I’m all for that!
I find it very likely that many different configurations existed. While the sexual dimorphic traits of humans probably influenced all societies in certain, uniform, ways, I reject the notion that all Neolithic Society function a particular way. This would be contrary to our current world.
The suggestion of user configurability or a purely egalitarian model would likely result in the greatest degree of accuracy.
I don’t know what would be accurate or not, though depending on the geographical location of the tribe there is going to be arrays of different cultures attributed to tribes.
Putting that as a game mechanic however would be splendid especially for late game-play which allot of city building strategy games lack.
I agree.
Let the user define this or be egalitarian. These seem like the only two realistic options.
I don’t know about that, in the end it’s their game, it’s their choice. Besides most people play games for escapism not realism 
Very true. One reason many on the forum have posted so many posts of realistic details is due to the developers suggesting that they wanted a very realistic simulation.
Personally, I hope they go as realistic as possible.
I hope I am staying on topic. 
I just want to point out that during various points in history women have been far more involved in survival of a group. Women worked the fields, were soldiers etc. It is only recent history women’s role changed.
It is quite correct that the role men and women have both played in society has varied throughout the course of history and prehistory. There tend to be various commonalities. For example, men tend to be Warriors significantly more frequently than women, but gender roles are not exclusive with respect to all cultures, even if exclusive within an individual culture.
Gets even more confusing when we consider additional genders beyond classical male and female.
You’re going to have to be specific in your points, the Neolitic age was 10,000+ years. You can’t just cite the Catalhoyuk and then say most societies in the Neolithic Age were egalitarian. The fact remains in our recorded history that the earlier socities adopted arguculturial advancements and increasing became less nomadic. The earlier patriarchal reforms set into that individual society. Although this wasn’t the same for every society back then it was for most and this seems to be the trend in recorded history. You saying that this is an out-of-date notion is simply fabricated.
There is a very interested research paper done by a number of people at both the Aarhus University & The University of Southern Denmark which I implore all of you to read that not only cites literally a wealth of information on this topic but concludes their hypothesis very well. The hypothesis stating that “…societies with long histories of agriculture have less equality in gender roles as a consequence of more patriarchal values and beliefs regarding the proper role of women in society.”
Infact let me share something with you in the first couple of pages.
'…Neolithic revolution puts societies on a path on which patriarchal norms and beliefs would be adopted. Societies with earlier Neolithic revolutions have been subject to these cultural beliefs for a longer period of time and these beliefs, therefore, are likely to become more ingrained over time. Thus, they may still serve as a stumbling block for more equality in gender roles in terms of female labor force participation as well as female participation in politics.
We build on the work of Iversen and Rosenbluth (2010). They note that evidence suggests that Hunter-Gatherer societies were characterized by more independent women as compared to agricultural societies. First, it has been demonstrated that the gathering activity of women provided three quarters of the daily calorie intake of their community.
Second, meation as provided by male hunting activition was not strictly necessary for survival. Thus, they conclude that the bargaining power between men and women was relatively equal in the hunter-gatherer society. They further argue that the cultural norms and beliefs shifted as societies became agricultural. With increased population growth and land scarcity, cultivation of food became more intensive as also suggested by the work of Boserup (1970) and Burton and White (1984). Iversen and Rosenbluth (2010) suggest that agricultural intensification created a premium on male brawn in plowing and other heavy farm work. This led to a division of labor within the family in which the man used his physical strength in food production, and the woman took care of child rearing, food processing and production and other family-related duties.
The consequencewas that womenís role in society no longer gave ìher economic viability on her own. The
_seminal work of Boserup (1970) puts strong emphasis on the adoption of plow agriculture as a source of agricultural intensification, but as noted by Burton and White (1984), intensificationcan be achieved in a variety of ways even without the plow. In fact, Boserup (1965) definesagricultural intensification as shortening of the fallow by any method as pointed out by Burtonand White (1984). They also stress that agricultural intensification and the associated shift in gender roles do not require the plow. In essence, the general shift in the division of labor, associated with the Neolithic revolution, aggravated womenís outside options (outside marriage) and this increased male bargaining ower within the family, which, over generations, translated into norms and behavior which shaped the cultural beliefs on gender roles in societies…’
If game takes place the spam of 10,000 years then for sure I would love to see Female Warriors/Female hunders defending their village from a raid or from wildlife or hunting along men as they did in real life. Because that’s called survival. But as soon as my tribe becomes less nomadic and more arguculturial I want to see a game mechanic that changes my society and adopts patriarchal thanks to such things cited above. It wouldn’t be a very realistic game if it forced me to have a egalitarian society where half my army/raiding party was made up of women and half my chiefdom leaders were women, and half of everything military related was women. I don’t think it is reasonable at all to have all forms of task to all genders depending on the stage of the game. Because if the objective is to achieve authenticity then there should be ‘male’ and ‘female’ tasks at some point in the game. This could even be an interesting gameplay element in the structure of your tribe or people you lead in the game as a player.
Women post-neolitic argucultural revolution still had a very enduring role to play within these societies but it wasn’t as warriors and later on soldiers something for thousands upon thousands of years afterwards was still predominantly occupied by men.
Also there was one other thing you said I wanted to reply to “…a typical neolitic women could likely handle a bow or a club just fine…” I don’t think how good you handle a bow or a club has anything to do with gender EXCEPT for physical attributes. (Men and women being equal in mind but not body) The only way a person can handle a club better than the person trying to burn his/her hut down and steal his/her food is marked up to training or how efficient that person is in combat. Another privliage given the men over women post-agrucultrial revolution as the first professional warrior classes were adopted in society to provide such things as training and unit cohesion, etc.
Hansen, Casper Worm, & Jensen, Peter Sandholt, Skovsgaard, Christian, et al. “Gender Roles and Agricultural History: The Neolithic Inheritance.” 2012, www.econ.ku.dk/mehr/calendar/seminars/30112012/Hansen_et_al___2012__pdf.pdf.
Check out their references as well.
Anyway if there is any more articles like the one you posted, I’d love to read them.
I do not recall asserting that “most societies in the Neolithic Age were egalitarian.” Please point to me to where I said that and I will correct it.
Did you mean when I said this:
Examination of those inhumed at many sites, e.g. Çatalhöyük (Haddow, S. (2016). Çatalhöyük), have shown the presence of a rather egalitarian society (this is based off of the burial objects, position within the settlement, and a general analysis of the probably health of the individual, based off of their remains).
The following sentence said this:
While such examples are hardly conclusive of the entirety of the Neolithic
I was speaking of the absolutism of gender norms and roles often depicted in the media (e.g. movies, books) where males and females are tossed into static roles. The very existence of even a single site where this wasn’t the case destroys this absolutism. My comments do not speak of gender roles (in common) as out-of-date, but rather the gender role narrative depicted in common media. Below is my quote which makes this, I hoped, clear.
Prehistoric books, games, movies and TV often heavily enforce the notion of hard and strict gender roles in ancient society: Men are warriors, hunters and artisans. Women mothers, gatherers and perform domestic functions. Luckily, this out-of-date notion isn’t really supported by the evidence
I’m not sure you are arguing against my position. =/
You literally restate some of my points and say they are counters to my points. 
For example, you say:
It wouldn’t be a very realistic game if it forced me to have a egalitarian society where half my army/raiding party was made up of women and half my chiefdom leaders were women, and half of everything military related was women
But I said:
Let the user define this or be egalitarian. These seem like the only two realistic options.
The understanding of male and female roles in society is far from a settled debate. Speaking of a broader social trend and ignoring significant cultures, such as Catalhoyuk, could be seen as just as detrimental to the model as to focus upon them. This is why I prefer a neutral position.
There are literally dozens of books and hundreds of papers on this topic and none settles the debate. I’m sure we can each find ten more papers which make valid, empirical arguments for both positions. This is because we see evidence for both. The Neolithic isn’t a homogeneous, either way.
The point I was making was that, with a large time span and diverse Neolithic cultures, it makes more sense to allow for some variation on the patriarchal model such that women might sometimes wield a weapon or a man might weave upon a loom. I agree that patriarchal societies were likely common and many arguments (I’ve read many papers/books on this) are quite good for your point, as well as the supporting evidence. The problem is that this isn’t a total picture of a complex and multifaceted period.
Because if the objective is to achieve authenticity then there should be ‘male’ and ‘female’ tasks at some point in the game
Perhaps this would have been more in line with my position if it had been, instead, written as:
Because if the objective is to achieve authenticity then there should be more frequently ‘male’ and ‘female’ tasks , with occasional crossover, at some point in the game
So complex is the model of gender within the neolithic, that it cannot even be exclusively mapped to a binary state, but rather a binary norm. As an example of an exclusion to a binary state is the evidence for third genders being expressed at this time, however uncommon. The point I make here is that gender and gender roles may have an overall trend, but instantiations are not static and should not be enforced in an exclusive manner.
I don’t think how good you handle a bow or a club has anything to do with gender EXCEPT for physical attributes
Also, my point here may not have been fully understood as you restarted most of the intent behind my statement as a rebuttal to my statement. 
Interesting discussion. Perhaps it would help to remember that only women could keep the family alive. “Fertility” was therefore a central point, especially in fragile, small groups. Presumably this value will have been higher or lower depending on the composition of the group, but always a significant one.
True.
My position has been not that women were primary combatants or even commonly treated equally in status. My position has been that, patriarchy or not, men and women were not always universally static in division of labor, regardless of a general social trend. I would suspect that every now and then one might find a man performing traditional female tasks, and vice versa (e.g. Female warrior)
(This brings up a side issue I figured I should probably mention)
Another consideration is how poorly women are treated in the majority of video games. It’s nice to find female roles not relegated to gender locked and cliche tropes. That little bit of extra consideration will help the game sell better as plenty of women game and are often given little consideration.
(For anyone who doesn’t understand or believe how poorly women are treated in video games, merely go into the public chat of most video games or their public forums and look up topics related to women. You will see nothing but hate and vicious attacks. The video game industry’s unwillingness to tackle this problem is probably costing them a lot of money and preventing many people from enjoying games)
I don’t think anyone knew of hermaphrodites, hmm?
Intersex people, not what I was referring to, are often quite apparent. Intersex people have existed throughout human civilization.
I was referring to the transgender concept of third genders. There have been burials found with genetic sex and gender being prison to the oppositely, suggesting this. My original point in bringing that up was to illustrate the complexities of gender as opposed to a simple binary, static concept.
[quote=“lotus253, post:75, topic:581”]
Intersex people
[/quote]Would this be difficult to code? @UncasualGames
Edit: I guess it could be a trait for someone
In the end, the only difference between man and woman is the fact that women can’t do pretty much anything during the later months of pregnancy. They also are the ones with the milk and so, (traditionally), are the ones to look after the children when these are still dependent on their mother.
It will be interesting to see if they have mothers walking around nursing babies. I think that would add to the ambience and realism. Pregnancy and childbirth are often overlooked in these sorts of games, and yet they are a primary facet of humanity.
As for intersex and transgender people, inclusion within the video game would be great but unexpected. Currently, trying not to become persecuted by the rest of society is a primary goal LOL.
Indeed, especially during these times where the group was every thing and the chance of survive quick low if you are cast out. Every physiological and psycological variety present today already exist at that time but was most likely suppress to blend into the group.
This topic is very sensitive so I doubt it will be in the game. Gameplay speaking it did not add much to the game : only two things matter :
All genders diversity could be add later with mods (along with other high realism things). It is important to keep in mind that it is a game with money and time costs. Hence the mechanics which must be enhance are the one which make you feel like you are a tribe leader in paleolithic/neolithic time : survival and growth of your tribe is, knowing exactly the gender variety is not.
(Not to imply that you said this or implied it) Intersex people are not intrinsically infertile, though it can happen. We also don’t know how prehistoric societies dealt with such Folk. Given the importance of both male and female fertility symbology, one could suppose they might either be looked at and a poor light, or potentially as gifts from their deities. I don’t think we can draw a conclusion either way, other than that we have evidence of their existence as well as proper burial, suggesting inclusion at least in individual instances.
As for the game, I don’t expect to see anything like that present, realistic or not. ( one day, but our society has not progressed that far, yet). The only reason I brought the topic up originally was in an explanation of the diversity of gender and my reasoning 4 disagreement over any suggestion of absolute gender-normative roles, not to exclude gender nominal roles.
That why I never say it in my comment 
I just created 3 groups mutually exclusive : unfertil, fertil who can not carry child and fertil who can carry child.
The gender variety (intersex include) can go in any of the previous groups.
That was not my intent, but I see how my comment could be read that way. I’ll edit it so it doesn’t appear to suggest that.
