Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vattic]

I disagree, I know a few people whom still refuse to allow female dwarves in the military and whom always choose a male dwarf to become count of the fortress, and in IRL there are many women in the military but its still considered a masculine thing, I think where both seeing what we want to see.

Those are sexist players, they have no bearing on the game mechanics. 

Ironically I never draft female dwarves because of a lack of feminine development; I just don't like them carrying their babies into combat and getting them killed. Ideally they'd let another family member take it when on duty.

[Reelya]

Probably the most straightforward way to implement this would be a tag which works like the BODYSIZE tag system: list each age and a fertility%, which interpolates the actual chance between set markers. This would give the most freedom for modders. e.g. to have a race where fertility gradually declines until 60:

[FERTILITY:0:0]
[FERTILITY:12:100]
[FERTILITY:60:0]

To model sharp drops, you'd set different fertility rates a few years apart:

[FERTILITY:0:0]
[FERTILITY:12:100]
[FERTILITY:45:66]
[FERTILITY:50:0]

Would give a very slow decline until 45, then a rapid drop at 50. To model rare pregnancies in later life, you could leave the chance at 1-2% instead of 0%

[GoblinCookie]

inb4 10 pages of argument that don't really go anywhere.

I actually agree and it is my argument. 

Ironically I never draft female dwarves because of a lack of feminine development; I just don't like them carrying their babies into combat and getting them killed. Ideally they'd let another family member take it when on duty.

That is one example of the game mechanics motivating the player to actually discriminate against female dwarves. 

Probably the most straightforward way to implement this would be a tag which works like the BODYSIZE tag system: list each age and a fertility%, which interpolates the actual chance between set markers. This would give the most freedom for modders. e.g. to have a race where fertility gradually declines until 60:

[FERTILITY:0:0]
[FERTILITY:12:100]
[FERTILITY:60:0]

To model sharp drops, you'd set different fertility rates a few years apart:

[FERTILITY:0:0]
[FERTILITY:12:100]
[FERTILITY:45:66]
[FERTILITY:50:0]

Would give a very slow decline until 45, then a rapid drop at 50. To model rare pregnancies in later life, you could leave the chance at 1-2% instead of 0%

As mentioned already, it all depends upon how much raw work we want the devs to have to do.  I proposed that by default all intelligent creatures become infertile as soon as they become eligible to die of old age.  A single system such as you are using leaves the problem of having no simple way for the game to have a default setting for fertility reduction, so it become necessary to define for each and every creature it's rate of fertility decline.

[vjmdhzgr]

Ironically I never draft female dwarves because of a lack of feminine development; I just don't like them carrying their babies into combat and getting them killed. Ideally they'd let another family member take it when on duty.

That is one example of the game mechanics motivating the player to actually discriminate against female dwarves. 

Your suggestions would just make it worse. As it is there's very little reason to not send female dwarves into the military. Sure sometimes they bring children into combat, but I've had quite a few militaries with quite a few female dwarves in quite a few fortresses, and never had this happen at all. If "realistic" (in quotes because they're fictional creatures and the whole childbirth being a really big deal is pretty much a human specific thing, and the general body shape of dwarves would be better at it so I'm fine with just ignoring it for gameplay purposes about to be described) childbirth was implemented, then that'd be a very significant example of game mechanics motivating the player to actually discriminat against female dwarves. I might even stop putting married female dwarves into the military even though I hate discriminating, because it wouldn't even be discriminating, they're just less effective at that point if occasionally they get severely disabled and unable to participate in combat then go off to a hospital and maybe die. It'd actually make female dwarves less effective for everything. You wouldn't want to trust a married female dwarf with any important role in your fortress, because one day they might have a child and be unable to perform their job for a while, and then maybe even die.

Also, having a pretty much random chance of a dwarf just dying when giving birth is a terrible mechanic. You have very little ability to control whether or not your dwarves get married. You can somewhat encourage or discourage it, but sometimes they just get married anyway, or immigrate to your fortress married. It could result in players spending a long time training up their legendary weaponsmith (or some other important job), and making sure they're happy and safe, then "oh no, the weaponsmith got married!" The player then has two ways to prevent the weaponsmith from getting pregnant and potentially dying, which are to completely isolate the husband from the weaponsmith, or kill them. Turns out they got married to the legendary armorsmith (or some other important dwarf) because they're often working near each other, so that's not an option really. Then 9 months later, the legendary weaponsmith dies from forces pretty much completely outside of the player's control. Great mechanic.

I mean sure, midwives could help, but the thing is, the only way that you train medical skills currently, is by performing them. Maybe you have a dwarf completely dedicated to being a midwife, but then the first dwarf to give birth in your fortress dies because your midwife had no chance to practice. This is why Toady got rid of medical skills affecting anything other than how fast the procedure is, because sometimes a doctor would prescribe the wrong treatment and they'd remove the patient's heart in order to fix a broken leg or something and the dwarf would just die to factors pretty much outside of their control.

Alright so the solution to that is to simply make midwife like the other medical skills, with a 100% chance of success and skill level only affecting speed. Well then the only interactivity you've added for the player is to just check off another labor on their chief medical dwarf and any other doctors they might have. There we go, what a fun new simulation. Even then, it doesn't remove the fact that sometimes married female dwarves will just have to quit their job for a while. You still wouldn't want any important job in the fortress to be given to a female dwarf because they might just not be available when they're needed and then your military isn't strong enough to repel the siege, or your mechanic won't quite work fast enough to link up the bridge to the lever in time and your fortress is destroyed, or your farmers harvest a bit less plants and there's a shortage of food. Even if it's minor, it is objectively making female dwarves worse.

I wrote up a whole paragraph on other things you've been saying, and while I feel it's only slightly off the main topic, I'm pretty sure the only result of it is going to be some terrible spiral into an off-topic conversation that I don't want to happen so to try to stay on topic I think I'll just PM it to GoblinCookie and hopefully keep that discussion from going out of control on this board.

Anyway, I think the solution to how to implement a creature becoming infertile from age is pretty simple. Just do one of the many suggestions for how tokens specifying it could work, and then use GoblinCookie's suggestion as a default. Though I'm not really in favor of it being added because I feel like it's just the kind of thing Dwarf Fortress shouldn't simulate. Like how it doesn't simulate aging other than suddenly dying one day and hair turning white, or how it doesn't simulate sewer systems, or how nutrient value of food affecting health isn't simulated, or how technically siblings could have children but then the children would probably have some problems isn't even considered. It just fits in exactly with the kind of stuff Dwarf Fortress isn't simulating, and that I'm fine with it not simulating.

[GoblinCookie]

Your suggestions would just make it worse. As it is there's very little reason to not send female dwarves into the military. Sure sometimes they bring children into combat, but I've had quite a few militaries with quite a few female dwarves in quite a few fortresses, and never had this happen at all. If "realistic" (in quotes because they're fictional creatures and the whole childbirth being a really big deal is pretty much a human specific thing, and the general body shape of dwarves would be better at it so I'm fine with just ignoring it for gameplay purposes about to be described) childbirth was implemented, then that'd be a very significant example of game mechanics motivating the player to actually discriminat against female dwarves. I might even stop putting married female dwarves into the military even though I hate discriminating, because it wouldn't even be discriminating, they're just less effective at that point if occasionally they get severely disabled and unable to participate in combat then go off to a hospital and maybe die. It'd actually make female dwarves less effective for everything. You wouldn't want to trust a married female dwarf with any important role in your fortress, because one day they might have a child and be unable to perform their job for a while, and then maybe even die.

At the moment mothers carry their babies around for a year, with no way to transfer the baby to another dwarf even if they are activated and sent off to battle.  This pretty much means that we must kick the mother out of the military if we actually have to deploy soldiers (or laboriously command each soldier in the squad individually) or else have baby used as a 'shield'.  Making childbirth not a sudden random event is completely beneficial to this because it will mean that female soldiers will go into labour and head back to the hospital/their room before giving birth.  At the moment they can theoretically be born in the middle of combat without warning and we end up with baby shields even if we made sure to remove all warrior mothers with babies from their squads for a year. 

So nothing I am proposing 'makes it worse' at all. 

Also, having a pretty much random chance of a dwarf just dying when giving birth is a terrible mechanic. You have very little ability to control whether or not your dwarves get married. You can somewhat encourage or discourage it, but sometimes they just get married anyway, or immigrate to your fortress married. It could result in players spending a long time training up their legendary weaponsmith (or some other important job), and making sure they're happy and safe, then "oh no, the weaponsmith got married!" The player then has two ways to prevent the weaponsmith from getting pregnant and potentially dying, which are to completely isolate the husband from the weaponsmith, or kill them. Turns out they got married to the legendary armorsmith (or some other important dwarf) because they're often working near each other, so that's not an option really. Then 9 months later, the legendary weaponsmith dies from forces pretty much completely outside of the player's control. Great mechanic.

So?  The legendary weaponsmith provided that they over the age that dying of old age can also suddenly drop dead suddenly without the player having any way to predict it.  If we add in deadly infectious diseases then we would have another way for important characters to drop dead randomly.  Basically important dwarves dying is supposed to be part of the game and it is not something that should be entirely under player control.

I mean sure, midwives could help, but the thing is, the only way that you train medical skills currently, is by performing them. Maybe you have a dwarf completely dedicated to being a midwife, but then the first dwarf to give birth in your fortress dies because your midwife had no chance to practice. This is why Toady got rid of medical skills affecting anything other than how fast the procedure is, because sometimes a doctor would prescribe the wrong treatment and they'd remove the patient's heart in order to fix a broken leg or something and the dwarf would just die to factors pretty much outside of their control.

The comparison is not apt since the midwife is not a cause of mortality but a reducer of mortality.  The chance of dying is a % chance that should probably by default be about 10% by default in the absence of any midwife attention at all for the first child, every subsequent child should reduce the risk by about 50%, so the 2nd child has a 5% chance of killing mother, the 3rd child a 2.5% and so on.  These are all base chances, the mere fact of being attended by a midwife would reduce the chance of death regardless of whether the midwife has any skill at all at what they are doing by say another 50%.  So the odds would be as follows given a dabbling skill midwife would be as follows.

1st Child: 2.5%
2nd Child: 1.25%
3rd Child: 0.625%
4rd Child: 0.3125%
5rd Child: 0.15625%

The midwife skill adds further reductions to the odds of dying on top of the basic reduction from simply being attended at all.  A low skill midwife does not increase the chance of dying in the same manner that unskilled surgeons used to kill people. 

Alright so the solution to that is to simply make midwife like the other medical skills, with a 100% chance of success and skill level only affecting speed. Well then the only interactivity you've added for the player is to just check off another labor on their chief medical dwarf and any other doctors they might have. There we go, what a fun new simulation. Even then, it doesn't remove the fact that sometimes married female dwarves will just have to quit their job for a while. You still wouldn't want any important job in the fortress to be given to a female dwarf because they might just not be available when they're needed and then your military isn't strong enough to repel the siege, or your mechanic won't quite work fast enough to link up the bridge to the lever in time and your fortress is destroyed, or your farmers harvest a bit less plants and there's a shortage of food. Even if it's minor, it is objectively making female dwarves worse.

They might not be available because they are sleeping, eating, drinking, praying, dancing etc; if you are running your fortress in such an inept way as to rely on a single dwarf happening to be available at a given time then you deserve to lose the game anyway.  Fact is that the male dwarves are not competing against the female dwarves, having twice as many people doing a job means that there is a reduced chance that somebody will be available to do a certain task at a given time.  It is always beneficial even if female dwarves are 'worse' to employ the skills of female dwarves because that means there are more people available at any given time to perform tasks. 

I wrote up a whole paragraph on other things you've been saying, and while I feel it's only slightly off the main topic, I'm pretty sure the only result of it is going to be some terrible spiral into an off-topic conversation that I don't want to happen so to try to stay on topic I think I'll just PM it to GoblinCookie and hopefully keep that discussion from going out of control on this board.

Anyway, I think the solution to how to implement a creature becoming infertile from age is pretty simple. Just do one of the many suggestions for how tokens specifying it could work, and then use GoblinCookie's suggestion as a default. Though I'm not really in favor of it being added because I feel like it's just the kind of thing Dwarf Fortress shouldn't simulate. Like how it doesn't simulate aging other than suddenly dying one day and hair turning white, or how it doesn't simulate sewer systems, or how nutrient value of food affecting health isn't simulated, or how technically siblings could have children but then the children would probably have some problems isn't even considered. It just fits in exactly with the kind of stuff Dwarf Fortress isn't simulating, and that I'm fine with it not simulating.

It has quite a major effect on the stories in the game.  100 year old human women having children has quite a major effect on the story, unlike the other things.

[Vattic]

Making childbirth not a sudden random event is completely beneficial to this because it will mean that female soldiers will go into labour and head back to the hospital/their room before giving birth.  At the moment they can theoretically be born in the middle of combat without warning and we end up with baby shields even if we made sure to remove all warrior mothers with babies from their squads for a year. 

Not completely on topic I admit, but I'd like to see an occasional birthing in battle akin to the legends(?) surrounding Phùng Thị Chính of Vietnam. She was a noble and captain who gave birth during battle. There are multiple versions of the story: either she fights on, baby in one arm sword in the other, or she cuts her way out of the battle. After her leaders commit suicide she takes both her and her child's life (already something that can happen). I suppose it would be a combination of situation and personality that would lead to this kind of thing instead of the dwarves being indifferent as they are now.

[Dirst]

[FERTILITY:0:0]
[FERTILITY:12:100]
[FERTILITY:45:66]
[FERTILITY:50:0]

What about this for defaults?  Use years and days like body size.
[FERTILITY:0:0:0]
[FERTILITY:age_of_majority:0:0]
[FERTILITY:age_of_majority:180:100]
[FERTILITY:age_of_majority+int(.75*(min_old_age-age_of_majority)):0:90]
[FERTILITY:min_old_age:0:0]

But let modders override these.

[JesterHell696]

The devs tend to introduce things in blocks, with a whole raft of similar things together.  This is what gives the lie to the notion that they are neutral on feminine things then they would add those things when they appear but the masculine things would drive things forward.  The medical block turns up and they add in a whole raft of medical skills but even though midwifery is a medical skill it does go in. 

Yes they do introduce things in blocks, they also break those blocks up into smaller blocks, take for example how taverns have been broken up into multiple stages of development, its not a lie its that they did combat and a complex wound system and realized that they would have to address how those wounds are healed then after handling those wounds they broke off medical development to work on something else.

Now could they have continued to work on medical system and added things like midwives sure but they'd met the working medical system goal they set for themselves and moved on just like taverns, just like the GDS, once they meet their goal or they feel like their spending to much time on one subject they move on.

That is the RNG JesterHell696.   

... Yeah I know did you think I didn't?

In the absence of the information necessary to actually model how such system formed IRL then they have two choices, first don't have it in the game or second turn it over to RNG gods, I for one would prefer the system in game and so I'm willing to accept that solution even though its not great because I think its better then the alternative of a world full of gender neutral civ's.

My stance is that the imbalance weakens the game and thus needs to be rectified. 

And my stance is that when the issue come up as being central to the storie e.g. when they do adventurer relationship and pregnancy then they'll add it until then its just not of a high enough level of interest to them personally that they do it, just like how GDS aren't important enough that even though they'd only spend the couple minutes reintroducing them they haven't.

Those are sexist players, they have no bearing on the game mechanics.   

I was addressing your claim about job being demasculinised though successful women and how its not objectively true.

You simply share their unconscious bias and hence approve of what they have not done. 

So because I don't agree with you I'm biased... I personally over such arguments as I here them a lot, everybody is biased and imho it is impossible for a human being to be objective but there is a difference between supporting one thing and opposing another, I'm not against childcare, pregnancy or childbirth being in the game and in fact I do want them in game but there a 101 other things I want more and I would rather him work 100% on the myth generator then spend even 10 minutes on something that I will ignore for the most part, much like how I ignore all births in-game as is.

And yes even if it was added I would ignore birth because I personally want the game to simulate as much as possible, even things I have no personal interest in.

I have addressed the basic point already above about how the devs do stuff in blocks. 

And I now addressed that with the fact the dev break up those blocks, also remember that even things as easy as GDS just don't get done because of other priorities.

To repeat my earlier point.  You start off with the masculine disemboweling of enemies, from there we head to the somewhat ambiguous field of medicine.  However even though it is your job at this point to develop medicine you fail to take into account the question of midwifes even though they are an important medical question in real life.  So instead of developing the game into potentially ambiguous or feminine fields you instead loop back to your original masculine starting point, refusing to develop any field of medicine however important except what is directly relevant to the original hacking things masculine starting point. 

They haven't "failed" to take anything into account, The dev's set out to handle the combat wounding system that they'd implemented and they managed to implement a medical system to handle it but rather then continuing with something that was not strictly necessary (like handling combat wounds was at the time) they moved onto the next thing on their list, that not "refusing" that's prioritizing the development of things that are either necessary or of personally interest... which is what I said they do.

Our job in the suggestions forum is to broaden the devs minds JesterHell696 so that they do things that do not immediately occur to them, plus to critique the development of the game.   

My problem was never with this suggestion but with your claim that the reason they had not implemented it already was because of a unconscious bias, like I said above I'm for such a system its just something I'm personally sure they will get to when its necessary or of personal interest not before because its low priority and they have a place holder that works for now.

Also I would say that the suggestion forum is for suggesting things you like to see in game or that you think fit DF but not for critiquing the development.

We as the community have donated a fair bit too much money for it to be purely a project of personal gratification of two people any longer.

Ha, that's not how donations work, they've never lied that the reason their doing this is because it is a dream of theirs and that if you like what their doing you can donate if you don't like it then you don't donate but its still firmly a project of personal gratification first and foremost and if you don't like that you don't have to donate.

If they can't support full time development on donations they'll start only working on it on the weekend and after work and if they stop getting personal gratification out of it DF dies.

I was never accusing the devs of bigotry.  I am just pointing out that there is an unconscious bias which is weakening the game's development and I am trying to bring to their attention. 

Its a matter of opinion as to what weakens the game's development, I thnik spending time on pregnacy and child birth is a weaker investment of dev time then the myth generator, adventure mode roles, starting scenarios and of site armies... its still worth being included in version 1.0 but until then I see no real issue... unless your a SJW...

Yes what I mentioned, particularly the core menopause idea should already have been implemented.  That it has not has nothing to do with the desire or bigotry of the devs but is simply because of unconscious biases. 

And what I said is that even easy thing that they have every intention of doing like GDS don't get done because they have other priorities, menopause is the same in that its not something the game needs right now and I do think that when they got to the point of adventure mode pregnancy being a thing they would research IRL pregnancy and then model it in game based of of that research, like they always do when adding a new feature.

Like I said I'm not opposed to menopause, childbirth, pregnancy, childcare being added in more depth I'm just opposed to your claim that its been excluded because of bias against feminine things on the part of the dev's.

If I have 1000 points of masculine development and 100 points of feminine development there is no less bias than if there were 10 points of masculine development then the bias has not been rectified even if there has been 10X times more development of the feminine things.  There are two things, namely realistic childbirth/midwifes and menopause that are both easy to implement and would go a long way to rectifying the imbalance, stuff like childcare is harder/more complex.

So what the dev's should do is take note of how many masculine and feminine things are in the game and work toward keeping it balanced? that's some grade A SJW bullshit if ever I've heard it, its like those affirmative action policies that demand a company employ x amount of minorities, I'm all for equal rights but my belief is that equal is equal which mean no-one at all gets special treatment because of their "circumstance", this means not including childbirth or pregnancy just because equality.

I'll say again just because something is easy doesn't mean its going in before it becomes either necessary or an item of personal interest.

[JesterHell696]

I mean sure, midwives could help, but the thing is, the only way that you train medical skills currently, is by performing them. Maybe you have a dwarf completely dedicated to being a midwife, but then the first dwarf to give birth in your fortress dies because your midwife had no chance to practice. This is why Toady got rid of medical skills affecting anything other than how fast the procedure is, because sometimes a doctor would prescribe the wrong treatment and they'd remove the patient's heart in order to fix a broken leg or something and the dwarf would just die to factors pretty much outside of their control.

I thought that Toady said he'd put it back in when the concept of medical knowledge was expanded and you can train medical dwarves outside of actual practice... I really hope it goes back in because I dislike the idea that a dwarf with no medical knowledge or experience cam always succeed.

Anyway, I think the solution to how to implement a creature becoming infertile from age is pretty simple. Just do one of the many suggestions for how tokens specifying it could work, and then use GoblinCookie's suggestion as a default. Though I'm not really in favor of it being added because I feel like it's just the kind of thing Dwarf Fortress shouldn't simulate. Like how it doesn't simulate aging other than suddenly dying one day and hair turning white, or how it doesn't simulate sewer systems, or how nutrient value of food affecting health isn't simulated, or how technically siblings could have children but then the children would probably have some problems isn't even considered. It just fits in exactly with the kind of stuff Dwarf Fortress isn't simulating, and that I'm fine with it not simulating.

The thing is many people do want sewers (I do) ,some people do want more detailed aging like attribute decay (I do), I know that at least I want inbreeding to be simulated as that was a problem that nobility did face irl and as nobility is expanded upon it should be simulated imho.

Basically I want DF to simulate everything it can with only the detail's that would cause it to be literally unplayable (like trying to simulate every individual grain of sand) being left out.

[GoblinCookie]

Not completely on topic I admit, but I'd like to see an occasional birthing in battle akin to the legends(?) surrounding Phùng Thị Chính of Vietnam. She was a noble and captain who gave birth during battle. There are multiple versions of the story: either she fights on, baby in one arm sword in the other, or she cuts her way out of the battle. After her leaders commit suicide she takes both her and her child's life (already something that can happen). I suppose it would be a combination of situation and personality that would lead to this kind of thing instead of the dwarves being indifferent as they are now.

That sounds like something that could happen in fortress mode under the right circumstances.  Since birth in legends mode would still be entirely abstracted I do not see how it could happen in legends mode at all.

Yes they do introduce things in blocks, they also break those blocks up into smaller blocks, take for example how taverns have been broken up into multiple stages of development, its not a lie its that they did combat and a complex wound system and realized that they would have to address how those wounds are healed then after handling those wounds they broke off medical development to work on something else.

Now could they have continued to work on medical system and added things like midwives sure but they'd met the working medical system goal they set for themselves and moved on just like taverns, just like the GDS, once they meet their goal or they feel like their spending to much time on one subject they move on.

There is no point in trying to read the devs minds.  This does not change the fact however that the game is biased towards masculine things as far as development is concerned.

... Yeah I know did you think I didn't?

In the absence of the information necessary to actually model how such system formed IRL then they have two choices, first don't have it in the game or second turn it over to RNG gods, I for one would prefer the system in game and so I'm willing to accept that solution even though its not great because I think its better then the alternative of a world full of gender neutral civ's.

These things are not arbitrary JesterHell696.  It did not happen in the distant time that somebody rolled a dice and men ended up being in charge, the circumstances were a certain way pretty much everywhere and as a result things ended up a certain way pretty much everywhere.  All these things are rooted in biological facts+circumstances, hence having the RNG deciding such things is utter madness, two identical creatures with identical societies in Yr0 will always have identical gender roles. 

Gender roles if they exist should use the same system as citizen status in general, just add the ability to have caste-defined social status in the raws and the general ability put restrictions on what social statuses in general can do.  Just treat the female gendered and/or male gendered as a social status with defined roles as with all the other social statuses.  It also allow exceptional individuals of a gender to occasionally do the wrong gender tasks without changing the normal roles; they simply leave the gender role status without changing gender. 

And my stance is that when the issue come up as being central to the storie e.g. when they do adventurer relationship and pregnancy then they'll add it until then its just not of a high enough level of interest to them personally that they do it, just like how GDS aren't important enough that even though they'd only spend the couple minutes reintroducing them they haven't.

This is all about those kinds of issues, given finite amount of dev time they have chosen in a very extreme sense to focus on the masculine things as opposed to the feminine things; this results in very unbalanced stories and a skewed universe.  Yes as a result the masculine things would be somewhat less developed necessarily but the game would be more balanced as would the stories, which is a qualitative benefit.

I was addressing your claim about job being demasculinised though successful women and how its not objectively true.

Yes a single woman does not necessarily alter the masculine perception of a profession.  A lot of it has to do with how that woman is perceived in general, if she is seen as being different to all the other women; exceptional in that she is a 'masculine' woman then the effect is limited.  The effect of a single successful woman on perceptions of femininity depends to a large degree not upon anything objective but whether she is perceived as being 'like' the other women by society.  If such a woman manages to succeed this does not overnight change things but causes cracks to appear in the position's masculinity, cracks which ease the path for other woman to follow.  If enough women manage to follow then the job loses it's perceived masculinity, for example;

Once upon a time all elected politicians were male, the politician job was hence unequivocally masculine.  People fought against this state of affairs and even when it was legally possible for women to become politicians few did so and politicians remained overwhelmingly male for many decades.  Only nowadays has the masculinity of politician been lost; we see more and more female politicians about the place and this is no longer considered notable.  This is a key thing, a job is other-gendered by society if it is considered notable that somebody of the opposite gender is doing that job; because female politicians are no longer notable we can confidently say that the politician role ceased to be masculine. 

So because I don't agree with you I'm biased... I personally over such arguments as I here them a lot, everybody is biased and imho it is impossible for a human being to be objective but there is a difference between supporting one thing and opposing another, I'm not against childcare, pregnancy or childbirth being in the game and in fact I do want them in game but there a 101 other things I want more and I would rather him work 100% on the myth generator then spend even 10 minutes on something that I will ignore for the most part, much like how I ignore all births in-game as is.

And yes even if it was added I would ignore birth because I personally want the game to simulate as much as possible, even things I have no personal interest in.

If you have infinite resources you can have everything.  It is how you allocate limited resources however that shows your bias. 

And I now addressed that with the fact the dev break up those blocks, also remember that even things as easy as GDS just don't get done because of other priorities.

We can tell that giant desert scorpions are not something the devs really care about.  That is because they are animals and the devs have a perceptible general bias against animals in general given how undeveloped they are despite so many other areas of the game being developed. 

They haven't "failed" to take anything into account, The dev's set out to handle the combat wounding system that they'd implemented and they managed to implement a medical system to handle it but rather then continuing with something that was not strictly necessary (like handling combat wounds was at the time) they moved onto the next thing on their list, that not "refusing" that's prioritizing the development of things that are either necessary or of personally interest... which is what I said they do.

Remember that childbirth also exists at this point, not just the combat wounding system.  Even though something they are doing is relevant to two existing game mechanics not one they failed to notice this was the case and hence we see the unconscious bias at work.  They simply did not spot that there are two mechanics that require medical skills not just one because one of the mechanics is a feminine thing and they are biased against such. 

My problem was never with this suggestion but with your claim that the reason they had not implemented it already was because of a unconscious bias, like I said above I'm for such a system its just something I'm personally sure they will get to when its necessary or of personal interest not before because its low priority and they have a place holder that works for now.

Also I would say that the suggestion forum is for suggesting things you like to see in game or that you think fit DF but not for critiquing the development.

It is a place to suggest improvements to the development, which is a critique.  They will not 'get to it' because the unconscious bias continues to exist by default until it is brought to light, which I have done I guess.

Ha, that's not how donations work, they've never lied that the reason their doing this is because it is a dream of theirs and that if you like what their doing you can donate if you don't like it then you don't donate but its still firmly a project of personal gratification first and foremost and if you don't like that you don't have to donate.

If they can't support full time development on donations they'll start only working on it on the weekend and after work and if they stop getting personal gratification out of it DF dies.

We give them money so they have more time to work on DF which we the players enjoy playing.  We do not give any people money solely because they have personal projects that exist solely for their own gratification; I think the devs understand this well.  It may be a project of personal gratification to them but that it is *not* why we are giving them money and there is no reason that the players opinions should be ignored when they are paying for their project.

Its a matter of opinion as to what weakens the game's development, I thnik spending time on pregnacy and child birth is a weaker investment of dev time then the myth generator, adventure mode roles, starting scenarios and of site armies... its still worth being included in version 1.0 but until then I see no real issue... unless your a SJW...

SJW, that is Social Justice Warrior correct?  That is a hate term beloved of GamerGate, those who not only love gender bias and sexism in games but actually exist to keep the gender bias from ever being rectified; with you using such terms I wonder about the wisdom of continuing this discussion. 

And what I said is that even easy thing that they have every intention of doing like GDS don't get done because they have other priorities, menopause is the same in that its not something the game needs right now and I do think that when they got to the point of adventure mode pregnancy being a thing they would research IRL pregnancy and then model it in game based of of that research, like they always do when adding a new feature.

Like I said I'm not opposed to menopause, childbirth, pregnancy, childcare being added in more depth I'm just opposed to your claim that its been excluded because of bias against feminine things on the part of the dev's.

You keep talking like priorities are somehow objective and are not simply how bias is expressed.  The GDS is simply another example of another unconscious bias in the development, that against animals (other than cats).

So what the dev's should do is take note of how many masculine and feminine things are in the game and work toward keeping it balanced? that's some grade A SJW bullshit if ever I've heard it, its like those affirmative action policies that demand a company employ x amount of minorities, I'm all for equal rights but my belief is that equal is equal which mean no-one at all gets special treatment because of their "circumstance", this means not including childbirth or pregnancy just because equality.

I'll say again just because something is easy doesn't mean its going in before it becomes either necessary or an item of personal interest.

Yes they and everyone must work to keep their view of the world balanced.  A better game will result if they do, otherwise we have a lopsided game where some things are vastly developed and other things despite being equally important are mere placeholders.  Even though childbirth is a major cause of mortality for women it should remain a placeholder mechanic while we get ever more detailed stories of war and violence.  Pregnancy = something that kills women = not important, Warfare = something that kills mostly men = important; see the bias in your thinking.

I thought that Toady said he'd put it back in when the concept of medical knowledge was expanded and you can train medical dwarves outside of actual practice... I really hope it goes back in because I dislike the idea that a dwarf with no medical knowledge or experience cam always succeed.

That subject is less than relevant.

The thing is many people do want sewers (I do) ,some people do want more detailed aging like attribute decay (I do), I know that at least I want inbreeding to be simulated as that was a problem that nobility did face irl and as nobility is expanded upon it should be simulated imho.

Basically I want DF to simulate everything it can with only the detail's that would cause it to be literally unplayable (like trying to simulate every individual grain of sand) being left out.

Inbreeding is actually something along the lines I am talking about since it concerns the feminine field of reproduction.  The problem with introducing the concept now is that the family lines that exist in the game are necessarily highly inbred since there are not enough historical characters in a civilization for it not to wreck major damage.  By contrast fortress mode childbirth and menopause can be implemented immediately since all the prerequisites for doing so are met. 

Attribute damage from aging has to have people understand when they are too old to do certain tasks and they need to retire from doing them.  Similar with attribute damage from pregnancy, it is not that this is unrealistic but that the pregnant women as with old people need to understand that they should not be doing certain tasks like fighting for instance. 

[JesterHell696]

There is no point in trying to read the devs minds.  This does not change the fact however that the game is biased towards masculine things as far as development is concerned.

I never said there wasn't a pro-masculine bias I just disagreed with your claim that pro-masculine = anti-feminine or would you claim that being pro-feminine is the same as being anti-masculine?

My claim is that there is a difference between supporting masculine things like war and opposing feminine tings like pregnancy, just like there's a difference between liking the color blue and disliking the color green.

These things are not arbitrary JesterHell696.  It did not happen in the distant time that somebody rolled a dice and men ended up being in charge, the circumstances were a certain way pretty much everywhere and as a result things ended up a certain way pretty much everywhere.  All these things are rooted in biological facts+circumstances, hence having the RNG deciding such things is utter madness, two identical creatures with identical societies in Yr0 will always have identical gender roles. 

In the real world no its not arbitrary but without all the data necessary to accurately simulate how societies form gender roles then toady has a couple of options, either he leaves them out and makes everyone egalitarian (which I think is boring), he predetermines what each societies gender roles will be Dwarves = egalitarian, elves = matriarchal, humans patriarchal (better then everyone being egalitarian) or he can use DF RNG nature and the fact that there will be literal gods to hand wave the actual reason and use RNG to determine god X of human civ B says males are better and god Z of humans civ C says that females are better.

I think having dwarves, elves and humans all be capable of being patriarchal/matriarchal/egalitarian is more interesting and would create better stories.

Gender roles if they exist should use the same system as citizen status in general, just add the ability to have caste-defined social status in the raws and the general ability put restrictions on what social statuses in general can do.  Just treat the female gendered and/or male gendered as a social status with defined roles as with all the other social statuses.  It also allow exceptional individuals of a gender to occasionally do the wrong gender tasks without changing the normal roles; they simply leave the gender role status without changing gender. 

Or you know have the tags so the player can define it if they so desire but otherwise treat it like human civs current values where the gender role and social status by gender is RNG'd for each individual civ during myth gen to enable a greater degree of variety and more interesting interaction between civs of the same race.

This is all about those kinds of issues, given finite amount of dev time they have chosen in a very extreme sense to focus on the masculine things as opposed to the feminine things; this results in very unbalanced stories and a skewed universe. 

Never said it didn't, I did say that its something that I do believe that would get handled before version 1.0 because some of the things talked about in DF talk or on the roadmap like say adventure mode marriage and continuing as your own adventurers child would see the issue of pregnancy come up, at which point they would do their normal research binge and end up including things like pregnancy cravings, post natal depression, midwives and childcare.

Yes as a result the masculine things would be somewhat less developed necessarily but the game would be more balanced as would the stories, which is a qualitative benefit.

I still think that this balance will come later just like may other balance issues it will be handled when its either necessary or they feel like it as of yet its neither and I support this method of development.

If you have infinite resources you can have everything.  It is how you allocate limited resources however that shows your bias. 

Never said there wasn't bias just disagreed with your claim that its because of a bias against feminine things, just as an example there is a difference between not supporting women's rights and opposing women's right and even if the outcome of both is the same (no women's rights) they are not the same thing and not supporting women's right does not mean your unconsciously bias against them it means you don't care.

We can tell that giant desert scorpions are not something the devs really care about.  That is because they are animals and the devs have a perceptible general bias against animals in general given how undeveloped they are despite so many other areas of the game being developed. 

As I've said before there is a difference between supporting one thing and opposing another, its not that the dev are against animal its that animal are not their priority, if you look on the dev road map you'll see that one of the goals is allowing the player to farm animals.

Raising livestock

    Farms associated to entity population sprawl
    Ability to buy a livestock animal and lead it around
    Keep track of your animals as with hunted animals so they are not easily and permanently lost
    Ability to build fences (more than one fence tile per tree used, as opposed to wall)
    Ability to perform decisive attacks on unsuspecting or heavily injured opponent (a cow being slaughtered, for instance)
    Tracking livestock breeding/pregnancy information
    Grazing and drinking for livestock
    Eggs, chickens and associated objects

oh would you look at that it seems like more detail is planed for animals but is on the back burner.

Remember that childbirth also exists at this point, not just the combat wounding system.  Even though something they are doing is relevant to two existing game mechanics not one they failed to notice this was the case and hence we see the unconscious bias at work.  They simply did not spot that there are two mechanics that require medical skills not just one because one of the mechanics is a feminine thing and they are biased against such.   

How long did instruments exist as normal crafts before they did anything with music? how long has cooking existed and yet they haven't done the planed procedural generated recipes yet?

Simply put this methodology has always been a part of DF's development and that not an issue, its on the docket of things to do and it will be done when necessary or when they develop a personal interest in the subject.

It is a place to suggest improvements to the development, which is a critique.  They will not 'get to it' because the unconscious bias continues to exist by default until it is brought to light, which I have done I guess.   

What the surggestion forums is for is somewhat open to interpritation, for instance I see it as a place to suggest things you think would be cool that aren't on the development roadmap and haven't been mentioned in DF talk.

There is no unconscious bias and I think your seeing what you want to see nothing more and all you done is brought the subject up sooner then it would have otherwise but it would have come up eventual regardless of if you making this thread or not.

We give them money so they have more time to work on DF which we the players enjoy playing.  We do not give any people money solely because they have personal projects that exist solely for their own gratification; I think the devs understand this well.  It may be a project of personal gratification to them but that it is *not* why we are giving them money and there is no reason that the players opinions should be ignored when they are paying for their project.

No we give them money because we enjoy the results of their personal project but its still done solely for their own gratification and because its donations they have no obligation to the players and they should and imho will continue to develop the game in the way they want even if that results in a loss to the player base and I think that's why they actually have plans for if they can't rely on donation any more.

SJW, that is Social Justice Warrior correct?

Yep

That is a hate term beloved of GamerGate, those who not only love gender bias and sexism in games but actually exist to keep the gender bias from ever being rectified; with you using such terms I wonder about the wisdom of continuing this discussion. 

The SJW's I've interacted with seem unable to comprehend the idea of apathy or neutrality, its always "your either part of the solution or part of the problem" with them and as a relativist who thinks right and wrong are relative values such an absolute statement irritates me, my lack of support for gay rights is not the same thing as opposing gay rights which means I'm neither part of the solution or part of the problem just like Swedens neutrality during WW II did not make them a part of the problem.

I'm also doubting you can be reasoned with as your no doubting if I can be

You keep talking like priorities are somehow objective and are not simply how bias is expressed.  The GDS is simply another example of another unconscious bias in the development, that against animals (other than cats).

And you keep failing to understand that a bias toward masculine things is not the same as a bias against feminine things which is my entire point, they prioritize the things that are necessary for development or that they take a personal interest in this does not mean they are unconsciously against the things the don't develop just that they are following their personal priorities when working on their personal project.

Yes they and everyone must work to keep their view of the world balanced.

This is an opinion not a fact.

A better game will result if they do,

Whether something is better or not is based on relative value.

otherwise we have a lopsided game where some things are vastly developed and other things despite being equally important are mere placeholders.

Somethings importance is relative, nothing is inherently important.

Even though childbirth is a major cause of mortality for women it should remain a placeholder mechanic while we get ever more detailed stories of war and violence.  Pregnancy = something that kills women = not important, Warfare = something that kills mostly men = important; see the bias in your thinking.

First at no point have I claimed there is no bias, my entire point is that bias toward masculine things like war is not the samething as bias against feminine things like childbirth, second its inclusion or lack there of is not a statement about the objective importance of pregnancy but the relative importance in comparison to other concepts that are competing for dev time, third it is obvious that you haven't read the DF talks or the Development roadmap because if you did you would see that it is something that would get dealt with when necessary not just because "equality" and "fair representation" bullsh*t that's making Political correctness such a hated thing now days.

Choosing to develop things of personal interest is a perfectly valid method of development when working of a project that has always been based firmly in personal gratification and that take no objective value out of the game nor does it mean that the dev's are against anything consciously or unconsciously as you claimed and as I rejected.

That subject is less than relevant.

that was not directed at you but if your talking about adding a medical "midwives" skill then the possibility for malpractice is relevant, if only slightly.

Inbreeding is actually something along the lines I am talking about since it concerns the feminine field of reproduction.  The problem with introducing the concept now is that the family lines that exist in the game are necessarily highly inbred since there are not enough historical characters in a civilization for it not to wreck major damage.  By contrast fortress mode childbirth and menopause can be implemented immediately since all the prerequisites for doing so are met.

As a fan of crusader kings II I find handling inbreeding of nobility slightly more interesting then pregnancy but both subjects can be left until after the justice ark imho.

Attribute damage from aging has to have people understand when they are too old to do certain tasks and they need to retire from doing them.  Similar with attribute damage from pregnancy, it is not that this is unrealistic but that the pregnant women as with old people need to understand that they should not be doing certain tasks like fighting for instance.

As I understand it there are plans to make dwarves a bit more independent on the issue of jobs which sounds like the time to handle something like this.



I don't think either of use will be able to convince the other of anything so for the sack of maintaining civility on the forums I'm going to call it quits on this topic.

[Vattic]

I think this section can and should be used for critique. I always got the impression that Toady appreciated it (to a point, bet it can be draining). It can be really useful as it's very easy to miss important details when you're the creator. Toady relies on those that play to be critical as he doesn't play the game himself beyond for short term testing.

Not completely on topic I admit, but I'd like to see an occasional birthing in battle akin to the legends(?) surrounding Phùng Thị Chính of Vietnam. She was a noble and captain who gave birth during battle. There are multiple versions of the story: either she fights on, baby in one arm sword in the other, or she cuts her way out of the battle. After her leaders commit suicide she takes both her and her child's life (already something that can happen). I suppose it would be a combination of situation and personality that would lead to this kind of thing instead of the dwarves being indifferent as they are now.

That sounds like something that could happen in fortress mode under the right circumstances.  Since birth in legends mode would still be entirely abstracted I do not see how it could happen in legends mode at all.

For sure, but as said I would prefer if the women in game would act more maternally and mostly avoid this kind of scenario and similar (baby shields). This second post was to clarify that I'd not want it completely removed from the game and still occur under the right circumstances.

Not sure if I've the wrong impression, but I didn't mean legends mode when I mentioned legends; I meant that the story itself may be a legend. Code wise I don't think it would be too much to have these kinds of births happen. Check if any historical figures in the battle are roughly due, make them abstractly give birth, and record in legends mode. Would be nice if NPCs spoke of it too. I doubt we'd see it happen until battles are reworked anyway.

[Ryga_]

I've always assumed the devs would add aging effects (which would include menopause) at some point, along with funeral possessions or ceremonies. I'm sure they will hit everything in the vicinity of aging and death when they get there.

As to midwives, it could easily just be any medical dwarf instead of a separate skill.

If we're talking about "feminine skills" (from our personal culturally biased viewpoints), cooking hasn't been improved yet, mostly because they haven't figured out farming, which leads to how nutrients may or may not be involved, which leads to cooking. This isnt some gender bias seeing how these roles are gender neutral historically. It's just less interesting to work on than generating poetry and world gen myths, even if the specific mechanics are interesting to think about.

Historical ideas of masculine and feminine roles have drastically differed according to time period and geography. There's no point in arguing about our personal narrow worldviews considering the game allows for whatever interpretation you want of the events and actions. Those interpretations will be different based on your cultural experience and bias. One person's idea of feminine and masculine will be very different from another, especially once you expand outwards from euro-american social thinking.

And honestly, who cares if the devs are using the "rule of cool" to make a living version of the fantasy worlds they dreamt of as boys? There is nothing to be gained from analyzing subtle, harmless bias towards sword and board fantasy. The devs have added sexual orientations and equalized the genders in game already. Let them have fun with making big sweeping changes, you enjoy the game in its extremely incomplete state, and trust that they will hit all this stuff later as they've stated numerous times.

So yeah, menopause gets a *thumbsup* from me along with other aging effects like cataracts, possible loss of mobility/speed, and propensity towards more personal activities rather than work.

[GoblinCookie]

I never said there wasn't a pro-masculine bias I just disagreed with your claim that pro-masculine = anti-feminine or would you claim that being pro-feminine is the same as being anti-masculine?

My claim is that there is a difference between supporting masculine things like war and opposing feminine tings like pregnancy, just like there's a difference between liking the color blue and disliking the color green.

Given that there is a finite amount of resources to favor one thing is to disfavor another thing.  The thing is that there is a law of diminishing returns going on, the more developed something is the harder it becomes to develop it further and the less is achieved by doing so.  One of the strengths of DF is that unlike other games it tends to follow this principle, the game develops a large number of things to a limited degree as opposed to as more games developing one thing (usually fighting) to a very high degree and neglecting everything else.  However there is a definite bias in the game towards masculine things/against feminine things which runs against the grain of what makes the game great. 

In the real world no its not arbitrary but without all the data necessary to accurately simulate how societies form gender roles then toady has a couple of options, either he leaves them out and makes everyone egalitarian (which I think is boring), he predetermines what each societies gender roles will be Dwarves = egalitarian, elves = matriarchal, humans patriarchal (better then everyone being egalitarian) or he can use DF RNG nature and the fact that there will be literal gods to hand wave the actual reason and use RNG to determine god X of human civ B says males are better and god Z of humans civ C says that females are better.

I think having dwarves, elves and humans all be capable of being patriarchal/matriarchal/egalitarian is more interesting and would create better stories.

I think that the gender hierarchies should be as you say, humans patriarchal, elves matriarchal, dwarves and goblins egalitarian.  These should however be raw defined in Yr0 and should only be modifiable towards equality as a result of historical events, or backwards towards the traditional arrangements.  The reason is I do not want to see arbitrary gender hierarchies invented is these things are not arbitrary and the result of chance.

Also you seem to be confusing gender roles and gender hierarchies; while the former is a prerequisite for the latter the former is to a certain extent dictated by biology (men cannot give birth or breastfeed babies for instance. 

Or you know have the tags so the player can define it if they so desire but otherwise treat it like human civs current values where the gender role and social status by gender is RNG'd for each individual civ during myth gen to enable a greater degree of variety and more interesting interaction between civs of the same race.

I would support a certain raw defined variation but equality should be the default state not random gods randomly decreeing random gender hierarchies and everybody adopting them as if they were zombies.

Never said it didn't, I did say that its something that I do believe that would get handled before version 1.0 because some of the things talked about in DF talk or on the roadmap like say adventure mode marriage and continuing as your own adventurers child would see the issue of pregnancy come up, at which point they would do their normal research binge and end up including things like pregnancy cravings, post natal depression, midwives and childcare.

Nothing about the adding in of adventurer pregnancy/birth means that they have to put any more work into it than presently is the case with fortress mode pregnancy/birth.  They could simply throw something rudimentary in and move on to other things. 

I still think that this balance will come later just like may other balance issues it will be handled when its either necessary or they feel like it as of yet its neither and I support this method of development.

It is never necessary JesterHell696. 

Never said there wasn't bias just disagreed with your claim that its because of a bias against feminine things, just as an example there is a difference between not supporting women's rights and opposing women's right and even if the outcome of both is the same (no women's rights) they are not the same thing and not supporting women's right does not mean your unconsciously bias against them it means you don't care.

Unless you are spending all your time as a hermit on an island the kind of neutrality you speak of is mere conceit. 

As I've said before there is a difference between supporting one thing and opposing another, its not that the dev are against animal its that animal are not their priority, if you look on the dev road map you'll see that one of the goals is allowing the player to farm animals.

Raising livestock

    Farms associated to entity population sprawl
    Ability to buy a livestock animal and lead it around
    Keep track of your animals as with hunted animals so they are not easily and permanently lost
    Ability to build fences (more than one fence tile per tree used, as opposed to wall)
    Ability to perform decisive attacks on unsuspecting or heavily injured opponent (a cow being slaughtered, for instance)
    Tracking livestock breeding/pregnancy information
    Grazing and drinking for livestock
    Eggs, chickens and associated objects

oh would you look at that it seems like more detail is planed for animals but is on the back burner.

Kind of creepy that their main interest in pregnancy in relation to animal breeding.

How long did instruments exist as normal crafts before they did anything with music? how long has cooking existed and yet they haven't done the planed procedural generated recipes yet?

Simply put this methodology has always been a part of DF's development and that not an issue, its on the docket of things to do and it will be done when necessary or when they develop a personal interest in the subject.

As already explained, menopause and detailed childbirth should already have been added into the game as part of earlier developments since they the prerequisites were met by them and they are in keeping with the theme. 

What the surggestion forums is for is somewhat open to interpritation, for instance I see it as a place to suggest things you think would be cool that aren't on the development roadmap and haven't been mentioned in DF talk.

There is no unconscious bias and I think your seeing what you want to see nothing more and all you done is brought the subject up sooner then it would have otherwise but it would have come up eventual regardless of if you making this thread or not.

The suggestions forum is a particularly a place to raise suggestions and themes that the devs have likely overlooked. 

No we give them money because we enjoy the results of their personal project but its still done solely for their own gratification and because its donations they have no obligation to the players and they should and imho will continue to develop the game in the way they want even if that results in a loss to the player base and I think that's why they actually have plans for if they can't rely on donation any more.

Remember whose side you are on JesterHell696.  I am sure the devs would love to be showered with money while they take it easy, it is however not in *our* interests for this state of affairs to come about. 

The SJW's I've interacted with seem unable to comprehend the idea of apathy or neutrality, its always "your either part of the solution or part of the problem" with them and as a relativist who thinks right and wrong are relative values such an absolute statement irritates me, my lack of support for gay rights is not the same thing as opposing gay rights which means I'm neither part of the solution or part of the problem just like Swedens neutrality during WW II did not make them a part of the problem.

I'm also doubting you can be reasoned with as your no doubting if I can be

The fact that you are using a term like SJW automatically disqualifies you from being anything resembling neutral.  That is a hate term, meaning a term that is never used by it's targets to describe themselves but only as a term of abuse. 

And you keep failing to understand that a bias toward masculine things is not the same as a bias against feminine things which is my entire point, they prioritize the things that are necessary for development or that they take a personal interest in this does not mean they are unconsciously against the things the don't develop just that they are following their personal priorities when working on their personal project.

That is only true if you have limitless resources. 

This is an opinion not a fact.

Everything spoken or written is an opinion even if it also a fact. 

Whether something is better or not is based on relative value.

Also bias. 

Somethings importance is relative, nothing is inherently important.

Not the case; importance has a basis for being important, names values which are rooted in bias.  If you actually consciously consider killing more important than childbirth then it says something rather bad about the kind of person you are.

First at no point have I claimed there is no bias, my entire point is that bias toward masculine things like war is not the samething as bias against feminine things like childbirth, second its inclusion or lack there of is not a statement about the objective importance of pregnancy but the relative importance in comparison to other concepts that are competing for dev time, third it is obvious that you haven't read the DF talks or the Development roadmap because if you did you would see that it is something that would get dealt with when necessary not just because "equality" and "fair representation" bullsh*t that's making Political correctness such a hated thing now days.

Choosing to develop things of personal interest is a perfectly valid method of development when working of a project that has always been based firmly in personal gratification and that take no objective value out of the game nor does it mean that the dev's are against anything consciously or unconsciously as you claimed and as I rejected.

I have already addressed everything written here earlier.

that was not directed at you but if your talking about adding a medical "midwives" skill then the possibility for malpractice is relevant, if only slightly.

Given that we are not adding malpractice to medical skills in general there is no reason to have it for midwives in particular. 

As a fan of crusader kings II I find handling inbreeding of nobility slightly more interesting then pregnancy but both subjects can be left until after the justice ark imho.

The justice arc in no way a prerequisite for either.   

As I understand it there are plans to make dwarves a bit more independent on the issue of jobs which sounds like the time to handle something like this.

I don't think either of use will be able to convince the other of anything so for the sack of maintaining civility on the forums I'm going to call it quits on this topic.

Some things have prerequisites that are already met, some things do not.

For sure, but as said I would prefer if the women in game would act more maternally and mostly avoid this kind of scenario and similar (baby shields). This second post was to clarify that I'd not want it completely removed from the game and still occur under the right circumstances.

Not sure if I've the wrong impression, but I didn't mean legends mode when I mentioned legends; I meant that the story itself may be a legend. Code wise I don't think it would be too much to have these kinds of births happen. Check if any historical figures in the battle are roughly due, make them abstractly give birth, and record in legends mode. Would be nice if NPCs spoke of it too. I doubt we'd see it happen until battles are reworked anyway.

Childbirth actually does not appear as an actual event in legends, either due to memory reasons or above mentioned bias. 

I've always assumed the devs would add aging effects (which would include menopause) at some point, along with funeral possessions or ceremonies. I'm sure they will hit everything in the vicinity of aging and death when they get there.

As to midwives, it could easily just be any medical dwarf instead of a separate skill.

If we're talking about "feminine skills" (from our personal culturally biased viewpoints), cooking hasn't been improved yet, mostly because they haven't figured out farming, which leads to how nutrients may or may not be involved, which leads to cooking. This isnt some gender bias seeing how these roles are gender neutral historically. It's just less interesting to work on than generating poetry and world gen myths, even if the specific mechanics are interesting to think about.

Historical ideas of masculine and feminine roles have drastically differed according to time period and geography. There's no point in arguing about our personal narrow worldviews considering the game allows for whatever interpretation you want of the events and actions. Those interpretations will be different based on your cultural experience and bias. One person's idea of feminine and masculine will be very different from another, especially once you expand outwards from euro-american social thinking.

Gender roles in my understanding do not massively vary between societies or eras, pretty much masculinity everywhere is related to fighting things and killing stuff while femininity everywhere is related to looking after babies.  I would be very interested in your sources for your claim about time period and geography alter drastically since my understanding is they only change superficially and remain constant for many centuries of time. 

And honestly, who cares if the devs are using the "rule of cool" to make a living version of the fantasy worlds they dreamt of as boys? There is nothing to be gained from analyzing subtle, harmless bias towards sword and board fantasy. The devs have added sexual orientations and equalized the genders in game already. Let them have fun with making big sweeping changes, you enjoy the game in its extremely incomplete state, and trust that they will hit all this stuff later as they've stated numerous times.

So yeah, menopause gets a *thumbsup* from me along with other aging effects like cataracts, possible loss of mobility/speed, and propensity towards more personal activities rather than work.

The key thing here is prerequisites.  Menopause and childbirth do not require any prerequisites in order to exist while the other aging effects really do.

[angus_burger]

The SJW's I've interacted with seem unable to comprehend the idea of apathy or neutrality, its always "your either part of the solution or part of the problem" with them and as a relativist who thinks right and wrong are relative values such an absolute statement irritates me, my lack of support for gay rights is not the same thing as opposing gay rights which means I'm neither part of the solution or part of the problem just like Swedens neutrality during WW II did not make them a part of the problem.

I'm also doubting you can be reasoned with as your no doubting if I can be

The fact that you are using a term like SJW automatically disqualifies you from being anything resembling neutral.  That is a hate term, meaning a term that is never used by it's targets to describe themselves but only as a term of abuse. 

I've literally never heard or read the term "SJW" being used by someone who isn't either 12, or an ignorant piece of shit. A meaningless term, spawned from a targeted hate campaign against women, used solely to describe anyone who isn't a white male, or doesn't agree with them completely. Explains a ton about JesterHell; both why he can't seem to grasp the most basic arguments, and how ridiculous and "opinionated" his own responses are.

Anyway, I think the solution to how to implement a creature becoming infertile from age is pretty simple. Just do one of the many suggestions for how tokens specifying it could work, and then use GoblinCookie's suggestion as a default. Though I'm not really in favor of it being added because I feel like it's just the kind of thing Dwarf Fortress shouldn't simulate. Like how it doesn't simulate aging other than suddenly dying one day and hair turning white, or how it doesn't simulate sewer systems, or how nutrient value of food affecting health isn't simulated, or how technically siblings could have children but then the children would probably have some problems isn't even considered. It just fits in exactly with the kind of stuff Dwarf Fortress isn't simulating, and that I'm fine with it not simulating.

The thing is many people do want sewers (I do) ,some people do want more detailed aging like attribute decay (I do), I know that at least I want inbreeding to be simulated as that was a problem that nobility did face irl and as nobility is expanded upon it should be simulated imho.

Basically I want DF to simulate everything it can with only the detail's that would cause it to be literally unplayable (like trying to simulate every individual grain of sand) being left out.

Really? You think a game being developed by one person should have "simulate everything" as an actual goal? That nothing can be abstracted away without reducing the quality of the game? Have you ever read a single sentence about game design or development?

I think this is the problem, GoblinCookie discusses his suggestions from the understanding that every feature added to DF comes at the loss of something else, because time is finite and development of DF is extremely slow. JesterHell believes that, 100 years from now in the fantasy future, DF will have everything, so debating in terms of resource allocation and zero-sum are useless.