Women Warriors? NEVER!!!
- Thread starter RobertScorpio
- Start date
That's just generalizations and gender stereotyping. Men are are supposed to hunt and fight, and women should take care of children, that kind of crap. And it's not true that women aren't aggressive, just as it's not true that they're more caring or emotional or whatever. You just don't see women using physical aggression that often because they haven't been culturally conditioned to do so.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
Has anyone ever observed what happens in cultures where conditioning in this regard is equal? That would be interesting.
I would say that even IF certain talents were to be found more often in one gender than another, we definitely need to make sure we're able and willing to spot what our children's talents are, regardless of what they are, and encourage them so that they'll be the best they can be, regardless of statistics, stereotypes, or anything else.
what's it got to do with sexist? species with physically superior females are extremely rare on earth, might well be so all over the universe. there are virtually no women in jobs with extremely high requirements, like racing driving or piloting fighter crafts. a delicately build woman like kira knocking out a guy twice her size is silly, she can spend all her life in a kung fu monastery, and still lacks the physical strength and weight necessary for endeavors like this. that's not sexist, that's facts of nature. women should be protected from, and not be engaged in wars and battles.
i'm surprised though they still send the infantery in to be killed in the old-fashioned way. there were lots of technologies shown on star trek which disable people to fight any longer, soundwaves, radiations, whatever. the warriors of the future will monitor monitors, and push buttons. in those video-game style wars women do as well as men.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
But isn't it more likely that there are the same amount of worlds where women are stronger? In the insect world that is usally true isn't it?
the reason, I think, women were never shown to be warriors is because the show was primarily aimed at 14 year old boys who have hormones and want to see sexy babes instead of women who kick men's (thus their) butts...
Rob
rob
Errrr, Kira, Dax, Tasha, Seven, Janeway, B'Elanna, T'Pol ?
TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise all had female characters who were A) female, B) physically attractive and C) capable of beating males much larger than them in a hand to hand fight.
It can partly be explained by Torres being half-Klingon, Seven being a former Borg and T'Pol being Vulcan but all of that is thrown out the window when a 8 1/2 months pregnant Kira beats up a Cardassian soldier who was at least a foot taller than her.
I must have forgotten something, can you remind me when did a heavily pregnant Kira beat up a Cardassian soldier? The only time I remember a pregnant Kira fighting was when she killed Silaran Prin, who was a civilian.
(I also don't remember any 6'8" tall Cardassians on DS9, but I suppose that's just hyperbole.)
Also, Kira is supposed to be a skilled guerilla fighter who fought since the age of 12, and was presumably trained by her Resistance cell to fight Cardassians specifically. I don't know why people here seem to assume that hand-to-hand combat is based just on physical strength. I'm sure that in real life an average-sized female martial arts expert could beat up a man bigger than herself.
I was exaggerating slightly on the height. However, she beat up a guard in the episode if I remember correctly.
Meet Cynthia Rothrock. You might have heard of her. She holds five black belts and was the star of numerous low budget action movies during 80's and 90's. She made a career of playing the butt kicking action girl.
My views on this have been shaped by what she has said on the subject - that no amount of training is going to overcome a significant difference in physical strength, especially when one combatant is male and the other female. Any male serving in his nation's military will have some sort of basic hand to hand combat training too.
As Rothrock says, the sort of character she plays is largely a Hollywood invention.
That doesn't mean that Kira can't be as good a soldier as any male, but part of that means not getting in to fights she can't win. The resistance was massively outnumbered. They didn't win any battles by charging headfirst in to close quarters combat. They won them by being smarter than the opposition, not by fighting them hand to hand one by one.
in 2004 the USAF had 519 female fighter pilots. okay, that's 3% of the USAF's pilot's but it's not 'virtually none'.
didn't you just get warned for starting too many threads?
besides, women can have penii. it's the trend of the future.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
Four a day..that was how it was explained to me..Though i am happy to know you are counting for me. Do you have pay pal?
Rob
Last edited:
Forgot to comment on this one....
Unless they raped with an object, in which case it makes no difference what genitalia they have, and if they have any at all. Why would the Founders need to installe a penis without a sex drive?
How could they rape anyone if they can't get an erection?
Unless they raped with an object, in which case it makes no difference what genitalia they have, and if they have any at all. Why would the Founders need to installe a penis without a sex drive?
What about that girl Mareel from DS9's "Invasive Procedures"? Kira actually attacked her but she easily - well, beat of the crap out of her!
Trek has numerous examples of warrior women but it's as if they only bother if they need one for a plot purpose (i.e. a love interest) or for a tongue in cheek gag. I'm afraid Trek writers fall far short on the equlity stakes. The only female dominated species were disapproved of (Angel One) or viewed with disbelief by the men. Even insectoid species are usually interpreted by the translators as male.
How could they rape anyone if they can't get an erection?
What does sex drive have to do with erections? The Jem'Hadar in this speculation would use rape as a weapon, not as a means of achieving personal bodily satisfaction or anything even remotely like that. For all we know, their raspy, malelike voices are also optimized for the purpose of frightening the average humanoid victim, even if a higher-pitched voice would be a better means of communicating in the battlefield.
Of course, it's at least equally possible that the Founders took an existing humanoid species and converted the male half of it for their use, without bothering to remove superfluous things such as male characteristics. Or that the species from which the Jem'Hadar were modified was configured so that it didn't need dedicated males and females in the first place, and might in theory still breed if the individuals reached the age of fertility (that is, survived battles for, say, two decades - an obvious impossibility for a Jem'Hadar). It's not as if we've ever gotten any deep insight into the way of life of these soldiers-by-birth, even if interesting details are revealed in "To the Death" or "Broken Link" or "One Little Ship".
Timo Saloniemi
What does sex drive have to do with erections?How could they rape anyone if they can't get an erection?
You learn something new every day...
What does sex drive have to do with erections?How could they rape anyone if they can't get an erection?
You learn something new every day...
What I think Timo might be getting at is that for us guys it's not always entirely voluntary either way, sometimes things don't work when everything else wants to and sometimes they do work when you don't want them to.
Having an erection does not necessarily mean that a man is sexually excited.
A common misconception is that it is impossible to rape a man since an erection supposedly implies consent, simply not realising that men don't have an internal "Up/Down" switch.
I don't see how sexual arousal equals consent. Consent is a matter of free will, arousal is not. Being physically aroused and actually wanting to have sex is not the same thing.
What I think Timo might be getting at is that for us guys it's not always entirely voluntary either way, sometimes things don't work when everything else wants to and sometimes they do work when you don't want them to.
Having an erection does not necessarily mean that a man is sexually excited.
A common misconception is that it is impossible to rape a man since an erection supposedly implies consent, simply not realising that men don't have an internal "Up/Down" switch.
A human being with normal genitalia and endocrine system is likely to experience sexual instinct and arousal, including involuntary, whether they actually have erotic intentions or not. I am sure that even (genuinely) celibate monks experience it.
Trust me, purely physical arousal is not limited to men - women also get physically aroused on purely physical/hormonal basis; say, during PMS or as a result of a touch, even if it is during a totally non-erotic activity, such as touching one's groin during depilation.) But it's still the result of having a sexual drive.
Furthermore, you might be sexually attracted to someone, but that doesn't mean you want to act on it - you might have your reasons why you really don't want to. I'd say that it's also a common and very bad misconception that you can't be raped by someone you found attractive.
Bottom line, physical arousal is a result of being biologically conditioned to have sexual drive in the first place. A sexual drive is likely to lead to desires and interests that might be distracting or inconvenient for someone who is not meant to engage in relationships, like the Jem 'Hadar. And I can't think of a reason why the Founders would want to give the Jem 'Hadar sexual drive - which would most probably lead to them developing desires other than the kettracel white and interests other than victory. Would it be really worth it to give them a sex drive in order to rape, when the same sex drive could also, at best, be an inconvenience and distraction, and at worst, make them susceptible to seduction and manipulation by the enemy?
Timo's entire hypothesis is extremely far-fetched, not to mention that there is absolutely nothing on screen to suggest it. Why would the Jem 'Hadar need to rape, when they are more than efficient and deadly as it is? It's exactly their lack of interest in anything (sex, food, drink) but kettracel white and victory in battle, that makes them so loyal and efficient. What would be the point of creating them in the first place, if they were the same as any other warrior race? In that case, the Founders could have just found some Klingons or Cardassians or even Human babies, or used their DNA to clone them, and brought them up to worship the Founders, instead of making the effort to create an entire new race.
Last edited:
