I can’t speak for others, but I’m not making the argument that sexual dimorphism isn’t apparent in humans. I am also making no argument that men do not comprise the vast majority of military and even large game hunting throughout history. These have not been my arguments nor will they be, as to make such an argument would be contrary to evidence.
What we do see are biologically suited roles which may be culturally normative, but not species normative. You make this case clearly when pointing out the steppes cultures, as well as many other cultures who either had a few or even many female combatants.
Contemporary tribal cultures are often found to have women Hunters as well as men, though the specific types of game they target may be limited due to sexual dimorphism.
The exception would be to force all males and females into explicit binary rolls when this does not matchup with the history and observation of our species, which has gender trends but not hard and fast exclusivity.
To make the simulation accurate, I would recommend having men perform the majority of direct military action, while providing for some women to aid in ad hoc defense. Perhaps an occasional female warrior ( observed many times in tribal cultures, such as Native Americans and Polynesians) maybe one out of a thousand.
For hunting, I think it would be in error not to have women take part in at least half or more of small game hunting, to include fish and fowl. For larger game, I would suggest men performing the majority of said task, with perhaps an exception now and then.
Considering that women comprise both half of the human race and a fair percentage of gamers, it seems to me that spending the time to provide a non-static and richer depiction behooves any developer and does proper service to half the human race. On a side note, this would extend to males as well. Every now and then, you would find a male performing classically feminine tasks. And while I’ve stated before that I have zero expectations of transgender representation, that would be an interesting thing to see as well (also historically scene among Native American tribes and Polynesian people, as well AZ India)
The article doesn’t prove or disprove any points, but makes reference to others who find the preservation of the artifacts troublesome. ( I reject the argument about the burial with objects related to spouses as their example concerns single pieces of jewelry, while the person had an entire regalia alongside them. To accept that argument would be false equivalence)
There may not be enough data to be fully sure, but unless the naysayers have spmething better than “We are not 100% sure,” I will stick with the official findings.
I enjoy following the endless struggle in this thread between groups like misogynists, social justice warriors, feminists, realists and conservatives, and shall only add this, as a comment to all examples brought up, by both sides:
Let’s not be so narrow-minded as to think that an exception is anything but that. There are exceptions to every rule, but they only serve to prove it.
To take a ridiculous example: the phrase “Croatians are taller than Bolivians” is false, because there are truly a few Bolivians that are taller than some Croatians, and some Croatians are shorter than some Bolivians. But… that doesn’t take away the fact that on average, Croatians are a lot taller than Bolivians. That is most often was is meant with a phrase like “Croatians are taller than Bolivians”. The world isn’t black or white, nor should our language be so unnatural. If a child is born in Bolivia, then most probably, that child will live to be much shorter than a child born on that same day in Croatia.
If we were to somehow simulate this in a computer game, it would be nonsense to regard Croatians and Bolivians as equals when it comes to height. The Croatians would be taller most of the time, the Bolivians shorter. If two sizeable groups met, you would clearly see the difference. “But you’re wrong, some Bolivians are taller than Croatians!”, someone yells. “I’ve seen Croatians that are shorter than Bolivians”, some one else says. “So what?”, I ask. It doesn’t change the rule: in most cases, Bolivians will be shorter, Croatians taller. That’s just life. To turn the 90-10 ratio to 50-50 would be a lie, unrealistic, false. That might work for political reasons, but realism…?
(it goes without saying that turning 90-10 to 100-0 is equally false and unrealistic)
There are really two debates, at least from my perspective.
-
Women comprise a significant component of hunting. The nature of their game is smaller but should not be discounted, nor should their use of hunting implements. The mistaken belief that hunting involves only large creatures, such as an aurochs, is quite a misconception.
-
While probably uncommon, women were sometimes combatants, in a militaristic sense. the statement involves two scenarios:
Firstly, women are uncommon offensive Warriors. They likely occurred, but probably as rare exceptions.
Secondly, women probably took up arms in the ad hoc defense of a tribe during attacks and raids. We see this demonstrated throughout the rest of history and humanity.
I don’t think either of these arguments would be feminist or some form of social justice Warfare, but simple facts of our species which should be reflected.
Taking the extra time to consider women will go a long way towards acceptance of the video game. All too often, video game makers forget that women comprise half of our entire population. Gamemakers disenfranchised half of their entire potential market and then wonder why they’re limited to such a narrow demographic.
Seeing women in this game walking around with spears and bows, probably in the act of hunting small game, is both historically accurate and enfranchising to women.
On a side note, one of the reasons I created this thread was to prevent the typical disenfranchisement of women we see so often and video games. Anyone who does not understand this need merely log into any public chat on a game or a game forum and look to see how women are treated. All too often, women are treated as though they are a secondary part of humanity when in reality, the female experience is just as much a part of the human experience as the males.
Taking my part in the debate. Frankly, my opinion is “why should we even care about such things?”
In my dreamed A.C. game, this debate should not even exist (save with yourself).
Well, ok, there’s a need to expand quite a bit.
Though don’t say after that I’m far too talkative 
I referred elsewhere about a feature that I hope may be implemented in the game: decisions, that would allow to shape your society.
The final aim would not to create totally unrealistic societies (or only at a heavy cost), neither to raildroad the society shaping given what we know (or think to know) about later societies, like Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece or Rome, and basta! out of this railroad nothing should be possible.
After all, it seems everything possible has been attempted all over the world, whether in the field of politics, of economy, of justice, of society, etc.
Because there are two other things, after a decision is taken, that should shape your society:
- Traditions: once a decision is taken, if everybody commonly agree that was the best decision, with time there is high chances this is cast in stone. In the case some members in the tribe frown upon such traditions, then appears one more thing:
- Politics: after all, politics is the very idea of debate to impose his view on the society and change it (either that debate is open to everybody or allowed for some happy few only).
So, let’s take one simple example: imagine your society is randomly created with a tradition forbidding the women to hunt. Because they’re weak, they need to be protected, because they have children to take care of, and whatever argument you may have to add in the list.
But arise the case of a women that’d real good at hunting. May she be allowed to go with a hunting party leaving the village for a few moons?
As the ruler or éminence grise, the player is asked what’s his opinion:
- “Yes, she should be allowed to go with the men!”
- No, she needs to take care of the nippers!"
Whatever your decision, the society may approve (then the decision becomes a tradition, after one or two or four generations). Everything’s perfect in a perfect world, and women (don’t) use to go hunting with men.
In the other case, let’s say 30% of the tribe members disapprove:
- Either they get progressively convinced, because traditions are traditions, because they see the benefit of the situation, because they’re always less numerous in the tribe, etc.
- Or they grow in numbers: they still disapprove the decision/tradition, they manage to convince more members, they receive the support of recent immigrants that disapprove also this strange/unfair/shocking tradition, etc. Then they may act to have this tradition changed, and another decision may be taken, reverting the first one.
So, let’s see things in the large picture now: at the end of the Neolithic era (a.k.a. at the end of the released version of the game) you may have a society that may be totally different from the surrounding villages, or that is conform to the general trend on the strategic map – because that’s easier to trade with people sharing some common views on female role, religion, power in the society, etc.
Whenever the Bronze Age DLC is release, the same situation would be quite simply resolved: in that era, the power of the kings ruling from their palace managed to impose a general view. So either your village accept the common/king’s view, or he has to deal with the power, which may accept or not the situation in your town (then heavy tribute, or rebellions if you’re yourself the king and try to impose your view, or traditionnalists may revolt in your town or in the subject towns, etc.).
As a conclusion: I guess those decisions would allow a very high replayabillity, while keeping historicity and allowing very different strategies, while granting an interesting RPG-side.
And as a conclusion to the conclusion: we could imagine a very great bunch of such decisions: burials, justice, government form, ownership, etc.
Related to gender, this would allow to take decisions about homosexuality (may it be tolerated, like most ancient societies did?); or about gay mariage (surely your Bronze Age overlord or subjects would not allow that!); or women being granted the right to become warriors or soldiers in the army; or to even leave the house, etc.
Sure, this would need a bit of scripting, but other games show that the processing power needed would be far less important than a whole 3D map as shown in the screenshots.
If I take your meeting correctly, I believe you’re suggesting a cultural evolutionary model.
Given that both women being allowed in combat and being denied a role in combat have been observed, and are, therefore, possible conditions which different cultures have chosen for various and complex reasons, the Village should be allowed to evolve one way or the other based on a combination of the desires of the villagers as well as the player, correct?
I also like your comment about the potential for a specific Village to deviate from the cultural norm. There certainly is a difference between a cultural Trend over a long period of time and individual instantiations of that culture, which can differ.
With respect to the notion of women hunting, however, I find it highly unlikely that a Neolithic society would function well in the early stages without allowing women to hunt small Game and Fish. It would have ditional e be out of place considering the rest of recorded human societies at that stage of development (e.g Native American, Polynesian)
[quote=“lotus253, post:126, topic:581, full:true”]
If I take your meeting correctly, I believe you’re suggesting a cultural evolutionary model.
Given that both women being allowed in combat and being denied a role in combat have been observed, and are, therefore, possible conditions which different cultures have chosen for various and complex reasons, the Village should be allowed to evolve one way or the other based on a combination of the desires of the villagers as well as the player, correct?
I also like your comment about the potential for a specific Village to deviate from the cultural norm. There certainly is a difference between a cultural Trend over a long period of time and individual instantiations of that culture, which can differ.[/quote]
Yup, correct.
And you say it in a way that is far more efficient than mine 
I’m on you with that. Even if 17th century good behavior manuals in Europe explained the same thing as most ancient societies, there is lot of things that women did for the family life. Working the garden in a farm until now is one task usually allocated to women aside of keeping an eye on the kids – in the neolithic era I think the equivalent would be fishing and hunting rabbits around the village.
Also, there is one thing I didn’t thought to: there’s a lot of prestige associated to women not having any need to work. That’s still true today in some Western African people, were a wealthy man shows his power and influence by having 7, fat, pale-skinned women – meaning he’s rich enough to feed them all without they need to work hard under the sun for the family.
Probably this should be taken into account also – as this could also be one rule that could be applied to warrior women. If a peasant society is used to raid in the winter when there’s no work in the fields, then women could do it. If this society give the power to a military elite, the chances are significantly lower that the girls of the peasants may be allowed to take part in the raids – and probably the elite girls also, as they’d probably more be seen as a diplomatic tool.
I’m glad I understood your meaning correctly. I like this idea much more as it’s probably likely we would find groups where women were allowed to do some things but denied the rights to do other things. I think it would produce a more realistic simulation and allow for different playthrough, thus expanding the playability of the game.
Exactly!
Well, it’s still early in the States, but nearly 3 AM for me, so good night to you! 
Be carefull about biology interpretation. It is not always biology which create the roles it could also be the reverse :
As an example in some polynesians islands people have thicker skulls that normal. Why ? Because they use to fight eachother with club and people which were gifted with thicker skull were more likely to survive.
Warrior attribute like bone density could be due to the same thing. Remenber that war is not a natural thing. War act like a selection process on population which practice it (and a pretty harsh one).
It is hard to imagine but genetic evolution could happen quite quickly under big environnement pressure. Some milk digesting gens are only thousands years old : Convergent adaptation of human lactase persistence in Africa and Europe - PMC, http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1566/863 and are the result of sheep and cattle domestication.
Hence do not take modern biological difference between men and women as set in stone : they greatly vary over time and space.
Sorry but that’s not the case, first male lions do hunt, either when they live alone or in male groups but also when they live in a pride, the females are said to be the providers because for a huge amount of time the male will be away from the pride patrolling his territory, during these times of course he has to rely on his hunting abilities, and even when he is with the pride he hunts alone or with them, in the latter cases he’s essential to successfully bring down larger preys like cape buffalo, giraffes and even elephants sometimes.
Without him taking down these larger animals is much more difficult and dangerous and success rates are greatly diminished, he’s also essential to the defense of the pride against other predators, whereas a lioness may fend off a couple of hyenas, 5-6 lionesses are no match for an entire pack of 20-30 hyenas but a single male is more than enough to make them flee in terror.
For those who wish further reading there are several papers published more recently that debunk the myth of the dependent male like:
Factors affecting the hunting success of male and female lions in the Kruger National Park
P. J. Funston, M. G. L. Mills, H. C. Biggs
or an article by Carnegie’s Scott Loarie and Greg Asner
I was prepared to defend myself, and to object to something you’ve written, but… I find myself not doing anything than agreeing, I guess. It might also be this: I don’t take “the extra time to consider women”, simply because… why would I? Why should I consider women? More than… people with freckles? Or people with brown eyes? It’s irrelevant, therefore not in need of consideration. I consider people, that’s it. And that naturally means that there MUST be women taking up arms at rare occasions in the game, and there MUST be women fishing with a spear in shallow water, just as one of your favourite pictures shows, and there MUST be female participation and representation on several different levels in the game. That’s just… realism, which I know that the developers, as well as I, hold dear. I guess someone could call me a “passive social justice warrior”, but I should frown upon such a term.
And as you write, very importantly:
“Anyone who does not understand this need merely log into any public chat on a game or a game forum and look to see how women are treated.”
I completely agree to @Elfryc’s suggestion for an evolutionary model traditions and politics, through events.
Since it seems we have landed in a conclusion that however many exceptions we’ve seen, women were generally excluded from certain areas, and more represented in certain others… the game could contain certain hard-coded variables that would reproduce this, and would be especially important for other tribes, not guided by such an excellent leader as the Player. For example, a warrior society of females that keep men almost like cattle, giving them very few rights, and allowing every woman to marry several men, that all live in the house of the woman… an upside-down world from our own… such a culture is, as far as I know, completely unheard of. Elements might have existed, but other than that, it has never occurred. Hence, it should be very improbable for such a society to come to pass. It is not impossible, but it would be amazing enough to warrant a screenshot in the thread “Post your amazing screenshots!”.
The alternative would be to allow every choice to always be equally possible. That seems a bit to simple, and not very realistic, but that’s just my humble opinion.
It’s easy to say people are just people until you consider the way women are generally marginalized in games.
You should consider women because they constituent half of the potential audience and half of the species. Given the fact that gender marginalization 100% does occur, a little extra care to ensure women get a slice of the pizza goes a long way.
This thread has been going on for way too long now, don’t you think?
Not long enough, IMO.
It discusses many topics, not just the long standing debate it has had.
Are we trying to create a realistic civilization building game or are we trying to inject social justice and all that bullshit in it? Look, it is true that women are marginalized in games, but in case of Ancient Cities we are not trying to be super-dooper inclusive and all that bullshit, but be as scientifically and historically accurate as possible. Also, this is amied at non-casual gamers, where women are a minority. You can just look up “Male and Female population of non-casual gamers” and you’ll see what I mean. So I don’t see any justification of putting women in roles which they don’t belong to in a game which aims to be accurate to the real life.
Did you read the entire thread?
The point wasn’t to make some amazon woman dominated fantasy society. The quote below might better put this thread into perspective. 
[quote=“lotus253, post:124, topic:581”]
Women comprise a significant component of hunting. The nature of their game is smaller but should not be discounted nor should there use of hunting implements. The mistaken belief that hunting involves only large creatures, such as an aurochs, is fight a misconception.
While uncommon, women are sometimes combatants, in a militaristic sense. the statement involves two scenarios:
Firstly, women are uncommon offensive Warriors. They likely occurred, but probably as rare exceptions.
Secondly, women probably took up arms in the ad hoc defense of a tribe during attacks and raids. We see this demonstrated throughout the rest of history and humanity.
[/quote]
The primary purpose is to ensure that women get representation, as women are half of the entire human race. There is a difference between gender norms and absolutism, and the goal is to prevent the ladder while acknowledging the former.
As for the ratio of male to female non-casual gamers, I hardly think the exclusion of one particular group due to their frequency is acceptable. To accept that argument would also mean that we can exclude any other minority groups from consideration, such as the disabled. You might also find that many women are not noncasual gamers, because the market has not availed itself to them, focusing pretty exclusively on younger males. Put more simply, if you only make cat food, don’t be surprised that all your studies show your primary purchaser are cats.
Cats are good. But dogs are even better. Women are important and even more so then our society because gamers can utilize all skills that are in the game. The “real” world forgets that all people can bring a ton of skills to the workforce. My hope is the game ignores the real world and makes something better, even if it is not historically accurate in all history.