The Problem with Women



  • Hey guys, I register because I wanted to address a certain concern that was brought up earlier on and I wanted to discuss it personally. There was a thread earlier on that discussed the topic of women as regular soldiers in the games and as some of you know things got a bit heated. I aim to try and recreate that thread and add my own two cents to it in a civilized fashion

    (Terms and Conditions of Thread)
    Before I go on I would like to say that this is in no way sexist or misogynistic. It’s funny that I have to write this down before continuing, but I feel it necessary. I hope this thread will evolve into a discussion with facts taken into consideration and no logical fallacies. Please try to be polite and if you feel like you are getting far too emotional, take a minute to yourself and cool down.

    Okay?

    Alright lets get started :D

    Thesis: (Adding women to the game AS REGULAR SOLDIERS would ruin what the developers of the game originally wanted it to achieve, which is to be a Medieval Hollywood combat simulator.) Phew…alright lets go down the list in a nice orderly manner

    This was something that was discussed in the last thread extensively, but let me recap for those who do not know.

    1. Women were not the norm as Medieval warriors
    2. The goal of the developers is to be semi historically accurate
    therefore
    3.If the developers add women as a regular warrior it will change the original goal of what the team set out to do.

    I’m going to organize my argument in this format, for those of you who have common sense this argument seems logical, providing that both 1 and 2 prove true. That is what I aim to do, now to start off

    1. Women were not the norm as Medieval warriors
    Everyone with a high school education knows that on the medieval battlefield women were not a common denominator. War has always been primarily a mans job and even though we will find the occasionally rare story of a band of female warriors, a queen leading troops into battle, or a female general who gets burned on the cross for heresy (hoping you guys get that joke) they are more the exception then the rule.

    Now I know I know, this topic was debated to death on the last thread and many of you are already upset at me because I’m jumping the gun. “BUT IRISH, THIS GAME IS A WORK OF FICTION, IT DOESN’T MATTER IF WOMEN ARE ADDED BECAUSE THIS IS FICTION”. Patients people, I just wanted to establish a simple logical statement by saying this.

    1. Women were not the norm as Medieval warriors
    This is an important and essential part of the argument. I don’t think many of you will argue my point, but if you want to discuss Medieval Politics with a history expert and game of thrones fan, I’d love to. Now, for the big part of my argument

    2. The goal of the developers is to potray Hollywood Medieval battles
    For those of you who argued “BUT IT’S A WORK OF FICTION” you’ll want to hear this part. The land of Agatha is fiction, the factions fighting one another are fictions, and the story of a king who died in a foreign land only to have his throne seized by usurpers is fiction. Yes ladies and gentlemen, this is a fictional tale, but it is not a fantasy tale. This is a game that is modeled off the fast paced action oriented medieval films made by Hollywood, WHICH ARE to a degree historically accurate.

    I quote Steve Piggot from Torn Banner Studios when asked to compare War of the Roses and Chivalry Medieval “Chivalry seeks to recreate the epic experiences from Hollywood movies such as 300, Gladiator and Braveheart”

    Epic experience from the movies 300, gladiator, and braveheart, that is the goal of the developers. Now let us look at the the common denominators in those movies: There was no magic, battles involving men with armor and no monster, and women were not a common foot soldier (there were individual warriors, but an entire army wasn’t made up of women). Hollywood knew what they wanted when they created these movies, they wanted something semi historically accurate that would get them some money. Imagine if during the battle of Falkirk if Wiliam Wallace had charged against the English with an army composed of 50/50 men and women. What if the Spartans had charged out with amazing abs and great boobs-WAIT WHAT?! It’s just silly to imagine that, which is why Hollywood wanted to keep it semi historically accurate.

    So if we phrase this correctly
    1. Hollywood wanted to be semi historically accurate
    2. Torn Banners want to mimic the epicness of combat of movies such as 300, Braveheart, and Gladiator
    THEREFORE
    3. If torn banners wants to mimic the epicness of combat of movies such as 300, Braveheart, and Gladiator THEN THEY SHOULD BE SEMI HISTORICALLY ACCURATE

    Some of you will say “BUT JUST BECAUSE IT’S SEMI DOESN’T MEAN YOU CAN’T ADD WOMAN”, but adding women changes the whole fundamnetal basis of who is fighting one another! THAT IS A MAJOR CHANGE, that goes from turning the battle of 300 into a semi fantasy tale of Amazon warriors just as powerful as men killing Persians…and that’s just plain silly! You lose any sort of semi historical accuracy and any similarities to epic Hollywood ancient combat by doing that

    Now this is the good part guys because I’m bringing the argument full circle
    1.1. Women were not the norm as Medieval warriors
    HERE WE GO
    2. The goal of the developers is to potray Hollywood Medieval combat
    AND NOW REREAD THE ARGUMENT ABOVE THIS
    AND THE BIG PART
    3.If the developers add women as a regular warrior it will change the original goal of what the team set out to do.

    Oh man…I’m exhausted from having written this argument. There really is so much more I want to write, but right now I want to send this off to you guys and see what you think. Once again, let’s all be polite and be rationale



  • I know the devs asked for Brevity, but i believe an argument like this should be addressed as extensively as possible. I like the goal the devs have in mind for this game and I do not want to see it change for anything. I have 2 more arguments against having females as regular soldiers, but I will await for the thread to pick up a bit before I post those





  • You probably could’ve picked a better thread title :P



  • I only read a part of your wall of text and I’d just like to state that women soldiers are out of place in a game setting like this. Women are in general physically weaker than men and would not be as effective in medieval battles, where fighting is mostly about brutal strength.

    No offense nor sexism meant towards women.



  • @SlyGoat:

    You probably could’ve picked a better thread title :P

    I wanted it to grab the attentions of the devs because I believe this is an important issue



  • @Sir:

    I only read a part of your wall of text and I’d just like to state that women soldiers are out of place in a game setting like this. Women are in general physically weaker than men and would not be as effective in medieval battles, where fighting is mostly about brutal strength.

    No offense nor sexism meant towards women.

    That is indeed a fact, however I am arguing that the devs had a goal when they set out to make this game. Adding female regular soldiers would undermine that goal in ways that would be detrimental to the games maturity



  • Thank you for your effort, as you might have read in the thread that all started it, I totally agree.



  • mount and blade had female chars,i never saw an issue with this nor have i ever heard anyone raise it as an issue(it could be that it was an issue but i just missed it)

    either way i like some diversity.

    also in many places woman on the battlefield were not uncommon at all.

    i also remember reading somewhere that this game is set in a fantasy universe/alernate universe not supposed to be a representation of actual medieval times(i assume they did this so people would get all uppety about some weapons being in the game while they were historicly not used in same period) so the history discussion doesnt rly apply here(if what i stated above is true)



  • Well, you read something, somewhere, but the OP quotes a developer of this game, saying this game wants to be semi-historical. So why still try to bash the historical argument?

    And yes, there have been women on the battlefields. In civial wars, in conflicts where no regular armies met and so on.
    In Chiv, Mason´s army fights Agahta´s army.
    Taking a look at the classes, weapons and armor, they defnately are a regular army, not some random bandits, mercenaries or something like that.

    And women did not fight in regular armies. I hope no one mentions Joan of Arc… She never really fought. She was “just” a symbol.

    So, please tell me, out of curiosity, where and when was that not uncommon?

    Oh and as a side note: I never liked female warriors in M&B. ;)

    EDIT:

    WHAT IS CHIVALRY: MEDIEVAL WARFARE?

    CHIVALRY: Medieval Warfare is a first-person slasher with a focus on multi-player. Featuring competitive online combat that seeks to capture the experience of truly being on a medieval battlefield. We’ve drawn our inspiration from the intensity and epicness of swordfighting movies such as 300, Gladiator and Braveheart and we want to bring that experience to the hands of a gamer.

    The game is skill-based and controls like a FPS, but instead of guns and grenades, players are given swords, shields, maces, battleaxes and longbows. Set in a fictional yet gritty and realistic world, players will fight in fast paced online battles besieging castles, raiding medieval villages and fighting for glory in the arena with up to 32 players.

    Source: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1711512107/chivalry-medieval-warfare?ref=search#WhenWillTheBetaBegi

    Good by to any “fantasy” arguments, welcome to semi-historical, realistic setting arguments :D



  • @tover:

    mount and blade had female chars,i never saw an issue with this nor have i ever heard anyone raise it as an issue(it could be that it was an issue but i just missed it)

    either way i like some diversity.

    also in many places woman on the battlefield were not uncommon at all.

    i also remember reading somewhere that this game is set in a fantasy universe/alernate universe not supposed to be a representation of actual medieval times(i assume they did this so people would get all uppety about some weapons being in the game while they were historicly not used in same period) so the history discussion doesn’t rly apply here(if what i stated above is true)

    Well the thing about Mount and Blade (an excellent example by the way) is they do it very historically accurate. At the beginning of the game it gives the option to be a female, however it also states that being a woman has some disadvantages, such as needing a higher reputation to become a bannerlord, you get reputation at a lower rate, more lords will look down you at first, stuff that is very realistic to the period. If you also look around at the different female characters, all of them suffer from persecution do to being a female, such as the female who lost her estate to her husbands brother due to her being a woman. Also, 98% (not an actual statistic, but the only way to get a female on the field is by bringing in a companion) of all regular troops in the game are male, So I believe Mount and Blade in fact supports my claim. If Chivalry were about individual adventures and had rpg elements it would make a bit more sense, however it is a hollywood action medieval inspired game which focuses on no one individual and just the pure awesomeness of authentic Medieval battle

    I’d need you to quote that source because quite frankly the devs have stated how they wanted this game to be like in the beginning as they have stated there will be no magic or fantasy aspects



  • @William:

    Well, you read something, somewhere, but the OP quotes a developer of this game, saying this game wants to be semi-historical. So why still try to bash the historical argument?

    And yes, there have been women on the battlefields. In civial wars, in conflicts where no regular armies met and so on.
    In Chiv, Mason´s army fights Agahta´s army.
    Taking a look at the classes, weapons and armor, they defnately are a regular army, not some random bandits, mercenaries or something like that.

    And women did not fight in regular armies. I hope no one mentions Joan of Arc… She never really fought. She was “just” a symbol.

    So, please tell me, out of curiosity, where and when was that not uncommon?

    Oh and as a side note: I never liked female warriors in M&B. ;)

    EDIT:

    WHAT IS CHIVALRY: MEDIEVAL WARFARE?

    CHIVALRY: Medieval Warfare is a first-person slasher with a focus on multi-player. Featuring competitive online combat that seeks to capture the experience of truly being on a medieval battlefield. We’ve drawn our inspiration from the intensity and epicness of swordfighting movies such as 300, Gladiator and Braveheart and we want to bring that experience to the hands of a gamer.

    The game is skill-based and controls like a FPS, but instead of guns and grenades, players are given swords, shields, maces, battleaxes and longbows. Set in a fictional yet gritty and realistic world, players will fight in fast paced online battles besieging castles, raiding medieval villages and fighting for glory in the arena with up to 32 players.

    Source: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1711512107/chivalry-medieval-warfare?ref=search#WhenWillTheBetaBegi

    Good by to any “fantasy” arguments, welcome to semi-historical, realistic setting arguments :D

    Thank you very much, that is an excellent source and was trying to find a better one. Some key notes from it

    “Gritty yet realistic world”
    “Seeks to capture the experience of truly being on a medieval battlefield”

    This is exactly my point, by adding female characters it distorts that semi realistic sense that they are going for. And for you guys who don’t know, the original argument was held a few days ago. I just wanted to post this because I was concerned that the devs were getting pressured into it by female players. I say stay on course devs!



  • @William:

    Well, you read something, somewhere, but the OP quotes a developer of this game, saying this game wants to be semi-historical. So why still try to bash the historical argument?

    And yes, there have been women on the battlefields. In civial wars, in conflicts where no regular armies met and so on.
    In Chiv, Mason´s army fights Agahta´s army.
    Taking a look at the classes, weapons and armor, they defnately are a regular army, not some random bandits, mercenaries or something like that.

    And women did not fight in regular armies. I hope no one mentions Joan of Arc… She never really fought. She was “just” a symbol.

    So, please tell me, out of curiosity, where and when was that not uncommon?

    Oh and as a side note: I never liked female warriors in M&B. ;)

    EDIT:

    WHAT IS CHIVALRY: MEDIEVAL WARFARE?

    CHIVALRY: Medieval Warfare is a first-person slasher with a focus on multi-player. Featuring competitive online combat that seeks to capture the experience of truly being on a medieval battlefield. We’ve drawn our inspiration from the intensity and epicness of swordfighting movies such as 300, Gladiator and Braveheart and we want to bring that experience to the hands of a gamer.

    The game is skill-based and controls like a FPS, but instead of guns and grenades, players are given swords, shields, maces, battleaxes and longbows. Set in a fictional yet gritty and realistic world, players will fight in fast paced online battles besieging castles, raiding medieval villages and fighting for glory in the arena with up to 32 players.

    Source: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1711512107/chivalry-medieval-warfare?ref=search#WhenWillTheBetaBegi

    Good by to any “fantasy” arguments, welcome to semi-historical, realistic setting arguments :D

    since i couldnt remember where i read it i was upfront about that it is just smthn i read and even clarified that IF what i stated above is true and didnt claim it to be true.

    many “armies” of what would be called barbarians would have women in their ranks especialy when defending their homeland(many woman prefered to die with a fighting chance then wait at home to be looted,killed or enslaved and who knows what else if the enemy army won)

    i will agree that it was alot less common on the medieval battlefield,but not rly that uncommon through history.

    when picking epic swordfighting movies like 300,gladiator and braveheart i think u/they rly hit the nail on the head cause those movies were alot of fantasy and very semi historical(not bad movies)

    also im not rly one to argue hard in favor off adding women(i think there are alot more things that the game needs,this should just be a sidethought if anything)im just suprised to see this topic…tho not rly since a few weeks ago there was similar thread on wotr forums :p



  • Thank you very much, that is an excellent source and was trying to find a better one. Some key notes from it

    “Gritty yet realistic world”
    “Seeks to capture the experience of truly being on a medieval battlefield”

    This is exactly my point, by adding female characters it distorts that semi realistic sense that they are going for. And for you guys who don’t know, the original argument was held a few days ago. I just wanted to post this because I was concerned that the devs were getting pressured into it by female players. I say stay on course devs!

    since u agreed warband is a good example i can say i never felt that female chars broke the immersion for me.when that siegetower hit the hole in that castlewall even if there were a bunch of female chars with me or waiting for me i felt like i was in a medieval battle.in a way more so then in this game,but in other ways less.

    but ofcourse if many people feel strongly about this adding them seems like a bad idea.



  • Adding women is on the same level as adding orks and dragons to the game. I don’t really give a shit and I think it might be fun, but I guess it doesnt really fits the devs vision for the game.

    Women in general are incredibly weak and have almost no muscular explosion, only an extremely small percentage of females would be able to actually fit in a regular army, and they would probably be so big and heavy that most would just pass up as men.



  • @tover:

    many “armies” of what would be called barbarians would have women in their ranks especialy when defending their homeland(many woman prefered to die with a fighting chance then wait at home to be looted,killed or enslaved and who knows what else if the enemy army won)

    Where and when in the middle ages, lets say from 500-1500 did women fight, enlisted in an army?
    There will be no example… ;)

    @tover:

    when picking epic swordfighting movies like 300,gladiator and braveheart i think u/they rly hit the nail on the head cause those movies were alot of fantasy and very semi historical(not bad movies)

    None of these movies are fantasy. Though, 300 is really on the border and, in my opinion, total garbage, but that is a different story.
    However, Gladiator and Braveheart may have a lot of flaws like there are Papyrus scrolls, way before they actually have been invented or the Scots wearing kilts - that were invented later.
    But those are just “minor” errors that dont make it a fantasy movie or a real difference when it comes to accuracy. It still counts as a historical movie/drama whatever.

    But, pretending there were females in a medieval army would be a very different story, don´t you think? There are so many reasons why women did not fought in the middle ages, it would be simply ridiculous to display that. The church was one factor not yet mentioned for example.

    Since Torn Banner officially says this game wants to provide a medieval battlefield experience in a realistic world… how could that be appropriate?

    Oh and M&B… M&B is a fantasy RPG where you can play a friendly female merchant who just travels the land of uhm…calradia? (I always played A.D. 1257 tbh). No one forces you to enlist in an army, play as a soldier…

    @tover:

    also im not rly one to argue hard in favor off adding women(i think there are alot more things that the game needs,this should just be a sidethought if anything)im just suprised to see this topic…tho not rly since a few weeks ago there was similar thread on wotr forums :p

    Surprised? Well I think many ppl here dont give a shit about how, what, where this game plays or whats it want to display. They are just happy cutting someone or something in pieces, be it man, woman or orc - and thats fine!

    But there are others, like me, who appreciate Torn Banners semi-realistic-historic approach, because Im a huge fan of the middle ages and kinda sick and tired of magic, dragons, super weapons and stuff like that.
    A “realistic” game is nice to see once in a while… Have a heart for us history buffs! :D



  • Well sustained argument friend. :D Thy battlefield is no place for the women!



  • @Yarnu:

    Well sustained argument friend. :D Thy battlefield is no place for the women!

    Hahaha, I don’t know about that, I just think that the loud minority which desires women as soldiers don’t realize what’s at stake. The developers had a goal for this game, I’m not going to talk about entitlement, however developers should be allowed to pursue there fundamental goal without hindrance. This game isn’t a fantasy medieval game or an rpg pick you class game, it’s a medieval combat simulator based on hollywood action packed films which attempt to be semi historically active. And women on the battlefield is anything but accurate



  • Being vocal about my indecision.

    View it very similar to negocromn. It’s a bit of a meh, could be fun to decapitate a woman here and there for variety.

    Honest question though, would seeing a female say… Archer, really ruin your ‘immersion’?



  • @William:

    But there are others, like me, who appreciate Torn Banners semi-realistic-historic approach, because Im a huge fan of the middle ages and kinda sick and tired of magic, dragons, super weapons and stuff like that.
    A “realistic” game is nice to see once in a while… Have a heart for us history buffs! :D

    I’m one of those ‘others’ +1


Log in to reply