Yes, Women in Dragon Age Could Use Longswords

[Lightknight]

HUGE SNIP

You keep talking about 2handers,, when I am talking ABOUT ONE HANDED SWORDS. You keep referencing to that style. I am talking about something completely different than the picture that you showed. And it is getting on my nerves now. I don't care about 2handed swords, that were meant to be used as a hack and slash style. I care about 1h swords that require dexterity and less strength. Women are more than capable to use such swords. And no if you faced someone in full armour, you wouldn't use a sword as a club (unless it is a 2hander). You would go at the weak points, not the breastplate. And with this this discussion is over.

The thread is about longswords so I guess a more apt question for me to ask is why you keep talking about one-handed swords when we're all talking about two handed swords. Weapons like the rapier would be ideal for a female fighter to use. Great reach, light weight.

No one is debating that.

But weapons commonly used by armored knights to best fight other armored knights? Not really going to happen due to the weight of the armor. So the weapon by itself? Sure... they can use it but it'd be far less efficient than a one hander for the vast majority of women but potentially a liability around non-armored opponents with more agile blades. Now, a woman fighting an armored opponent? That's a really bad match up for the woman. Like a mounted unit making it to the archers.

So on that point, you and I may be agreeing. I don't know, you tell me. Do you agree that two handed weapons, aka longswords, would be a far less efficient weapon for women and that one handers would be particularly deadly and efficient in their hands?

On to the other part: What specialization? The fact that women can bear children and take care of an house?

Yes, women can bear children and yes, that is at a cost to their physical strength. They can also grow food in their body to sustain the child's life. They are also less aggressive thanks to the lack of testosterone than males and so are naturally more nurturing and more risk adverse which can often make them more reliable parents. Anyone can clean the house. Why would you seek to belittle those specializations? Are they menial specializations to you? They shouldn't be. They are vital to mankind being where we are today and will continue being vital to wherever we're going. But those aren't the only advantages and those aren't roles that sum up their purpose.

I would consider the advantages in the physical capability of males to be far less valuable in today's society than many of the advantages women have in other areas. Let me tell you, I'm very strong. I can leg press over 1,000 lbs for example. Never really put that much time into strength training my legs but have always had crazy strength there. But aside from moving heavy things around it really hasn't benefited me that much. I make my living with my mind only and that's an even playing field for humans regardless of sex. Though, even there we may have specializations that can't be accounted for even with social conditioning. Such as women being naturally better at multi-tasking and men having an advantage in spacial reasoning.

So yeah, women got the short end of the stick where physical strength is considered. That doesn't make them weaker overall. It just means that their specialization is in areas other than brute force.

Guess what: The Western world has allowed that "specialization" (based on biology) to enter its culture and practically treat half of the population as second class citizens.

Yes, treating people as second class citizens is wrong. What's your point and who are you telling this to? Does it make the acknowledgement of "specializations" (based on biology) any less true? Does the fact that people treated women as weak mean that they aren't the physically weaker sex as compared to men?

Truth isn't our enemy. It's just how we use it that can be good or bad. That people have used the truth for evil does not detract from the truth or add to it.

Spoiler: Completely unrelated topic that was brought up for some reason

Even today we have issues with that (mainly the issue of sexism in corporate culture and attempts to restrict abortion in NA).

I'm unsure how abortion relates to anything we're talking about. But since you brought it up, abortion falls into a grey area between women's rights and ethics depending on the person you're talking to. Well, religion as well, let's face it that some people aren't even looking at the discussion on its merits for the sake of religious programming rather than actual self-reflected belief.

But at least I can understand why someone would have an issue with abortion without it being a women's rights issue if they actually value the life of an organism that is both genetically human and consuming energy and ergo alive. That's an ethical conundrum that should be able to be viewed as a legitimate question and weighed against the very real claims of women rights. But, ethics being what they are often means a difference of opinion rather than fact. If someone views it as a human life that's in a coma and about to wake up then I understand their hesitation at pulling the plug. I certainly understand all of the concerns and claims for women as well. It's quite a difficult issue to resolve if it can be resolved at all.

So the topic isn't as cut and dry as you think. But it's just that anyone too firmly on either side can't even consider one another's position. I would say the biggest hindrance is because of religious opponents of abortion just trying to impose their faith in the discussion rather than there being more vocal ethicists on the matter. But even then, I think women's rights advocates are generally being smart by not tackling the potential human rights issue and just focusing on the women's rights side of things. You can't really win an ethics war but can win a right to do what you want with your body war.

I'm still unsure where I side on the issue. I understand where both sides stand and why they stand there. I am inclined to believe that a fetus is a human life but am uncertain as to how to gauge the value of that life and whether it should be considered more or less worthy than the impact to the quality of life a woman would have to deal with should it persist. I'm simply not equipped to be the judge and so I stand on the sidelines and watch both sides fight it out in curiosity

You brought politics when you said that "women can do everything as well" is a lie.

By stating facts I brought in politics? Straight-up facts?

That's disappointing. Politics often harm science so I'm not surprised, though.

Tell that to the women who manned the factories during WWI and WWII.

If their jobs required strength, reaction time and endurance then sure, men could have done the work better on average. That is a scientifically accurate assessment. That's a fact and above reproach as such.

Tell that to the female soldiers in the countries outside of the US who have managed to be integrated in their respective militaries.

Yep, guns sure are great. Doesn't make them better at physical tasks or more likely to win in a physical confrontation. Doesn't mean that they don't get injured more frequently or are somehow able to carry as much as their male counterparts or even run as fast. Able to do the same job =/= able to do the job as well. But as I already said earlier, a bullet from a girl makes people just as dead.

And like I said even when the sexual dimorphism is present, we are humans. We can override it by using our brains.

That's audaciously false. A woman cannot mind control her bones into getting denser anymore than I can will my tits to lactate. Modern science may provide alternatives but it isn't a matter of the mind.

Sexual dimorphism is biologically programmed. It is not a social construct. We are genetically dimorphic and that's not something to wave away no matter how load someone shouts it from a soap box.

Out of fear that acknowledging one sex is physically weaker than another will turn into claiming one is actually inferior to the other you are dismissing a truth that is true regardless of how that truth is used or whether or not you believe it.

Difference does not mean weakness. To believe that is to err greatly. The knight and the archer on the battlefield have greatly disparate functions and yet neither would necessarily be considered better than the other in general but would be considered differently depending on the task at hand. Specialization is key to humanity's existence and survival.

Edit: 2handers are longswords, but I was always referring to 1handers.

2handers are longswords, longswords are 2handers. Yes.

Please refer to the title of the thread and the point of the discussion:

"Yes, Women in Dragon Age Could Use Longswords"

Do you happen to know why you joined the argument regarding things that aren't longswords? Seems a little hit and miss for a target audience don't you think?

 

[Haerthan]

Snip

Women do make testosterone. Their ovaries and adrenal glands make it. Also don't ever piss of a woman, or get between her and her children, she will murder you with whatever tools she has at hands. Granted not to the extent that males make it, but they still make it. I do like how you use the word "truth". Truth is a relative thing. Yes we can acknowledge that women are 50% weaker than men. But we must ensure that we never ever go back to the ideals of the Victorian era, otherwise we are no better than savages.

And when I said we can override our sexual dimorphism using our brains I MEANT WE CAN THINK ABOUT IT to develop plans to override nature, not use our brains to influence our growth and development. There is a reason for our dominance of the earth.

I still believe women could use longswords, they just had less endurance as you say, because of a lack of training. Regardless of the technique at play.

 

[Lightknight]

Snip

Women do make testosterone. Their ovaries and adrenal glands make it.

Yeah, but I also didn't say they didn't. Women also have muscles and are perfectly capable of performing most tasks that men can perform even if they're at a disadvantage of doing so as efficiently. But the difference in amounts produced is significant. Surely you're not dismissing the impact testosterone has as a steroid in males? Women produce 5-10% the amount that men produce.

Also don't ever piss of a woman, or get between her and her children, she will murder you with whatever tools she has at hands.

Holy crap, ever seen a fight between girls? They're like whirlwinds with nails flying and gnashing of teeth. Their intent appears to be to maim or damage the other rather than to just overcome them like a lot of male fights I've seen. Terrifying, really. But I've also seen the other way around where a man is intent on fighting back and once the switch is flipped and the man is pushed to defending himself the woman had better have better training or better tools at her disposal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRPtPbAPNgU

The general sentiment is universal that men can't hit women. Ever wonder why that's a strong belief? Do you think it's just Victorian era residue or due to the power disparity?

Please understand that I am not calling women weak. I am saying that they are weaker in comparison to men. But not weak in general. There's a huge difference there.

I do like how you use the word "truth". Truth is a relative thing.

No, it's not. The sky is blue because of the wavelengths we see. Facts are truth. Opinions are relative. Whoever started claiming that truth is relative defeated themselves the moment they made an absolute (aka, non-relative) claim about the nature of truth being relative. Relative truth is seldom used in debate by the honest and objective.

Yes we can acknowledge that women are 50% weaker than men. But we must ensure that we never ever go back to the ideals of the Victorian era, otherwise we are no better than savages.

I agree that we should never return to the mentality that anyone is second class. But I hardly think Victorian era people were savages .

And when I said we can override our sexual dimorphism using our brains I MEANT WE CAN THINK ABOUT IT to develop plans to override nature, not use our brains to influence our growth and development. There is a reason for our dominance of the earth.

Ah, so we could use science to overcome sexual dimorphism. That makes far more sense than it purely being a mental task to overcome.

As I asked before, do you think we should? Do you think it is right to alter an infant female to be more like a man? I find that notion incredibly sexist. Like admitting that women are inferior to men and need to be genetically modified to be equal. I just don't agree with that at all. Sounds like an extreme form of sexism, really, and I'm surprised to hear that come from a woman.

I still believe women could use longswords, they just had less endurance as you say, because of a lack of training. Regardless of the technique at play.

Ok, then we aren't disagreeing.

 

[Lightknight]

snip

Power lifting form for a bench press is a different beast to how a bodybuilder might do it. The arch of the back is normal form taken to an extreme thanks to young flexibility. Your butt and your upper back are supposed to touch the bench but your spine can be as curved as you want. You can even see it in that video you deemed honest lifting shes arching her back just not to an extreme. Powerlifting is all about the form that gives more drive, whilst a bodybuilder may lay more flat on the bench to get less drive and more time under tension for his muscles.

http://www.capopowerlifting.com.au/files/WPC%20Rule%20book%20Official%20Website%202011%20%282%29.pdf

(its on page 8 according to the pdf program and page 11 going by the label)

The arching of the back isn't the problem. It's the foot placement. That far back makes your body behave sort of like a bow and lets the lifter use other muscles in the body to lift that amount.

Like I said, it's also how far she's taking the bar down and putting it back up. It's not a legal bench she's performing.

There are women who can honestly lift those weights. She just isn't one of them.

 

[white_wolf]

I find it sad you needed to write this article that there is actually an argument that says cuz girl = no can do in a game. Women play the games yet are excluded from them at the sametime told only a man can do this cuz creators said so which is bull, its basically the designers can't envision or don't want to. Yes women can wield swords but the prerequisite for having women characters or heros shouldn't be because they can or can't do that in real life otherwise we wouldn't have male stories either because 99% of the men playing them can't do the things they're being asked to in the game's story or sidequests anyway yet oddly we don't get the narrative of well no a man can't pick up a humvee and hurl it at his enemies thats way to unrealistic only a woman can do that! Usually we get the opposite even if IRL it'd be unrealistic for both sexes to do that.

 

[Haerthan]

Snip

Women do make testosterone. Their ovaries and adrenal glands make it.

Yeah, but I also didn't say they didn't. Women also have muscles and are perfectly capable of performing most tasks that men can perform even if they're at a disadvantage of doing so as efficiently. But the difference in amounts produced is significant. Surely you're not dismissing the impact testosterone has as a steroid in males? Women produce 5-10% the amount that men produce.

Also don't ever piss of a woman, or get between her and her children, she will murder you with whatever tools she has at hands.

Holy crap, ever seen a fight between girls? They're like whirlwinds with nails flying and gnashing of teeth. Their intent appears to be to maim or damage the other rather than to just overcome them like a lot of male fights I've seen. Terrifying, really. But I've also seen the other way around where a man is intent on fighting back and once the switch is flipped and the man is pushed to defending himself the woman had better have better training or better tools at her disposal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRPtPbAPNgU

The general sentiment is universal that men can't hit women. Ever wonder why that's a strong belief? Do you think it's just Victorian era residue or due to the power disparity?

Please understand that I am not calling women weak. I am saying that they are weaker in comparison to men. But not weak in general. There's a huge difference there.

I do like how you use the word "truth". Truth is a relative thing.

No, it's not. The sky is blue because of the wavelengths we see. Facts are truth. Opinions are relative. Whoever started claiming that truth is relative defeated themselves the moment they made an absolute (aka, non-relative) claim about the nature of truth being relative. Relative truth is seldom used in debate by the honest and objective.

Yes we can acknowledge that women are 50% weaker than men. But we must ensure that we never ever go back to the ideals of the Victorian era, otherwise we are no better than savages.

I agree that we should never return to the mentality that anyone is second class. But I hardly think Victorian era people were savages .

And when I said we can override our sexual dimorphism using our brains I MEANT WE CAN THINK ABOUT IT to develop plans to override nature, not use our brains to influence our growth and development. There is a reason for our dominance of the earth.

Ah, so we could use science to overcome sexual dimorphism. That makes far more sense than it purely being a mental task to overcome.

As I asked before, do you think we should? Do you think it is right to alter an infant female to be more like a man? I find that notion incredibly sexist. Like admitting that women are inferior to men and need to be genetically modified to be equal. I just don't agree with that at all. Sounds like an extreme form of sexism, really, and I'm surprised to hear that come from a woman.

I still believe women could use longswords, they just had less endurance as you say, because of a lack of training. Regardless of the technique at play.

Ok, then we aren't disagreeing.

I am actually a guy. And personally I believe in exoskeletons. The idea of using genetic engineering is a logical extreme of our belief that we are the top of the food chain on the earth (i forgot the word for it, but environmentalists are very much against it). I would use genetic engineering, but only if necessary and with the permission of the person involved. It would be a personal choice.

Also I can easily think that the Victorian era (mainly Great Britain, since that term applies only to it) was filled with savages: the spread of the empire, the complete disregard of human rights for women and subsequent literature treating women as children (read Bram Stoker's Dracula for a pretty fucking good example), the Industrial Revolution and its use of slave labour (being paid so little it wasn't enough for day to day survival). Let us not even talk of the ethnic cleansing of Ireland, Africa and other places where the Brits were active. So yea fuck the Victorian era.