ants have queens
Sex matters.
In some cases a lot.
I'm trying to get all the ways that DF does not currently respect this into one place. So far I've got
Gender Species differences : There's a big fancy word for this, but guys have beards, lions have manes, the femal mosquito is the one that sucks your blood, ants have queens, and a host of other cases where the male is physically different from the female
Gender Naming Conventions : Linguistically, there is no 'male names' or 'female names'. This would be extremely helpful in terms of not assigning girls to the military, etc.
Gender Dress Conventions : Would be nice if me dwarves stopped wearing the Jenny clothes, eh?
Gender Behaviour and Ethics Conventions : Boys play with tin soldiers, girls play with dollies. (It's ok for guys to be half naked and kill animals but society frowns on chicks doing the same.)
That's all I've got now. Anything else?
Stats? Females should never be as strong/agile as males.
I support the gendering of names and clothing (would give something for the "Loves to defy convention" personality to do), but I would argue against stat-nerfing and the implementation of gender roles. Basically because it would get really annoying and, since they're dwarfs, it's got no basis in reality.
As for the Gender Species Difference thing; most aesthetic distinctions need to wait for whatever bloat or core handles that; now all Toady could do is make them different creatures, which brings it's own problems.
I support the gendering of names and clothing (would give something for the "Loves to defy convention" personality to do), but I would argue against stat-nerfing and the implementation of gender roles. Basically because it would get really annoying and, since they're dwarfs, it's got no basis in reality.
As for the Gender Species Difference thing; most aesthetic distinctions need to wait for whatever bloat or core handles that; now all Toady could do is make them different creatures, which brings it's own problems.
I support the gendering of names and clothing (would give something for the "Loves to defy convention" personality to do), but I would argue against stat-nerfing and the implementation of gender roles. Basically because it would get really annoying and, since they're dwarfs, it's got no basis in reality.Fourth-ded. They're an entirely different species which flat-out does not exist in the real world, so saying "it's like X in the real world" doesn't actually support anything at all.
As for the Gender Species Difference thing; most aesthetic distinctions need to wait for whatever bloat or core handles that; now all Toady could do is make them different creatures, which brings it's own problems.
I mean some people complain that Women in this game who are soldiers bring a battalion of children with them... You know who else does that? BATMAN!!!
Several Sci Fi works include 3 or more sexes all required...
An average of females and males of our species tends to result in finding females to be superior in nearly every way to males. Males tend to have a greater maximum strength; but using a formula of weight*time held, females take the lead. Pain threashold, which relates to toughness, also tend to go to the women. Agility, is generally a matter of flexibility, and yet again the things that pratice this are shunned by men and embraced by women.
Face it boys, you are out classed by women. The best thing we can do for our dwarves is put nonmarried women into our military.
Males tend to have a greater maximum strength; but using a formula of weight*time held, females take the lead.
Pain threashold, which relates to toughness, also tend to go to the women.
Agility, is generally a matter of flexibility, and yet again the things that pratice this are shunned by men and embraced by women.
Females should never be as strong/agile as males.This is what i think:
I support the gendering of names and clothing (would give something for the "Loves to defy convention" personality to do), but I would argue against stat-nerfing and the implementation of gender roles. Basically because it would get really annoying and, since they're dwarfs, it's got no basis in reality.
As for the Gender Species Difference thing; most aesthetic distinctions need to wait for whatever bloat or core handles that; now all Toady could do is make them different creatures, which brings it's own problems.
An average of females and males of our species tends to result in finding females to be superior in nearly every way to males. Males tend to have a greater maximum strength; but using a formula of weight*time held, females take the lead. Pain threashold, which relates to toughness, also tend to go to the women. Agility, is generally a matter of flexibility, and yet again the things that pratice this are shunned by men and embraced by women.
Face it boys, you are out classed by women. The best thing we can do for our dwarves is put nonmarried women into our military.
Don't believe everything the feminists spew out of their mouths, every last one of those points is laughable non-logic...
Stats? Females should never be as strong/agile as males.
I think this is a bit too strong of a statement; sure, male humans tend to be stronger than female humans, but there's no reason to be sure this is the case for dwarves or elves or randomly generated race #342, or even that a strong (for a female) human is weaker than a weak (for a male) human.
I'm not saying there isn't room for stat differentiation between sexes. But it's not as black and white as you make it seem.
Maybe for elves and humans. For dwarves I like the idea that there is no gender differentiation.I feel myself that elves if anything do not need gender differentialisation. Them being androgyneous hippies and all.
ReproductionI think this'd be interesting. Well except that chewing part, that's just gross.
Slugs are hermaphrodites, having both female and male reproductive organs.
Once a slug has located a mate, they encircle each other and sperm is exchanged through their protruded genitalia. A few days later around 30 eggs are laid into a hole in the ground, or under the cover of objects such as fallen logs.
A commonly seen practice among many slugs is apophallation. The penis of these species is curled like a cork-screw and often becomes entangled in their mate's genitalia in the process of exchanging sperm. When all else fails, apophallation allows the slugs to separate themselves by one or both of the slugs chewing off the other's penis. Once its penis has been removed, a slug is still able to mate subsequently, but using only the female parts of its reproductive system.
Eargh! But men are superior in thinking. In logic, In WAR!!!! Blood! And, of course, technology created by men! We create. We RULE. Ravens follow where men gathers, since there will definitely be casualties. Screw peace! We are heading into a time of wars, so male must be on top! We must survive.
[/chauvinist]
Still, it is good to be able to define this in the raw.
P.S.: Isn't men is superior in DREAMING? That's explain why we always day-dreaming, and consequently lost.
P.S.S.: And it seemed that men is far more happy when winning, compared to women. Hmm.
Question: Do dwarven babies require milk from their mothers?
Question: Do dwarven babies require milk from their mothers?
I'm sorry to be condescending, but all you who attribute human norms to DF dwarves are boring. Also you are incredibly lacking of imagination.Honestly (while I certainly don't think dwarves need human gender dimorphism -- some versions give female dwarves beards, and having dwarf genders have essentially the same strength isn't really a problem compared to that), randomness to that extent can be a bad thing.
So, who says dwarves are bi-gendered? Who says they are monogendered? Who says they are sexually dimorphic? Well, the RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR DOES!
It would be trivial to have these factors be randomly generated. Dwarves, or any race, could have any number of genders. Each gender could diverge have systemically from the other genders, and these differences could be along arbitrary attributes.
Thus foobarale dwarves are generally faster and more crafty than the more lumbering but intrinsically funny and administrative barbazale dwarves. Both these genders are greatly attracted to dwarves of barfoole gender, who have an particular affinity for cooking and tend to be great with weapons, but also be moody and depress easily. They form mate-relationships in three or four, and barfoole dwarves spawn offspring when simultaneously impregnated by one (or more) foobarle and barbazales.
Agree to the post above....
We need to be able to change this in the raws.
Sex matters.
In some cases a lot.
I'm trying to get all the ways that DF does not currently respect this into one place. So far I've got
Gender Species differences : There's a big fancy word for this, but guys have beards, lions have manes, the femal mosquito is the one that sucks your blood, ants have queens, and a host of other cases where the male is physically different from the female
Gender Naming Conventions : Linguistically, there is no 'male names' or 'female names'. This would be extremely helpful in terms of not assigning girls to the military, etc.
Gender Dress Conventions : Would be nice if me dwarves stopped wearing the Jenny clothes, eh?
Gender Behaviour and Ethics Conventions : Boys play with tin soldiers, girls play with dollies. (It's ok for guys to be half naked and kill animals but society frowns on chicks doing the same.)
That's all I've got now. Anything else?
* Human-template dwarf (str male>female; dex female>male)
some versions give female dwarves beards, and having dwarf genders have essentially the same strength isn't really a problem compared to that), randomness to that extent can be a bad thing.So give female dwarves the [beard] tag, s'no big deal... Nobody has said that the differences have to/should be the same as humans.
Dwarven women care for their babies
Sure, but why are you beating in the open door and telling me this? You're quoting the wrong person.some versions give female dwarves beards, and having dwarf genders have essentially the same strength isn't really a problem compared to that), randomness to that extent can be a bad thing.So give female dwarves the [beard] tag, s'no big deal... Nobody has said that the differences have to/should be the same as humans.
The only idea I really like is maybe more gendered names, so that if someone WANTS gender roles, it's easier to implement them.
Sure, but why are you beating in the open door and telling me this? You're quoting the wrong person.some versions give female dwarves beards, and having dwarf genders have essentially the same strength isn't really a problem compared to that), randomness to that extent can be a bad thing.So give female dwarves the [beard] tag, s'no big deal... Nobody has said that the differences have to/should be the same as humans.
When I imagine Dwarfs in DF, I always imagine that it's impossible to tell males and females apart (from a human perspective at least, I sure dwarfs can tell). Like baby alligators and chickens, you have to have them sexed (i.e. stick your finger in their ass) to be sure what gender they are.
The only idea I really like is maybe more gendered names, so that if someone WANTS gender roles, it's easier to implement them. As far as different stats and behavior, I think that it's a bad idea for vanilla, but go nuts you crazy modders.
When I imagine Dwarfs in DF, I always imagine that it's impossible to tell males and females apart (from a human perspective at least, I sure dwarfs can tell). Like baby alligators and chickens, you have to have them sexed (i.e. stick your finger in their ass) to be sure what gender they are.
The only idea I really like is maybe more gendered names, so that if someone WANTS gender roles, it's easier to implement them. As far as different stats and behavior, I think that it's a bad idea for vanilla, but go nuts you crazy modders.
Ugh, Why do I have an image in my head of you actually doing that for a living... CURSE YOU IMAGINATION!!!
Anyhow as for MAle and Female versions of names as well as Male and Female only names including Gender Neutral names... I wonder if it will make THAT much of a difference?
Male: Ugbista
Female: Agdistra
Ohh well it is flavor... Go AGDISTRA!!! USE BABY BOOM ATTACK!!!
When I imagine Dwarfs in DF, I always imagine that it's impossible to tell males and females apart (from a human perspective at least, I sure dwarfs can tell). Like baby alligators and chickens, you have to have them sexed (i.e. stick your finger in their ass) to be sure what gender they are.
The only idea I really like is maybe more gendered names, so that if someone WANTS gender roles, it's easier to implement them. As far as different stats and behavior, I think that it's a bad idea for vanilla, but go nuts you crazy modders.
Ugh, Why do I have an image in my head of you actually doing that for a living... CURSE YOU IMAGINATION!!!
Anyhow as for MAle and Female versions of names as well as Male and Female only names including Gender Neutral names... I wonder if it will make THAT much of a difference?
Male: Ugbista
Female: Agdistra
Ohh well it is flavor... Go AGDISTRA!!! USE BABY BOOM ATTACK!!!
Use Arabic styles.
Or general semitic.
It will relieve Toady from many hours of stress.
Imagine a band of human women and their children fleeing form an oppressive culture to your fortress because they hear that dwarven women are treated as equals?Who the hell would want to live as an equal to a dwarf?
BOLDFACEYou know, when you bold your entire post except for the first sentence, it sort of loses its attention-grabbing poignancy.
Okay, I couldn't be bothered to read most of this thread. And I still want to voice my own opinions. Whatever.That's ok, I didn't bother reading your post either.
BOLDFACEYou know, when you bold your entire post except for the first sentence, it sort of loses its attention-grabbing poignancy.
And, anyway, the stats stuff for humans should also make sense (women should have better social stats, if those get put in). As should gender roles. I shouldn't see too many female human caravan guards, for example.
And, anyway, the stats stuff for humans should also make sense (women should have better social stats, if those get put in). As should gender roles. I shouldn't see too many female human caravan guards, for example.
Since it's pretty much impossible to even approach the issues of sex and gender without it being horribly political and up for heated debate, I honestly think it'd be sensible to just leave even the human sexes physically identical. That was you at least have deniability (in the form of "eh, not a priority right now" if nothing else :p). Although it could of course be added to the raws for anyone wanting to mess with it, I suppose.
I don't think you'll any backlash for NOT having a bunch of female guards, since no one really expects them.
1:I don't think you'll any backlash for NOT having a bunch of female guards, since no one really expects them.
Speak for yourself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazons).
DF players complain about everything, how does that constitute a reason?
butt WHATing robins?
(watched too much 60's batman growing up, sorry)
5 pages of DF gender discussion and I'm the loser who reintroduces the topic of gay dwarves.
I really don't see why a race's culture should be randomly generated if nothing else isAll right- should the culture dri'e on the right side of the road or left?
Dwarven women care for their babies and can't control their fertility. Behavioural differences around this are only logical.I'd rather have babysitting options and be able to pick which dwarves get pregnant instead of putting contraceptives in the booze via the init file.
Sorry to fail the 'being PC' check, but I'd rather be realistic.
I oppose a pre-programmed gender differentiation (beyond the presently included).
Animals that depend on instinct for survival, sure, let them differ if it'll make the game more interesting. But there's no reason to project our sexual (mis)conceptions on a fantasy world that doesn't even adhere to the same natural laws.Unless you've skipped every real science class in favor of liberal artsy fartsyness, it's not a misconception or even conception that human males have a significantly higher muscle mass than human females. It's a fact. The misconception is that this higher muscle mass makes them better or more efficient people, which you implicitely buy into when you make statements like that.
The RNG already determines what clothing a civ wears...But not based on caste or rank.
Castes could have different body structures: If the males are stout, and the females are narrow, will we need two sets of clothings? How will the system decide what to make? Will we need tailors of every caste? (I'm worried about the 4-armed golden dwarf king not having shirts)
Unless you've skipped every real science class in favor of liberal artsy fartsyness, it's not a misconception or even conception that human males have a significantly higher muscle mass than human females. It's a fact. The misconception is that this higher muscle mass makes them better or more efficient people, which you implicitely buy into when you make statements like that.Except I never said anything about muscle mass, did I, Chuckles?
For names, different word sets could be associated with males or females. This would be easy enough to be placed in the civ RAW. You know, like FLOWERY or MOUNTAIN or whatnot.
That's not to say that physical dimorphism won't happen in a fantasy world. Nothing stops the gods from deciding that males should be huge and females tiny, for example. It may be based on aesthetics and not evolution, but it should still be accounted for.And nothing is to stop the gods from doing the opposite, or nothing at all, or something extreme.
except, ya know, the raws not supporting it...That's not to say that physical dimorphism won't happen in a fantasy world. Nothing stops the gods from deciding that males should be huge and females tiny, for example. It may be based on aesthetics and not evolution, but it should still be accounted for.And nothing is to stop the gods from doing the opposite, or nothing at all, or something extreme.
yetexcept, ya know, the raws not supporting it...That's not to say that physical dimorphism won't happen in a fantasy world. Nothing stops the gods from deciding that males should be huge and females tiny, for example. It may be based on aesthetics and not evolution, but it should still be accounted for.And nothing is to stop the gods from doing the opposite, or nothing at all, or something extreme.
As I am just one silly males of the pitiful human species, you can take this statement with as many grains of salt as is needed it to make palatable for you.
An average of females and males of our species tends to result in finding females to be superior in nearly every way to males. Males tend to have a greater maximum strength; but using a formula of weight*time held, females take the lead. Pain threashold, which relates to toughness, also tend to go to the women. Agility, is generally a matter of flexibility, and yet again the things that pratice this are shunned by men and embraced by women.
Face it boys, you are out classed by women. The best thing we can do for our dwarves is put nonmarried women into our military.
Good idea. Could be done as easily as this:"Cog Viscouspetunias"
[SELECT_SYMBOL:NAME_MALE:VIOLENT]
[SELECT_SYMBOL:NAME_MALE:FLOWERY]
so boobs don't interfere with agility?Depends how good your bra is.
For names, if the civ sees Hares, Cups, Donkeys, and Plump Helmets as feminine objects, then they'd have names based on Hares, Cups, Donkeys, and Plump Helmets for their women.That's actually a pretty good idea. I wonder how it would be implemented tho, it can't be in the object raws because it's a civ thing. It's in the language raws? A tag that says a noun is "feminine" or "masculine". For some cultures there are gender-neutral names tho.
Yeah, back when this topic started, the new release wasn't on the horizon. Castes look like they'll do 90% of what has been suggested, and even allow ant queens, etc, as a third 'caste'. Hell, xenomorphs should be possible, with facehuggers, snakes, warriors, praetorians and the queen all being separate castes with differing roles, although the lifecycle won't be right.except, ya know, the raws not supporting it...yet
Well, as far as cannibalizing the dead goes, I think there's something more wrong with mistreating the living than mistreating the dead. :P But your point stands, yeah.
I think introducing sex differences in DF would have to be handled extremely carefully. For instance, if women are treated as having less strength but more flexibility or whatever other arbitrary characteristic, it should only be on a statistical model, such that there still CAN be strong women and weak men, for instance. And any differences (at least in any race supposedly similar to real humans in the ways we're talking) would have to be very minimal, because the last thing anybody would want is for the game to appear sexist or anything like that. Of course, if a creature is obviously supposed to have DECIDEDLY different features between sex (like if goblin women are ten feet tall or kobold men have little tusks and kobold women don't), that's different.
For names, if the civ sees Hares, Cups, Donkeys, and Plump Helmets as feminine objects, then they'd have names based on Hares, Cups, Donkeys, and Plump Helmets for their women.That's actually a pretty good idea. I wonder how it would be implemented tho, it can't be in the object raws because it's a civ thing. It's in the language raws? A tag that says a noun is "feminine" or "masculine". For some cultures there are gender-neutral names tho.
Do you really think it would be sexist to say that guys are generally stronger than gals?For human men and women who exist in the real world, no. For fantasy human men and women, it depends what kind of world the author is trying to model and how well they pull it off. For dwarves, it would depend how much of the game beyond the tech level is intended to stick to human medieval European norms.
I mean some people complain that Women in this game who are soldiers bring a battalion of children with them... You know who else does that? BATMAN!!!Wait, Batman's a woman ???
Do you really think it would be sexist to say that guys are generally stronger than gals?
You get superstrong by signing off a lot of production orders and counting stock and becoming a legendary liar.
Do you really think it would be sexist to say that guys are generally stronger than gals?
...For instance, you CAN'T just say "men need fewer experience points than women to increase strength" unless you take individual differences into account such that some women require less experience than some men for it.
1) Dwarves that ignore gender for day-to-day life are awesome cause it makes them more culturally diverse from humans. Therefore dwarves in DF should do so. If dwarves are, in the physical sense, just small humans, then there is no reason to play as them, as opposed to playing as humans.1: Humans are in the game too, though. (Honestly, I don't really care about making human females weaker, I'm just upset that people think that saying 'the fact the human females are generally weaker should be in the game' is sexist, or that modelling the vast majority of human societies with gender roles somehow perpetuates some great travesty)
2) Female spiders are far more vicious than male spiders. Whether the male or female of a species is stronger than the opposite sex should be determined by something in the raws.
I'm glad someone finally brought individual differences into the debate. I've always been warned to be careful in interpreting averages as they may have no practical relevance whatsoever. My stats lecturers often said "There can often be more variability within a group than between two groups".If the model reflects individual variants in potential, yes. But what is traditionalist about saying 'This is true in general'? (Prejudiced is saying 'your category and thus you'... it isn't saying 'your category' in the first place)
I like the gender equality in DF, and I think when Toady establishes more moddable data then there should be options available in the raws for traditionalists and budding sociologists alike.
Many of the differences between males and females in humans are due to gender roles, not sexual dimorphism . . . Women tend to have fewer 'hunter' adaptations, such male facial structure and the ability to easily gain muscle mass. The verdict of the past few million years of evolution is that the females of our species are too valuable to go beast-hunting and raiding under uncertain conditions . . .
Many of the differences between males and females in humans are due to gender roles, not sexual dimorphism. This has been breaking down in many cultures over the last century, and there are many women who are more physically impressive than most men could ever dream of being.
Name some female athletes that consistently trump men in the same sport.
I mean... that the setting is supposed to express a sort of mythological environment where being a woman or man is no more an advantage as it is a disadvantage.This. Many people like their escapism.
I'd go with the theory that female kobolds should be a full size or two larger than the males and be the meanest, nastiest thing you can possibly pack into that amount of space. Think the mortal hand of the goddess of naked molerats.
Topic #3: Should adventurers be exempt from gender differentiation.
That should depend on whether or not the race you are playing as has gender dimorphism. Like, I dunno, goblins.Topic #3: Should adventurers be exempt from gender differentiation.
Probably
Then again, it can be treated as a difficulty setting
Topic #3: Should adventurers be exempt from gender differentiation.
Topic #3: Should adventurers be exempt from gender differentiation.
Absolutely not. No way. With the caste system, gender differentiation for some creatures could be very drastic, and exempting adventurers from that would be both difficult and bizarre. For creatures where the differences are minor, leaving them in shouldn't have that much impact.
Uh, Granite, you've got what I said down as a quote from Neonivek and what you said down as a quote from me. Kinda confusing.
I don't get what humans being in the game has to do with dwarves ignoring gender. The fact humans are in is why dwarves should ignore gender. But I like that last idea. Paves the way for modding in the Nac MacFeegle.
Topic #3: Should adventurers be exempt from gender differentiation.
Absolutely not. No way. With the caste system, gender differentiation for some creatures could be very drastic, and exempting adventurers from that would be both difficult and bizarre. For creatures where the differences are minor, leaving them in shouldn't have that much impact.
Ah, okay. Understood. And agreed. The tags should be in the game, if only to make it easier to make the races more culturally diverse.Uh, Granite, you've got what I said down as a quote from Neonivek and what you said down as a quote from me. Kinda confusing.
I don't get what humans being in the game has to do with dwarves ignoring gender. The fact humans are in is why dwarves should ignore gender. But I like that last idea. Paves the way for modding in the Nac MacFeegle.
Sorry about that, my bad for not checking. I think I fixed it.
Humans being in the game means tags should be in the game. I'm not willing to argue dwarves, but I'm willing to argue humans. (OK, I AM willing to argue dwarves, but it's a separate argument from the tags)
Many of the differences between males and females in humans are due to gender roles, not sexual dimorphism. This has been breaking down in many cultures over the last century, and there are many women who are more physically impressive than most men could ever dream of being.
Name some female athletes that consistently trump men in the same sport. How about female scientists or mathematicians? Anything that can be twisted into a competition? No?
Most studies find either no difference or an extremely small difference between men and women on IQ scores
Topic #3: Should adventurers be exempt from gender differentiation.
Absolutely not. No way. With the caste system, gender differentiation for some creatures could be very drastic, and exempting adventurers from that would be both difficult and bizarre. For creatures where the differences are minor, leaving them in shouldn't have that much impact.
Depends on whether the dev/modder sees more value in pure escapism or trying to overcome (reality/ancient prejudices). Denying reality/history doesn't make it better, it trivializes it, but not every media needs to wallow in the sins of the past.
QuoteMost studies find either no difference or an extremely small difference between men and women on IQ scores
Hmm I thought they noticed that Men had more varience then women (as in more poor and high scores)... I guess I was wrong.
Not that I totally discount the POSSIBILITY of some genetic/other reason for this, just that one doesn't appear necessary and I haven't seen evidence of it.
In a nutshell: In a realistic(that is, internally consistent) setting, men would have an advantage over women as adventurers, but not through any fault of the women.
In a nutshell: In a realistic(that is, internally consistent) setting, men would have an advantage over women as adventurers, but not through any fault of the women.How does internal consistency figure into it? It seems like you're saying "consistent with DF's perceived medieval Europe setting."
Jeanne d'Arc through crafty manipulation of her peers was able to win the trust of the government of France and gained some degree of leadership over the French military [the actual extent of which is unknown], and proceeded to... Well, fail, but she gets an A for Effort.And it should be noted that this was the French medieval military, which historically had few victories, unfortunately.
I think the real problem here is the ability for anyone, particularly a dwarf to wrestle a bear to death.
Are you really trying to argue that women's inferiority at wrestling bears to death is a social construct as opposed to reflection of their somewhat inferior physical abilities as a whole?
Everything else is sociology...[/size]
What do you mean? I said two things: One, that women are biologically, statistically, slower to develop strength,Yet that does not mean lower strength capacity.
You saying that there are fewer female adventurers, warriors or soldiers etc in fantasy than in reality? Have you ever read any AD&D books? Or Elisabeth Moon's "The Deeds of Paksenarrion" (which is a low-brow feminist fantasy story where all the women are always better then the men, quite humorous in a way...). Fantasy overflows with mighty females, perhaps because if the exoticness of it compared to our normal conception of gender roles.Yes, that's exactly what I mean. This is different from "realism" in light of the fact that DF also contains dragons, wizards, sea monsters, and deadly spinning coinage.In a nutshell: In a realistic(that is, internally consistent) setting, men would have an advantage over women as adventurers, but not through any fault of the women.How does internal consistency figure into it? It seems like you're saying "consistent with DF's perceived medieval Europe setting."
Jeanne d'Arc through crafty manipulation of her peers was able to win the trust of the government of France and gained some degree of leadership over the French military [the actual extent of which is unknown], and proceeded to... Well, fail, but she gets an A for Effort.And it should be noted that this was the French medieval military, which historically had few victories, unfortunately.
whose womanly death screams aroused my thirst for blood
who cowered before me, not man enough to face death
who moaned like a whore as I nailed him to a tree
whose potency I question after his ineffective thrusts
whose bad luck in combat was exceeded only by his bad luck with the women
who sought his place at the head of the table, only to lose his head when I struck it off
who was but a boy in a man's worldwho thought she could be a man
who didn't know her place
an unfit mother to the children she'll never see again
who waited submissively for her death
who wore her helmet like a veil to conceal her frightening appearance
who took up arms because she could not find a husband and met only death
who cried like a little girl as I deprived him of his manhood
a fool, whose claim of manhood was laughable
who failed the test of manhood
Nah, screw that... Joan D'Arc was a special woman... Which goes to the center of it. People can accomplish anything, but some people start at a disadvantage. That makes it MORE impressive when they accomplish great things.Jeanne d'Arc through crafty manipulation of her peers was able to win the trust of the government of France and gained some degree of leadership over the French military [the actual extent of which is unknown], and proceeded to... Well, fail, but she gets an A for Effort.And it should be noted that this was the French medieval military, which historically had few victories, unfortunately.
I rather like how the only difference between males and females in DF is that the females occasionally have kids. It may not be realistic for humans, but who knows when it comes to dwarves? They all have beards anyway.As of the latest raw updates, female dwarves do not have beards. Unless you mod them.
This is what i think:Yeah. And Females +10 MP and Males +10 HP.
Males +5% strength gain
Females +5% agility gain
Are you really trying to argue that women's inferiority at wrestling bears to death is a social construct as opposed to reflection of their somewhat inferior physical abilities as a whole?
- Most sports were designed FOR men in the first place, so they'd play to their strengths.
- Just because a woman has some obvious natural disadvantages in some regards doesn't mean that they have no advantages. I mean, look at certain sports, like gymnastics or, hell, even tennis.
That's exactly what I mean- that the potential is there. It just takes more work to get it.What do you mean? I said two things: One, that women are biologically, statistically, slower to develop strength,Yet that does not mean lower strength capacity.
Yeah, but even those really basic activities can still be CHOSEN because men tend to be good at them; for example, if men tended to suck at some jumping activity, they probably wouldn't turn it into a sport, perhaps.What? The discussion is about raw physical capability in some basic activity like lifting objects or footspeed. Can you think of a better way to measure footspeed than comparing footspeed?
That's exactly what I mean- that the potential is there. It just takes more work to get it.What do you mean? I said two things: One, that women are biologically, statistically, slower to develop strength,Yet that does not mean lower strength capacity.
Yeah, but even those really basic activities can still be CHOSEN because men tend to be good at them; for example, if men tended to suck at some jumping activity, they probably wouldn't turn it into a sport, perhaps.What? The discussion is about raw physical capability in some basic activity like lifting objects or footspeed. Can you think of a better way to measure footspeed than comparing footspeed?
I dunno, I'm suffering from a bad case of the Politically Correct Internet, but it seems to me that most of the major, classical, olympic sports were based around individual combat skills (AKA exactly what we care about)Yeah, but even those really basic activities can still be CHOSEN because men tend to be good at them; for example, if men tended to suck at some jumping activity, they probably wouldn't turn it into a sport, perhaps.What? The discussion is about raw physical capability in some basic activity like lifting objects or footspeed. Can you think of a better way to measure footspeed than comparing footspeed?
Oh, of course. I agree with that. I'm just saying that the basic activities which men are good at would historically be more likely to become publicized sporting events, perhaps.
The Olympic games were not proving grounds for real combat. Just because skills in the Olympics matched valued martial skills does not mean the Greeks assumed the best wrestler made the best fighter. The games were more symbolic, religious, and entertaining. Unlike hoplite, team-style warfare, the ancient Olympics were individual sports which allowed an individual Greek to win glory. Today's Olympics, in a world described as narcissistic, where warfare is distant, involving only small clusters of people, being part of a gold-winning team confers honor just as well. Ritualized sport, whether team or individual, continues to be an outlet for or way to sublimate humanity's aggression.1 (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu6aVPH5Jpf0A_olXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzdmwycjVwBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA0Y5NDVfMTE0/SIG=12jd9ep8k/EXP=1233096213/**http%3a//ancienthistory.about.com/od/olympics/p/OlympicEvents.htm)Is a good example of the PCness, if not the best 'Sports were originally ritualized demonstrations of war prowess' support.
Joan D'Arc was not actually from France. That was another oddity of that military; victory came more often under foreign leaders. But yes, she did accomplish great things.Nah, screw that... Joan D'Arc was a special woman... Which goes to the center of it. People can accomplish anything, but some people start at a disadvantage. That makes it MORE impressive when they accomplish great things.Jeanne d'Arc through crafty manipulation of her peers was able to win the trust of the government of France and gained some degree of leadership over the French military [the actual extent of which is unknown], and proceeded to... Well, fail, but she gets an A for Effort.And it should be noted that this was the French medieval military, which historically had few victories, unfortunately.
You know, DF2010 makes put of what this thread's asking for into the game, with castes. The differences between men and women now becomes a question only of modding; unless you really want to insist it be in vanilla DF.
What bridge? Bridgebuilding is a very complex art, and the widespread existence of bridges did not occur until the Roman era.Take plank
For example: pole vaulting was not a war thingy. It was used by regular folks at ancient Greece to get over canals and stuff because they were too lazy to walk to a nearby bridge.
Really? Where'd you get the 50 ft. long plank that wont bend or sag in the middle? And how about removing it when the next barge comes through? I am CERTAIN that the greeks didn't have drawbridges.What bridge? Bridgebuilding is a very complex art, and the widespread existence of bridges did not occur until the Roman era.Take plank
Lay over canal
Be a roman 8)
But yeah, no. Bridges existed before the Romans. Perhaps not very long or arched bridges, but normal ones certainly existed.
Really? Where'd you get the 50 ft. long plank that wont bend or sag in the middle? And how about removing it when the next barge comes through? I am CERTAIN that the greeks didn't have drawbridges.What bridge? Bridgebuilding is a very complex art, and the widespread existence of bridges did not occur until the Roman era.Take plank
Lay over canal
Be a roman 8)
But yeah, no. Bridges existed before the Romans. Perhaps not very long or arched bridges, but normal ones certainly existed.