Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

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?

You're SERIOUSLY pulling the old "women aren't as good at math and science as men" bit?

Are you kidding me?

None of that has any actual evidence to back that up, and can be explained just fine by sociological causes; women aren't EXPECTED to be good at those things, or to study them, hence they don't end up being as good on a whole. And when there ARE amazing female scientists, they likely get the short end of the stick as far as recognition goes.
Example: Ever here of Rosalind Franklin? Her work (along with James Watson's and Francis Crick's) was extremely important to deriving the molecular structure of DNA, but Watson and Crick tended to get all the credit for a long time, even though they DIDN'T discount her efforts; mostly the media did.

Point is, gender differences in mathematical and scientific abilities are explained perfectly well by social causes - ones that are well-known, even. Some sort of as-of-yet-unfound genetic or hormonal (or any other inherent physical) difference in intelligence/ability isn't even necessary, and, as I've said, there's no evidence for it anyway.

Here's a quote from a National Science Foundation study: "girls perform as well as boys on standardized math tests. Although boys in high school performed better than girls in math 20 years ago, the researchers found, that is no longer the case. The reason, they said, is simple: Girls used to take fewer advanced math courses than boys, but now they are taking just as many."

Most studies find either no difference or an extremely small difference between men and women on IQ scores, the most significant actual difference seeming to be that sometimes, men are represented at the extreme ends of the spectrum more often than women (as has been said in this thread). However, there's no reason to believe that social explanations can't account for any of this either.

[Neonivek]

Most 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.

[Demonic Gophers]

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.

What do you mean?  If a modder wants complete gender equality, that's easy to arrange.  It wouldn't need some sort of exemption for adventurers.  But if someone wants to play as, for example, an antman queen, that's pretty much going to have to be a different experience than playing as a different caste.  How would these differences be ironed out for adventurers?

[G-Flex]

Most 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.

I mentioned later in the post that I did see a bit of that, but it depends on the study, and there's no easy way to attribute a cause to it, and social explanations are still there. For instance, a high variety of things ARE expected of men in recent history; as a man, you can be accepted as a guy who hits things with a pick in a coal mine, or as a biochemist; women's roles have tended to be much more limited, which would provide for less variation in what they end up doing and what skills/abilities that entails. 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.

[Granite26]

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.

I started "The Blank Slate" last night, and this quote seems to be the crux of... (recent?) socialogical thinking.  As a society, we're better off assuming social causes than genetic causes, until conclusively proven otherwise.  A few of the quotes went so far as 'even in the face of otherwise compelling evidence.  It gives us fewer excuses to be prejudiced... (OTOH, I'm not prejudiced because we ARE equal admits the possibility of change later, which is telling)

[PTTG??]

While I agree that in the modern world that women have as much potential as men do, in the past- and in any internally consistent fantasy setting in the "past"- this was/is not true, both from a cultural standpoint and a biological one. Frankly, it takes a lot of strength to swing a sword or pull a bow effectively, and a woman will always have to put more training into achieving the same level of strength. Female snipers and submariners, however, can easily be as effective as male ones in the modern world(in fact, women submariners are more efficient, as they tend to have less mass and thus use less air, ect.). Also please note that a determined woman can be much stronger than the average man; it is only that it would be somewhat more difficult for her to reach that level than it would for a male.

If one must make a balancing element, perhaps one could say that women are "more connected with nature" than men, and thus have a comparative advantage to men in magic, and that men can achieve great things in magic, but they have to work harder than women do to do so. And, furthermore, this could be unique for different races, as humans are somewhat odd in the fact that men are stronger than women- see big cats and bears, as well as nearly all the great herbivores. (However, it may be unwise to praise a woman by saying that she reminds you of an elephantess.) It could easily be that Male and Female dwarves are equally strong (the beards would bear out the idea of similar body structure(though the new raws seem to have removed them)), and elven men may very well be much weaker than the women... it seems elfish.

This biological argument does not go into sociology; If this is supposed to be a midevil-like culture, then there is no reasonable way that there will be many professional female soldiers. Naturally, Dwarves are mores egalitarian than humans, and elves may be the inverse, as Three Toe's stories tell us. The intelligence idea has no meaning in today's society; women can become more 'intelligent' just as easily as men, they can have the same skill at spatial reasoning, mechanical aptitude, tactics, craft, and so on. However, the opportunity to be an expert in some skill or craft would not be there because of existing prejudices; no self-respecting craftsman would take on a girl apprentice (though such an occurrence would make a good idea for a story, and indeed, the struggle against social adversity could be very interesting as a game play element...)

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. Having such differences would be a realistic and more importantly fun element.

[Footkerchief]

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."

[PTTG??]

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."

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.

[Ampersand]

It should be noted that even in Medieval Europe it was entirely possible for women to rise above enforced social roles due to circumstance or exceptional acts.

For example, in the charter of the English blacksmith guild, the wife of a Blacksmith could take up the job of her husband upon his death to provide for her family, if she was knowledgeable in the craft.

Second, 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.

[LegoLord]

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.

[Pilsu]

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. Stats don't really matter a whole lot in labor as is, with the possible exception of speed which I find stupid and broken anyway. Breaks guard animals completely and makes no sense

[Ampersand]

I think the real problem here is the ability for anyone, particularly a dwarf to wrestle a bear to death.

[azrael4h]

I think the real problem here is the ability for anyone, particularly a dwarf to wrestle a bear to death.

Haven't you ever wrestled a bear to death?

That does remind me of a thread on some random forum once. A guy was determined to kill a grizzly with nothing but a combat knife. His reasoning was that he could charge straight up to the bear, but it's throat, then get away, while the bear would be too confused to attack (?). I doubt he ever did it, seems the insane ramblings of a madman or the boasts of an idiot looking for attention.

Personally, if I ever went after a bear, I'd want a Browning Automatic Rifle (the one developed at the end of WWI)... and an armored personnel carrier.

In the context of DF, there should be little reason to have genders affect skills or capabilities. These are DWARVES, not humans, and human reasonings have no place in determining anything about our favorite, hairy psychopaths. I would like an easier way to determine them at a glance, which would just mean introducing gender into the nouns and names of the Dwarven language. At worst, having different pallets for the male/females, but that isn't even needed.

[Ampersand]

In any case, dwarven females have beards. From this we can infer that they have equal testosterone levels compared to males. Egro, probably equal muscle mass.

[PTTG??]

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, and Two; that in a semi-midevil universe, social pressures will make it more difficult for a woman to gain some  skills, notably crafting, tactics, and other "male" skills including combat.

Essentially, a woman could learn to wrestle a bear to death, but it would be more difficult for her than for a man.

Also, yes, this is Dwarf Fortress, but humans, particularly in adventurer mode, have a lot of importance. Dwarves, yes, I could see them being much less distinct. Elves, like I said, would be interesting as an inverse of that trend.