the unproductive thoughts of a guy you've never heard of

Light-hearted discussions, forum games and anything that doesn't fit into the other forums.

Moderators: Moderators, Celestial Heavens Staff

User avatar
Zenofex
Scout
Scout
Posts: 151
Joined: 09 Sep 2010
Location: Dark Balkans

Postby Zenofex » Feb 9 2011, 19:54

ThunderTitan wrote:As opposed to an old guy with a wooden staff? Or something the size of a 12 year old with a wooden boomerang?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I've mentioned somewhere that I approve of these designs. And by the way the Goblin seems surprisingly stout for a 12 year old, don't you think?

Yes, because it's hard to treat women as the weaker sex when they know how to kill you... just ask the israelis.

And maybe next you'll tell me that there are few women in the armies because the men fear their real combat abilities. ;| The joke aside, many women can be "the strong sex" in quite many scenarios, but soldier just happens to be male profession and this is not because the chauvinistic male pigs are oppressing the women. Seriously, don't turn this into "human rights" discussion, it's pointless.
Beware Kreegans bearing gifts.

User avatar
Tress
Raider
Raider
Posts: 788
Joined: 05 Dec 2007

Postby Tress » Feb 9 2011, 20:05

And maybe next you'll tell me that there are few women in the armies because the men fear their real combat abilities.


Not to turn it into jew army topic but main reason is because of thier limited human resources. They simply cant afford to not take them even if they would be male chauvinists. Doesn't prevent them from walling women from clerical duties though...
Also in most countries women aren't forbidden to enter army, its free choice. If one sex is less dominant we can only make assumptions why it is so.
In fantasy settings women combatants are perfectly fine imo, dont even think it is matter that should be pointed out because some units are female.

User avatar
Variol
Pit Lord
Pit Lord
Posts: 1249
Joined: 05 Sep 2008

Postby Variol » Feb 10 2011, 18:28

If I had to face these females on the battlefield, I'd be screwed:

Image

User avatar
jeff
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3709
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby jeff » Feb 10 2011, 18:45

Variol wrote:If I had to face these females on the battlefield, I'd be screwed:


but I bet you would not mind playing.
Mala Ipsa Nova :bugsquash:

User avatar
Neidhaart
Assassin
Assassin
Posts: 251
Joined: 13 Nov 2010
Location: The Lair under your bed.

Postby Neidhaart » Feb 10 2011, 20:59

Probably would focus on the wrong things. =)
"I did put the fires out."
"You made them worse!"
"Worse?!... Or better?"

User avatar
Variol
Pit Lord
Pit Lord
Posts: 1249
Joined: 05 Sep 2008

Postby Variol » Feb 10 2011, 21:04

I don't think my hands would be on my mouse or keyboard, ;|

User avatar
ecsunotos
Conscript
Conscript
Posts: 232
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby ecsunotos » Feb 11 2011, 1:02

Neidhaart wrote:Probably would focus on the wrong things. =)


And wrong kind of "battle" ... :D

User avatar
ThunderTitan
Perpetual Poster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 23260
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Now/here
Contact:

Postby ThunderTitan » Feb 11 2011, 10:45

Zenofex wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I've mentioned somewhere that I approve of these designs.


No, but you did make it sound like you where singling out the females..

And by the way the Goblin seems surprisingly stout for a 12 year old, don't you think?



Steroid abuse is the Orcs racial passive... (also, google "world's strongest kid"... it's never too early for child abuse i say)

Zenofex wrote:The joke aside, many women can be "the strong sex" in quite many scenarios, but soldier just happens to be male profession and this is not because the chauvinistic male pigs are oppressing the women.


Ever since we stopped oppressing the females more of them have been serving as soldiers just fine... we're still only slowly letting go of old habits.

Just like they do in politics and other positions of power that where traditionally male professions.

Zenofex wrote:And maybe next you'll tell me that there are few women in the armies because the men fear their real combat abilities.


No, it's just that it's way harder to think of someone as a delicate flower and other things women are supposed to be when they know how to kill you...


tress wrote:Not to turn it into jew army topic but main reason is because of thier limited human resources.


Actually my point was that they're doing just fine in one of the best trained armies in the world...
Last edited by ThunderTitan on Feb 11 2011, 20:34, edited 1 time in total.
Disclaimer: May contain sarcasm!
I have never faked a sarcasm in my entire life. - ???
"With ABC deleting dynamite gags from cartoons, do you find that your children are using explosives less frequently?" — Mark LoPresti

Alt-0128: €

Image

User avatar
Tress
Raider
Raider
Posts: 788
Joined: 05 Dec 2007

Postby Tress » Feb 11 2011, 13:31

Actually my point was that they're doing just fine in one of the best trained armies in the world...

Yes but in most countries they are not asked to join army. Israel is one of exceptions where female conscription is mandatory, so their population in army isnt because someone fears them, its their own choice they are less employed as combatants, In fact Israelis is one of countries that given choice would actually might restrict them, but they cant afford luxury. I am certain they have more than enough influential elements that would bar them from such duties if they were able to afford it(they even censor females from their newspapers...).

User avatar
ThunderTitan
Perpetual Poster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 23260
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Now/here
Contact:

Postby ThunderTitan » Feb 11 2011, 20:39

Well of course they would like to do it, it's not like they're some sort of progressive nation... point was that female soldiers work.


And i'm sure that the mandatory military term for women has had a pretty big social impact which will only be apparent in a few hundred years... but that's a subject for someones PhD thesis...
Disclaimer: May contain sarcasm!

I have never faked a sarcasm in my entire life. - ???
"With ABC deleting dynamite gags from cartoons, do you find that your children are using explosives less frequently?" — Mark LoPresti

Alt-0128: €


Image

mr.hackcrag
Archangel
Archangel
Posts: 1435
Joined: 05 Jul 2006

Postby mr.hackcrag » Feb 12 2011, 3:28

Zenofex wrote:soldier just happens to be male profession and this is not because the chauvinistic male pigs are oppressing the women. Seriously, don't turn this into "human rights" discussion, it's pointless.


Why do you say this is not because of male oppression?

User avatar
Zenofex
Scout
Scout
Posts: 151
Joined: 09 Sep 2010
Location: Dark Balkans

Postby Zenofex » Feb 12 2011, 8:32

ThunderTitan wrote:Ever since we stopped oppressing the females more of them have been serving as soldiers just fine... we're still only slowly letting go of old habits.

This is not about habits but about predisposition. As already pointed out, many Western-type states allow military service for both men and women and yet the latter remain a distinct minority in the armies. Ask as many as you want whether they want to become soldiers, the answer will be predominantly negative and the old habits and the male oppression have nothing to do with such a response. Additionally, the super-models in the armies are almost as frequently encountered as the Dodo bird while in the games they are everywhere. And again - some unarmed, unarmoured, untrained, frail-looking and generally totally un-prepared nun looks as adequate on the battlefield as a panzer on a fashion-show.

No, it's just that it's way harder to think of someone as a delicate flower and other things women are supposed to be when they know how to kill you...

It's hard to find delicate flowers in the army, why would I think of a female soldier like that?

Why do you say this is not because of male oppression?

Because I don't see a long line of women in front of the recruiting stations even though nobody forbids them to join the army? And because it's a scientific fact that the average woman is physically weaker than the average man - something which tends to play a very significant role in the army where intelligence and good looks aren't important at all?
Beware Kreegans bearing gifts.

User avatar
jeff
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3709
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby jeff » Feb 12 2011, 16:38

You guys do know we are talking about a game, and not how countries run their militaries. If I am going to play a game for hours, I'd rather have as many female units with customized armor to enhance their form while protecting them and as many female hero’s as possible. :devious: If you would rather look at sweaty males go for it. I play all of the MMs with all female parties, I just enjoy the view. :D Don’t argue with me about what is realistic; it is a game with mythical creatures and magic that is crucial to this series.
Mala Ipsa Nova :bugsquash:

User avatar
Kalah
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 19996
Joined: 24 Nov 2005

Postby Kalah » Feb 12 2011, 17:42

As long as they don't make the units look like strippers, I'm happy. :)
In War: Resolution, In Defeat: Defiance, In Victory: Magnanimity, In Peace: Goodwill.

sezerp
Peasant
Peasant
Posts: 64
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby sezerp » Feb 12 2011, 23:27

mr.hackcrag wrote:
Zenofex wrote:soldier just happens to be male profession and this is not because the chauvinistic male pigs are oppressing the women. Seriously, don't turn this into "human rights" discussion, it's pointless.


Why do you say this is not because of male oppression?


Not enlisting women was actually very pragmatic, it is all about allocation of resources really. Only women can bear children. At the same time their value as soldiers was questionable at best. Imagine average 20-year old girl swinging battle axe for several hours or drawing Welsh longbow time after time. Then few days of marching in the rain for good measure, perhaps food poisoning and maybe a small epidemy... As if bearing a child wasn't risky enough (even today, modern medicine and all, deaths in labour do happen)
Wars bring damage to the population which nation can recover from only if its women live long enough.

mr.hackcrag
Archangel
Archangel
Posts: 1435
Joined: 05 Jul 2006

Postby mr.hackcrag » Feb 13 2011, 7:43

Kalah wrote:As long as they don't make the units look like strippers, I'm happy. :)


I'm sorry you're not happy, Kalah. I feel your pain, but at least we got the Haven Sister.

@zenofex: I think you take for granted the socialization of gender roles and the more covert forms of oppression

@sezerp: Nice rationalization; your conception of women as men's resources must definitly be empowering for women.

User avatar
Zenofex
Scout
Scout
Posts: 151
Joined: 09 Sep 2010
Location: Dark Balkans

Postby Zenofex » Feb 13 2011, 8:44

mr.hackcrag wrote:@zenofex: I think you take for granted the socialization of gender roles and the more covert forms of oppression

I do but you will have a very hard time proving that the women feel oppressed because there are much more male than female soldiers. And what sezerp said is not discriminative at all. Damn, some people have really twisted understanding of what rights and freedoms are.
@jeff, like I said, I don't mind some female units in the game. At all. But the current trend is to put females in the line-ups not because they are needed there but because someone decided that there should be more females and that's it. It doesn't look like something implemented naturally.
Beware Kreegans bearing gifts.

sezerp
Peasant
Peasant
Posts: 64
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby sezerp » Feb 13 2011, 11:42

mr.hackcrag wrote:@sezerp: Nice rationalization; your conception of women as men's resources must definitly be empowering for women.


I was talking about _people_ being states/nations/tribes resource, and how the women are _less expendable_.

User avatar
vicheron
Marksman
Marksman
Posts: 403
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby vicheron » Feb 13 2011, 12:17

Not enlisting women make sense when the enemy is not completely genocidal but last time I checked, the demons want to bring about the freaking apocalypse and turn the world into a burning hellscape of eternal torment. Some necromancers seem equally genocidal in their desire to purge the world of all life.

In those kinds of situations, it won't matter if you've kept women out of the army since they won't be around to repopulate the species if enemy wins.

User avatar
ThunderTitan
Perpetual Poster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 23260
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Now/here
Contact:

Postby ThunderTitan » Feb 13 2011, 15:16

Zenofex wrote:This is not about habits but about predisposition. As already pointed out, many Western-type states allow military service for both men and women and yet the latter remain a distinct minority in the armies. Ask as many as you want whether they want to become soldiers, the answer will be predominantly negative and the old habits and the male oppression have nothing to do with such a response.



Also, women still make on average less money then men... they must not want money right.


It's hard to find delicate flowers in the army, why would I think of a female soldier like that?


That was kinda the point... pay attention.

Because I don't see a long line of women in front of the recruiting stations even though nobody forbids them to join the army?


And there aren't many men that wear dresses either... except if they're scottish... it's funny how social norms work.

And because it's a scientific fact that the average woman is physically weaker than the average man - something which tends to play a very significant role in the army where intelligence and good looks aren't important at all?


There's a minimum physical fitness required to join most armies nowadays... as long as you pass that there's no reason to turn any recruit away no matter the gender...


I do but you will have a very hard time proving that the women feel oppressed because there are much more male than female soldiers.


Feeling oppressed and the reason why something is like it is are two different things...


sezerp wrote:Not enlisting women was actually very pragmatic, it is all about allocation of resources really. Only women can bear children.


And keeping them away from other men/putting a chastity belt on assured known parentage on both sides... i'm sure all this stuff had some form of pragmatism at it's base...

sezerp wrote:At the same time their value as soldiers was questionable at best.


If we ignore the baby making requirement (it's not just about defeat, there's also the fact that 1 guy can impregnate a big number of women almost continuously while a women would be out 10 months at least each time, even in victory you'd still lose people) it would be extra soldiers, and that always helps.
Disclaimer: May contain sarcasm!

I have never faked a sarcasm in my entire life. - ???
"With ABC deleting dynamite gags from cartoons, do you find that your children are using explosives less frequently?" — Mark LoPresti

Alt-0128: €


Image


Return to “Campfire”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests