Gender Question/Poll

[Cloudbringer]

Hey Sigmar, thanks for answering the thread! I think alot of us who play our own gender in rpgs do it for about the same reason- we relate to it more easily. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Ants? LOL How did we go from gender in role play games to ants!? [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] You have to love Ironworks....what a great group of people we have and I love how this thread evolved and grew!

[Thoran]

Originally posted by 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.

I think the reason many people have debated the sub-topic is because your fundamental assertion is incorrect, and lead us into a fertile topic for debate. If you had said "women can be strong and competent fighters", or "some women can be as strong and fight as well as a fair percentage of men" I'm sure most would have agreed wholeheartedly, but women in general are not as large or strong as men, and because of this their ability to fight on a normalized basis is not equivelant. I realize it's a subtle distinction but irregardless... your logic is flawed, the more interesting component IMO is what is the reson for such a position.

The whole "bruised male ego" line is more sexist than any other single post made in this thread... I've heard it from enough women to know it for what it is. "Bruised Male Ego" is a attempt by women who are trying to censor debate that they find might impinge on their illusion of superiority. I fear that your true colors are showing... and it makes me wonder who the real sexist participant of this thread is. I sincerely hope I'm mistaken.

You ask why respondants care so much... I would ask why do you care so much? For my part I participated because online and in RL, my wife and I actively work to foster an atmosphere of TRUE equality between the sexes. Some would call us "Mens Activist" because we often act in opposition to feminists. I call myself a "equalist" because I will as quickly fight against a man who asserts superiority over another. It just so happens that feminist thought is currently the biggest problems we face (at a societal level) in achieving true equality and maintaining our "inalienable" rights. One of the key ingredients needed to enable our society to achieve equality without sacrificing individuality is the elimination of Political Correctness, one of the tenets of which you are arguing. (whether you realize it or not)

It bears repeating, equal does NOT mean identical. Races and genders don't need to be identical, but they DO need to be equal in the eyes of society. So there are many women and men out there now working to raise the awareness of society to the inherent flaws in feminist thought (a movement sadly hijacked by radical elements)... and the dangers in allowing ourselves to travel too far down a road that is ultimately steeped in socialist/collectivist dogma. It's a grass roots movement that has made significant advances in the last year, but faces an entrenched machine that permeates government and academia in virtually every western democracy, as well as the risk of becoming radicalized ourselves (as evidenced in the recent bomb hoax at Englands family courts). So, the reason why I participated here is the same as every other time I debunk PCthink, because I want my two boys to grow up in a world where they are not at a disadvantage to every special interest group seeking entitlements under the PC banner of equality. It's a small thing but many small things build into large things over time.

[ 09-03-2003, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by 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.

True. I was just using it as a comparative, since someone(I think GB) brought it up. [img]smile.gif[/img] Mass to weight is also the reason you dont see bees the size of birds. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Erm...sorry for going *quite* so far off topic Cloudy love. [img]smile.gif[/img]

LOL...Speaking of gender in games, Cloudy and I are playing IWDII together. She is playing three female characters, and I am playing two male, and one female character. LOL...She gives me a hard time about it too. [img]smile.gif[/img] I just keep telling her that, I happened to see the picture of the female character I'm using, and just thought 'A Ranger'. The picture just reminds me of the quintessential 'Ranger', so I used it and created a female character to go with it. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Luvian]

Originally posted by Thoran: quote: Originally posted by 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.

I think the reason many people have debated the sub-topic is because your fundamental assertion is incorrect, and lead us into a fertile topic for debate. If you had said "women can be strong and competent fighters", or "some women can be as strong and fight as well as a fair percentage of men" I'm sure most would have agreed wholeheartedly, but women in general are not as large or strong as men, and because of this their ability to fight on a normalized basis is not equivelant. I realize it's a subtle distinction but irregardless... your logic is flawed, the more interesting component IMO is what is the reson for such a position. [/QUOTE]Well... I know I never spend 5 pages of heated discussion over a detail. I'm debating here because I'm fighting against sexist. That's something I really care about. Other people are debating because they got offended by my comment of women being able to get as strong and as good a fighter as men. Apparently, they really care a lot about men being stronger and better fighter than women. Enough to have a 5 page heated discussion about it. Apparently such an offending opinion as mine need to be rectified at all cost.

The whole "bruised male ego" line is more sexist than any other single post made in this thread... I've heard it from enough women to know it for what it is. "Bruised Male Ego" is a attempt by women who are trying to censor debate that they find might impinge on their illusion of superiority. I fear that your true colors are showing... and it makes me wonder who the real sexist participant of this thread is. I sincerely hope I'm mistaken.

I said "some people". Are you arguing nobody has a bruised male ego?

You ask why respondants care so much... I would ask why do you care so much?

Read the above...

For my part I participated because online and in RL, my wife and I actively work to foster an atmosphere of TRUE equality between the sexes. Some would call us "Mens Activist" because we often act in opposition to feminists. I call myself a "equalist" because I will as quickly fight against a man who asserts superiority over another. It just so happens that feminist thought is currently the biggest problems we face (at a societal level) in achieving true equality and maintaining our "inalienable" rights. One of the key ingredients needed to enable our society to achieve equality without sacrificing individuality is the elimination of Political Correctness, one of the tenets of which you are arguing. (whether you realize it or not)

To be sexist, I would have to think women are superior to men. Do you really think I think that? I've chosen to fight against sexism against women, because from what I've seen in my life, it's still the most common one, but this does not mean I don't fight against sexism again men when I see it.

So far in this thread I've seen no one claim women were better, or men were inferior.

It bears repeating, equal does NOT mean identical. Races and genders don't need to be identical, but they DO need to be equal in the eyes of society. So there are many women and men out there now working to raise the awareness of society to the inherent flaws in feminist thought (a movement sadly hijacked by radical elements)... and the dangers in allowing ourselves to travel too far down a road that is ultimately steeped in socialist/collectivist dogma. It's a grass roots movement that has made significant advances in the last year, but faces an entrenched machine that permeates government and academia in virtually every western democracy, as well as the risk of becoming radicalized ourselves (as evidenced in the recent bomb hoax at Englands family courts). So, the reason why I participated here is the same as every other time I debunk PCthink, because I want my two boys to grow up in a world where they are not at a disadvantage to every special interest group seeking entitlements under the PC banner of equality. It's a small thing but many small things build into large things over time.

I've never claimed women had the same muscle potential as men. I've said that theorically, after some evolution, things might change, but that's only theorical and has nothing to do with sexism.

As for the differences between men and women, I believe in equal opportunity. I don't care to know what are the differences between men and women. You want to do something, you do it. I'm not going to do complete physical and mental tests on you to know if you have the best potential ever. Just do what you want and I'll then judge you on your personal qualities and accomplishments, not on some stastistics.

[ 09-03-2003, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Thoran: I think the reason many people have debated the sub-topic is because your fundamental assertion is incorrect, and lead us into a fertile topic for debate. If you had said "women can be strong and competent fighters", or "some women can be as strong and fight as well as a fair percentage of men" I'm sure most would have agreed wholeheartedly, but women in general are not as large or strong as men, and because of this their ability to fight on a normalized basis is not equivelant. I realize it's a subtle distinction but irregardless... your logic is flawed, the more interesting component IMO is what is the reson for such a position. The whole "bruised male ego" line is more sexist than any other single post made in this thread... I've heard it from enough women to know it for what it is. "Bruised Male Ego" is a attempt by women who are trying to censor debate that they find might impinge on their illusion of superiority. I fear that your true colors are showing... and it makes me wonder who the real sexist participant of this thread is. I sincerely hope I'm mistaken. You ask why respondants care so much... I would ask why do you care so much? For my part I participated because online and in RL, my wife and I actively work to foster an atmosphere of TRUE equality between the sexes. Some would call us "Mens Activist" because we often act in opposition to feminists. I call myself a "equalist" because I will as quickly fight against a man who asserts superiority over another. It just so happens that feminist thought is currently the biggest problems we face (at a societal level) in achieving true equality and maintaining our "inalienable" rights. One of the key ingredients needed to enable our society to achieve equality without sacrificing individuality is the elimination of Political Correctness, one of the tenets of which you are arguing. (whether you realize it or not) It bears repeating, equal does NOT mean identical. Races and genders don't need to be identical, but they DO need to be equal in the eyes of society. So there are many women and men out there now working to raise the awareness of society to the inherent flaws in feminist thought (a movement sadly hijacked by radical elements)... and the dangers in allowing ourselves to travel too far down a road that is ultimately steeped in socialist/collectivist dogma. It's a grass roots movement that has made significant advances in the last year, but faces an entrenched machine that permeates government and academia in virtually every western democracy, as well as the risk of becoming radicalized ourselves (as evidenced in the recent bomb hoax at Englands family courts). So, the reason why I participated here is the same as every other time I debunk PCthink, because I want my two boys to grow up in a world where they are not at a disadvantage to every special interest group seeking entitlements under the PC banner of equality. It's a small thing but many small things build into large things over time.

Very well put Thoran, all of it. You've managed to articulate almost exactly what I feel, and, in a manner much better than I am normally capable of. PCthink, and all it's slimy permutations, is a subject that gets me so wound up that I have a hard time thinking rationally, and so I tend to react too emotionally. Thanks for the great post, as well as the great links that you provided earlier. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Luvian: Well... I know I never spend 5 pages of heated discussion over a detail. I'm debating here because I'm fighting against sexist. That's something I really care about. Other people are debating because they got offended by my comment of women being able to get as strong and as good a fighter as men. Apparently, they really care a lot about men being stronger and better fighter than women. Enough to have a 5 page heated discussion about it. Apparently such an offending opinion as mine need to be rectified at all cost.

Dude...Noone, I repeat, NOONE got 'offended' by your comment about women being as strong as men. We were debating your INCORRECT STATEMENT about women being as strong as men. It is/was incorrect, pure and simple, and we were trying to get you to understand that. It is not about 'bruise ego's', it is about a flaw in your logic. You didn't offer an 'opinion' Luvian, you tried to state something *as fact*, that is *not factual*, and several of us were trying to correct that mistake. The frustration you see is based on the fact that, no matter how many times, and in how many ways, that mistake was pointed out to you, you simply refused to see it, continually returned to the 'you're sexist' line, and accused us of having 'bruised egos'. If you had actually bothered to debate the *subject*, and not try to turn it into an attack on people's opinions, there probably wouldn't have been nearly as much 'heated debate'.

[Thoran]

RE : Luvian's last post

Luvian, fighting against sexism is admirable... but positing an unsupportable position then accusing everyone of sexism who disagrees isn't the way to do it. Most if not all of the opposition you've felt is due to the flaw in your logic, which has provided an opportunity to debate one of the more ludicrous tenets of Political Correctness.

Overall I think the majority of the discussion has been quite moderate. If anyone, you have been the initial and most common communicator of "offense", you've repeatedly accused others of being sexist which would by necessity imply that our positions have offended you.

For my part... the only thing I found offensive overall (in an otherwise interesting debate) is the "Bruised Male Ego" Ad Hominim. It's a fallacious attack that does nothing but highlight a retreat from valid debate into sophistry.

The term "Bruised Male Ego" is by its very nature sexist... it implies that men have an ego problem that females don't, otherwise you'd have said "Bruised Ego". It additionally has a long history of use by feminist to dismiss and censor male positions. I doubt anyone has ever heard the phrase "bruised female ego" but I guarantee we've all heard its counterpart many times, certainly in media and perhaps in our personal lives. Now, if you want to argue that women don't have ego's... many of which are just as big and overblown as egotistical mens... well then we'll have an interesting topic for debate, one that has no statistical data to refute (comfortingly relative for those who wish to draw conclusions with no threat of empirical refutation).

"As for the differences between men and women, I believe in equal opportunity. I don't care to know what are the differences between men and women. You want to do something, you do it. I'm not going to do complete physical and mental tests on you to know if you have the best potential ever. Just do what you want and I'll then judge you on your personal qualities and accomplishments, not on some stastistics."

A solid position, but such a belief should have precluded you from arguing the "absolute potential" position in the first place since your argument was based on asserting a statistical equality ("women can fight as well as any men"). An argument consistant with your above position statement would have been along the lines of "Well you can choose men for fighters, but I personally believe that the modern world has not explored the limits of female development, so statistics can't capture that potential". That would have avoided the absolute statements of female fighting equality you've made (a untenable position given the overwhelming empirical data). It would also have been a difficult position to refute. Of course then you would not have been able to make the sexism accusation, which is based on the idea that I and others hold an inaccurate beleif that is based solely on gender. So there's the crux of it... if you don't believe in statistics you have no basis to establish that my position is sexist, if you do believe in statistics than you have no choice but to agree with my position. It's the scilla or charybdis.

[Gabrielles blades]

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]

It is wrong because its entirely too difficult to say even with your vast empirical data the real cause of why the average woman is less strong than the average man. It is my opinion that they are because they dont feel like working hard to get the muscles. I myself am male and am pathetically weak for this very reason. My sister can easily out do me in almost any arena with regards to physical fitness because she likes to spend her time working out a few times a week.

As for what society admires, thats entirely too broad to hold any water. Many people i know for example dont care who wins or loses, they just want a good match thats entertaining. I myself admire people who try not to be hypocrites (since its so easy to be one) and who are trustworthy, friendly, have integrity etc etc.

Yes, that is the whole point of a comparison. You (or someone) was saying they wanted to say entirely positive things about men and asked why women might get pissed off about it. Well thats why - by the nature of your comparison you are putting them down when you are saying your "entirely positive thing". For it to be entirely positive you would have to just say men are strong, with no comparison as i mentioned earlier. And i disagree with the conclusion of the comparison on the basis of what is typed above.

And yes, it is true that someone/something will always be/become better faster or stronger and that life sucks and we should get a helmet. Even the superhumanly strong need helmets though as life doesnt care how strong you are itll kill you in the end. The better/stronger/faster person just might be a woman for a while till the next woman or man beats it.


And no i dont watch weightlifting so i didnt know that fat was what you were supposed to be. But even if it is what you are supposed to be, when you see one person whos body is probably 95% muscle and another whose maybe 75% you know off the bat that even though they are the same weight, they are probably not the same muscle strength.

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.

You could probably find a couple countries to compare that would have one country whose woman compared to another countries men are equal in terms of average strength/broadness/tallness etc.

And yes, the ant thing was a bit...out there, but it was just an example of what i meant and not to be used as the whole basis of the query. Its a question of, is the person of small size lifting proportionally more than the person of large size? And the ant would probably not crush itself if inflated to human proportions since nature would no doubt simply construct the ant out of tougher material that is capable of withstanding the pressures inherent.

[Bozos of Bones]

In my oppinion, as long as people say things like "I'm not sexist, and I think that a woman can do whatever a man can." we will have sexism. Think about it. If someone says he thinks women equal to men he is automatically classing them as inferior and in need of help. If one would say he thinks all men(thinking men as humans, not gender-wise) are equal, than he is truly a nonsexist and has no bias whatsoever.

All men are equal.

[Luvian]

Originally posted by Thoran: RE : Luvian's last post Luvian, fighting against sexism is admirable... but positing an unsupportable position then accusing everyone of sexism who disagrees isn't the way to do it. Most if not all of the opposition you've felt is due to the flaw in your logic, which has provided an opportunity to debate one of the more ludicrous tenets of Political Correctness.

If you read this thread again, you will see I'm the only one that didn't get to post his opinion in one clear post. I made 2 or 3 short one line comments, not thinking about really explaining my opinions, as I dodn't even want to participate in such a discussion. Then a come back some hours later to find multiple pages long replies by different people. I then replied to those people, and got even more pages long posts by those people and even more people, all taking the discussion in different ways, and all giving their different opinions, to which I had to reply, too, creating even more pages long posts.

You might have had the luxury of explaining your opinion clearly, and discussing mainly with one person, but I've had to have at least 10 differents discussions at the same time to defend some opinions I didn't even want to share to start with, and never even got to explain clearly in one starting post.

Some of you wanted to discuss about strength, other about sexism. I sometimes replied to one post, and then got the same question worded a little differently 5 minutes later. How can I defend my opinions like that, and how can it be flawless when everyone want to look at it from a different angle, all at the same time? And what about the discussion *I* wanted to have?

Overall I think the majority of the discussion has been quite moderate. If anyone, you have been the initial and most common communicator of "offense", you've repeatedly accused others of being sexist which would by necessity imply that our positions have offended you.

I made two one line posts saying I consired two comments sexist. And then you all started trying to debate. Don't spend a week asking me to tell you why I think something is sexist, and then tell me you are offended by it. If you can't stand it, then don't ask. I did my best not to label anything as sexist, but in a discussion about sexist, it's extremly hard.

For my part... the only thing I found offensive overall (in an otherwise interesting debate) is the "Bruised Male Ego" Ad Hominim. It's a fallacious attack that does nothing but highlight a retreat from valid debate into sophistry.

It's a fact that some men are sexist. It's a fact that some of those people are offended by the idea of women being their equal.

And what is so wrong about putting a "male" in "ego"? It's an adjective. Men have ego, women have ego, and they usually don't take pride in the same things. Men are usually the one to take pride as being the strongest of our species, so of course it's their ego that will get bruised if people claim otherwise.

The term "Bruised Male Ego" is by its very nature sexist... it implies that men have an ego problem that females don't, otherwise you'd have said "Bruised Ego". It additionally has a long history of use by feminist to dismiss and censor male positions. I doubt anyone has ever heard the phrase "bruised female ego" but I guarantee we've all heard its counterpart many times, certainly in media and perhaps in our personal lives. Now, if you want to argue that women don't have ego's... many of which are just as big and overblown as egotistical mens... well then we'll have an interesting topic for debate, one that has no statistical data to refute (comfortingly relative for those who wish to draw conclusions with no threat of empirical refutation).

Men have an ego, women have one. Men and women usually take pride in different things, so they have a different ego.

"As for the differences between men and women, I believe in equal opportunity. I don't care to know what are the differences between men and women. You want to do something, you do it. I'm not going to do complete physical and mental tests on you to know if you have the best potential ever. Just do what you want and I'll then judge you on your personal qualities and accomplishments, not on some stastistics." A solid position, but such a belief should have precluded you from arguing the "absolute potential" position in the first place since your argument was based on asserting a statistical equality ("women can fight as well as any men"). An argument consistant with your above position statement would have been along the lines of "Well you can choose men for fighters, but I personally believe that the modern world has not explored the limits of female development, so statistics can't capture that potential". That would have avoided the absolute statements of female fighting equality you've made (a untenable position given the overwhelming empirical data). It would also have been a difficult position to refute. Of course then you would not have been able to make the sexism accusation, which is based on the idea that I and others hold an inaccurate beleif that is based solely on gender. So there's the crux of it... if you don't believe in statistics you have no basis to establish that my position is sexist, if you do believe in statistics than you have no choice but to agree with my position. It's the scilla or charybdis.

This is another of my opinion and has nothing to do with sexist. I asked people not to mix and match my opinion, but they still did it. I knew things would get mixed up.

I simply meant that humans can evolve, and that I believe almost anything is possible. Women might get stronger than men, we might grow a third eye... details are not important, it's all theorical. I'm pretty sure if our society ever got to a point in which we ever need to become extremly sronger, be it male, female, or both, genetics would find a way. Maybe women would eventually develop a testosterone secreting gland. I don't care about the details, it's was only a short comment about the almost limitless potential I think we have. I said already it was completly off topic and I didn't want to discuss it.