Gender Prejudice

[Troller]

I don't think all the male here, for example, can match trained female martial artists.

Not only strength but also timing is the key for maximized impact. If you include submission holds, it also negates quite a huge part of sheer physical strength, too.

Hell yeah man, those women fighting in MMA nowadays they could beat up a lot of strong men, and really, it has nothing to do with all the testosterone injected in them, it's just raw PMS power!

[Aysir]

Again with the strength issue ?

[Wombat]

Again with the strength issue ?

My point was: I'm quite happy with the presentation of femininity in Arcanum but some female players seem to be unhappy with it, wanting to make their characters more combat-capable. Defining female roles too strictly would make some people unhappy. So, letting the players give rooms for their characters would be necessary. Also, some NPCs/groups can be heavily prejudiced, reflecting various views, but, probably, they should be more in background rather than being always around the player characters.

[Aysir]

I just remembered that Obsidian kind of handled this before with the Legion in Vegas. Only you weren't really barred from anything, just talked down at constantly.

[TrashMan]

Sorry it is a stereotype because it implies that no woman can be as strong as a strong man which simply is not true. There may always be men stronger than she is but they will be very, very, strong. Yes, the strong woman would be an exception but exceptions do exist.

 

There won't be a few men stronger - there will be thousands of men stronger.

 

I'm sorry, but it's not a stereotype. You keep harping on the average, as if we're comparing the above-average woman only with (below)average men.

No, she will be competing against above-averge men. That's the whole point.

 

Just like couch potatoes aren't athletes, neither are good soldiers couch potatoes.

 

Sure, if you bring out a women athlete, she will outperform me, because I don't practice anything (except sitting in the office for half a day). However, the physical potential is there. If I were to train as hard as she, I would outperofm her. then agian, I would be an athlete then.

 

The differences aren't minor as some of you think. Males have a higher physical ceeling they cna reach. Both on average and in the extreemes (especially extreemes).

 

Sports pretty much prove it.

Science proves it.

Some just refuse to accept it.

Edited October 3, 2012 by TrashMan

[Troller]

Problem in making comparison with atlethes is that, most people are ignorants in this subject and just disregard the HUGE amount of PED's they take to be able to perform in the way they do.

[Azrayel]

Sorry it is a stereotype because it implies that no woman can be as strong as a strong man which simply is not true. There may always be men stronger than she is but they will be very, very, strong. Yes, the strong woman would be an exception but exceptions do exist.

 

There won't be a few men stronger - there will be thousands of men stronger.

 

I'm sorry, but it's not a stereotype. You keep harping on the average, as if we're comparing the above-average woman only with (below)average men.

No, she will be competing against above-averge men. That's the whole point.

 

Just like couch potatoes aren't athletes, neither are good soldiers couch potatoes.

 

Sure, if you bring out a women athlete, she will outperform me, because I don't practice anything (except sitting in the office for half a day). However, the physical potential is there. If I were to train as hard as she, I would outperofm her. then agian, I would be an athlete then.

 

The differences aren't minor as some of you think. Males have a higher physical ceeling they cna reach. Both on average and in the extreemes (especially extreemes).

 

Sports pretty much prove it.

Science proves it.

Some just refuse to accept it.

 

As someone whose brother did a lot of fencing and who himself has done quite a bit of martial arts and just general sparring, as well as seeing actual people in real fights…

 

Raw strength is not the dominant factor in hand to hand combat unless neither has skill, in which case it's often the one with the initiative or speed that wins.

 

With weapons? You're playing a whole new ball game buster.

 

Also: science? Sports? We live in the real all-human world; how Drow and Dwarf females are compared to Human males or those of their own species in this world has not yet been stated, and indeed if humans can use magic could there not also be other physiological differences between them and us?

 

I think we should stop thinking about this as real life guys, we're not making a Mount & Blade contender or DnD AmaA-- brand new iP, brand new world.

 

[Guts]

Sure, if you bring out a women athlete, she will outperform me, because I don't practice anything (except sitting in the office for half a day). However, the physical potential is there. If I were to train as hard as she, I would outperofm her. then agian, I would be an athlete then.

 

It's not only the simple case of "training harder" though. You need to have the build (ie. genes) to be a world-class athlete. A heavily build man for example won't become the next 100m world champion no matter how hard he trains. Or a short guy with short legs won't be much of a high jumper.

 

You really cannot say that just because you are a man, you'd be a better athlete than ANY woman on the planet.

[Teslacrashed]

a crapload of nonsense backed with anecdotes from youtube and historical fantasy.

 

0.o

 

Look, I'll back up that females can be just as strong as men, and just as combat effective, but that sir, is a piss poor argument for such.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Teslacrashed

[Thulean]

 

 

Also: science? Sports? We live in the real all-human world; how Drow and Dwarf females are compared to Human males or those of their own species in this world has not yet been stated, and indeed if humans can use magic could there not also be other physiological differences between them and us?

 

I think we should stop thinking about this as real life guys, we're not making a Mount & Blade contender or DnD AmaA-- brand new iP, brand new world.

 

That same argument should be used in the arms and armor thread. 'Reality' seems to be applied inconsistently by people.

 

No boob armor or chain mail bikinis because that isn't realistic! Women not as strong as men? Who cares if that is the case in the real world. This is a game!

[Troller]

Also: science? Sports? We live in the real all-human world; how Drow and Dwarf females are compared to Human males or those of their own species in this world has not yet been stated, and indeed if humans can use magic could there not also be other physiological differences between them and us?

 

I think we should stop thinking about this as real life guys, we're not making a Mount & Blade contender or DnD AmaA-- brand new iP, brand new world.

 

That same argument should be used in the arms and armor thread. 'Reality' seems to be applied inconsistently by people.

 

No boob armor or chain mail bikinis because that isn't realistic! Women not as strong as men? Who cares if that is the case in the real world. This is a game!

careful with that opinion man, last thread I saw it got locked and the guy saying it got a warning

[draft1983]

So it's a setting with magic and monsters but the realism you absolutely need is sexism?

 

No thanks -.-

 

Women will play this game too and I don't want 'Hey remember you are not as good as guys!' thrown in my face in my escapism as well as real life. I don't want restrictions on my characters just because they have ovaries.

 

It's more due tot he weaker arms, not the ovaries!

[Wombat]

0.o

 

Look, I'll back up that females can be just as strong as men, and just as combat effective, but that sir, is a piss poor argument for such.

It's actually true that one of my acquaintances broke his leg bone by a single hit of a female martial artist and such accident is not a totally unusual thing. More minor injuries are usual for him. You could check some female martial artists and ask yourself if you can beat them. Also, many historians believes Tomoe existed while admitting some exaggerations. You could check different sources for this one, too.

[Wintersong]

No boob armor or chain mail bikinis because that isn't realistic! Women not as strong as men? Who cares if that is the case in the real world. This is a game!

 

Still waiting for someone explaining to me how a chainmail bikini works to protect the navel of the woman. May be magnets in the shiny parts that protect the soft parts.

 

Bonuses based on sex are bad because they hurt butts. Race based bonuses on the other hand not. Why not? If I want to play a human Archer but humans don't get bonus to dexterity but elves do, according to some people, I should feel obligued to play Elven Archer because they get a bonus to dexterity.

 

The thing is, the bonus to dexterity for the elves just reflects the tendency of elves to be more dexterous than humans. Genetically (natural selection or whatever) the average elf is more likely to be more dexterous than the average human. But that doesn't mean that there aren't any humans that are actually more dexterous than elves. That doesn't mean that I cannot make a human Archer and have him be good at it.

 

Drow in D&D 3E? All had +2 Dexterity and -2 Constitution. Males? +2 Intelligence (favored class? wizard). Females? +2 Charisma (favored class: cleric). Why the differences? Female are dominant and strong willed (blind zealots of their goddess) and males get the intelligence thingy (cunning? male fighters need intelligence too?). By the way, no one cries because male and female drows got different racial bonuses based on sex.

[draft1983]

But do you do have to take into consideration how social factors/environment affects sexual dimorphism.

 

If you asked the same question about the physical capabilities of men and women 100 years ago, there was an even bigger difference. If you asked the question during the Victorian Age, there would be no comparison at all.

 

Ever heard "form follows function?". Social roles are not just a product of someone thinking "hey, this would be great". There's practical reasons behind it.

 

Now I know some may think that the following will be chauvinistic/insulting. It is not. It's how things are. Physical prowes has no bearing on the individuals worth, so if anyone thinks I'm demeaning women or something, that is only because they place so much worth in physical attributes themselves.

Do women think men are worth less because they aren't as good at multi-tasking? Do you hear us ever complaining about it?

 

 

moving on...

 

Let's take for example Delta Force. You have to be a prfect human speciment to get in. Recruits are usually taken from other special forces (whos tests are grueling as hell). And even then only 1 out of 10 pass. You heard me.

Out of 100 special forces candidates only 10 pass.

 

 

If you want some numbers (taken from the CRC data)

Men have 40% higher upper body strength and roughly 20-30% higher lower body strength.

During boot camp and regular training, women have shown to be twice as likely to sustain injuries (from training) because they have to strain themselves harder to keep it with the male counterparts. Most of those injuries are back injuries. And those are nothing to sneeze by, I assure you.

 

You may think that physical strength or endurance don't have a big role in modern combat. But they do.

If you have to run from cover to cover - speed matters.

If you have to carry a wounded friend or lob grenades - strength matters. A lot.

If you have to walk 70 miles across the desert in full comabt gear - everything matters.

 

Women can be decent, even great soldiers, I said so before.

But they are at a disadvantage and will remain so, no matter how hard they try and train. Becasue there will always be men who will train just as hard, and with their inborn advantage they will outperform a woman.

 

And I never denied the fact that men and women are physically different. Nor did I make any statements about the worth of men or women based on their physical differences. My point was that the amount of difference has been affected by social factors.

 

The statistics on the difference between men and women are not "absolute" differences because they are gathered in societies in which men and women have significantly different upbringings. The only way to know the real difference in physical, as well as mental, capabilities between men and women would be to conduct an experiment in which a sample of male and female infants are raised in the exact same environment and treated exactly the same. Of course, that's not ethical nor is it really possible.

 

However, there have been societies in which men and women have been treated more similarly. For example, in some cultures that had slavery, many female slaves had very similar upbringings, similar diets, and had to perform the same type and amount of hard labor as the men. In fact, women were expected to maintain that level of labor for the first few months of pregnancy. If you took those people and compared their physical capabilities, would you expect the same amount of difference compared to men and women in today's society?

 

sorry, but me and my sister were both raised exactly the same way, the same home, the same parents, the same food, the same education - and im about 10x as strong as her, and we have the same genes. I really do not understand your point?? i mean really, anyone trying to argue that men on avarage are not along way infront of women in the strength department needs to go down the pub and have an arm wrestling competition.

[Ieo]

Also: science? Sports? We live in the real all-human world; how Drow and Dwarf females are compared to Human males or those of their own species in this world has not yet been stated, and indeed if humans can use magic could there not also be other physiological differences between them and us?

 

I think we should stop thinking about this as real life guys, we're not making a Mount & Blade contender or DnD AmaA-- brand new iP, brand new world.

 

That same argument should be used in the arms and armor thread. 'Reality' seems to be applied inconsistently by people.

 

No boob armor or chain mail bikinis because that isn't realistic! Women not as strong as men? Who cares if that is the case in the real world. This is a game!

 

This seems like a reasonable point on its face.

 

Except that comparing a purely metagaming social implementation of armor rooted in decades-old sexist (yes, I used the word) tradition of titillation for an extremely enclosed nerdy male gamer subculture with little access to the female sex is hardly the same as an extrapolated in-game combat implementation taking into account the additional female gamer audience of this day and age (Obsidian still has to consider their current target audience). To me, that's like comparing puppies to pineapples. Also, that armour discussion is in the realm of physics.

 

That said, while I am personally in favor of minor 'stat' differences between male and female counterparts in the PE world (not too much, like 1 pt off STR to 1 pt in DEX or something in early BG terms), because this variable is in the realm of biology*, which has a primary initial effect on that sort of thing, Azrayel does bring up the extremely legitimate point that most everyone is talking strictly on human terms. Obsidian has the creative freedom to mix it up concerning races.

 

Maybe the men become pregnant in one race. Maybe they lay eggs. Maybe the female sex is actually stronger. Maybe one race does require little armour because they have hides or scales or something. Maybe the mammary glands are located somewhere unexpected ( ).

 

In terms of prejudice exhibited in-game, considering the depth of culture I expect from Avellone, I expect to see the full gamut of various things among race, sex, size, coloration, whatever. It would be even better, however, if our PC can have an effect, however small, on such views if we try.

 

* Traditional definitions:

Sex = the biology of the organism

Gender = the social role derived from outward sex characteristics

[TrashMan]

Also: science? Sports? We live in the real all-human world; how Drow and Dwarf females are compared to Human males or those of their own species in this world has not yet been stated, and indeed if humans can use magic could there not also be other physiological differences between them and us?

 

I havn't been talking about Drow or Dwarves, now have I?

 

Nor have I been saying "do it like this in the game". I'm telling you how it is in real life.

 

 

 

 

Sure, if you bring out a women athlete, she will outperform me, because I don't practice anything (except sitting in the office for half a day). However, the physical potential is there. If I were to train as hard as she, I would outperofm her. then agian, I would be an athlete then.

 

It's not only the simple case of "training harder" though. You need to have the build (ie. genes) to be a world-class athlete. A heavily build man for example won't become the next 100m world champion no matter how hard he trains. Or a short guy with short legs won't be much of a high jumper.

 

You really cannot say that just because you are a man, you'd be a better athlete than ANY woman on the planet.

 

...

That is not what I am saying.

 

I was giving an example ( and I happen to have great genes, thank you very much. .. I have friends into sports and body-building who wish they had my body build. They also say it's wasted on me, which is true... )

 

If you want another example - Serena Williams (best female tennis player) had a match with a random guy (I think he was 200th or something). He wiped the floor with her.

Ther's other examples - footbal and basketballs male and female teams have had matches. It ended bad with female teams, every time.

 

***

 

But you know what?.. It was a mistake to get involved in this thread anyway. It's always the same thing.

[cuteLittleRabbit]

Can the people derailing this topic to "men are stronger than women" please start their own thread?

 

Thanks!

[Aysir]

There's two arguments going on here and one of them has nothing to do with the game. Neither of them is answering or contributing to the OP at all. Racial and Gender stat modifiers is a different issue to character reactions changing based on those things.

[DreamingVoid]

Can the people derailing this topic to "men are stronger than women" please start their own thread?

 

Thanks!

 

Was about the say the same. I think a lot of people ingored OPs post and just went in all guns blazing.

[draft1983]

Perhaps someone shouldn't bring ridiculous, feminist ideals into the thread then??? just maybe?? m'kay?

Edited October 3, 2012 by draft1983

[Wombat]

Can the people derailing this topic to "men are stronger than women" please start their own thread?

 

Thanks!

Yeah, the OP brought up with the topic of how social views to different sexes could be treated. While I agree with dealing with sexuality beyond the romance/male fantasy format would be interesting, even good intended "features" may backfire if the system steps on some kinds of players. Then again, I haven't heard any complaints about the Legion in FONV.

[draft1983]

However, there have been societies in which men and women have been treated more similarly. For example, in some cultures that had slavery, many female slaves had very similar upbringings, similar diets, and had to perform the same type and amount of hard labor as the men. In fact, women were expected to maintain that level of labor for the first few months of pregnancy. If you took those people and compared their physical capabilities, would you expect the same amount of difference compared to men and women in today's society?

 

Pretty much, yes.

 

Potential is there, and that doesn't change depending on social factors (which stem at least partially from it).

Again, look at the top athletes or any sport there is.

 

 

If a female PC is the top performer among woman, then the male PC is hte top performer among males, and should still physicly outperform the female PC...if you want to be realistic about it.

 

And you still have to keep in mind that those athletes were not raised the same way. Diet, exercise, leisure activities, etc., diverge between boys and girls very early. For example, the suggested caloric intake are different for boys and girls just one year old, when there's practically no sexual dimorphism. A one year boy is certainly not stronger than a one year old girl and yet it's suggested that one year old boys have a 5% greater caloric intake than girls. A 5 year old boy is not likely to be much stronger than a 5 year old girl and yet it's suggested that 5 year old boys have a 10% greater caloric intake than girls. That difference increases to about 15% at the beginning of puberty, up to 20% during and after that.

 

So while there may be a 40% difference in upper body strength and 30% difference in lower body strength between men and women in this society, would the difference be that great in a society in which men and women were raised the same?

 

Are you seriously bringing your own conspiracy theory into this topic?? yeah because the reason women are said to intake less calories is to make sure they stay smaller and weaker than men!! omg, male domination, through how much calories the human body consumes?? ignore the fact it's due to the motabilism, hormones and men generally have a higher body mass index and higher % of muscle. yeah its because men want women to stay weaker?? REALLY? Women that follow your rule end up FAT.

 

And its views like this that are the reason for men staying in power

Edited October 3, 2012 by draft1983

[Pidesco]

It seems like this thread has run its course. Locked