The only girl unit in the game...

Status
Not open for further replies.
And that equals that women should be subservient how?

Did I say they should be? You asserted the ONLY reason women haven't featured prominently in militaries was The Patriarchy. It's not the only reason - at least not directly.

At any rate the past can't be 'fixed' - notwithstanding the revisionist efforts of the Ministry of Truth - most civilisations have been more or less patriarchal for most of history, and Civ shouldn't be reengineered to fit in with some femtopian pipe-dream.

And if a woman chooses not to be "seeded"? What then?

If you can't discuss this sort of thing without darting off on hysterical tangents then I'm done here.

Oh, is it now? You do realise that many of the crap said about women today is exactly what they said about non-whites in ages past? "They're not like us." "They don't think like us" "They're different" "They're less capable" "If they weren't so useless why are we in charge and not them?"

It's IRRELEVANT. As irrelevant as me telling you I prefer Rum 'n Raisin to Caramel Crunch. You can make value judgements without being a crypto-racist, and the truth is that successful societies, for whatever reason, have generally been patriarchal.
 
The tank is driven by a female.

Seriously though, the military does not "discriminate" per se, except for physical strength. There are females in the elite forces actually fighting in a good number of countries, few, but certain. Point is, if you view "physical strength" as a bell-shape curve, there's always women in the right-end tail of the bell curve.

What does make me wonder is why women can't be archers?
 
Another factor other than physical strength is the mental factor. Women reacts unfavorably in crisis situations, because they generally freak out more than men do. This isn't just a bad thing - throughout history leaders have enhired female body guards for their weak mentality.

It's just silly to expect that an army of women may win battles against an army of men. (With both parties under the same conditions, of course)
 
ROFLMAO!!!

Been married myself, working on 25 years this December. ANYONE who thinks women can't lead or can't fight or couldn't win against an army of men needs to meet my wife and or mother.

The truth here has been alluded to by some. Survival of the species is engrained in our psyche and wether you like it or not MOST men will defend the women and would prefer they stay out of the fight. Now that said it really only has a VALID place in very early civilizations because once said civilization has grown past a certain point there are more women than biologically needed to sustain the birth rate. I'd prefer to see more female units. As for female bowmen or archers, well while modern bows, compound and such allow women to wield comparable bows a longbow requires more strength than most women can muster, heck more than men who didn't train for many many years.

Samurai wives trained to defend the villages while their husbands were away fighting war so there is indeed precedent. Be nice to see a female predominately defensive unit.
 
This argument is very stupid I hope you know. Its obvious that for all of world history up to this point that women have been discriminated in one way or another. But like the guy above me said they could win if they were against men.Besides this is geting realy off topic.[offtopic]
 
'cause having Ghandi as the leader of India and real life religions that have no differences and don't conflict with each other aren't PC at all...

Gandhi is a good choice for an Indian leader...he lead some Indian national congress or some such-forget exactly what. In real life, like Civ, the religions aren't really different in the least-it's all in how that religion's followers act.

Okay, let's rewind one century. Replace "women" with "blacks" and "passive" with "inferior" and realise how dumb you sound.

I would sound dumb IF that's what I said-and it wasn't. In almost all societies, men have ruled because women are more passive. If women were not more passive, then you would see a lot more matriarchal societies.

And that equals that women should be subservient how?

SHOULD doesn't matter. The point is that they WERE in history.

Oh, is it now? You do realise that many of the crap said about women today is exactly what they said about non-whites in ages past? "They're not like us." "They don't think like us" "They're different" "They're less capable" "If they weren't so useless why are we in charge and not them?"

Except non-whites and whites have no real mental dissimilarities. Women and men do, this has been proven scientifically time and time again.
 
ROFLMAO!!!
ROFLMAO!!!!!!
Been married myself, working on 25 years this December. ANYONE who thinks women can't lead or can't fight or couldn't win against an army of men needs to meet my wife and or mother.
You oughta meet Mike Tyson.
The truth here has been alluded to by some. Survival of the species is engrained in our psyche and wether you like it or not MOST men will defend the women and would prefer they stay out of the fight. Now that said it really only has a VALID place in very early civilizations because once said civilization has grown past a certain point there are more women than biologically needed to sustain the birth rate. I'd prefer to see more female units. As for female bowmen or archers, well while modern bows, compound and such allow women to wield comparable bows a longbow requires more strength than most women can muster, heck more than men who didn't train for many many years.
So you think men will just give up and face inevitable death? I hope you understand how stupid your argument is.
Samurai wives trained to defend the villages while their husbands were away fighting war so there is indeed precedent. Be nice to see a female predominately defensive unit.
:shake:
 
Though its true woman brought in like a draft type sceanario can be 'synthiized' into a top level fighting machine, the potential for the same to be done in higher concentrations with males can not be denied.

So you get segregated groups of recruits brought in. With the men your going to see on average, a higher % of decipline and strengh, endurence etc.. I see exceptions (on occasion) occurin to areas of sniping and medic aid.
Also the top level of conditioning is usually arising from the male ranks so Special ops would be hurtin if selection was compromised for gender reasons.

Woman can operate in top levels in the military. Their role as excellent instructors can raise entire units of tank, infantry or pilots to optimal fightin performance
To bad no trainer units are needed in CIv4 but I see the spy as a kudos to woman's major behind the scenes influnce in armed conflict
 
This argument is geting out of hand. This is about the only girl unit in the game. This topic is now about women roles , sexism , and the actual status of women in the world.[offtopic]
Lets face it women never have or maybe never will be the main of the military, but they have other roles! They do all the jobs that men can and sometimes better! My verdict is that men and women, black and white , and all people are equal and always will be. So whoever to fool was who started this thread should have know this would happen.:thumbsdown:
 
I think that there should be a chance for certain units (Spy, Great People, modern units, etc.) to become female, but others (Swords, Berserker, etc.) don't.
BECOME FEMALE? wow.... um... maybe mod it so Future tech 11 lets you snip snip snip...


Women are more peacefully and generally the more "good" of the two sexes, I'm sure we'll all agree.
More good? I doubt it. There are just as many psychotic women as there are men. well maybe more since their like 51% of population...I think thats US or World, don't care, doesn't change the fact that Nancy Pelosi is very creepy, as is Mrs Clinton.

Isn't the ICBM female?
no.. but you may find on in their underwear drawer... :)

alright to far i know...



The ONLY reason women haven't featured prominently in militarizes is because of this world's predominantly patriarchal societies, that have always sought to keep women subservient.
Don't give me any crap about childbirth. For every woman on the battlefield there'd be plenty left to do that. Or have you forgotten that men tend to have a role in that too?
Someones been eating out of the the political correct waste basket. First off, History has shown that in most cultures Women are WORSHIPED AS GODDESSES. The Gods that were men, were Gods that tended to be Very violent, very lazy, or commanding. The women were more for hope, growth, culture, food, and war.. ATHENA FTW!?!?!? oh and that love thing. Now the fact that women have always been protected by men, because they are child bearers is the reason why some sexists claim that they were subservient, and yes in some cultures they were, and soem they still are. But for the most part they are equals, or treated better. The reason that most sexists(i mean liberals) say that women are mistreated or complain about how they aren't "equal" is because there is still that underlieing feeling that a woman's life is more importnat than a mans because she can produce another life. This means the men are suppose to take care of everything for the woman, this is why it took so long for them to vote, we were suppose to take care OF EVERYTHING including running the government for them so life would be easy for them and they would have no cares. Yes soem people have mistreated women.. But some women mistreat men everyday. As a matter of fact, the rate of women being hurt in domestic deputes has dropped, and the rate of men being hurt has increased, yet the number of women going to jail for their actions has not increased.

Sexism is a two way street...with a crosswalk... a bicycle path, and a turn lane lol.

As for "historical accuracy". Yes, let's demand absolute adherance to real history in a game where the English and Chinese can be next door neighbours, Spain founds Buddhism and builds the Pyramids, Sitting Bull marches his army into Washington D.C. and Ghandi subjigates all his rivals with tanks and nukes.
Idk if your complaining about the game having the ability to have English and chines together, or Sitting Bull marching into Washington... so if you are.. Stop playing please... If your not... WTH is your angle? Complain about the "sexist" ways of the world, then complain about a game thats not accurate thru history?




Okay, let's rewind one century. Replace "women" with "blacks" and "passive" with "inferior" and realise how dumb you sound.
Just for those of you who ARE NOT AMERICAN, as this poster clearly believes everyone is.

Roughly.. 1 century ago... WAIT MORE THAN 1 CENTURY AGO... WAIT... maybe a couple thousand years ago.. There was this thing called slavery. It started in Babylon. It was very popular in Africa as tribes would capture each other and either use the captured tribe as slaves or sell them. And different nations in Europe used it, they would capture "barbarians" then sell, trade, or buy these slaves like Pokemon cards. Eventually... Slaves started getting imported to Europe from China, India, Arabia, and Africa. In most cases, at least for sure in Africa, The slaves that were sold to Europe were unwanted by their tribes. Eventually this MAGICAL PARADISE was created called America, maybe you heard of it.. Apparently... it was made with the World Builder.... Anyways, when America was created it was just 13 colonies. Most of the Southern Colonies outlawed Slavery however the King of England changed their laws and forced slavery upon them. Then.. When America split off, Slavery was a huge part of their Economy, and their infastructure, so the Colonies(now States) with Slavery said no to getting rid of them, and said down the road they may. Then the New England States threatened Succession, and eventually chickened out because they weren't brave enough to risk it. Then the Northern "Free States" began bad mouthing the southern states and spreading slanderous lies, then taking the Souths Abolishment movements and twisting them into a Northern Party bent on the South's demise. So the Southern States broke away, and Abolished the Slave trade with everyone except the United States, and even planned the slow but practical way of abolishing slavery, and completely removing its filth within 20 years.. Then Mr. Lincoln defied all laws both Federal and internation, and declared war upon the nation. Then when the Northern Armies took Jefferson Davis's(President of the Southern States) son and threatened to sell him into slavery(His son was black) he caved in. When Robert E Lee(leader of the Southern Military) was surrendered, he freed his slaves, yet his Northern capturer was forced by Congress years later to do the same. When the Southern States attempted to rejoin the American Congress they were bullied into accepting laws that would destroy all the remaining infrastructure(most of which was burned and destroyed by Sherman,a Northern General, a man who killed thousands of civilians and destroyed many farms and homes, also authorized his men to invade homes and take what they want) Then the Northern Congress decided to take away land and money from the people who owned it and give it to black men and women, who may or may not have been slaves, even some who were slave masters yes there were black slave masters both men and women in the south, but the racists poverty Pimps like Jesse Jackson won't let you know that they were equal. After this, the southern whites were so mad, they blamed the blacks. It grew out of control. by the 1960's a man by the name of Martin Luther King Jr, did everything possible to raise the standard of living of black people, and he did. All new opportunities were given and they became equal, some racial tension was still there but that is to be expected. Now everything Martin Luther King Jr. has done has been s**t on by people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, BET, 50 Cent, ect. But thankfully because of the racism in employment and education has stopped(AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS GOING BYE BYE- this is where it doesn't matter abotu qualification it matters about race) we are finally begin treated equal

...DON'T EVER TRY TO BRING RACE INTO A CONVERSATION. I don' care what color you are or how deprived your people may be, because there is ALWAYS SOME ONE WHO HAD IT WORST OFF THAN YOU. NOW STFU.

Edit..


ALSO... according to the New Robin Hood Show... Saladine had woman as assasins.
 
I knew this would happen. Some liberal B**** comes in and starts this stupid peice of s*** Conversasion. This is about the game we are getting off topic and talking about woman roles and crap. Noone cares!We all are made equal I dont get why you dumb fat **** cant accept that. This conversation is stupid! Delete this thread! This is not worth your time!:mad: :nospam:

Moderator Action: This is unacceptable conduct here, no matter what the provocation.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
The discussion can be continued if the thread spins off-topic. The discussion may be even better than conversation about the original topic. Actually your post was way more off-topic than the previous one.
 
What does make me wonder is why women can't be archers?


Women would be more suitable as runners carrying messages than archers. Archery requires a lot of upper body strength. Not to mention that a right handed archer's right breast would get in the way. That is why Amazon women reportedly burned off the right breast.

Hitler's Germany had female test fighter pilots. The first in history. Maybe the German fighter should be pink? ;)
 
Women are much better at resisting G-Force (smaller, lower centre of mass) which is why they make good fighter pilots.
 
In regards to my comparisons to racism.. laughably, I was speaking of the Imperialist superiority complex which existed in one form or another until the latter half of the 20th century. In which various "legitimate" reasons were given as to why the white man was absolutely better than everything else ever. Not exclusive to America. I'm not American actually, so ha.

As for the other responses.. blah blah blah. Nothing but bizarre justifications for maintaining patriarchy at all costs.
And the idea that women crumble due to battle is hysterical. That happens to everybody! Ever hear of post-traumatic stress disorder? Get over your "Rar! Man strong! Woman cook in kitchen and make babies!" attitude.

Lastly, a game where you lift off to Alpha Centauri is about as historical as the Tellitubbies. And thus, "historical" is not a good reason for making every single unit male. It's rather boring really.
 
Nothing but bizarre justifications for maintaining patriarchy at all costs.

Although the evidence is arguable either way it seems that for thousands of years before the current age we were under a matriarchial system. When humans began hunting the men would leave the tribe settlement to search for food. The females naturally controlled the 'goverrnment' of the day. One reason that gods were originally all female. They were made in the image of those in power. Just as they are today. The mystery of how women gave life to new creatures, babies, was not understood so it was easy to diefy the female. For thousands of years before ancient Greece and Chineese civs the evidence lends credence to women being in control. :bowdown: :queen:
 
Nothing but bizarre justifications for maintaining patriarchy at all costs.
That's right! Because we on CFC hate women. When we find out a way to reproduce without women, we will kill 'em. Until when, we'll have to maintain our dominance over women at all costs! 'Cos men are so evil! :nya: :rolleyes:

Seriously, do you really think men are fighting some kind of secret war with women? Do you think I'm evil? Is anyone who says women are physically inferior to men evil? Are men, at the bottom of their hearts, evil?
 
The Russian military would disagree with alot of you. Women have been serving as fighter pilots, tank crew, snipers, and yes regular infantry soldiers since WW I.

Procreation is an undeniable base human instinct but in modern society there isn't any justified concern that our tribe is going to run out women to make babies.

You guys need to really think about the fact that until the 60's in America a woman could be a nurse, secretary or a teacher. Thats about it. For every other job the same stupid excuses were used to prevent women for entering that profession. Women can be professional soldiers and do any job their capable of physically handling on an individual basis. I mean all of you saying women shouldn't serve or should have limited roles think about it, it is prejudice and discrimination. There are so few areas left for us , especially in the U.S., to overcome and they are some of the most hotly debated issues in our country.

Same sex marriage
Women in the military
Affirmative action

People so easily forget the past, women have been subjugated, african americans were both slaves and second hand citizens, gays were JAILED up until the 60's 70's. When are all these debates going to end? When these groups truly have full and equal citzenship.

If you get into physiology, why aren't women the predominant number of divers in the Navy? There physiology is much better suited to handle both pressure and extreme temperature(namely cold, female divers can survive almost 2x the amount of time in certain cold water conditions as a man).

Anything less than complete and full equal citizenship for all races, religions, sexes, sexual orientations, and ethnic groups, is just fundamentally wrong. If we have to pay more to adjust our military then thats what we have to do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom