Genders - What's the difference?

[pawsplay]

Strawman? You are the one who refuses to offer a definition of strength that would allow your position to be assailed.

Actually, I have offered a pretty clear definition. I want to see as many meausres as possible that relate to the things D&D Strength actually does. You have provided three credible measures: power lifting, swimming, and running long jumps. As the running long jumps also includes stride, which D&D acknowledges to an extent, it is suspect, although it remains still useful. You've given about 2 1/2 dimensions out of a very wide-ranging ability score. Now, there are big reasons to be suspicious of those self-selecting samples, though at worst we can adventurers may self-select in the same way, but at least it's something.

But it's not enough.

I know exactly what you are trying to say because I've presented evidence against it like three times now. You are trying to say that while everyone agrees that men are somewhat more able to lift and carry things than women, that that is not real strength but merely a small and perhaps neglible bonus to lifting capacity. But when anyone questions you about what 'real strength' is, you can provide no evidence for your assertion.

All the things D&D Strength does. Lifting, jumping, climing, swimming, grappling, punching, kicking, breaking objects, striking telling blows, qualifying for feats, etc.

This is what I see. You have to concede lifting strength because its easily measured, even though you try to handwave even that away with comments about relative size as if that hasn't already been addressed.

Relative size has been addressed; you seem to think that it was addressed in favor of your arguments but I it seems clear to me that the rules tilt toward assuming carrying capacity includes size as well as strength. Unless you want to assume that feat from the Planar Handbook doubles a character's real world strength in every way, of course.

But the more difficult it is to measure the strength, the more likely you are to suggest that no difference exists in that more intangible area. For example, punching power is notoriously hard to measure well, so you argue at several points that punching power between the two sexes is similar.

It's not a question of tangible versus intangible. It's a question of performance at actual tasks versus performance on tests. The more muscle groups are involved, the more it looks like a D&D Strength check.

Also, I said punching was more similar, not that it was "similar," in every way you choose to define similar. I thought it was far more important to look at kicking power, at which men and women are very similar. If you penalize women for punching power at X rate, you punish their kicking to the same degree, which is wildly inaccurate.

But in fact, because the primary difference between the two sexes in terms of strength is that testosterone encourages the growth of 'fast muscle' so that men possess proportionally more dynamic power (the difficult to measure kind) than than they do static power (from slow muscle) compared to women. If anything, lifting power as a function of size is one of the areas women are most closely comparable to men than things like punching power.

Men's muscles are structurally different, yes. But it is not a given that fiber-dense fast muscle translates into a linear increase in dynamic power. Dynamic power depends greatly on motor coordination, which in turn depends hugely on practice and development.

When challenged on that I produced a long list of strength related areas where men excell women by large margins. These include swimming (strength based skill), jumping (strength based skill), sprint speed, and punching power (damage bonus from strength). There are very little other areas of the game that are impacted by strength. What haven't I covered?

You didn't cover my objections to the punching power metric you used (very different comparison groups). You didn't cover kicking power or climbing. You didn't cover any measures at which average man and average men are benchmarked. You also didn't cover (unless I missed it) high jump and throwing (although those two measures favor men).

You also didn't cover anything that wasn't an athletic contest. If you really want to know how people perform at tasks, you need to look at real world outcomes. Outside of the high school to semi pro professional culture, outside athletic events that focus on a very specific muscle movement, outside very controlled tasks. You need to look at actual things done by actual people and asks, "Are men so much better at this that I would be concerned about a woman doing this job?"

Are women worse lifeguards? Are they worse at putting drunks in arm locks? as far as I know, women are not worse at either of those things.

Hence, it makes more sense to set a similar level of Strength, and assume bonus to those tasks at which men typically excel. Give men a +1, or +2, or whatever to Climb, Jump, and Swim checks, if you want. But I think it's very questionable to posit a large difference in such an abstract measure as Strength.

No, +1 to Strength means +1/2 to everything.

It means +1 Strength to all tasks at which Strength applies. It means +1/2 bonus. So your "no" is an equivocation.

It means virtually no difference between the two in outcome. If the difference was only +1 we'd expect differences in outcome of less than 5%. Instead we see differences in outcome of at least 10-15% which suggests +2 or +3 bonuses. But a +2 or +3 bonus suggests not +2 or +3 to strength, but +4 or +6.

It's much easier to simply give men the equivalent of the Athletic feat.

When I brought outcomes in jumping, swimming, and the like previously you responded as you did with lifting capacity. "Well, perhaps men have a +2 bonus to jumps."

But if men have a +2 bonus on jumps, and +2 bonus on swimming, and a +4 bonus to lifting capacity and so on and so on, what's going to be left to justify not just making it a large bonus to strength?

Because adventurers are fairly likely to kick, or to wrestle in a non-sports context. Because women can open jars just fine.

I have nor have I confined myself to power lifting figures. You have produced nothing credible to assert that there isn't a large difference.

See, that's the thing. It's yours to prove there is a large difference.

Then you get back to a Billie Jean King comparison. It's no more relevant than asking what happens if we compare the top 10% of men to the 50th percentile of women.

It is relevant if women warriors constitute the top 10% of women in strength, and warriors represent barely more than the median in an agrarian-based feudal economy. Then it is the most relevant thing I can possibly imagine.

The most essential problem with your claim that there is at most a +1 Strength difference between the two sexes (and you've two or three times argued that even this is questionable), is if the difference was that small we'd see much closer to parity between the sexes in competitions that emphasized physical strength.

Why would see that? Wouldn't we see even the most minor differences mangified by self-selection?

There is often a much more than +1 strength difference between two highly competitive boxers or two highly competitive NFL football players.

I question your assertion.

If the difference was only as small as +1 Strength, you'd strongly expect to find that while the best NFL linebacker out there was probably a man, there would be at least one NFL team with a fearsome women as an outside linebacker, and while the cruiser weight boxing champion was likely a man that maybe 10% of the sport was females competing on equal terms with the men.

Football players are big, not strong. I would consider football players better candidates for improved stability in humans than high Strength characters. They are built to maximize running and slamming power; even if the selection process were somehow made sex-fair, a small advantage in each would translate into a huge advantage in the composite.

Just as in parallel bars, women's advantages in smaller size and greater flexibility, when combined, become an unassailable advantage in gynmastics. Yet I'm not going to claim women should have a +2 relative Dex based on that measure.

But you don't see that in real life. This suggests the differences are much closer to 'huge' than 'trivial', and the list of measurable outcomes supports that. Its only by assuming that the difference is large that not only is the best female linebacker in the country not playing for the NFL, but that she can't earn a spot amongst any of the best 50,000 or so linebackers playing at the high school level.

So you are saying there are no, zero, other reasons female linebackers aren't currently represented?

Here's the bottom line for me: If Joe has a 16 Strength and Jenny has a 14, that implies that in Joe's hands, a shortsword does as much damage as a longsword does in Jenny's. That is a pretty strong claim. I think it completely flies in the face of what you said about boxers, above; I think it would be extraordinary rare for a boxer to do +1 relative damage to other top-level boxers in his own class.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'd really like to know who you think would be more effective in combat, too. The one who can barely move due to overdeveloped muscles or the one who can move freely. The point here is that pure physical mass doesn't mean better. There's a definite point at which becoming 'stronger' actually makes you worse at anything but picking up.

I think you are doing your own, otherwise excellent, point a disservice with that paragraph. It is true that there is a point at which muscle mass equates to more weight and less flexibility, but this point is very high compared to the range. Melee combat is wits, speed, accuracy--and if it goes on for a bit, endurance. Speed is directly related to muscle mass, and also relates to the power delivered. Past a certain point, speed complicates technique when defending against, too.

In melee combat, in reality, women suffer an incredible speed penalty compared to men, on average. This penalty will be most felt when the combatants are at their peak physical conditioning. As they age, the men will lose some of this edge (though it will always be an edge), and will have to compensate with better technique, as the women have already been doing. Of course, some men will know this, and will have already sought every edge to use against men with comparable speed.

If highly developed muscles is a flaw, it is psychological for the male more than some physical demerit due to overdevelopment. I don't have any trouble believing that many males could rely on their muscles too much and/or shirk technique development thinking that it was unnecessary. And the "macho" attitude has led to many famous last words.

I know a lady pushing sixty who fences epee, and sometimes fences "A-level" male fencers in their 20s. (That is, male fencers in their prime, with skill levels just shy of Olypmic contention.) She has medaled in the world championship in her age bracket. Frequently, good male fencers do things so fast that she can't even see the move, and she has been fencing 40 years. OTOH, when they take her lightly, she can negate that speed, and it drives them nuts, often resulting in them losing several touches before they get it together.

If she had a 25 year old males' muscles with her skill, she'd be an unstoppable machine. There is a big stink in international fencing right now because a transgendered female (if that is how you say it--now female, formerly male) is competing with just such an advantage in muscle mass.

An no, fencing is not life and death melee. It is far more advantageous to women than real melee combat would be. You aren't allowed to shield smash someone in fencing, which would be practically brute power.

I would say that a great deal of the edge that women possess in any such life or death physical contest will often boil down to having effectively been through harder training due to physical limitations, being underestimated at times, and any psychological edge such provides.

But it is all still dwarfed massively by skill and muscle development directly related to gaining/practicing that skill.

 

[pawsplay]

A disclosure: I have some skin in the game.

For years, I have participated in a boffer combat LARP (that is, using foam-padded swords). There is a large participation gap between men and women. And when women do compete, they do not always do well. A friend of mine wrote an essay once on how women have been taugh their whole lives that they do not have, and should not exert, power, and that to strike at someone runs counter to a lifetime of social conditioning. So many "girl fighters" are hesitent, and lack power. But I have observed time and again that if you can spend some time with those fighters, to teach them to strike without hesitation, to have confidence in their bodies, and to focus on movement more than winning, they become better. Sometimes you can see the difference in weeks, ... other times in hours! The next thing you know, the "girl fighter" is a woman fighting on-level with men, many of whom are larger. Despite their large undererepresentation in the group as a whole, they are overrepresented at the higher levels of ability.

My point is that these women underperform because they have been told their whole lives that they cannot perform. And that is simply a lie. And so while it is true that men are larger and stronger, to emphasize that fact, in a culture in which men and women receive daily reminders of that, a lie flies under the flag of factuality. Real people in their real lives will be affected by some random dude on the Internet reminding women, "By the way, in case you had forgotten, your entire culture considers you frail and weak, and I will choose some unfair measures to prove this to you."

Psychologically, whether intended or not, the repeated reminder of men's greater size and power serves as a reminder of men's superiority; every time a man reminds a woman that she must be protected, or tells her she can't beat a man, she is being subtly threatened by male violence in the abstract.

I don't think it's justifiable harming the souls of women because physically, culturally, historically, men can long-jump a greater distance than a woman. I think it is a good and wonderful thing for a human being to do to remind people that an untrained, average woman fended off a mountain lion for hour hours with her bare hands, dying in order to protect her children. If what D&D calls Strength is anything, it's that.

 

[S'mon]

But the problem is that normally Constitution implicitly or explicitly bundles thoughs things together with being a big hefty beefcake as if they were secondary attributes of being stout. In fact, they aren't and a scrawny looking women is more likely to excell at feats of endurance than a 300lb NFL linemen, even as the linemen is far less likely to suffer broken bones after a bone jarring hit. So the basic problem here is that D&D - and practically every other RPG you can name - doesn't consider it important to distinguish between the two.

It's not realistic, and what it does is force you to play by rules and for goals where men excel. There is a built in male bias to the game systems and what they concentrate on simulating - usually physical combat, usually melee combat at that. Consider for example the details usually lavished on grappling.

Because of this built in male bias, I to tend to avoid enforcing stat based differences between the genders.

I agree, and this is a good point - actually two good points:

1. D&D Constitution conflates endurance, where female physiology has an advantage, with damage resistance, where male physiology has an advantage. I remember in army basic training, the sergeant commented that female recruits suffered broken bones much more often in training, due to their having less muscle protecting their bones. Yet women can make great combat snipers because they can sit waiting in freezing poo-filled holes in the ground for days, better than men can.

2. D&D and other RPGs' Attributes are designed to model male strengths, not female strengths. This means that a simulationist approach to stats will give female PCs a bunch of penalties, no fun for the player.

 

[JamesonCourage]

It's much easier to simply give men the equivalent of the Athletic feat.

You know, if you did this, and gave women a free feat, I doubt people would complain about differences in gender. Give men something like the Athletic feat, and give women something the Negotiator feat (Diplomacy / Sense Motive), or Endurance. Both free feats, based on the gender you choose at character creation. You can always spend a feat to pick up the other one.

Out of curiosity, compared to statistical differences, how many people would object to this?

Because women can open jars just fine.

I wish they were around when the damn jalapenos jar wouldn't open recently.

It is relevant if women warriors constitute the top 10% of women in strength, and warriors represent barely more than the median in an agrarian-based feudal economy. Then it is the most relevant thing I can possibly imagine.

Actually, I think you'd have to compare it to the other male PC equivalent. I mean, suppose there's a rule in place that gives women a -2 to Strength. If both a female and a male warrior were rolled up, and they both had a natural 18 in Strength, the female would have a 16, and the male would have an 18.

Now, compare those two warriors to the slightly above average strength NPCs in this scenario (I'm guessing it's around 12? 13?). I think that's the comparison that should be at play.

I'm not saying that I think the penalty is just or unjust, I'm merely saying that I think the comparison should be amongst PCs. Just my two cents.

Psychologically, whether intended or not, the repeated reminder of men's greater size and power serves as a reminder of men's superiority; every time a man reminds a woman that she must be protected, or tells her she can't beat a man, she is being subtly threatened by male violence in the abstract.

Let me begin by saying that I definitely respect your opinion and feelings in this matter. I'm not intending to discount what you say by my response.

However, I just cannot reconcile that a mentally healthy person would feel violently threatened (even abstractly) by a man when he boasts, much less during an honest discussion on the matter of physical capabilities. I mean, maybe if a man were to attempt to intimidate her, I'd understand. I'm sure if Brock Lesnar walked up to me and tried to physically intimidate me, I'd feel threatened (I don't care what certain people think, the man is a beast).

I just don't see how someone mentally healthy, with a high respect for oneself, would feel threatened by male posturing (again, much less honest discussion). I know I don't feel threatened by other people when they boast about their strengths. In fact, my friends regularly try to prove me wrong, often actively pushing when they perceived I've made a mistake. Maybe it's because I'm combative when them in dialogue (much more so than on this board!), and they want to one-up me? I don't know.

Perhaps that's what you were going for in your post (that I admittedly only drew parts from, seeing as my own post was already so long)? That women have low self respect in this area because of male oppression? Even if that is the case, I don't see how people have an honest discussion about comparative strength between the sexes could really logically feel violently threatened, even abstractly, by the men in those discussions.

But, feelings are not logical, I suppose. Which is, usually, a pretty refreshing thing about them, past a certain point in my life. At any rate, I'm not sure where I'm heading with this. I'm just honestly trying to understand. I suppose that's why I like role playing, to some degree. Let's me get in there, and feel closer to these things I wouldn't normally empathize with (they usually don't come up... don't judge me!).

So... yeah. Um. Play what you like

 

[Elf Witch]

I am having a case of Deja Vu. Over the years I have read and had this topic in real life many times. The examples of male strength over female strength are always the same.

In real life the strongest man will be stronger than the strongest female. But in a game that has magic and bringing dead adventures back to life it seems rather silly to cry it is not realistic.

I played back when the game first game out and sexism at the table was often a thing female gamers dealt with. As a matter of fact it was why I stopped playing DnD for 14 years.

Take the strength argument one DM I had put a strength cap of 12 on female characters. Which meant when I rolled a fantastic character that screamed paladin. I was told no sorry there is no way a female could ever be a paladin. If you want to play one you have to play a male.

I play fantasy games because I want to escape the real world for a little while. It is fun to be able to do things I will never do in real life. I think this is the reason a lot of guys play the game. One of my best friends has spinal bifida and has spent his life since he was 22 in a wheelchair. He loves to play burly warriors who kick butt and take names. He never likes to play a low strength character.

If you put minuses or caps on female characters do you do it just to humans or do you add it to all races of females. Is a female elf the same as a male elf?

I don't see how it improves the game and makes it more playable to make gender stat differences.

Setting is different I played Pendragon and females are not supposed to be knights. How my DM handled it for my character was that I played a female masquerading as man so I could be a knight. It was a blast and I had a great time with it.

 

[pawsplay]

I know a lady pushing sixty who fences epee, and sometimes fences "A-level" male fencers in their 20s. (That is, male fencers in their prime, with skill levels just shy of Olypmic contention.) She has medaled in the world championship in her age bracket. Frequently, good male fencers do things so fast that she can't even see the move, and she has been fencing 40 years. OTOH, when they take her lightly, she can negate that speed, and it drives them nuts, often resulting in them losing several touches before they get it together.

If she had a 25 year old males' muscles with her skill, she'd be an unstoppable machine.

The interesting thing about this example is that in D&D, initiative, AC, and attack rolls with a fencing weapon are all generally Dex-based.

 

[S'mon]

My point is that these women underperform because they have been told their whole lives that they cannot perform. And that is simply a lie. And so while it is true that men are larger and stronger, to emphasize that fact, in a culture in which men and women receive daily reminders of that, a lie flies under the flag of factuality. Real people in their real lives will be affected by some random dude on the Internet reminding women, "By the way, in case you had forgotten, your entire culture considers you frail and weak, and I will choose some unfair measures to prove this to you."

Psychologically, whether intended or not, the repeated reminder of men's greater size and power serves as a reminder of men's superiority; every time a man reminds a woman that she must be protected, or tells her she can't beat a man, she is being subtly threatened by male violence in the abstract.

I don't think it's justifiable harming the souls of women because physically, culturally, historically, men can long-jump a greater distance than a woman. I think it is a good and wonderful thing for a human being to do to remind people that an untrained, average woman fended off a mountain lion for hour hours with her bare hands, dying in order to protect her children. If what D&D calls Strength is anything, it's that.

I find this stuff really soul crushing. It's like a dark veil over reality.

Women should be aware that both (a) it's often possible for women to successfully defend themselves against men and (b) most men are a lot stronger than most women. There are techniques and tools that can get around (b), I remember having a chat with a female police officer about them one time we were out on patrol together. Then we ran into a bunch of aggressive potheads with convictions for GBH against police - and she calmly talked to them and kept them docile, using her feminine strengths - unlike the aggressive male officer who turned up later and handled things much worse, I thought. That ex-military female police officer could potentially have defended herself (and me, and her female support officer colleague) againsy attack, and would have done so if necessary, but she didn't want to have to try.

 

[pawsplay]

Actually, I think you'd have to compare it to the other male PC equivalent. I mean, suppose there's a rule in place that gives women a -2 to Strength. If both a female and a male warrior were rolled up, and they both had a natural 18 in Strength, the female would have a 16, and the male would have an 18.

Now, compare those two warriors to the slightly above average strength NPCs in this scenario (I'm guessing it's around 12? 13?). I think that's the comparison that should be at play.

I'm not saying that I think the penalty is just or unjust, I'm merely saying that I think the comparison should be amongst PCs. Just my two cents.

IMO, when you make that comparison, there absolutely should not be a difference. If the woman is more unusual for the sake of having an 18 Str, then she is more unusual. So be it. But I can't fathom how the game is made better by making the player accept a 16 Strength in order to play the character.

As I said before, there is a difference, just not as huge a difference, I believe, as some may imagine. The simple likelihood of choosing to make a strong male fighter compared to a female one probably outpaces, by an order of magnitude, any mechanical penalties you could put in place to create a similar shift in behavior. In other words, any norming of men versus women is probably not only handled, but exaggerated, by the process of character creation itself.

However, I just cannot reconcile that a mentally healthy person would feel violently threatened (even abstractly) by a man when he boasts, much less during an honest discussion on the matter of physical capabilities.

It's something to work on. It's like the kid at the birthday party who keeps making a big deal about how their parents rented ponies for the party. Sure, they're not a bad kid; they probably don't even recognize how others will respond. But a mentally healthy individual can probably detect that this child's relationship with wealth is different than that of other children at the party. I think a mentally healthy person not only notices, but responds to, the sense that another person is trying to assert their superiority.

When the message is, "You are weaker than a man. A man would destroy you in physical combat," the question becomes, why is this message being broadcast? I understand the words. What is the significance?

I mean, maybe if a man were to attempt to intimidate her, I'd understand. I'm sure if Brock Lesnar walked up to me and tried to physically intimidate me, I'd feel threatened (I don't care what certain people think, the man is a beast).

What if you lived in a world where a couple of times a week, Brock Lesnar wolf-whistled at you on the way home from work?

I just don't see how someone mentally healthy, with a high respect for oneself, would feel threatened by male posturing (again, much less honest discussion).

As exhibits A and B, I present WWI and WWII.

I know I don't feel threatened by other people when they boast about their strengths. In fact, my friends regularly try to prove me wrong, often actively pushing when they perceived I've made a mistake. Maybe it's because I'm combative when them in dialogue (much more so than on this board!), and they want to one-up me? I don't know.

Of course. Once you change the context, the meaning is different. We are talking about context.

Perhaps that's what you were going for in your post (that I admittedly only drew parts from, seeing as my own post was already so long)? That women have low self respect in this area because of male oppression?

More to the point, even if they have high self-respect, they have a negative self-concept because their daily reality requires them to battle negative stereotypes.

Even if that is the case, I don't see how people have an honest discussion about comparative strength between the sexes could really logically feel violently threatened, even abstractly, by the men in those discussions.

How would you being a Mexican sitting in a room mostly full of white people, talking honestly and abstractly about the problem of illegal immigration? Would it make a difference if your mother had gotten her hands hit with a ruler when she was a child for speaking her native Spanish at school?

But, feelings are not logical, I suppose. Which is, usually, a pretty refreshing thing about them, past a certain point in my life. At any rate, I'm not sure where I'm heading with this. I'm just honestly trying to understand. I suppose that's why I like role playing, to some degree. Let's me get in there, and feel closer to these things I wouldn't normally empathize with (they usually don't come up... don't judge me!).

So... yeah. Um. Play what you like

It's a potentially very interesting and worthwhile journey. The first thing to realize is that many of the things that are most relevant to women, are invisible to men.

 

[pawsplay]

Setting is different I played Pendragon and females are not supposed to be knights. How my DM handled it for my character was that I played a female masquerading as man so I could be a knight. It was a blast and I had a great time with it.

I believe it is also one of those games which has a SIZ stat, which helps a lot with delineating the physical differences of men and women.