271 réponses à ce sujet

[sandalisthemaker]

Casual mysogyny

[efd731]

Silfren wrote...

Seboist wrote...

I prefer playing as a credible looking fighter, so male is just a natural pick.

ROFL.  Because women have never, ever ever been credible fighters at any point in history in the real world?!

ROFLMAO you poor informed person!

1 you're being belittling, and 2 women were effective fighters, but as an exception not the rule. Historically armies were run and Populated by men. Yes it was sexist, but it's true. Don't be rude to people unnecessarily

[Lavaeolus]

If we're discussing female soldiers, it's worth mentioning that they'd generally be banned from fighting (not always, but in many places). If they weren't stopped from going to war, they'd be going in disguise or downplayed by others (no one wants to be "upstaged by a girl", for instance). There's also cultural values to discuss, e.g. men are more encouraged to fight, women more encouraged to stay at home, all that jazz.

Not that I particularly want to get involved in a discussion on gender and gender roles right now. Got stuff to do, books to read, all that jazz.

[KC_Prototype]

Can't really talk for both since I only played male characters because I like to play as me.

[The Xand]

Silfren wrote...

The Xand wrote...


Humans are a supremely practical species, so if there was some kind of edge to be had in having female soldiers we would already have turned them out in force. I think so far the only people that did that was the Russians, who sexually abused their female troops first and don't exactly care about the quality of their troops so much as their number.

Now you're just being ridiculous.  Any number of people's justifications have everything to do with cultural values or traditions, and nothing whatsoever to do with practicality. 

Using claims of men being simply better at certain things due to biological superiority only works so far, and it is a peculiarly modern Western justification.  More often than not, it's not a reason so much as an excuse. 

It's not peculiarly Western at all, it's universal, and stems from the fact that soldiers have to be physically tough with good endurance and women more often than not are much weaker than men. Ofc in modern militaries there are plenty of roles outside of frontline combat for women to fill. Not even all men are suited to be frontline soldiers. I know I certainly wouldn't want to do it. But if I did I'd probably survive for longer than my girlfriend, or most other women. Unless I was fighting women.

[TheBlackBaron]

Silfren wrote...

Sorry, no.  If you actually do a little historical research, you find a far larger presence of women soldiers than you ever read about in modern history textbooks.  I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, but it is no less a fact that women soldiers have been erased from standard history than have people of color. 

I don't have to deal with it, because it is simply untrue.

LOL. "Erased from standard history". Because we all know that high school history textbooks are extremely detailed about everything but what the white patriarchy wants to cover up, aren't they? 

Again, nobody's saying that female leaders and fighters have never existed in history. But you seem to be laboring under this delusion that there's this massive history of women in combat that's been covered up. They're no more forgotten or "erased" than the many other minutiae of male leaders in military history. And no, never until the 20th century have women formed more than a small percentage of fighters in a nation's army. If you got out of the wymyn's studies classes and took more actual history classes, you'd know that.

Lord Aesir wrote...

Actually some Germanic tribes were known to have female warriors, though they were less numerous than their male counterparts.  Old sagas refer to them as Shield Maidens, a term Tolkein borrowed for the LotR.  Interestingly, such women were take on otherwise male characteristics and ways of solving problems in the stories.

There's a story of Leif Erikson's sister apparently driving off a warband of native Americans singlehandedly with only a sword.  Allegedly she was naked and six months pregnant at the time too.

Viking Era shieldmaiders are quite a good example, actually. Given Rohan's cultural inspirations it's not surprisng Tolkien borrowed the concept. 

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 12 novembre 2013 - 01:33 .

[Seboist]

Silfren wrote...

Seboist wrote...

I prefer playing as a credible looking fighter, so male is just a natural pick.

ROFL.  Because women have never, ever ever been credible fighters at any point in history in the real world?!

ROFLMAO you poor informed person!

I know all about credible female fighters

[JerZey CJ]

[quote]JerZeyCJ2 wrote...

Jeanne d'Arc/Joan of Arc
[quote]
Individuals don't count as armies, and Joan of Arc's relevance was more inspirational than tactical
[/quote]
[quote]
You did not ask for female "armies". You asked for examples of female fighters/soldiers from history, which Joan of Arc was. And whether her "relevance" was tactical or inspirational doeasn't matter, she fought.

[/quote][quote]

1.) Her relevance is all that matters. 

and 

2.) A good motivational speaker does not mean a good soldier
[/quote]


Doesn't matter if you consider her a "good" soldier, she FOUGHT and that's what you wanted an example of, a female fighter. Also, as another example: the Aboriginal women in what is today Brazil were often warriors and hunters.



*well I messed up trying to shorten up that quote pyramid

Modifié par JerZeyCJ2, 12 novembre 2013 - 01:41 .

[Nightdragon8]

For me, almost have to play a guy, I just can't get into the mindset to play a female. That and the voiced PC's clash with my internal monologue.

[Estelindis]

Please have mercy and put that poor quote pyramid out of its misery...

[The Xand]

Estelindis wrote...

Please have mercy and put that poor quote pyramid out of its misery...

It's kind of trippy to look at. Emblematic of the webs we weave around our warrior folk.

[Hippiethecat124]

Damn, the BSN can derail faster than a pre-industrial steam engine. O.o
I'm a female (19, straight) who got into gaming about four years ago when I got my first decent gaming PC, and any chance I get to create a character with gender options included, I go right to the female playthrough. However, I do play males after my first few playthroughs, and I play with all of the sexualities (a few of my favorite relationships were F/F).
I gravitate to the females because I initially RP myself before going in with other characters, not only because it feels more natural to me, but also so I have an idea of how to play my following characters. Also, weirdly enough, I don't particularly relate all that well to preset female protagonists. A lot of them don't feel organic to me, as they either go too far into cold-blooded asskicker or shivering, desperate magical girl territory. It just feels mechanical to me (in the same way hulking, god-slaying Kratos does), and I can't emotionally invest. That's why I love Bioware. For the most part, the characters and the roleplaying options feel organic.
So, yeah. I have fun as a female potag, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying man time too.

[Estelindis]

The Xand wrote...

It's kind of trippy to look at. Emblematic of the webs we weave around our warrior folk.

You will not convince me to start a new one.  

[wiccame]

I prefer to play as female, mainly because I am one and its easier to immerse myself into the character.
Female va's seem to put a lot more emotion into their roles, whereas the men seem to all have that laid back, cool, chill sort of attitude, that sometimes falls a bit flat, for me at least. So listening to a female protag is more enjoyable to me.
Saying that I do try to play a male character at least once in each game. DAO and 2 were a lot easier than ME, and with swtor I quit after leaving starter area, the lack of balance between male and female characters was just too obvious that I refuse to play a male character.

[LinksOcarina]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Sorry, no.  If you actually do a little historical research, you find a far larger presence of women soldiers than you ever read about in modern history textbooks.  I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, but it is no less a fact that women soldiers have been erased from standard history than have people of color. 

I don't have to deal with it, because it is simply untrue.

LOL. "Erased from standard history". Because we all know that high school history textbooks are extremely detailed about everything but what the white patriarchy wants to cover up, aren't they? 

Again, nobody's saying that female leaders and fighters have never existed in history. But you seem to be laboring under this delusion that there's this massive history of women in combat that's been covered up. They're no more forgotten or "erased" than the many other minutiae of male leaders in military history. And no, never until the 20th century have women formed more than a small percentage of fighters in a nation's army. If you got out of the wymyn's studies classes and took more actual history classes, you'd know that.

Actually, a lot of historical records show warrior women participating in battle all the time, but neglected by primary texts because a lot of people focus on the positivist view of history, what the text says goes, which is almost always secondary sources by other historians

Truth be told we have a lot of primary sources from men and women that detail accounts of women in war from a lot of countries. my specialty was China and they didn't fight so much there as became exemplars and leaders during uprisings and war. As well as spies and informants. 

Keep in mind, you dont need an axe in your hand to be a warrior. You just need a brain. 

[The Xand]

Estelindis wrote...

The Xand wrote...

It's kind of trippy to look at. Emblematic of the webs we weave around our warrior folk.

You will not convince me to start a new one.  

It'll be fun. With me at my rightful place at the top, my wit sparkling like electrum.

[Silfren]

JerZey, It's now been declared that huge quote pyramids are spam.  I'd suggest whacking yours down a bit.

As for women fighters, here's some links though I'm loathe to do other people's work when they'd rather troll then actually try to educate themselves about something:  Here some starting info about women fighters as both individuals and as nameless groups.  This is only a starting point, but here they are:

http://www.fscclub.c...history-e.shtml

http://en.wikipedia....the_ancient_era

http://en.wikipedia....edieval_warfare

http://en.wikipedia....re#16th_century

And I'm going to reject any objections to wikipedia out of hand because there are plenty of sources to delve into.

Women may never have fought on the same scale as men, but to claim that they're so rare and so exceptional as to not be creditable as fighters is demonstrably false.  There have been many women fighters throughout history. 

Modifié par Silfren, 12 novembre 2013 - 01:53 .

[Seboist]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

There's no conspiracy by modern historians to cover up some long history of women fighters. That's utterly delusional. 

The simple fact of the matter is that they're just not that common. That doesn't mean they've never existed, but examples such as the Red Army of WWII are the exception, not the rule. Deal with it. 

And with good reason.

From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of
Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992, published
in book form by Brassey's in 1993): "The average female Army recruit
is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of
muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She
has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the
lower-body strength… An Army study of 124 men and 186 women done
in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg
injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer [stress] fractures
as men."

Further: "The Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony
about the physical differences between men and women that can be summarized
as follows:

"Women's aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they
cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible
to fatigue.

"In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women
are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman
has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man."

From the same report: "Lt Col. William Gregor, United States Army,
testified before the Commission regarding a survey he conducted at an
Army ROTC Advanced Summer Camp on 623 women and 3540 men. …Evidence
Gregor presented to the Commission includes:

"(a) Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that
the upper quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test
equivalent to the bottom quintile of men.

"© Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score
equal to the male mean score of 260.

"(d) On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet
a score of 60, while 78 percent of men exceed it.

"(e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean
70 percent of the women he studied would be separated as failures at
the end of their junior year, only three percent would be eligible for
the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness
badge…."

Further info here

[TheBlackBaron]

LinksOcarina wrote...

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Sorry, no.  If you actually do a little historical research, you find a far larger presence of women soldiers than you ever read about in modern history textbooks.  I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, but it is no less a fact that women soldiers have been erased from standard history than have people of color. 

I don't have to deal with it, because it is simply untrue.

LOL. "Erased from standard history". Because we all know that high school history textbooks are extremely detailed about everything but what the white patriarchy wants to cover up, aren't they? 

Again, nobody's saying that female leaders and fighters have never existed in history. But you seem to be laboring under this delusion that there's this massive history of women in combat that's been covered up. They're no more forgotten or "erased" than the many other minutiae of male leaders in military history. And no, never until the 20th century have women formed more than a small percentage of fighters in a nation's army. If you got out of the wymyn's studies classes and took more actual history classes, you'd know that.

Actually, a lot of historical records show warrior women participating in battle all the time, but neglected by primary texts because a lot of people focus on the positivist view of history, what the text says goes, which is almost always secondary sources by other historians

Truth be told we have a lot of primary sources from men and women that detail accounts of women in war from a lot of countries. my specialty was China and they didn't fight so much there as became exemplars and leaders during uprisings and war. As well as spies and informants. 

Keep in mind, you dont need an axe in your hand to be a warrior. You just need a brain. 

I don't disagree that women have participated as leaders, spies, and more rarely fighters through the annals of history. Because you're right, we do have the historical records and other primary sources that show them - in China specifically I remember once reading about a consort of the emperor during the Shang dynasty that also served as a general, and was quite successful at that (I'm a history major). 

What I am disputing is that there's this long history that's been the target of a cover up by nefarious historians of the patriarchy. They've been no more "forgotten" or "erased" than have any other relatively obscure or ancient male military figures, because most people simply don't dig all that deep into any of it. 

Women like Joan of Arc are remembered -because- they were exceptional, not the rule. 

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 12 novembre 2013 - 01:51 .

[JerZey CJ]

Silfren wrote...

JerZey, It's now been declared that huge quote pyramids are spam.  I'd suggest whacking yours down a bit.

As for women fighters, here's some links though I'm loathe to do other people's work when they'd rather troll then actually try to educate themselves about something:  Here some starting info about women fighters as both individuals and as nameless groups.  This is only a starting point, but here they are:

http://www.fscclub.c...history-e.shtml

http://en.wikipedia....the_ancient_era

http://en.wikipedia....edieval_warfare

http://en.wikipedia....re#16th_century

And I'm going to reject any objections to wikipedia out of hand because there are plenty of sources to delve into.

Women may never have fought on the same scale as men, but to claim that they're so rare and so exceptional as to not be creditable as fighters is demonstrably false.  There have been many women fighters throughout history. 

I know, tried to fix it, but I kinda mess it up, either way, I made it shorter.

[Battlebloodmage]

Whenever I have a choice, I prefer to play as females since there aren't a lot of game with female protagonists. I can get my fix of male protagonists elsewhere. My Diablo 3 profile has 4 females of each class with the exception of the monk, which I chose simply because of aesthetic reason. Bioware games though I play most of my games as a guy since I can roleplay as a gay protagonist, and there haven't been a lot of games out there that allow you to do that. It's just really depending on the game though.

[Silfren]

TheBlackBaron wrote...
I don't disagree that women have participated as leaders, spies, and more rarely fighters through the annals of history. Because you're right, we do have the historical records and other primary sources that show them - in China specifically I remember once reading about a consort of the emperor during the Shang dynasty that also served as a general, and was quite successful at that (I'm a history major). 

What I am disputing is that there's this long history that's been the target of a cover up by nefarious historians of the patriarchy. They've been no more "forgotten" or "erased" than have any other relatively obscure or ancient male military figures, because most people simply don't dig all that deep into any of it. 

Women like Joan of Arc are remembered -because- they were exceptional, not the rule. 

I don't see how anyone who is a history major can deny that history books (I suppose I should clarify at the grammar and high school levels, because college texts are somewhat better) erase a great deal of history.  It's not just about such books being truncated by necessity because there's only so much material that can be taught in a single year.  And I didn't say anything about a nefarious conspiracy, those were your words, not mine, trying to ridicule and discredit my absolutely valid point. 

History (I'm talking from a U.S. point, too, I should specify) is slanted in a way that glorifies a mostly white history with women and other minorities being relegated to sidebars as exceptions.  But the reality is considerably different. The fact that anyone here can seriously think that the only notable women fighters in history were the Amazons just illustrates that.

Modifié par Silfren, 12 novembre 2013 - 02:02 .