Female armor in mmorpgs!

1235789

Comments

  • Flyte27Flyte27 Greenwich, CTMember RarePosts: 4,056


     "She is a very feminine female model with a very high voice.  She has little grunts and squeaks constantly that sound like she is having sex instead of fighting and jumping.  The way she moves is very feminine.  I just don't see her as a strong warrior woman. "

    Among other quotes.

    So a strong female character is one that is not feminine.  Alrighty then.

    So they are only strong if they exhibit male characteristics.

    Careful you are showing your chauvinism there.

    I believe if you don't have a certain amount of masculinity you will be pushed around in environments such as this where it's survival of the fittest.  Especially if you show compassion or insecurity.
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member RarePosts: 6,290
    edited April 21
    And in most places and situations skill trumps brute Force.

    Insecurity I will agree with. Compassion is usually not a weakness. That builds allies which build strengths.

    Feminine is not synonymous with insecurity and if you think so then again your chauvinism is showing.

    Your equating masculine with strong and feminism with weak which is a huge bias and only true with primarily upper body strength and about 20% endurance (due to increased blood volume in men) in the most elite trained people. For most people and most situations skill trumps all.
    Post edited by VengeSunsoar on
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • Flyte27Flyte27 Greenwich, CTMember RarePosts: 4,056


    And in most places and situations skill trumps brute Force.

    Insecurity I will agree with. Compassion is usually not a weakness. That builds allies which build strengths.

    Feminine is not synonymous with insecurity and if you think so then again your chauvinism is showing.

    I believe you are just going by modern society which has a lot of technology and there are many laws that protect the weak in general.  That hasn't been the case for most of history and it may not always be the case in the future.

    I am a male who grew up in a society that didn't protect the weak and I got pushed around a fair amount myself.  I know what it's like to be on both sides.  Most women are not strong enough to fight for themselves.  Even if they have been trained to fight.  

    Showing compassion is a sign of weakness in a society with limited or no law.  The strong will see it as a weakness to exploit.

    A woman like Ciri will easily be pushed around if there is no one to protect them or some type of moral code to hold them back.  She is both timid and compassionate.  She is also not very strong physically.  She may be powerful from a fantasy (magic) perspective, but she doesn't really command any respect in terms of intimidation based on appearance.

    Skill will not overcome a larger person or group of persons in most cases when fighting in hand to hand combat or even with melee weapons.
  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAMember LegendaryPosts: 22,892

    Flyte27 said:



    I am a male who grew up in a society that didn't protect the weak and I got pushed around a fair amount myself.


    You're in Greenwich CT. (a place I know as I spent many a summer there.

    I'll just assume that you moved there from "elsewhere".



  • Flyte27Flyte27 Greenwich, CTMember RarePosts: 4,056

    Sovrath said:



    Flyte27 said:




    I am a male who grew up in a society that didn't protect the weak and I got pushed around a fair amount myself.




    You're in Greenwich CT. (a place I know as I spent many a summer there.

    I'll just assume that you moved there from "elsewhere".

    Greenwich is a nice place, but its public school system wasn't always a nice place when I was growing up.  There were a lot of bullies at the time I was going through the system and I was easy prey for them.  Basically, it had a structure where the cool kids who played sports and smoked pot ruled the school.  Teachers didn't care if you told them you were being punched or harassed repeatedly.  I don't know what it's like now, but I know what it was like in the 80s and 90s.
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member RarePosts: 6,290
    edited April 21
    One again no this is not just by modern standards. In the past women were often not allowed to train. Where they were again skill trumps brute force.

    Physiologically women are the same now as they were thousands of years ago.

    Therefore if they are capable now then they were capable then. 

    If Ciri is timid that is not because she is feminine. She's just timid. She might be timid and feminine but one does not cause or mean the other.

    Most people in general aren't strong enough to fight even when trained. This had nothing to do with women or feminism. 

    Skill absolutely does overcome a larger person virtually 100% of the time. It will help with a group. If they are roughly equally skilled then different story.

    In the past bigger people were trained and or had more experience based on early successes. Both were untrained, bigger guy won which encouraged him to do more. As a result he gets more and more trained while the other doesn't
    Post edited by VengeSunsoar on
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • Flyte27Flyte27 Greenwich, CTMember RarePosts: 4,056


    One again no this is not just by modern standards. In the past women were often not allowed to train. Where they were again skill trumps brute force.

    Physiologically women are the same now as they were thousands of years ago.

    Therefore if they are capable now then they were capable then. 

    If Ciri is timid that is not because she is feminine. She's just timid. She might be timid and feminine but one does not cause or mean the other.

    Most people in general aren't strong enough to fight even when trained. This had nothing to do with women or feminism. 

    Skill absolutely does overcome a larger person virtually 100% of the time. It will help with a group. If they are roughly equally skilled then different story.

    In the past bigger people were trained and or had more experience based on early successes. Both were untrained, bigger guy won which encouraged him to do more. As a result he gets more and more trained while the other doesn't


    Women are just inferior in terms of fighting in general. It is not in their nature and they are chemically weaker. There are exceptions to the rule, but the women in these games are not those exceptions. They are more like models that are thrown in because they happen to look attractive.  Proof that women can't compete is that women don't compete in sports against men.  That is why they are separate.  There is something chemical in women that causes them to have more empathy.  That prevents them from doing whatever it takes to win.  

    You are right that being timid and feminine is different, but both are a weakness in a society where the strongest are the fittest.  That is why masculinity has been prevalent throughout most of history and males have ruled.  It is only with the protection of technology and law that women can compete at all.  It is not just lack of training or skill.  You are trying to make it like we are on equal terms, but that is not the case.  We are chemically different with different strengths and weaknesses.  Being timid is possible for both sexes, but it is exuded in what is supposed to be strong female characters.  They are always looking for confirmation that they are doing the right thing instead of being confident that they are.
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member RarePosts: 6,290
    edited April 21
    Virtually everything you started in your first paragraph is objectively false except in the most elite. Their nature is not weaker. Chemically you have the same chemicals, some in different concentrations. There is no such thing as chemically weaker unless you are talking pH levels which have nothing to do with men or women.

    Women have 60% upper body strength 80% lower body strength and 20% less blood volume. Meaning at the highest levels of competition only will that make a difference. 

    Anywhere else the better skill level will trump a lower skill level. Performance of virtually any activity is primarily skill of execution versus brute force.

    Women do compete against men in a number of areas. Just totally not at the elite level and even that is starting to be rethought. And is less about their strength and more about the lack of training they typically have received.

    I will take a well trained woman over an average trained man in any event. If both are trained well I'll choose the one that performs best on a test.

    The military in the past and today is primarily not elite trained (for the most part there are individual units that are elite) meaning that Max strength dues not factor into results.


    The strongest is not the fittest and never has been. The fittest has always been the one that can best exploit their environment.

    Reread the early successes paragraph.
    Post edited by VengeSunsoar on
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • Flyte27Flyte27 Greenwich, CTMember RarePosts: 4,056


    Virtually everything you started in your first paragraph is objectively false except in the most elite

    Women have 60% upper body strength 80% lower body strength and 20% less blood volume. Meaning at the highest levels of competition only will that make a difference. 

    Anywhere else the better skill level will trump a lower skill level. Performance of virtually any activity is primarily about all of execution versus brute force.

    Women do compete against men in a number of areas. Just totally not at the elite level and even that is starting to be rethought. And is less about their strength and more about the lack of training they typically have received.

    I will take a well trained woman over an average trained man in any event. If both are trained well I'll choose the one that performs best on a test.

    The military in the past and today is primarily not elite trained (for the most part there are individual units that are elite) meaning that Max strength dues not factor into results.



    It really depends on what you are looking for.  It an environment of survival of the fittest I would take a male as I could train them and likely the would be better with training.  Not just because of extra strength, but because they mentally are capable of more brutality overall IMO. 

    We again are not talking about today with modern technologies and society to help.  We are talking about an environment that is dominated primarily by strength and peoples with limited morals.  It is a matter of how well these individuals would survive.  Imagine someone like Ciri were to really exist in a world like the Witcher 3.  You are telling me she wouldn't be marked by masculine men who would look to subjugate her?  Do you really think society would stand up for her?  It's likely they would be afraid.  She would be overwhelmed.  The same would happen to weaker males like myself (I'm skinny).  I know fairly well how strength and intimidation play roles when you are fighting.  I can tell you no matter how skilled I am I doubt I could make much of a dent in a large opponent and they would always have the edge.  A person with skinny arms just doesn't have the ability to make a dent in someone with more girth.  They might be able to hurt them with kicks or tripping them if they are lucky. 
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member RarePosts: 6,290
    edited April 21
    Mentally more capable is your belief. Not fact.

    Even in the past when women were allowed to train they performed as well as men. They were typically not allowed to train.

    Early success in an activity breeds more success. You took an untrained man and and untrained woman and they fight the man won. This encourages him to fight more he gets more trained. The women didn't.

    That is pretty much it.

    If Ciri was trained including mental training to overcome being timid she would do just fine. People probably would try to subjugate her and she would teach them a lesson. Just like men.

    A skinny person when trained would be wiry and quite strong. 

    Cross sectional size of the muscle is only a determinant of maximal strength. It doesn't determine their actual strength just what they could get to if trained. The actual strength is determined by recruitment of muscle fibers which occurs through training.
    Post edited by VengeSunsoar on
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • Flyte27Flyte27 Greenwich, CTMember RarePosts: 4,056


    Mentally more capable is your belief. Not fact.

    Even in the past when women were allowed to train they performed as well as men. They were typically not allowed to train.

    Early success in an activity breeds more success. You took an untrained man and and untrained woman and they fight the man won. This encourages him to fight more he gets more trained. The women didn't.

    That is pretty much it.

    Based on what proof?  From what I've read the Units in the Military have been less effective when women are mixed in.  That's not to say they can't be effective.

    Again we are not talking about this type of situation with a strong society to support women and an age where technology trumps physical prowess.

    You also neglect a few things.  For one woman generally don't play dirty.  If you are in a war you want people who will have the ability to do bad things to people if needed.

    You can easily look up on the internet that women are not as strong and less agile due to having less muscle mass.  I also believe in a lot of cases breast and hip/butt tissue gets in the way slowing them down.  I've watched a lot of movies with female strong characters are they are usually smooth, but quite slow.  They can't really move their large sized behinds in an agile manner.  They often have to bind their breasts to keep them from interfering unless they have smaller sized ones.  Large women who would have strength usually have large breasts.

    Males are generally set up to fight for the right to procreate.  Women are not because they are guaranteed to have a male impregnate them.  They are fighters by nature in most cases.  This and their extra testosterone gives them an edge in certain society types.

    You keep referring to modern society, but it is not a good comparison when dealing with games that use a completely different model.
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member RarePosts: 6,290
    edited April 21
    By the number of women who have exceed men in many brutal situations. I would really love to read a study that showed the military units were less effective. It goes against everything we know about mental and physical training and physiology.

    Women also play just as dirty. Once again this is your belief not fact. I've already addressed the physical differences and the percentage that plays. The breasts and hips play no factor especially because when trained they have reduced fat which tends to reduce breast and hip size.

    Testosterone does help but so did growth hormone and women have a truckload of that.

    I am not referring to modern society. Most of what I have stated exists regardless of society and the timeframe.

    When given the opportunity to train even in past societies women did just as well as men.

    The only reason women appeared less effective was because they were not allowed to train enforced by people that were trained.
    Post edited by VengeSunsoar on
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • Flyte27Flyte27 Greenwich, CTMember RarePosts: 4,056


    By the number of women who have exceed men in many brutal situations. I would really love to read a study that showed the military units were less effective. It goes against everything we know about mental and physical training and physiology.

    Women also play just as dirty. Once again this is your belief not fact. I've already addressed the physical differences and the percentage that plays. The breasts and hips play no factor especially because when trained they have reduced fat which tends to reduce breast and hip size.

    Testosterone does help but so did growth hormone and women have a truckload of that.

    I am not referring to modern society. Most of what I have stated exists regardless of society and the timeframe.

    When given the opportunity to train even in past societies women did just as well as men.

    The only reason women appeared less effective was because they were not allowed to train enforced by people that were trained.

    I guess I am supposed to take your study at face value.  To me, I don't agree with anything you just said.  If that were the case women would have ruled during many different time periods throughout history, but they never have.  It also a chemical fact that women have more estrogen.  Estrogen supposedly enables you to be more empathetic through increased ability to read others emotions.  Throughout history both in the human and animal world males have fought to the death for the right to procreate.  They are also not likely to rape anyone regardless of how much power they have.  In general, they are designed that way IMO because they have to take care of their offspring.  I've met a lot of women in my life and the men were a lot more brutal.  From what I've seen in war throughout history men are a lot more brutal.  I don't think it's entirely something that is taught.  I believe it is something innate.

    I don't agree with what you said about breast and hips/rear not hindering women.  I can see it does.  It is also proven from what I've read that men are indeed stronger and agiler than women.  

    I realize this is just my opinion, but a study you said you saw that is done in modern times where delicate and timid females with feminine voices are being pushed as strong fighters in a time where strength trumps all else in a patriarchy system just seems ludicrous.  If nothing else it looks stupid.  What is more, fun to watch Conan lifting up a large door and kicking butt or a skinny woman with the voice of a mouse?

    Please stop going back to the studies you haven't provided that are likely biased towards women and making sure they properly supported by society.  Just make your point and leave it at that.  We are both just stating our own opinion.  I believe women in any time of anarchy would easily be subjugated and I believe history shows this.  Otherwise, woman would have come to power way before the age of technology.

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member RarePosts: 6,290
    edited April 21
    I didn't speak of a study. Women didn't rule because they were not allowed to train. When they were trained and educated they did just as well. Empathy is not weakness nor does it diminish someone's ability to be brutal.

    What you believe regarding hips and breasts is not reflected in physiology movement patterns or training effects.

    Men are stronger yes. But not more agile. Actually women are more agile due increased flexibility from the average male due to increased elastin and longer more elastic muscle tissue and greater laxity in connective tissue of tendons and ligaments

    What is more fun to watch​ is a personal preference and had nothing to do with ability or training effects.

    You should take a few anatomy and physiology classes. It disproves most of what you believe.

    I did not state any study at all in any time frame.

    All history shows is that trained people subjugated untrained people.

    History shows when women were allowed to train and rule they did quite well. Greece Egypt Persia Ethiopia Africa Celts britons...

    Post edited by VengeSunsoar on
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • Flyte27Flyte27 Greenwich, CTMember RarePosts: 4,056
    edited April 21




    I didn't speak of a study. Women didn't rule because they were not allowed to train. When they were trained and educated they did just as well. Empathy is not weakness nor does it diminish someone's ability to be brutal.

    What you believe regarding hips and breasts is not reflected in physiology movement patterns or training effects.

    Men are stronger yes. But not more agile. Actually women are more agile due increased flexibility from the average male due to increased elastin and longer more elastic muscle tissue and greater laxity in connective tissue of tendons and ligaments

    What is more fun to watch​ is a personal preference and had nothing to do with ability or training effects.

    You should take a few anatomy and physiology classes. It disproves most of what you believe.

    I did not state any study at all in any time frame.

    All history shows is that trained people subjugated untrained people.

    History shows when women were allowed to train and rule they did quite well. Greece Egypt Persia Ethiopia Africa Celts britons...



    I believe you are mistaken on some things.

    The women from you suggest didn't have physical prowess.  It was simply the ability to govern some lands, give orders to people, and run things in general.  My point is that if women were simply disadvantaged because of lack of training then it must have been some conspiracy to keep them submitted for all this time.  I mean there were plenty of times in early human history where they could have turned the tables.  They are just not engineered towards fighting.  They have too many other things to worry about between their sexual reproductive organs, potential fatalities during birth, taking care of their offspring, weaker bodies, and in general having no reason to fight.  

    I did a quick google search and found a study that says men are indeed agiler.  I also believe this because it's easy to see women can not move quickly in movies with action scenes.  The men can always move more quickly.  Women are more flexible due to having less muscle mass.  That is something different, but won't really help with combat.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-562627/Are-women-really-weaker-sex-The-intriguing-medical-facts-settle-oldest-argument-all.html

    What you have shown with hips and breasts is not proof.  You are just stating something.  That is fine, but don't act like it is fact.

    Empathy is also a weakness if you live in certain societies where it can be exploited.  Sometimes you can't afford to be empathetic.
    Post edited by Flyte27 on
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member RarePosts: 6,290
    edited April 21
    I didn't say a specific woman. That are all socities that at one time or another either had women in power or allowed them into the military. 

    Fur the most part it was a conspiracy Just not a conscious one. It was practical division of labor. Men Couldn't feed the young kids. They dont have active mammary glands. This made it necessary for women to be around the very young children. Not because they couldn't train to fight but because they were the only ones that could feed the young.

    The guy would then do something to provide food for the rest of them because the women could not in an practicalility leave the child.

    The gut then became trained with physical tasks that were useful in war. They then dominated the political spectrum because of that.

    The fact is that when at elite levels in endurance e vents like marathons are 10-20% less than men because of blood volume. Their boobs and hips do not about for any increased times.

    That article discussed things that have been known for decades. It did not address anything about training effects or whether men or women are better suited for war or not.
    Post edited by VengeSunsoar on
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • Flyte27Flyte27 Greenwich, CTMember RarePosts: 4,056
    edited April 21




    I didn't say a specific woman. That are all socities that at one time or another either had women in power or allowed them into the military. 

    Fur the most part it was a conspiracy Just not a conscious one. It was practical division of labor. Couldn't get the young kids. They dont have active mammary glands. This made it necessary for women to be around the very young children. Not because they couldn't train to fight but because they were the only ones that could feed the young.

    The guy would then do something to provide food for them because the women could not in an practicalility leave the child.

    The gut then became trained with physical tasks that were useful in war. They then dominated the political spectrum because of that.

    The fact is that when at elite levels in endurance e vents like marathons are 10-20% less than men because of blood volume. Their boobs and hips do not about for any increased times.

    That article discussed things that have been known for decades. It did not address anything about training effects or whether men or women are better suited for war or not.


    Perhaps, but imagine if a woman didn't have a bra or some kind of chest wrap, had large or even small breasts and was running around.  Are you saying they wouldn't get in her way?  I've read of a woman saying that it hurts their breasts when they run because of the way they drop down.

    In terms of the hips I believe it is a hindrance.  The extra weight slows that area of the body down.  If you have ever watched a man and a woman do pelvic thrusts the women are much slower in almost all cases.  

    The point is a woman are just not engineered for combat.  Yes they can fight and yes they play sports, but they are not as well engineered to do it as men are.  There is a genetic reason for that part of which you pointed out.
    Post edited by Flyte27 on
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member RarePosts: 6,290
    edited April 21
    Only if they were very large. And men would have same problem with very large obstacles between their legs.  So that is a non issue. Both sexes have used straps and bindings to overcome that.

    Men's legs are bigger. Does that extra weight slow them down?

    Women are just as engineered for combat as men. Men are stronger women are more agile. Combat is about skill and execution.
    Post edited by VengeSunsoar on
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • Flyte27Flyte27 Greenwich, CTMember RarePosts: 4,056


    Only if they were very large. And men would have same problem with very large obstacles between they legs.  So that is a non issue. Both sexes have used straps and bindings to overcome that.

    Men's legs are bigger. Does that extra weight slow them down?

    Women are just as engineered for combat as men. Combat is about skill and execution.

    This is a really bad comparison.

    Are you saying men need to bind their penis and gonads in order to run lol?  If you hadn't noticed men's penises and balls shrivel up to almost non-existence when the are not in use for sex and reproduction.

    Next, you compare the size of a man's muscular legs to the girth of a woman's reproductive hips.  One slows you down.  The other does not.

    Woman are so clearly engineered for birthing and child rearing.  Their breasts as you pointed out to feed children,  their lower muscle mass and higher estrogen levels that make them more empathetic and easier to approach, their hips to help with birthing and carrying children around, etc.

    The only purpose men have in life is to survive and compete for reproductive rights.  That is it.  That is why they have dominated the combat landscape.  Their bodies are machines made to compete and fight.
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member RarePosts: 6,290
    edited April 21
    Absolutely. Never tried to run naked? It's a bit awkward.

    Maybe yours shrink to non existence. And yes it is true they do reduce but are still several inches long and across which does make running awkward.

    I was comparing the increased weight.

    You statef d the extra weight of hips would slow them down. I stated men's legs weigh more than women's legs. If increased weight on one slows them down then increased weight in other should too.

    Combat is about skill. Trained people subjugated untrained people. 

    There is nothing left to say as we are just repeating ourselves. It is obvious you have never taken an anatomy or physiology class and are operating with stereotypes that were disproven decades ago.
    Post edited by VengeSunsoar on
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • Flyte27Flyte27 Greenwich, CTMember RarePosts: 4,056
    edited April 21




    Absolutely. Never tried to run naked? It's a bit awkward.

    I was comparing the increased weight.

    You statef d the extra weight of hips would slow them down. I stated men's legs weigh more than women's legs. If increased weight on one slows them down then increased weight in other should too.

    Combat is about skill. Trained people subjugated untrained people. 

    There is nothing left to say as we are just repeating ourselves. It is obvious you have never taken an anatomy or physiology class and are operating with stereotypes that were disproven decades ago


    It sounds to me like you are just ignoring the things I say.  I counter your argument, but you end up repeating the same thing that doesn't really aid in your argument.

    Fact women's breasts hinder women more than a man's penis and gonad's when running.

    Fact women have more estrogen which makes then less muscular and more empathetic.  This makes them more geared towards rearing children and has been proven throughout history by that being their position in a non-technological world.

    I just put a link to an article that shows women are inferior to men in terms of strength and agility.  They only trump men in terms of flexibility.  You ignore that of course.

    Your last argument is to insult me and say that I am stuck in the past and haven't taken any modern courses.  Great, but I don't think these courses are teaching you very much either because it seems clear to me you are incorrect about a lot of what you say.

    You have yet to say anything about the fact that men have more testosterone and are inclined towards competing on a biological level as a means of competing for the right of procreation.  There has been nothing said by you to counter any of this.

    It seems to me like you are just another modern day zombie brainwashed by modern schools to think a certain way.

    By the way, I generally wear boxer shorts which don't support my penis or gonads in any way.  I never had a problem running like that.  Nothing ever hurt.  This is a dumb argument and comparison.
    Post edited by Flyte27 on
  • BurntCabbageBurntCabbage louisville,KYMember UncommonPosts: 482
    @Flyte27 are you saying men dont have higher lvls of T than women? im late to the argument and didnt bother reading every ones walls of text lol
  • Flyte27Flyte27 Greenwich, CTMember RarePosts: 4,056


    @Flyte27 are you saying men dont have higher lvls of T than women? im late to the argument and didnt bother reading every ones walls of text lol

    No.

    I said women have more estrogen and men have more testosterone.  That is one of the clear indicators that women were more meant for child birthing and men for being physically competitive.  They have an effect on both the body and the mind.
  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard La BarreMember EpicPosts: 6,543
    edited April 21










    Feminine is not synonymous with insecurity and if you think so then again your chauvinism is showing.










    Yeah. Some women want a word with you (well, not you, but the others). Notably:
    - Gina Carano
    - Holly Holm
    - Cris Justino
    - Miesha Tate
    - Ronda Rousey
    And I'll add Sofia Boutella to round it up and add a less known example.




    Flyte27 said:



    The point is a woman are just not engineered for combat.






    ROFLMAO !
    Any of the women I've listed above would kick your "combat engineered" male butt and send you broken back to your mommy. And I've just listed a few more famous examples, there are many of those in our everyday life too.

    Post edited by Jean-Luc_Picard on
    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn in Star Wars.
    After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that nor does the ability to write.
    CPU: Core I7 7700k (4.80ghz) - GPU: Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti G1 Gaming - RAM: 16GB Kingston HyperX Savage DDR4 3000 - Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-Z270X-UltraGaming - PSU: Antec TruePower New 750W - Storage: Kingston KC1000 NVMe 960gb SSD and 2x1TB WD Velociraptor HDDs (Raid 0) - Main display: Philips 40PUK6809 4K 3D TV - Second display: Philips 273v 27" gaming monitor - VR: Pimax 4K headset and Razer Hydra controllers - Soundcard: Pioneer VSX-322 AV Receiver HDMI linked with the GPU and the TV, with Jamo S 426 HS 3 5.0 speakers and Pioneer S-21W subwoofer - OS: Windows 10 Pro 64 bits.
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member RarePosts: 6,290
    edited April 21
    You haven't countered anything. That article says doesn't state women are inferior to men it stated we get different diseases. They are stating weaker based on that. They get more OA we get more heart disease.

    Their definition of agility is based on acceraltion and deceleration and they conclude that because men of more muscle we accelerate faster. They have not mentioned anything about the significant increased weight men have which significantly reduces acceraltion (1.5 -2x that of women). Aglity is also about changing directions quicky which involves elastic muscle responses which women Excel at.

    I also stated women are more flexible and explained why.

    You need to objectively look at moment patterns and training results. I've done that. You haven't. You posted a bunch of suppositions unsupported notions and outright fallacies all in an effort to say that being feminine means being weak.

    In addition. Testosterone is needed for tested formation. Aggression is a side effect. 

    None of which states it implies that those are the only things that men or women could do or Excel at. 
    Post edited by VengeSunsoar on
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Sign In or Register to comment.