Weapon choice for women.

[Raellus]

Don't women have superior, or at least comparable, lower body strength

It also seems like women are more prone to knee ligament injuries than men.

[Legbreaker]

I'm not convinced about the CON bonus as women seem to be built more frail than men on the whole - but that's just an observation rather than based on actual statistics and facts.

[kato13]

Don't women have superior, or at least comparable, lower body strength

It also seems like women are more prone to knee ligament injuries than men.

Leg strength in general is closer but not comparable especially for untrained individuals. More testosterone just keeps men stronger.

I think at the high end (powerlifters) women can get to like 90% of men in similar weight classes. I will even give you an additional 5% may be possible since fewer women enter the sport some genetic potential might be missing there.

[kato13]

I'm not convinced about the CON bonus as women seem to be built more frail than men on the whole - but that's just an observation rather than based on actual statistics and facts.

I agree CON is an odd one. IIRC Women do have a stronger immune system and can probably handle blood loss better, but are probably more likely to suffer a broken bone.

[kato13]

Since this thread has taken an unpleasant turn and there seems to be some confusion as to the points I am trying to make I want to go through my initial thought process.

This is for my Morrow Project Logistics study.

In an effort to minimize the negative effects of loss of Project weapons and ammunition to the enemy, as well as take advantage of a fully intact manufacturing base, perhaps non common calibers should be used.

When looking at non common caliber options some of the higher lethality ones 6.8SPC , 10mm. Colt, .40 S&W. Seemed to have met resistance due to an inability of untrained and lower strength individuals to handle the round. (this actually becomes a plus in my captured weapon scenario)

My field teams in my Morrow Project world are >95% male. I am reasonably sure that a some of the resistance of real world organizations to higher recoil rounds is out of concern for the ability of a portion of women (and a smaller portion of men) to handle firing them. The FBI bailed on the 10mm Colt for that reason.

Not wanting to have zero options for lower strength members, I am looking for supplemental firearms options to accommodate them.

When I started this thread I should have simply said "Lower strength individuals" rather than "women". For this and any confusion or bad blood that followed you all have my apologies.

[kato13]

Women also have an advantage in fine dexterity (like Leg said, the +1 AGL), which along with the increased constitution, is what makes them good pilots for modern combat aircraft that have power-boosted controls and HOTAS-type sticks.

I believe on average women have batter balance and fine motor skills, but slower reflexes. So probably overall AGL is higher.

Lower leg strength in women might also limit the upper end of high-G maneuvers women can withstand. I really have no idea how important that is relative to other skills.

[Legbreaker]

In my experience there has been almost no concern about finding a weapon that fits women.
Why Because the vast majority of those who will be using those weapons on a regular basis are men. If women have difficulties, then the general view is they have no place on the battlefield.

Sexist Absolutely. Realistic Also absolutely.

A force should never compromise in it's selection of weaponry. They should be seeking the weapon that fulfills the need - no point selecting .22 semiauto rifles because everyone can handle the recoil if 7.62N is required to defeat the enemies body armour...

Tank crewmen are another example. Tanks are built with certain restrictions in space thereby disallowing 6'10" 250 lbs soldiers from being effective crewmen. Should tank design be adjusted to allow for larger bodies Not at all because that would probably entail increasing the overall size and weight of the vehicle thereby making it less agile and a larger target.

Also, at least here in Australia, armoured crewmen cannot wear glasses, and I believe not even contacts are allowed. This is yet another example of selecting the correct people for the job. It might well be discrimination, but what's fairness compared to effectiveness

So, with that in mind, women (and men) who are physically unable to handle the weapons and equipment issued to combat units, should not be assigned to such units. These people are far more likely to be assigned to supporting roles where their inability is not much of a handicap, and lighter, less able weapon systems such as PDWs are more appropriate (when needed at all).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Fine. Gimp female characters. Give them a -2 to Str or something.

I know someone who stopped coming here because he didn't like the attitudes of a lot of the posters. I know how he feels.

See some of you on other forums, I guess.

Seriously, What

Isn't the point of a discussion forum to argue (in the proper sense of the word) your point of view That's what's happening here, nothing else.
Far be it for me to speak for Kato but it's not as if he's demanding everyone adopt this idea, it's just something he is trying to work out for his own campaign and he's asked if people will argue the point with him so he can get some exposure to all sides of the issue so ultimately he can decide what he wants to do for his campaign.

If someone is going to get upset because someone else does not agree with their point of view, I think they seriously need to go out and get drunk, get laid, get stoned or something, anything, so they're not so tightly wound.
This is a place to discuss differing ideas, we won't always agree but it's not something you should be getting bent out of shape over!

[Legbreaker]

This is a place to discuss differing ideas, we won't always agree but it's not something you should be getting bent out of shape over!

Seconded.

[kato13]

Seriously, What

Isn't the point of a discussion forum to argue (in the proper sense of the word) your point of view That's what's happening here, nothing else.
Far be it for me to speak for Kato but it's not as if he's demanding everyone adopt this idea, it's just something he is trying to work out for his own campaign and he's asked if people will argue the point with him so he can get some exposure to all sides of the issue so ultimately he can decide what he wants to do for his campaign.

If someone is going to get upset because someone else does not agree with their point of view, I think they seriously need to go out and get drunk, get laid, get stoned or something, anything, so they're not so tightly wound.
This is a place to discuss differing ideas, we won't always agree but it's not something you should be getting bent out of shape over!

As I have told a few members of this board recently, when I am in a conflict I always look at myself first when assigning blame. While I don't fully understand how such intense negativity could have sprung up, I did make some poor choices in my wording and I did get into my "debate mode", where proving I am "right" with facts and figures overshadows almost everything else. It is sometimes a useful trait in my work life, but I fully understand how it can be annoying to others. If I was annoying, or appeared to be condescending or dismissive I apologize fully.

[Targan]

Fine. Gimp female characters. Give them a -2 to Str or something.

I know someone who stopped coming here because he didn't like the attitudes of a lot of the posters. I know how he feels.

See some of you on other forums, I guess.

Woah. Sorry you feel that way man. You are valued here, please don't go.

There are definite physiological differences between men and women. On the strength side of things it nearly all comes down to testosterone, the vastly different amounts produced by the male and female body and the effects it has on the body through puberty. I don't think any of us are intentionally being misogynistic in this discussion. Or if we are, so is the Almighty. The action of higher levels of testosterone on the male body results in a variety of effects that lead to (on average) greater strength. That's just the way it is. Greater bone density, greater muscle density and mass, stronger ligaments. Women who engage in high levels of exercise, weight training etc actually produce more testosterone than the average woman as well as strengthening and building their muscles, so they gain some of the benefits that men get (its just that men get those benefits more easily).

I'm no expert but as I understand it both men and women get testosterone from their adrenal glands but men also get testosterone from their testes. Aside from strength women do have some advantages over men that can be useful in combat. I have read that women often have a higher pain threshold than men for instance.

As I have said on this forum before, when I went through basic training there were six females in my platoon and I had alot of respect for five of them (one of them really wasn't cut out for it emotionally/psychologically but then so were half a dozen of the guys). Those five girls were resiliant, tough and resourceful and I'm sure went on to make good if not great soldiers. But every single one of them had a really hard time when it came to challenges specifically related to strength and especially upper body strength. During stretcher carries, carrying full ammo boxes, long distance pack marches, those girls really put the effort in but they all struggled and their exhaustion and failure points were lower than the men. Also they all struggled on the firing range with the SLR. Perhaps they might have done better if they had been big, strapping girls but they were all average height and built like fit young women are usually built. And if it had come to a stand up hand to hand fight I could have wiped the floor with any of them.

These are just the facts as I saw them. Reality doesn't play favourites or try to upset anyone. It just is what it is. So IMO smaller calibre, lighter weapons are going to be easier for most women to utilise. And with their little hands, weapon furniture should be on the smaller side too.

[pmulcahy11b]

I'll agree that for play balance, the GM should not handicap female characters. Especially if the PCs are played by female players; female T2Kers have always been a rare commodity!

[headquarters]

Agreed

I'll agree that for play balance, the GM should not handicap female characters. Especially if the PCs are played by female players; female T2Kers have always been a rare commodity!

Seconded .


Plus I have seen some brutally ugly women in the army that looked like they could rip one of my arms off and beat me to death with it ..

(That last one was a joke - I kid.)

Copeab - hope you change your mind about going.

[copeab]

Okay, since I've been around since the old TownHall forum days, I do owe people an explanation.

This thread was rapidly becoming a "women are inferior to men and I have the stats to prove it" misogynist fest. We've already gone down that path.

Early last year, or maybe in 2008, there was a thread on women in combat in 2000. A rather vocal minority maintained that healthy women in their 20's were still inferior to 13 year old boys and 50 year old accountants. That thread left a bad taste in my mouth and, frankly, I should have known better than to get into this thread.

I also have a major concern that Paul addressed. You aren't going to attract women to gaming (and especially T2K) with the attitude "Sure you can make a female character, but, you know, men are superior to women so she has to take all these penalties. It's only realistic." If you're lucky, the now female ex-player will *only* walk away from the table.

I guess this brings up a third point, realism. The T2K mechanics don't actually support gimping female characters, and for good reason -- if reality were really that much fun, we wouldn't be playing a game. Christ, it's not like I'm suggesting a 40 kg cheerleader tote around a M134 and a few thousand rounds.

For now, I'm just going to put two people on the Ignore List and see how it goes.

[kato13]

Okay, since I've been around since the old TownHall forum days, I do owe people an explanation.

This thread was rapidly becoming a "women are inferior to men and I have the stats to prove it" misogynist fest. We've already gone down that path.

Early last year, or maybe in 2008, there was a thread on women in combat in 2000. A rather vocal minority maintained that healthy women in their 20's were still inferior to 13 year old boys and 50 year old accountants. That thread left a bad taste in my mouth and, frankly, I should have known better than to get into this thread.

I also have a major concern that Paul addressed. You aren't going to attract women to gaming (and especially T2K) with the attitude "Sure you can make a female character, but, you know, men are superior to women so she has to take all these penalties. It's only realistic." If you're lucky, the now female ex-player will *only* walk away from the table.

I guess this brings up a third point, realism. The T2K mechanics don't actually support gimping female characters, and for good reason -- if reality were really that much fun, we wouldn't be playing a game. Christ, it's not like I'm suggesting a 40 kg cheerleader tote around a M134 and a few thousand rounds.

For now, I'm just going to put two people on the Ignore List and see how it goes.

Most importantly I am glad you are back.

If anyone thinks I have any misogynistic feelings I apologize for anything I have said which might have lead to that conclusion.

I have for my entire life dealt with both men and women who have been working at the highest levels of excellence in gymnastics, martial arts, and volleyball. I never once felt that women had inferior drive or determination and have been equally amazed by the accomplishments of both sexes. I hope that my discussions of averages within a biological system would not construed as either hatred or contempt for women.

For any misunderstandings you have my deepest apologies.