Gender Question/Poll

[Thoran]

Wow this is a marathon thread, interesting so far tho.

OK... regarding the sexist thing... here was the "Thoran is a sexist" post from earlier:

Originally posted by Luvian: quote: Originally posted by Thoran: When I play human characters I try to be realistic... -if I'm playing a fighter, ranger or paladin it's a male, -thief/rogue it could be male or female -sorcerer/wizard is either male or female -clerics tend to be male (because there is a martial aspect to the cleric role) but I do play female clerics on occasion too. Once you throw in other races it depends on the race... I think D&D Half-Orc and Dwarf females would make great fighters, and I don't think either of the elf or gnome genders would.

Well this really is sexist. Sure, men on average are stronger, but women can fight as well as any men. Just go at a martial arts or fencing competition, you'll se women are as good an men. Saying women can't fight well is the same as saying they can't work as well as men.

They make good soldiers, too. They have some very good qualities for that. [/QUOTE]OK... the basis for the judgement of "sexist" appears to be the idea that men are better fighters than women, the justification is that at marital arts or fencing competitions women are as good as men.

I believe the justification is false, I've been to lots of fencing competitions, men and women compete seperately because it would be unfair otherwise, men are:
Bigger - longer reach
Stronger - faster and more powerful attacks

I never said women CAN'T fight, I said that men are better fighters. I believe this is because of the structural/genetic differences between the genders... not any failing of women.

there is no disconnect between strength and speed/agility... they are all intertwined in a highly trained athlete (or soldier). A man swinging a 3lb blade will hit faster, harder, for longer, have a longer reach, and subsequently have many more options for dealing with a female opponent. Add to this the fact that men have thicker skin and heavier bones(durability) and I don't think it's illogical to conclude that men are better fighters. I agree with your assessment that given the fantasy nature of the game, there's nothing wrong with assuming women can be 18str... but my caveat in my post is that I try to be realistic regarding humans when I play (call it an idiosyncracy), and given that caveat my assessment is correct.

am I a sexist for stating the obvious?

eastern martial arts is not an area of interest, but I believe that was addressed earlier by someone... when it comes to physical combat, I don't believe women can compete on equal footing with men. I stand by my assessment, even in the "olden days" when women were stronger than they are today they didn't fight because men were stronger still and the demands of combat were extreme. If anything, modern technology has allowed women to excel at combat by removing that physical impediment in most circumstances... so women today have a great advantage over their stronger counterparts from centuries past... fighting isn't the physically demanding endeavor it used to be.

I was just talking to a buddy who's daughter is an F18 pilot, and in that sort of combat, where endurance and mental agility are paramount, women can and do compete equally with men. In fact I tend to thing their smaller stature will give them an advantage in advanced fighters (less distance to pump blood under high-g conditions. There is the question of spatial imaging (a male advantage), but by the same token there's information overload (a female advantage). All told it will be very interesting to see how women do in these high performance fighters, becuase both men and women have different assets in that arena. Of course, in ANY non-physical endeavor I believe men and women have potential that is closely matched, with women having advantages and men having advantages... but with the best outcomes usually occuring when you leverage the capabilities of BOTH genders.

[ 08-27-2003, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

[Luvian]

Originally posted by Thoran: Wow this is a marathon thread, interesting so far tho. OK... regarding the sexist thing... here was the "Thoran is a sexist" post from earlier: quote: Originally posted by Luvian: quote: Originally posted by Thoran: When I play human characters I try to be realistic... -if I'm playing a fighter, ranger or paladin it's a male, -thief/rogue it could be male or female -sorcerer/wizard is either male or female -clerics tend to be male (because there is a martial aspect to the cleric role) but I do play female clerics on occasion too. Once you throw in other races it depends on the race... I think D&D Half-Orc and Dwarf females would make great fighters, and I don't think either of the elf or gnome genders would.

Well this really is sexist. Sure, men on average are stronger, but women can fight as well as any men. Just go at a martial arts or fencing competition, you'll se women are as good an men. Saying women can't fight well is the same as saying they can't work as well as men.

They make good soldiers, too. They have some very good qualities for that. [/QUOTE]OK... the basis for the judgement of "sexist" appears to be the idea that men are better fighters than women, the justification is that at marital arts or fencing competitions women are as good as men.

I believe the justification is false, I've been to lots of fencing competitions, men and women compete seperately because it would be unfair otherwise, men are:
Bigger - longer reach
Stronger - faster and more powerful attacks

I never said women CAN'T fight, I said that men are better fighters. I believe this is because of the structural/genetic differences between the genders... not any failing of women. [/QUOTE]No no, you basically said it was unrealistic for women to be fighting classes. There is a huge difference.

there is no disconnect between strength and speed/agility... they are all intertwined in a highly trained athlete (or soldier). A man swinging a 3lb blade will hit faster, harder, for longer, have a longer reach, and subsequently have many more options for dealing with a female opponent. Add to this the fact that men have thicker skin and heavier bones(durability) and I don't think it's illogical to conclude that men are better fighters. I agree with your assessment that given the fantasy nature of the game, there's nothing wrong with assuming women can be 18str... but my caveat in my post is that I try to be realistic regarding humans when I play (call it an idiosyncracy), and given that caveat my assessment is correct.

There should also be nothing wrong with assuming real life women can have 18 str, too. Considering I gave a link to a teen with 18 str in one of the previous post.

By the way, back in the medieval time, people were a lot shorter, we only became as tall as we are today recently, so reach could not have been a huge factor back then. I'm pretty sure both gender were about the same size. Even today, men and women are mostly the same in size. I guess it really depend on the two individual fighting, rather than their gender. (But let's not start a size debate, too. )

am I a sexist for stating the obvious? eastern martial arts is not an area of interest, but I believe that was addressed earlier by someone... when it comes to physical combat, I don't believe women can compete on equal footing with men. I stand by my assessment, even in the "olden days" when women were stronger than they are today they didn't fight because men were stronger still and the demands of combat were extreme. If anything, modern technology has allowed women to excel at combat by removing that physical impediment in most circumstances... so women today have a great advantage over their stronger counterparts from centuries past... fighting isn't the physically demanding endeavor it used to be.

No, women could not fight because they played a submissing role in medieval society, and all they were allowed to do was take care of the house and raise childrens.

The martial arts example was given by Nachtrafe, when he said his old female teacher was able to beat him most of the time.

I was just talking to a buddy who's daughter is an F18 pilot, and in that sort of combat, where endurance and mental agility are paramount, women can and do compete equally with men. In fact I tend to thing their smaller stature will give them an advantage in advanced fighters (less distance to pump blood under high-g conditions. There is the question of spatial imaging (a male advantage), but by the same token there's information overload (a female advantage). All told it will be very interesting to see how women do in these high performance fighters, becuase both men and women have different assets in that arena. Of course, in ANY non-physical endeavor I believe men and women have potential that is closely matched, with women having advantages and men having advantages... but with the best outcomes usually occuring when you leverage the capabilities of BOTH genders.

Humm... why would men be better than women at spatial imaging, and why would men be more prone to information overload?

[Azimaith]

I guess its kind of like saying a van can beat a Formula one in a race because they're shouldn't be differences between cars, they should all be equal... Anyhow, skill has a definite part in combat, second to skill in melee weapon combat from medium to long range is speed, less grappling goes on in spear fighting or swordsmanship, close up fighting with knifes and daggers, strength takes a great deal of importance because you must grapple your opponent and hold back their blows rather than deflect with a blades flat. The larger frame and greater propensity for muscular mass gives men a natural advantage, just as a formula one by its construction gets an advantage over a four door sedan.

Women can fight, it just is harder for them. There are things women can do naturally that men have a harder time at. I don't see the sexism here at all, you can't expect to be as good as everyone at everything just because popular society and cliches say that there shouldn't be a difference between men and womens abilities.

[Cloudbringer]

Azimath, can you post what gender characters you play in rpg's and crpg's for the topic? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Luvian]

Originally posted by Azimaith: I guess its kind of like saying a van can beat a Formula one in a race because they're shouldn't be differences between cars, they should all be equal... Anyhow, skill has a definite part in combat, second to skill in melee weapon combat from medium to long range is speed, less grappling goes on in spear fighting or swordsmanship, close up fighting with knifes and daggers, strength takes a great deal of importance because you must grapple your opponent and hold back their blows rather than deflect with a blades flat. The larger frame and greater propensity for muscular mass gives men a natural advantage, just as a formula one by its construction gets an advantage over a four door sedan. Women can fight, it just is harder for them. There are things women can do naturally that men have a harder time at. I don't see the sexism here at all, you can't expect to be as good as everyone at everything just because popular society and cliches say that there shouldn't be a difference between men and womens abilities.

You know, that is a really bad example. A van and a formula one are a lot different. You might as well compare a bike to a jet while you are at it... It's also a bad example because this example only consider speed, while human have a lot more "parameters" than that.

This is something I would call sexist, too. Yes, men and women have strength and weakness, but you are pushing it too far. It's like saying men have so little endurance and pain tolerance compared to women that they would not make good fighters, simply because they would be exhausted after 2 minutes of fighting. If you told me that, I would call you sexist, too. It work in both ways.

I'm not tryng to blindly defend women, here. I'm simply fighting against close minded stereotypes. Be they against men or women. It's not my fault if most people underestimate women and overestimate men.

As for women not being as good fighters as men. I still don't agree. Yes, women develop muscle slower, and might have a lower limit of muscle mass. But most soldiers are not supersoldiers that can lift cars and bend metal bars without efforts. I'm pretty sure the level of strength of the typical male soldier is still accessible to women soldiers, just as the level of endurance and pain resistance of the typical women soldier is still accessible to men soldiers.

You know... there is something else I consider sexist. Most of you are trying to insist on comparing the strongest fitest men (that has a strength well above the female limit) to the typical housewife. If you want a fair comparison, compare her to the average men, probably a middle class office worker with no fighting and training experience.

Not every man has as much potential. I'm pretty sure even if I trained all my life, I could not because stronger than the teenage girl I linked to in previous posts.

There are strong men, there are weaker men. There are strong women, there are weaker women. They might have opposite ratio, but it does not mean they don't exist and are not a big chunk of the population.

You guys should quit trying to think women are defenseless and could not beat a men. (Wouldn't that be horrible to the male ego ) Men are not superior, only different.

[ 08-28-2003, 02:39 AM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

[Azimaith]

Heres my explanation in your post.

You know, that is a really bad example. A van and a formula one are a lot different. You might as well compare a bike to a jet while you are at it... It's also a bad example because this example only consider speed, while human have a lot more "parameters" than that.


Your right, they are alot different. A man and a woman are alot different too. A bike and a jet are too far apart to compare. Its a good example because it only considers one aspect, its a bad basis for a scientific experiment. When you make an example you can't take absolutely everything into account. Anyhow lets count parameters.
1# The drivers skill, I never mentioned a driver in either so this doesn't matter.
2# The basic parts, both have many of the same basic parts, an engine, a frame, wheels, women have the same basic parts as men minus secondary sex characteristics.
3# Natural abiliy, a formula one racer can go alot faster than a van but it also needs to refuel far more often, less endurance, a van on the other hand is reliable and has a lot more endurance.

Take for example the F1 and the Van analogy. The F1 represents the natural genetics of a person and is the genetic advantage men have for strength. Now take this into consideration. If this was an analogy to a fight, take the F1's driver, put them into the van and take the vans driver, and stick them in the F1, the van will now win the race because the F1 racer is far more skilled than your average van driver. I don't see the sexism in such a broadly applied analogy. Perhaps you don't like the imagery of the van?

This is something I would call sexist, too. Yes, men and women have strength and weakness, but you are pushing it too far. It's like saying men have so little endurance and pain tolerance compared to women that they would not make good fighters, simply because they would be exhausted after 2 minutes of fighting. If you told me that, I would call you sexist, too. It work in both ways.

There is a difference in genetics, its not so little as to be insignificant either. Its very definite. A woman and a man can last 2 minutes in fighting but a man can't last 12 hours in child birth, ergo women have a significantly greater pain tolerance and endurance, on the same note, a woman may be able to lift 200 pounds but she can't lift 500 (Im shooting these numbers out my ass for the weights) I don't find nature sexist at all and I don't think that was sexist, it was nature, maybe you don't like that.

I'm not tryng to blindly defend women, here. I'm simply fighting against close minded stereotypes. Be they against men or women. It's not my fault if most people underestimate women and overestimate men.

Close minded stereotypes like scientific fact?? Its been proven over and over, men can gain greater muscle mass faster, women have greater endurance and pain tolerance, whats so close minded about that?

As for women not being as good fighters as men. I still don't agree. Yes, women develop muscle slower, and might have a lower limit of muscle mass. But most soldiers are not supersoldiers that can lift cars and bend metal bars without efforts. I'm pretty sure the level of strength of the typical male soldier is still accessible to women soldiers, just as the level of endurance and pain resistance of the typical women soldier is still accessible to men soldiers.

At equal skill level a man will have an advantage in physical strength. Second, if a woman is joining the army and can pass the same training as the man then its kind of obvious that they will have the same strength as a man, if they didn't they wouldn't get out of boot camp. Men in the army aren't Mr Universe weight lifters. (well usually)

HOWEVER, put a woman who ways 130 pounds into knife combat with a man thats 6'2 and weighs 200 pounds, that mans going to have the advantage of reach and strength by nature assuming they are of the same skill. I never said women were incapable of becoming good fighters, I said men almost always have the advantage of greater physical strength and often times reach.

You know... there is something else I consider sexist. Most of you are trying to insist on comparing the strongest fitest men (that has a strength well above the female limit) to the typical housewife. If you want a fair comparison, compare her to the average men, probably a middle class office worker with no fighting and training experience.

Alright lets do that. The average middle class joe with no fighting or training vs the average middle class woman. Why is it that more women are beaten to death by their husbands than woman beating their husbands? Testosterone? Partly but if women share the same combat ability of a man as well as strength, why can't they fight back? Why is the overwhelming majority of women in these abusive relationships are unable to fight back with fist fighting? Why is that if the average woman has the same strength as the man and both have no combat experience? You must see the flaw in the idea that they are physical equals, they aren't. Why is it in fact that so many woman are unable to defend themselves from all sorts of crimes from average men though they may be a little psycho. Assault from a single man is most often occuring against a woman, rape is most often occuring against a woman, all sorts of violent crimes are predominantly against women, its because women of the in the EXACT SAME CIRCUMSTANCES AS A MAN same office, same diet, same bottled water, same freaking underwear, develop less muscle mass and have greater endurance. Thats why or else you would see a helluva lot more defense done by women against men if they were so physically equal.

Not every man has as much potential. I'm pretty sure even if I trained all my life, I could not because stronger than the teenage girl I linked to in previous posts.

Believe me, you would get stronger, so would that teenage girl you compared your strength to as well if she trained that same way.

There are strong men, there are weaker men. There are strong women, there are weaker women. They might have opposite ratio, but it does not mean they don't exist and are not a big chunk of the population.

But the strongest men have greater muscle mass than the strongest women. Doesn't mean there is fluctuations but its the truth.

You guys should quit trying to think women are defenseless and could not beat a men. (Wouldn't that be horrible to the male ego ) Men are not superior, only different.

Who ever said they were defenseless? In fact did you read what I put down on western swordsmanship?

"When I fight someone using western swordsmanship, there is no men and women, there is no gender, just the blades and two fighters. I expect no quarter and give none, I believe that is how it should be done."

If i'm such a sexist why the heck would I admit a woman of equal size to me has greater endurance and pain tolerance after those things are often considered male traits?

I'm still waiting for women to have to sign up for selective service, fairs fair.

[ 08-28-2003, 03:10 AM: Message edited by: Azimaith ]

[Azimaith]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: Azimath, can you post what gender characters you play in rpg's and crpg's for the topic? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Er, am I hijacking this topic or something? I'm more comfortable playing men because I get less weirdos asking me to cyber. Its true and its rather disturbing as well. I've played females in arcanum nwn, icewind dale (in fact they my party had half half, 3 females, a front line fighter, a cleric and a sorceress, and three males, a paladin, a rogue, and a wizard.) baldurs gate series, erm I stay away from playing women on MMORPG's now because of the afformentioned freaks who ask you if you want to cyber out of no where, I want to give them a telekinetic kick in the balls. Personally I don't think they should be treated as sex objects but thats what happens when 600 hormonely charged teenage boys raised on eminem and snoop dog run around reffering to any female as a ho or My bitch. Sad state of affairs, stupid pop culture.

[Luvian]

Originally posted by Azimaith: Heres my explanation in your post. I don't see the sexism in such a broadly applied analogy. Perhaps you don't like the imagery of the van?

Of course I don't like it, that's what I said. Your example is the same to me as if you said men could lift 2 tons, but women could only lift 2 pounds.

There is a difference in genetics, its not so little as to be insignificant either. Its very definite. A woman and a man can last 2 minutes in fighting but a man can't last 12 hours in child birth, ergo women have a significantly greater pain tolerance and endurance, on the same note, a woman may be able to lift 200 pounds but she can't lift 500 (Im shooting these numbers out my ass for the weights) I don't find nature sexist at all and I don't think that was sexist, it was nature, maybe you don't like that.

I said tons of time already that my problem is not with people saying women are not as strong as men. My problem is with what limit people think women have. To get back to your example, here's my problem. Let's assume from the link I posted earlier that women can lift 300 at max. Well, it seem to me most people think women are weak, and at most could lift maybe 150-200. That's what I find sexist and offensive. It's the mental image most people seem to have of women.

Just take a look at your example. You are associating men with the fastest race car, and women with a slow non-race vehicle. Do you really think women are that inferior compared to men?

Close minded stereotypes like scientific fact?? Its been proven over and over, men can gain greater muscle mass faster, women have greater endurance and pain tolerance, whats so close minded about that?

It's not the facts I fight against. What I'm fighting against is what people seem to think those facts are.

It is true that men gain muscle faster. It is false that women are all slim sexy weakling not able to lift anything heavier than 100 pounds.

At equal skill level a man will have an advantage in physical strength. Second, if a woman is joining the army and can pass the same training as the man then its kind of obvious that they will have the same strength as a man, if they didn't they wouldn't get out of boot camp. Men in the army aren't Mr Universe weight lifters. (well usually)

That's my point. It seem to me some people think women are so inferior to men that they can't even keep up with military training. That was my whole point. If a woman can keep up with a man in training, assuming she is about as tall, (which is common these days) both should be able to fight as well.

HOWEVER, put a woman who ways 130 pounds into knife combat with a man thats 6'2 and weighs 200 pounds, that mans going to have the advantage of reach and strength by nature assuming they are of the same skill. I never said women were incapable of becoming good fighters, I said men almost always have the advantage of greater physical strength and often times reach.

I never argued that, but I did say that if the men in your example wasn't as skilled and was slower, she would most likely win. My point was that strength alone is not the deciding factor in a fight.

Alright lets do that. The average middle class joe with no fighting or training vs the average middle class woman. Why is it that more women are beaten to death by their husbands than woman beating their husbands? Testosterone? Partly but if women share the same combat ability of a man as well as strength, why can't they fight back? Why is the overwhelming majority of women in these abusive relationships are unable to fight back with fist fighting? Why is that if the average woman has the same strength as the man and both have no combat experience? You must see the flaw in the idea that they are physical equals, they aren't. Why is it in fact that so many woman are unable to defend themselves from all sorts of crimes from average men though they may be a little psycho. Assault from a single man is most often occuring against a woman, rape is most often occuring against a woman, all sorts of violent crimes are predominantly against women, its because women of the in the EXACT SAME CIRCUMSTANCES AS A MAN same office, same diet, same bottled water, same freaking underwear, develop less muscle mass and have greater endurance. Thats why or else you would see a helluva lot more defense done by women against men if they were so physically equal.

I never claimed they would be equal. My point was that people associated men with the best and fittest man ever, but associated women as some weakling barbie. It's again giving women a bad mental image, while giving men the best posible image.

I'm not arguing about physical capacity, I'm arguing against people's vision of women.

quote: Not every man has as much potential. I'm pretty sure even if I trained all my life, I could not because stronger than the teenage girl I linked to in previous posts.

Believe me, you would get stronger, so would that teenage girl you compared your strength to as well if she trained that same way.[/QUOTE]I'm not so sure I would. Maybe, but considering you don't even know me, I think I'm better placed to know.

But the strongest men have greater muscle mass than the strongest women. Doesn't mean there is fluctuations but its the truth.

I'm assuming you meant "isn't" instead of is.

Again, of course the strongest men is stronger than the strongest women.

If i'm such a sexist why the heck would I admit a woman of equal size to me has greater endurance and pain tolerance after those things are often considered male traits?

Where exactly did I call you sexist?


My point about sexism is not related to women's strength. I know full well what are women's limit. My point is that almost every time someone had to give an example concerning a women or assumed something about a women, they always underestimated them.

I'm pretty sure if I had said women can lift 300 pounds, but didn't have given a link, people would have told me I was wrong. People subconciously always give diminishing roles to women, especially when they compare them to men. That's my problem.

Yes, men develop muscle faster, but no, women are not that weak, it's not unreallistic to think they could make good fighter, and they are not van compared to formula one. If you want to compare men and women, don't compare the perfect men against an average women, either.

Those things are sexist. Why are women always so underrated?

[ 08-28-2003, 04:48 AM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by Azimaith: quote: Originally posted by Cloudbringer: Azimath, can you post what gender characters you play in rpg's and crpg's for the topic? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Er, am I hijacking this topic or something? I'm more comfortable playing men because I get less weirdos asking me to cyber. Its true and its rather disturbing as well. I've played females in arcanum nwn, icewind dale (in fact they my party had half half, 3 females, a front line fighter, a cleric and a sorceress, and three males, a paladin, a rogue, and a wizard.) baldurs gate series, erm I stay away from playing women on MMORPG's now because of the afformentioned freaks who ask you if you want to cyber out of no where, I want to give them a telekinetic kick in the balls. Personally I don't think they should be treated as sex objects but thats what happens when 600 hormonely charged teenage boys raised on eminem and snoop dog run around reffering to any female as a ho or My bitch. Sad state of affairs, stupid pop culture. [/QUOTE]Nope, you didn't hijack the thread, I'm just nosy! LOL Actually I started the thread after several conversations with friends about the games and characters and I wanted to see how a board full of people who play those games did things. So thanks for replying!

So you had guys make unwelcome advances in roleplays? It's not the first I've heard of it, in fact I was surprised at how casually most male gamers who use female characters just up and said, "oh yah, I've had propositions tossed at me in online play" like it was fairly common. To be honest, I had it happen when I was in a multiplay. It wasn't my usual group of mp partners (who are absolutely wonderful to play with and great friends as well). I got invited to play the game (Baldurs Gate) and was a bit taken aback when one player started sending me crude comments and suggestions in the private mode. I didn't even know you could DO that and thought everyone could see it...then he told me I was the only one who could read it and how to reply privately. Put me right off the game, I can tell you!

LOL@the last part of your post...you may have a point there! [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img] Probably fairly on the mark, although the times I've had to fend guys off they were usually older than that. Hmm...you think Elvis influenced them?

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Luvian: 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.

ARRRRGHHHH!!!!!! Luvian, you're still not getting it! WOMEN DO NOT HAVE THE PHYSICAL CAPACITY TO BE AS PHYSICALLY STRONG AS MEN!! PERIOD!! I dont care whether they are housewives from Philadelphia, Bodybuilders from Prague, or Amazons from Crete. No matter how much they work out, no matter how much physically demanding activity they do, they will never be as physically big and strong as a man who does the exact same thing! They CANNOT! Their genes/hormones will not allow it! It has nothing to do with "society's current taste in women"! It has EVERYTHING to do with "a genetic limit"! Women do not have testicles!! Their bodies do not naturally produce as much testosterone as a man's! Therefore, they are not genetically equipped to be as physically strong as a man!

This is an extremely simple concept, and I simply cannot understand why you can't get it. The hormone responsible for muscle mass in humans is testosterone. Men produce it naturally in HUGE amounts, therefore they have greater muscle mass. Women, who lack testicles, DO NOT!!! The only way for a woman to develop muscles comparable to a man's is for her to either A) have fully functional testicles(and the endocrine system to back them up) grafted to her body, or B) have regular, massive injections of the hormone, starting at puberty and continuing throughout her whole life. This is simple, plain, medical FACT, and neither your, nor anyone else's opinion can change that simple FACT!.

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.

Actually, Thoran was right, regarding her comment about medieval women. High physical strength in the human body requires three basic ingredients: A) Good nutrition B) Good hygeine C) TRAINING AND HARD WORK!. Now, take a look at the Middle Ages. The only people that had good nutrition and hygeine were the nobility, and can you imagine a Medeival nobleman allowing his daughter/sister/wife to train at arms with the men? *Hollow Laugh* That would NEVER happen!

On the flip side, you have your average peasant women. Does she work hard? YOU BET!! She probably did enough hard physical labor to grind most any modern person, MALE OR FEMALE, right into the ground. But was she physically massive/strong? NO! Because the average peasant was generally hungry, if not half starved on a regular basis. And, as for hygiene?? Again...HAH! They thought that being dirty would keep the 'evil spirits' of disease away!

Now...to your example. Again, it is, as Thoran pointed out, a Red Herring. The young woman you are talking about, while wholly admirable, is a product of MODERN SOCIETY!! She has had the benefit of good food, good health, modern science, and massive amounts of physical training. I went to look at the root page of the person you posted about. Again, a wholly admirable girl, and one who has had major accomplishments on the weight lifting circuit. Now, take a look at the record of Oscar Chaplin III from the same page. He's a couple of years older than her, but, if you look at the bio, he's a couple of inches shorter. He weighs about the same, they've had basically the same opportunities growing up, and for training, and yet.....HE CAN LIFT MORE. Dont believe me? Check their stats side by side:

Chaplin
Hayworth

In every category, HE LIFTS MORE! According to your posit, their lifting weights should be roughly the same, and yet...reality once again smacks you in the face.

Now again, dont get me wrong. I have nothing but admiration for this girl. She's worked her A$$ off and accomplished something wonderful for herself. But, from a purely genetic standpoint, SHE WILL NEVER BE AS STRONG AS A SIMILARLY TRAINED MAN!

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.

No one ever said women were weak and unable to fight. They only said that they were not as strong as comparably trained men.

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

Unfortunatly, genetics/medical science/real life experience continue to prove you wrong. Sorry, not trying to be a jerk or anything, I'm just trying to tell you that, in this case, you are incorrect.

-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.

And again, no one disagreed with you. Women, when properly trained, can do just as well as men in a fight...so long as the fight is based on something other than pure, physical strength.

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.

Luvian? Are you in the same thread as the rest of us? I HAVE been discussing them seperately! Granted, I've included them all in the same post, in the interest of saving space, but, if you'd like, I could break up every point into a seperate post. It might get the mods a bit ticked off at me, as it's breaking the rules of IW, but, well...if that's really what you want... [img]smile.gif[/img]