Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:

Orlanth wrote:More dumbing down is not an answer. Yes its a game, but a good game can also educate.

Oh please, as if this game is educating anyone about anything. That's nothing more than an excuse that doesn't stand up to any real logic.

Why not. You play Medieval Total War or Shogun Total War you can learn a lot because they did the research. Its still about 'I kills them with my knights/samurai'.
Why cannot a bash game set in the time of the Wars of Roses not have reasonably accurate costume or weapons form the time period, or history files attach that explain what was going on.

Orlanth wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Orlanth wrote:More dumbing down is not an answer. Yes its a game, but a good game can also educate.

Oh please, as if this game is educating anyone about anything. That's nothing more than an excuse that doesn't stand up to any real logic.

Why not. You play Medieval Total War or Shogun Total War you can learn a lot because they did the research. Its still about 'I kills them with my knights/samurai'.
Why cannot a bash game set in the time of the Wars of Roses not have reasonably accurate costume or weapons form the time period, or history files attach that explain what was going on.

If it is reasonably accurate wouldn't that mean that women should be allowed since we know they participated, albeit in very, very small numbers? You could have the developers put a lock on it so that only 1 out of every 2000 games sold can make a female character, or you could realize it is an untenable position to try and limit the number and just let people decide.

In fact, if they wanted to teach something when you select a female avatar it could have a blurb about the fact the some women were involved in the fighting and give an example or two. Maybe then people would stop thinking that women didn't take any part at all in the events. You don't promote learning by limiting the information.

Lynata wrote:

Joey wrote:Yes, because women have ovaries and men do not, hence men are more disposable.

No, because women were oppressed and forced into a role many men of the time regarded as preferable, and henceforth propagated it as the only acceptable behavior..

Which doesn't change that fact that female combatants were very rare in western society, they still are.

Ahtman wrote:In fact, if they wanted to teach something when you select a female avatar it could have a blurb about the fact the some women were involved in the fighting and give an example or two. Maybe then people would stop thinking that women didn't take any part at all in the events. You don't promote learning by limiting the information.

Well said.

Palindrome wrote:Which doesn't change that fact that female combatants were very rare in western society, they still are.

Absolutely, which is why I was mildly put-off by the large number of female infantry in Pirates of the Burning Sea. Here I would've preferred a more realistic approach. I would have been put off just as much if it would have been impossible to create a female pirate, though, as it's the same thing only in reverse.

Anyways, I'm just saying that I don't see the point in argueing against any inclusion of women in these games at all, just for the sake of preserving an obviously fake male ego. Regardless of whether one is a fan of realism or of greater customization - neither of the two positions warrants a 100% ban on females. It's not something that I would go protest for, or that would keep me from buying the game - but I find it irritating to see a number of posters harboring a rather biased opinion here even after being presented with historical evidence.

As to the rarity of female combatants in the modern western society, I suppose I wouldn't say "rare" anymore but rather "uncommon". I can only speak for the German military, but my own squad was 50% female and all in all the current quota is somewhere around 9% of all soldiers, at least according to this article: http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,5106211,00.html (though it's dated 2010, so it could even be 10% by now?)

Lynata wrote:

Joey wrote:Yes, because women have ovaries and men do not, hence men are more disposable.

No, because women were oppressed and forced into a role many men of the time regarded as preferable, and henceforth propagated it as the only acceptable behavior.

No. Women have wombs. Men do not. Therefore women had to be devoted to rearing children. They're also far less physically strong than men, putting themselves at an innate disadvantage against men. So a society that mobilised women to fight would a)cause a huge demographic hole in the local area, probably irrepairable and b)be far weaker than a male force, even of fewer numbers. Historically societies only turn to women to fight when it's do or die.
Women on battlefields are also hugely demoralising to both sides. Many German soldiers were sickened when they got closer to the Soviet soldiers they'd been fighting, only to discover that they were women.

Lynata wrote:
Perhaps it should be considered that in times of great need, even sexist societies have often overcome their bias and called at least some of their women to arms? As it happened in, for example, the Soviet Union during both world wars. Or England during the War of the Roses. There are more to be found throughout human history if you'd just bother to look them up.

In times of great need, even children are called up to fight. Are you suggesting that is right, or natural?

Have as many female avatars for a War of the Roses game as you like Lynata, but they all have to pass as male and thus use the same skin as the male characters. If exposed they are sent home, often with a strong ticking off from the church. Thats the lucky ones of course.

Joey wrote:No. Women have wombs. Men do not. Therefore women had to be devoted to rearing children.

"Rearing children"? You sound as if they did nothing else ... like helping in the household, working on the farm, or, y'know, going to war and managing a fief.

Joey wrote:They're also far less physically strong than men, putting themselves at an innate disadvantage against men.

An average or a genetic predisposition are not of any concern to this debate. I assure you that there actually are a number of women who are more physically adept than a number of men.

Joey wrote:Historically societies only turn to women to fight when it's do or die.

This is wrong, too. As I said, there was a time before the church felt a need to ban females from bearing arms.

Joey wrote:Women on battlefields are also hugely demoralising to both sides. Many German soldiers were sickened when they got closer to the Soviet soldiers they'd been fighting, only to discover that they were women.

Demoralising when the men were beaten by the women, I suppose. Concidering the list of atrocities we know were committed, I would be surprised if German soldiers during WW2 had more problems shooting female soldiers than they had shooting female civilians.

Joey wrote:In times of great need, even children are called up to fight. Are you suggesting that is right, or natural?

I guess that depends what would happen to the children if "their side" lost. And where you draw the line between "child" and "adult".

Also, since when is war about being right or natural? In an ideal world, the battlefield would be a place for neither woman nor man. The notion that the right to fight for one's beliefs is something that should be reserved for men is ridiculously sexist.

Orlanth wrote:Have as many female avatars for a War of the Roses game as you like Lynata, but they all have to pass as male and thus use the same skin as the male characters. If exposed they are sent home, often with a strong ticking off from the church. Thats the lucky ones of course.

This is not how it worked in history.

Are you argueing for realism? Or an unhistorical male supremacy paradise?

Lynata wrote:"Rearing children"? You sound as if they did nothing else ... like helping in the household, working on the farm, or, y'know, going to war and managing a fief.

Making new humans is pretty damn important, especially with a life expectancy in the low 20s.

Lynata wrote:An average or a genetic predisposition are not of any concern to this debate. I assure you that there actually are a number of women who are more physically adept than a number of men.

So? There are 10 year olds who're brighter than 30 year olds, should we then proclaim that children are as able as adults? Men are inherantly far stronger than woman, because of the aforementioned need to specialise the sexes - women for childbaring, men for hunting/fighting.

Lynata wrote:
This is wrong, too. As I said, there was a time before the church felt a need to ban females from bearing arms.

The church banned lots of things.

Lynata wrote:
Also, since when is war about being right or natural? In an ideal world, the battlefield would be a place for neither woman nor man. The notion that the right to fight for one's beliefs is something that should be reserved for men is ridiculously sexist.

No it's not. Men are physically stronger than women, so should be given the more physically demanding task. How is that difficult, or discriminatory? Different groups will always fight each other for land or resources, it's a part of our nature.

Lynata wrote:
Are you argueing for realism? Or an unhistorical male supremacy paradise?

The fact that you regard what you've described as "male supremacy" says everything about your view of the world. Beleive it or not, men and women are different, and the world is a much better place for it.

Joey wrote:Making new humans is pretty damn important, especially with a life expectancy in the low 20s.

This opinion doesn't change reality tho.

Joey wrote:So? There are 10 year olds who're brighter than 30 year olds, should we then proclaim that children are as able as adults? Men are inherantly far stronger than woman, because of the aforementioned need to specialise the sexes - women for childbaring, men for hunting/fighting.

And here's the big flaw in your logic. Men are not "inherently far stronger than women", men merely have a predisposition to develop this way. This is not the same as saying that 100% of men are stronger than 100% of women.

Joey wrote:No it's not. Men are physically stronger than women, so should be given the more physically demanding task. How is that difficult, or discriminatory?

It becomes difficult and/or discriminatory once you start argueing that stronger women should not be allowed to fight because it's supposedly the job of weaker men. Which you did. Let's be honest here - this isn't a question of physical aptitude, else it would be decided on a case-by-case evaluation of an individual's body. And not based solely on the matter of whether said person has or does not have a dick.

Anyways, an exchange of general sentiments about gender roles would seem to be better suited for a different thread. This one is about the War of the Roses, after all.

Joey wrote:Beleive it or not, men and women are different, and the world is a much better place for it.

I've never objected to the first part, and I don't think it is worth our time to argue the second as it is a matter of opinion. The question still stands, though: Are you argueing for realism or do you want to preserve a falsified vision?

Lynata wrote:
Are you argueing for realism or do you want to preserve a falsified vision?

He is arguing for realism, that should be abundantly clear. He is also correct.

I have to say that constantly arguing for the inclusion of female models in games, irrespective of setting, actually undermines the cause of feminism as it suggest that it is simply dogmatic.

Lynata wrote:This opinion doesn't change reality tho.

What?

Lynata wrote:And here's the big flaw in your logic. Men are not "inherently far stronger than women", men merely have a predisposition to develop this way. This is not the same as saying that 100% of men are stronger than 100% of women.

Men are inherantly stronger than women, you're just deliberately inferring something in order to disprove it. I never said "100% of men are stronger than 100% of women".
I could say "Americans are wealthier than Nigerians" legitimately, even though some Nigerians are wealthier than some Americans. Doesn't disprove the general statement.
The disparity in strength between sexes is pretty big actually. Wikipedia says men are 50% stronger in the upper body than women. Which do you think will make the better fighter?

Lynata wrote:It becomes difficult and/or discriminatory once you start argueing that stronger women should not be allowed to fight because it's supposedly the job of weaker men. Which you did. Let's be honest here - this isn't a question of physical aptitude, else it would be decided on a case-by-case evaluation of an individual's body. And not based solely on the matter of whether said person has or does not have a dick.

How much stronger do you think women would be in a world where anyone but the very wealthy is lacking in protein?
Also fails to take into account men's predisposition to violence, which women by and large lack. And yes, this is caused by having testicles. Violent people make better soldiers than compassionate people.

Lynata wrote:
Anyways, an exchange of general sentiments about gender roles would seem to be better suited for a different thread. This one is about the War of the Roses, after all.

If you're willing to cut out the revisionist clap-trap then sure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Palindrome wrote:

Lynata wrote:
Are you argueing for realism or do you want to preserve a falsified vision?

He is arguing for realism, that should be abundantly clear. He is also correct.

I have to say that constantly arguing for the inclusion of female models in games, irrespective of setting, actually undermines the cause of feminism as it suggest that it is simply dogmatic.

Yup.
I would make a list of female video game charectors I like/enjoy playing as, but I don't see much point here.

Joey wrote:What?

Reality as in = women fighting in the War of the Roses. Or elsewhere.

Regardless of your personal beliefs, women - even back then - were not "baby machines" whose entire day was occupied by getting humped and churning out one baby after another. Believe it or not, some women did not have a single child, and some were biologically unable to become pregnant! Would removal from the procreation process qualify women to be "allowed to pick up arms" to you? And would you grant this removal even on a voluntary basis, or would you rather force every single woman to become pregnant, regardless of her own wishes?

Joey wrote:Men are inherantly stronger than women, you're just deliberately inferring something in order to disprove it. I never said "100% of men are stronger than 100% of women".
I could say "Americans are wealthier than Nigerians" legitimately, even though some Nigerians are wealthier than some Americans. Doesn't disprove the general statement.

Well, in that case we will have to agree to disagree on your choice of words in this context.

Joey wrote:The disparity in strength between sexes is pretty big actually. Wikipedia says men are 50% stronger in the upper body than women. Which do you think will make the better fighter?

The one with the better training.

Also, on a battlefield you do not have "average man" vs "average man", regardless of how much you cling to statistics about said averages.

Joey wrote:Also fails to take into account men's predisposition to violence, which women by and large lack. And yes, this is caused by having testicles. Violent people make better soldiers than compassionate people.

You will find that testosterone is present in both sexes. Not in equal amounts, of course - then again there is no such thing as a specific "male level" for it either. Studies have shown that testosterone levels raise and drop depending on one's lifestyle, and just like with physical strength, you will have some women who are more aggressive than some men. Which actually explains certain historical accounts, if you'd be interested in reading up on this topic. The Dahomey's Mino battalion is probably one of the more recent examples, but I am sure you have at least heard of the Shieldmaidens.

Joey wrote:If you're willing to cut out the revisionist clap-trap then sure.

Correcting flawed perceptions or even lies whose only purpose is to write female fighters out of history counts as revisionism now? Shouldn't we call it re-revisionism instead?

Palindrome wrote:He is arguing for realism, that should be abundantly clear. He is also correct.

It's not clear to me. If he is argueing for realism, why is he argueing against an option for creating female player characters? Seeing that we have proof they were conscripted into the army. As women.

Seriously Joey, stop fething obsessing over rape. It's creepy.

I thought this thread was about a game that allowed you to live the fantasy of fighting in the War of the Roses, myself. No matter what you do, it's still a fantasy. It's certainly not historical reenactment, lol, and even historical reenactment isn't going to be accurate anyway. Not enough people dying outside of combat.

In the end, you're just hiding behind a guise of historical accuracy when the more accurate argument is that you simply prefer men, and only men, to be in your action games. Hot, sweaty, grunting men, a lot of them, and only them. Me, I'd like a few hot , sweaty, grunting women to be added in to the mix, myself.

Lynata wrote:Reality as in = women fighting in the War of the Roses. Or elsewhere.

Regardless of your personal beliefs, women - even back then - were not "baby machines" whose entire day was occupied by getting humped and churning out one baby after another. Believe it or not, some women did not have a single child, and some were biologically unable to become pregnant! Would removal from the procreation process qualify women to be "allowed to pick up arms" to you? And would you grant this removal even on a voluntary basis, or would you rather force every single woman to become pregnant, regardless of her own wishes?

What evidence do you have for women's participation in the war of the roses in any significant numbers?
I'm pretty fuzzy about the Middle Ages to be honest. I know Greek and Roman armies were exclusively male, but they were also aristocratic (pre-Marian Roman, anyway. After that it was male-only legislatively) - the only way you could get the equipment and training to be a soldier was by being male.

Lynata wrote:The one with the better training.

Also, on a battlefield you do not have "average man" vs "average man", regardless of how much you cling to statistics about said averages.

Peasants had no training whatsoever. They were farmers with pitch forks, and were expected to do nothing more than hold the line while the cavalry did all the work. The knights were modelled on the Greek hoplites and also trained by birth, in strict sex separation. Even if a woman were to pretend to be a man, she wouldn't have the horseriding skills, the body strength to hold a weapon, the ability to fight on horseback, swordplay etc.

Lynata wrote:You will find that testosterone is present in both sexes. Not in equal amounts, of course - then again there is no such thing as a specific "male level" for it either. Studies have shown that testosterone levels raise and drop depending on one's lifestyle, and just like with physical strength, you will have some women who are more aggressive than some men. Which actually explains certain historical accounts, if you'd be interested in reading up on this topic. The Dahomey's Mino battalion is probably one of the more recent examples, but I am sure you have at least heard of the Shieldmaidens.

Relative testosterone changes. Absolute testosterone is far higher in men than in women, and capable of greater extremes. Testosterone is lowered by domestic things, child-rearing, stability etc. It is raised by warfare, so it is usless to say that it deviates when it does not do so arbitrarily.

Lynata wrote:Correcting flawed perceptions or even lies whose only purpose is to write female fighters out of history counts as revisionism now? Shouldn't we call it re-revisionism instead?

I'm not writing them out of history, but as far as I can tell, they played very little part. Yes there are examples of them, but given that conflict has been pretty much constant in humanity's history, with so many samples there are bound to be a lot of exceptions.

Lynata wrote:He is arguing for realism, that should be abundantly clear. He is also correct.

It's not clear to me. If he is argueing for realism, why is he argueing against an option for creating female player characters? Seeing that we have proof they were conscripted into the army. As women.

Can we stop arguing over women's roles in medieval combat and actually discuss the game?

I personally think it looks really cool.

Melissia wrote:
In the end, you're just hiding behind a guise of historical accuracy when the more accurate argument is that you simply prefer men, and only men, to be in your action games. Hot, sweaty, grunting men, a lot of them, and only them. Me, I'd like a few hot , sweaty, grunting women to be added in to the mix, myself.

You can play as whoever the hell you want. Plenty of games' premises make no fething sense at all, women running around 12th century (or whenever the war was) England and bashing peoples heads is just pretty absurd historically speaking.
There's no reason you couldn't have plenty of female player charectors in situations where it was feasable. You could be a SWAT officer going around shooting terrorists, or a scientist battling the undead.

Coolyo294 wrote:Can we stop arguing over women's roles in medieval combat and actually discuss the game?

I personally think it looks really cool.

I agree, it does. It's not my fault that my passing statement of "I think it'd be better if you could play a woman" caused nerdrage (because apparently, the attitude of "where should women be? wherever the hell we want to be!" is a feminazi sentiment).

Joey wrote:There's no reason you couldn't have plenty of female player charectors in situations where it was feasable.

Like in this game! It's very much feasible, and awesome, and also fun!

Mount and Blade reminded me so much of Morrowind. There was a good game somewhere but the interface hated you. You had to find some dude who was marching around the country...and you had no idea where he was. Had to go to random towns and ask people until somone told you where they'd been recently. Then you'd go THERE and ask them, then when you found their vague location you'd have to look around the countryside for them. Dude, not cool.
But the premise was awesome. Start off as some random guy, work with the completely open world (not some bs one like skyrim), build up an army and work your way up to king. I assume this will be a deviation on that.
Also the graphics look sweet.

Joey wrote:Mount and Blade reminded me so much of Morrowind. There was a good game somewhere but the interface hated you. You had to find some dude who was marching around the country...and you had no idea where he was. Had to go to random towns and ask people until somone told you where they'd been recently. Then you'd go THERE and ask them, then when you found their vague location you'd have to look around the countryside for them. Dude, not cool.

What, don't you like realism?

No, I want augmented reality. If I wanted to walk around aimlessly trying to see people I didn't care about I'd move to the country.
There's a difference between a willing suspension of disbelief and interface design and you know it.

Joey wrote:No, I want augmented reality.

Then quit whining about realism, because you just admitted you don't care about it any more than I do.

As for believability, it is perfectly believable that female soldiers in that era exist (because they did) and can participate in combat (because they did). Just because of your own lack of ability to believe it doesn't mean that it's not believable, it just means that you have a warped and skewed view of the world and of history.

Pardon me for breaking Godwin's Law, but I'm fairly certain a nazi wouldn't find most WWII documentaries believable, either.

This BDSM cheese dinosaur shoots cheese from his crotch cannon.
Your argument is invalid.

I think this has reached its end and people will draw the conclusions they want to.
Back on topic, I think.

Glad you admit that you're wrong

Lynata wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Have as many female avatars for a War of the Roses game as you like Lynata, but they all have to pass as male and thus use the same skin as the male characters. If exposed they are sent home, often with a strong ticking off from the church. Thats the lucky ones of course.

This is not how it worked in history.

Are you argueing for realism? Or an unhistorical male supremacy paradise?

You kidding right? Where were all these female medieval warriors, got any references. The middle ages were more gender equal than later periods, but it didnt extend to the battlefield to any degree.
There was a reason that Jeanne D'Arc was highly unusual, people who claimed visions from God were common enough, but women bearing arms was not the norm.

Man, just give it a rest people

Howz about you guys make your own thread about women in vidya games instead of bogging down this one? At the end of the day, no matter how much arguing and complaining you do here, nothing is going to change. If you feel so strongly about the matter, email the devs, or code your own game filled to the brim with female representation. Dragging down this thread is accomplishing a big fat wad of nothing.

Orlanth wrote:You kidding right? Where were all these female medieval warriors, got any references.

As I said earlier in this thread, the eligible 174 names of the Bridport Muster Roll - a levy by the Lancastrians - include the names of 5 women:
Alis Hammel: jack, sword, buckler, salet, bow and arrows
Alis Gare: bow, coat of plates
"Condefer Wife": sword, buckler, bow and arrows
(Margaret Athyn and Sally Pens do not have any equipment listed, but this goes for a full 39% of the names on that list; either their gear simply wasn't noted down or they did not have any but were prepared to be levied either way.)
Source for this is the The Royal Armouries Yearbook of 1997. The Royal Armouries is the UK's National Museum of Arms and Armour.

As Necroshea said, however, this back-and-forth discussion won't lead to anything, especially when previous posts listing arguments and sources aren't read. As such, I won't discuss it here any longer. In case anyone wants to pursue the subject further, I'd be willing to join in again on a separate thread or via private message.

Melissia wrote:Glad you admit that you're wrong

Let it rest, stop aggravating people for the sake of it.

Joey wrote:

Lynata wrote:

Joey wrote:Yes, because women have ovaries and men do not, hence men are more disposable.

No, because women were oppressed and forced into a role many men of the time regarded as preferable, and henceforth propagated it as the only acceptable behavior.

No. Women have wombs. Men do not. Therefore women had to be devoted to rearing children. They're also far less physically strong than men, putting themselves at an innate disadvantage against men. So a society that mobilised women to fight would a)cause a huge demographic hole in the local area, probably irrepairable and b)be far weaker than a male force, even of fewer numbers. Historically societies only turn to women to fight when it's do or die.
Women on battlefields are also hugely demoralising to both sides. Many German soldiers were sickened when they got closer to the Soviet soldiers they'd been fighting, only to discover that they were women.

Lynata wrote:
Perhaps it should be considered that in times of great need, even sexist societies have often overcome their bias and called at least some of their women to arms? As it happened in, for example, the Soviet Union during both world wars. Or England during the War of the Roses. There are more to be found throughout human history if you'd just bother to look them up.

In times of great need, even children are called up to fight. Are you suggesting that is right, or natural?

You really cant think of women in the same light as modern women, you have to realize that women of ancient times worked VERY hard, they did not sit around and try to look pretty. They were out working farms, fixing equipment, cooking, slaughtering animals etc etc, I imagine they were significantly stronger back in the day than they are now. Ironically enough, men and women basically did all the same tasks every day, which would most likely close the strength gap in most cases. Common facts show us that modern men have (on average) greater muscle mass than your average women, as well as (again on average) greater lung capacity amongst other physical traits. However, these facts are gathered based on modern society, and likely does not fit society of hundreds of years ago.

Obviously none of us really have any idea how physically stronger men were many hundreds or thousands of years ago, but, it seems to make sense to me that if two people do the same work every day, eat the same food every day, for years, their strength would be pretty similar as well.

KingKodo wrote:[
Obviously none of us really have any idea how physically stronger men were many hundreds or thousands of years ago, but, it seems to make sense to me that if two people do the same work every day, eat the same food every day, for years, their strength would be pretty similar as well.

On average men are 30-40% stronger than women. It is simple physiology.

At the risk of flogging a dead horse about 2.5% of a levy having womens names does not mean that they actually fought. They may have, they may not.