135 réponses à ce sujet

[Bayz]

Gnaeus Trebonius wrote...

I'm no expert, but the ancient Minoan and Egyptian cultures had matriarchal streaks to them, but none of them were martial like the Greek or the Roman for example.

The Egyptians were not Matriarchal at any point, what they had is a system of inheritance that swapped between daughter and son all the time, but was just to ensure (according to them) that bastards had no right to the throne. It isn't actually matriarchal, close to "egalitarian" if you wish, of course calling egalitarian a society founded upon slavery is a bit out of strech, mind you. AFAIK it dissapeared whith Ptolomey.

Minoans were not matriarchal either. We know only that they had a Goddess as a kind of monotheistic religion, but that's just something that comes from the cultures from before the bronze age. All of us begun worshipping female figures because we thought that women spawned life by themselves, therefore being divine beings...yeah I know.

Gnaeus Trebonius wrote...
Can I count the pygmes in Africa
as a martial dwarven society? Also, the Romans were pretty short...

Nain! ( 9 ) The pygmies are hobbits from the shire...well
hairless feeted hobbit of the shire, at most. Romans were pretty short,
but not to the point of being shorter than your waist so, no. Also beard
fail.

Gnaeus Trebonius wrote...
And wouldn't it be
beautiful if all these things were implemented in the game world?

Maybe
in Mount & Blade (honest here) but not in my Typical
Fantasy Setting. We might disagree but for me once you introduce magic,
elves and crap I switch from Medieval to Fantasy and leave it like that.

[Yuqi]

Uhm let's not forget all men started as women, so technically males are a mutation. So the whole male superior thing, is a lie. There are men who look like women and vice versa. Men have a shorter lifespan,a weaker immune system ect. So men are definantly not stronger.

If you want to take it even further, men are the majority in the worst crimes. Rape, Child Abuse, Murder, ect ect.  The whole male superiority argument, is pointless.

Modifié par Yuqi, 03 novembre 2011 - 02:29 .

[Herr Uhl]

Yuqi wrote...

Uhm let's not forget all men started as women, so technically males are a mutation. So the whole male superior thing, is a lie.

And if you want to flip that odd statement, men evolved further. Just saying.

There are men who look like women and vice versa. Men have a shorter lifespan,a weaker immune system ect. So men are definantly not stronger..

But men do generally have more muscle mass and thus technically are stronger?

That said, I'm not saying men are superior than women. There is sexual dimorphism though.

[Yuqi]

Herr Uhl wrote...

But men do generally have more muscle mass and thus technically are stronger?

That said, I'm not saying men are superior than women. There is sexual dimorphism though.

 No it's mainly upper body muscle mass, that s why they lift things easier. Strength is no just pysical it is a mental conditioning..Woman can multitask better, which is why they are better at things like archery, and more specilised combat. Assasination is far easier for a female then a male. There are too many variables to say a man is overall stronger, or a woman is more efficent.

So pointless argument is pointless..

[Gabey5]

Women generally do not fight. That is the same with the Dragon Age universe. The military, the wardens are a military force, are mostly made up of men. That is the same with the real world. The mass effect universe as well. In DAO we know that from leliana that women were a rarity in military or were not given the title of Ser Knight etc. We have seen very little of the wardens so it is hard to say. The last warden commander was a female in the novels.

[Herr Uhl]

Yuqi wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

But men do generally have more muscle mass and thus technically are stronger?

That said, I'm not saying men are superior than women. There is sexual dimorphism though.

 No it's mainly upper body muscle mass, that s why they lift things easier. Strength is no just pysical it is a mental conditioning..Woman can multitask better, which is why they are better at things like archery, and more specilised combat. Assasination is far easier for a female then a male. There are too many variables to say a man is overall stronger, or a woman is more efficent.

So pointless argument is pointless..

So instead of being a feminist, you say that females are superior in every way apart from as beasts of burden?

[Gnaeus Trebonius]

Yuqi wrote...

Woman can multitask better, which is why they are better at things like archery, and more specilised combat. Assasination is far easier for a female then a male.

Who conducted this study?

[Yuqi]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Yuqi wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

But men do generally have more muscle mass and thus technically are stronger?

That said, I'm not saying men are superior than women. There is sexual dimorphism though.

 No it's mainly upper body muscle mass, that s why they lift things easier. Strength is no just pysical it is a mental conditioning..Woman can generally multitask better, which is why they are normally better at things like archery, and more specilised combat. Assasination is far easier for a female then a male.

There are too many variables to say a man is overall stronger, or a woman is more efficent.

So pointless argument is pointless..

So instead of being a feminist, you say that females are superior in every way apart from as beasts of burden?

No, there are too many varibles. Pointlees argument is pointless.

A man prefers painting over cars, does that make him less of a man?
A woman is geneticly more masculine and can hold up with men,does that make her less of a women?

I don't think what I'm trying to say is comming out right. It's far too late at night here.

Women are not superior,men are not superior. Varibles, individual weakness and strengths are not detrmined by gender. 


@Gnaus

This whole strength pysical build thing., apparently. I'm not talking modern day assasins.

Modifié par Yuqi, 03 novembre 2011 - 03:18 .

[RagingCyclone]

@Yuqi--stereotypes don't usually help with making an argument.

@Herr Uhl--muscle mass does not equal strength. Want an example? Bruce Lee. Not a very big man but could still knock a person off their feet with a 1" punch. Show me a body builder without martial arts training and relying only on brute strength that can do that same feat. And the main point there is training. Anyone with the proper training...man, woman, or child...can become an effective warrior/fighter. The key point there is training...not brute strength.

[Herr Uhl]

RagingCyclone wrote...

@Herr Uhl--muscle mass does not equal strength. Want an example? Bruce Lee. Not a very big man but could still knock a person off their feet with a 1" punch. Show me a body builder without martial arts training and relying only on brute strength that can do that same feat. And the main point there is training. Anyone with the proper training...man, woman, or child...can become an effective warrior/fighter. The key point there is training...not brute strength.

Strenght is strenght. What you're talking about is technique.

Edit: And body-builders don't build for strenght, they build for bulk.

Modifié par Herr Uhl, 03 novembre 2011 - 03:25 .

[RagingCyclone]

Herr Uhl wrote...

RagingCyclone wrote...

@Herr Uhl--muscle mass does not equal strength. Want an example? Bruce Lee. Not a very big man but could still knock a person off their feet with a 1" punch. Show me a body builder without martial arts training and relying only on brute strength that can do that same feat. And the main point there is training. Anyone with the proper training...man, woman, or child...can become an effective warrior/fighter. The key point there is training...not brute strength.

Strenght is strenght. What you're talking about is technique.

Edit: And body-builders don't build for strenght, they build for bulk.

And technique trumps strength every time. Ask any athlete. As a center on a football team I could match up against a nose tackle that was bigger and strnger...and I could still beat him. And in wrestling...too obvious. And I also know a little about strength training/body building...they are not that much different especially when talking about football...the two go hand in hand.

Modifié par RagingCyclone, 03 novembre 2011 - 03:28 .

[Yuqi]

RagingCyclone wrote...

@Yuqi--stereotypes don't usually help with making an argument.

@Herr Uhl--muscle mass does not equal strength. Want an example? Bruce Lee. Not a very big man but could still knock a person off their feet with a 1" punch. Show me a body builder without martial arts training and relying only on brute strength that can do that same feat. And the main point there is training. Anyone with the proper training...man, woman, or child...can become an effective warrior/fighter. The key point there is training...not brute strength.

Your right  My bad. 

[jlb524]

Rojahar wrote...
Obviously nobody but Kossith should be Gray Wardens, especially not Human men, but maybe Kossith women, since pure mass is all that matters.

Yes!  It's highly unrealistic that warrior Male Hawke could best the Arishok in single combat...I mean...come on!  Arishok got bigger muscles!!  He's the better warrior!  Obviously.

/derp

[Herr Uhl]

RagingCyclone wrote...

And technique trumps strength every time. Ask any athlete. As a center on a football team I could match up against a nose tackle that was bigger and strnger...and I could still beat him. And in wrestling...too obvious. And I also know a little about strength training/body building...they are not that much different especially when talking about football...the two go hand in hand.

You wouldn't put a heavywheight wrestler up against a featherweight one though. Is this because the heavyweight is more skilled?

[RagingCyclone]

Herr Uhl wrote...

RagingCyclone wrote...

And technique trumps strength every time. Ask any athlete. As a center on a football team I could match up against a nose tackle that was bigger and strnger...and I could still beat him. And in wrestling...too obvious. And I also know a little about strength training/body building...they are not that much different especially when talking about football...the two go hand in hand.

You wouldn't put a heavywheight wrestler up against a featherweight one though. Is this because the heavyweight is more skilled?

In practice we used to go up and down the weight classes at the varsity level. The 98 pounder would wrestle up against the others in the different weight classes...and yes there were times the 98 lb guy went undefeated in practice even against the heaveywieght at 200 lbs. It's all still due to technique.

[Wereparrot]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

SkittlesKat96 wrote...

Is it really that unrealistic?

If anything Bioware has pushed gender equality in their games...

I just assume that there aren't many female soldiers and fighters let alone Grey Wardens.

And really that isn't that sexist at all considering what medieval and dark age times were like...in fact like I said, they seem to push gender equality because there are lots of high up female soldiers and fighters (which is a good thing.)

I suppose though it'd be nice to see some more women Wardens though, I found it to be a bit weird not seeing any female GW's at Ostagar.

EDIT: It should also be noted that even genetically females aren't as good fighters/aren't as strong (it has to do with the chromosomes, a lot of female olympic athletes have actually been proven to have male chromosomes or something). Maybe they have a higher risk of death in the joinings and aren't found as often during recruitment.

 If you can heft a weapon, you can be a soldier, not matter your gender.

It's foolish and dangerous to ignore the prevailing military reasoning as to why women do not serve in the infantry. Discipline and preffesionalism must never be sacrificed for equality, because equality is not the end of the matter. The battlefield is not the place for experimentation, so in the name of prudence I think it should stay this way.   

That's not to say that I disapprove of female soldiers in video games. I can suspend belief for this.

[Merci357]

Wereparrot wrote...

It's foolish and dangerous to ignore the prevailing military reasoning as to why women do not serve in the infantry. Discipline and preffesionalism must never be sacrificed for equality, because equality is not the end of the matter. The battlefield is not the place for experimentation, so in the name of prudence I think it should stay this way.   

That's not to say that I disapprove of female soldiers in video games. I can suspend belief for this.

Oh well, poor Israeli army, then. They must really suffer with this lack of discipline and professionalism. To be honest, there are not many countries that put women in combat situations, however Isreal does. And their army certainly hasn't the worst reputation when efficiency is concerned.

[LadyJaneGrey]

So...who volunteers to tell the Israeli military command "you're doing it wrong?" 

Edit:

Modifié par LadyJaneGrey, 03 novembre 2011 - 03:48 .

[tmp7704]

Wereparrot wrote...

It's foolish and dangerous to ignore the prevailing military reasoning as to why women do not serve in the infantry.

The prevailing military reasoning tends to be, men would likely act unreasonably in presence of women, prioritizing them over following orders. Which --leaving aside the stupidity of gender-wide generalizations like these-- suggest that a shortcoming, if any, is with men rather than women.

[Herr Uhl]

RagingCyclone wrote...

In practice we used to go up and down the weight classes at the varsity level. The 98 pounder would wrestle up against the others in the different weight classes...and yes there were times the 98 lb guy went undefeated in practice even against the heaveywieght at 200 lbs. It's all still due to technique.

So why does weight classes exist? Having muscle means you can do the same things with equal or less technique. There is a big advantage in having more muscle mass, up to a certain point.

[Wereparrot]

Merci357 wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

It's foolish and dangerous to ignore the prevailing military reasoning as to why women do not serve in the infantry. Discipline and preffesionalism must never be sacrificed for equality, because equality is not the end of the matter. The battlefield is not the place for experimentation, so in the name of prudence I think it should stay this way.   

That's not to say that I disapprove of female soldiers in video games. I can suspend belief for this.

Oh well, poor Israeli army, then. They must really suffer with this lack of discipline and professionalism. To be honest, there are not many countries that put women in combat situations, however Isreal does. And their army certainly hasn't the worst reputation when efficiency is concerned.

In On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman briefly mentions that female soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces have been officially prohibited from serving in close combat military operations since 1948. (However, in 2001, subsequent to publication, women did begin serving in IDF combat units on an experimental basis.) The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines was due less to the performance of female soldiers, and more due to the behavior of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression, severely degrading the unit's combat effectiveness.

You refute this?

BTW, combat roles are not neccessarily infantry.

Modifié par Wereparrot, 03 novembre 2011 - 03:51 .

[tmp7704]

Herr Uhl wrote...

So why does weight classes exist? Having muscle means you can do the same things with equal or less technique. There is a big advantage in having more muscle mass, up to a certain point.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Weight_class

"Weight classes are divisions of competition used to match competitors against others of their own size. This reduces the exclusion of smaller athletes in sports where physical size gives a significant advantage."

it's much more about the arm reach, height advantage and such than the muscle mass per se. Weight just happens to be tied to these factors, allowing for easier grouping.

[tmp7704]

Wereparrot wrote...

In On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman briefly mentions that female soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces have been officially prohibited from serving in close combat military operations since 1948. (However, in 2001, subsequent to publication, women did begin serving in IDF combat units on an experimental basis.) The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines was due less to the performance of female soldiers, and more due to the behavior of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression, severely degrading the unit's combat effectiveness.

You refute this?

Do you refute this?

[RagingCyclone]

Herr Uhl wrote...

RagingCyclone wrote...

In practice we used to go up and down the weight classes at the varsity level. The 98 pounder would wrestle up against the others in the different weight classes...and yes there were times the 98 lb guy went undefeated in practice even against the heaveywieght at 200 lbs. It's all still due to technique.

So why does weight classes exist? Having muscle means you can do the same things with equal or less technique. There is a big advantage in having more muscle mass, up to a certain point.

Weight classes exist to even the playing field and prevent possible injuries...but that doesn't always work. I was personally injured out of the sport due to too many elbow injuries and a blown knee.  But here I think you are equating weight to strength and that would be false. I again go back to the example of Bruce Lee. Weight classes exist for competitive reasons, not based on strength issues as you seem to perceive.  When the ancient Greeks held wrestling competitions there were no weight classes. And legend has that Achilles was the best warrior...but definitely not the largest or strongest.

[adneate]

Wereparrot wrote...
The battlefield is not the place for experimentation, so in the name of prudence I think it should stay this way.   

Actually it is, Commanders change the way things are and experiment with pretty much everything all the time. New tactics and strategies are developed or repurposed all the time. Racial intergration was an "experiment" that was conducted during the Korean War, should they not have done that?