Men and Women Stereotypes in Games

But this is exactly the problem with stereotypes. For a long time, in German Army, women could only be paramedics/doctors, with little or no training on weapons.

Now, we have no Military Service anymore but the army is advertising for women and men to join. But still, if Military Service ever comes back, women can´t be forced to join the army.

Well, I had my year of serving. Wasn´t the best time of my life, but can´t say something really bad either. In contrary, it helped me to get my job I have now and…I could play something like a PC Game…in a real tank. :wink:

1 Like

Is rhis a stereotype? Or a biological difference?

Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcome. I’m not saying forbid them from entering active service, I’m saying giving the option to choose.

For me, it is kind of stereotype: "Women “shouldn´t, don´t have, must not” go into combat.

I ask back: Why not? Helicopter/Jet Pilot, Captain of a Battleship, etc. Often, we think of Infantry when takling about “going into combat” but there is much more to it. And there is no reason why women shouldn´t do these jobs.

And, when we had Military Service for men, men could choose (kind of). You could do a kind of social service instead of military.

I think it’s a stereotype to forbid them from going. I don’t think it’s a stereotype to give them an option.

It’s undeniable that the female sex is generally physically weaker than the male sex, and this is an occupation where physical prowess is extremely important.

Agreed. Hence it’s an option. Because regardless of how you get into those vocations, all must go through basic military training. And that IS physically demanding.

1 Like

Yeah, I did it. :wink:

But all women here who choose to become a “Soldier” have to make it. And then a decision is made, for men and women alike. If you pass the test, you are in…if not, you are out. And when you are in you become a civil servant (I hope, this is the correct term). And if you get this…well, you have a very secure job with a lot of incentives. I know it; my father served in the army till he retired (Lt. Colonel) and I am, as a teacher, a civil servant, too.

1 Like

This isn’t true for singapore. If it’s made mandatory for women, you’re in it regardless if you pass or fail.

It’s just hell if you fail

@medea_fleecestealer: feel free to chime in. Would love a female perspective

EDIT: @Rhylthar - I suppose you’re confusing national service (NS) with actually choosing the army as a vocation. Currently, all NS men/women will NEVER be able to get a vocation like a pilot as it’ll cost too much for the army to train them, just to have them leave a year or 2 later.

These vocations are reserved for people who join full-time.

As such, if singapore were to extend NS to women, and if you were to make both men and women undergo the exact same process, I’m telling you right now that it is extremely physical.

Failure results in the entire platoon getting punished. I know of kids who’ve gotten beaten up pretty damn badly just because they kept messing up.

Nono, it´s exactly as I said. :slight_smile:

In detail:
When there was National Service here, all men had to make the “Grundausbildung” (Basic Training), 3 months of hard time. Even if they later want to join the army as pilot, etc…that was mandatory.

Today, this hasn´t changed, only we have no longer National Service and women can join the army, too. They have to make this Basic Training, too, as every men has to. A daughter of a colleague of mine is a musician and will join the “Heeresmusikkorps” (don´t know any translation; let´s call it the “Big Band of the Infantry” :joy:). She had to do exactly the same training and has to pass the test, otherwise she won´t get the job.

But this is optional, yes?

Not mandatory?

The training? No.

Mandatory Service? Yes, we don´t have this anymore in Germany, neither for men or women. You could do it voluntary, if you want to.

I don’t see why women shouldn’t be on the combat lines. Like men they should have the choice of what they specialise in be it admin stuff, medical, engineer, sniper, just a soldier, etc.

But national service men aren’t given this choice. You do as you are told.

The question here is this - assuming that national service were to extend to the female gender, would it be better to:

  1. Treat them the same way as they treat men - i.e. force them into mandatory combat training. and give them a vocation they have no say over. In other words, for those 2 years, your ass belongs to your country. Your ID card, your passport, everything which formally identifies you as you is taken away. You become another number, another body with a gun.

  2. Give them the choice to participate combat training, or to serve their 2 years in a less physical/regimented vocation

1 Like

2 years are a long time. When I had to serve, it was 12 month.

But on your questions:
Well, why not let choose women and men alike? Why treat them differently?

Well, that depends on the country. Here all men have to do national service, but it’s something like a few weeks per year between the ages of 18 and 30. Switzerland only has 1,500 full time military personel. They can get exemptionsto doing the service, but have to pay an additional tax if they do so.

I don’t see why women shouldn’t do the same really.

Because of WW2. Singapore was subjected to the cruelty of the Japanese during our occupation when the brits abandoned us.

We are a small country with not enough bodies.

When we finally became independent, the country vowed to never be reliant on a foreign power for military protection, and hence national service was born.

To get enough soldiers, all men had to serve. And even then, we don’t have a large fighting force.

So you are for option 1 then?

Well, don´t have to tell you the history of Germany.

During the Cold War-era, Germany chose to have a rather large force and all men had to get Basic Training. Times are changing, so the army is much smaller now and no National Service is needed anymore.

Today, women should have the option to become a soldier on vocation. But our constitution still forbids to “press” women into service.

Edit:
And to get back to women in games: In these fantasy worlds, women can choose to be what they want. There are no real world reasons why they shouldn´t. So, to insert “strong women” in different roles to games is something, I really appreciate. Still I like eye-candy now and then. :yum:

2 Likes

Right. That’s the thing about evolution. It changes, but never erases completely.

I.e. the evolutionary drive to protect women/children are still very much so hardwired into our biology.

So yes, I don’t deny that there is sexism, because there IS sexism.

The question here is how do we move forward?

Is the solution really to impose the same outcome onto everyone? Or to give people the opportunity and freedom to choose?

Because if you opt for the latter, the inherent biological differences which makes each sex unique will naturally push the 2 genders towards different things.

Is this then unfair? Is it sexist?

dreckiger alter Mann

1 Like

Well, I can´t answer this generally. Because it depends on the situation at hand. You can´t say it for all things alike. A few years ago you wouldn´t have seen much “male nurses”; nowadays it is totally normal.
When our IT-System in school broke down…guess who did the job to repair it? Two female specialists.

Nope, just someone, who really likes these Fantasy Pictures. And hey, whom do you you call “old” here? 40 ist the new 30!

1 Like

I was going to jokingly ask if they were lesbians, then realized that medea (a woman) has the power to ban me. :stuck_out_tongue:

And I edited the following: “Two female specialists (rather attractive, but I know their husbands).” :yum:

Speaking of military service, @sir_spanksalot in my country there isn’t mandatory time. So I haven’t spent even one day in this outdated
institution. :stuck_out_tongue:

Plus my country haven’t participated in war since 1945 and also no civil war in entire history.

1 Like