You said giving STR penalty to women is sexist. I proved it is realism.

LOL. More strength to eliminate the Strength penalty? No reason in the first place? HAHAHA. Do you even think before you type?

That's why I despise feminists. They are hurting and crippling women in the world, forcing them to think they are something they are not. Let me give you 2 quick examples.

Example 1: In the army, when we train soldiers, I can say that I can make a soldier 7 out of 10 boys. But girls? I can't even say 1 out of 100. Why?

Example 2: That's actually a good example why I utterly despise feminists. In times I was an IT manager, a girl's mother complained that we did sexism for not hiring her daughter. We only hired men. She said that, I was personally sexist to make such discrimination.

I invited her to my office. I give simple tests to every candidate. I showed her the test results of her daughter. She answered around 6 questions correctly out of 20, while all other candidates got at least 15. They had much better GPAs and had graduated from better universities. And even after showing all that, she still claimed I was sexist and demanded that I should hire her daughter.

You are just like that. Ignoring the simple, undeniable truth doesn't earn you something you don't deserve.

On the other hand, I adore my female students and I personally give free lessons to middle/high school females. I teach them to know who they are, what they are and what they are capable of. Being a soldier or a truck driving is not a suitable job for a girl. Still want it? Be my guest but do not complain or blame others when you fail.

I would say that reflects the male perspective re human capabilities. In my experience, women in general are far superior to men with respect to healing. Men attach exaggerated significance to dominance and aggression, which can be a significant liability re problem solving.

Yes, there are significant differences between the sexes, but judging these differences from an exclusively male perspective paints a picture that is flawed, to say the least.

Your experience runs contrary to reality.

Allergy & immunology
• Male physicians: 3,019 (69.8 percent)
• Female physicians: 1,304 (30.2 percent)

Anatomic/clinical pathology
• Male physicians: 9,910 (66.2 percent)
• Female physicians: 5,056 (33.8 percent)

Anesthesiology
• Male physicians: 30,852 (77 percent)
• Female physicians: 9,227 (23 percent)

Cardiovascular disease
• Male physicians: 19,435 (89.2 percent)
• Female physicians: 2,365 (10.8 percent)

Child and adolescent psychiatry
• Male physicians:3,986 (51.8 percent)
• Female physicians: 3,715 (48.2 percent)

Dermatology
• Male physicians: 6,346 (58.7 percent)
• Female physicians: 4,467 (41.3 percent)

Emergency medicine
• Male physicians: 25,972 (76.5 percent)
• Female physicians: 7,983 (23.5 percent)

Endocrinology, diabetes and metabolism
• Male physicians: 3,545 (60.3 percent)
• Female physicians: 2,336 (39.7 percent)

Family medicine/general practice
• Male physicians: 70,210 (66 percent)
• Female physicians: 36,181 (34 percent)

Gastroenterology
• Male physicians: 11,173 (87.1 percent)
• Female physicians: 1,661 (12.9 percent)

General surgery
• Male physicians: 22,255 (84.6 percent)
• Female physicians: 4,041 (15.4 percent)

Geriatric medicine
• Male physicians: 2,282 (53.4 percent)
• Female physicians: 1,990 (46.6 percent)

Hematology and oncology
• Male physicians: 9,241 (72.6 percent)
• Female physicians: 3,483 (27.4 percent)

Infectious disease
• Male physicians: 4,601 (64.5 percent)
• Female physicians: 2,532 (35.5 percent)

Internal medicine
• Male physicians: 71,747 (65.9 percent)
• Female physicians: 37,070 (34.1 percent)

Internal medicine/pediatrics
• Male physicians: 1,933 (50.3 percent)
• Female physicians: 1,909 (49.7 percent)

Neonatal-perinatal medicine
• Male physicians: 2,412 (54.8 percent)
• Female physicians: 1,988 (45.2 percent)

Nephrology
• Male physicians: 6,390 (76.5 percent)
• Female physicians: 1,959 (23.5 percent)

Neurological surgery
• Male physicians: 4,716 (93.5 percent)
• Female physicians: 328 (6.5 percent)

Obstetrics and gynecology
• Male physicians: 21,222 (52.6 percent)
• Female physicians: 19,123 (47.4 percent)

Ophthalmology
• Male physicians: 14,342 (80 percent)
• Female physicians: 3,593 (20 percent)

Orthopedic surgery
• Male physicians: 19,019 (96 percent)
• Female physicians: 801 (4 percent)

Otolaryngology
• Male physicians: 8,055 (87.3 percent)
• Female physicians: 1,170 (12.7 percent)

Pediatrics
• Male physicians: 23,256 (41.9 percent)
• Female physicians: 32,200 (58.1 percent)

Physical medicine and rehabilitation
• Male physicians: 5,608 (66.2 percent)
• Female physicians: 2,867 (33.8 percent)

Plastic surgery
• Male physicians: 5,933 (87 percent)
• Female physicians: 886 (13 percent)

Preventative medicine
• Male physicians: 4,850 (71.1 percent)
• Female physicians: 1,970 (28.9 percent)

Psychiatry
• Male physicians: 24,946 (65.2 percent)
• Female physicians: 13,324 (34.8 percent)

Pulmonary disease and critical care medicine
• Male physicians: 10,405 (83.2 percent)
• Female physicians: 2,1014 (16.8 percent)

Radiation oncology
• Male physicians: 3,348 (75.1 percent)
• Female physicians: 1,108 (24.9 percent)

Radiology and diagnostic radiology
• Male physicians: 21,805 (78 percent)
• Female physicians: 6,165 (22 percent)

Rheumatology
• Male physicians: 3,110 (63.4 percent)
• Female physicians: 1,794 (36.6 percent)

Thoracic surgery
• Male physicians: 4,464 (95.4 percent)
• Female physicians: 217 (4.6 percent)

Urology
• Male physicians: 9,257 (94.2 percent)
• Female physicians: 567 (5.8 percent)

Vascular surgery
• Male physicians: 2,629 (92.2 percent)
• Female physicians: 223 (7.8 percent)


Source: Association of American Medical Colleges; 2012 Physician Specialty Data Book (most recently released public figures)

Then you completely misunderstood my point. My Point is:

"Applying strength penalty to human females is not sexisim but realism."

I also want to clear more points since obviously it was not quite well understood.

1. I do not, in any way, think males are better or females are worse. That's actually why I help women more with their education. We need more women in everywhere but first we need to understand what is what.

2. I understand your attempt to equal women but that does not in anyway contradict my verdict. Your suggestion actually makes sense but that was not my point. I was just trying to make empathy with people who created the first D&D.

So again, thinking REALISTICALLY, would you say that women deserve a bonus in any such ability scores? (STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS, CHA). I am ready to discuss if you can actually say that women are in general better than men in any of those stats.

I believe they are not but that does not prove that women are the weaker gender but actually proves that those stats are not enough (weak) in order to properly define a human being.

I want to add something extra to my example 2 above: Yes, at that time I only hired men. But that wasn't because I was against women but because that was what was offered to me. Later, I worked with amazing IT women that I can proudly and selflessly say that were even better than me and I learned a lot from them. So by any means I did not mean that Women can not be in IT business or any other business that is related to computer or engineering.

To equate medicine with healing demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of both healing and medicine. Investing trillions of dollars in the development of treatments for preventable illness is madness, and rather than enhance quality of life, it diminishes it for all but a very few.

I was addressing the inability of the listed abilities to adequately reflect the female archetype. I agree with you that equality re opportunity should not guarantee equality re outcomes; rather, I think the female perspective should have greater influence in determining the values within the division of labor.

My point is that whether it's realistic doesn't actually matter. Many mechanics that would be realistic are not included in the game (bathroom trips), or are unused or simplified by the majority of players (encumbrace; who wants to track the wait of every single object the PCs are carrying (to say nothing of doing this for every single NPC?)).

Also, having something be realistic doesn't make it not sexist.

Another point:
The PCs are supposed to be the exceptional heroes. So, why can't a PC play a strong female warrior who is as strong as her male counterparts? (Again, such a player can in the BG series, and in any edition of (A)D&D other than 1e.)

[tw: rape for this paragraph, yes really] If you want to see an example of realism taken to the extreme with a dash of sexism (worse that 1e AD&D) and sexual content, you could check out FATAL, though there is a good reason why that game is considered horrible among tabletop role players (it might be the ET or Big Rigs of tabletop role-playing). That game doesn't just stop at penalizing female character's strength; they also get worse intelligence, of all things. Also, the game has rules for rape (yes, really, and hence why I need the trigger warning), and the rulebooks have slurs in them. If you are designing an RPG system, you do *not* want to model your system off of FATAL.

Yeah, all doctors are evil and medicine is a hoax. Things were better when we had saintly midwives leeching the ill humors from our temperaments to put us back in balance. I'm pretty sure penicillin and insulin are tools of the illuminati.

Took me a minute to puzzle through "tw", at first I thought you were saying "to wit." Then I read on and saw it was "trigger warning" and I was immediately made exhausted. Again.

This fellow has just the thing for your "exhaustion", m8.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftDGcCbkeH4

Pharma has chemical alternatives, too; in fact, it has so many "answers" for what ails us that the medical "profession" allows it to write the medical texts.

GE, which is heavily invested in the nuclear power industry, is also invested in devices used for the detection of cancer. How's that for "bringing good things to life"?

Good for it's bottom line, anyway. o.O

Good God, I was being sarcastic. I didn't realize you were an actual anti-medicine nutjob. So, let me get this straight. Of the variety of "non-healer medicine professionals that lower the quality of life for all but a few", how do you possibly justify that outlook on say... neurosurgeons? What's their big racket? Faking brain aneurysms in patients to operate on? What about emergency medicine? It turns out that kid in a car crash could've walked it off? Naturally, Plastic Surgery is an obvious scam. Burn victims and amputees will find everything grows back like a lizard without "Big Pharma" pumping them full of skin grafts.

You're not being sarcastic, you're unthinking. If you weren't, you'd understand that reality consists of good *and* bad, not one or the other. Everyone and everything is a mixed bag -- always. So no, I don't consider medicine to be entirely flawed, but I do consider it to be deeply flawed, as it has shown time and again to be more concerned with profit than with healing.

"men don't heal!"
"here's evidence that the majority of healers are men"
"the medical field has nothing to do with healing, derp!"
"in what possible way does it not?"
"well, uh, big corporations fund cancer research so all medicine is a scam!"
"really? these legitimate subsections of medicine are scams? how?"
"I'm backpedaling and claiming there's good and bad and that medicine can be healing but also pretending like I was setting out from the beginning to make a deep philosophical statement about the nature of greed and NOT just being argumentative because your info blew my objectively wrong statement out of the water in the beginning :DDD"

Unthinking... that's exactly the term I'd use. Well, with your goalposts flying around all over the place and no cognizant point being made whatsoever, I think it's pretty clear we're at a point of you posting just to post. On the plus side, I thought it was going to be dtgreene making some incomprehensible social point that would cause me to pinch the bridge of my noise and wonder where public education had failed us.

Not this time. A challenger arose.

If you have to rewrite what I said, perhaps you ought to call *yourself* out for being a disengenuous lout that likes to project his defects onto people who disagree with him?

Fifty years ago bogus medical research blamed fat for health concerns related to the intake of sugar...

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat

And it hasn't stopped...

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/coca-cola-funds-scientists-who-shift-blame-for-obesity-away-from-bad-diets/

So much for the Hippocratic Oath.

Alright. If medicine isn't "healing" as defined literally only by you, what profession is? You claim there're superior female "healers" and that medicine doesn't count? What profession are we looking at here then? Where is this female dominance represented at anywhere besides your head?

Actually, nevermind. I know better than to reply.