Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7182808" data-attributes="member: 4937">That's interesting.&nbsp; I don't have a lot invested in the spear accept that I feel it ought to be more effective of a weapon than it is traditionally represented as.&nbsp; But I suppose I ought to think about peasantness of weaponry more.&nbsp; I have all the polearms up in the restricted martial section because they are just so darn effective, but many of them are basically plow shears beaten into swords in origin - pruning blades, cleavers, knives, pitchforks - that have been weaponized.Wait???&nbsp; What?!?!?&nbsp;&nbsp; No!!!&nbsp; That's the exact opposite of what I'm saying.&nbsp; I'm not saying that you should be forced to play a &quot;weak vulnerable&quot; girl.&nbsp; I'm not suggesting at all that girls are weak!&nbsp; Far from it.&nbsp;&nbsp; What I'm suggesting is that if your definition of strong is limited to physically strong, and if your acceptance of women is based on the idea of physical strength, then fundamentally you are saying that women are weak and second class, because in reality they will always measure up second best if that is the ruler you are choosing to use.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm not suggesting that women should be weak!&nbsp; I'm not even suggesting that women can't be warriors.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm suggesting that a healthy acceptance of women needs at some level to be based on women as they actually are and not as fantasy demands them to be if they are forced to find their worth on the basis of a physical strength.&nbsp; Even in a realistic system, there would be room for a female warrior.&nbsp;&nbsp; But that warrior would need to find some way of dealing with the fact that often as not, the person that they are fighting is bigger and stronger than they are.&nbsp;&nbsp; There are builds were you can do that, even in a hyper-realistic gritty non-magical world. And fundamentally, I think there is a wrong-headed measurement going on here.&nbsp; We ought not be judging worth by judging men against women at all.&nbsp;&nbsp; Even if it were the case that men were better than women (they aren't) and that is something we could actually measure (we can't), that wouldn't make Bob better than Jane.&nbsp;&nbsp; Bob can take rightly no satisfaction from belong to the class of men just because he is a man, and trying to lord it over someone who isn't.&nbsp; Or identity is fundamentally not just a list of the classes of persons we are listed as.&nbsp; Bob can only be judged on Bob's merits.&nbsp; Nor should Jane take some shame from being a woman.&nbsp; What matters is their actual worth as individuals.&nbsp; If Bob is weak and pudgy, how silly and stupid would it be for him to swagger about lauding the strength of men!&nbsp;&nbsp; Even were it the case that men made better warriors than women, Jane might be a better warrior than Bob and that worth ought to be recognized and celebrated for what it is.&nbsp; So what that Serena Williams, though the best women's tennis player in the world, is only the 500th or 2000th best tennis player over all, because some men are capable of being better at tennis than all women.&nbsp;&nbsp; She's still a phenomenal tennis player and better than almost everyone in the world.&nbsp;&nbsp; Nor for that matter is ability to play tennis the sole standard by which we ought to judge worth. I understand that sentiment, and I feel that for a game like D&amp;D - and most RPGs that are heirs of D&amp;D - that is entirely right and proper.&nbsp; But I also recognize that in reality, we don't get to choose.&nbsp; And that at some level, I think it is important to be OK with what is actually real, and not just what is fantasy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7182808, member: 4937"] That's interesting. I don't have a lot invested in the spear accept that I feel it ought to be more effective of a weapon than it is traditionally represented as. But I suppose I ought to think about peasantness of weaponry more. I have all the polearms up in the restricted martial section because they are just so darn effective, but many of them are basically plow shears beaten into swords in origin - pruning blades, cleavers, knives, pitchforks - that have been weaponized. Wait??? What?!?!? No!!! That's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. I'm not saying that you should be forced to play a "weak vulnerable" girl. I'm not suggesting at all that girls are weak! Far from it. What I'm suggesting is that if your definition of strong is limited to physically strong, and if your acceptance of women is based on the idea of physical strength, then fundamentally you are saying that women are weak and second class, because in reality they will always measure up second best if that is the ruler you are choosing to use. I'm not suggesting that women should be weak! I'm not even suggesting that women can't be warriors. I'm suggesting that a healthy acceptance of women needs at some level to be based on women as they actually are and not as fantasy demands them to be if they are forced to find their worth on the basis of a physical strength. Even in a realistic system, there would be room for a female warrior. But that warrior would need to find some way of dealing with the fact that often as not, the person that they are fighting is bigger and stronger than they are. There are builds were you can do that, even in a hyper-realistic gritty non-magical world. And fundamentally, I think there is a wrong-headed measurement going on here. We ought not be judging worth by judging men against women at all. Even if it were the case that men were better than women (they aren't) and that is something we could actually measure (we can't), that wouldn't make Bob better than Jane. Bob can take rightly no satisfaction from belong to the class of men just because he is a man, and trying to lord it over someone who isn't. Or identity is fundamentally not just a list of the classes of persons we are listed as. Bob can only be judged on Bob's merits. Nor should Jane take some shame from being a woman. What matters is their actual worth as individuals. If Bob is weak and pudgy, how silly and stupid would it be for him to swagger about lauding the strength of men! Even were it the case that men made better warriors than women, Jane might be a better warrior than Bob and that worth ought to be recognized and celebrated for what it is. So what that Serena Williams, though the best women's tennis player in the world, is only the 500th or 2000th best tennis player over all, because some men are capable of being better at tennis than all women. She's still a phenomenal tennis player and better than almost everyone in the world. Nor for that matter is ability to play tennis the sole standard by which we ought to judge worth. I understand that sentiment, and I feel that for a game like D&D - and most RPGs that are heirs of D&D - that is entirely right and proper. But I also recognize that in reality, we don't get to choose. And that at some level, I think it is important to be OK with what is actually real, and not just what is fantasy. [/QUOTE]

Verification