Skip to content

What are the Female to Male demographics of this board?

124678

Comments

  • LadyRhianLadyRhian Member Posts: 14,694
    @Dragonspear "The way to a man's heart... is with a broadsword!" ;)
  • CommunardCommunard Member Posts: 556
    Maciak87 said:

    Then you obviosly have some fairy tale images of contemporary feminism. I don't recall parities being ever a sign of equality, only of providing one group with an advantage over another.
    And I am not talking about idealistic discourses. These are for cynics, useful idiots and those seeking power. I'll be saying no more on that matter.

    More like you have a paranoid and misinformed view of contemporary feminism...
    trinitRunarielJalily
  • DragonspearDragonspear Member Posts: 1,838
    edited August 2012
    LadyRhian said:

    @Dragonspear "The way to a man's heart... is with a broadsword!" ;)

    @LadyRhian I'm like cupid, except when my arrow hits your heart you won't be getting up ;) Actually I gotta admit I've never tried the archer kit. Maybe I will sometime. And that's also a great quote. It made me smile =)
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    Maciak87 said:

    Feminism is a duty? I'll have to congratulate the Frankfurt School. Brainwashing complete.

    Obviously somebody who doesn't share your opinion must be brainwashed.
  • wariisopwariisop Member Posts: 163
    While the extreme of any group is unwarranted and unwanted by most, I have agree that society as a whole needs to change, and like history has said many times men tend to hate change.
  • LadyRhianLadyRhian Member Posts: 14,694
    @Dragonspear One of my favorite current characters is double-specialized in longsword and composite Long Bow. She'll rain arrows on her enemies until they look like hedgehogs, and then slice and dice them like they were a roast, and she's wielding the Ginsu knife. And she has one of those composite longbows that give her her full 18/00 strength bonus on every arrow.
  • AliteriAliteri Member Posts: 308
    @LadyRhian
    LadyRhian said:

    There was a comment somewhere about how a male fighter might be able to cleave a foe from head to crotch because of his strength. A Female fighter saves herself the effort by paring her foe's head from his neck. It takes less strength, but both foes are equally dead. (One of the AD&D articles I read somewhere. It doesn't take great or exceptional strength to be a fighter, it can also be about using the strength you have in an intelligent way.

    As an aside, my first Basic D&D character was a female fighter. Zenobia had bright red hair and a 14 strength. She kicked more than her fair share of ass. She certainly was the one who killed the Ogre in the Keep on the Borderlands module. And she got in the first and last blows against the Minotaur there as well.

    That AD&D article presents a interesting logic, but your character already breaks that logic. Wouldn't a 14 strenght score already imply a stronger person than RL gym rats (some simulations I saw would put military men at ~13)? If you like gameplay and story integration, the story told by D&D through its mechanics not only ups the physical and mental limitations of all humans but it makes so its a natural jump to dispel the physical of women in general.
  • SolyarisSolyaris Member Posts: 24
    edited August 2012
    LadyRhian said:

    @Solyaris I agree, but I also think that rape in the military against women is a much bigger problem than most people realize. I saw a statistic somewhere that 40% of military women will be raped. And the treatment of women who are raped? A lot of them get slapped with a diagnosis of "Personality Disorder" and are drummed out of the military: http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/14/health/military-sexual-assaults-personality-disorder/index.html

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rape-military-invisible-war-documentary-exposes-assaults/story?id=16632490#.UCUPqxxsi4A

    To me, this is more of a turn-off than any kind of supposed "unfitness" of women for war or combat.

    i cant personally speak to that because im in the intel field, which historically has much lower rates of any crime than other specialties. i cant even think of any rape cases i personally know of (which may be a good sign on the part of the military, as sexual assault cases in the military are supposed to be private and anonymous if the victim desires so). i think the 40% statistic may be exaggerated because i definitely do not think 4 out of 10 women i worked with had any problems, but you could be right for all i know so i wont argue against it.

    i would say the problem of rape probably stems from the fact that there are alot of cultural bottom feeders in the military in both genders; you have alot of people on both sides that turn to alcohol as soon as it's time to get out of work, and this leads to alot of bad situations, obviously. i am not pulling the tired "well if the woman is drinking too it shouldnt be the mans fault" line or trying to blame the woman for a rape, nonconsensual sex is rape, period, alcohol or not. i am just saying that both the bottom 10% of men and bottom 10% of women will create an environment ripe for disaster if you give them the money, booze, and time, and both genders should know better. a vast majority of rapes in the military happen at these party type settings where everyone involved is making poor choices and nobody is looking out for each other. it also stems partially from the ratio: when only one of six are female (i believe thats the current ratio), women will inevitably come across bad males due to the sheer amount of men they will work with, and bad men will eventually become desperate due to the lack of women out there.

    again, i say it's personality/culture-driven rather than military-driven: just as i would a female soldier being annoying and entitled is because of her individual upbringing rather than the fact that she is a female, i would say that rape cases and the handling of rape cases are a result of the wrong individuals in the wrong place making the wrong decision, not a systemic, secretly encouraged part of the military. i will honestly say most of the military is definitely against it, and that legal attitudes have changed since the mid 90s. alot of these cases stem from before the turn of the new millenia, and i feel confident enough to say that women will see less abuse and less discrimination as time goes on. the perfect examples are minorities and gays: blacks initially faced uphill barriers when integration occured in the 50s, and there was alot of racial tension in the korean/vietnam wars, but from the 80s onward there really havent been any racial issues. gays would have been borderline unimaginable in the 50s, but the repeal of Dont Ask Dont Tell commenced without a whimper; the issue was mostly politicized outside of the military, as most people inside the military dont really care, evidenced by the fact that there really havent been many anti-gay discrimination incidents recently. with time, like i said, women will get a better rap. while the US military has always been operationally much more powerful than any other modern military, the turning point of the 2000s is that all branches are much more willing to take a critical look at themselves and hold themselves accountable to standards and the law.

    the US military is coming out of a 40 year period where it was the dominating aspect of the US government with very little oversight or need to check its practices due to the overwhelming need to counter the Soviet bloc. however, now that any credible threat is gone (sorry, the Chinese aren't going to pose a threat unless they tackle the corruption issues plaguing their military; their organizational effectiveness would effectively fall apart if they went to war right now, and both they and the West know it) and Robert Gates cracked the whip on the military budget after the Rumsfeld "blank check for the military since we're in a herp derp 'war' on 'terrorism'" years, the US military is holding itself much more accountable and cant afford to lose good people, and this includes discrimination. if they continue at this rate, alot of the bad people and organizational mindsets will be weeded out, and along with this, unfortunate things like sexual assault.

    i would honestly wager the sexual assault problems would be alot worse if there was a civilian company the size of the US military (1.5 million and counting) with a similar male:female ratio. i definitely believe you when you bring up that there are plenty of cases where leadership tries to shove it under the rug, but i do think on the flip side that just as often the man will find himself on the fast track out of the military and into a prison. it really, honestly depends on the integrity of whoever happens to be the commander. it's not as if the sexual assault situation outside the military is that much better; it's still plagued by cultural mindsets in civil courts.
    Post edited by Solyaris on
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    Maciak87 said:

    Somebody who thinks that a particular world-view is a universal duty IS brainwashed.

    No, that is not what brainwashed means. That way it's just a meaningless buzzword.

  • gfm50gfm50 Member Posts: 124
    edited August 2012
    LadyRhian said:

    I have been watching this topic and getting sick to my stomach at the misogyny. Honestly, who would you back in a fight? 1st level male fighter with an 18/00 strength, or a 12th level female fighter with a 14 (say) strength? The fight doesn't always go to the person who is stronger. 1e AD&D had stat limits based on race and sex. Human females had a maximum of an 18/50 strength. Half Orc women had a maximum of 18/75 strength. Male elves had a maximum of 18/90 strength. It also had minimums, too. If you had a 5 Wisdom or less? You could only be a thief. You could have an 18 strength and a 16 constitution (and this was in the days where stats were rolled as 3d6, not 4d6 drop the lowest die, so a 5 Wisdom was very possible), but nope, you had to be a thief.

    In 2e, they got rid of all of that- to the better, I think. Although the stat roll system changed several times (there was one system where you rolled between 4 and 9 dice for each stat, and only kept the three highest dice- but that was insane.) The changes were because the first edition was based more on reality, while the second was based more on Fantasy. And we are playing a fantasy RPG, aren't we? You have a fantasy of romancing a Drow Elf. Maybe someone else fantasizes about doing heroic deeds in a fantasy world. Women can be just as heroic as men, and I don't mind if that means throwing out some of the reality of how strong a woman can be versus a man.

    Who makes a better heroic sandwich? Women or men? In my D&D experience, the men make horrible sammiches. Stay out of the kitchen guys!
  • DragonspearDragonspear Member Posts: 1,838
    @LadyRhian That's definitely my favorite weapon setup. Sometimes I use katanas or a greatsword instead but that's generally it. But the greatswords usually belong to my pallies and the longsword/bow to my mages. Herm, now I'm interesting in starting up another run. But BGEE is due out so soon #Torn
  • AliteriAliteri Member Posts: 308
    LadyRhian said:

    In 2e, they got rid of all of that- to the better, I think.

    @LadyRhian

    Well, I'd argue that the minimuns shouldn't have been dropped - the storyteller in me cries out when someone makes a mouthbreather powerhouse that, despite immense mental handicap, can actually learn complicated skills such as sword fighting.

    As for the racial and sexual limitations, I myself don't really care if they were in or out but I wonder: if being a woman had those (or even harsher) limits, we wouldn't be forced to improvise and roleplay differently. Have you seen Dorkness Rising? One of the characters is a fresh RPG player called Daphne whose mind was still untainted by the standard munchkin culture of the hobby. Her female fighter focused on Intelligence and Charisma as opposed to rankin on Hitpoints and Strenght - and she'd surprise her fellow (all male munchkin) players with how effective she was.
  • Jean_LucJean_Luc Member Posts: 228
    Great posts Solyaris, it's refreshing to read an adult perspective on the matter.

    Yes, there are difference between genders but the amount of misogyny on the internet (in general) is startling.
  • reedmilfamreedmilfam Member Posts: 2,808
    Misogyny on the internet is no more prevalent than that in the wide world, actually. The fact is, male and female are different. I'm not sure anybody really knows what that difference means, but it is there. Some cultural/learned, some not. But the characters are rare examples (sort of like Olympians), so they can be whatever they want, and the 'culture' is made up in the Forbidden Realms, so it gets rid of the nature/nurture thing.

    The game seems to do a good job of balance WRT genders. You have the girlish Aerie, the kick you in the teeth Jaheira and many in between. Montaron is hardly the brave tough man (and Khalid... Khalid???), while Minsc is (and a box of rocks, to boot... However, he is, as he puts it, "HUGE", and that covers a great many ills...).

    I think I play 50/50 male/female characters, depending on the mood. In my 'sexist' view (meaning my view of sexes in games), I think I prefer 2-H weapon females (the image works for me) for the fighter types, so maybe I'm discriminating in my brain and need to work through some issues with some therapy. I think I tend toward female spell casters in general, maybe because I like that I perceive women and magic as having a mysterious and mystical aspect (not kidding here). Sarcasm aside, I think everybody who really is sexist ought to have a daughter (boy, did I learn a lot from having two), anybody that thinks girls are pansies should play soccer against some good female players (who seem to be athletes, first, and women/girls/ladies (depending on your age group) next).
  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    When I play BG1, I always play a female character.
    When I play BG2, I always play male.

    This is because in BG1, the NPC interactions have little or no bearing on your character's gender, and I choose to have my protagonist be represented by a commonly underrepresented gender.

    However, in BG2, some of the best storytelling happens during the romance plots; and Anomen is a terrible choice for a mate. I play a male in BG2 because it's the best way to get the most out of the female NPCs. (Of course, if Jan were romanceable, I'd probably have to go female again...)

    I would like to see more capable female characters, but when it comes to party role, I have to say that I don't really pay much attention to it. Whether they're at the front of the battle dealing out death with swords and shields, or in the back of the group raining hellfire from above, my women are always strong. I don't care if you're wearing armor or a Robe of the Good Archmagi, as long as you're well-written.

    Feminism isn't a universal duty. That would mean that it is, always has been, and always will be the job of every person to be fighting for women's rights. It implies that at no point will we ever reach a point of equality, and I find that to be a sad case of pessimism. Feminism is a temporary duty; everyone would be a lot better off if they embraced it, but if the shoe were on the other foot, and it was men being mistreated (in public, in the military, or in literature), I would hope that there would be just as strong a movement advocating for equal treatment of men.

    To that point, equal treatment is a universal duty. You can choose not to embrace that duty, but it is something that everyone should strive for, regardless of cultural climate.

    My wife likes to say that she married a feminist, which is fine. But I prefer to think of myself as an advocate for human rights. Of course, you can't put that on a bumper sticker. :)
    trinitRunarielLeezl
  • DragonspearDragonspear Member Posts: 1,838

    Sarcasm aside, I think everybody who really is sexist ought to have a daughter (boy, did I learn a lot from having two), anybody that thinks girls are pansies should play soccer against some good female players (who seem to be athletes, first, and women/girls/ladies (depending on your age group) next).

    In all seriousness, I'd love to play a game against Abby Wambach, Alex Morgan, Megan Rapinoe and Hope Solo. Sorry for the off topic post but I'd really love to. I know I wouldn't beat them but just the experience.

  • immagikmanimmagikman Member Posts: 664
    Awww no option for those who are of ambiguous gender, or in a state of total confusion?
  • catheraainecatheraaine Member Posts: 52
    WOW A whole 9% !!

    Though by the number of women in my Computer Science and Interactive Media classes in college, we're at least 30%.

    Just..... women don't use internet forums/
  • CommunardCommunard Member Posts: 556

    WOW A whole 9% !!

    Though by the number of women in my Computer Science and Interactive Media classes in college, we're at least 30%.

    Just..... women don't use internet forums/

    With the amount of sexism in this thread it's not hard to see why.
    ArtemielleRunarielJairyannaJalily
  • DragonspearDragonspear Member Posts: 1,838
    Just because they're extremely relevant to this article. Here are just two of the recent stories about sexism in gaming in the last week. I'd suggest everyone read them.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/us/sexual-harassment-in-online-gaming-stirs-anger.html?_r=2

    and

    http://www.npr.org/2012/08/08/158433079/virtual-harassment-gets-real-for-female-gamers?utm_source=fp&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20120809

    Females aren't imagining this. Please don't let it hurt the Baldur's Gate community as well.
    CommunardRunarielJalily
  • immagikmanimmagikman Member Posts: 664
    Sexism is nothing new but some of the things now labeled as sexism is actually just thin skinned whining. BUT the PC gaming has not always been very kind to women and their perceived value. So in the end, lets all try to just treat each other with respect and try not to take off hand comments as personal attacks.
    DragonspearLeezl
  • NWN_babaYagaNWN_babaYaga Member Posts: 732
    edited August 2012
    yes I agree about sexism. Strong is the dark side of the force with the feminists. Imagine a world full of Elisabeth Hasselbecks....
  • DragonspearDragonspear Member Posts: 1,838

    So in the end, lets all try to just treat each other with respect and try not to take off hand comments as personal attacks.

    Well said

    purebredcorn
  • reedmilfamreedmilfam Member Posts: 2,808
    At least caveat that as "militant feminists". Feminism, in its original form, is an equal rights issue, which isn't the same as the loud minority who do 'the female superiority in all things' gig. Essentially doing, in reverse, whet they ostensibly decry.

    Let's just treat everybody with dignity, as a start. That would be cool with me.
    trinit
  • shawneshawne Member Posts: 3,239
    Aosaw said:

    When I play BG1, I always play a female character.
    When I play BG2, I always play male.

    This is because in BG1, the NPC interactions have little or no bearing on your character's gender, and I choose to have my protagonist be represented by a commonly underrepresented gender.

    However, in BG2, some of the best storytelling happens during the romance plots; and Anomen is a terrible choice for a mate. I play a male in BG2 because it's the best way to get the most out of the female NPCs. (Of course, if Jan were romanceable, I'd probably have to go female again...

    Would that change if Dorn or Rasaad turn up in BG2?
  • JariahxSynnJariahxSynn Member Posts: 67
    Me 100% Duuuude! :P
  • immagikmanimmagikman Member Posts: 664
    Well if they allowed for same sex romancing....you get the best of both worlds ;) Ok that was sexist but it was meant as humor :)
    trinit
  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    Corvino said:

    Been watching the olympics here. There are some pretty physcially strong women out there. Okay, the top male weightlifter could lift more than the top female weightlifter, but a top female boxer could still kick the arse of 99% of blokes.

    I think this is the crux of the issue. It doesn't really matter how much you can deadlift, because if a lady who happens to be a Muay Thai champion with legs like a race horse roundhouse kicks you in the kidney you're probably going to fall over and throw up. Period.

    Should this maybe result in a stat bonus for males or a stat penalty for females? Maybe, if Beamdog/WotC/Bioware/whoever wanted to annoy more gamers than they appeased in doing so. Luckily, they have the wisdom to avoid such folly.
    Mornmagor
  • MornmagorMornmagor Member Posts: 1,160
    Yeah this is the thing, strength does not win fights. If people know how to fight, strength in the term of how much you lift, becomes secondary, maybe even more meaningless.

    And to put an analogy in the D&D universe, you're not going to outmuscle a dragon or a giant. You have more abilities than just "physical strength".
  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    Well, my Pathfinder Barbarian can totally wrestle Huge-sized creatures...But that's neither here nor there. >.>
Sign In or Register to comment.