I personally think changing the names of the extreme ends may be a good idea.

Like say 'Anti-Feminist' to Androcentric (Male Focus) and 'Anti-Meninist' to Gynocentric (Female Focus)

Sounds great, I'll add that next

Originally posted by ネコGin:

Sounds great, I'll add that next

I see you changed the description... but you applied Gynocentric and Androcentric to the wrong effects

Gynocentrist means women are more important/dominant

Androcentrist means men more important/dominant

I feel like +50% is a bit much of a debuff. And in many cultures, they like to stick to traditions. Not saying it does not happen where they teach them to be more defiant. Just saying 50% is way too much of a debuff. Since it does not always happen.

Maybe 20-25%? I already have enough problems, with half of my factions being a pacifist, even those I am militarist.

Yes, I found out the fact that it's reversed, I'll fix that, my bad.

Should I change the other to -25 governing ethics aswell?
What about the happiness buff/debuff?

I don't know if I want the two options to be just opposite of eachother, but I also don't want one to accedentally be obviously better

what about an idea where the gender roles are reverseD? and males take care of hearth and home and the women go out to war and do the hard work and all that stuff?

-50% is a bit much, agreed.

the policies aren't really meant for strick human male-female role reversal type thing, as they are meant to cover alien sexes too, and some animals on earth have more masculine females and feminine males, so aliens could work the same way too. Logicaly the more feminine gender would not be going out and hunting + fighting.

Originally posted by Fnord:

-50% is a bit much, agreed.

I'll reduce it to 25%, is that ok?

Originally posted by ネコGin:

Originally posted by Fnord:

-50% is a bit much, agreed.

I'll reduce it to 25%, is that ok?

Thats fair.

Originally posted by ПΛПО Dragoon:

Originally posted by ネコGin:

Thats fair.

Got it. I'll try that and see how people like it

Any policy that limits the pool of leader candidates to one gender or the other (assuming binary sexual dimorphism) should double the influence cost to purchase a leader, since finding one of the necessary quality from half the available candidates is harder.

Originally posted by Mister Eon:

Any policy that limits the pool of leader candidates to one gender or the other (assuming binary sexual dimorphism) should double the influence cost to purchase a leader, since finding one of the necessary quality from half the available candidates is harder.

Actually, that's not true. Since you would only be accepting candidates for certain roles, they would be just as many people. It makes no sense for them to cost more unless it would be a new policy since then you would be flushing out half of them. Even then you would not really lose candidates. Personally, I never see a bunch of new ones unless you use or remove one of the candidates.

I agree with ПΛПО Dragoon here, it shouldn't limit the amount of leaders you can get. After all, with an empire of billions, you only pick 3 guys (or gals) for the position. That's just picking who goes in the pool, not the actual person who gets picked.

I think you should make an option to make a society in which androgynes are treated as gods, this will make people less happy but will boost your influence