Gender Question/Poll

[Gabrielles blades]

First, i still disagree with the language useage.
When X is "stronger" than Y, inversely it means Y is "weaker" than X.
Now yes you are saying its a comparison between gold and platinum both being very good, but it IS still putting down Y because of the wording.
Who cares if both are rare? it doesnt matter, when you make the comparison and say X is better than Y you are putting Y down. Doesnt matter how good Y is, Y will always be 2nd best in your eyes.

And that comparison you reveal between oscar and cheryl is just plain awful
i mean look at that girl, she appears to be more fat than muscle while the man is the opposite. If you are going to compare atleast do a more respectable comparison. She also weighs less than him.
And besides the point that the person chosen to compare against has a large disparage between the body fat percentage, you also are neglecting the disparage between their respective races. It might sound racist to say that, but it definately does seem a large proportion of the black male society is more heavily muscled than their respective white male counterparts; could be genetic, or mental - who knows.

As for those body indexes, they fail to account for different countries. In other countries the data would be completely askew because of the different genetics involved.

P.S. this does lead into the question of what is true strength.
For example, an ant is very small, and comparitively weak to a human, but even for all of its miniscule size it is able to lift many many times its body mass. No human is able to lift that many times their own mass except in dire circumstances where adrenaline lets you lift cars and such.

[IAmThumper]

Originally posted by Luvian: .... Just look at all the examples and opinions people gave in this thread. Men did get overrated and women did get underrated. The perfect example to this is when people kept comparing men to the perfect men, and women to some typical house wife. That's a totaly unfair comparison. quote: The simply fact is as long as these opinions exist (unchallenged) men and women will never be equal.

That's why I'm trying to make people accept both as equal, but as you can see, most people don't want to accept that.
[/QUOTE]I am not going to reread all of these huge posts (and quoting them would make this post HUGE) but I'm pretty sure no one intentionally has compared perfect men to average women. I certainly haven't. I think there is a certain degree of misinterpretation(on everyones part) happening here. (Read on)
I think people are trying to say the sexes aren't equal and it's naive to think so. I think we both agree that it's not wrong to accept the sexes as different as long as you don't treat the sexes different.

quote: I don't see any evidence that anyone is underestimating women here only being realistic and looking at the facts and their observations. I hope you are not continuing this argument simply for this belief.

Look again, and re-read my posts, and you should see. I gave lots of example already.
[/QUOTE]I think one you might be refering to is the van versus sports car debacle. If they chose a corvette and a trans am(?? I don't know cars) then people could argue for ever about which car was better and it wouldn't illustrate their point. They were just trying to say that men and women are in different strength classes. I would just say women can have (on a scale of 1-20) maybe 1-118.5) and men 1-20. I think it is just a poor choice for comparison since it kind of implied that men and women are in completely different classes(ie women 1-10, men 10-20). I can't and am not going to speak for them(maybe they did) but do you see what I mean?

quote: That girl is amazing. I would actually go so far as saying she has 17 or 18 strength (If anyone wanted to they could look it up in the rules!). But I think that in the real world women wouldn't get into the 1100) range which the AD&D game restricts to the truly exceptional.

Now that comment really annoyed me. I DID look into the rules. Where do you think I pulled my numbers from? What do you guys take me for?.

And yes, she is stroner than basic 18 str. She lifted 300 pounds, and the 151-75) range is 305, so I guess it's safe to assume she would be in that section today. [/QB][/QUOTE]I don't have the AD&D rule book. The last time I looked at the AD&D rule book was ten years ago. AND I meant the top range of 1ie. 95-100) not the whole 1-100 range. When I said 17-18 I thinking 17-1something). That is why I suggested someone look it up in the rules! So I was correct. I just did not write it well(I was lazy and in a hurry). Thank you for looking it up though. Here is a question for you then (since you have the books) has any man today actually gotten close to 1100) strength? I think someone(Thoran) posted a link to male stats.

[Zuvio]

Originally posted by Gabrielles blades: P.S. this does lead into the question of what is true strength. For example, an ant is very small, and comparitively weak to a human, but even for all of its miniscule size it is able to lift many many times its body mass. No human is able to lift that many times their own mass except in dire circumstances where adrenaline lets you lift cars and such.

This is only possible because of the way ants carry stuff around (they distribute the weight over the length of their bodies vs. humans who carry the entire weight on one center point) and because gravity doesn't pull as hard on the objects an ant can carry. In comparison gravity pulls much harder on any object that a human can carry.

Furthermore: if a human falls from the tenth floor, it will probably die. An ant however, being so lightweighted and not having an extreme gravity-pull on it, will most likely survive.

So this is really a bad comparison.

[JrKASperov]

Originally posted by Gabrielles blades: ...... Doesnt matter how good Y is, Y will always be 2nd best in your eyes.

When men and women are taken, and you look at physical strength on average, women ARE 2nd best. period.

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Luvian: quote: Originally posted by Thoran: Here's the conundrum... it's very difficult to make an argument without doing direct comparisons. My position is that I choose (for whatever strange reason) male characters for human fighters. This may be strange in a fantasy game but it's my choice. Now I'm told this is sexist because that's the same as saying women can't be fighters. So now the game is afoot. [img]smile.gif[/img] . The problem is not that you like fighter better as male. That your personal opinion and it's ok. The problem is that you said "I try to be realism" and then went on to say male make good martial classes, and priests are male, as there is a martial aspect to it. This imply that it's not realist to think women could be good in a martial class. That's what I found sexist about your comment. . I thought about this over the weekend and I think the problem is that I'm being too specific (because the discussion was regarding female characters). So a broader position statement would go something like this. I choose large characters for my fighter/martial classes... When I think of a good human fighter I think of close to 6'/200lbs of meatwall. If I'm building a Paladin or martial cleric (Knights Templar type char) I'm imagining a BIG person. This not only would remove 99% of women from the running, but probably most men too. A 5'5" 160lb. man would fare no better against a six foot 220lb guy than a woman. I come from a very physical family... I've got a 6'4" 250lb brother who is an absolute bruiser, I at a relative svelte 5'11" 200lbs know what it's like to go up against someone with that kind of height and mass advantage... and it aint pretty, What really ticks me off is I work out 5 days a week and he NEVER works out. So in a broader sense my choice is more mass centric than gender centric, I like big powerful fighters. Without comparing the relative physical characteristics of males and females It's impossible to argue anything, and comparisons inevitably come up with things one or the other is better at. I was going to drop the subject altoghter because I don't want to be negative towards the accomplishmenst of women, such as the girl who could snatch 300lbs (an impressive feat)... I would place her around 14 str (given that 18 is the maximum attainable strength for a human), this is an amazing high value (I'd place the average modern human under 10). It's no diminishment of her accomplishment to say there are guys out there who can snatch close to 500lbs, but I suppose the very nature of comparison means it's inevitably interpreted that way. . No, a character with 18 str can lift 255 pounds max, which mean she has more than 18 str. Someone with 14 str can lift 170 pounds max. . well you've done more research than I have... so I'll go with your assessment, that also means I have a 18 str (woot!!). The way I figured it I was an 11. I haven't played pen and paper D&D in many years... I figured 18 was the absolute strongest a human could be, in which case she'd have been a bit around 3/5's of max, and I was a touch over half. I agree genetics is a tricky business, and causal relationships are difficult to quantify when the effect is non-obvious (like spatial imaging and multitasking). BUT, physical performance is fairly easy to quantify and has been measured ad-nauseum... I don't beleive it's illogical to draw conclusions when the body of evidence is huge. . The problem is that you are dimishing the achievement of women. They are a lot better than you think, as I just said above. They can have 18 str. I said multiple time that my problem was not with peple saying men have more muscle potential. My problem is that people see women's muscle potential aslower as it really is. . I don't see people saying that women have low muscle potential, or underestimating their potential. Pretty much everyone would say that snatching 300lbs is damn strong. What people ARE saying is that women are smaller and less heavily muscled than men... and that's not under or overestimating, it's simply comparing. In the end I agree with you that it's fairly silly to apply reality to a fantasy setting... because once you do it becomes obvious how unrealistic such settings are, and that's not even considering the magical component. Just looking at real critters, my NWN Rogue killed a bear when he was low level (2 maybe)... and it's very unrealistic to believe a minimally trained human would be anything but crushed by even a small brown or black bear (in melee combat). I don't know what the stats are in D&D for bears but even small ones are much stronger than any human could ever be... and a large breed would be dangerous to a fully armed party. Anyway... this is good stuff and I'd like to add more, but sadly I've got to run... hopefully the thread will still be running tuesday when I get back! I'm back! It was a wet but relaxing weekend.

[/QUOTE]

[ 09-02-2003, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

[Luvian]

Originally posted by IAmThumper: Here is a question for you then (since you have the books) has any man today actually gotten close to 1100) strength? I think someone(Thoran) posted a link to male stats.

Well... it would be easier for me to quote the rulebook's strength chart than look for the strongest men and compare them, so I'll post the chart here and let you do the research. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

18/76-90 > 330
18/91-99 > 380
18/00 > 480
19 > 640

Originally posted by Thoran: (a long post)

Now that is a lot better post! One I think no one would have problems agreeing with!

[ 09-03-2003, 02:05 AM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

[Luvian]

I feel like I have said everything I wanted to say on this topic, and then some more, so I'll stop here.

Here's my conclusion about this topic. It seem to me people are very quick to claim they are not sexist and don't believe women are inferior. Well if so, then why were some people so offended by my statement that women could be as strong and fight as well as men they had to argue for 4 page on this subject, sometimes with lots of emotions and going close to flaming? Is it really to correct a fact, or deep down is it really to defend a bruised male ego? I know I would not argue that much for something I don't really care about...

It seem to me that lots of men in our society claim not to be sexist, but what they are really saying is. "I'm willing to stop publicly saing women are inferior, but only as long as no one try claiming they are my equal."

Maybe I'm wrong, but if so, then why do you all care so much? That's something worth thinking over, in my opinion. We humans are very good at deceiving ourselves.

[ 09-03-2003, 03:42 AM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

[Sigmar]

In roleplay games either pen and paper, online or computer games, do you play male or female characters? What's your own gender (ok so we can't always guess with a nickname!)

I like to roleplay Male characters, and I'm male.

If only one main character is it male or female (like NWN or BG2 etc) and why (if you don't know and always choose one or the other that's fine too)?

Male.

Do you alternate or always play one gender in games?

Always play one gender.

If you play a character opposite your own gender, was there a special reason for doing it or trying it out (ie: the game has different paths depending on it or you just had to try a 'romance mod' or somesuch?)?

None applicable. Now that I think about it I suppose I have missed out on a portion of some games by not playing through as a Female PC. I always felt however that playing through as a male PC enabled me to relate to what the character was experiencing.

[ 09-03-2003, 04:04 AM: Message edited by: Sigmar ]

[Nachtrafe]

I originally wrote this just before IW went down. So I cut/pasted it into a Hotmail to save for later. Ain't technology wonderful?

Originally posted by Gabrielles blades: First, i still disagree with the language useage. When X is "stronger" than Y, inversely it means Y is "weaker" than X. Now yes you are saying its a comparison between gold and platinum both being very good, but it IS still putting down Y because of the wording. Who cares if both are rare? it doesnt matter, when you make the comparison and say X is better than Y you are putting Y down. Doesnt matter how good Y is, Y will always be 2nd best in your eyes.

And this is wrong because??????? I'm sorry, but this is just another goofy catchecism of the wussy society that we live in now. What is wrong with admiring the strongest/fastest/best? Oh yeah...we might hurt the other guy's feelings. Too bloody bad! Life is about winners and losers, and no matter how many politically correct pinheads believe otherwise, it always will be. There's a reason X is the strongest/fastest/best, generally the fact that they work theis a$$eS off to get that way. I mean...does anyone every really remember the guys who LOST the SuperBowl? Or the Stanley Cup, or the Indy 500? Of course not! We admire WINNERS.

BTW GB...The whole point of a comparitive *IS* to point out that something is srtonger/better/faster. Again, the nature of reality is such that someone will always be better at some specific thing than someone else. Life sucks, get a helmet. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]

And that comparison you reveal between oscar and cheryl is just plain awful i mean look at that girl, she appears to be more fat than muscle while the man is the opposite. If you are going to compare atleast do a more respectable comparison. She also weighs less than him. And besides the point that the person chosen to compare against has a large disparage between the body fat percentage, you also are neglecting the disparage between their respective races. It might sound racist to say that, but it definately does seem a large proportion of the black male society is more heavily muscled than their respective white male counterparts; could be genetic, or mental - who knows.

I was using the person that Luvian chose to make an example of, the Hayworth girl. I looked on the page that he used as a source, found a male athlete of similar age/size, and compared the two. If you will note, even though he is 2 inches shorter than her, he is still stronger.

Re the 'fat' comment...have you ever looked at a professional weightlifter? Not a bodybuilder, but a weightlifter. Most of them are fat. Mostly because of the MASSIVE amounts of calories they ingest to increase muscle mass. Done be fooled, there are soem *SERIOUS* muscles under that fat. But, unlike a bodybuilder, who is going for chiseled perfection, and pure mass, the weightlifter is going for explosive, all-or-nothing lifting power, and that calls for a different kind of training philosophy.

As for those body indexes, they fail to account for different countries. In other countries the data would be completely askew because of the different genetics involved.

True, those are a snapshot of the US. But, if you were to take a snapshot of other countries...heck, just watch a few shows on the Discovery Channel you will find plenty of evidence to substiantiate the fact that men are taller, broader, and stronger than women, on the average.

P.S. this does lead into the question of what is true strength. For example, an ant is very small, and comparitively weak to a human, but even for all of its miniscule size it is able to lift many many times its body mass. No human is able to lift that many times their own mass except in dire circumstances where adrenaline lets you lift cars and such.

LOL...Now now, we're just talking about humans. Compared to ants, all humans are WEAK!! Not (comparitively) WEAKER...Just (absolutely) *WEAK*! [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Thoran]

Don't let that whole ant comparison snow you guys... if an ant was scaled up to the same mass as a human it would collapse under its own weight. Comparing very small creatures to large creature is typically done in a way that makes the small creature look extremely powerful... this is primarily because mass increases as the cube of the size wheras strength increases as the square of the size. I think you see it so much because it sounds impressive to say an ant can lift 12 times it's body weight and other factoids about small creatures.