Gender Inequality?

[Wayze 549]

Agreed, what i mean is that i do not believe in a completely genetic reason for the difference, male and female athletes have a completely different approach to their sport, which might affect performances.

Sure the reasons are not completely genetic. I don't think that anyone would say that. But, as a matter of fact, there are these genetic differences. It is no believe, but simple science.

 

I do not say that women are not able to overcome these genetic differences, but these differences exists, no matter how much society does effect a person.

Edited October 21, 2013 by Wayze

[rossums 2190]

The fact is that the genders are not equal.

Males have a significant edge in endeavours that require strength and athletic performance, this is a widely accepted fact.

There won't be anything done with this because it's still not politically correct to give a certain gender an advantage in any aspect compared to the other gender - their would definitely be some controversy on launch.

Overall, both males and females excel in different areas but it's not really important enough to give one or the other an advantage in a video-game, it REALLY doesn't matter that much.

[Wayze 549]

The fact is that the genders are not equal.

Males have a significant edge in endeavours that require strength and athletic performance, this is a widely accepted fact.

There won't be anything done with this because it's still not politically correct to give a certain gender an advantage in any aspect compared to the other gender - their would definitely be some controversy on launch.

Overall, both males and females excel in different areas but it's not really important enough to give one or the other an advantage in a video-game, it REALLY doesn't matter that much.

Maybe we could have special abilities like:

 

Women

- crafting meals way faster

- repairing clothes way faster

- harder to handle a car

- if unuseful item is touched it dissappears

 

Men

- repairing cars way faster

- needs way more food

- able to carry way more weight

 

This would definitly increase the expirience and make it way more realistic!

 

 

Note: Could contain sarcasm

[rossums 2190]

Maybe we could have special abilities like:

 

Women

- crafting meals way faster

- repairing clothes way faster

- harder to handle a car

- if unuseful item is touched it dissappears

 

Men

- repairing cars way faster

- needs way more food

- able to carry way more weight

 

This would definitly increase the expirience and make it way more realistic!

 

 

Note: Could contain sarcasm

Haha, as much as it would put a bit of thought into which gender to choose, even in a joking manner you'd have the feminazis shouting from the rooftops about how DayZ is literally worse than Hitler.

It would be pretty hilarious though, if just for the media fallout that would occur.

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

How is this example not pushing forward gender role stereotypes?

[applejaxc 2500]

Maybe we could have special abilities like:

 

Women

- crafting meals way faster

- repairing clothes way faster

- harder to handle a car

- if unuseful item is touched it dissappears

 

Men

- repairing cars way faster

- needs way more food

- able to carry way more weight

 

This would definitly increase the expirience and make it way more realistic!

 

 

Note: Could contain sarcasm

 

I do hope that contains sarcasm; this post was purely about biological differences, not suggesting that all men are born with the innate power to fix a tire with all superiority over women... which can all make sandwiches.

[applejaxc 2500]

How is this example not pushing forward gender role stereotypes?

 

This is the Internet, not Socrates' study. I forgot that when I made this thread. >.>

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

Hey i like having an educated debate every now and then, it's a nice change of pace :)

[enforcer1975 1111]

Maybe we could have special abilities like:

 

Women

- crafting meals way faster

- repairing clothes way faster

- harder to handle a car    <--- :lol:

- if unuseful item is touched it dissappears

- can't go stealth because of beeing a chatterbox

- bottomless backpack perk = more slots ( if you ever looked what a woman can fit into her purse you know what i mean )

 

Men

- repairing cars way faster

- needs way more food

- able to carry way more weight

- it goes in one ear and out the other = hears less sounds because partly deaf

- less carrying capacity in backpacks due to lack of packing skills

 

This would definitly increase the expirience and make it way more realistic!

 

 

Note: Could contain sarcasm

 

 

The fact is that the genders are not equal.

 

They are much closer than 50 years ago, there will always be an average. There will also be 6" women and 5" guys around.

 

Wow you really, really missed the point of that...

 

Survival of the fittest, for humans, includes overcoming social challenges as much as physical ones. Just because you reach an age that allows you to produce sperm/carry and birth eggs doesn't mean you're going to reproduce, especially not if no one in the world finds you attractive. We're taught from day-1 in most first world countries that fit, muscular men belong to thin, large-chested women. Because of this, men predisposed to developing that way and women predisposed to developing that way have a higher chance of reproducing children that will go on to have their own children, so on and so forth. Several generations of this for women, and thousands of years for men, means that our gene pool is muscular-centric and breastacular-centric respectively, thusly men are phsyically superior to women. It's the same principles as, say, breeding animals: If you only let the strong horses have babies, then there will only be strong horse babies.

 

The point of the thread is that despite the proven physical superiority of men, I don't want the Standalone to have a difference in carrying weight/stamina between men and women.

 

Maybe in your country...if the world would do exactly that there would be no more child birth. You should go out once in a while and look what kind of people are on the streets and not just in the gym.

Edited October 21, 2013 by Enforcer

[Karmaterror 982]

There are undeniable physical differences between men and women, that being said it very much down to the individual. A women's athlete could physically out perform 99% of us average men. Making there be a difference isn't realistic because it doesn't take into account the individual. And after all this is DayZ...Your story ;)

[elf cakes 559]

i mean in our society a girl will be gently coerced all her life to be a girl and a boy just the same, boy will be oriented toward physical prowess while the girl will be oriented toward the idea of bearing children. Are men really more muscular, or does the social convention for men encourage a more physical approach to life?

yes. men are more muscular. it's genetically how it works. this is how it's worked for millions of years and it's how the human race has developed. that's why women are better at caring for children than men. that's why men are stronger. look at gorillas. the silverback protects the group by being strong. the females are protected and care for the young. that's how the human race developed. and that's why we behave this way. i'm sick of women saying they're expected to bear children. no one's forcing them to do anything. anyway, it's an innate part of a woman's mind to WANT to bear children. just like men want to fight and be strong. we're still just animals. get over it

[Wayze 549]

And after all this is DayZ...Your story ;)

But what if I do not want to be average? What if I want my story to be the survival of a weak?

 

And we are back again at character development. I really would like to see my character getting better and faster, so I have something to be sad about if he/she dies.

[h3l1x 327]

Welcome to ApeZ.

[Cormyr 39]

In a game such as this, there is no reason to make men and women different. The only way this would work is if character creation was very detailed and there was a skill system which you level up. Men and women naturally, through their own choices, decide what they are good at. Some girls might choose to be better at cooking, or repairing cars etc... Men might choose to fix clothing...

 

But this kind of system is not for DayZ it seems. So, men and women should just be the same, other then looks of course (I do not mean men should be huge beasts and women with huge boobs etc..).

[Jex 1104]

Thank you.

Anyway, men are more muscular due to society wanting them to be more muscular. I don't meant to offend anyone by bringing up something so contested, but think about Darwin's theory of evolution. Those men who don't become muscular (or rich) don't reproduce, thus the strong have strong children, so on and so forth, slowly creating a gap between men and women.

 

I think your a little off there - by your reckoning then, we'd have no weak children. Also if Strong men breed with women, they're likely to have strong girls by your reckoning as well or are genes now sexist?

 

You started in this thread saying you would state only facts except in the above, your facts appear to be entirely wrong.

Edited October 21, 2013 by Jexter

[applejaxc 2500]

I think your a little off there - by your reckoning then, we'd have no weak children. Also if Strong men breed with women, they're likely to have strong girls by your reckoning as well or are genes now sexist?

 

You started in this thread saying you would state only facts except in the above, your facts appear to be entirely wrong.

 

I'm saying men are bred for athleticism and that their strong, male children are more likely to procreate whereas their female children aren't given the opportunity to develop muscularly regardless of their genes. 

[Wayze 549]

But this kind of system is not for DayZ it seems

I totally disagree. Actually I couldn't disagree more.

 

Sure, a level up system like in Skyrim or similar would be ridicilous and immersion breaking. But a system that allows you to progress, to learn things and to improve your skill by surviving in the world should be a given. I don't even think there is a discussion needed, because a survival game without the most elementary survival aspect is to me no survival game.

That is:

Training your skill. In DayZ right now you are a super hero. You know everything, you are capable of doing everything and there is no chance for you to fail. You know how to aim perfectly, you know how to repair a car, a helicopter, you are even more skilled than a surgeon, you are the perfect human. And if you die, there is another perfect human, exactly as you, that will just replace you.

I mean how is this even possible? How can a normal avarage citizen be able to do all these things from day one? This is just ridicilous.

If you are no mechanic you are not able to repair a car just like that. If you are no surgeon you are not able to treat a wound perfectly within seconds. If you aren't a trained military sniper you won't be able to use a sniper without any problems.

Many of these things are skills you will equire while you survive. Hell, that is what survival is all about! To adapt, to learn how to survive.

 

You tell me DayZ is about my story. But why would I possibly want to be a super hero? You take away so much of my story if you just do this. I want to create my character while surviving. My character, my story is about surviving, about developing myself. It is not about finding a DMR and shooting zombies or people. It is about my first handcrafted fire, about the first time I successfully repaired a car engine. It is about me getting better.

 

And now let us just look at it from a gameplay perspective. At the moment DayZ is nothing about my character, it is purely about the gear my character wears. My character is worth sh*t. If he dies I will just have another one, the same one. But the weapon I carry, I probably won't find it again so fast. The weapon I carry, the weapon I actually carry to protect my life, the weapon itself is way more worth then my life.

How can you call this a survival game? How can you possibly call a game survival when the weapons are more worth than surviving?

I really don't see the logic. Especially such a system would increase the authenticity of player behaviour. I wouldn't just be focused on finding a weapon, but actually on survival. To not lose my character. To not lose something I worked so hard for. The fear of losing that character will be finally higher than losing that weapon.

[mercules 1290]

Okay, but just because people suggested it doesn't mean it's going to happen. I just don't get it. The devs are clearly putting in lots of time and effort to create female player models, along with clothing models and animations. By making them unequal, they will in turn be negating their own hard work by encouraging players to choose males over females.

Whoa, whoa, whoa..... How does making the sexes unequal automatically turn to females being worse than males? I mean there are genetic/biological physical differences and those are often compounded by societal norms for the genders but that does not mean that women would be less capable in a survival situation, Survival courses being specifically designed to look for a few certain things can be biased towards muscle mass and other typically masculine features. 

 

They used to think no woman could swim the English Channel successfully.. until they did. 

There are a lot of advantages women have over men physically such as higher pain threshold, more compact frame, greater energy reserves.. and such. 

To stops male characters being female and females being male you should have to take a picture of your junk and send it to Rocket.

Why do we have to stop that? Can you explain what exactly is wrong with a person in a video game playing a fictional character selecting a gender that is different than themselves? Next up shall we make it so that in order to play the skinny and fit characters you have to mail in a picture showing you are not 300 pounds from sitting on your ass all day playing video games? "I want to use this face with brown hair... but mine is red." 

 

 

 

We're taught from day-1 in most first world countries that fit, muscular men belong to thin, large-chested women. Because of this, men predisposed to developing that way and women predisposed to developing that way have a higher chance of reproducing children that will go on to have their own children, so on and so forth. Several generations of this for women, and thousands of years for men, means that our gene pool is muscular-centric and breastacular-centric respectively, thusly men are phsyically superior to women. It's the same principles as, say, breeding animals: If you only let the strong horses have babies, then there will only be strong horse babies.

1. Several generations huh? Apparently you have no idea how natural selection works. 

2. Um... WHAT? Apparently you have missed all the mention of flipping the typical "attractive woman dates unattractive male" and how society is horrible for complaining when the opposite happens. A lot of "attractive" women date men that would not fit that "fit muscular man" ideal you have, even the large breasted ( that alone made me face palm as hips are far more important than breast size in regards to continuation of the species).

 

...it's an innate part of a woman's mind to WANT to bear children. just like men want to fight and be strong. we're still just animals. get over it

 

Riiiiiiiiiight... Biological imperatives are not gender specific. Male and Female animals both WANT offspring. If you have a species where the females want offspring and the males do not you end up with a dead species. In fact in many species the males of the species are just as involved ast he females in raising offspring and in some more involved. 

Also, the beliefe that men want to fight and be strong... that is a societal thing, not a biological imperative. While it is true that because of hormonal differences men can put on more muscle mass than women and while I do believe that certain things are hardwired into our brain such as mannerisms and such, actual behaviour is not, that is learned and biased by culture and environment. This whole, "Men are competitive and women are docile" bull is laughable. Someone has not spent much time with women being women around other women. They are fiercely competitive.

===========================================

There are physical differences between women and men but I think most men have been brainwashed to think that all those differences are in their favor and they are not. I've known many women I would not want to be in a fight with including one I used to play paintball with who was into UFC and had a couple fights. I was a hell of a lot sneakier than her but she was faster and could run a hell of a lot longer than I could not to mention likely kick my ass in hand to hand especially with her lower center of mass and agility.

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

Um... If you read my whole post you would have seen that I was arguing the same point you just did, but okay...

[mercules 1290]

I'm saying men are bred for athleticism and that their strong, male children are more likely to procreate whereas their female children aren't given the opportunity to develop muscularly regardless of their genes. 

 

Uh huh... so the out of 10 friends I know of 3 that are very fit and athletic. 1 has a single child. The other 7 are like myself, not horribly out of shape but not fit. 1 doesn't have kids... yet. Unless you go back to pre-stone age it isn't always the most fit that lives to breed. If so I wouldn't be wearing eye glasses right now. In fact humans are all but worthless as animals from their simple physical form. It is our cleverness and intelligence that leads to survival and that is what has lead to successful humans who have bred. 

[dallas 5195]

Being a survivor is all about mentality. I don't think the physical difference is that distinctive in regular people and shouldn't be much of a factor in the game either.

 

Some mayor once asked a female construction worker, how she managed such cumbersome and dirty work, she replied that she had been a home nurse and lifting people around and washing them, made construction work seem easy and clean and it paid much better.

Edited October 21, 2013 by Dallas

[liquidmind 320]

Isn't it kind of a human flaw, that whenever there are two words, separating two things as different, we always assume that one is better than the other?

 

I usually reply to questions like "what is better" with "better in which regard?" because I honestly believe that there is no global "better" or "worse". It depends on the situation. And that is where we as humans have our strength. Whatever problems occur, we are diverse enough to have some people being able to handle it, protecting the others from negative effects.

We are all different, but we are all worth the same. In the big picture at least. In specialized, local events, individuals might be better than others. You'd want Michael jordan to teach basketball to your kids and Albert Einstein to teach them physics, not vice versa.  But you cannot just say "Albert einstein is better than Michael Jordan". 

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

Uh huh... so the out of 10 friends I know of 3 that are very fit and athletic. 1 has a single child. The other 7 are like myself, not horribly out of shape but not fit. 1 doesn't have kids... yet. Unless you go back to pre-stone age it isn't always the most fit that lives to breed. If so I wouldn't be wearing eye glasses right now. In fact humans are all but worthless as animals from their simple physical form. It is our cleverness and intelligence that leads to survival and that is what has lead to successful humans who have bred. 

 

I think it's important that you read the OP, you will see that Applejaxc does not want this to be a game feature.

 

Otherwise, he is correct about the differences in male and female physiology. Males naturally have higher muscle and bone density, and narrower hips which makes us more efficient runners. Nobody's saying women aren't capable of being athletic or strong regardless of those differences. But men are both physically and psychologically more well suited towards violent lifestyles.

 

And actually, it's our hands which make us incredibly capable. The hands came first. The intelligence followed. Without hands, ancient men would never have been able to fashion specialized tools. Without tools, we would not have been able to drastically increase and vary our diet, which ultimately spurred the development of more higher functioning cognitive abilities. Without those tools, without that diet, without hands, we would have never been able to produce written languages like Sanskrit, which eventually developed into phonetic alphabets, which easily allowed the transfer of ideas and so on and so forth. Without hands, you would have never been able to type that message in the first place.

 

If humans had hooves we would be just as "dumb" as cows.

Edited October 21, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[Wayze 549]

But you cannot just say "Albert einstein is better than Michael Jordan". 

The same as you cannot say "Albert Einstein is good and Adolf Hilter is bad.". ;)

[elf cakes 559]

(removed all the garbage this guy chatted and just wanted to quote him)

i cant even be arsed to address all the crap you're on about. these arguements just bore me now. 

Edited October 21, 2013 by elf cakes