fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3315 ]

[ SECRET POST #3315 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3315 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01. [tb]

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 060 secrets from Secret Submission Post #474.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

11. http://i.imgur.com/iUeOkEX.png

wha..what?

Do you also think there should be less gravity and physics defying assassins? because that's unrealistic, too.

This. I hate this argument. Magic and things that defy science and other non-real life things are fine. But heaven forbid we go against gender norms for whatever period the fandom is set in.

Don't forget Assassins guilds and Templar conspiracies, oh and evil companies that build machines that can retrace your ancestor's memories like they were yours - cause that's totally realistic.

Soooooo why not go play one of the many other games that have one or two Token Females in a mostly male cast?

I love it when people who are clearly not historians suddenly care about historical accuracy when it comes to the portrayal of women, but at no other time.

(especially since in virtually every case, there are actually loads of recorded women kicking ass and taking names... but don't mind me, I'm just an actual historian)

This. It comes up a lot in discussions in the SF/Fantasy genre and it's simply amazing how many people can accept spaceships, alien races, teleportation, dragons, mind control powers, winters that last 7 years, but women who are well developed characters? No way, dude!

Don't worry, they sometimes suddenly care about historical accuracy when it comes to the portrayal of anyone who isn't white! Or straight!

You definitely can't admit to that, because it's stupid. I'm not really interested in looking at women and I don't care about female representation either. You know how I deal with it? By playing any one of the thousands of games where there are few women, or no women at all.

That's right: you can't. And there's good reasons for it.

*fewer

Hate to break it to you but there were. Hell there were entirely female gangs. Welcome to life.

Forty Elephants

Alice Diamond

Florrie Holmes

Maggie Hill

Uh... I hate to break it to you, but there's also very little historical support for kukri-wielding assassins and the Templars being involved in a brutal war in Victorian London or indeed, at any other time in history. If you can suspend your disbelief for that, then I'm not sure why having more female characters around is a huge strain on credibility.

lol complaining about too many women in a game that hasn't made much logical sense since like Assassin's Creed Brotherhood. Of course Ezio/Connor/those twins can jump off 40 story buildings into a haystack but there are too many women. lol

God forbid there be some kind of possibly inaccurate trait in a video game. About assassins. With technology that lets you read the minds of your long-dead ancestors.

Serious question: why do you think Victorian men might want to join gangs? Power, influence, money, protection, because they're poor and have few options, etc... all of those seem like reasonable motivations.

Now why do you think those motivations wouldn't apply to women?

Not op, but I took it more that women weren't allowed to be in gangs. We've all seen the sexism of this last 50 years or so, Imagine going back to a time when women were literally chattel. Women 150 years ago wouldn't have been permitted to leave the home unaccompanied, let alone join a gang. And that's just the sexism from the men who owned the women. You think men in gangs would want women anywhere near them? No, men back then wouldn't have considered women a valid gang member. Hell men today can barely stomach working in mordern work places with women. Why would people assume that back in the fucking dark ages men were better than they are today?

Finally, I can think of at least one reason women back then would not want to be in a criminal gang. Criminal men. Men today, men who are otherwise law abiding men today are raping women in absurdly high numbers. 1 in 4. And that's with laws protecting women that just didn't exit back then, and even if they had existed, these are criminal men who wouldn't think twice about raping their female gang mates because "What else are women good for". An attitude that exists across the board today. Can you imagine how horrible it would have been back then?

So, I kinda agree with OP. It's just not believable that women would be allowed or would choose to put themselves in that situation.

Re: Serious question TW rape

(Anonymous) - 2016-02-01 01:31 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Serious question TW rape

(Anonymous) - 2016-02-01 04:09 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Serious question TW rape

(Anonymous) - 2016-02-01 04:23 (UTC) - Expand

Women has so many less choices to support themselves in Victorian times. A poor woman's husband leaves or dies her choices are prostitution, begging on the street, stealing, or other criminal activity. Live was hard unless you were in the upper crust.

And life STILL is hard if you're not from the upper crust.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2016-02-01 00:50 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2016-02-01 04:13 (UTC) - Expand

Exactly. If I'm a poor woman without the protection (deemed necessary by society) of either my father or husband, my options are shitty and few. I can work menial jobs for long hours and little pay, if I my health and strength permits and I can find one. I can become a prostitute, with better hours and little pay and high risk of sexual disease, sexual/physical assault and oh hello Jack the Ripper.

Or I could become a criminal. Why wouldn't I consider a life of crime if my other choice is to work myself to death and/or let myself and any children I might have starve in the gutter?

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2016-02-01 04:25 (UTC) - Expand

Do you have any idea how many prostitutes have met violent ends?

(Anonymous) - 2016-02-01 07:03 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2016-01-31 23:40 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2016-02-01 01:21 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2016-02-01 04:19 (UTC) - Expand

Mm-hmm, and memory machines, ancient god conspiracies and weird Free Running physics are more believable, right?

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2016-02-01 00:52 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

dancingmouse - 2016-02-01 01:57 (UTC) - Expand

I hope you don't feel dogpiled in this thread OP, but I also hope you understand why people feel this opinion isn't very logical and is therefore a bit suspect.

Personally I didn't like the introduction of female mooks because it encouraged the player character to commit violence against female characters. We need less of this in games, not more. Evie was a very good thing. Random murdered women is a very bad thing. Typical Ubisoft, one step forward two steps back.