Too many female companions

[chantrain]

Anyone else feel its a little weird to have so many female companions? it pisses me off a little, to put females in my elite guard.

I'm all for equal rights and all that but I dont think females make good soldiers, not as good as men, and as such I dont want so many of them in this game.

I'd like to remove companions like ymira, klethi, deshavi, etc and make them males, to me that would make more sense.

thoughts?

 

[Shik]

Sexist much?

Just don't hire them if it concerns you so much.

 

[Kraven]

Anyone else feel its a little weird to have so many female companions? it pisses me off a little, to put females in my elite guard.

I'm all for equal rights and all that but I dont think females make good soldiers, not as good as men, and as such I dont want so many of them in this game.

I'd like to remove companions like ymira, klethi, deshavi, etc and make them males, to me that would make more sense.

thoughts?

Women can be as good soldiers as men, also in real life, women is more agile than men by nature and therefore got an advantage there, where men are more about brute strength.

Anyhow, it do seem a little strange to see that many female companions when looking at the fact of how few women in the time the game is set around where soldiers, so at that point it is a little weird, but i personally dont mind it.

 

[chantrain]

Women can be as good soldiers as men, also in real life, women is more agile than men by nature and therefore got an advantage there, where men are more about brute strength.

sure, women can be better marksmen than men, their bodies are better suited to be a fighter jet pilot or a rocketeer....but when it comes to medieval warfare I just cant take seriously a petite women decked out in heavy mail armor swinging a heavy axe, i can't.

It feels wrong to me. Females are capable and worthy of respect as warriors and blah blah blah...I just dont feel they belong on the battlefield in a medieval setting, not when the weapons are swords and axes.

Just don't hire them if it concerns you so much.

I'd rather not gimp myself, theres so many female companions that not using 5 or 6 because theyre female would gimp me. There shouldnt be so many females on the battle field imo, 1 or 2 tops...not so many...

 

[Verito]

If I recall correctly, there are only 4 female companions in the game. That's too much?

There are 11 Male companions, compared to the 4 females, and you say that's too much?

You make me sigh....

Men aren't always the best at everything you know, many people say that men are better at football/soccer than women, but there are some women who are much better than men at it.
Now I just using that as an example, but the world is alot more diverse than just "Men are soldiers and women are housemaids", and it's stupid to think such a thing. Women are equal to men in every aspect. You can get men who make good acrobats, and you can get incredibly strong women. There is no difference between the two going by physical and mental abilities.

 

[chantrain]

Yes, that's too many.

there's also all the females on the battlefield, i start getting a twang of guilt as I shove my sword through the neck of my 5,000th peasant woman, I begin to question wether or not it's a faithful recreation of medieval life to have so many women on the field of battle.

they should all be in the kitchen, making me a ham sammich

 

[MrRipYourHeadOff]

Well, he has a point, if you're going for roleplay here, there shouldn't be a single woman holding a sword in the game.

I had deshavi in my party and was thinking about getting matheld, but they're both too *****y, and deshavi causes too many interparty problems with other members like rolf. Also deshavi is friggin ugly

but katrin and ymira are cool

 

[chantrain]

right, i forgot about matheld. that makes 5 females, deshavi, katrin, matheld, ymira and klethi.

5 is too many. 2 would seem about right to me. or 1. Or preferably, none.

 

[chantrain]

Men aren't always the best at everything you know, many people say that men are better at football/soccer than women, but there are some women who are much better than men at it.
Now I just using that as an example, but the world is alot more diverse than just "Men are soldiers and women are housemaids", and it's stupid to think such a thing. Women are equal to men in every aspect. You can get men who make good acrobats, and you can get incredibly strong women. There is no difference between the two going by physical and mental abilities.

Men will always be the best at wearing heavy armor and swinging heavy weapons around, and at killing their fellow man.

sorry but thats the way it is, men are more aggressive than women, men are more prone to warfare and politics than women, men make good soldiers in medieval times, women don't.

Theres a time and a place for this "equal opportunity" nonsense, and now is not it. Double standards do exist and they exist for a reason, because there are two things that need to be accounted for.

 

[Shik]

There are barely any women in game.

The only female troops in game are peasant women, and you only encounter them if you sack villages and attack farmer parties.

The female companions are usually runaways or people who have been exposed to the sexism of medieval society, and are seeking jobs, power, or revenge.


There's nothing wrong here, you are just being sexist.

 

[chantrain]

you will be missed

 

[Verito]

Yes, that's too many.

there's also all the females on the battlefield, i start getting a twang of guilt as I shove my sword through the neck of my 5,000th peasant woman, I begin to question wether or not it's a faithful recreation of medieval life to have so many women on the field of battle.

they should all be in the kitchen, making me a ham sammich

Excuse me? If I were a woman, I think I would want to defend my village, rather than just sit around wondering if my husband and his friends are dead yet. Women have as much rights as any man.

5 is too many. 2 would seem about right to me. or 1. Or preferably, none.

Women can fight just aswell as men, they can fight in wars, use machinery, be doctors and play football/soccer. It isn't singled to males.

I had deshavi in my party and was thinking about getting matheld, but they're both too *****y, and deshavi causes too many interparty problems with other members like rolf. Also deshavi is friggin ugly

but katrin and ymira are cool

You should look to this thread for more info on companion conflicts.

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,36781.0.html

Verito: I like you.

Thank you and goodnight.

 

[LK]

Well, he has a point, if you're going for roleplay here, there shouldn't be a single woman holding a sword in the game.

I had deshavi in my party and was thinking about getting matheld, but they're both too *****y, and deshavi causes too many interparty problems with other members like rolf. Also deshavi is friggin ugly

but katrin and ymira are cool

yes deshavi is ugly cos she is black rite

yayaya make me a sexism sandwich with some racism on the side



You mod them to be males, then. I think it's a refreshing change from the old, though admittedly probably accurate, image of having only males on the battlefield. Yes, the guy-girl ratio is likely skewed from the real medieval ratio by the presence of the female companions, but if we want to be realism nazis then there are a hundred other more pressing concerns.

 

[Gabeed]

How 'bout this idea!  If you don't want women in your party, DON'T HIRE THEM.  Ugh, sometimes I feel like I'm the only M&B player that doesn't grab every NPC available. 

 

[chantrain]

Excuse me? If I were a woman, I think I would want to defend my village, rather than just sit around wondering if my husband and his friends are dead yet. Women have as much rights as any man.

admirable but foolish, any peasant woman wanting to defend her home would have found herself raped and killed.

Women can fight just aswell as men, they can fight in wars, use machinery, be doctors and play football/soccer. It isn't singled to males.

Women cannot fight as well as men, menin general are stronger and more aggresive than women, this isnt opinion its just fact, and the entire reason why women didnt even enter the role of warfare or combat until VERY, very recently. 1950's, blacks were already in the army but women weren't yet. Why is that, do you think?

Could it be because women are, generally, frail and weak?

Why do you think women dont become firefighters either? because thats a job where you have to be strong, to be able to carry people out of a burning building. Women dont become firefighters, women dont become medieval soldiers, thats just the way it is.

 

[MrRipYourHeadOff]

Well, he has a point, if you're going for roleplay here, there shouldn't be a single woman holding a sword in the game.

I had deshavi in my party and was thinking about getting matheld, but they're both too *****y, and deshavi causes too many interparty problems with other members like rolf. Also deshavi is friggin ugly

but katrin and ymira are cool

yes deshavi is ugly cos she is black rite

yayaya make me a sexism sandwich with some racism on the side



You mod them to be males, then. I think it's a refreshing change from the old, though admittedly probably accurate, image of having only males on the battlefield. Yes, the guy-girl ratio is likely skewed from the real medieval ratio by the presence of the female companions, but if we want to be realism nazis then there are a hundred other more pressing concerns.

No, she's ugly because she's ugly. I'm not a racist, I think tyra banks and halle berry are very attractive, but to be honest deshavi looks like an impoverished prostitute. No thanks.

 

[MrRipYourHeadOff]

Thanks Verito, looks useful

 

[chantrain]

How 'bout this idea!  If you don't want women in your party, DON'T HIRE THEM.  Ugh, sometimes I feel like I'm the only M&B player that doesn't grab every NPC available. 

dont hire someone just because of their sex?

now thats not very equal opportunity, infact thats prejudice and I think it's illegal to be an employer and discriminate against someone based on their sex, so of course I will hire the women.

doesn't mean i have to like it, though. I retain my opinion that women shouldn't be soldiers.

 

[Kraven]

*sigh* Those of you using "Men are more brutal/strong and therefore better fighters", a fighter is not all about strength, example of this to use a ingame example, khergits? Cowards on horses shooting people down from afar, none the less they get the job done, without much brute strength, bad example? Yes but none the less true.

A fighter in a heavy armor yes may be stronger naturally as a man, but a agile fighter will often be stronger as a woman due to the fact women are more agile naturally.
Women are often lighter and smaller than men, again something that can be used to both an advantage and an disadvantage.
It takes more training to be a light fighter than a heavy fighter thats true, but often i would consider a well trained light foe much more dangerous than a well trained heavy fighter.

To the one using the example of "Why didnt women get in the army sooner if they are as good fighters as men?", sexism, nothing more, nothing less.

Point is, women and men are different but equal, only reason women often isnt seen as equal is due to hundreds years of sexism.

 

[chantrain]

*sigh* Those of you using "Men are more brutal/strong and therefore better fighters", a fighter is not all about strength, example of this to use a ingame example, khergits? Cowards on horses shooting people down from afar, none the less they get the job done, without much brute strength, bad example? Yes but none the less true.

A fighter in a heavy armor yes may be stronger naturally as a man, but a agile fighter will often be stronger as a woman due to the fact women are more agile naturally.
Women are often lighter and smaller than men, again something that can be used to both an advantage and an disadvantage.
It takes more training to be a light fighter than a heavy fighter thats true, but often i would consider a well trained light foe much more dangerous than a well trained heavy fighter.

To the one using the example of "Why didnt women get in the army sooner if they are as good fighters as men?", sexism, nothing more, nothing less.

Point is, women and men are different but equal, only reason women often isnt seen as equal is due to hundreds years of sexism.

what sort of nonsense is this, kraven??

Fighting is not all about brute strength, but this is a man's world and fighting is a man's game, the khergits are based on hunnic or mongol armies and tell me if you see any females waging war in those armies.

As for this brute strength vs agility argument, its a valid one but not very historically relevan, when was the last time a unit of agile fighters won a battle for someone? Never?

Ok, now tell me the last time a group of heavy infantry or cavalry won a battle, how about, always? Now show me the woman willing to deck that heavy armor and march around for hundreds or thousands of miles during a military campaign, and I'll show you the exception.

Women started becoming more relevant on the field of battle when technology started to change and the woman's assets could better be utilized. Give a woman a rapier and a rifle, maybe she'd make an excellent musketeer, but when we're talking about medieval or ancient warfare i see no role there for a woman, except perhaps as auxilary troops, archers and such that would retreat as soon as the main battle line was engaged.