Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6  All

Author Topic: Male and female cards (again)  (Read 11866 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Gazbag

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 53
  • Respect: +84
    • View Profile
Re: Male and female cards (again)
« Reply #100 on: November 09, 2017, 01:33:56 pm »
+2

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.
Logged

Cave-o-sapien

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 536
  • Respect: +854
    • View Profile
Re: Male and female cards (again)
« Reply #101 on: November 09, 2017, 01:43:59 pm »
0

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 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.
Logged

DemonGenius

  • Pawn
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
  • Shuffle iT Username: DemonGenius
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Male and female cards (again)
« Reply #102 on: November 09, 2017, 02:18:53 pm »
0

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. :)
Logged
Beware of the Ludic Fallacy...

enfynet

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1598
  • Respect: +1043
    • View Profile
    • JD's Custom Clubs
Re: Male and female cards (again)
« Reply #103 on: November 09, 2017, 03:33:43 pm »
+1

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.]
Logged
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious."

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4081
  • Respect: +4451
    • View Profile
Re: Male and female cards (again)
« Reply #104 on: November 09, 2017, 05:41:41 pm »
+1

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.

Chappy7

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 128
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chappy7
  • Respect: +113
    • View Profile
Re: Male and female cards (again)
« Reply #105 on: November 09, 2017, 06:08:00 pm »
0

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  ;)
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4081
  • Respect: +4451
    • View Profile
Re: Male and female cards (again)
« Reply #106 on: November 15, 2017, 04:07:53 pm »
+2

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.

Cave-o-sapien

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 536
  • Respect: +854
    • View Profile
Re: Male and female cards (again)
« Reply #107 on: November 15, 2017, 07:22:00 pm »
+1

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.

?
Not sure if it satisfies your criteria or if she's definitively non-white.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 07:23:04 pm by Cave-o-sapien »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4507
  • Respect: +18034
    • View Profile
Re: Male and female cards (again)
« Reply #108 on: November 15, 2017, 07:37:02 pm »
+6

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
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4081
  • Respect: +4451
    • View Profile
Re: Male and female cards (again)
« Reply #109 on: November 15, 2017, 08:15:04 pm »
0

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?

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4507
  • Respect: +18034
    • View Profile
Re: Male and female cards (again)
« Reply #110 on: November 15, 2017, 08:44:46 pm »
+1

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.
Logged

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7836
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Prepare to be boarded!
  • Respect: +8877
    • View Profile
Re: Male and female cards (again)
« Reply #111 on: November 15, 2017, 10:11:38 pm »
0

Joan of Arc.

Also, Margrave's art doesn't look particularly European, which is weird, since it's a German concept
Logged
Contrary to popular belief, I do not run the wiki all on my own.  There are plenty of other people who are actively editing.  Go bother them!

Check out this fantasy epic adventure novel I wrote, the Broken Globe!  http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Globe-Tyr-Chronicles-Book-ebook/dp/B00LR1SZAS/

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4081
  • Respect: +4451
    • View Profile
Re: Male and female cards (again)
« Reply #112 on: November 15, 2017, 10:17:52 pm »
0

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.

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4507
  • Respect: +18034
    • View Profile
Re: Male and female cards (again)
« Reply #113 on: November 15, 2017, 10:25:47 pm »
0

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)."
Logged

Cave-o-sapien

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 536
  • Respect: +854
    • View Profile
Re: Male and female cards (again)
« Reply #114 on: November 16, 2017, 12:13:00 am »
+1

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.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4081
  • Respect: +4451
    • View Profile
Re: Male and female cards (again)
« Reply #115 on: November 16, 2017, 06:52:48 am »
+1

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.

Eran of Arcadia

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 206
  • Respect: +333
    • View Profile
Re: Male and female cards (again)
« Reply #116 on: November 16, 2017, 09:33:39 am »
+3

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.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 990
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +705
    • View Profile
Re: Male and female cards (again)
« Reply #117 on: November 16, 2017, 09:43:46 am »
0

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 probably 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.

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4507
  • Respect: +18034
    • View Profile
Re: Male and female cards (again)
« Reply #118 on: November 16, 2017, 12:51:25 pm »
0

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.
Logged

Cave-o-sapien

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 536
  • Respect: +854
    • View Profile
Re: Male and female cards (again)
« Reply #119 on: November 16, 2017, 01:05:28 pm »
0

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.

Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4081
  • Respect: +4451
    • View Profile
Re: Male and female cards (again)
« Reply #120 on: November 16, 2017, 01:42:01 pm »
0

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.



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.

Witherweaver

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6392
  • Shuffle iT Username: Witherweaver
  • Respect: +7674
    • View Profile
Re: Male and female cards (again)
« Reply #121 on: November 16, 2017, 02:07:20 pm »
0

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.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4507
  • Respect: +18034
    • View Profile
Re: Male and female cards (again)
« Reply #122 on: November 16, 2017, 02:45:53 pm »
0

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.
Logged

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7836
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Prepare to be boarded!
  • Respect: +8877
    • View Profile
Re: Male and female cards (again)
« Reply #123 on: November 16, 2017, 03:11:18 pm »
+1

This guy is not European either.

Logged
Contrary to popular belief, I do not run the wiki all on my own.  There are plenty of other people who are actively editing.  Go bother them!

Check out this fantasy epic adventure novel I wrote, the Broken Globe!  http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Globe-Tyr-Chronicles-Book-ebook/dp/B00LR1SZAS/

Cave-o-sapien

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 536
  • Respect: +854
    • View Profile
Re: Male and female cards (again)
« Reply #124 on: November 16, 2017, 03:12:46 pm »
0

This guy is not European either.



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.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6  All
 

Page created in 0.175 seconds with 22 queries.