76 réponses à ce sujet

[dunstan1993]

Males are almost always stronger, faster and more violent than females, that's why it makes sense to have male soldiers and leave the "non-combat" roles/jobs to females. This shouldn't just apply to the Kossith, but humans, elves and Dwarves too should follow this, unless of course a female proves herself to be at the very least on par with her male counterparts in combat roles.

I don't think it's equality, but it makes perfect sense (To me at least, call me sexist).

[GavrielKay]

dunstan1993 wrote...

Males are almost always stronger, faster and more violent than females, that's why it makes sense to have male soldiers and leave the "non-combat" roles/jobs to females. This shouldn't just apply to the Kossith, but humans, elves and Dwarves too should follow this, unless of course a female proves herself to be at the very least on par with her male counterparts in combat roles.

I don't think it's equality, but it makes perfect sense (To me at least, call me sexist).

However true or untrue your claim is, there is more to being a soldier than what you state.  Most armies have sentries, scouts, marksmen, black-ops troops, intelligence units, etc which are roles that could well be filled by your hypothetically weaker and less violent women.  There are many roles for soldiers beyond infantry.

The rigidity of the Qun may be comforting to those who can't be bothered to figure out what to do with themselves, but there are downsides that are just intolerable to me.

[dunstan1993]

GavrielKay wrote...

dunstan1993 wrote...

Males are almost always stronger, faster and more violent than females, that's why it makes sense to have male soldiers and leave the "non-combat" roles/jobs to females. This shouldn't just apply to the Kossith, but humans, elves and Dwarves too should follow this, unless of course a female proves herself to be at the very least on par with her male counterparts in combat roles.

I don't think it's equality, but it makes perfect sense (To me at least, call me sexist).

However true or untrue your claim is, there is more to being a soldier than what you state.  Most armies have sentries, scouts, marksmen, black-ops troops, intelligence units, etc which are roles that could well be filled by your hypothetically weaker and less violent women.  There are many roles for soldiers beyond infantry.

The rigidity of the Qun may be comforting to those who can't be bothered to figure out what to do with themselves, but there are downsides that are just intolerable to me.

Perhaps "Soldiers" was a bad word to choose, I can get behind female scouts...... and other roles which rarely (or never) get into the fray, but I just firmly believe that the frontlines is a mans territory.

[GavrielKay]

dunstan1993 wrote...
Perhaps "Soldiers" was a bad word to choose, I can get behind female scouts...... and other roles which rarely (or never) get into the fray, but I just firmly believe that the frontlines is a mans territory.

Well, as a woman, I'd say that attitude is sexist. 

However, the Qun doesn't even appear to think women should serve military functions off the front lines.  I remember no mention of women being trained as scouts or marksmen etc by the Qun...  military service seems to be completely completely the province of men.

[PizzaThe Hutt]

GavrielKay wrote...

PizzaThe Hutt wrote...

Beliar86 wrote...

I don't remember anything saying the Ben hassreth don't reevaluate people from time to time anyway.

I would not be surprised if they have examinations from time to time to ensure forward progress in someone and give them a reassignment to fit with their progress.

I would be surprised because the Qun has been portrayed as very extreme so far.  They would be diluting the Qun, in my eyes anyway, by adding in too much "reasonableness."  If the purpose of the Qun in the story is to provide a stark philosophy contrast to normal human behavior, they should probably have them be rigid in their beliefs.

At the same time, there's no reason to assume that just because a boy is chosen for the role of sten at a young age, that he actually assumes those duties at the same age as regular foot soldiers do.  The role of sten could well include several years of extra training in tactics and such that delay his entry into actual service, or are served out as a 'sten-in-training' with the infantry to give him an understanding of those he'll be commanding.

I think that they only ever do any form of examinations or evaluations of a qunari when a role is needed to be filled.  For all we know they may have a quota of some sort for however many Ashaads or Karasten,etc there are.  You'd think that the Tamassran have a tight rein on breeding so that the resources they have avaliable is equal to the amount of people they have...  I'm not really sure how old Sten is when he's introduced in DAO but I'm sure from what he learned in his time in Fereldan and during his overall life I'm sure he's up there in terms of experience...

[dunstan1993]

GavrielKay wrote...

Well, as a woman, I'd say that attitude is sexist. 

I guess that "get behind" line didn't do much to persaude people that I'm not sexist, terrible joke anyway... but I'm just telling the truth and the truth is men are superior in melee combat.

However, the Qun doesn't even appear to think women should serve military functions off the front lines.  I remember no mention of women being trained as scouts or marksmen etc by the Qun...  military service seems to be completely completely the province of men.

It's a shame since female Kossith could perform those roles just as a good as a male, but I guess male Kossith can and will continue to perform those roles just fine.

[NKKKK]

Females could be better snipers than males.

[GavrielKay]

dunstan1993 wrote...
I guess that "get behind" line didn't do much to persaude people that I'm not sexist, terrible joke anyway... but I'm just telling the truth and the truth is men are superior in melee combat.

It is likely that a man in peak physical condition and with expert training will generally be able to defeat a woman in the same condition...  but it is also true that most people are far from their peak potential.  I would say there are plenty of women who could outperform plenty of men in a number of melee situations.  There is more to winning a fist fight than who has the hardest punch, for example.  And there is more to surviving a battlefield than strength.

Anyway, the Qun just divides up the various roles in society according to rules and order etc.  I think for me one of the major factors of the Qun is that their division isn't based on one role being better than another.  They don't consider being a soldier more honarable than being a merchant, being a priest isn't more respected than being a farmer.  They are all necessary for their society to function and value is placed on excelling at whatever role you are assigned.  In that way, they are very different from our actual world.  I think for real racism or sexism you have to have some feeling that the role you are delegating to one person is actually inferior to that of another.

Modifié par GavrielKay, 25 juillet 2012 - 07:39 .

[Beliar86]

GavrielKay wrote...

dunstan1993 wrote...
I guess that "get behind" line didn't do much to persaude people that I'm not sexist, terrible joke anyway... but I'm just telling the truth and the truth is men are superior in melee combat.

It is likely that a man in peak physical condition and with expert training will generally be able to defeat a woman in the same condition...  but it is also true that most people are far from their peak potential.  I would say there are plenty of women who could outperform plenty of men in a number of melee situations.  There is more to winning a fist fight than who has the hardest punch, for example.  And there is more to surviving a battlefield than strength.

Anyway, the Qun just divides up the various roles in society according to rules and order etc.  I think for me one of the major factors of the Qun is that their division isn't based on one role being better than another.  They don't consider being a soldier more honarable than being a merchant, being a priest isn't more respected than being a farmer.  They are all necessary for their society to function and value is placed on excelling at whatever role you are assigned.  In that way, they are very different from our actual world.  I think for real racism or sexism you have to have some feeling that the role you are delegating to one person is actually inferior to that of another.

That's only classism, has nothing to do with racism or sexism.

[Crypticqa]

dunstan1993 wrote...

Males are almost always stronger, faster and more violent than females, that's why it makes sense to have male soldiers and leave the "non-combat" roles/jobs to females. This shouldn't just apply to the Kossith, but humans, elves and Dwarves too should follow this, unless of course a female proves herself to be at the very least on par with her male counterparts in combat roles.

I don't think it's equality, but it makes perfect sense (To me at least, call me sexist).

That only make sense if it applies on one race. But in DA universe not so much. Elven males are even smaller (then probably weaker or the same) than human females , yet none question them as soldiers.

[Silfren]

Chipaway111 wrote...

To us it seems sexist, but to the Qunari it is not. The women are just as equal as men, but they are considered suited for different tasks. No one looks down on each other because of their assigned role... I really don't know how to phrase it correctly, but it just seems ignorant to dismiss the Qun as sexist without making an attempt to understand it.

It IS sexist.  The qunari not seeing it that way is irrelevant.  When you determine a person's base ability based strictly on gender, and gender alone, sexism is at play, and that is precisely what the Qunari do.  They BEGIN the very process of determining what roles a person is suited for based on their gender.  There is no way that that is NOT sexist.

[Silfren]

nightscrawl wrote...

Captain Cornhole wrote...

your just a bigot

Responses like this don't really encourage thoughtful discussion...

I'm pretty damn sure that was a sarcastic/ironic response meant totally in humor.  Look at the post it is responding to.  I can't believe so many people have missed that that was not intended seriously.

Modifié par Silfren, 25 juillet 2012 - 08:02 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

Captain Cornhole wrote...

However recent article in the UK dailymail seems to back up what the Qunari have been saying for years. Women are indeed smarter then men.

Urgh! What is that smell? Oh. It's just the dailymail again. Probably the worst news site out there. The same news site said the opposite before. Best to take what the dailymail says with a pinch of salt when it keeps posting rubbish. Everyone knows that gender doesn't effect what makes a person smarter.

Pure sexism not being in Dragon Age is a bit silly. It's supposed to be a dark themed game. They have racism when it comes to elves (although not color racism) but not sexism. Women in the medieval times weren't treated like men and I'd like to play a game one day where this is acknowledged. I mean I don't want a game where you see women being abused constantly but coming across people in the game who treat their wife badly or speak of women as though their inferior would be a welcome to change and it would give more cause to play as a different gender in the game since dialogue and story would be different as each gender.

Also, such a game could tackle issues such as women's rights where the protagonist could stick up for women (or not). As far as I know, The Witcher had some of this and also had some women who did have power and influence (this wouldn't need to be absent from the game I propose because there were noble women in the medieval age who had power and influence). Sadly, The Witcher also presented nearly every women as being *****s and they would throw themselves at Geralt.

I mean even throwing in one or two cultures/races which treat women with a different view (maybe even a culture or race where women are viewed as the superior gender) would make for a relief now since all RPG's set in fictional lands nowadays seem to be going all the same route with "all genders are equal and view each other as the same save when it comes to romance" but now with everyone being bisexual in these same worlds (first Dragon Age 2, then Skyrim* and then Dragon's Dogma) I guess there's really no distinction between sexes in the politcally correct world of many developers and every other developer seems to be going that way nowadays.

So having Qunari view women differently than everyone else in Thedas is a welcome change and could certainly provide cause for a playthrough as different genders to be content worthy in future instalments if Qunari are handled better this time (where they actually remark upon your role as a woman who is fighting which they don't believe in).

Even Dragon's Dogma in its politcally correct world had some content influenced by gender. There was a band of all female bandits who hated men and you had to be female to speak to them.

So whether it's "women are superior" or "women can't perform certain roles in our soceity because we don't believe they are able or are inferior" I would like for some of this diversity and I'm glad the Qunari have an entirely different viewpoint here.

*Forgive if I'm wrong. I didn't enjoy Skyrim so I didn't play much of it but I'm pretty certain all romanceable companions were for both men and women right?

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 25 juillet 2012 - 08:54 .

[Silfren]

Elton John is dead wrote...

Captain Cornhole wrote...

However recent article in the UK dailymail seems to back up what the Qunari have been saying for years. Women are indeed smarter then men.

Urgh! What is that smell? Oh. It's just the dailymail again. Probably the worst news site out there. The same news site said the opposite before. Best to take what the dailymail says with a pinch of salt when it keeps posting rubbish. Everyone knows that gender doesn't effect what makes a person smarter.

Pure sexism not being in Dragon Age is a bit silly. It's supposed to be a dark themed game. They have racism when it comes to elves (although not color racism) but not sexism. Women in the medieval times weren't treated like men and I'd like to play a game one day where this is acknowledged. I mean I don't want a game where you see women being abused constantly but coming across people in the game who treat their wife badly or speak of women as though their inferior would be a welcome to change and it would give more cause to play as a different gender in the game since dialogue and story would be different as each gender.

Also, such a game could tackle issues such as women's rights where the protagonist could stick up for women (or not). As far as I know, The Witcher had some of this and also had some women who did have power and influence (this wouldn't need to be adsent from the game I propose because there were noble women who had power and influence). Sadly, The Witcher also presented nearly every women as being *****s and they would throw themselves at Geralt.

Eh, you DO see these elements in the game.  The Dragon Age setting is not exactly free of sexism.  It's less obvious, and Bioware DOES make an effort, but that's a far, far cry from sexism being absent from the game.

You see it reflected where Anders is paternalistically protective of a female Hawke LI in a way that he is NOT toward a male Hawke.  You see it where any character feels the need to comment on a female Warden being a female, as where Loghain says something to a Warden in the beginning of Origins (can't remember the precise Origin): there would be no need for Loghain to make such a remark if sexist ideas were not present within the setting.  And so on and so forth.  The fact that Daveth comments that he wasn't expecting a woman to be one of Duncan's recruits: again, Daveth would not make that kind of a comment in a sexism-free environment. 

So this idea that the game's story is utterly sexist free?  It's bizarre to see people make such a claim, because it ain't true and never has been.  Bioware games are LESS sexist than many others, but they have plenty of problems of their own, due to the fact that sexist assumptions from the writers inevitably make their way into the game.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Silfren wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...

Captain Cornhole wrote...

However recent article in the UK dailymail seems to back up what the Qunari have been saying for years. Women are indeed smarter then men.

Urgh! What is that smell? Oh. It's just the dailymail again. Probably the worst news site out there. The same news site said the opposite before. Best to take what the dailymail says with a pinch of salt when it keeps posting rubbish. Everyone knows that gender doesn't effect what makes a person smarter.

Pure sexism not being in Dragon Age is a bit silly. It's supposed to be a dark themed game. They have racism when it comes to elves (although not color racism) but not sexism. Women in the medieval times weren't treated like men and I'd like to play a game one day where this is acknowledged. I mean I don't want a game where you see women being abused constantly but coming across people in the game who treat their wife badly or speak of women as though their inferior would be a welcome to change and it would give more cause to play as a different gender in the game since dialogue and story would be different as each gender.

Also, such a game could tackle issues such as women's rights where the protagonist could stick up for women (or not). As far as I know, The Witcher had some of this and also had some women who did have power and influence (this wouldn't need to be adsent from the game I propose because there were noble women who had power and influence). Sadly, The Witcher also presented nearly every women as being *****s and they would throw themselves at Geralt.

Eh, you DO see these elements in the game.  The Dragon Age setting is not exactly free of sexism.  It's less obvious, and Bioware DOES make an effort, but that's a far, far cry from sexism being absent from the game.

You see it reflected where Anders is paternalistically protective of a female Hawke LI in a way that he is NOT toward a male Hawke.  You see it where any character feels the need to comment on a female Warden being a female, as where Loghain says something to a Warden in the beginning of Origins (can't remember the precise Origin): there would be no need for Loghain to make such a remark if sexist ideas were not present within the setting.  And so on and so forth.  The fact that Daveth comments that he wasn't expecting a woman to be one of Duncan's recruits: again, Daveth would not make that kind of a comment in a sexism-free environment. 

So this idea that the game's story is utterly sexist free?  It's bizarre to see people make such a claim, because it ain't true and never has been.  Bioware games are LESS sexist than many others, but they have plenty of problems of their own, due to the fact that sexist assumptions from the writers inevitably make their way into the game.

Or maybe that's just those characters noting that most warriors/rogues/mages they meet are men. It's not sexism unless they're saying "you're inferior" or "you can't perform this task. You're a woman." The game even makes it clear during the CC that both female and males are regarded as equals.

[Silfren]

Elton John is dead wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...

Captain Cornhole wrote...

However recent article in the UK dailymail seems to back up what the Qunari have been saying for years. Women are indeed smarter then men.

Urgh! What is that smell? Oh. It's just the dailymail again. Probably the worst news site out there. The same news site said the opposite before. Best to take what the dailymail says with a pinch of salt when it keeps posting rubbish. Everyone knows that gender doesn't effect what makes a person smarter.

Pure sexism not being in Dragon Age is a bit silly. It's supposed to be a dark themed game. They have racism when it comes to elves (although not color racism) but not sexism. Women in the medieval times weren't treated like men and I'd like to play a game one day where this is acknowledged. I mean I don't want a game where you see women being abused constantly but coming across people in the game who treat their wife badly or speak of women as though their inferior would be a welcome to change and it would give more cause to play as a different gender in the game since dialogue and story would be different as each gender.

Also, such a game could tackle issues such as women's rights where the protagonist could stick up for women (or not). As far as I know, The Witcher had some of this and also had some women who did have power and influence (this wouldn't need to be adsent from the game I propose because there were noble women who had power and influence). Sadly, The Witcher also presented nearly every women as being *****s and they would throw themselves at Geralt.

Eh, you DO see these elements in the game.  The Dragon Age setting is not exactly free of sexism.  It's less obvious, and Bioware DOES make an effort, but that's a far, far cry from sexism being absent from the game.

You see it reflected where Anders is paternalistically protective of a female Hawke LI in a way that he is NOT toward a male Hawke.  You see it where any character feels the need to comment on a female Warden being a female, as where Loghain says something to a Warden in the beginning of Origins (can't remember the precise Origin): there would be no need for Loghain to make such a remark if sexist ideas were not present within the setting.  And so on and so forth.  The fact that Daveth comments that he wasn't expecting a woman to be one of Duncan's recruits: again, Daveth would not make that kind of a comment in a sexism-free environment. 

So this idea that the game's story is utterly sexist free?  It's bizarre to see people make such a claim, because it ain't true and never has been.  Bioware games are LESS sexist than many others, but they have plenty of problems of their own, due to the fact that sexist assumptions from the writers inevitably make their way into the game.

Or maybe that's just those characters noting that most warriors/rogues/mages they meet are men. It's not sexism unless they're saying "you're inferior" or "you can't perform this task. You're a woman." The game even makes it clear during the CC that both female and males are regarded as equals.

Er, no.  There is more to sexism than just the overt expression thereof.  Assumptions about gender roles that prompt people to make certain comments of surprise DOES qualify as a sexist perception.  There's quite a lot of examples of it within both DA games, and it is NOT just a case of me mis-interpreting characters who are "merely" remarking on the difference in numbers of women versus men soldiers.

I don't care what the game says during the character creation.  I'm not going to be blind to the fact that sexist preconceptions of real people will inevitably find expression within the content those people create, and this is as true of Dragon Age as it is of any other medium.  

You'll note that I'm not saying "OMG BIOWARE WRITERS ARE SEXIST ****S."  It isn't necessary to condemn someone as an overtly sexist jerkwad to simply acknowledge that we live in a sexist world such that prejudiced assumptions about women and men are internalized by EVERYONE, including those who strive not to be overtly sexist.  There are a TON of examples of this unfortunate reality bleeding into Dragon Age games as they bleed into everything else created by human minds.

[SnakeStrike8]

GavrielKay wrote...

dunstan1993 wrote...
Perhaps "Soldiers" was a bad word to choose, I can get behind female scouts...... and other roles which rarely (or never) get into the fray, but I just firmly believe that the frontlines is a mans territory.

Well, as a woman, I'd say that attitude is sexist. 

However, the Qun doesn't even appear to think women should serve military functions off the front lines.  I remember no mention of women being trained as scouts or marksmen etc by the Qun...  military service seems to be completely completely the province of men.

I'm sorry, ma'am, but if you're going to tell me that women should replace men in rifle sections and on machine guns, then I'm going to have to call you a nut.
War is not fun; the battlefield is not a nice place to be. When I have to fight, I go into it dreading what could happen. I might lose a limb or get my jobbers blown off. I could lose my eyes or just plain die.
If you're going to tell me that you'd rather do that to satisfy some nebulous concept of anti-sexism, then I'll have to assume you're joking, because no-one wants to do that. Some of us just have to do it.

Modifié par SnakeStrike8, 26 juillet 2012 - 03:44 .

[GavrielKay]

SnakeStrike8 wrote...
I'm sorry, ma'am, but if you're going to tell me that women should replace men in rifle sections and on machine guns, then I'm going to have to call you a nut.
War is not fun; the battlefield is not a nice place to be. When I have to fight, I go into it dreading what could happen. I might lose a limb or get my jobbers blown off. I could lose my eyes or just plain die.
If you're going to tell me that you'd rather do that to satisfy some nebulous concept of anti-sexism, then I'll have to assume you're joking, because no-one wants to do that. Some of us just have to do it.

What does any of that have to do with the fitness of a woman in battle?

In my country, which at the moment has a completely volunteer military force, people join up for all kinds of reasons.  Hopefully both the men and women are fully aware of what the possible consequences are when they do so.

But if you want to tell me that a woman can't have the same motivations and the same willingness to risk life and limb in service to those motivations then you are dead wrong.  I'd say there are just as many men as women in the world who aren't really suited to the military. 

I'm sure there are "bad" motives for joining up (a mean streak or abject poverty etc) but a woman is just as capable of wanting to serve and protect her country as a man is - even to giving up her life.

[Goneaviking]

Captain Cornhole wrote...

Generally they Qunari regaurd women as being brighter and more intelligent then their male counterparts. Thus it is common to find female Qunair in positions of authority, while the men are tasked with the dangerous grunt jobs.

Now some have cried foul, accusing Bioware and the Qunair of pig-headedness and sexism. Argueing that the Qun treats women like cattle; suggesting women are too weak to carry out the physically demanding tasks generally assigned to the males of the Qun.

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Qunari have very sexist beliefs! They should all die! 

However recent article in the UK dailymail seems to back up what the Qunari have been saying for years. Women are indeed smarter then men. The Qunari recognize this fact of life, that is why they respect and value the Qun's females. Why let someone's tallets be put to waste? If a male Qunair is physically stronger, let him be a warrior, if a female Qunair is smarter let her take on a logistics role. 

Some say bigots say this is sexism, I say it's gender equality.

I would argue that the Qunari treat everyone like drones. From what I gather roles are assigned to people based as much on what the leadership feels the society needs as to what the individual in question desires or the roles they're able to perform.

Proscribing roles from individuals based on gender or race actually seems to be the opposite of allowing people to make use of their talents. Instead it makes assumptions on what a particuliar class of people is good for and rules out the possibility that an individual may not meet the stereotype, or even that the stereotype may not be an honest assessment of potentials.

Meh, to the qun.

[Silfren]

SnakeStrike8 wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

dunstan1993 wrote...
Perhaps "Soldiers" was a bad word to choose, I can get behind female scouts...... and other roles which rarely (or never) get into the fray, but I just firmly believe that the frontlines is a mans territory.

Well, as a woman, I'd say that attitude is sexist. 

However, the Qun doesn't even appear to think women should serve military functions off the front lines.  I remember no mention of women being trained as scouts or marksmen etc by the Qun...  military service seems to be completely completely the province of men.

I'm sorry, ma'am, but if you're going to tell me that women should replace men in rifle sections and on machine guns, then I'm going to have to call you a nut.
War is not fun; the battlefield is not a nice place to be. When I have to fight, I go into it dreading what could happen. I might lose a limb or get my jobbers blown off. I could lose my eyes or just plain die.
If you're going to tell me that you'd rather do that to satisfy some nebulous concept of anti-sexism, then I'll have to assume you're joking, because no-one wants to do that. Some of us just have to do it.

War not being fun has f*ck-all to do with whether women should be barred from it.  Nothing you said has anything to do with women's ability to do the job.  It is nothing but your apparent perception that women should be protected from war for...what?  Because war is ugly, it is not suited to women's minds, bodies?  Can you honestly not look at what you're saying and not realize it is sexist? 

The idea is hardly that women SHOULD replace men in rifle sections and on machine guns, but that they should not be barred from those positions merely because they are not men.  Measure a person's ability based on their...abilities, and not on what sort of reproductive organs they possess. 

[Silfren]

dunstan1993 wrote...

Males are almost always stronger, faster and more violent than females, that's why it makes sense to have male soldiers and leave the "non-combat" roles/jobs to females. This shouldn't just apply to the Kossith, but humans, elves and Dwarves too should follow this, unless of course a female proves herself to be at the very least on par with her male counterparts in combat roles.

I don't think it's equality, but it makes perfect sense (To me at least, call me sexist).

And I know more than a dozen servicewomen, as well as men who've fought alongside them, who would laugh your opinion into the ground.  Brute strength is not the lone arbiter of military fitness, and anyone who goes into the service has to prove themselves physically fit to do whatever job they are assigned.  Many women pass those physical requirements, which involve more than just strength, and many men fail them. 

It is true that the average man is stronger than the average woman.  I would question the thing about the average man being faster than the average woman, simply because I don't know the stats on that, but it is hardly as though the military just has an open-enrollment and doesn't test both the women AND the men coming in, so that you've got a significant disparity between strong men and far weaker women.  The women who go into the military are sufficiently strong enough and fast enough and just all-round CAPABLE enough to do the job.  Again, strength alone is neither the only nor the best trait.

[LobselVith8]

SnakeStrike8 wrote...

I'm sorry, ma'am, but if you're going to tell me that women should replace men in rifle sections and on machine guns, then I'm going to have to call you a nut.
War is not fun; the battlefield is not a nice place to be. When I have to fight, I go into it dreading what could happen. I might lose a limb or get my jobbers blown off. I could lose my eyes or just plain die.
If you're going to tell me that you'd rather do that to satisfy some nebulous concept of anti-sexism, then I'll have to assume you're joking, because no-one wants to do that. Some of us just have to do it.

I don't see why you are insinuating that women wouldn't take their duties as seriously as men would. Nor do I see why you are dismissing the capability of women to risk their lives for their country and perform hazardous tasks simply because they happen to be women.

You really don't know how condescending and ignorant you come across with that post.

[joshko]

As usual I read something online and feel the intelligence being drained from me with every word I read.

[Emzamination]

Bioware ALWAYS makes women smarter and usually puts them in charge I.E: Jaheira, Viconia, Nalia, Mazzy, Bastilla shan, Silk fox, Dawn star, Flemeth, Morrigan, Anora, The Asari, The dalatrass, Krogan females.I've been seeing the women are more intelligent message in bioware games for years, the qun in no different.

[Treacherous J Slither]

Silfren wrote...

dunstan1993 wrote...

Males are almost always stronger, faster and more violent than females, that's why it makes sense to have male soldiers and leave the "non-combat" roles/jobs to females. This shouldn't just apply to the Kossith, but humans, elves and Dwarves too should follow this, unless of course a female proves herself to be at the very least on par with her male counterparts in combat roles.

I don't think it's equality, but it makes perfect sense (To me at least, call me sexist).

And I know more than a dozen servicewomen, as well as men who've fought alongside them, who would laugh your opinion into the ground.  Brute strength is not the lone arbiter of military fitness, and anyone who goes into the service has to prove themselves physically fit to do whatever job they are assigned.  Many women pass those physical requirements, which involve more than just strength, and many men fail them. 

It is true that the average man is stronger than the average woman.  I would question the thing about the average man being faster than the average woman, simply because I don't know the stats on that, but it is hardly as though the military just has an open-enrollment and doesn't test both the women AND the men coming in, so that you've got a significant disparity between strong men and far weaker women.  The women who go into the military are sufficiently strong enough and fast enough and just all-round CAPABLE enough to do the job.  Again, strength alone is neither the only nor the best trait.

Speaking of physical requirements...when I was in, women had to do like 12 or so push ups minimum in order to pass the physical fitness test while I had to do about 40 minimum. The bar is set so low for women so that more of them can make it into the military. That's fine by me. The more women the better I say. However, why do I have to do 40 then? If 12 is good enough for a soldier to hypothetically survive in the field then why the hell do I have to do 40? If the reasoning is that women aren't going to see combat then why the hell are they taking a fitness test in the first place?