Females as Characters

[VaultDwellnChick]

Kitties often do die of exposure. Just ask a Zoo how much effort goes into ensuring the climate is survivable for some animals.

Also Historically in tribal type societies, the women did just as much heavy lifting as the men. Indeed whilst the menfolk were "hunting" the womenfolk were "gathering" which was just as important, but slightly less dangerous.

The concept of "weak" women is a recent historical development, which frankly came from a place of "protecting" the women from other rapacious tribes, and then built into a factor of dominance. Probably an element of Patriarchal societal development as well, although its a bit of a chicken or egg situation there. Ie was the dominance because of the patriarchal society, or did the patriarchal society come about because of the dominance?

There is evidence even in the Euro Asian cultures that there were successful Matriarchal societies (up until they got wiped out through natural disasters and invasion), but at a point in time the Patriarchal societies became dominant and matriarchal societies didn't come about again. Its actually a very interesting area of research. Anyhoo....

I actually read in a magazine about 6 months ago about a matriarchal tribe that was dwindling in numbers but they were still hanging on. They said it was common for men to be kidnapped in the middle of the night and forced to be a husband. Somehow its hilarious to me when this happens to men. I'm picturing a 5'2" woman carrying off a 6'0" man whose been thrown over her shoulder.

[spoonage]

The concept of "weak" women is a recent historical development, which frankly came from a place of "protecting" the women from other rapacious tribes, and then built into a factor of dominance. Probably an element of Patriarchal societal development as well, although its a bit of a chicken or egg situation there. Ie was the dominance because of the patriarchal society, or did the patriarchal society come about because of the dominance?

There is evidence even in the Euro Asian cultures that there were successful Matriarchal societies (up until they got wiped out through natural disasters and invasion), but at a point in time the Patriarchal societies became dominant and matriarchal societies didn't come about again. Its actually a very interesting area of research.

Kitties in zoos require that pampering because they are frequently in zoos that are geographically far removed from the kitties natural habitat making its finely tuned survival abilities useless.

As for heavy lifting and gathering I don't think anyone's been arguing on the basis of actual heavy lifting. Further the menfolk and their hunting ways was totally dependent on the local terrain. On the plains/mountains is where hunting and herding was most common whereas in jungles/forests foraging took precedence. The hunting and herding groups developed into "patriarchal" societies in the sense that men took on the majority of the "heavy labor":
- hunting
- farming
- defense of territory and
- later logging and mining

While women were involved in "light work":
- creating/maintaining clothing
- rearing the next generation (a communal effort but in the earliest years the mother is best suited for this since most children tend to cry for mother not father when they need comfort)
- preparing meals (Sometimes not, sometimes butchering the whole animal and sometimes not. depends on the size of the animal and who felt like it at the time really)
- keeping the fire going (because frankly back then it would have been an utter B*@#h to start again)

The reason why men are conducting "heavy labor" is because their work is generally the most life threatening. Think about it. When the insurance between your survival and becoming dinner for something that is at least 200Kg bigger than you is at best a big stick things become far more apparent than today when what stands between survival and becoming dinner is, assuming basic preparedness, at worst a firearm and maybe 100m. Even then in an uncontrolled situation it's still 50/50.

But as the environment becomes more tame exclusively as a result of the advancement of the patriarchal societies you find more men taking up what were generally female roles such as preparing meals, making/maintaining clothing etc.

The case for success of matriarchal societies is really a question of standards. Do you judge by their ability to meet daily needs or the ability to weather outside threats? In terms of daily needs sure they can work but as proven by their destruction at the hands of patriarchal societies they are unable to mount effective defenses as the primary "workhorse", set to taming the external environment of the group, is also the sole method of the groups propagation. So then when a patriarchal society comes along and captures a bunch of female warriors/workers... well the patriarchy gets a population boom.

So in theory a matriarchy can work but only so long as the threats never outweigh the population of women in the group.

[Woolfe]

Kitties in zoos require that pampering because they are frequently in zoos that are geographically far removed from the kitties natural habitat making its finely tuned survival abilities useless.

Which is kinda my point. What is man's natural habitat? At some point in our distant past we chose to wear clothes because it allowed us to survive better in areas other than our natural habitat. Another of the reasons that we are a successful species

As for heavy lifting and gathering I don't think anyone's been arguing on the basis of actual heavy lifting. Further the menfolk and their hunting ways was totally dependent on the local terrain. On the plains/mountains is where hunting and herding was most common whereas in jungles/forests foraging took precedence. The hunting and herding groups developed into "patriarchal" societies in the sense that men took on the majority of the "heavy labor":

<Snip>

Ok I need to clarify. By Heavy lifting I was meaning a more generalised "carrying the load" type concept. Not necessarily actual physical heavy lifting (tho they did do that as well). Apologies as I wasn't clear on that.

I will give you Hunting and defence, they were mostly a "male" domain, but a lot of farming work was performed by women for quite some time. As the reliance on "hunting" as a primary source of food reduced and Farming became the primary source, men became more dominant in the area.

As for Logging and mining, the period that they become more prevalent tends to correspond with the historically "Weak" women period I was refering to.

The reason why men are conducting "heavy labor" is because their work is generally the most life threatening. Think about it. When the insurance between your survival and becoming dinner for something that is at least 200Kg bigger than you is at best a big stick things become far more apparent than today when what stands between survival and becoming dinner is, assuming basic preparedness, at worst a firearm and maybe 100m. Even then in an uncontrolled situation it's still 50/50.
But as the environment becomes more tame exclusively as a result of the advancement of the patriarchal societies you find more men taking up what were generally female roles such as preparing meals, making/maintaining clothing etc.

I agree... And again apologies for the heavy labour term.
In most cases women didn't perform the "danger work", although again during tribal times, the women were often involved in hunting. A common tactic was to drive animals towards the waiting hunters. A job often performed by young boys and women.

The case for success of matriarchal societies is really a question of standards. Do you judge by their ability to meet daily needs or the ability to weather outside threats? In terms of daily needs sure they can work but as proven by their destruction at the hands of patriarchal societies they are unable to mount effective defenses as the primary "workhorse", set to taming the external environment of the group, is also the sole method of the groups propagation. So then when a patriarchal society comes along and captures a bunch of female warriors/workers... well the patriarchy gets a population boom.

So in theory a matriarchy can work but only so long as the threats never outweigh the population of women in the group.

I also think we are slightly out of whack timewise. I am talking more about pre-civilisation tribal societies. Where the roles were defined more by necessity than "civilised societal ettiquite".
As early matriarchial societies were also able to perform the "population boom" concept, as in those days, generally once you were taken by another tribe you became part of that tribe and rarely would you leave to rejoin your old tribe (mostly cause they were probably dead). It wasn't until more "civilised" concepts evolved that it became unthinkable for a woman to be "barbaric" which is of course crap, women can be just as barbaric as men, as has been proven in history many times.

I also really don't want to get into this sort of argument, as I am simply not knowledgeable enough on the topic to really argue it in a way that would do it justice.

[Grampybone]

Ripley from Alien movies, Chick from Conan the barbarian, Perdita Durango (movie), Jaheira & Viconia from Baldur's Gate, Ashley Williams from Mass Effect, Ada Wong & Claire Redfield from Resident Evil 2, Mona Sax from Max Payne 2, Sarah Kerrigan from Starcraft, April Ryan from The Longest Journey, Alyx Vance from Half Life 2, Jade from Beyond Good & Evil...

Imagine how poor and empty our fantasy worlds from movies and video games would be like without these strong female characters. And I don't mean physically strong. I honestly doubt Lara Croft can interest anyone as a character above age of 13.

If we don't count children, women are the most beautiful thing in this world, when they have the whole package.

[Azriel]

Ripley from Alien movies, Chick from Conan the barbarian, Perdita Durango (movie), Jaheira & Viconia from Baldur's Gate, Ashley Williams from Mass Effect, Ada Wong & Claire Redfield from Resident Evil 2, Mona Sax from Max Payne 2, Sarah Kerrigan from Starcraft, April Ryan from The Longest Journey, Alyx Vance from Half Life 2, Jade from Beyond Good & Evil...

Imagine how poor and empty our fantasy worlds from movies and video games would be like without these strong female characters. And I don't mean physically strong. I honestly doubt Lara Croft can interest anyone as a character above age of 13.

If we don't count children, women are the most beautiful thing in this world, when they have the whole package.

Funny, the witcher 2 had woman who were less than PC, but were amazing non the less. Imagine how much less the witcher 2 would be if we Politically corrected all the women in it.

[Grampybone]

Don't see what you said has anything to do with what I said
Witcher 2 women were sadly degraded to Lara Croft level, and that game has lost so much from it's predecessor. But let's keep it on topic

[Azriel]

Don't see what you said has anything to do with what I said
Witcher 2 women were sadly degraded to Lara Croft level, and that game has lost so much from it's predecessor. But let's keep it on topic

Not so fast, you pulled up some women who were PC and basically implied that is the only type of women we should have. I countered and pointed out that the witcher 2 women were not PC, but they were no less interesting and fit the setting perfectly. All the characters in the witcher 2 were flawed and had their vices. This was great, nobody was PC and it made the game fantastic.

[ffordesoon]

So "PC", to you, means "anything I don't like"?

And frankly, the women in the first Witcher were comically undercooked in a lot of ways. The second game's writing is tremendously superior, for both female and male characters.

[Grampybone]

Don't see what you said has anything to do with what I said
Witcher 2 women were sadly degraded to Lara Croft level, and that game has lost so much from it's predecessor. But let's keep it on topic

Not so fast, you pulled up some women who were PC and basically implied that is the only type of women we should have. I countered and pointed out that the witcher 2 women were not PC, but they were no less interesting and fit the setting perfectly. All the characters in the witcher 2 were flawed and had their vices. This was great, nobody was PC and it made the game fantastic.

It feels like you dropped from a battlefront in another dimension. I never said anything about PC. It wasn't the point. There is a whole different topic where we're talking about maturity in the game. I agree they should avoid being PC, but my point was they should avoid making only weak and shallow women characters.

[Color Blotch]

There is evidence even in the Euro Asian cultures that there were successful Matriarchal societies (up until they got wiped out through natural disasters and invasion), but at a point in time the Patriarchal societies became dominant and matriarchal societies didn't come about again.

I remember reading in regards of prehistoric China that pretty much all the elaborate burial sites from that time had female skeletons inside. Apparently, leading a tribe during the era when that function was usually performed by shamans was predominantly woman's job. This lasted until further development of society allowed for emergence of dedicated warrior class, which quickly assumed leadership. Due to natural advantage of men in brute force, it were men who formed it, and this is how patriarchy came to be.

[Azriel]

So "PC", to you, means "anything I don't like"?

And frankly, the women in the first Witcher were comically undercooked in a lot of ways. The second game's writing is tremendously superior, for both female and male characters.

Yea, the writing for the women in the witcher 1 was a bit silly at times, but the witcher 2 was superior and all the characters fit the game setting.

[Zeful]

Not so fast, you pulled up some women who were PC and basically implied that is the only type of women we should have. I countered and pointed out that the witcher 2 women were not PC, but they were no less interesting and fit the setting perfectly. All the characters in the witcher 2 were flawed and had their vices. This was great, nobody was PC and it made the game fantastic.

No he didn't. Strong does not mean PC, and even then "political correctness" has nothing to do with the discussion. Where's the woman captured and raped by bandits until the day she's had enough and then murders them all? Or the society that puts political power in the hands of women because the men had to fight constant battles against raiders to get any politicking done? These are not PC examples but cover the breadth of the request: "Why should men have all the fun in our fiction?"

[Grampybone]

Thank you.

[Hiver]

One branch of Ravel must be in the game.

MUST BE.



Having that said, great opening post and a lot of others up to page 8 or so, then i skipped here.
(a few not so good ones too but ehh... bioware/bugthesda damage..)
With the writers we have in the team i think we can assume we will probably get a decent amount of well written deep female characters.

I would just point out that many posters here assume that situation of post apocalypse immediately must mean much worse conditions for women. As in women being abused and so on.

That may not be entirely true folks.
Women just might have an even bigger value in such a world than here.
You see... human race cannot exist without them.
Not only they are the only ones who can create new humans, but their contribution in everyday life is essential and irreplaceable. No, its not just "cleaning" and "cooking" as some simpletons see it.

Leave a big bunch of men living by themselves somewhere and very, very soon you will have a bunch of very, very sad idiots dying from bad hygiene, bad nutrition, bad living conditions, psychological diseases and hundred other things we usually never get to see.
Because women remove them. And that is even more valuable for offspring.

So... even presuming some type of patriarchal society or a town or a settlement is what we are considering, it doesnt necessarily mean women will get automatically abused there. Certainly if i ran a settlement of some kind any such action would be an automatic suicide for anyone trying it.
And im quite sure im not the only one thinking so.

The point is that conditions would be different from place to place. There is no and there would be no general, "global" movement of woman abuse. The men are NOT rapists.
Assholes are.

Sure bad things will happen. There will be "men" who think they can get it all easy.
But how many men there will be who will kick their asses really fast and hard and in very permanent ways?

A LOT - is the correct answer.
And lets not forget that physical strength differences dont play much of a role in a modern setting, shall we?

[Drool]

...so, good writing?

Sorry, couldn't resist

[snakeoil]

some people should switch off their computers and date some girls, or at least 1. you still have time till oct 2013. this thread is as useless as a thread "males as characters" would be.

[Hiver]

some people should switch off their computers and date some girls, or at least 1. you still have time till oct 2013. this thread is as useless as a thread "males as characters" would be.

Would be nice if some people would follow their own advice and stop being completely useless around here. Like you.

[snakeoil]

some people should switch off their computers and date some girls, or at least 1. you still have time till oct 2013. this thread is as useless as a thread "males as characters" would be.

Would be nice if some people would follow their own advice and stop being completely useless around here. Like you.

so you seriously want to talk about males as characters?

[Zeful]

some people should switch off their computers and date some girls, or at least 1. you still have time till oct 2013. this thread is as useless as a thread "males as characters" would be.

Metroid: Other M. The hilariously poor handling of that game kinda shows that this discussion is necessary. If Samas were a guy, the entire debacle wouldn't have happened. So yeah, this thread actually has a use, and considering the prevalent machoism of gamers resulting in big burly men who have no emotions beside "horny", "angry" and "more angry", there's an argument to be made for a "males as characters" thread, and there was one.

[VaultDwellnChick]

Ripley from Alien movies, Chick from Conan the barbarian, Perdita Durango (movie), Jaheira & Viconia from Baldur's Gate, Ashley Williams from Mass Effect, Ada Wong & Claire Redfield from Resident Evil 2, Mona Sax from Max Payne 2, Sarah Kerrigan from Starcraft, April Ryan from The Longest Journey, Alyx Vance from Half Life 2, Jade from Beyond Good & Evil...

Imagine how poor and empty our fantasy worlds from movies and video games would be like without these strong female characters. And I don't mean physically strong. I honestly doubt Lara Croft can interest anyone as a character above age of 13.

If we don't count children, women are the most beautiful thing in this world, when they have the whole package.

You forgot starbuck, BSG. this is why I always hated history class, it was mostly men we learned about, I never felt like it was my history.