Slipzman Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I cannot ask him now, But that question answers itself. However as we all know everyone is quite unique, Do you remember that african woman Caster Semenya who kinda looked like a man and beat all other women in running. People born as hermaphrodites then living as women sould be able to be equal (simmilar) to men in weight lifting assuming their muscle fibers are simmilar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raiellyn Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) While you are at it, please ask him if the female weightlifting world champion has any chance to equal the strength of her male counterpart, please. (missingthepoint) You know what? Yes, the absolute strongest man will *always* be stronger than the strongest woman. But the funny thing about absolutes? They are useless. How many soldiers do you know that are body-builders? None. Body-builders make horrific soldiers. All that muscle means nothing when they require so many nutrients to maintain health. These days, soldiers are lean and fit, not buff. The average soldier, without much research beyond my own personal experience, would probably fall in around 180-200 lbs. Any more than that is a drain on physique. Not to mention how useless rippling muscles are in modern combat. Because muscles are scarier when firing a gun, eh? The parallel of male/female strength looks something akin to this... M F - ... <-- strongest man - - <-- strongest woman - - - - - - - - <-- weakest man ...- ... <-- weakest woman (Spacing refuses to work. Periods indicate a blank space.) This is strictly biological, mind you. Society plays a MASSIVE role as well. Women in the US don't need to be strong. In my high school, the boys had to do 60 curls in a minute for phys-ed. I, as a girl, had to do 45. You know why? Because barely any of the girls played sports, and weren't in the best shape. I guarantee that if given the chance, I could have gotten every single one of them to break 60 within a minute. If you think that, biologically, women are unable to match a man's strength on all but the highest levels, you are a fool. Simple common sense would dictate that there are plenty of exceptions to that, and exceptions in biology tend to break the rule. Yes, it requires more effort on their part. But since when does effort matter? If they put in the effort, the end result is the same. Biology sets the template, but individuals create the mold. Edited January 12, 2012 by Raiellyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClayPeopleCry Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I think the gender split with women on the republic and men on the empire could be to do with their politcal views Republic = rebuild, protect and seek peace (primitive motherly love) Empire = war, destruction and dominance (primitive male tendencies) "War is the province of men" Lord of the Rings by Tolkien ^ This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlaxitov Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) I am not arguing that women are stronger than men, i am stating that Women can be AS strong, as long as they have the drive to do so. The drive and the steroids maybe. Outside of that, its just not true. Its kind of like saying all men can be as well endowed as Ron Jeremy if they put their mind to it. Only someone who grows up getting a 16th place trophy for everything they do believes something like that. Everyone else who lives in reality knows why the WNBA exists. Earlier you brought race into it and really showcased your ignorance. You made the statement that asians are small. "Some" asians are small just like "some" europeans and "some" africans are also small. There are plenty of very large bodied people among the countless demographics in the asian haplotype. Samoans (the rock) and native americans (shares common ancestory with japanese) are hardly small. I'm part native american and 6'3 tall. Any man is physically stronger on average than his female counterpart reguardless of the attributes that particular haplotype or genetic demographic has to offer. Women and men are objectively different but equal in principle the same way all humans are. Edited January 12, 2012 by Vlaxitov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayla_Felana Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (missingthepoint) You know what? Yes, the absolute strongest man will *always* be stronger than the strongest woman. But the funny thing about absolutes? They are useless. How many soldiers do you know that are body-builders? None. Body-builders make horrific soldiers. All that muscle means nothing when they require so many nutrients to maintain health. These days, soldiers are lean and fit, not buff. The average soldier, without much research beyond my own personal experience, would probably fall in around 180-200 lbs. Any more than that is a drain on physique. Not to mention how useless rippling muscles are in modern combat. Because muscles are scarier when firing a gun, eh? The parallel of male/female strength looks something akin to this... M F - ... <-- strongest man - - <-- strongest woman - - - - - - - - <-- weakest man ...- ... <-- weakest woman (Spacing refuses to work. Periods indicate a blank space.) This is strictly biological, mind you. Society plays a MASSIVE role as well. Women in the US don't need to be strong. In my high school, the boys had to do 60 curls in a minute for phys-ed. I, as a girl, had to do 45. You know why? Because barely any of the girls played sports, and weren't in the best shape. I guarantee that if given the chance, I could have gotten every single one of them to break 60 within a minute. If you think that, biologically, women are unable to match a man's strength on all but the highest levels, you are a fool. Simple common sense would dictate that there are plenty of exceptions to that, and exceptions in biology tend to break the rule. Yes, it requires more effort on their part. But since when does effort matter? If they put in the effort, the end result is the same. Biology sets the template, but individuals create the mold. Don't bother, you'll just get blind stubborn refusal to acknowledge anything you state, it's times like these (especially the debates on S/S romance) when you realise just how much 'equality' there is in modern day society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayla_Felana Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Earlier you brought race into it and really showed your ignorance. You made the statement that asians are small. "Some" asians are small just like "some" europeans and "some" africans are also small. There are plenty of very large bodied people among the countless demographics in the asian haplotype. Samoans (the rock) and native americans (shares common ancestory with japanese) are hardly small. I'm part native american and 6'3 tall. Any man is physically stronger on average than his female counterpart reguardless of the attributes that particular haplotype or genetic demographic has to offer. How am i ignorant? i AM Asian and i can fully acknowledge that Asians are on average shorter than other races, why? because their diets are very different, especially where we Japanese are concerned it is because meat played no role in our daily diets, we ate Fish, rice and vegetables more than anything, where as in most of the world Meats like beef were a main part of a diet, i don't see where the ignorance is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlaxitov Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 How am i ignorant? i AM Asian and i can fully acknowledge that Asians are on average shorter than other races, why? because their diets are very different, especially where we Japanese are concerned it is because meat played no role in our daily diets, we ate Fish, rice and vegetables more than anything, where as in most of the world Meats like beef were a main part of a diet, i don't see where the ignorance is there. Yeah thats right just ignore almost everything I said. American plains indians aren't only asian, they come from the same genepool as japanese. Many plains indians ate meats like buffalo as a staple along with deer, fish, and other game in their environment. Japanese ate meats like boar, chicken, whale, other seafood and game in their environment. Sorry, japanese have never been vegans. You can fully acknowledge that particular demographics or nationalities of asians are smaller on average maybe. The ignorance comes in when you make a general statement that "asians are small." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cozur Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Don't bother, you'll just get blind stubborn refusal to acknowledge anything you state, it's times like these (especially the debates on S/S romance) when you realise just how much 'equality' there is in modern day society. Yes, I'm sure you're discriminated against all the time. You also get free drinks and don't have to pay the entrance fee when you go clubbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duradel Posted January 12, 2012 Author Share Posted January 12, 2012 I think the gender split with women on the republic and men on the empire could be to do with their politcal views Republic = rebuild, protect and seek peace (primitive motherly love) Empire = war, destruction and dominance (primitive male tendencies) "War is the province of men" Lord of the Rings by Tolkien After thinking about it overnight, I feel this is the only suitable answer. Except for General Garza. That lady was a stone cold ******. Yes, I'm sure you're discriminated against all the time. You also get free drinks and don't have to pay the entrance fee when you go clubbing. Stop this, this thread shouldn't degenerate to who has to pay on dates, that's getting ridiculous. @ Rayla, you have said your peace, you think i'm a sexist pig because I notice gender differences between Empire and Republic. Alright, whatever, I can't change your opinion. Since your opinions are, however, causing a bit of a *****storm, you should probably just "give up" as you are recommending to any other female posters in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown_Kadath Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 So, uh, i'm just going to ignore what the thread devolved into and throw my two cents into the original thought posed by the topic creator. Wrong. A million times wrong. Granted, this is my personal opinion, but c'mon. A game finally doesn't have every single authority figure as a man and you complain? A bioware game at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayla_Felana Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Yeah thats right just ignore almost everything I said. American plains indians aren't only asian, they come from the same genepool as japanese. Many plains indians ate meats like buffalo as a staple along with deer, fish, and other game in their environment. Japanese ate meats like boar, chicken, whale, other seafood and game in their environment. Sorry, japanese have never been vegans. You can fully acknowledge that particular demographics or nationalities of asians are smaller on average maybe. The ignorance comes in when you make a general statement that "asians are small." I am not arguing that American Indians aren't Asian and i am not stating that Asians are inherently short, i am stating our diet doesn't rely nearly as much on meat as other sections of the world did, that is why we are shorter, this is scientific fact and ever since meats like beef were introduced in the 50s as a main dish, we have grown taller and taller, and i have not made such a statement, i am stating on average that many people of Asian nations are shorter than their more western cousins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guildrum Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I think the real issue is a lack of male leaders in the Republic. Let's see who we've got... Tavus, the lieutenant of Havo- oh wait, he defected... We have... Orgus for the Jedi Knights And... Yeah... Um... Let's see... I think the real issue is that the roles have been reversed between male and female, when I normally see a high-ranking female in a movie or story, I normally think, "Wow, she must have fought tooth and nail to get to that position", while in SWTOR, I am inclined to think the same about men, because they practically don't exist in the higher ranks. How? I do not know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayla_Felana Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) @ Rayla, you have said your peace, you think i'm a sexist pig because I notice gender differences between Empire and Republic. Alright, whatever, I can't change your opinion. Since your opinions are, however, causing a bit of a *****storm, you should probably just "give up" as you are recommending to any other female posters in this thread. Fair enough, this will be my last post in this thread. Re-read your original post, look at how easily it can be simplified to: 'There are too many female authority figures in this game.' and tell me that i am over-reacting or some such, because it can very easily be read as such. You stated yourself that you felt sexist for stating such, that's because, basically, it is. There is nothing wrong with females or males taking the leading roles in a Republic as long as it isn't forced to be that way. Edited January 12, 2012 by Rayla_Felana Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cozur Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I think the real issue is a lack of male leaders in the Republic. Let's see who we've got... Tavus, the lieutenant of Havo- oh wait, he defected... We have... Orgus for the Jedi Knights And... Yeah... Um... Let's see... I think the real issue is that the roles have been reversed between male and female, when I normally see a high-ranking female in a movie or story, I normally think, "Wow, she must have fought tooth and nail to get to that position", while in SWTOR, I am inclined to think the same about men, because they practically don't exist in the higher ranks. How? I do not know. That's sexist. You hate women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guildrum Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 That's sexist. You hate women. Gahh! I've been found out! Fair enough, this will be my last post in this thread. Re-read your original post, look at how easily it can be simplified to: 'There are too many female authority figures in this game.' and tell me that i am over-reacting or some such, because it can very easily be read as such. No, try reading it again, it means that the ratio of men to women leaders in the Republic is too large, similar to what a lot of women say about the ratio of male NPCs to female NPCs in MMO's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revan-the-knight Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 A couple spoilers ahead regarding Revan and the Bounty Hunter storyline ahead, just FYI. So when this chapter of the storyline started, we had the main Empire figures being Emperor Vitiate, Malgus, Keeper (for intelligence), and Mandalore (for the Mandalorians). On the Republic side, we had Satele Shan, in charge of the Jedi Order, General Garza, in charge of the most elite Republic forces and the face of the Republic military, and Supreme Chancellor Janarus. Later on we got Revan, who i was excited about, believing he was going to play a major role in leading the Republic. I felt there was something wrong with the Empire gender ratio, but I always liked that the Republic had a nice even half and half ratio of guys and girls. :Spoilers now: Later, I find out that the Empire casually kills both Revan and Janarus, preventing Revan from EVER leading and having Janarus replaced with Governer Saresh from Taris (I believe). That means all the Empire leaders are guys (those still living) and all the Republic leaders and females. Why? Are you trying to say something about the masculinity of the Republic, Bioware? You couldn't stick a girl in charge of Intelligence or replace Janarus with a strong male character? I feel sexist for saying it, but it needed to be said. Revans body dissapears , open roof, and a Republic ship above, force teleport exists, and who knows, maybe Revan learned some powers from the emperor through their link, i do believe Revan aint finished quite yet:cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strah Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) (missingthepoint) You know what? Yes, the absolute strongest man will *always* be stronger than the strongest woman. But the funny thing about absolutes? They are useless. How many soldiers do you know that are body-builders? None. Body-builders make horrific soldiers. All that muscle means nothing when they require so many nutrients to maintain health. These days, soldiers are lean and fit, not buff. The average soldier, without much research beyond my own personal experience, would probably fall in around 180-200 lbs. Any more than that is a drain on physique. Not to mention how useless rippling muscles are in modern combat. Because muscles are scarier when firing a gun, eh? The parallel of male/female strength looks something akin to this... M F - ... <-- strongest man - - <-- strongest woman - - - - - - - - <-- weakest man ...- ... <-- weakest woman (Spacing refuses to work. Periods indicate a blank space.) This is strictly biological, mind you. Society plays a MASSIVE role as well. Women in the US don't need to be strong. In my high school, the boys had to do 60 curls in a minute for phys-ed. I, as a girl, had to do 45. You know why? Because barely any of the girls played sports, and weren't in the best shape. I guarantee that if given the chance, I could have gotten every single one of them to break 60 within a minute. If you think that, biologically, women are unable to match a man's strength on all but the highest levels, you are a fool. Simple common sense would dictate that there are plenty of exceptions to that, and exceptions in biology tend to break the rule. Yes, it requires more effort on their part. But since when does effort matter? If they put in the effort, the end result is the same. Biology sets the template, but individuals create the mold. The poster he quoted said that a woman can be as strong as a man. We're not talking skill, etc. We're talking raw strength. Please give me the name of that woman that can deadlift 498 kg Or bench press 488 kg Or squat 553 kg Or at least close to that. I'll be waiting right here. The time it will take a man to reach a certain level in strength, would take a woman twice as much, unless injecting herself with testosterone, which will make her a man. Your statement would work if humans could live forever, but afaik, we can't, so in one lifetime a man has got a higher potential than a woman no matter what. Edited January 12, 2012 by Strah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semitote Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 There's a difference between equality and equal rights. Equality between men and women does not exist - They both should have the right to do whatever they want and shouldn't be discriminated on because of their gender, but also they shouldn't expect special treatment when they are far less qualified than someone of the opposite gender. I think there are biological differences and too many females in power is commonly viewed as a sign of weakness in our world. Fortunately, this is a long-long time ago in a galaxy far, far away and there are all sorts of different species of intelligent sentient beings and all sorts of technology, so maybe some of the biological differences we see in our society just factor in less in a universe like this. Distractions in wars can mean wars lost. Take away the distractions, you increase your chances of winning. Women are distractions to most men, and while on the front line they can be distractions for both sides - women in power are mostly a distraction to their own side. And there's nothing women can do about this - It's not something you're doing wrong, it's just that most men like women and they try to show off for the woman or care entirely too much about her feelings when they're supposed to be making logical decisions. Anyways... Just my two cents on the topic... Who cares if this world resembles ours? And who cares if their are more female leaders in this game than in any other Star Wars game, book, or movie. This should have no effect on you - The fact that it does shows that you are extremely sexist. I didn't even notice the number of female leaders when I was leveling and I consider myself sexist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malderak Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) (missingthepoint) You know what? Yes, the absolute strongest man will *always* be stronger than the strongest woman. But the funny thing about absolutes? They are useless. How many soldiers do you know that are body-builders? None. Body-builders make horrific soldiers. All that muscle means nothing when they require so many nutrients to maintain health. These days, soldiers are lean and fit, not buff. The average soldier, without much research beyond my own personal experience, would probably fall in around 180-200 lbs. Any more than that is a drain on physique. Not to mention how useless rippling muscles are in modern combat. Because muscles are scarier when firing a gun, eh? The parallel of male/female strength looks something akin to this... M F - ... <-- strongest man - - <-- strongest woman - - - - - - - - <-- weakest man ...- ... <-- weakest woman (Spacing refuses to work. Periods indicate a blank space.) This is strictly biological, mind you. Society plays a MASSIVE role as well. Women in the US don't need to be strong. In my high school, the boys had to do 60 curls in a minute for phys-ed. I, as a girl, had to do 45. You know why? Because barely any of the girls played sports, and weren't in the best shape. I guarantee that if given the chance, I could have gotten every single one of them to break 60 within a minute. If you think that, biologically, women are unable to match a man's strength on all but the highest levels, you are a fool. Simple common sense would dictate that there are plenty of exceptions to that, and exceptions in biology tend to break the rule. Yes, it requires more effort on their part. But since when does effort matter? If they put in the effort, the end result is the same. Biology sets the template, but individuals create the mold. You're the one missing the point completely. And again, as others do so often in this thread, you're putting words into my mouth. Please re-read my posts and tell me when I said that women can't be soldiers or that bodybuilder make the best soldiers. But nature has given men an advantage in that camp, not only because of differences in the body, but also in the mind. That is why female warriors and soldiers will always be that, even in societies that have gender equality: exceptions that break the rule. And there is nothing wrong with that. Edited January 12, 2012 by Malderak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlaxitov Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I am not arguing that American Indians aren't Asian and i am not stating that Asians are inherently short, i am stating our diet doesn't rely nearly as much on meat as other sections of the world did, that is why we are shorter, this is scientific fact and ever since meats like beef were introduced in the 50s as a main dish, we have grown taller and taller, and i have not made such a statement, i am stating on average that many people of Asian nations are shorter than their more western cousins. Untill beef was introduced, japanese did just fine with whale didn't they, as they still do. Asians are not inherently short and demographics like samoans and native americans prove that. Again, native americans come from the same bloodline as japanese. Just look at the the indegenous people of papua new guinea. They look african or aborigine yet are genetically asian. Statistical averages in select populations has nothing to do with what you are asserting that "asians are inherently short." Japanese is neither a race nor does it speak for and represent one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raiellyn Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) The poster he quoted said that a woman can be as strong as a man. We're not talking skill, etc. We're talking raw strength. Please give me the name of that woman that can deadlift 498 kg Or bench press 488 kg Or squat 553 kg Or at least close to that. I'll be waiting right here. The time it will take a man to reach a certain level in strength, would take a woman twice as much, unless injecting herself with testosterone, which will make her a man. Your statement would work if humans could live forever, but afaik, we can't, so in one lifetime a man has got a higher potential than a woman no matter what. And my entire point was that, outside of highly-specialized areas such as weightlifting, raw strength means nothing. If you'll notice, I did agree with that point in... my first sentence. The thread started with too many Republic leaders being female. It was then brought up that having female leaders in the military is the ridiculous aspect. The military, as stated in my post, has no use for the strongest man possible. And what does a lifetime have to do with it? At most, it takes... maybe ten years of intensive training to reach your peak build. Oh, what's that? Not all men can reach the "perfect" level of strength (thyroid issues, hyperactive metabolisms, etc.)? Hm. Interesting. Would it be reasonable to assume that some healthier women would be able to peak higher than unhealthy men? That even further spreads the two genders out along the spectrum I illustrated. And if we're talking lifespans, women live on average about 7 years more than men, right? So, she has just under a decade up on men. And unless reaching max potential (which would, by the way, require a genetically perfect human) takes 70 years for a man, and would take 80 for a woman, the "we don't live forever" point is null. The only other way to interpret that point would be a direct correlation between time spent getting fit to muscle mass. And there isn't one. At some point, which comes MUCH earlier than even middle-age, let alone seniority... You just stop putting on mass, or else die from over-muscularity and malnutrition. There's a difference between equality and equal rights. Equality between men and women does not exist - They both should have the right to do whatever they want and shouldn't be discriminated on because of their gender, but also they shouldn't expect special treatment when they are far less qualified than someone of the opposite gender. Believe it or not, I agree with this line of thought. Why restrict a woman from a job that she can perform just because of her gender? I hate how the military lets in women for non-combat jobs with lower requirements for physical fitness. I would much rather have them allowed in all positions, but have to meet the same requirements as the men doing the exact same job. Which is perfectly possible. There would just be fewer female candidates, just as how raising the requirements for men would result in fewer male candidates. Edited January 12, 2012 by Raiellyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strah Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 And my entire point was that, outside of highly-specialized areas such as weightlifting, raw strength means nothing. If you'll notice, I did agree with that point in... my first sentence. . Sorry it was addressed to you, That was mainly for that poster that said quite the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malderak Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 And my entire point was that, outside of highly-specialized areas such as weightlifting, raw strength means nothing. No, it doesn't mean nothing. Sure, in weightlifting it's everything. In modern soldiery it's not everything, by far, and there are things that are much more important, but it's still some steps above "nothing". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gestahlt Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I just want to add that strength matters for soldiers in combat. You have to be able to carry your kit and move with relative ease for prolonged periods of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malderak Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) I just want to add that strength matters for soldiers in combat. You have to be able to carry your kit and move with relative ease for prolonged periods of time. Not to mention that special forces are trained in hand-to-hand combat since just because you're carrying a gun it doesn't mean that you might not find yourself in a situation when you have to fight an enemy or assailant in unarmed combat. Unlikely, but possible. Edited January 12, 2012 by Malderak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts