12.01.2013 @ 21:11 #141
Intelligence, whether emotional or any otherwise, or is social or is not intelligence
Una salus victis nullam sperare salutemPlease, PM me for correct my English mistakes, if you don't mind. TY
12.01.2013 @ 21:38 #142
The Washington University (St. Louis, Mo., USA) School of Medicine (http://medschool.wustl.edu/) is a center of research of this kind. They've found that men and women do respond differently to the same exercise, but that there are no simple explanations. See for example Effects of aging, sex, and physical training on cadiovascular response to exercise.
At the extremes that would be characteristic of witcher training, though, women sometimes suffer from "female athlete triad", a syndrome that doesn't seem to bother men undergoing the same training. Female athlete triad (anorexia, amenorrhea, and osteoporosis) is debilitating and not easily reversed or cured. Inadequate nutrition (caused by restricted training diets or social pressure) and reduction of body fat below healthy levels, which are higher for women than for men, may cause or contribute to it. There's a very thorough article, in language laymen can cope with, at Medscape: Female Athlete Triad.
13.01.2013 @ 00:41 #143
Like Guy said, womanly assets don't necessarily mean the breasts, it could just as easily refer to fertility, in which case it is most certainly important.
The simple truth is that the hormones used in the mutations were created/harvested with men in mind. Giving a female such hormones is similar to what's done nowadays to change someone's sex. Such a treatment would literally wreck a woman's body - making the methods inadequate (unless a sex change is part of what the woman wants...).
I guess it isn't technically impossible, but creating a female witcher has so many more complications and risks for everyone involved it's just not worth it. Easier to just kidnap more boys. />
First you say this, then...
Is that not in and of itself a generalization aimed at degrading men? Show me the scientific study that proves men have more violent urges given the same lifestyle, upbringing and social conditioning. Don't bother looking, there are none, and that statement is sexist.
Interesting how all the people defending women and counter-arguing all sexist claims against them suddenly point a blind eye to such a sexist statement, simply because it's aimed at men. These double standards are why I stay away from these discussions.
13.01.2013 @ 08:28 #144
I don't want to see any more statements like this, okay:
This one is a little more qualified -- that "in general" helps -- but it's still an awful lot like bashing:
I'll remind you that "men" is several billion people, and "women" is several billion other people, and the individuals within those very large groups vary an enormous amount. It helps to keep this discussion civil if you say "many men" or "some women," rather than making sweeping statements about "men" or "women."
13.01.2013 @ 12:19 #145
Ehhh... yes and no. From a biological standpoint, there is an answer, but it varies.
Women in the late stages of pregnancy begin producing hormones that buffer their pain thresholds out to the absurd tolerence levels needed to make it through childbirth. These hormones, however, are not produced at any other time.
Under any other circumstances, males as a group exhibit higher pain thresholds, sometimes significantly so depending on the stimulus, than women. How much this is just due to biology and how much is due to social conditioning males acquire in a patriarchal society that tells them feeling and admitting to pain is another matter entirely, one I really cannot speak to. But there is at least some degree of biological advantage.
Normally. Depending on how well the endocrine system could be manipulated by magic and matugens and what precisely is done to create Witchers, it might be possible to have a female (or male, for that matter) candidate's body secreting those hormones temporarily for the Trials, or even permanantly. There may even be potions that can deaden the nerves; they've got potions to see in near-total dark, to turn their blood to toxins and acids, and several other weird and wonderful changes at an anatomical level so that would hardly be surprising either.
Having a high tolerance for pain would be helpful for a Witcher in dealing with potions that cause physical agony as a side effect or pushing through injuries. But in the end it's just one factor among many, and depending on what the mutations actually entail may or may not ultimately matter.
Generally speaking, combatants who are larger, have more reach, and are stronger do better in hand-to-hand and melee fighting. Males, on average, are more likely to exhibit those traits than females. However, as mentioned earlier the ideal Witcher-versus-Monster encounter is one where the Witcher launches a surprise attack under the effects of combat drugs, preferably using weapons with a poison tailored to work against the enemy to boot.
Under such a paradigm, it's more the skill of the individual than the gender that matters since the objective is to identify the creature and prepare correctly to face it. If they didn't get that bit right, they may well not survive. Being male may afford a little bit of leeway, but how significant that would prove in the long run is debatable given the best way to take out a monster is to not be relying on that any way.
In any case, and paradoxical as it may seem, a medieval-ish patriarchal society has less use for an excess population of young males than it does for young women, especially since stastically there is a skewed ratio of males to females beyond 1:1. Biology aside, it's more socially acceptable to put young men in dangerous positions in such a culture; men may be in power and women may incorrectly be seen as having less inherent value, but when social mobility is constrained due to numbers and you have the issue of illegitimate children to deal with on top of that, having a release valve that takes the pressure off can come in handy. The excess population is more useful getting themselves killed reducing the number of monsters that threaten humanity as a whole, and what else are they going to be doing? Eating food you could give to someone else (or eat yourself) and maybe sweeping the cobblestones?
Also, it seems that mages became more common over time, perhaps as a consequence of Elven lineages becoming a part of humanity's breeding pool. In the early days a trained mage could probably take on a dangerous monster, but trained mages would have been a much more finite resource than largely unwanted male children. And if a trained mage can start mass-producing monster slayers, there's not much reason for them to go out hunting, either.
Fast-forward to the current era, where mages seem to be more plentiful than Witchers, which they may or may not be able to recreate any way and have less need for since the monster population has been so depleted a fair few species are just dying off on their own while most of what remains can be handled by getting enough normal humans, and the incentive for creating any new Witchers of either gender, biology completely aside, is very low even if the knowledge is available, and, well...
13.01.2013 @ 12:29 #146
There is no difference between men and women in term of cognitive abilities or behaviour, there never was and never will, women can be as brutal as men and men can be as soft as women (just show a man a cat picture, they, including me, aaww like 12yo kids), but there is a little natural difference in term of physique, but this takes effect AFTER the puberty and even then, who cares?
Sometimes you can't tell a boy apart from a girl at this young age, they are pretty much the same, except both have different kick-in hormones, testerones and estrogen and still both genders have them, but boys have more testerones, girls have more estrogen/less testerones (don't trust me on this one, not a doctor, but i think i read it somewhere :o). Ever wondered why you have nipples as a man? Because your body didn't know at this point of development what you are.
At this young age neither a boy nor a girl is better at anything, they are the same, they treat themselves the same, they are just children, they don't distinguish between genders, they distinguish between friends, foes and family.
WE, the society, tell them WHO they are, even if they don't want:
You are boy? Wear this blue shirt, take this car toy and this action figure. You want a doll rather than this car? Don't behave like a sissy!
You are girl? Wear this red shirt, take this little house and this barbie doll. You want the car rather than the doll? Don't behave like a tomboy!
So in the end this is not a "natural" decision. But not quite time ago it was normal to have male soldiers and not female soldiers, why?
Well maybe women didn't want to be a soldier or maybe the society didn't want them, both is and can be true, still today.
But the main fact why there aren't any female Witcher is probably, because Sapokowski didn't want them. It fits the middle age setting to have primarily male soldiers and not female soldiers, still there are some characters like Rayla or Milva, who are indeed badass fighter and most men didn't want to encounter her and furthermore they were respected by their male fellows and if they weren't, well, ouch ;)
And don't forget there is one "kind" of female soldiers in form of sorceresses, sure they don't fight with a sword, but rather with their intelligence, but still they are a kind of soldier in this (political) war and don't forget sorceresses invented the witchers.
And at last the mutagens, as many have already said, maybe the mutagens are designed to change boys and can't interact with the female physique or hormones, we don't really know. When Ciri was at Kaer Morhen, the other Witchers didn't want to give them to Ciri without knowing what could happen, so obviously there was never a case of a girl wanting to be a witcher, most girls probably want to be a sorceresses and this is again a society effect.
If the witchers at Kaer Morhen were cruel and emotionless they could just experiment on their own and why not use a girl? what is the worst that could happen? She dies? Okay, next one.
So there is not really a NO-GO argument to have not female witchers except witchers are not longer needed, so it isn't a desirable profession (it probably never was), nobody wants to be a witcher, an outlaw and presumed criminal. They want to be powerful sorceresses, who can affect a whole kingdom with a flick and we all know they can.
There is not a even slightly reason why there shouldn't be females witchers except there aren't any and that's it. Just because there isn't it, doesn't mean it can't be.
13.01.2013 @ 12:34 #147
I don't want to see any more statements like this, okay: ›››
Sorry, might been too vague, but what I ment is that in general (by a large margin) male organism is superior - muscle mass and their "spring force"(?) are higher than female... which is tied to that triad syndrome guy was wrinting about.
If this sounded out of place I am sorry, that wasnt my intent, only a shortcut in my thinking about the general problem.
13.01.2013 @ 13:14 #148
Pretty much. Androgens (sex hormones for each gender) are produced in varying ratios. There are conditions that can cause someone who is genetically XY (male) to develop as a female from conception on, as well as the reverse. It depends on the amount of hormones produced and when.
That said, the physical difference between the genders is significant once puberty does start to kick in.
Not exactly. Leaving aside the fact the body is not consciously going "Hey, I'm (fe)male, time to develop secondary sex characteristics!" the DNA information is all there. It just may not be actively expressed at the time since other hormonal cascades are needed before those changes are made, or read "correctly" in the case of someone who is genetically male but exhibits female physical traits*.
We have nipples because either there is an evolutionary advantage to having them (though my degree concentrated on other areas of biology, so what that might be is a complete mystery to me- and honestly I'd prefer to keep it that way since there are Things Man Was Not Meant To Know and this strikes me as one of them o.O**) or because having them was not a significant enough evolutionary disadvantage to warrant losing them over time.
It's a factor, but so too are the physical advantages the average male has over the average female. An extra few centimetres in height and reach for one, greater haematocrit ratings leading to better aerobic endurance, heavier muscle mass allowing for greater strength, and denser bone structure allowing for better resistance to physical trauma in conjunction with the two prior traits, all go a long way when put together.
In times of antiquity where feats of brute physical power determined who'd win a fight there is a definite reason to have as many males as possible in the military, to the point of it being male-only if it can be arranged. In more modern times where it is more a question of skill at arms since the need to, say, force a gap in a shield wall and then eviscerate someone is drastically reduced. But even so a certain level of physical capability is needed, regardless of gender, to be able to walk around in field kit, control weapon recoil, and so on.
You are girl? Wear this red shirt, take this little house and this barbie doll. You want the car rather than the doll? Don't behave like a tomboy!
Ironically, red was traditionally a man's colour, and blue traditionally a woman's colour, at least until fairly recently. Red was thought to symbolise bood and aggression, perfect for males, while blue was thought to be more serene and stately, so more suited to females. Lighter variations of red and blue were assigned to younger members of each gender, so pink was once considered more appropriate (if not only appropriate) for boys, whilst pastel blues were thought to be feminine.
But, yes. Children are heavily socialised towards the set of behaviours expected of their (apparent, at least) gender. In a medieval-ish setting, this means boys will be more frequently and deeply socialised towards physical aggression than girls, which may or may not be an advantage in the creation of Witchers since they might have had more opportunity to practice those skills.
Maybe. Vesemir was the most experienced Witcher left after the Kaer Morhen uprising, and he was pretty much a combat instructor with limited knowledge and ability in any other field, including the use of the Signs and creation of various alchemical products. If it didn't relate directly to chopping things to bits, he probably doesn't know too much about it; all the remaining Witchers really knew how to do was the Trial of the Grasses, and that's because they'd all had to eat that diet themselves at some point. Going beyond that was something they simply couldn't do on their own; having Triss visit Kaer Morhen at the start of the first game may have been the Wolf School's first step towards restoration, sounding her out to see if they could trust her, whether she wanted to help out, and whether she even could help. They might have thought that Geralt's fame could be useful, since maybe people would be more willing to accept a Wolf-trained Witcher after Dandelion's propaganda had spread.
Whether that was the plan or not doesn't really matter now, of course, since that idea would have been crushed with Salamandra's theft and the discovery that Triss may not have been as trustworthy as they thought.
*NB: I am using "correctly" here in a very specific sense; I certainly don't think there is anything wrong with someone who has such a condition (and I would at least have something severe to say to someone who said there was), I just mean that the information is there but is for whatever reason being interpreted differently- it's a bit like saying you want a pizza (what the DNA says should be happening) and then having Chinese food show up on your doorstep (what is actually happening) because the wrong number was dialed, because the friend you trusted to order pizza decided they'd rather have Chinese instead, or whatever else.
**Such as male lactation, which I guess may have come in handy at some point in our evolutionary history.
13.01.2013 @ 13:48 #149
You see, prior to the medical advances that mankind made during (or slightly before) the Industrial Revolution humans tended to die early. And in big numbers. You scraped your knee and got an infection? Sucks for you, good luck in the next life. Add to that the constant threat from nature that was present before the invention of modern agriculture and such (drought = mass starvation) and you have human populations that are far from secure or stable.
In this situation facing a disaster that killed many of the women in your community could mean the end of your tribe. Women were the life givers! This is why you find all these (female) fertility cults in early civilizations. Sure, you’d also need a man but you can almost take that literally: A man. As in “one man”. Women were far more important for the survival of the species than men were in that regard. Much of the oppression that women suffered stem from this circumstance. Rather than being rooted in an underappreciacition of women this descrimination comes from an overappreciation of women (although the people back then would have probably seen it as adequate rather than under- or over-). They were patronized (get it?) in such a way because they had to be protected or your community was as good as gone already. This is also one of the reasons why there exist(ed) matriarchies around the globe that seem to contradict most people’s notion of these early civilizations.
For women it was enough to be women in order to be valuable. Men had to prove themselves or otherwise they were worthless to society and just another mouth to feed. Where do you think that the common notion that men should put women’s and children’s lives before their own in the event of a crisis (regardless of its adherence in practice) comes from?
But to cut to the chase: It is for this reason that it’s been primarily men whose lives have been thrown away in every conflict since the dawn of time. They were replaceable, women far less so. Yes, biological differences played a role in that as well but the importance of women for the continuation of the populace is another major factor.
As such it makes sense from this angle as well for there to be no female Witchers. In a world that not only faces the dangers of ours but also that of monsters it’s a ridiculous notion that women (no matter how few) would have been thrown away like that.
13.01.2013 @ 20:15 #150
If this sounded out of place I am sorry, that wasnt my intent, only a shortcut in my thinking about the general problem. ›››
Nope, that's not out of place. "In general, men have more muscle mass" is much more specific, and that's a reasonable statement to make. It's only blanket statements that one sex is superior to the other (or that other example, that women are almost never aggressive but that many men are "idiotic") that I wanted to caution people not to make.
I knew you were big enough to take serving as an example.