|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That leads to the question, why do modern human beings have to play modern human beings that think like modern human beings?
That doesn't sound very fantastical to me.
Actually, it becomes "play impossibly decent and perfect modern human beings".
At that point, is is so very far above fantastic that I just have no word for it ;-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules are designed to try to provide a level playing field between male and female PCs. They don't reflect real life. Look at all major sports where physical contact is involved - are any of them co-ed? No, and there is a reason for that. In real life, an average woman fighting hand-to-hand against an average man is going to lose 95% of the time.
But Pathfinder RPG is not trying to reflect reality. Its trying to give a framework for players to create fantastic heroes that go on fantastic journeys.
As far as what content is appropriate and what not, I've never had any content in any campaign that I was uncomfortable with. No one has ever described in-depth any kind of sex scene or rape, etc. No one describes really detailed mutilation or wounds.
Beyond that, if you start saying certain things are off limits, you start venturing into My Little Pony RPG IMO. Evil monsters do evil things. Killing innocents, destroying towns, etc.
If I describe the devastation of a town after a dragon swooped through, and a player said "I'm not comfortable with hearing about burning bodies in the street," then I'm not really going to know how to proceed.
Players should hate evil NPCs & monsters. Players should really enjoy bringing them down. In order to elicit that emotional response, the GM has to make the evil side do evil things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that would be baffling.
Okay, er, the dragon destroys the town, but there are no scenes of destruction you notice. The dead innocents just disappear.
Maybe it was puff the magic dragon?
On evil and evil things, I mostly agree. Evil can also be shown to have big plans in motion, and to promise to do evil things to people/the pcs if they win. Make it personal, and they care enough to bring them down. When villains are unfleshed out, the players won't care much in killing them or devote true elan to seeking them out.
I found this with second darkness, the good elves seemed to be d**ks, the drow were dodgy fellows in a war with the elves, but I didn't get the sense they were worth all the casualties my char and the party inflicted upon them.
Hey Torm, I've been playing a lot of HOARD lately, and I'm thinking of setting dragons up as major regional actors (that destroy and intimidate regions). So this may come up soon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That leads to the question, why do modern human beings have to play modern human beings that think like modern human beings?
That doesn't sound very fantastical to me.
It's a roleplaying game. I think people should play the game in a way that's fun for the participants at the table.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a dm, if you find you are getting a bit repetitive, it can be quite a fun exercise to go and read differing philosophies and belief systems, national geographic articles, anthropology, history texts on the ancient world, anything to facilitate the presentation in game of new societies, beliefs, ideas and values.
Avoid Rome though, Rome is overdone.
Go nuts in the search of difference, and have fun. I am always happy when the players are really surprised at the cultures I throw at them.
I agree, building a campaing based in a different culture can be a worthywhile challenge - the differences between modern culture and other cultures can also be used for comic relief, many many medias use that.
Someone might say: "So, you're sayin' tha' rape, torture, genocide an' cannibalism could be used as comic relief"? NO, i'm not saying that, if you find that funny YOU have a problem. Watch Monty Python Movies, feudal japan based anime, Mel Brooks' History of the World, part I, just to name a very few,
In my oriental campaing, i play social differences as comic relief, with exaggerated bows and mannerisms, and allowing players kick the but of the serf that carries their things when he is slopy or disrespectfull (intentionally or perceived).
Reading Deathquaker's post back on page 6, i don't even know how the discussion progressed.
Regarding male/female strengths and statistic differences (that bit is saturated). In my table i have a unspoken rule that i only enforce it (lightly) to myself. Women tend to have weaker strength than men. Even then, i allow to players put any number on strength they want be their character male or female.
About real world perfomance in sports: If i would care to have some difference in performance among gender (wich i don't), i would judge by the character height, if precision and speed is needed and by weight if strength and stamina is needed. The heavier/tallest gaining a +1, and the lighter/smallest gaining a -1. But i find this very uninteresting to bother.
In real life, an average woman fighting hand-to-hand against an average man is going to lose 95% of the time.
There is ONE sport in real world that i know that women are equal, and many times even bested men competitors: Historical Fencing, yeah, with armor, shield, swords and hammers. (Google for Battle of Nations or Historical Fencing to know what i mean).
Yeah, that would be baffling.Okay, er, the dragon destroys the town, but there are no scenes of destruction you notice. The dead innocents just disappear.
Maybe it was puff the magic dragon?
That reminded me the old 8 bit games, when the bodies simply blinked out or super mario enemies who fall out of scenario. You can GM like this: "The Rampaging dragon swoops in the town and breath fire over the innocents, you see many bodies blinking out or falling out of the scenario, unscatched, but definitely gone!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also think hillbilly rapist ogres shouldn't be included in the Bestiary.
As for why I think that: statistically speaking, at least one person at your table has been raped or knows someone who has been raped. So it's insensitive to blithely include, even if it's included just to show how vile the forces of darkness are.
There is some line that has to be drawn, possible victims of rape (of both genders) have the same issues of others victims of violence. There are people playing at all-around-the-world that are in the middle of active war, facing famine, epidemies, drug abuse, lost a loved one to animal attack, had a loved one killed because of a religious issue and many other tragedies.
If you are playing with children you have to avoid some issues, but if you are playing with adults that some strong psychological trauma and did not asked in advance to avoid certain subjects, there is no way for the GM to know.
(I am not saying that rape is not a terrible thing, i was saying that there is a lot of terrible things in this world).
|
|
There is ONE sport in real world that i know that women are equal, and many times even bested men competitors: Historical Fencing, yeah, with armor, shield, swords and hammers. (Google for Battle of Nations or Historical Fencing to know what i mean).In real life, an average woman fighting hand-to-hand against an average man is going to lose 95% of the time.
Every time this argument appear in our table, we remember that Michelle Rodriguez is a woman and if she was playing said female NPC in a movie, everyone would believe she could win a fight against any man.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules are designed to try to provide a level playing field between male and female PCs. They don't reflect real life. Look at all major sports where physical contact is involved - are any of them co-ed? No, and there is a reason for that. In real life, an average woman fighting hand-to-hand against an average man is going to lose 95% of the time.
I disagree on that point; take any form of skilled armed or unarmed combat (especially armed) and the one who hits first will probably be the one who hits last, too, but I agree with the point that PCs are not supposed to represent "averages", regardless of what people expect those averages are. They are supposed to be fantastical.
As far as what content is appropriate and what not, I've never had any content in any campaign that I was uncomfortable with. No one has ever described in-depth any kind of sex scene or rape, etc. No one describes really detailed mutilation or wounds.Beyond that, if you start saying certain things are off limits, you start venturing into My Little Pony RPG IMO. Evil monsters do evil things. Killing innocents, destroying towns, etc.
If I describe the devastation of a town after a dragon swooped through, and a player said "I'm not comfortable with hearing about burning bodies in the street," then I'm not really going to know how to proceed.
Players should hate evil NPCs & monsters. Players should really enjoy bringing them down. In order to elicit that emotional response, the GM has to make the evil side do evil things.
The point is finding these things out BEFORE hand, and the responsibility for that lies partly on the player for bringing things up that they may not be comfortable with, and partly on the GM for not pushing any buttons without knowing the temperament of the group.
If you start describing burning bodies in the street in excruciating, gory detail and a player says "Hey, can we skip that bit? I'm not really comfortable with it" you should listen, and just summarize the scene as "Okay well everything is on fire", because for all you know all they can picture during that scene is the time they saw the charred corpse of their father in the ruins of their old apartment building.
You aren't responsible for what you don't know, but when you do know you need to try and keep the environment from being unsafe. There are a handful of topics I avoid at my table for that reason, but there's no shortage of evil deeds out there to throw in.
There is ONE sport in real world that i know that women are equal, and many times even bested men competitors: Historical Fencing, yeah, with armor, shield, swords and hammers. (Google for Battle of Nations or Historical Fencing to know what i mean).
Certainly. If the goal of the sport is not to physically batter or maim the other person, and instead score points with accurate hits, or firing guns for example, I think there are many times the average woman would be better than the average man.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is ONE sport in real world that i know that women are equal, and many times even bested men competitors: Historical Fencing, yeah, with armor, shield, swords and hammers. (Google for Battle of Nations or Historical Fencing to know what i mean).Certainly. If the goal of the sport is not to physically batter or maim the other person, and instead score points with accurate hits, or firing guns for example, I think there are many times the average woman would be better than the average man.
I think you have it backwards.
When you poke a sword in someone's gut, it doesn't matter if you do it with another 15lbs of force or not. It's in their gut.
Well on maiming and fighting with lethal weapons, the first one to get off a great feint and cut the throat of the fooled opponent (or bash their head in, or give them a mortal wound via impalement shish-ka-bob) would be the winner.
We can talk sport, body sizes, buff shoulders and what not but if it is women fighting men and both sides have lethal weapons it could not only go either way, it could end very quickly. If a Mongolian mace crushes your skull in one hit (man's, woman's or child) because someone seized the advantage, the chromosomes matter not. If two people of opposite genders are swinging Berdiches at each other, the first one to get disemboweled terribly loses.
Women and fighting capacity? I've seen women win bouts, more serious sparring and streetfights. For the latter, the one that pulls off a dirty move first or gets a critical incapacitating hit wins. A woman taking a man out with a bottle to the eye was one such event I witnessed. He didn't get up and use his manly might, he had taken massive head damage.
There is ONE sport in real world that i know that women are equal, and many times even bested men competitors: Historical Fencing, yeah, with armor, shield, swords and hammers. (Google for Battle of Nations or Historical Fencing to know what i mean).Certainly. If the goal of the sport is not to physically batter or maim the other person, and instead score points with accurate hits, or firing guns for example, I think there are many times the average woman would be better than the average man.I think you have it backwards.
When you poke a sword in someone's gut, it doesn't matter if you do it with another 15lbs of force or not. It's in their gut.
I was reading a very old anthropological text on the Scythians a month back, and the author claimed that women could not effectively use spears because of their body type, weak upper body strength and bone structure. Women of multiple ethnicities have used spears and polearms across history (including the Scythians covered in the very same book), the power of a strong spear thrust more comes from your legs, back and stance (set to impale or rush to impale, move and stab) not solely your upper body, and I have seen women use polearm weapons just fine without their arms, body type, bones or breasts preventing them from holding and swinging the weapon correctly.
There are some amazing ideas out there. Women can't use melee weapons because of breasts, apparently, lol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is ONE sport in real world that i know that women are equal, and many times even bested men competitors: Historical Fencing, yeah, with armor, shield, swords and hammers. (Google for Battle of Nations or Historical Fencing to know what i mean).Certainly. If the goal of the sport is not to physically batter or maim the other person, and instead score points with accurate hits, or firing guns for example, I think there are many times the average woman would be better than the average man.I think you have it backwards.
When you poke a sword in someone's gut, it doesn't matter if you do it with another 15lbs of force or not. It's in their gut.
I was reading a very old anthropological text on the Scythians a month back, and the author claimed that women could not effectively use spears because of their body type, weak upper body strength and bone structure. Women of multiple ethnicities have used spears and polearms across history (including the Scythians covered in the very same book), the power of a strong spear thrust more comes from your legs, back and stance (set to impale or rush to impale, move and stab) not solely your upper body, and I have seen women use polearm weapons just fine without their arms, body type, bones or breasts preventing them from holding and swinging the weapon correctly.
There are some amazing ideas out there. Women can't use melee weapons because of breasts, apparently, lol.
That is especially baffling as Scythians are in theory one of the possible races the Amazons were based on.
And if someone thinks a woman doesn't have have the strength to drive a piercing blade through flesh... I'd love to see that person volunteer, say, for a female marine's hand to hand training session or something like. Or heck, you don't want to risk that? I'm a blobby weak Quaker with the most minimal of self defense training and some "doesn't count" sporting training, stand still while I thrust my rapier or my combat knife at you, I'm sure it won't hurt...
(To make my post clear, I am joining you in bafflement, not arguing with you.)
And if someone thinks a woman doesn't have have the strength to drive a piercing blade through flesh... I'd love to see that person volunteer, say, for a female marine's hand to hand training session or something like.
Nobody is making such a claim. My point is that we don't have coed boxing, coed mixed martial arts, etc. There is a reason for that.
As far as piercing weapons, if we're talking about later historical periods where people did not wear any kind of armor or use shields, then I agree that a woman with a rapier that gets the first strike on a man will likely win the fight.
In a situations where armor and a shield is involved and the weapons are primary of the slashing/bashing variety, I think the edge goes to the average man over the average woman.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...we don't have coed boxing, coed mixed martial arts, etc. There is a reason for that.
We don't have co-ed bathrooms either. There's a reason for that.
There is ONE sport in real world that i know that women are equal, and many times even bested men competitors: Historical Fencing, yeah, with armor, shield, swords and hammers. (Google for Battle of Nations or Historical Fencing to know what i mean).Certainly. If the goal of the sport is not to physically batter or maim the other person, and instead score points with accurate hits, or firing guns for example, I think there are many times the average woman would be better than the average man.I think you have it backwards.
When you poke a sword in someone's gut, it doesn't matter if you do it with another 15lbs of force or not. It's in their gut.
I was reading a very old anthropological text on the Scythians a month back, and the author claimed that women could not effectively use spears because of their body type, weak upper body strength and bone structure. Women of multiple ethnicities have used spears and polearms across history (including the Scythians covered in the very same book), the power of a strong spear thrust more comes from your legs, back and stance (set to impale or rush to impale, move and stab) not solely your upper body, and I have seen women use polearm weapons just fine without their arms, body type, bones or breasts preventing them from holding and swinging the weapon correctly.
There are some amazing ideas out there. Women can't use melee weapons because of breasts, apparently, lol.
That is especially baffling as Scythians are in theory one of the possible races the Amazons were based on.
And if someone thinks a woman doesn't have have the strength to drive a piercing blade through flesh... I'd love to see that person volunteer, say, for a female marine's hand to hand training session or something like. Or heck, you don't want to risk that? I'm a blobby weak Quaker with the most minimal of self defense training and some "doesn't...
I know right!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...we don't have coed boxing, coed mixed martial arts, etc. There is a reason for that.We don't have co-ed bathrooms either. There's a reason for that.
I believe I have seen some of them, but I may be thinking of rooms designed for one person that serve both male and female patrons.
And if someone thinks a woman doesn't have have the strength to drive a piercing blade through flesh... I'd love to see that person volunteer, say, for a female marine's hand to hand training session or something like.Nobody is making such a claim. My point is that we don't have coed boxing, coed mixed martial arts, etc. There is a reason for that.
As far as piercing weapons, if we're talking about later historical periods where people did not wear any kind of armor or use shields, then I agree that a woman with a rapier that gets the first strike on a man will likely win the fight.
In a situations where armor and a shield is involved and the weapons are primary of the slashing/bashing variety, I think the edge goes to the average man over the average woman.
How? A sword won't be of any effect if it doesn't find a way around that armor, at which point it is just steel-vs-flesh. No amount of male power-hacking is going to allow a sword to chop through a shield. In fact, power-attacking like that will probably make him worse off. I am not a combat historian by any sort, but the impression I've gotten in what little research I have done is that, in combat with lethal weapons from any time period, when two combatants are wearing the same amount of protection and arms, speed and precision win out.
Of course, we are going far beyond what the mechanics of Pathfinder represent at this point, but given that the AC mechanic in Pathfinder is based around the idea that blows don't deal damage unless they get around armor, that idea makes more sense in Pathfinder, at least, if it isn't as true of real life. Which it may be. If someone more knowledgable can confirm or deny this, I would appreciate it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In real life, people don't have the "hit points" to survive a sword thrust, whether it's wielded by a male or female warrior. Moreover, brute strength rarely wins a fight. It's all about poise, maneuverability, and stamina, so more important, perhaps, than Strength would be Dexterity and Constitution, so even if women are "weaker" than men, they can still wield a blade just as proficiently.
Anyone who has wielded a sword will know what I mean.
It's not about meeting force with force; you use your enemy's strength against them. If they're careless enough to throw all their strength behind one blow, you merely deflect that force harmlessly to the side. You can always move out of the way, too.
That said, the one area in which a man will probably have an advantage over a woman is in terms of reach. Men are taller on average, so they will have added reach. If a woman plays it safe, though, and stays out of this reach, fighting defensively could win out in the end, especially against a less-talented swordsman.
Fighting smart is the way to win, and in no way are women less adept at thinking on their feet, reacting to danger, and planning ahead. Whether male or female, these are skills that can be learned through practice.
TL;DR Applying different ability score caps or penalties to the different sexes would accomplish nothing in modelling real world combat, so arguing what is or isn't realistic is irrelevant in a fantasy game. Skill and training trumps physical limitations.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Parrying doesn't require hulking muscles; anyone can do it with training. Sexual dimorphism does account for many of the differences in athletics, but in combat, bigger/stronger doesn't equate to better.
The D&D/Pathfinder ability scores are too simplistic to represent actual combat, with little to no importance placed on mental stats. Presence of mind is invaluable in combat, and yet it has no mechanical representation.
Coordination is king, too, and yet, Dexterity is solely used for defense, unless a character takes Weapon Finesse, and even then it's only useful with a handful of weapons.
In short, there's nothing realistic about combat in D&D/Pathfinder. There's no reason, therefor, to mess with female characters' Strength scores without first taking a look at her other stats; it's already overvalued enough.
Again, I disagree, though it's perhaps off-topic at this point. When you parry, you're not opposing their force, you're manipulating it. It doesn't take a lot of strength to re-direct a weapon that's already in motion; it takes precision and timing.
Again, I disagree, though it's perhaps off-topic at this point. When you parry, you're not opposing their force, you're manipulating it. It doesn't take a lot of strength to re-direct a weapon that's already in motion; it takes precision and timing.
Er.
Unfortunately, the more strength you have, the harder you are to "manipulate." Simple physics of vector addition.
The extended region of the blade with which you use to strike is traveling very fast and is difficult to control. If your opponent intercepts this region of the blade, they can manipulate its pathway pretty easily. Doesn't matter if you're strong, a sudden application of force will divert the blade.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's cease equating contact sports like boxing and football with lethal armed combat. The goal of boxing is to bludgeon the other person until they're knocked out, in which case yes, it's all about power. Lethal weapon combat is about getting your weapon in the right place at the right time before the other person does first, strength second. There's no "more dead", just dead.
At the end of the day, the difference between the upper limits of strength between a man and a woman in peak muscular condition make so little a difference compared to differences between skill, speed, reach, reflexes, etc., some of those women are statistically speaking better at than men, that the "average success rate" is at least a level field, if not tipped in the favor of women as some previous posters more informed than I have suggested.
|
|
And if someone thinks a woman doesn't have have the strength to drive a piercing blade through flesh... I'd love to see that person volunteer, say, for a female marine's hand to hand training session or something like.Nobody is making such a claim. My point is that we don't have coed boxing, coed mixed martial arts, etc. There is a reason for that.
As far as piercing weapons, if we're talking about later historical periods where people did not wear any kind of armor or use shields, then I agree that a woman with a rapier that gets the first strike on a man will likely win the fight.
In a situations where armor and a shield is involved and the weapons are primary of the slashing/bashing variety, I think the edge goes to the average man over the average woman.
Tormsskull, i quoted Historical Medieval Battle because this recent sport IS coued, (Battle of Nations will not be anymore in it's 5th event this year, but Harcourt Park World Invitational Jousting still is). and they produced already some female champions that fought against and amongst men, and in the last tournament, Sara Hay from Australia grabbed the second place.
Because of that (and because of some historical evidence, like the female Mohammed followers, that battled against men to rescue Mohammed when he was wounded) i think that a simple weapon could equalize the strengths between sexes.
References:
About Harcourt Park World Invitational Jousting.
About champion swordswoman Samantha Swords.
About the new rullings of Battle of Nations for man and woman categories (read the comments, though.
Of course, height and weight can be helpful, but no one must rely on this to win.
About messing around ability scores, i'm totally against and already told the reasons, but i forgot one. As Detect Magic has said, Ability Score are simplistic, i say more, they, as hit points, are too abstract. Strength can be interpreted as training, melee competence and will. The carrying capacity can be interpreted as carrying effectiveness, because he is used to carry much, or simply raw strength to haul anything on the back.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
whoops, apparently I arrived here too early.
Tormsskull, i quoted Historical Medieval Battle because this recent sport IS coued
Yes - I followed the link you provided before. From a quick review of the site, it looked to be similar to a fencing style where you score points by touches. I've already mentioned that such a style would minimize much of the physical advantage men have over women.
About messing around ability scores, i'm totally against and already told the reasons, but i forgot one.
Yeah - I don't think anyone is suggesting there should be ability score modifications based on gender. Pathfinder is not about representing reality. The same scores for both genders is easier and doesn't incentivize/penalize a player for choosing a particular gender.
|
|
Tormsskull, i quoted Historical Medieval Battle because this recent sport IS couedYes - I followed the link you provided before. From a quick review of the site, it looked to be similar to a fencing style where you score points by touches. I've already mentioned that such a style would minimize much of the physical advantage men have over women.
About messing around ability scores, i'm totally against and already told the reasons, but i forgot one.Yeah - I don't think anyone is suggesting there should be ability score modifications based on gender. Pathfinder is not about representing reality. The same scores for both genders is easier and doesn't incentivize/penalize a player for choosing a particular gender.
Well, there was some suggestion, but i agree with the rest of your post (maybe not about the touches. Yeah, only the touches counts, but things can be very nasty, specially on jousting and 25 vs 25 fighters).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course it does. That's why the combat sports stay segregated, just like other sports. It's also why most of the unarmed combat sports have weight classes as well.
I allways thought that men were afraid of losing face when they lost to women, so they segregated sports. I am a big guy, practiced martial arts for a big period of my life and had to fight women and i learned to fear them the same.
Tormsskull, i quoted Historical Medieval Battle because this recent sport IS couedYes - I followed the link you provided before. From a quick review of the site, it looked to be similar to a fencing style where you score points by touches. I've already mentioned that such a style would minimize much of the physical advantage men have over women.
About messing around ability scores, i'm totally against and already told the reasons, but i forgot one.Yeah - I don't think anyone is suggesting there should be ability score modifications based on gender. Pathfinder is not about representing reality. The same scores for both genders is easier and doesn't incentivize/penalize a player for choosing a particular gender.
How does a scoring points game minimize the male "Advantage"? If anyhting, I would say it gives more of an advantage because in actual combat scoring a point means you kill the other person, which means the more agile fighter won, not the stronger one.
In a point-scoring bouts, a point scored is non-lethal, but the more bruising or wearing down one does with strong blows will make it easier for you to score points as the match continues—points which you would never be able to score in a real battle because you would already be dead.
|
|
I allways thought that men were afraid of losing face when they lost to women, so they segregated sports. I am a big guy, practiced martial arts for a big period of my life and had to fight women and i learned to fear them the same.
Of course it does. That's why the combat sports stay segregated, just like other sports. It's also why most of the unarmed combat sports have weight classes as well.
Yeah, i know the feel. When i practiced Tae-Kwon-Do there was aa chick bigger than me, i was always a bit afraid when i was paired against her!
Yeah, i know the feel. When i practiced Tae-Kwon-Do there was aa chick bigger than me, i was always a bit afraid when i was paired against her!I allways thought that men were afraid of losing face when they lost to women, so they segregated sports. I am a big guy, practiced martial arts for a big period of my life and had to fight women and i learned to fear them the same.
Of course it does. That's why the combat sports stay segregated, just like other sports. It's also why most of the unarmed combat sports have weight classes as well.
I had a woman martial arts instructor when I was younger.
The first thing she did was break two concrete slabs with her fist. And then she turned to the women in the class, pointed to the broken concrete, and said agility means nothing if your opponent only needs one blow to disable you.
The instructor was also, at most, five feet tall and she definitely didn't look muscular enough to be punching through concrete.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I allways thought that men were afraid of losing face when they lost to women, so they segregated sports. I am a big guy, practiced martial arts for a big period of my life and had to fight women and i learned to fear them the same.
That's definitely a cultural difference. I recently read about a scheduled MMA-style fight between a man and a woman. I believe I caught it on CNN. IIRC, both fighters were from south of the border.
In the comments section, many of the men were saying that the male fighter had nothing to win. If he wins, then big deal, he beat up a woman. If he loses, then OMG, he lost to a woman.
Personally, I was raised under "you never hit a woman, no matter what." As such, I wouldn't want to compete against women in physical contact sports.
Personally, I was raised under "you never hit a woman, no matter what." As such, I wouldn't want to compete against women in physical contact sports.
I like how the flipside of that is, "It is perfectly reasonable to hit other men, and you should expect it."
Honestly, self-defense is self-defense no matter the gender of your attacker. Unless you are in a sport which requires it, there should be no reason to hit anybody in polite society.
Why all this pretense about not hitting women when we shouldn't be hitting anyone?
Never mind the implication that statement has about women being weaker than men.
|
|
Personally, I was raised under "you never hit a woman, no matter what." As such, I wouldn't want to compete against women in physical contact sports.
Me too, but in martial sports, i was thaught that after the opponent accepting to fight, not giving your best shot shows lack of respect.
There is a lot of stories in my state about women that hit her husband to the point of abuse, and he never goes to police too ashamed of being hurt by women.
For those raised that way, in what circumstances is it okay to hit a man, that it wouldn't be to hit a woman?
Just off the top of my head, a guy grabs your wallet and starts to run. You're free to hit him or whatever necessary to stop him (short of killing/maiming him of course.) If a woman grabs your wallet and runs, you try to stop her, but you do not strike her.
When I was younger, we used to play stupid games where the result was the loser got punched in the arm. Not a forceful punch mind you (we were all friends,) but it could sting. I'd never play that game with a woman.
I'm sure there's many more.
For those raised that way, in what circumstances is it okay to hit a man, that it wouldn't be to hit a woman?Just off the top of my head, a guy grabs your wallet and starts to run. You're free to hit him or whatever necessary to stop him (short of killing/maiming him of course.) If a woman grabs your wallet and runs, you try to stop her, but you do not strike her.
When I was younger, we used to play stupid games where the result was the loser got punched in the arm. Not a forceful punch mind you (we were all friends,) but it could sting. I'd never play that game with a woman.
I'm sure there's many more.
This reminds me of a scientific meeting I was at in Bristol. One of the attendees (who apparently looked/acted like me) was robbed and beaten up by a pack of 16 year old girls. The whole meeting There was a rumor going around that I was that person, which led to some really awkward conversations.
I dunno...If offered violence, regardless of sex/gender, I am going to defend myself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This business about how you can hit a man but not a woman, etc., derives, in my opinion, not just from the idea that women are physically weaker, but also that they don't really have mental autonomy and so (like children, or animals) can't be held responsible for their actions.
cf. issues pertaining to spousal abuse; sexual consent.
This business about how you can hit a man but not a woman, etc., derives, in my opinion, not just from the idea that women are physically weaker, but also that they don't really have mental autonomy and so (like children, or animals) can't be held responsible for their actions.
So are you suggesting that there are 0 times where it is appropriate for a man to strike another man, or are you saying that in appropriate situations, its okay for a man to strike a woman?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My father taught me two lessons
1) never underestimate your opponent2) if I find out you started the fight, I will finish it
My dad taught me not to punch people, you're too likely to hurt your hand.
My dad taught me not to punch people, you're too likely to hurt your hand.My father taught me two lessons
1) never underestimate your opponent2) if I find out you started the fight, I will finish it
Mine taught me the same thing... and then bought me a pair of steel-toed boots and enrolled me in tae kwon do.