882 réponses à ce sujet

[Carfax]

Tirigon wrote...

Knights had to fight to be even made knights. The only way for a knight not to fight was if there were no fights during their lifetime. Which, given their affinity to start battles just for the fun of it, was very unlikely.

So Elton John went to war and fought in battles when he received his Knighthood then?  Please.....

That is no big deal for a strong, trained woman. On the other hand it would be a lot for an untrained man.

Have you ever been in the Military before?  Probably not, since you clearly have no idea what you're saying.  Carrying an extra 60lbs (never mind 130lbs) on your frame for extended periods of time can be very stressful on just about anyone.

It has nothing to do with strength or training.  It's simple physics.  The greater the load that you carry, and the longer the amount of time you carry it for, increases the amount of damage inflicted on the body.

Women cannot cope with this kind of pressure, because their bones and muscles are less dense than mens' and therefore more prone to injury.

Your last sentence, which is indeed correct, invalidates your entire point. You just admitted YOURSELF that strength depends more on individual traits and exercise than gender.

I did no such thing, and I'd take it kindly if you would not misquote me.  Strength (and other factors) very much depends on your gender.  If it didn't, then there wouldn't be a WNBA.....there'd only be an NBA.

[Tirigon]

Carfax wrote...

So Elton John went to war and fought in battles when he received his Knighthood then?  Please.....

Because Elton john lived in Medieval times. Come on now you are just making yourself ridiculous. Back then Knighthood meant something very much different than nowadays. And even more so, it meant something different from ENGLISH Knighthood, which was never real knighthood anyways.

Women cannot cope with this kind of pressure, because their bones and muscles are less dense than mens' and therefore more prone to injury.

BullSh!t. Bones and muscles are no different between the genders, it only depends on how much you exercise.

I did no such thing, and I'd take it kindly if you would not misquote me.  Strength (and other factors) very much depends on your gender.  If it didn't, then there wouldn't be a WNBA.....there'd only be an NBA.

The different leagues for men and women in sports are not biologically validated, they come because many people still believe the same crap you believe even though it is wrong.

[Nyctyris]

Carfax wrote...

Women cannot cope with this kind of pressure, because their bones and muscles are less dense than mens' and therefore more prone to injury.

BullSh!t. Bones and muscles are no different between the genders, it only depends on how much you exercise.

I did no such thing, and I'd take it kindly if you would not misquote me.  Strength (and other factors) very much depends on your gender.  If it didn't, then there wouldn't be a WNBA.....there'd only be an NBA.

The different leagues for men and women in sports are not biologically validated, they come because many people still believe the same crap you believe even though it is wrong.

Actually that isn't true - there is a biological gender difference. 

Muscle fibres are equally strong regardless of gender, but men have more fibres in their muscles and therefore have a higher muscle capacity. Even adjusting for weight, size, bmi, etc., men are overall stronger. There are exceptions, but in general, the strongest man in the world will still probably be stronger than the strongest female in the world.

Men also do have denser bones, and slightly better bone structure (narrower hips, basically). Men also tend to have larger hearts (meaning their hearts work less hard to perform the same task and have a high cardiovascular cap in terms of fitness). Men also have larger lungs and so greater lung capacity, meaning they oxygenate better. In general they also heal faster and have lower pain tolerance but also lower skin sensitivity.

It's not a gap that can be solved by exercise I'm afraid.


HOWEVER, that doesn't mean women couldn't serve in a military capacity, for three reasons:

1) Men may be overall better, but that doesn't mean women can't hit the bar. Even if the "best" male is better than the "best" female in terms of strength and durability, you can still get exceptional females who are capable of meeting the necessary standards. Additionally, int he case of my shepard who is an infiltrator, I don't see those differences being too much of an issue. I imagine my femshep as not being nearly as tough as someone like Vega but damn good with a sniper rifle, with a clear head for command/tactics and just generally better from a distance >.>

2) Women don't peak out as quickly. Men reach fitness peak at 25 (I may be wrong about this, correct me if I am) but women who are over 30 and have had children actually have a very good fitness level if they maintain themselves. This is because they have more testosterone in their system (building more muscles), they have increased heart and lung capacity (from having to support the child), etc. 

3) Scifi universe! Just because there are significant differences between the genders in our current generation doesn't mean they'll exist in Mass Effect's future. It may well be that genetic conditioning and other factors has eliminated a lot of the gap. Not to mention, there are other roles that women can fulfill  - such as being a really powerful biotic (Liara doesn't take **** from big beefy armed guys ) or, like my shepard, an infiltrator.

Modifié par Nyctyris, 29 mars 2012 - 02:34 .

[Glowpod]

Where did this screenie come from?
It's awesome

Hathur wrote...

Sigh.. really? This thread seems to come up on an hourly basis since 2007.

[Tirigon]

Nyctyris wrote...

Muscle fibres are equally strong regardless of gender, but men have more fibres in their muscles and therefore have a higher muscle capacity. Even adjusting for weight, size, bmi, etc., men are overall stronger. There are exceptions, but in general, the strongest man in the world will still probably be stronger than the strongest female in the world.

Men also do have denser bones, and slightly better bone structure (narrower hips, basically). Men also tend to have larger hearts (meaning their hearts work less hard to perform the same task and have a high cardiovascular cap in terms of fitness). Men also have larger lungs and so greater lung capacity, meaning they oxygenate better. In general they also heal faster and have lower pain tolerance but also lower skin sensitivity.

It's not a gap that can be solved by exercise I'm afraid.

No, you are wrong.

It is true that ON AVERAGE this is the case, but individually not. And even men on average being stronger is likely because men are, thanks to society's stereotypes, more likely to work out than women.

And as for bigger hearts, lungs etc: only if they are also overall bigger. In relation to body size, there is very little difference, if any.
Pain tolerance is the same, men are just more likely to swallow it, because if a woman cries that is OK, is a man cries he is considered a weakling.

[loungeshep]

She just seems to fit the role better than male step does honestly.

I like both Shepard's, however it just seems that man she is far too generic, while femshep brings more to the trilogy. Kind of like how samus brings metroid to life as a female bounty hunter.

[iRAWRasaurusREX]

Why not is the question.

[android654]

Hathur wrote...

Sigh.. really? This thread seems to come up on an hourly basis since 2007.

My thoughts exactly...

[78stonewobble]

BELLCURVES ladies and gents... bellcurves...

While you can make some general assumptions based on eg. sex (age, race, upbringing, sexual preference, political sentiment and what not) an individual should be judged on her/his own merit.



Regarding our biological difference: The building blocks are the same though we differ somewhat in composition of these building blocks. However the individual differences can easily outweigh the average gender differences and that IMHO renders the average gender differences irrelevant for eg. a specific job.

[What a Succulent Ass]

Tirigon wrote...

Pain tolerance is the same, men are just more likely to swallow it, because if a woman cries that is OK, is a man cries he is considered a weakling.

Actually, (on average) women have a higher pain threshold than men. Lot of fiction about women in uniform in this thread. Don't feel like addressing them all, though.

I will say that to whomever was saying that carrying several pounds of equipment is stressful on women, you are correct. Of course, it's stressful on men too, considering that humping gear is by nature a burden that varies directly with weight, heat, and time. Regardless, both military men and women undergo the same conditioning and the same training, so the point is moot. And interestingly enough, female recruits tend to outdo their male counterparts when it comes to marching and distance running (in or out of fully equipped battle dress) simply on the merit that women are better built for it.

At any rate, averages mean nothing, considering that it isn't average men and women who go (and stay) in the armed forces.

Modifié par Random Jerkface, 29 mars 2012 - 06:23 .

[Stokie Stallion]

i just prefer see a man holding liara than a woman...

used to play a femshep, named her after an ex she died during the suicide mission me2

[78stonewobble]

Random Jerkface wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Pain tolerance is the same, men are just more likely to swallow it, because if a woman cries that is OK, is a man cries he is considered a weakling.

Actually, (on average) women have a higher pain threshold than men. Lot of fiction about women in uniform in this thread. Don't feel like addressing them all, though.

I will say that to whomever was saying that carrying several pounds of equipment is stressful on women, you are correct. Of course, it's stressful on men too, considering that humping gear is by nature a burden that varies directly with weight, heat, and time. Regardless, both military men and women undergo the same conditioning and the same training, so the point is moot. And interestingly enough, female recruits tend to outdo their male counterparts when it comes to marching and distance running (in or out of fully equipped battle dress) simply on the merit that women are better built for it.

At any rate, averages mean nothing, considering that it isn't average men and women who go (and stay) in the armed forces.

Women do have proportionally bigger lower body muscle strength which do come in handy when it's about distance on foot (or using the legs). In this case extra upper body strength is somewhat of a "deadweight".  

[Nyctyris]

Tirigon wrote...

Nyctyris wrote...

Muscle fibres are equally strong regardless of gender, but men have more fibres in their muscles and therefore have a higher muscle capacity. Even adjusting for weight, size, bmi, etc., men are overall stronger. There are exceptions, but in general, the strongest man in the world will still probably be stronger than the strongest female in the world.

Men also do have denser bones, and slightly better bone structure (narrower hips, basically). Men also tend to have larger hearts (meaning their hearts work less hard to perform the same task and have a high cardiovascular cap in terms of fitness). Men also have larger lungs and so greater lung capacity, meaning they oxygenate better. In general they also heal faster and have lower pain tolerance but also lower skin sensitivity.

It's not a gap that can be solved by exercise I'm afraid.

No, you are wrong.

It is true that ON AVERAGE this is the case, but individually not. And even men on average being stronger is likely because men are, thanks to society's stereotypes, more likely to work out than women.

And as for bigger hearts, lungs etc: only if they are also overall bigger. In relation to body size, there is very little difference, if any.
Pain tolerance is the same, men are just more likely to swallow it, because if a woman cries that is OK, is a man cries he is considered a weakling.

I did actually say"on average" (or well, "in general", but I meant the same thing). 

It isn't just a social stereotype, although society does a lot to condition things. You could argue that because society has set gender roles, women haven't evolve to have more strength, but there is an actual chemical, hormonal, biological difference (on average naturally). It is (according to current research) much more difficult for women to build muscle through weight training, for instance, unless they make some big changes to their diet and hormone levels. 
One could argue that the research is wrong or slanted I suppose, but that is a different battle entirely.  

I did also say that this difference might not exist in Mass Effect because it is set in the future when we might have evolved slightly differently or adjusted things like hormones/muscle fibre density, and that some women could be the exception. That doesn't even begin to take into account the cybernetics that Shep's had.


In any case, I'm agreeing with you on principle. I see nothing wrong with Shepard being exceptional, and/or women being competitive candidates for military service in the ME universe. Not to mention that physical strength is probably largley irrelevant in scifi combat; it'd be all about the hi tech armor, augmentations, biotic powers, etc. Whether or not Jane has slightly less physical strength than Joe is totally irrelevant if they're both in an Atlas 

[HermanGunther]

One word, "perves."

[s.nebulous]

So the average man is physically stronger than the average women.. so what?

Women do a fine job sacrificing their time and lives in the military’s of today.

All that should matter is how well one can do their job guy or girl. I have seen some pretty small men in the Marines, and when I mean small I mean small frame, weight, and size. I was Air Force myself.

I really could go on, but I’m going to stop myself because I’m not sure this is really on topic for this thread or Mass Effect related.

Just remember Asari Commando’s Kick ***.

[Lynata]

[quote]Carfax wrote...
Are you implying that separating men and women into two different groups is wrong?  So men and women should use the same bathrooms, showers etc....?[/quote]On the long run - sure, why not? Just because contemporary society teaches we need to be ashamed of our bodies? This is not in our genes. When men and women have no problem going to the toilet with each other, neither should they have a problem with the other gender.
http://en.wikipedia....-neutral_toilet

I do understand that different countries preach different things regarding naked bodies, though. I'm from Europe, and I think many people here are a little more relaxed concerning this stuff, as seen here. But I guess this topic has also come up in threads concerning nudity in Mass Effect. 

[quote]Carfax wrote...
Also, I don't know how you can say gender alone isn't a strong indicator of performance.  If it isn't, then why do men and women not compete against each other in sporting events?[/quote]Weight is also a strong indicator of performance, just to give another example, and here genders get separated into sub-groups as well. So, if there's a way to put people in categories based on how they perform and not what gender they are, sure, why not?

[quote]Carfax wrote...
Most laws exist for a reason.[/quote]Ah, but it's funny how you seem to turn around now, given that it looked as if you wanted to criticize laws whose reason was to establish equality.

[quote]Carfax wrote...
In this case (specifically women in combat), they exist because women are typically weaker than men, slower reaction times and movement speed, greater susceptability to PTSD, more prone to injury, have less endurance, less aggressive etc....  These discrepancies are due to inherent physiological differences.[/quote]And because of the average you wish to bar the whole? There are many strong women who surpass weaker men. Barring them from service due to gender alone and not, in fact, their actual efficiency is something that can be motivated only by fear of a female actually succeeding at this profession.

[quote]Carfax wrote...
You can't compare the situation with minorities with women in combat.  A black man is still a man.  A woman (of any color) on the other hand, is fundamentally different from a man in so many ways.[/quote]A fat man is still a man. An athletic woman is still a woman. Who would make a better soldier?

You may argue that the fat man wouldn't make it through the tests, but he is allowed to take them. So why not grant the women the same right? Fear she might pass?

[quote]Carfax wrote...
If they did this, there would only be a handful of women in the Military, as most of them would not be able to meet the same standards that are imposed on men.[/quote]In the more elite formations, yes, but in many countries women are still barred from joining them in the first place, so it'd still be an improvement.

Looking at the regular forces, the standards don't seem to be that high. You'd still have less women there, but I don't see why this is a bad thing. They are doing the same job, after all. A gun does not distinguish between male or female, regardless of whether it's used by one or aimed at one.

If, on the other hand, the administration recognizes the women as doing an adequate job, they may as well lower the requirements for male applicants to the same level. Either way would work; the path itself would depend on how many troops the nation in question needs.

[quote]Carfax wrote...
I don't know how the German Military does it, but most militaries (including both the U.S and Israel) have different physical standards for men and women.  This is needed, because women simply cannot compete on the same level as men.[/quote]They are doing the same job, so I fail to see why this is "needed". If somebody cannot fulfill the requirements, he or she shouldn't be allowed to sign up. This should be independent from gender, as should the service be in general.

But yes, it's the same in Germany, and I dislike it. It preserves a bias the military can do without, as even the stronger women might be subjected to the "she had it easy" prejudice created by allowing those to sign up who would not qualify otherwise. It'd be the same with men.

[quote]Carfax wrote...
There were female Knights, but they did not fight in battles or war as far as I know.[/quote]The Order of the Hatchet was made up entirely of those women who defended their city of Tortosa against a Moor siege when the men wanted to surrender. They were said to have carried themselves after the military knights of that time.

Yes, these things were rare - the titular honour alone without actually fighting in a battle was far more common. Still, it is an interesting fact often omitted from history in what might be a subconscious continuation of the same bias that led to the suppression of women wishing to become warriors back then. Which was not uncommon for the nordic tribes before they were conquered and forcibly converted; there are a number of old accounts regarding viking women or frenzied female "barbarians".

Few people also know about Japanese female samurai (or onna-bugeisha, to use the correct term) or the so-called Dahomey Amazons. It's a lack of knowledge which I feel is connected to contemporary perception of gender differences when it comes to warfare.

[quote]Carfax wrote...
Women don't carry the weight in the same capacity that men do.  Thats why I mentioned active Militaries earlier.[/quote]Are women truly issued less equipment in your nation? If so, I apologize for the misconception. In my unit, we all carried the same amount of gear - though it is true that the entry requirements are still different.
Which is a bit weird when you think about it. We weren't an active combat unit though (only patrol/protection), so I'm unsure whether it might be different in assault infantry. It's not for Australia, Finland and South Korea, that much is certain. Probably more. Here's an extensive list: http://en.wikipedia....tary_by_country

Either way, this too comes down to simply letting everyone carry the same amount of weight. If there are women (and men!) who cannot cope, don't allow them in this particular unit. But at the same time, allow those that do - regardless of gender.

[quote]Carfax wrote...
A lot of nations that employ women in combat roles, do not have active Militaries and thus do not send their women out into enemy territory for extended periods of time to fight.
Very, very few women (if any) could handle the weight of gear and ammo for long periods of time (which is a requirement for infantry) without getting stress fractures.[/quote]Curiously, it used to be that it was in war when female soldiers were appearing more often than in peacetime, probably because a nation exhausting its male population regards its continued existence as more important than sexism.

You make it sound as if there is a wide gap between the spectrums in which male and female bodies fall. But there is not. We're not talking about two different species here; there is a huge potential for overlap.

An example:
"Sgt. Michelle Stephens is a salty, hard-charging Marine who has hauled 75-pound packs with infantrymen at mountain warfare training, qualified as a rifle sharpshooter while using iron sights and worked off-duty as a bouncer in a bar.
Despite all that, the seven-year Marine will never serve in a combat unit because of something else: she’s a woman. The 5-foot-10, 170-pound administrative specialist is taller and stronger than some Marines, but the U.S. doesn’t allow women in combat arms jobs."
-- http://www.marinecor...fantry-041911w/

So tell me: does this seem just to you? Is this really fair?

[quote]Carfax wrote...
I agree that in the context of the Mass Effect Universe, weapon and armor weight would have little bearing due to supposed technological advances like mechanized armor.[/quote]Well then, even if we'll continue to agree on the contemporary issues (where I believe both our perceptions are too firm), this at least seems to be a useful consensus - and one that will suffice for me.

As the previous poster said, these forums aren't very good for discussing gender policies, anyways, so let's just agree to disagree.

Modifié par Lynata, 29 mars 2012 - 07:39 .

[StephanieBengal]

Wow all of this, over this...

[ungodlike]

I like strong individualistic woman ? I find strong heroines sexy. That said I like playing the dark moody hero guy as well at least in both cases I can kick people off buildings.

[Red Son Rising]

why play as femshep if youre a guy?
1. dont wanna look at sheploos butt for 40hrs
2. Hale > Meer
3. ME1, femshep. ME2, femshep. ME3? femshep

[Carfax]

Tirigon wrote...

Because Elton john lived in Medieval times. Come on now you are just making yourself ridiculous. Back then Knighthood meant something very much different than nowadays. And even more so, it meant something different from ENGLISH Knighthood, which was never real knighthood anyways.

It doesn't matter whether you lived in Medieval times or not.  Knighthood doesn't explicitly require Military service.  In fact, the wiki entry on women Knights makes it plain that many women received knighthood because their husbands were knights themselves.

Source

BullSh!t. Bones and muscles are no different between the genders, it only depends on how much you exercise.

You are a tremendously ignorant person, and this is certainly the last time I will address you on this matter. 

Peak bone mass tends to be higher in men than in women. Before puberty, boys and girls acquire bone mass at similar rates. After puberty, however, men tend to acquire greater bone mass than women.

Source

As for muscles, Nyctris must have a different understanding of muscle density than I do.  Muscle density to me is the ratio between muscle mass and body fat.  The higher your muscle mass is and the lower your fat, the greater your muscle density.

And since men have much lower body fat than women, they have greater overall muscle density.

The different leagues for men and women in sports are not biologically validated, they come because many people still believe the same crap you believe even though it is wrong.

You are crazy.  There's nothing more to be said. 

[Carfax]

Random Jerkface wrote...

Actually, (on average) women have a higher pain threshold than men. Lot of fiction about women in uniform in this thread. Don't feel like addressing them all, though.

Men have higher pain threshold for traumatic injuries than women, and women have a higher pain threshold for lingering, chronic pains than men.

And interestingly enough, female recruits tend to outdo their male counterparts when it comes to marching and distance running (in or out of fully equipped battle dress) simply on the merit that women are better built for it.

I don't know where you heard this from, but it's wrong.  Women do not outdo men on marching or distance running.  In fact, it's the opposite. 

Women in the Military have less physical standard than men (including running), so how could your assertion be true?

[ungodlike]

Ok really this not a debate which is the stronger or fairer sex ok? Its why guys roleplay as the femshep. In regards to the above.

[ungodlike]

HermanGunther wrote...

One word, "perves."

One word for you "prude".

[-Sxx-]

Not really. In most games I've found myself playing females. Partially because they tend to look better in armour and such, then there's mods (but that's like Skyrim etc..). Overall though I see it this way: if I'm going to spend hours playing a game, with their back to me, or seeing their face and such, I'd prefer it something nice and 'enjoyable' (loosely) to look at constantly.

However, ME female Shepards are downright ugly in a multitude of ways and don't look decent at all. Surprised BW didn't try to really improve them since ME1. Even Ashley got a decent makeover, yet female Shep loses out.

Male Shep just looks badass and wins.

Modifié par Dest1ny, 29 mars 2012 - 10:10 .