I want to go full 90's in this game.

[Razzoriel]

If women were 100% equal on all regards, but strength, then yes, they would be inferior. But that was not what I was proposing at all. Hence my quote:  "It has been proven women are inferior to men physically."

[niklas7737]

That's still not very precise. For example, women's immune systems work better than men's. I'd consider that a physical aspect as well.

[mumblemumble]

you are on very thin ice with your "it has been proven" statements. I encourage discussion of ideas, but sexist comments won't be tolerated.

At the risk of being baited into a troll thread.

Women being less physically strong than men on aggregate is a pretty well-documented fact.


Since there isn't a stat that directly represents strength even it was going to be included in Rimworld it'd be difficult to accurately simulate.

When you look at the bruhaha about romance, not really...you could just factor a -10 into strength based tasks, and maybe alter tasks of hauling ability (speed, carry load) by a small amount which could itself fluctuate man to man, woman to woman (heartache to heartache =P)

TBH, besides completely removing homosexuality (this is from a CHRISTIAN whos against it, but realizes even with MY views, a backwards rimworld would never get rid of the causes of it) theres some very good points here.

I would add also, perhaps a lower (slightly) pain tolerance on average with women, but having a randomized pain tolerance per pawn

That's still not very precise. For example, women's immune systems work better than men's. I'd consider that a physical aspect as well.

Hmmn, citation?.. I always thought girls bodies were more fragile....

Speaking of fragile, to those saying these suggestions were Victorian times, what females entered open combat then? He never said remove them on that, but that was astonishingly rare then, even in the 90s a bit rare...but there. I understand you might be saying its from Victorian times meaning "its SO sexist, its not from the 90s, its from Victorian times!" but lets try to be a bit historically accurate.

Also, while menstrating sounds interesting, this presents several ideas:
-Blood...blood EVERYWHERE....SOAKING INTO EVERYTHING...and no bloody end to it (kuddos if you get the reference)
-This would borderline make women objectively worse...which, while based off reality, being altered emotionally is very real. So I suggest some girls have minimal effects on periods of -3 or -5
-Despite not agreeing with it, I could see some forms of female used contraceptives to avoid periods (SO MANY GIRLS DO THIS)
-This would give an incentive to render the reproductive organs in health finally...fun. inb4 man gets dick shot off.

[J_Dawg_27]

Would we also have to deal women going through the change and would this also introduce a different type of "cougar" to the game?

[mumblemumble]

thats actually a very good point, for men AND women, where young men would be highly verocious, and women when OLDER, more eager..

All valid points, but would take work to model

[Supert]

I want to go full 80's in this game.

* Screw gender equality. I want the following modifiers to colonists of the female sex:

- Additional slot (two?) for implants, +3 Sexiness

* Colonists from both sexes (yes, I don't even want to pander to use the word "gender") cannot have Tons of Lovin' in groups less than 4 people. This means no to Teetotaler and Staggeringly Ugly traits.

* Female colonists can still do everything male colonists can, especially with equippable horseshoe pin. All other things remain what they are.

* Two days out of every season, colony have to host rave parties.

* Colonists get more Tons of Lovin' per day. Example: from 1 per night to 5-6 per day.

* Every person who disagree with my proposal will be sold to slavery because I don't like you at all.

Thanks.

[niklas7737]

Hmmn, citation?.. I always thought girls bodies were more fragile....

I'm not sure if this is still a discussion I want to participate in, but I thought it would be common knowledge? Since we're on a game forum, I didn't expect needing to give scientific sources. Googling it will give you all the information you could ever want and it even gives a suggestion showing lots of people wanted to know already.
Take a look.

[Michigo]

That's still not very precise. For example, women's immune systems work better than men's. I'd consider that a physical aspect as well.

If we go down that route:
- Women can't handle cold climates as good as men.
- Women can endure pain better then men.
- Bonus: Plus an endless amount of additional variations between males and females...

Both could be implemented into rimworld.
But nothing in this topic is needed to make Rimworld a better game, hence it would be a waste of time at this point in development.

For those that REALLY care for some reason:
A simple mod would suffice.

[niklas7737]

That's still not very precise. For example, women's immune systems work better than men's. I'd consider that a physical aspect as well.

If we go down that route:
- Women can't handle cold climates as good as men.
- Women can endure pain better then men.
- Bonus: Plus an endless amount of additional variations between males and females...

Both could be implemented into rimworld.
But nothing in this topic is needed to make Rimworld a better game, hence it would be a waste of time at this point in development.

For those that REALLY care for some reason:
A simple mod would suffice.

I was just replying to the "physically inferior"-topic. I do agree with you that those features are in fact not needed, especially not in a way that would make one sex generally worse than the other one.

[daduhweewah]

OP, are you asking for a mod or for a change to the game itself? We'll move the thread to an appropriate subforum based on your reply.

I'm sparking a controversial talk about players willing to change the game's direction based on how progressive the game is. Which means, it belongs in General Discussion so we can talk how progressivism in a colony sim with survival mechanics is making the community discuss sex roles in a community instead of tracking whether we get the real cool stuff like caravans.

People are dismissing my question as a troll post; it is a legit request. Is there any way outside modding we can make it so the game does not pander to progressiveness? It has been proven women are inferior to men physically. It has been proven women pander to social things rather than specific ones (engineers vs nurses). If there is no way this can be done, then fine, I'll make a "Sex Realism" mod where pawns are realistically assigned and designated as such.

Awesome post and I think it is funny when people call you sexist for stating things like this. Men and women have primal roles, but progressive movements have destroyed home structures. Not saying women shouldn't work, not saying women aren't equal to men, there are just certain roles men play and women play in a healthy structure and I think the way people divorce so much these days speaks volumes to that. Liberals love to protest and rant and rave about things like this, which is fine, just gets a little silly after a while. Women have it easier here than any sex in any country in world (usa) but it is still a sore subject apparently that if taking the opposite side means you are a sexist, but it makes taking the opposition fun!

I agree with the auto stat buffers though, which could and would open up more personality traits, making men who are more feminine and women who are more masculine to reverse those buffs.

[RimworldOx]

You little politically correct boys clearly aren't married or have ever been in a deep, serious relationship with a woman.

The OP's points are quite valid, and he very much is not in the minority in his way of thinking. Go back to your MSNBC and CNN PC bubble world haha.

The above mentioned changes would be great humorous and realistic additions to the game, and seeing as how Tynan is getting attacked by feminist liberal fake "journalists" about his amazing beloved game- when it's not even complete yet...

Leads me to believe he might have additional non PC things to add to this unfinished game.

GL All

[Doublebrain]

If you think because statistically women are physically weaker than men, ALL women should have a physical handicap, you really need to start understanding statistics.
You are saying that EVERY women has at least some artistic, medicinal and social skills with your way of handling it. Thats not how you use statistics.
I get that you are trying to implement some evolution based sex differences, which would in fact not be a bad thing, but probably think of a way that actually makes sense.

Also I'd say its quite interesting that you see men as the basis and want to modify women only. Why are men not getting any penalties?

[Razzoriel]

Also I'd say its quite interesting that you see men as the basis and want to modify women only. Why are men not getting any penalties?

Let's take into perspective that melee takes into consideration several factors, including physical strength. Not unreasonable, right? Ok, then. With this in mind, let's compare the World's Strongest Men and Women contests:

James Henderson lifted 710lbs in a bench press in 1997. April Mathis lifted 451 lbs in a bench press in 2012. Those are the absolute weights, which means anything above X lbs in bodyweight are valued. So these are supposed to be the real strongest marks.

What does this tell you? That the world's strongest man is able to lift 167% of the weight the world's strongest woman.

But then there are people who think a simple movement shouldn't dictate whether men/women are stronger. Fine, let's do deadlifts.

Benedikt Magnusson lifted 1.004lbs in a deadlift in 04/02/11. April Mathis lifted 589lbs. Again, the strongest man in the world lifted 170% of the woman's strongest mark. This is the ENTIRE WORLD.

Just for the sake of being nice, I'll also use Squats as reference.

Ray Williams 1.005lbs. April Mathis 615lbs. Again, close to 170%.

Would it not be reasonable to say that when competing, men on average would be about 50% stronger than women? I think not.

By the way, this is April Mathis:
http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/attachments/professional-muscle-forum/56187d1346556990-hard-believe-woman-april.jpg

This is, for comparison, Benedikt Magnusson:
http://dailyurbanculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/120.jpg

I can, quite confortably, say that a difference of -3 points in women from men in melee, in this specific case, is quite confortably well within range of reasonable. Yes, strength is not everything in a melee fight, but it dictates a lot; a woman could be more technical, but would still get handled if she is not as strong as the opponent. And this leads me to believe that a score of 20 goes for the man, because there is no way a woman could archieve maximum scores in melee, simply because she lacks the body strength to do so.

And then you could use the argument of genetic manipulation and hormonal therapy being stabilized and used in a thousand years to equate women and men in physical strength. Well okay, but that doesn't take away the fact that ON AVERAGE women without such treatments would STILL be inferior physically because they lack body strength.

My way of handling this is that women are more used to social/empathy related tasks on average than men, which means they would be more competent, on average, in a myriad of tasks related; hence my argument of giving them a buff to Social, Medicine and Artistic skills. Heck, even still, when you take into comparison the amount of artists in the world, are there more men or women? I didn't even made changes to Construction, which is all a physical task, as well.

Look, all I'm asking is realism in a section of the game which traditionally does not have realism involved. If Tynan wants to keep pandering to progressives, that's fine, he'll still get hitpieces from RPS and other progressive websites filled with SJWs, feminists and try-hard hipsters who will blast his game because it's not progressive enough and is sexist to women because X, Y and Z.

Might as well just give them the middle-finger in the process. But that's just me.


Sources: http://www.powerliftingwatch.com/records

[pfhorrest]

The only thing that here makes sense to me is the menstruation addition for female pawns ages 16-40. Every other statistical difference can be thought of to already manifest by the character rolls themselves. There's no indication that the random character generator is pulling from a pool of "average" men or "average" women. Some men get spawned with a higher melee stat than women, and vice versa. Characters have different stats because they're different people. Just because the strongest person in the world is a man and not a woman doesn't mean that random character rolls should handicap women regardless and just because women in aggregate have "better cooking skills" due to traditional gender roles doesn't mean that random character rolls should handicap men regardless , this is not how statistics work.

[mumblemumble]

I'm not sure if this is still a discussion I want to participate in, but I thought it would be common knowledge? Since we're on a game forum, I didn't expect needing to give scientific sources. Googling it will give you all the information you could ever want and it even gives a suggestion showing lots of people wanted to know already.
Take a look.

Oh interesting, seems maybe I was wrong, I -

vaccines

well never-mind.  Sorry but give me RAW data of an actual town without vaccines and men getting sick more often. Information on vaccines is very misleading often, like when they said it never caused autism, but the tests done used vaccines which mysteriously had no mercury unlike ALL OTHER ones.

Also, the study I found (since you are too lazy to cite the one YOU are talking about) is scientifically flawwed, comparing OLD men (40s and 50s) to YOUNG women. Guess what I can provide a study showing females are 1/3 as smart as men by comparing toddlers to adults, doesn't mean its scientific.

Now either show me what SPECIFIC article you mean, or quit acting like a pompous ass. if I ask for citation, its your job, not mine.

-------

As for strength, I agree with the ideas Razz said (good post btw!) but add a random 30% fluctuation up or down in strength. Perhaps add a new health stat "strength" which starts at a base amount between 70 and 130, and can be raised, lowered, with growth, injuries, age, ect. Stat could effect hauling, melee, ect (with strength requirement for some jobs) and while women would on AVERAGE be say, 20% less strong, you could still get a woman stronger than a weaker man. This way people cannot complain that strong women DONT exist.

Also double brain, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE learn the difference between MOST and ALL

- Women can't handle cold climates as good as men.
- Women can endure pain better then men.
- Bonus: Plus an endless amount of additional variations between males and females...

-Yes, men are also more prone to heatstroke IIRC. Men produce more heat, thus stay warm / overheat more
-Not true. Pregnancy is FLOODED with hormones, and is very much a sexual pain, which is completely different. On a baseline, men are better at withstanding injuries than women. This also is helped by the wiring. where a pain impulse leads to anger, rather than fear more often.
-Yeah, maybe, but this all aint a bad start