*EDIT* Some of you are way too defensive while others have some sense. Want proof? Go on the BOS ship, as another poster pointed out, talk to the soldiers. Maybe they are random flagged but in my game and his 80% of the PA users (higher ranks/better fighters) are female. Read the post and other posts here before making your left wing uniformed comment.

Ok I know this is going to get flack but I had to make a post on this. I don't think "Feminist" is quite the right word but the title had to fit.

Why are women in Fallout 3/4 seemingly always the toughest/heavy weapon user/best geared? First of all, I have no problems with women in a position of power. I DO have a problem with someone who looks like a ballet dancer holding a minigun.

Fallout 3- havn't played in ages, but the heavy gunner of that merc group was female. I have not played in so long I wont make other references and just leave it to 4.

Fallout 4-

1) Toughest fighter you run into, story wise, is Cait, a woman.

2) First minigun user you run into is Ack Ack, a woman

3) Rail Road guards, when you first enter, holding a minigun is a woman. (granted, shes a Synth, but it continues the trend)

4) Forged Flamer users are always women (I confirmed this by checking the esm file while I was modding)

5) Only member of Gunners (that I have run into... and I have run into a lot) who gets PA is a woman. There is even a message on the computer that says something to the effect of "stop complaining, you got the suit of PA" I would assume the greatest fighter gets it, because Clint was the highest ranked in that area.

6) Raider Boss with PA and a Minigun in the government building (forget the name) near the RR base is a woman.

7) Drug dealers "hired muscle" by that diner store is a woman who looks like she wear a size 2.

8) John Hancock's bodyguard, and once more, heavy weapon user is female.

By comparison, the only male human non BOS I can name with a minigun/gatling laser is the Roach King guy by Corvega.

A few have Fat Boys but those are explosive, not heavy weapons.

I've noticed this throughout Bethesda's games... I don't know who decides the six of what type of character but someone gets off on seeing women with guns bigger then they are there, that's for sure. Once again before you start picking up your torches and pitchforks, I don't mind a woman being a leader but they simply don't fit the "heavy fighter" role. I could see them as archers, rogues, spies, snipers, even front line with a rifle, but they just look dumb teetering around with a heavy weapon with biceps as big as the males wrists.

You're right, you're going to get flack for this.

I seem to believe this falls into the category of, "looking for a problem".

Well those individuals clearly do.

So you will clearly need to adjust your rather stereotypical views with the evidence before you ...

https://i.warosu.org/data/fa/img/0087/91/1410600307232.png

Hoo boy, this thread is going places, I can just feel it.

To start, I've never noticed a disproportionate amount of women being the "heavy" in the games, and I don't think it looks wrong at all.

All in all, Bethesda's been very good about giving women a fair shake in all of their RPGs since Morrowind, without really drawing attention to it. They've managed to put women in all sorts of roles and archetypes in their games without really falling victim to the "strong female lead" trope... probably because the scale of the games and the amount of different NPCs actually balances it out really well. Now, women in http://uesp.net/w/images/6/69/NA_Arena_BoxArt.jpg and http://uesp.net/w/images/e/ea/DF-npc-Aubk-i.png on the other hand...

Maybe they're just trying to shock you out of your assumed world viewpoint (females are weak and can't use machinery or fight). A lot has changed since the big war, I expect everyone needed to learn how to stand up for themselves.

Personally I think it looks as silly as skimpy armor... But that didn't stop anyone from making those.

Let me rephrase that... for a petite woman (or skinny guy) to use heavy weapons does look silly, imho.

If, they looked like an old eastgerman "buff" user... sure...

EDIT and PS: There is a difference in physical strength between men and women. It is largely irrelevant in modern everyday life, thank god, but fielding a heavy weapon, is one of the few places it would be relevant. Or at the very least not have even the skinniest people (men or women) be able to field a heavy minigun. But alas... the ingame strength is not tied to the bulkyness of the characters, tho that would have made sense.

The truth is they did it just to annoy you. Talk about insecurity a pixel grrl using a pixel imaginary weapon can't actually emasculate you. If it happens you are doing it to yourself. Grow a pair and MAN UP.

The game is not realistic in any area, including the prevalence of relatively androgenic and estrogenic roles. A game that actually sought to portray the sixes (theye're not "genders" by the way, they're sixes, and there are not only two of them, there are a least three or more than three depending on how you wish to categorize the various genetic and endocrine conditions that lead to alternative phenotypes to "male" and "female").

The simple truth is: the prevalence of "gender sensitivity" and feminism has made society profoundly ignorant of what six is as a biological reality, how it shapes phenotypes, how it doesn't shape phenotypes, what overlapping variability means and what it doesn't mean etc. Even astute scientists who study the biology of six differences are mute on the topic of "how does gender really relate to six" and "how do behavioral propensities relate to six at the population level." This is because the topics have been taken over by Politically Correct dogmatists who will excoriate anyone who does not toe the line with respect to the PC "truth."

Bethesda and any sane game developer does not get into that fight. It is not one for them to take on anyway. So they portray the differences between the sixes as essentially being non-existent: barbie and ken dolls which are identical for all practical purposes except perhaps some stylistic differences in dialogue, and of course the appearance of the face and body.

I don't think Bethesda, or anyone else for that matter, is required to squeeze themselves into the confines of your teeny worldview.

http://vikingstrength.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Jill-Mills.jpg

heh, dude is a modder with an ability to notice patterns xD...

i'm also a programmer that is good at noticing patterns...no matter what the message is, it's never well received or even received at all xD

props to the OP for getting into modding, we all benefit from the mod community and my 2 cents is plz put this energy towards some cool mods rather than try and make this shallow pool any deeper xD

and btw yea, i understand your point completely, but it's gonna fly right over most people's heads or just bait them into some flaming retort that doesn't have anything to do with what you were saying xD

OP, you are stereotyping. Women most certainly DO fit the "heavy fighter" role, in many cases far more than males do.

Look at it this way: Gordon Freeman in Half-Life is a theroretical physicist. He is more or less average build and in good shape due to the requirement for members of Black Mesa to maintain physical health. However, he certainly is not trained to do the many things he does in the game and no one is bothered by it at all.

If we want to look at Fallout 4, consider a character such as Jun. Aside from his emotional/psychological state, his physical build is quite slight, not a muscleman. "Wiry" might be a good description. Would you have a problem with him using "heavy weapons" (and that does include the Fat Man, by the way)?

What about Preston or any one of the many other male characters who have the same general "average" body build?

Just because someone is slightly built does not mean they are incapable of handling heavy weapons of various kinds. Likewise, as Sturges points out, just because someone looks like a "bruiser" does not mean that they are capable of mixing it up with anyone and anything. Depends on interest and training.

As for armor that was mentioned above, again someone is stereotyping. Armor does not need to look imposing to be effective, nor does it need to be "heavy". In fact, that's the exact focus of armor design: make it lightweight as well as effective. So-called "skimpy" armor on women is no different than the "skimpy" armor we see on men (e.g., Conan the Barbarian comes to mind... or Grognak in the world of Fallout). Being less encumbered allows for much better movement, including agility for both attack and defense, which is part of an armor's rating.

BTW, to elaborate a bit on the "imposing" aspect of armor design, a real life example of doing this would be Japanese samurai armor. The reason such armor was designed to look like demons from Japanese myths was to intimidate enemies psychologically during battle. However, doing this is NOT required, nor is it necessarily desired. It could be argued that so-called "skimpy" armor for females make a similar goal, which is to make the enemies pause/hesitate during an encounter, especially males. For example, one reason that it is difficult to get women integrated into contact sports is that boys are indoctrinated from a very young age to "not hit/hurt a girl". This has been stated for American football players, for example, where boys will explain that they find it very difficult to go all out against a female player on the opposing team due to their subconscious conditioning to avoid contact with girls. Even if a boy is slightly built, they do not feel the same hesitation when playing against him.

In order to change this type of behavior, it is necessary for society to change. That can't happen with stereotyping, though.

Somebody probably didn't like Mad Max: Fury Road either...

I can tell this thread will result in thoughtful, calm, well-written discussion

Who cares?

I haven't run into really any of the characters you are talking about.
I think Red was the only female raider boss that I recall coming across.

I am not sure why this is an issue, at any rate.
Maybe though, some perceive women to be weaker *cough cough*, so they use heavy weapons to deter just that kind of thinking.
Or maybe they are not as (or don't appear to be) physically dominating, and compensate with heavy artillery.
Or maybe the juxtaposition of the fairer six being ass kickers is awesome (Ripley, Leela, Leeloo Dallas Multipass, Alice, Samus).
I can say this. There isn't really room for the damsel in distress in the post-apoc world.

There are a million reasons as to why female NPCs could be packing serious fire-power. Ultimately, none of it matters.

I didn't like that either...because it really wasn't pro liberated female! at all, was just a long explosey road trip with bathing nymphs. Most over hyped thing I've seen in a while.

This is pretty spot on, but I also want to highlight the inherent absurdity of carrying and using things like a tactical nuclear catapult, handheld minigun, or a damned portable naval cannon. It's ridiculous regardless of sixes.

As for skimpy armor, Bethesda's at least good at making sure their skimpy armor sets are skimpy on male and female characters. Even if it makes little logical sense for some leather straps to offer the kind of protection they oft do in RPGs, rule of cool beats all.

Someone knows some anthropology. Absolutely correct too might i add!

Just had to +1

I just noticed that all the female defense folks at my settlements were given heavy weapons as well. They way they lug around those mini-guns is almost as awkward as the way the guys do.

Bethesda has always done a good job in their games by remaining gender neutral. Despite some references to a patriarchy in some societies, their is little gender limitation in game. Hell in Skyrim, most people will marry you, boy or girl. Also, it helps their franchises appeal to more people and be more accessible.

I did notice that no one on board Prydwen in a Power Armor had male voice.

And if i noticed, it must be pretty obvious

AiTenshi1: do you actually know anything about reproductive biology or the social science of the various matters you refer to when you accuse the OP of stereotyping? Or are you just repeating what you have heard said 1000 times and never bothered to question?

XX does not produce the same epigenetic momentums as XY. The particular developmental landscapes that these two genotypes predispose overlap very closely on many "traits," but they overlap very little on some other traits, and to varying degrees on many traits.

Certainly culture and socialization work with those antecedent biological momentums, and in many societies exaggerate the differences through socialization practices that result in positive feedback between the alternative vectors the two genotypes predispose. But that does not mean that "six is irrelevant" and that we would never be able to detect the relative contribution of six and environment to observed sample differences at any stage in development.

If we compare a random sample of females and random sample of males (humans I mean) matched on age, cultural identity, socioeconomics and any other factors we think might matter in order to test hypotheses that the two sixes are indistinguishable for any and all traits we might wish to assess, we are not likely to come up with the same level of falsification for all possible hypotheses. The sixes (with the developmental effects of "environment" held constant) are likely to be indistinguishable with respect to many traits/domains: Intelligence, cognitive and emotional sensitivity, any of the various dimensions of personality, creativity, etc., . . . no real reason to hypothesize that the male sample and the female sample would be distinguishable on those types of traits, except in so far as socialization has created differences.

In contrast, there are good reasons to hypotheses that six differences exist and to expect a lack of falsification of such hypotheses when it comes to a host of other traits/domains: hand-eye-coordination, various spatial awareness traits, potentially jealousy, various types of pain tolerance (with existing evidence indicating for example, that females show much higher tolerance to some kinds of pain, but males show marginally greater tolerance to other forms of pain), latency to aggression, empathy, territoriality, various measures of muscular power and endurance, etc., These are all "traits" for which there is ample theoretical basis, ample empirical basis from the behavioral biology of other hominids and primates more generally, as well as ample ethnographic and archaeological evidence to at least entertain attempts to actually falsify such hypotheses.

To date, the majority of academia has rejected any such inquiry as being crude stereotyping at best or outright sixism/misyogyny/eugenics at worst. I do not believe this wholesale rejection of serious effort to "test" six difference theory is a reflection of a lack of interest, a lack of expertise or a lack of potential significance to humanity. It is a reflection of a ideological "war," the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology#Reception which ensued when the community of leftist social scientists encountered Wilson's "Sociobiology: The New Synthesis" in the late 1970's. The sociobiologists, and evolutionary psychologists have "lost" that war and the politically correct dogma of "six differences are irrelevant" has become the norm even among educated and otherwise intrepid folk.

First of all... I did not specify "skimpy armor" for women... I made no difference between men and women in that regard. Possibly someone has been indoctrinated from a very young age to see stereotypes everywhere.

Secondly, it is no secret, that certain games, do make impractical armor, for the sole purpose of ... well showing skin and curves (again not making a difference between gender).

What I were saying is... to me, it is silly to see impractical armor (which eg. do not protect vital areas) even if they are supposed to.

That is equally silly, to seeing a person, which do not seem to have the necessary physical strength, to wield a heavy weapon.

The last bit is just more glaring if it's a small skinny man or woman.

PS: There is nothing wrong with stereotyping, aslong as you take the individual infront you as the unique individual that is. It is the brains way of attempting to predict things, based on previous experiences (true or false) and we will never get rid of it. Or rather, if we do... it's not a society I will live in, because we will either have messed with everyones brains directly or just replaced one sort of stereotypes with another and not learned a damn thing along the way.