but would cost 6.33 coins.
-
No comment on the general gender issue, I feel the same way about all hrethgir.
I will note that all the "Witch" cards (Witch, Sea Hag, Young Witch, Soothsayer, Swamp Hag) are female, with the exception of Familiar, which appears to be male, and Mountebank. I'm counting a "Witch" card to be one that explicitly has the mechanic of giving other players curses and is an attack, disagree if you wish.
That said, I'm surprised that a "Warlock" hasn't made it into Dominion yet. I'd like to see something like that, perhaps in conjunction with some female witch apprentices maybe.
I would consider both Cultist and Torturer to be Witch variants, although obviously Cultist is a variant because it gives out Ruins instead of Curses. Enchantress has a Witch-like theme and does not give out Curses, but is female and an attack.
-
I would consider both Cultist and Torturer to be Witch variants, although obviously Cultist is a variant because it gives out Ruins instead of Curses. Enchantress has a Witch-like theme and does not give out Curses, but is female and an attack.
Cards that give out Ruins are specifically a Looter type as shown on the bottom of the card. This signifies somebody or a group raiding a village or siphoning resources and leaving (almost) nothing left. The witch cards are not a type, but more of a theme, which is entirely subjective, unlike the Looters. For instance, the Looter type is significant with Courtier, but not any "Witch" cards apart from their Attack-Action-etc types.
I wouldn't count Torturer to be a Witch card since it is possible to play a whole game being tortured without gaining a curse. It is entirely up to the poor tortured soul whether a curse is gained or not. Not so with something like Mountebank or Young Witch, which (ha) only fail to give you curses due to some condition of your current hand, but the same can be said for any other Witch when attacked players hold a Moat.
I thought about including Enchantress as a Witch card as she seems to fit the general theme. However, she doesn't give out curses, so she is just an attack who happens to be female, like Warrior or Dame Josephine. Again, this is entirely subjective ;)
-
Cards that give out Ruins are specifically a Looter type as shown on the bottom of the card. This signifies somebody or a group raiding a village or siponing resources and leaving (almost) nothing left.
So are Witches about theme or about mechanics now? And since when are Death Karts related to looting? The type has a mechanical function, which is placing Ruin cards in the supply, and that's that. Cultist and Torturer are both variants of base's Witch, being stronger in some respect and worse in others. Witch has more in common with Torturer than with e.g. Swamp Hag. Donald X himself described Torturer as "a Witch with a bane of two cards you don't want".
The witch cards are not a type, but more of a theme, which is entirely subjective, unlike the Looters. For instance, the Looter type is significant with Courtier, but not any "Witch" cards apart from their Attack-Action-etc types.
I'm well aware of this and you'll find I never stated Looters in general were related to Witches. You're arguing against a strawman here.
Again, are Witches about a mechanic or about a theme? Should Enchantress be none because there's no junking, or Mountebank because it's not a female magic user? I'm arguing from the mechanical side, and you're free to look at it thematically only, but maybe stay consistent?
-
I will note that all the "Witch" cards (Witch, Sea Hag, Young Witch, Soothsayer, Swamp Hag) are female, with the exception of Familiar, which appears to be male, and Mountebank. I'm counting a "Witch" card to be one that explicitly has the mechanic of giving other players curses and is an attack, disagree if you wish.
You forgot Followers, gotta be some witches hiding somewhere in there.
I wouldn't count Torturer to be a Witch card since it is possible to play a whole game being tortured without gaining a curse. It is entirely up to the poor tortured soul whether a curse is gained or not.
It's also possible to play the whole game being Swamp Haged and never gain a curse, so to be consistent you'll have to include Torturer, Jester and others I'm probably forgetting or remove Swamp Hag.
-
I will note that all the "Witch" cards (Witch, Sea Hag, Young Witch, Soothsayer, Swamp Hag) are female, with the exception of Familiar, which appears to be male
It's really hard to say if the person in Familiar (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Familiar) is male or female, but there are folkloric associations between familiars and female witches. Specifically: witches had an extra nipple at which their familiar would suckle.
-
Cards that give out Ruins are specifically a Looter type as shown on the bottom of the card. This signifies somebody or a group raiding a village or siponing resources and leaving (almost) nothing left.
So are Witches about theme or about mechanics now? And since when are Death Karts related to looting? The type has a mechanical function, which is placing Ruin cards in the supply, and that's that. Cultist and Torturer are both variants of base's Witch, being stronger in some respect and worse in others. Witch has more in common with Torturer than with e.g. Swamp Hag. Donald X himself described Torturer as "a Witch with a bane of two cards you don't want".
The witch cards are not a type, but more of a theme, which is entirely subjective, unlike the Looters. For instance, the Looter type is significant with Courtier, but not any "Witch" cards apart from their Attack-Action-etc types.
I'm well aware of this and you'll find I never stated Looters in general were related to Witches. You're arguing against a strawman here.
Again, are Witches about a mechanic or about a theme? Should Enchantress be none because there's no junking, or Mountebank because it's not a female magic user? I'm arguing from the mechanical side, and you're free to look at it thematically only, but maybe stay consistent?
You're clearly a more serious person than I am. You're right about everything, you win. :)
-
A Warlock would give out 1.266 curses when you played it.
I figure he would do equal work, but would cost 6.33 coins.
Using the first post, I came up with average values:
Male: $3.90 (135)
Female: $4.33 (55)
NA/Both: $3.35 (165)
(Note: The card list I used included Landmarks, which drops the average values as they have no cost.)
[In RSP style, women make less than half what men make, because there's less of them.]
-
You're clearly a more serious person than I am. You're right about everything, you win. :)
I guess that's also a way to win an argument.
-
A Warlock would give out 1.266 curses when you played it.
I figure he would do equal work, but would cost 6.33 coins.
Using the first post, I came up with average values:
Male: $3.90 (135)
Female: $4.33 (55)
NA/Both: $3.35 (165)
(Note: The card list I used included Landmarks, which drops the average values as they have no cost.)
[In RSP style, women make less than half what men make, because there's less of them.]
Looks like males are about quantity, and females are about quality. Sounds about right ;)
-
So, kinda related, how is this rate with (non-)caucasians? I can think about approx. 15 cards that show people who aren't European, which is a rather small percentage (it might be about 25 total?). It basically seems that we have a more "historically correct" approach here, in that non-whites mostly appear in the "abroad" themed expansions and cards, but rarely ever outside. Werwolf is actually the only card I can think of that isn't from Hinterland or Seaside and hasn't gotten a name that basically demands non-white people to be on it. I find this remarkable because on the other hand we have women on a lot of cards where it's rather improbable, historically speaking (take Warrior, Guide, Ranger, Artificer and probably Caravan Guard just to name Adventures examples).
Any opinions or clear numbers on this? Admittedly, I'm too lazy to count.
-
Werwolf is actually the only card I can think of that isn't from Hinterland or Seaside and hasn't gotten a name that basically demands non-white people to be on it.
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?title=Special%3AFilePath&file=Mystic.jpg)?
Not sure if it satisfies your criteria or if she's definitively non-white.
-
I find this remarkable because on the other hand we have women on a lot of cards where it's rather improbable, historically speaking (take Warrior, Guide, Ranger, Artificer and probably Caravan Guard just to name Adventures examples).
That view turns out to be part of today's cultural bias against women. They did lots of jobs in medieval times, and even fought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Middle_Ages
-
I find this remarkable because on the other hand we have women on a lot of cards where it's rather improbable, historically speaking (take Warrior, Guide, Ranger, Artificer and probably Caravan Guard just to name Adventures examples).
That view turns out to be part of today's cultural bias against women. They did lots of jobs in medieval times, and even fought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Middle_Ages
I'd like to be convinced this is true, but the article kind of confirms the assumption of division by gender. Can you point to the passage where it says what you wrote?
-
I find this remarkable because on the other hand we have women on a lot of cards where it's rather improbable, historically speaking (take Warrior, Guide, Ranger, Artificer and probably Caravan Guard just to name Adventures examples).
That view turns out to be part of today's cultural bias against women. They did lots of jobs in medieval times, and even fought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Middle_Ages
I'd like to be convinced this is true, but the article kind of confirms the assumption of division by gender. Can you point to the passage where it says what you wrote?
It does not ever say "that view turns out to be part of today's cultural bias against women." It does list various jobs that women had though, including just about anything teamed up with a husband or dead husband. It puts "artisan" in the opening paragraph.
I do not feel like devoting time to trying to convince you of whatever. The internet is there for you.
-
Joan of Arc.
Also, Margrave's art doesn't look particularly European, which is weird, since it's a German concept
-
I find this remarkable because on the other hand we have women on a lot of cards where it's rather improbable, historically speaking (take Warrior, Guide, Ranger, Artificer and probably Caravan Guard just to name Adventures examples).
That view turns out to be part of today's cultural bias against women. They did lots of jobs in medieval times, and even fought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Middle_Ages
I'd like to be convinced this is true, but the article kind of confirms the assumption of division by gender. Can you point to the passage where it says what you wrote?
It does not ever say "that view turns out to be part of today's cultural bias against women." It does list various jobs that women had though, including just about anything teamed up with a husband or dead husband. It puts "artisan" in the opening paragraph.
I do not feel like devoting time to trying to convince you of whatever. The internet is there for you.
It's not like I said "women never did jobs in medieval times which you'd usually think of as male". I said "the portion of women depicted this way appears to be on another level of accuracy than the portion of people of non-caucasian race, and I wonder why that is". There were quite a few non-European people in medieval Europe, too. Why do we rarely see those? The article makes it rather clear that the portion of women who did things like fighting was conceivably smaller than the male percentage. But even if the percentage represented in the game was still below the historical level, the card/history percantage appears to be more favourable for women in jobs than for non-Europeans in general.
I do in fact appreciate the attempt to increase female representation in Dominion. I was just wondering why, if this effort of making the game relatable to all people is made, it still appears to continue being relatively Euro-centric.
-
I find this remarkable because on the other hand we have women on a lot of cards where it's rather improbable, historically speaking (take Warrior, Guide, Ranger, Artificer and probably Caravan Guard just to name Adventures examples).
That view turns out to be part of today's cultural bias against women. They did lots of jobs in medieval times, and even fought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Middle_Ages
I'd like to be convinced this is true, but the article kind of confirms the assumption of division by gender. Can you point to the passage where it says what you wrote?
It does not ever say "that view turns out to be part of today's cultural bias against women." It does list various jobs that women had though, including just about anything teamed up with a husband or dead husband. It puts "artisan" in the opening paragraph.
I do not feel like devoting time to trying to convince you of whatever. The internet is there for you.
It's not like I said "women never did jobs in medieval times which you'd usually think of as male". I said "the portion of women depicted this way appears to be on another level of accuracy than the portion of people of non-caucasian race, and I wonder why that is". There were quite a few non-European people in medieval Europe, too. Why do we rarely see those? The article makes it rather clear that the portion of women who did things like fighting was conceivably smaller than the male percentage. But even if the percentage represented in the game was still below the historical level, the card/history percantage appears to be more favourable for women in jobs than for non-Europeans in general.
Did you say that somewhere? I was replying to "I find this remarkable because on the other hand we have women on a lot of cards where it's rather improbable, historically speaking (take Warrior, Guide, Ranger, Artificer and probably Caravan Guard just to name Adventures examples)."
-
I very much appreciate the efforts to have more women represented; and to me, whether it's improbable or not is beside the point. It's not like Dominion is a medieval simulation game.
Furthermore, since it has become increasingly vague when the game is set, there's no reason artists can't take liberties with where it's set and what the people in those locations might look like.
-
I find this remarkable because on the other hand we have women on a lot of cards where it's rather improbable, historically speaking (take Warrior, Guide, Ranger, Artificer and probably Caravan Guard just to name Adventures eamples).
That view turns out to be part of today's cultural bias against women. They did lots of jobs in medieval times, and even fought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Middle_Ages
I'd like to be convinced this is true, but the article kind of confirms the assumption of division by gender. Can you point to the passage where it says what you wrote?
It does not ever say "that view turns out to be part of today's cultural bias against women." It does list various jobs that women had though, including just about anything teamed up with a husband or dead husband. It puts "artisan" in the opening paragraph.
I do not feel like devoting time to trying to convince you of whatever. The internet is there for you.
It's not like I said "women never did jobs in medieval times which you'd usually think of as male". I said "the portion of women depicted this way appears to be on another level of accuracy than the portion of people of non-caucasian race, and I wonder why that is". There were quite a few non-European people in medieval Europe, too. Why do we rarely see those? The article makes it rather clear that the portion of women who did things like fighting was conceivably smaller than the male percentage. But even if the percentage represented in the game was still below the historical level, the card/history percantage appears to be more favourable for women in jobs than for non-Europeans in general.
Did you say that somewhere? I was replying to "I find this remarkable because on the other hand we have women on a lot of cards where it's rather improbable, historically speaking (take Warrior, Guide, Ranger, Artificer and probably Caravan Guard just to name Adventures examples)."
For the cards I'm referring to, it would be statistically probable that if you drew a random representant, you'd draw a male one, because they made up the majority. There were women who fought, but of all fighters, the percentage of women was still below the percentage of man, no? Still a woman was chosen for the card. That's what I mean. It's a less probable representant. I should probably have written "less probable" and not "improbable", but at some point you have to hope people try to see what you talk about, and not just what they can disagree with.
Either way, my question was not why the choice went for a woman in such cases. I think it's good that this effort to have more women in Dominion is made. My question was why, if apparently this good and important effort is made for women being seen on more cards, why it isn't made for non-whites. Actually, I was not even asking that predominantly, I was asking for people to contribute to this discussion by providing numbers or input, and possibly show me that my perception was wrong, and that either there were more non-caucasians in the game than I recall, or that both female and non-white representation were on about the same level, if compared to the historical level. That "non-caucasians in game/non-caucasians in history" was about as high as "women in game/women in history", to put it mathematically. Speaking of only one of these sizes and ignoring the other goes beside my point.
-
That view turns out to be part of today's cultural bias against women.
I'm no expert, but I suspect at least some of this is more "today's cultural bias against the past, especially the Middle Ages" than "today's cultural bias against women." As in, the Past was Bad, so of course they treated women terribly, not like in today's enlightened age.
-
For the cards I'm referring to, it would be statistically probable that if you drew a random representant, you'd draw a male one, because they made up the majority. There were women who fought, but of all fighters, the percentage of women was still below the percentage of man, no? Still a woman was chosen for the card. That's what I mean. It's a less probable representant.
It's less probable on that one card, but since about a third of the cards are women your point is only true if there were less than a third women on average in the various roles represented.
But I agree with your general point that it would be great if more non-white were represtented too. As you(?) said, there were non-Europeans living in Europe. How many and in what roles I'm not sure about. For the record, add Peddler and Goons.
-
For the cards I'm referring to, it would be statistically probable that if you drew a random representant, you'd draw a male one, because they made up the majority. There were women who fought, but of all fighters, the percentage of women was still below the percentage of man, no? Still a woman was chosen for the card. That's what I mean. It's a less probable representant. I should probably have written "less probable" and not "improbable", but at some point you have to hope people try to see what you talk about, and not just what they can disagree with.
It sure didn't look like that's what you meant, at all. "Rather improbable" would still be wrong; it was not so heavily skewed.
Either way, my question was not why the choice went for a woman in such cases.
I responded to the part of your post that I wanted to respond to. I get to do that! No amount of "What I was actually asking" changes the thing you said that I disagreed with.
-
Werwolf is actually the only card I can think of that isn't from Hinterland or Seaside and hasn't gotten a name that basically demands non-white people to be on it.
I think Raider also qualifies.
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?title=Special%3AFilePath&file=Raider.jpg)
-
For the cards I'm referring to, it would be statistically probable that if you drew a random representant, you'd draw a male one, because they made up the majority. There were women who fought, but of all fighters, the percentage of women was still below the percentage of man, no? Still a woman was chosen for the card. That's what I mean. It's a less probable representant. I should probably have written "less probable" and not "improbable", but at some point you have to hope people try to see what you talk about, and not just what they can disagree with.
It sure didn't look like that's what you meant, at all. "Rather improbable" would still be wrong; it was not so heavily skewed.
Either way, my question was not why the choice went for a woman in such cases.
I responded to the part of your post that I wanted to respond to. I get to do that! No amount of "What I was actually asking" changes the thing you said that I disagreed with.
So you did. Just like you can take the freedom to not spend any more time trying to convince me what is or is not true, I can take the freedom to not spend any more time on trying to convince you what I did or did not mean. The completeness of my life does not depend on you agreeing with me.
Werwolf is actually the only card I can think of that isn't from Hinterland or Seaside and hasn't gotten a name that basically demands non-white people to be on it.
I think Raider also qualifies.
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?title=Special%3AFilePath&file=Raider.jpg)
It seems I have been forgetting another "not thematically forced" card. Mystic and this are the kind of reply I was hoping for. Oh, Expand just came to my mind, too. Maybe it's really more than I thought.
-
I don't see why censual data for Dominion's world ought to be in extremely high agreement with that from the comparable era of our own history. The idea I think is that you want to have a theme, and I think we do and that genders does not affect it much, if at all.
-
I responded to the part of your post that I wanted to respond to. I get to do that! No amount of "What I was actually asking" changes the thing you said that I disagreed with.
So you did. Just like you can take the freedom to not spend any more time trying to convince me what is or is not true, I can take the freedom to not spend any more time on trying to convince you what I did or did not mean. The completeness of my life does not depend on you agreeing with me.
We are seeing eye to eye at last.
-
This guy is not European either.
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/f/f0/MargraveArt.jpg)
-
This guy is not European either.
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/f/f0/MargraveArt.jpg)
Right, but that's from Hinterlands.
Werwolf is actually the only card I can think of that isn't from Hinterland or Seaside and hasn't gotten a name that basically demands non-white people to be on it.
-
Ah, fair.
-
It seems I have been forgetting another "not thematically forced" card. Mystic and this are the kind of reply I was hoping for. Oh, Expand just came to my mind, too. Maybe it's really more than I thought.
I guess you missed my post where I mentioned Peddler and Goons.
-
For the cards I'm referring to, it would be statistically probable that if you drew a random representant, you'd draw a male one, because they made up the majority. There were women who fought, but of all fighters, the percentage of women was still below the percentage of man, no? Still a woman was chosen for the card. That's what I mean. It's a less probable representant. I should probably have written "less probable" and not "improbable", but at some point you have to hope people try to see what you talk about, and not just what they can disagree with.
The problem is that when everyone says "There are more X than Y so I will choose X to represent my thing", then that's how you get overwhelming bias towards everything being X. If you've got a list of 10 professions that each has a 60-40 male-female representation and you apply your reasoning about picking whatever's "more probably", then your final list has 10 men on it when you should expect to have about 4 women. As someone who is in the majority group for most of the obvious categories, I appreciate that Donald went so far as to consider the gender split across an entire box of cards and picked not-always-typical options to make sure that the representation is fairer.
-
What percentage of Pookas are female?
I mean, historically. Not today, obviously.
-
What percentage of Pookas are female?
I mean, historically. Not today, obviously.
I'd say the statement "Historically, there was no single male Pooka and no single female Pooka" is true.
-
Here is the list updated for Nocturne (and Dismantle).
Summary of method used:
- Based on the image on the card related to the name of the card. If the name is a person, is that person man or woman? If the name is an activity or place, I look at the person(s) doing or representing the activity or place.
- No people, or blurry background people -> not included
- Both men and women -> counted as 0.5 man, 0.5 woman.
- Unknown gender -> not counted
- Based on thematic content, these groups of card are counted as just 1 each: Knight pile, Hermit/Madman, Urchin/Mercenary, Page line, Peasant line, each split pile, Ghost/Haunted Mirror, Vampire/Bat.
BASE (2nd edition)
Male: Bureaucrat, Laboratoty, Militia, Mine, Moneylender, Smithy, Vassal
Female: Artisan, Bandit, Harbinger, Merchant, Poacher, Sentry, Witch
Both: Festival, Market(?)
Unknown: Library
INTRIGUE (2nd edition)
Male: Baron, Conspirator, Duke, Ironworks, Minion, Nobels, Pawn, Replace, Steward, Swindler, Torturer
Female: Courtyard, Diplomat, Harem, Lurker, Patrol
Both: Courtier, Shanty Town (both are men, or one of each), Wishing Well (both are female, or one of each)
Unknown: -
SEASIDE
Male: Ambassador, Bazaar, Cutpurse, Embargo, Fishing Village, Haven, Lookout, Merchant Ship, Navigator, Pearl Diver, Salvager, Smugglers, Tactician, Wharf
Female: Explorer, Sea Hag
Both: Native Village
Unknown: -
ALCHEMY
Male: Alchemist, Apothecary, Golem, Herbalist, Transmute
Female: Scrying Pool, Possession
Unknown: Apprentice, Familiar
PROSPERITY
Male: Bank, Bishop, Counting House, Goons, Loan, Mint, Mountebank, Venture
Female: Expand, Forge, Peddler
Both: Grand Market, King's Court, Rabble
Unknown: -
CORNUCOPIA
Male: Horse Traders, Hunting Party, Tournament
Female: Fairgrounds, Farming Village, Fortune Teller, Harvest, Princess, Young Witch
Both: Followers, Menagerie
Unknown: Jester
HINTERLANDS
Male: Cartographer, Develop, Haggler, Jack of All Trades, Mandarin, Margrave, Noble Brigand, Nomad Camp, Scheme, Spice Merchant, Stables
Female: Duchess, Oracle, Trader
Both: Embassy
Unknown: -
DARK AGES
Male: Armory, Bandit Camp, Beggar, Count, Graverobber, Hermit/Madman, Hunting Grounds, Ironmonger, Junk Dealer, Marauder, Necropolis, Pillage, Procession, Rogue, Sage, Scavenger, Squire, Urchin/Mercenary, Vagrant, Wandering Minstrel
Female: Market Square, Mystic
Both: Band of Misfits, Survivors, Knights
Unknown: Death Cart, Cultist, Forager
GUILDS
Male: Advisor, Butcher, Candlestick Maker, Doctor, Herald, Journeyman, Merchant Guild, Stonemason, Taxman
Female: Baker, Soothsayer
Both: Plaza
Unknown: -
ADVENTURES
Male: Alms, Borrow, Bridge Troll, Duplicate, Ferry, Giant, Hireling, Miser, Pathfinding, Peasant/Soldier/Fugitive/Disciple/Teacher, Quest, Ratcatcher, Raze, Training, Transmogrify, Travelling Fair, Wine Merchant
Female: Artificer, Caravan Guard, Guide, Lost Arts, Messenger, Page/Treasure Hunter/Warrior/Hero/Champion, Ranger, Save, Storyteller, Swamp Hag
Both: Ball, Bonfire, Pilgrimage, Plan(?), Royal Carriage, Scouting Party
Unknown: Raid
EMPIRES
Male: Arena(?), Battlefield, Catapult/Rocks, Chariot Race, Conquest, Delve, Dominate, Gladiator/Fortune, Legionary, Overlord, Patrician/Emporium, Royal Blacksmith, Sacrifice, Tax, Triumph, Triumphal Arch
Female: Baths, Donate, Enchantress, Engineer, Farmers' Market, Groundskeeper, Wedding, Windfall
Both: Advance, Annex, Banquet, Basilica, Salt the Earth, Settlers/Bustling Village
Unknown: Encampment/Plunder, Bandit Fort, Wild Hunt
NOCTURNE
Male: Cobbler, Delusion, Devil's Workshop, Fear, Fool, Greed, Haunting, Leprechaun, Locusts, Necromancer, Night Watchman, Raider, Tracker, Tragic Hero, Werewolf, Zombie Mason, Zombie Spy
Female: Bard, Conclave, Druid, Exorcist, Ghost/Haunted Mirror, Guardian, Misery, Pixie, Pooka, Shepherd, Tormentor, Vampire/Bat, Zombie Apprentice
Both: Blessed Village
Unknown: Changeling, Imp, Skulk
PROMOS
Male: Black Market, Dismantle, Envoy, Governor, Prince
Female: Summon
Both: -
Unknown: Sauna
Totals (with "Both" included):
MALE: 157.5 = 66.7%
FEMALE: 78.5 = 33.3%
UNKNOWN: 15
Breakdown for each set, percentage of female cards:
BASE (2E): 50.0%
INTRIGUE (2E): 34.2%
SEASIDE: 14.7%
ALCHEMY: 28.6%
PROSPERITY: 32.1%
CORNUCOPIA: 63.6%
HINTERLANDS: 23.3%
DARK AGES: 14.0%
GUILDS: 20.8%
ADVENTURES: 39.4%
EMPIRES: 36.7%
NOCTURNE: 43.5%
PROMOS: 16.7%
Update 2019-04-06: Changed Devil's Workshop from female to male.
-
Here is the list updated for Renaissance.
BASE (2nd edition)
Male: Bureaucrat, Laboratoty, Militia, Mine, Moneylender, Smithy, Vassal
Female: Artisan, Bandit, Harbinger, Merchant, Poacher, Sentry, Witch
Both: Festival, Market(?)
Unknown: Library
INTRIGUE (2nd edition)
Male: Baron, Conspirator, Duke, Ironworks, Minion, Nobels, Pawn, Replace, Steward, Swindler, Torturer
Female: Courtyard, Diplomat, Harem, Lurker, Patrol
Both: Courtier, Shanty Town (both are men, or one of each), Wishing Well (both are female, or one of each)
Unknown: -
SEASIDE
Male: Ambassador, Bazaar, Cutpurse, Embargo, Fishing Village, Haven, Lookout, Merchant Ship, Navigator, Pearl Diver, Salvager, Smugglers, Tactician, Wharf
Female: Explorer, Sea Hag
Both: Native Village
Unknown: -
ALCHEMY
Male: Alchemist, Apothecary, Golem, Herbalist, Transmute
Female: Scrying Pool, Possession
Unknown: Apprentice, Familiar
PROSPERITY
Male: Bank, Bishop, Counting House, Goons, Loan, Mint, Mountebank, Venture
Female: Expand, Forge, Peddler
Both: Grand Market, King's Court, Rabble
Unknown: -
CORNUCOPIA
Male: Horse Traders, Hunting Party, Tournament
Female: Fairgrounds, Farming Village, Fortune Teller, Harvest, Princess, Young Witch
Both: Followers, Menagerie
Unknown: Jester
HINTERLANDS
Male: Cartographer, Develop, Haggler, Jack of All Trades, Mandarin, Margrave, Noble Brigand, Nomad Camp, Scheme, Spice Merchant, Stables
Female: Duchess, Oracle, Trader
Both: Embassy
Unknown: -
DARK AGES
Male: Armory, Bandit Camp, Beggar, Count, Graverobber, Hermit/Madman, Hunting Grounds, Ironmonger, Junk Dealer, Marauder, Necropolis, Pillage, Procession, Rogue, Sage, Scavenger, Squire, Urchin/Mercenary, Vagrant, Wandering Minstrel
Female: Market Square, Mystic
Both: Band of Misfits, Survivors, Knights
Unknown: Death Cart, Cultist, Forager
GUILDS
Male: Advisor, Butcher, Candlestick Maker, Doctor, Herald, Journeyman, Merchant Guild, Stonemason, Taxman
Female: Baker, Soothsayer
Both: Plaza
Unknown: -
ADVENTURES
Male: Alms, Borrow, Bridge Troll, Duplicate, Ferry, Giant, Hireling, Miser, Pathfinding, Peasant/Soldier/Fugitive/Disciple/Teacher, Quest, Ratcatcher, Raze, Training, Transmogrify, Travelling Fair, Wine Merchant
Female: Artificer, Caravan Guard, Guide, Lost Arts, Messenger, Page/Treasure Hunter/Warrior/Hero/Champion, Ranger, Save, Storyteller, Swamp Hag
Both: Ball, Bonfire, Pilgrimage, Plan(?), Royal Carriage, Scouting Party
Unknown: Raid
EMPIRES
Male: Arena(?), Battlefield, Catapult/Rocks, Chariot Race, Conquest, Delve, Dominate, Gladiator/Fortune, Legionary, Overlord, Patrician/Emporium, Royal Blacksmith, Sacrifice, Tax, Triumph, Triumphal Arch
Female: Baths, Donate, Enchantress, Engineer, Farmers' Market, Groundskeeper, Wedding, Windfall
Both: Advance, Annex, Banquet, Basilica, Salt the Earth, Settlers/Bustling Village
Unknown: Encampment/Plunder, Bandit Fort, Wild Hunt
NOCTURNE
Male: Cobbler, Delusion, Devil's Workshop, Fear, Fool, Greed, Haunting, Leprechaun, Locusts, Necromancer, Night Watchman, Raider, Tracker, Tragic Hero, Werewolf, Zombie Mason, Zombie Spy
Female: Bard, Conclave, Druid, Exorcist, Ghost/Haunted Mirror, Guardian, Misery, Pixie, Pooka, Shepherd, Tormentor(?), Vampire/Bat, Zombie Apprentice
Both: Blessed Village
Unknown: Changeling, Imp, Skulk
RENAISSANCE
Male: Barracks(?), Flag Bearer, Inventor, Patron, Priest, Recruiter, Road Network, Seer, Sinister Plot, Villain
Female: Border Guard/Lantern, Experiment, Old Witch, Research, Scholar, Sculptor, Silk Merchant, Swashbuckler, Treasurer/Key
Both: Acting Troupe, Capitalism, Fair, Improve, Lackeys, Piazza
Unknown: City Gate(?), Hideout
PROMOS
Male: Black Market, Dismantle, Envoy, Governor, Prince
Female: Summon
Both: -
Unknown: Sauna
Totals (with "Both" included):
MALE: 170.5 = 65.3%
FEMALE: 90.5 = 34.7%
UNKNOWN: 17
Breakdown for each set, percentage of female cards:
BASE (2E): 50.0%
INTRIGUE (2E): 34.2%
SEASIDE: 14.7%
ALCHEMY: 28.6%
PROSPERITY: 32.1%
CORNUCOPIA: 63.6%
HINTERLANDS: 23.3%
DARK AGES: 14.0%
GUILDS: 20.8%
ADVENTURES: 39.4%
EMPIRES: 36.7%
NOCTURNE: 43.5%
RENAISSANCE: 48.0%
PROMOS: 16.7%
Update 2019-04-06: Changed Devil's Workshop (Nocturne) from female to male.
-
Are you sure the Donate person is a female?
-
Are you sure the Donate person is a female?
No; there are many of these I'm not 100% sure of. But I think it's reasonable to go with how an artist would choose to portray a man or a woman - i.e. assuming that there's no reason why an artist (in this context) would choose to depict a man with feminine features or a woman with masculine ones.
-
By what evidence do you claim the person in the foreground of Barracks is male? And are all the people in the background also male?
-
By what evidence do you claim the person in the foreground of Barracks is male? And are all the people in the background also male?
The blurry people in the background don't matter; see the description of my criteria above (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12971.msg735370#msg735370).
But good question about the foreground person. There's at least one other card like that - Arena. I was mainly going by what most artists would intend to be portraying with a person in armor from medieval times. (Barracks should have a question mark like Arena.)
I was also assuming that women didn't usually wear this kind of armor, which is supported by this interesting article (https://io9.gizmodo.com/what-kind-of-armor-did-medieval-women-really-wear-1502779338): "If we are talking about actual medieval history, women wearing armor was rare and women in plated suits of armor even rarer." But since Dominion art puts women in all kinds of roles that were rare in actual history, maybe this is not a good reason.
I might be that Arena and Barracks should be "unknowns". My first reason still stands though, and is connected to what I wrote above about feminine/masculine features and artist's intent.
-
Are you sure the Donate person is a female?
No; there are many of these I'm not 100% sure of. But I think it's reasonable to go with how an artist would choose to portray a man or a woman - i.e. assuming that there's no reason why an artist (in this context) would choose to depict a man with feminine features or a woman with masculine ones.
I could be misremembering, but I believe Donald has indicated elsewhere that the directions to the artist suggested a woman for Donate.
-
I could be misremembering, but I believe Donald has indicated elsewhere that the directions to the artist suggested a woman for Donate.
Dictated, yes.
-
Devil's Workshop, Tormentor and Bard are female? I thought they were all male - Bard being amusingly androgynous in being dressed like a male but looks more feminine when zoomed in. (And Bards are typically male, though so are lots of the cards depicted as female.) Looking more carefully at these three cards they do look more 'ambiguous' than 'male'.
I agree with Donate as female though.
-
I think all Bard, Donate, Devil's Workshop and Tormentor are ambiguous. I mean, they could be women, but I wouldn't say they have to.
-
I think all Bard, Donate, Devil's Workshop and Tormentor are ambiguous. I mean, they could be women, but I wouldn't say they have to.
Zooming in on Bard and looking at the face and hands, I have no doubt that it's a woman. The others are less clear. I think my decision for Tormentor was based on what seems like breasts.
Maybe Donald can shed some light on Tormentor and Devil's Workshop? Others that maybe were based on instructions could be Plan, Wild Hunt, Skulk, Flag Bearer, Hideout and Barracks.
-
I think all Bard, Donate, Devil's Workshop and Tormentor are ambiguous. I mean, they could be women, but I wouldn't say they have to.
Zooming in on Bard and looking at the face and hands, I have no doubt that it's a woman. The others are less clear. I think my decision for Tormentor was based on what seems like breasts.
Maybe Donald can shed some light on Tormentor and Devil's Workshop? Others that maybe were based on instructions could be Plan, Wild Hunt, Skulk, Flag Bearer, Hideout and Barracks.
Tormentor is 100% a woman, according to my memory of the artists' notes. Bard is too. Donate is obviously a woman.
I don't know about Devil's Workshop, but I think that's a man. I could be wrong there.
-
I'm not sure why Market is listed as "both". If that figure with the money is supposed to be female it's clearly not doing the job, lol. That card is truly a wasted opportunity.
Yes, the gender disparity came up years ago in real life for people I was playing with when the Harem card came out. The few female cards were pretty negative or dependent portrayals (e.g. Witch).
I for one really appreciate seeing new cards like Sentry and Bandit making the gender issue less of a distraction. As someone upthread pointed out, it's not a Medieval simulation game. The world is much closer to a storytelling world, as in fairy tales and Tolkien and modern Ren Fairs. As such I don't think it owes more to the historical Middle Ages than it does to the modern storytellers.
An example: showing my age here, I played DnD way back in the '70s, with the original 3 booklet set. I hid those from my parents like they were porn because the art in particular was so sexist. Not surprisingly, there was roughly a 1:25 female to male ratio among players I knew. But the 5th Edition has taken that issue head on. It may not be "historically accurate" - whatever that means when you have faeries and elfs - but it's a whole lot more fun for female players.
I'd like to see more racial diversity for the same reason. Making Dominion more inclusive doesn't take away from it being still a really great game.
-
Maybe Donald can shed some light on Tormentor and Devil's Workshop? Others that maybe were based on instructions could be Plan, Wild Hunt, Skulk, Flag Bearer, Hideout and Barracks.
If the women all had chainmail bikinis, I suspect someone would be complaining about that too.
We got the sketch for Tormentor.
DXV: Tormentor / Imp / Devil's Workshop sketches are fine, except the Tormentor should be a woman.
Claus: I wanted to make her look like an old and strict kind of female inquisitor. Would you prefer her to be younger and prettier?
DXV: Old is fine; I just couldn't tell from the sketch that it was a woman.
Tormentor is a woman. Devil's Workshop is a man. Time does not permit looking them all up for you.
At the very beginning the artists just got card titles, and didn't always draw the right things, and almost always drew men. I started having artist notes, with the separate part about the expansion theme noting that we didn't want all men. The artists almost always drew men. For Guilds Jay decided to have only women do the art. They drew mostly men. From Adventures on, the artist notes have specified gender for every card supposed to be depicting someone, with half women. The varying %'s on those sets, that are never 50%, show how well the artists followed these instructions, and how often they added people somewhere unexpected and hey made it all men, or drew a crowd scene where everyone is a man. And, to a lesser degree, how much you-all assume any unclear figure to be a man.
-
Maybe Donald can shed some light on Tormentor and Devil's Workshop? Others that maybe were based on instructions could be Plan, Wild Hunt, Skulk, Flag Bearer, Hideout and Barracks.
If the women all had chainmail bikinis, I suspect someone would be complaining about that too.
I mean, someone is already complaining about the needlessly sexy Vampire.
-
Tormentor is a woman. Devil's Workshop is a man. Time does not permit looking them all up for you.
Thanks. The one I'm most curious about is Flag Bearer. (After that, Skulk.)
I'm not sure why Market is listed as "both". If that figure with the money is supposed to be female it's clearly not doing the job, lol. That card is truly a wasted opportunity.
I'm quite sure that frightening creature with the purse is a woman. The headdress gives it away. (https://rosaliegilbert.com/headwear.html)
-
Not so sure about the headdress. I assumed it was a coif with a pillbox hat or a hat with a wide band. Something like this picture of Dante (who I'm pretty sure is male!)
https://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/a/andrea/castagno/2_famous/7dante.html
(https://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/a/andrea/castagno/2_famous/7dante.html)
-
While we're talking about art confusions, here's something I've always wondered: Is the Count the wrinkly grey guy or the other guy?
-
The one who's counting "One!"?
-
Not so sure about the headdress. I assumed it was a coif with a pillbox hat or a hat with a wide band. Something like this picture of Dante (who I'm pretty sure is male!)
https://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/a/andrea/castagno/2_famous/7dante.html
(https://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/a/andrea/castagno/2_famous/7dante.html)
Okay, I concede that it's not as straight-forward as I thought. But I still don't think that the kind of bag hat that Dante is wearing is the same as on Market. To me it looks like the Market person is wearing a fillet, which was typically worn by women.
-
Not so sure about the headdress. I assumed it was a coif with a pillbox hat or a hat with a wide band. Something like this picture of Dante (who I'm pretty sure is male!)
https://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/a/andrea/castagno/2_famous/7dante.html
(https://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/a/andrea/castagno/2_famous/7dante.html)
Okay, I concede that it's not as straight-forward as I thought. But I still don't think that the kind of bag hat that Dante is wearing is the same as on Market. To me it looks like the Market person is wearing a fillet, which was typically worn by women.
But if Dominion's gender distribution is not historically accurate, why should we assume that its fashion is?
-
While you're identifying headdresses, what about the headdress in Donate? Or is that her hair?
-
Thanks for the clarification on Bard, Tormentor, and Devil's Workshop. I got Tormentor wrong as I thought what are breasts must be some sort of plate armour, and the figure's expression, outfit and height looked masculine. Bard (like Patrol) looks much more female when zoomed in, particularly the hands and rings, though my friend certainly thought it was a man in the picture, probably due to the outfit and I find it much more amusing to think of this one as an androgynous chap than a woman.
PS I always assumed Flag Bearer as male though zooming right in cannot be 100% certain. Although 99% certain with, for one, no breasts.
-
The artist's intent is one thing, but honestly, if this is about visibility, I'm not sure we should count cards where the gender is not visible. I know now that Tormentor is a woman, but I wouldn't have without this thread.
This is actually a situation where other languages can make clear Tormentor is female by choosing the appropriate name. I'll suggest to take care of this in future German editions.
-
Upon closer inspection of Bard, I think I assumed it was male because the nose looks very masculine, at least to me.
Tormentor just has bad artwork overall and it's impossible to tell what's actually going on in it. That very uncircular wheel always makes me cringe.
-
The artist's intent is one thing, but honestly, if this is about visibility, I'm not sure we should count cards where the gender is not visible. I know now that Tormentor is a woman, but I wouldn't have without this thread.
Fair point. Of course to me Tormentor seemed like a woman when I studied it, but then again, so did Devil's Workshop. But in any case I think I'll just go with what is known here.
I just changed Devil's Workshop from female to male and updated the latest two lists.