No announcement yet.

More Female Antediluvians

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Reasor View Post
    I think Revelations of the Dark Mother certainly lends itself to that reading, but it's by design an unreliable enough narrative that something else could be just as true if that serves your narrative better.
    Very good point. I totally agree.

    The die is cast. - Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon


    • Originally posted by Orkar View Post

      ​Fair i was under the impression the headcannon is based mostly on the bible and has little to do with actual history and in the bible women are seen as definitely sub human for the most part which leads to my argument.
      That said if we go for pre agricultural societies that lived in nomadic tribes, sure female antedeluvians make perfect sense but once mankind started to build settlements they quickly become quite patriarchal and often - not always - seeing women as another posession just like land.
      I am also not saying there CANT be any female antedeluvians i said i am surprised there are any, to counter the previous statements that it should be 50-50 if not more females than males.

      To be clear here i personally dont give a damn if kaine is male or female or any vampire is male or female. I dontt hink this information should even matter. and since im accused of being sexist, my form of sexism is to not care what is in between somebodies legs. If that is sexist then i am cause i refuse to make someones sex a talking point at all. I want well written characters - if they are they can be gay black asian mixed race trans females for all i care.because none of that should matter to anyone in my oppinion.

      Sure and my specialty is northern european cultures from bronze age to the crusades. But it is an indicator that im not a total retard pulling things out of my ass either.

      see that is what i will contest heavily. In nomadic tribal cultures they are, though they still suaully have strict gender roles. But agricultural as in settled down societies? Sumer, Babylon, persia, india, china, japan, arabic countries....tell me where exactly were women having pretty much the same rights as men? Rome? Greece? The only culture that comes to my mind were the medieval norse peoples where women enjoyed prety high status and had a lot of rights...but definitely not equal rights and still pretty damn strict gender roles.

      So is in all cultures. Noble women were superior to non noble men but inferior to noble men /(of same or higher rank ofc)
      You could also say that a rich female owning some slaves was in that position a well, that is not how i would define equality in the slightest. That said i already said that spiritual careers were open to women and could have made them stand out. meanwhile men domianted as rulers, fighters, politicians, also as priests, architects, land owners etc. If you look for mortals with assets who stand out, you would have found much more men than women because men ahd more options. To be clear i am glad we are past that primitive state because women can contribute greatly to society, but my point is they were barred from doing so back in the day which makes it far less likely that they were embraced under the premise that the embrace is given to outstanding mortals.
      That is for ancient times only - in modern times females have a lot of options to shine, and do.

      depemnds on what you compare it with. they were pretty much the worst place for women to live in ancient europe in terms of equality but sure, some cultures treated women even worse. That aid its not like cultures didnt give women purpose and a place in their societies. But those roles, which is my point, usually barred them from "standing out" as they were usually at home taking care of children or literal sex slaves to some rich person and the few women who actually did hold power did it hidden from behind the scenes, as i said btw, or in a religious role as priest - which is the other option i refered to and afaik neither is true for ennoia
      In norse society one major reason women were treated pretty wll is that they had lots of brothers. Brothers willing to take action on her behalf. so you beat your wife, her brothers show up and beat you.

      which is also exactlyy the point i made on the seduction type women who always were highly influential in politics. through lovers, sons and patrons but that was apparently so sexist i got banned for it
      Females despite usually being barred from politics, did assert a lot of power in it nonetheless, charlemagne the great is a fantastic example how first his mother and then his wife shaped all his ruling so that he was more their puppet on the throne
      It was at times so bad, that say france ahd to ban mistresses in general cause apparently those women actually held more political power via proxy than the men in the actual public offices. Cause, heres a sexist thing, men tend to think with rtheir genitals and women know it and some are willing to exploit that

      and then we have the people in academia claiming women were always oppressed and never had any chance cause men are evil. so whos right?

      You have made some excellent points. I agree with you that it makes more sense if there were less female antedilluvians, not more. Most women in those days were probably sired in the heat of passion or if some male vampire was truly obsessed and didnt want to lose her to old age or sickness. Caine making Zillah makes sense to me because of his supposed obsession for her. But there is also the possibilty that some dude saw great potential in a female and sired her. Those instances would be rare but not impossible. Even in those days there might have been some forward thinking men that were ahead of their time.