Gender Question/Poll

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by ladyzekke: I remember playing BGII with Jaheira in my party, and when doing a particular Harper quest, Jaheira turns to my main character (Female Paladin) and says "Oh Zekke you beautiful bastard!" LOL. Errr, bastard? Guess the game didn't make a response for female main characters LOL.

Soooooo...you'd rather she called you a Beautiful Bitch? HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE

[Attalus]

Just for the record, a bastard *can* be male or female. It's original meaning was "a child born out of wedlock." [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Thoran]

"Just for the record, a bastard *can* be male or female. It's original meaning was 'a child born out of wedlock.'" Or anyone who's killed Kenny.

[ 08-27-2003, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

[Luvian]

Originally posted by Nachtrafe: OK...I can see that 'potential' is what you were referring to. However...you're still wrong. [img]smile.gif[/img] It has been pointed out by others(so I'm not going to rehash it) that when you take women and men bodybuilders, both of whom follow the same regimen or physical training, and spend the same amount of time working out...the woman is smaller and less physically strong. It's simple genetics Luvian. Nothing sexist, rude, demeaning, or incorrect(unless you count politically) about it.

Actually, I explained in the post after the one you quoted that I was talking about the theorical potential of women as a "species". Not the average housewife. Of course today's typical women is not made to be a fighter. But that's because of our society's current taste in women, not a genetic limit.

quote: I wasn't really serious about the sexist remark. I wasn't arguing about sexism, I was arguing over the nature of men and women. On a sexist scale of 1 to 10, were 1 is the less, I'd rate it as 1.

Erm...then why did you use the word "Sexist"? This is a message board dude. [img]smile.gif[/img] We can only react to what you *type*, and, if you type the word "Sexist", then we have to assume you *mean* "Sexist". If you didn't mean it, USE ANOTHER WORD! [/QUOTE]My sexist comment was directed to Thoran, when he said it was unrealistic to think women could make good fighters (or even cleric "because there is a martial aspect to the cleric role"), and that it was unrealistic to think a medieval women could have a "18 str score".

It IS sexist to say women can not be good fighters. And it IS sexist to say women can not have "18 str". I looked in the 2nd player's handbook, and the max press of a 18 str character is 255 pounds. A very quick search on google showed me a teen that lifted 300 pounds, and she is certainly not the strongest women in the world. She is now 19, she had won 3 gold medal by the time she was 16 years old.

quote: That was exactly my point. Strength is really irellevent in a fight compared to agility, flexibility, and focus. Thanks you for agreeing with me. That's why I think women are as good fighters as men. . If you re-read my posts, you will see I was saying two things. First, I said strength is not really important when judging what make a good fighter.

Erm....no, again, you're wrong. Strength *IS* relavent, so long as you're talking about it in the right context. All else being *EQUAL*(skill level, training, mental focus, etc), the stronger person will win the fight 99 times out of 100. What I was trying to point out is that, this person, the Aikidoka that I sparred against, was superbly trained, has absolute mental focus, and was a wholly admirable combatant. But, if I had had equal training, spent all of the years that she had mastering her Art, and then sparred against her...well, I would have won 9 falls out of 10...because I'm bigger and stronger.[/QUOTE]I didn't say it was not relevant, I said it was less relevent. (Edit: I re-read my post, and I see my wording could be confusing. I meant it was not as important.) Sure, in the example you give, when both person are equal in everything but one is stronger, the strongest person will win, that is obvious. But people are rarely equal. I said strength is simply less relevent. Just as you said in your example, agility, training and focus are a lot more important. The person with those qualities will win most of the time over someone stronger, but lacking in those.


I said lots of things in this thread, and it seem some of you are mixing them all in one thing. So I'll as a reminder I'll make a summary I said:

-I said I think considering women as weak and unable to fight is sexist.
-I said I think women have the genetic capability to become as strong as men, and who knows, maybe even stronger.
-I said women can fight as well as any men, and I said agility, training and flexibility are more important than strength alone to be sucessfull in a fight.

Those opinions are similar but are still different, and when the people of this thread mix them up together it really annoy me. If some of you want to discuss with me on these, then discuss them one at a time, and not in one idea. It's mixing them all together and confusing everything, and I don't like that.

[ 08-27-2003, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

[Deejax]

Originally posted by Luvian: -I said I think women have the genetic capability to become as strong as men, and who knows, maybe even stronger.

I'm still a little unsure about what you mean exactly.
Do you mean that if tomorrow a girl is born she could become the strongest person in the world if she is raised in a certain way?

[IAmThumper]

Oh man why are you going guys doing this to me(LOL)! There is a lot going on in my life right now which is affecting my language/words and my tone. Also I've been typing Thoran alot when I mean to type Luvian so look out. AND once again CloudyBringer I'm sorry.

And for the record, I found Nataile Barnet to more appealing to me. I really dislike Barbie kind of women.

Yeah I think Barbie women aren't appealing either. (A natural women would have been a better example). There is a part of me that likes fake breasts but it's just so unnatural. Part of my brain likes and another finds it unnatural so the end result is it confuses my brain so much it makes me ill. Anyway....

Men's genes have been selected to allow faster and larger muscle growth and most wome were not, but that does not mean it could never happen.

Are you arguing about in the future or right now?

I'm saying that RIGHT NOW men DO have a genetic advantage to gaining muscle mass. No one seems to refute this.

Are up saying if we took the average man and the average women and started training them at the age of ten the woman could get just as strong as the man. Take two glasses and start filling them with water. Fill one at 1 1/2 drops per second and the other a 1 drop per second. After a minute which one has more water. I'm saying (ON AVERAGE) no matter how hard a woman trains a man training just as hard will get bigger muscles. I'm saying the rate at which the glasses get filled depends on the genes (sigh. ftr not that glasses have genes). Sure if a woman trains as hard as she could she might get 1 1/2 to 2 but if a man trained as hard as he could he might get 2 1/2.

Sure, slim women are actually the most popular, but it does not mean all women are like that. There are bigger women, there are stronger women...

We're not talking about some women and some men. We are talking about the average. I'm not saying all men are stronger than all women. (That's just crazy talk)

I won't believe that if for the next generation if there was no social pressure for women to look any particular way that women would be just as strong as men. We're talking about thousands (perhaps millions!) of years of evolution. We're not talking about the future we're talking about right now.

I don't think anyone is being sexist either for the record. But Thoran was, perhaps jokingly, called sexist and so was The Hierophant. The whole point I have been trying to make was that they were not being sexist and the reason why they have been called sexist is due to radical feminism brainwashing. The reason they were called sexist is they said that men were better at something than women. It wasn't the position that men are better fighters that was attacked it was the position that men are stronger. If it was proposed that men are better fighters because they are hairier I could understand but the evidence that men are bigger and stronger is all around.

I really dislike the negative langauge: women lack, weak etc. I'm not saying women are weak. I'm not saying women lack. I'm saying men are stronger and possess certain genes more suited to build bigger stronger muscles. Saying men are strong is not the same as saying women are weak. It's not the same thing.

I use positive terms to describe men and it gets turned around and is used in the negative implying I'm being negative towards women which is simply not true. The use of langauge here is just another example of how society has been brain-washed into thinking anything pro-men is anti-women.

I haven't heard anything about this from you so I'll just ask. I pose this question to anyone not just Luvian.
Do you think that it's possible that you are to some degree brain-washed to think this way?

And man-oh-man-oh-man why do my posts get so darn huge!!!

[Luvian]

Originally posted by Deejax: quote: Originally posted by Luvian: -I said I think women have the genetic capability to become as strong as men, and who knows, maybe even stronger.

I'm still a little unsure about what you mean exactly.
Do you mean that if tomorrow a girl is born she could become the strongest person in the world if she is raised in a certain way? [/QUOTE]No, I mean that tomorow, if most of the guy on earth decided they liked strong muscular women better, and that slim women were ugly, men would mate with strong muscular women. If we kept that up for generations, women might be as strong and have as much testosterone as men do today.

Basically, what I'm saying is that women today are weaker than men because for the last 400 years or so, slim women have been the most popular, so they were the one to mate more often, and they are the one that passed there genes around the most. Before that time, women were stronger than they are today.

While most women today are weaker than men, it does not mean that there is not some exception, either.

I wasn't even trying to discuss that, but for some reason, the discussion made me say it. It's not even important to the discussion and I'm not sure why so much people want to argue about this. To me, this is even more off-topic than the off-topic discussion we were having, which was about if it was possible for a medieval women to have 18 str, and if they could be good fighter classes. At least that was what I wasted to talk about.


So to get back on the discussion, yes, I think women can have 18 str. Why? simply because it has happened already. Just look at the link in my last post, and consider that in the medieval age, women were already stronger than thei are today. And even if there was no such links, there are always exceptions, and adventurers are already exceptions, so why not? Apparently it's acceptable to be the son of a god, it's acceptable to have innate magical powers, but it's not acceptable for a women to be strong?

If someone is willing to believe in magic, orcs, demigods, and elves, but is not willing to believe in strong fighting women, then that person has a very bad vision of women. That is sexist, which is the second off-topic discussion we were having...

[ 08-27-2003, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

[Cloudbringer]

Oh my! This is surely one of my longer threads! No worries, IamThumper (love the nick! ), it's a bit off the original topic but related and it's a good thread!

[Luvian]

I'll split your post in two replies, to adress the two ideas seperatly.

Originally posted by IAmThumper: Oh man why are you going guys doing this to me(LOL)! There is a lot going on in my life right now which is affecting my language/words and my tone. Also I've been typing Thoran alot when I mean to type Luvian so look out. AND once again CloudyBringer I'm sorry. quote: And for the record, I found Nataile Barnet to more appealing to me. I really dislike Barbie kind of women.[/qb]

Yeah I think Barbie women aren't appealing either. (A natural women would have been a better example). There is a part of me that likes fake breasts but it's just so unnatural. Part of my brain likes and another finds it unnatural so the end result is it confuses my brain so much it makes me ill. Anyway....[/QUOTE]At least we agree on something...

quote: Men's genes have been selected to allow faster and larger muscle growth and most wome were not, but that does not mean it could never happen.

Are you arguing about in the future or right now?[/QUOTE]I was talking about genetic potential in theory, without regard to time.

I'm saying that RIGHT NOW men DO have a genetic advantage to gaining muscle mass. No one seems to refute this.

I don't either

Are up saying if we took the average man and the average women and started training them at the age of ten the woman could get just as strong as the man. Take two glasses and start filling them with water. Fill one at 1 1/2 drops per second and the other a 1 drop per second. After a minute which one has more water. I'm saying (ON AVERAGE) no matter how hard a woman trains a man training just as hard will get bigger muscles. I'm saying the rate at which the glasses get filled depends on the genes (sigh. ftr not that glasses have genes). Sure if a woman trains as hard as she could she might get 1 1/2 to 2 but if a man trained as hard as he could he might get 2 1/2.

Of course, this is a very good example of the average.

quote: Sure, slim women are actually the most popular, but it does not mean all women are like that. There are bigger women, there are stronger women...

We're not talking about some women and some men. We are talking about the average. I'm not saying all men are stronger than all women. (That's just crazy talk)[/QUOTE]I dislike eliminating everyone outside of the average. By doing so, we elimitate all our diversity and our achievment as human beings. You remove all the Einchtein and Bruce Lee and leave only the "mediocre" and boring. In my opinion, any logic based on the average is flawed, as it does not take into account our real nature. Averages themselves are flawed. If a school's average grade for a test is 50%, there will probably be a lot more result between 0 to 40% and between 60% and 100% than there will be that are around 50%.

I won't believe that if for the next generation if there was no social pressure for women to look any particular way that women would be just as strong as men. We're talking about thousands (perhaps millions!) of years of evolution. We're not talking about the future we're talking about right now.

As I said in other posts, not long ago men looked for big boned women with big hip. Almost all of them were like that, and farmer women were even heartier and stronger. That was not long ago, and yet today, most women are slim and don't even have hip.

And by the way, I didn't say no social pressure, I said there would be social pressure for women to be strong. I didn't talk about only one generation, either.

[Luvian]

Originally posted by IAmThumper: I don't think anyone is being sexist either for the record. But Thoran was, perhaps jokingly, called sexist and so was The Hierophant. The whole point I have been trying to make was that they were not being sexist and the reason why they have been called sexist is due to radical feminism brainwashing. The reason they were called sexist is they said that men were better at something than women. It wasn't the position that men are better fighters that was attacked it was the position that men are stronger. If it was proposed that men are better fighters because they are hairier I could understand but the evidence that men are bigger and stronger is all around.

Actually, I'm the one who said their opinion was sexist, and I can assure you it was more about them saying women could not be good fighter than about them saying they are not as strong as men. If they simply said that women don't develop muscle as easily and would not have said they don't make good fighter, I would not even have posted.

I really dislike the negative langauge: women lack, weak etc. I'm not saying women are weak. I'm not saying women lack. I'm saying men are stronger and possess certain genes more suited to build bigger stronger muscles. Saying men are strong is not the same as saying women are weak. It's not the same thing. I use positive terms to describe men and it gets turned around and is used in the negative implying I'm being negative towards women which is simply not true. The use of langauge here is just another example of how society has been brain-washed into thinking anything pro-men is anti-women.

As far as I saw, I'm the only one that called people sexist in this thread, and I did not call you sexist, so I'm assuming this is something that's been bothering you long before reading this thread. This is apparently a problem you will have to take care of yourself, as I can't speak for the other people that might have called you sexist.

I agree that men and women each have their strength and weakness. The only reason I posted was because it was said that is was unrealistic to have fighting women (which is totaly false in my opinion, as seen my other posts). And that it was unrealistic to think they could have the max starting D&D strength. (Which is also false, as it is possible, not for the average women, but I never talked about the average women).

Here's what I had to say about this two posts ago:

"Apparently it's acceptable to be the son of a god, it's acceptable to have innate magical powers, but it's not acceptable for a women to be strong?

If someone is willing to believe in magic, orcs, demigods, and elves, but is not willing to believe in strong fighting women, then that person has a very bad vision of women. That is sexist"

I haven't heard anything about this from you so I'll just ask. I pose this question to anyone not just Luvian. Do you think that it's possible that you are to some degree brain-washed to think this way?

I really don't think I am brainwashed. This discussion is mostly black and white, and is even more confusing considering there are lots of different person adding their opinion, so of course I might come out as a little radical I guess. But if we were discussion privately one on one in a chat, the conversation would be a lot different.