Females as Characters

[Mandemon]

Neither do I want this gamer to go to other end, to point where it is offensive as it can be to be anti-PC. People use word "political correctness" as a scapegoat why to include things, as if PC = BAD automatically.

It's same as saying "I want every woman to be shallow sex slave for man, whose place is between fist and stove and unable to take care of herself because we don't need to be politically correct". PC is not some excuse you can use to include offensive things.

However, I agree on idea that there should be diversity. On one part, woman are repressed, on one part they are equal to man, on one part they are revered but men are dominant and one part where women are top of the food chains. Not amazon, god no, but simply occupying position where they are the leaders of the society.

[Mathsorcerer]

Why not get some female programmers to write the female characters and design how they will look and act? That seems like the simplest solution, as well as the most logical.

[ffordesoon]

Why not get some female programmers to write the female characters and design how they will look and act? That seems like the simplest solution, as well as the most logical.

Because they may not be good at writing?

That's not meant as an insult to inXile's female programmers or anything. But having lady parts doesn't automagically qualify you to write female characters well - or male characters. Being good at writing does that.

Trust me, as someone who's toiled in the thankless salt mines of fanfic before (wherein something like eighty percent of writers are female, believe it or not), there are a whole hell of a lot of women who can't write women or men or talking swallows worth a damn, and it's not for lack of trying. It's not their fault; not everyone has the talent to be a competent writer, just like not everyone has the talent to be a competent programmer. Conversely, there are a lot of dudes who write great female characters. Avellone is one of those dudes, IMHO.

EDIT: I said "not" a lot, didn't I?

Well, I never said I was a competent writer...

[Mandemon]

Also, why should programmer do the writing? Don't they have entire different group, called writers to do the writing? If they want female to write females or anyone, hire female writer, not programmer to do it.

And like ffordesoon, having same gender as the character you are writing does not automatically make you qualified to write them.

[Mathsorcerer]

But having lady parts doesn't automagically qualify you to write female characters well - or male characters. Being good at writing does that.

I was involved in a long and sometimes heated discussion on another forum where the main topic was "men cannot write female characters very well". The general consensus of the female contributers was that they agreed with that statement--they kept having to roll their eyes when they see the poor quality of female characters in video games, movies, books, and TV shows.

[Mandemon]

But having lady parts doesn't automagically qualify you to write female characters well - or male characters. Being good at writing does that.

I was involved in a long and sometimes heated discussion on another forum where the main topic was "men cannot write female characters very well". The general consensus of the female contributers was that they agreed with that statement--they kept having to roll their eyes when they see the poor quality of female characters in video games, movies, books, and TV shows.

Oh, that is true for most. However, it does not mean "Women can automatically write better females". Also, it is better for one person to design all characters related to quest/town rather than have one design all of one gender and another other gender. Otherwise you might get two different, incompatible views.

[ffordesoon]

I was involved in a long and sometimes heated discussion on another forum where the main topic was "men cannot write female characters very well". The general consensus of the female contributers was that they agreed with that statement--they kept having to roll their eyes when they see the poor quality of female characters in video games, movies, books, and TV shows.

That's a different issue, though. A lot of good male writers are bad at writing women, but good at writing men. I'd imagine the reverse holds true; in general, a lot of people feel more comfortable writing characters who are like them in some way, because they can speak more confidently to that experience. A woman writing women does, I think, have a slight leg up on a dude writing women, if only because the female writer will be more intimately acquainted with the problems a woman faces on a day-to-day basis. But the gap is somewhat small, and can be closed fairly easily through research. I think a lot of male writers are just afraid to do that research, or don't know that they need to do it, or whatever.

There's a whole lot more I could get into, but I won't bore you with it.

My point being: yes, female writers are probably better on average at writing female characters than men, but that's not because a woman has some magical ability to write women well. It's due to a much more complex confluence of factors.

EDIT: And, you know, you have to be good at writing.

[Mathsorcerer]

EDIT: And, you know, you have to be good at writing.

I doubt you will ever find any argument on that point. We have all seen or read something that could have been great but poor writing killed it.

[ToasterRepairman]

I disagree with 99% of what the OP says.

Society protects and civilizes

Look at every nation where society has collapsed. Gender norms do not go away they rapidly strengthen.

Society collapses, the strong rule, and the weak are ruled. Warlords become law.

How many women warlords in history do you know about with out the rule of organized army and or government?

Females as character should be strong, no one wants to play a weak character but to bow down to political correctness and have them play basically as males with the aforementioned secondary sexual characteristics is also a bad feminist idea

Perhaps, they can include MULTIPLE options for both male and female. Women who want to play female characters who act like men should have that option others should have other options.

[ffordesoon]

...

Ew.

[VaultDwellnChick]

I disagree with 99% of what the OP says.

Society protects and civilizes

Look at every nation where society has collapsed. Gender norms do not go away they rapidly strengthen.

Society collapses, the strong rule, and the weak are ruled. Warlords become law.

How many women warlords in history do you know about with out the rule of organized army and or government?

Females as character should be strong, no one wants to play a weak character but to bow down to political correctness and have them play basically as males with the aforementioned secondary sexual characteristics is also a bad feminist idea

Perhaps, they can include MULTIPLE options for both male and female. Women who want to play female characters who act like men should have that option others should have other options.

"...Female characters who act like men..." There is no such thing as "acting like a man". Thats very insulting. Gender roles are learned by society, they are not there normally otherwise. I mean, unless she is trying to stand while she pees, there is no such thing.

[ffordesoon]

Admittedly, if a woman were to deliberately try to pass herself off as a man for some reason (a la Shakespeare In Love, for example), I suppose she would be "acting like a man". But that's really the only situation where that phrase applies. A woman whose personality, style of dress, etc. is traditionally masculine isn't "acting like a man"; she's acting like herself. It's pretty offensive to say otherwise.

[Tagaziel]

"...Female characters who act like men..." There is no such thing as "acting like a man". Thats very insulting. Gender roles are learned by society, they are not there normally otherwise. I mean, unless she is trying to stand while she pees, there is no such thing.

Which is true for the most part... However, we shouldn't confuse societal conditioning with our biology. Biological gender roles are, for the time being, set in stone: women can't father children, men can't give birth to children.

[spoonage]

"...Female characters who act like men..." There is no such thing as "acting like a man". Thats very insulting. Gender roles are learned by society, they are not there normally otherwise. I mean, unless she is trying to stand while she pees, there is no such thing.

Which is true for the most part... However, we shouldn't confuse societal conditioning with our biology. Biological gender roles are, for the time being, set in stone: women can't father children, men can't give birth to children.

Well funny thing here... Defined gender roles are genetic and it's society that tends to have the habit of blurring them.

How does this work? Well first you need to appreciate what it is to require heavy manual labour (no power tools or machines and often no work animal) in order to get any food or basic clothing. This comes in the form of acquisition and preparation. Acquisition is farming, herding (livestock not poultry), fishing and occasionally hunting. Preparation is the slaughtering, skinning, gutting and the cutting up of the carcass. As you can see males are better suited for the physical strain and exposure to the risks involved in these activities and thus in time, as a society builds up around the biological necessity of this system and it advances, men come to take on the "gender role" of bread winner while the female is expected to stay at "home", or in other words: in the camp.

Why women in the camp? Women having a greater ability for empathy, understanding and recognising unspoken needs are far better suited to caring for and teaching young children and adolescent women. The other way of looking at it is this: If the only mechanism for the continued survival of the group as a whole is allowed to be exposed to risk that doesn't make for a good long term survival strategy does it? Of course I'm not suggesting all women should stay in the kitchen through the course of Wasteland 2. As mentioned from the original there are some areas untouched and others totally ruined. If perhaps there were a zone where the societies basic needs were able to be reliably met there would be no reason to not explore the distortion of gender roles.

edit: was missing two necessary words and then realised they were two extra words... BUT I'LL NEVER TELL WHICH TWO YOU NOSEY PEOPLE!

[Tagaziel]

Lions beg to differ. Or hell, any other vertebrate. Gender roles are largely societal: gender functions are biological, but humans built an entire elaborate intellectual construct on top of them to justify segregation and sexism (segregating roles). There are some tasks men can do better and there are some tasks women can do better. However, both genders are generally capable of doing the exact same stuff.

[spoonage]

Lions beg to differ. Or hell, any other vertebrate. Gender roles are largely societal: gender functions are biological, but humans built an entire elaborate intellectual construct on top of them to justify segregation and sexism (segregating roles). There are some tasks men can do better and there are some tasks women can do better. However, both genders are generally capable of doing the exact same stuff.

Lions and many other vertebrate don't require clothing, daily meals, substantial shelter, intense and prolonged care of new borns and otherwise non-adult offspring etc. Further a pride isn't analogous to a whole town or society but rather a single family as it's average makeup is typically 1 male and up to 6 females. This correlates more closely to a human family as opposed to society as a whole. Using the correlation to a human family it then makes sense that the lioness hunts as frankly that's her version of the kitchen.

[Tagaziel]

Humans don't need all that either. It makes living easier, sure, but humans are just as much of an animal as lions or any other creature. Remember evolution.

[spoonage]

Humans don't need all that either. It makes living easier, sure, but humans are just as much of an animal as lions or any other creature. Remember evolution.

Then whycome you can die from exposure and kitties doesn't?
No. It makes living harder until you get to renaissance/industrial revolution.
According to your interpretation of evolution there is no significant social difference between diverse vertebrate species... The very foundation of the evolutionary principle rejects your assertion.

[Mandemon]

Gender roles are result of cultural and biological reasons.

Human male is (usually) better build for physical activities, such as hunting.

Human female on the other hand, is better build of taking care of young and "staying home".

There are facts. However, this is fine and dandy when you live in wilds where next meal is when your prey is less smart than you.

In modern society, where survival is no longer concern, neither gender is held back by their "expected roles", man can take care of home too and women can do "men work". The "roles" of man and women persist because human mind is slow to adapt to new survival states.

We still act on tribe instinct. We keep "us and them" thinking, on different scales. When driven to corner, our instincts kick in causing "fight or flee" reaction. We are still run by our biological clocks, despite no longer bound by it.

Human body and mind has not kept up with the chancing world, thus we have "role models". It will take some time, as these role models fade away, but trying to push too hard causes equal force to push back. Slow and steady, that's how societal norms are broken effectively, not by sudden paradigm shift. Those cause problems. We have seen such thing to happen all over our history: American Civil War as a result of slavery, numerous civil wars during rise of communism, French Revolution and following Reign Of Terror, etc. etc.

Too quick change creates a counter force to oppose change. Slow and steady, allowing human mind and consensus to adapt to new paradigm, allows more steady changes.

[Woolfe]

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....