A somewhat controversial thread about Demacian culture and petricide.

Blood Magicks··23 votes·4,156 views

This concerns Lux and Xin Zhao, but most importantly Fiora. Note I'm not trying to push any ideology, just analyze a faction.

https://i.imgur.com/QyD7TJK.jpg

Reading her lore we encounter various insights into Demacian tradition and how Demacian men treat their women, for example:

Many suspect Fiora herself puts every suitor through an impossible gauntlet of courtship in order to remain aloof and unmarried, for a wife would, traditionally, relinquish power to her husband.

Many lore fans, for example GedweyStenr have noticed this (see his post in the fanon thread ). It's not only Fiora's lore that hints at how terribly backwards Demacians are: we also have Lux living in fear of her own brother and Xin never feeling accepted in the kingdom, despite spending his life serving it.

So why are Demacians so sexist? It makes sense that they reflect Medieval Europeans and hence act like them. But then so do Noxians, and every medieval society, even historically the Far East (here corresponding to Ionia) treated its women terribly. I thought long and hard about why that contrast came to be, why even a militaristic society like Noxus respects its women:

Anyone can rise to a position of power and respect within Noxus if they display the necessary aptitude, regardless of social standing, background, homeland, or wealth.

I think the answer here is that Demacia feels so familiar to our own medieval history because like our own world, it is devoid of magic.

The major difference between Demacia and the surrounding states is that the entire city is built of a magic dampening material (petricite). This means the mages living there could only use their powers to a fraction of their efficiency. So in the absence of magic in a primitive society, who was the grand arbiter? Physical force, of course. Hence men, being far stronger on average, could subdue and control women for centuries, even before civilisation, even before culture and chivalry demanded them to respect women slightly more.

Compare that to Noxus and Ionia where mages were allowed to live with freedom and dignity and could run the show. There are incredibly powerful women in all of them (LeBlanc in Noxus, Karma and Irelia in Ionia), whereas in Demacia it's all men running the show. The difference is, of course, that in those states no man could assume a random woman would be easy prey, no matter how powerful, as even the strongest warrior could end up scorched, cursed or zapped. Just look at the amount of power concentrated in someone as young as Annie (Noxian).

I feel how common magical power was outside Demacia inspired a new notion of strenght in Ionia and Noxus, a definition of worth that came from within a person rather than from their force and masculinity. It is what helped Noxus become a culturally inclusive egalitarian empire. While Demacia was doomed to repeat the mistakes of our own world, the upcoming Noxus update will be a glimpse into a society that evolved to see people differently. I cannot wait.

PS Can any Lore person come round and confirm if my guess is legit? The contest story I'm writing right now sort of rests on that notion.

EDIT: Yes it should be petricite, my bad.

114 Comments

HonestJohnTheCon20 votes

Saw Fiora in the thumbnail, and "petricide", and I thought this was a misspelling of patricide, because Fiora killed her father.

:/

GhaelWinds13 votes

(Quick correction it's petricite.)

Yes I do think that Demacia is sexist in its views. Furthermore the idea that it is because of the lack of magic hadn't even crosses my mind and while I was loath to believe that at first I think I am coming to agree.

Another Demacian gal we tend to forget about a lot is Quinn. In Quinn's lore she wanted to be a part of Demacia's military force but was always assumed to fail because she was a weak woman. Quinn had to prove herself twice as much as her male counterparts to even be accepted into the elite group. This again leads to the idea that the physical is what is important to them when it comes to social standing.

This bit is a very small part of it, but one if the only other female leadership roles you see in Demacia is in Lux's story with the woman that ran the Lightbringers in that town. Now if I'm getting this correct (and this is a bit of a logic leap) but the Lightbringers are an effective religious nunnery. Another tool that was used in the past for control over women was in fact religion. The Catholic church or even Hinduism/Islamic were always sexist and were used a means to control. In the way of the Catholic church this meant giving them a convent to run and do charity work just like how you see in Lux's story. The root of the sexism in Demacia does very much in deed seem to parallel our own history.

There is also the fact that Demacia is insular. Historically, change is brought through with an increase in immigration or technological progress. Demacia has been in its own little bubble not dealing any trade with outsiders and not getting any immigrants to spread different ideas the entire time. They are very akin to Japan when they shut off their borders and were completely self-reliant. They were in isolationism for ~200-300 yrs. When the West had finally opened up their borders with a threat, we found that Japan had changed little of its culture or technology all that time. The same follows for Demacia.

However, I feel the only problem with calling this actually canon is the problem that Fiora's lore is generally outdated. She didn't get a lore update with the Demacian clan. This makes the most prominent source of evidence for this quite possibly not even true anymore. I do whole-heartedly hope that Riot continues in the direction this thread has analysed for the sole sake of literary diversity.

Blood Magicks3 votes

(Quick correction it's petricite.)

Thanks for the correction, I was spelling it wrong for ages item 3070

However, I feel the only problem with calling this actually canon is the problem that Fiora's lore is generally outdated. She didn't get a lore update with the Demacian clan. This makes the most prominent source of evidence for this quite possibly not even true anymore. I do whole-heartedly hope that Riot continues in the direction this thread has analysed for the sole sake of literary diversity.

It isn't that outdated. It was done after the retcon hence I feel it's mostly canon. I do hope it stays that way and Riot doesn't try to shoehorn equality into Demacia, because it doesn't belong there.

Valor Bot19 votes

Quinn being female may be one of the reasons the Demacian military initially turned her down, but I think it was primarily because she lacked the many years of training required to join. Her lore doesn't mention gender being a factor in the decision, at least.

GhaelWinds2 votes

I just read through it again and what you say is more accurate in that regard. Dang I was filling a lot of weird holes in my head.

Dokueki Kenshin1 votes

That doesn’t necessarily mean you’re wrong, though. It would be interesting, of course, if we found that Demacia was more accepting of feminine strength than first assumed (honestly, I found the whole Lightbringers organization to instead be magical Shadow Ops, using whatever means necessary, even magic, to protect Demacia from external mystical threats whilst simply being disguised as a religious organization), but simply because it’s not mentioned explicitly doesn’t mean the prejudice isn’t there.

If we do indeed find that feminine strength is still respected, however, that would also be cool, since that would be an homage to traditional samurai families. Whenever the lord of a house was out in service to the daimyo, women were in charge of the home, and they were even charged with the defense of the home and the management of any home businesses and land. It would also make sense in regards to Quinn and Fiora’s lore.

ForgottenLuck4 votes

A couple things I feel should be mentioned. I agree that the army might have looked down on her a bit for being a woman, but do remember they also looked down on her for being a commoner and not of noble birth, this was actually a bit more highlighted in her lore as the main reason rather than just being a woman.

Shyvanna allies herself with Demacia and was never really looked down by the people of Demacia for being a woman but more for her correlation with magic, J4 never questioned her ability to fight just by who she is and even hold her in high regards.

In the short story about J4, we see that one of the generals he is talking to is a woman, so it does also show that they are capable of having a high position.

In Garen's and Lux's short story, of nightmares, one of the heroes under Garen's command was also a female, twin with another one, showing how they can reach a high position even they deem worthy.

Now I ain't saying Demacia does not have its sexist problems but it might not be as awful as one makes it.

GhaelWinds2 votes

That's all true. Sexism can appear in many forms. The one I see most from Demacia is the doubting that a woman can do as much. Riot never writes the most expansive lore and I wish they would so we can explore this topic thoroughly.

Beyond Legends2 votes

Fiora lore isn't outdated

GhaelWinds3 votes

It's outdated by the fact that it hasn't been updated with the new universe and to be in line with the new Demacia update. There's nothing wrong with it that contradicts, but it's not as canon as Lux's lore if that makes sense.

Beyond Legends7 votes

What? Fiora lore was updated before Demacia lore update. Her current story is canon

GhaelWinds3 votes

It was canon before the Demacia update but since it wasn't updated that makes it not as canon as something like Lux's. It's still technically canon, yes, but in reality it might not coincide with Riot's current view of Demacia. Her lore was updated for when they did her VGU after they retconned the League/Summoners/Institute of War but that time of Riot's lore is far different than what we have now with all the new Universe Stories. Riot has a habit of retconning random things and having other stories/bios not quite relate to their current view of their world.

Beyond Legends4 votes

They didn't updated because it didn't need to be updated... Also when has riot did any retcon with their current lore post IOW

GhaelWinds2 votes

They gave a lot of people placeholder lore (fiddlesticks/jax/kayle/morgana) and just recently went through it all. Riot has always had a problem of lore not matching up perfectly.

Sexy Jack Rabbit3 votes

Fiora's lore was updated when she was reworked. Which occured after the Retcon. Therefore her lore is canon and not in need of updating.

SpecterVonBaren3 votes

{quoted}

The Catholic church or even Hinduism/Islamic were always sexist and were used a means to control. In the way of the Catholic church this meant giving them a convent to run and do charity work just like how you see in Lux's story.

Uhhhh.... Someone hasn't been doing their history.

GhaelWinds1 votes

Explain?

SpecterVonBaren2 votes

Uhhhh.... Those religious groups were not in fact always sexist and were not just used as a means of control?

GhaelWinds2 votes

Correct. They were always sexist and were used as a form of control on women. It wasn't exclusively used as control ofc I wasn't arguing that. There is nothing wrong with my earlier statement for that.

Atanchan2 votes

[{quoted}](name=Blood Magicks,realm=EUW,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=UEmdhvyO,comment-id=,timestamp=2017-11-18T18:01:23.951+0000)

Hence men, being far stronger on average, could subdue and control women for centuries

On one hand, this where the argument pretty much falls apart, but on the other, the fact that this appears in an argument that tries not to be sexist really kinda builds it back up.

Shame a population for trying to be physically strong and fit, and of course they're going to be "weaker on average" because the average isn't going to want to deal with that social pressure. So while the actual difference in strength can't be the reason, the perceived difference in strength could propagate the sexism further. As we see in this very post.

Blood Magicks14 votes

If sexual dimorphism in Runeterra is anything like in our world, and judging by character heights and weights it is, peak female strength will never be as much as peak male strength, assuming same training and diet.

I don't think it's sexist to state that, but feel free to convince me.

Atanchan1 votes

It's sexist to assume that this matters and act on it.

Like, let's say someone's lift is 3054lb and a 3051lb. One is unambiguously stronger than the other, no? But it'd be absurd to section off the latter from competing with the former, even if it's caused entirely by genetics, because the difference is completely insignificant.

Not to mention that the entire "men are naturally stronger than women" is based entirely on research of a world heavily impacted by sexism in the first place, so it's pretty useless.

Blood Magicks7 votes

Like, let's say someone's lift is 3054lb and a 3051lb. One is unambiguously stronger than the other, no? But it'd be absurd to section off the latter from competing with the former, even if it's caused entirely by genetics, because the difference is completely insignificant.

Strength differences between sexes are way more extreme than that in the real world. See this article: http://jap.physiology.org/content/83/5/1581.full for data showing even the strongest women are weaker than the average man.

Not to mention that the entire "men are naturally stronger than women" is based entirely on research of a world heavily impacted by sexism in the first place, so it's pretty useless.

So you're saying that the biology was formed by culture and not the other way around? The female mantis being larger and stronger than the male mantis is entirely based on mantis culture?

Atanchan2 votes

What I'm getting from this is that you still think the universe rotates around the Earth, because human science is perfect and can never be completely fucked with by culture.

The steam life2 votes

No what he's saying is that there have been studies and that generally in our day and age we know how to conduct it so that there are minimal variables getting in the way. Based on your total exaggeration of his point I could also say you think every study done on a controversial statement is falsified and that all males and females act look and are the same in every way if there were no outside factors. Theres nothing wrong with saying women have naturally less muscle mass than men just as there is nothing wrong with saying males and females have naturally different biological structures that cause us to act and perform in certain ways.

Also I like how you had no counterarguement to his mantis point and just went immediately to insulting him like wow good one you really got him with that and then basically questioned his scientific knowledge and science in general when up to this point hes given a ton of facts and all you've supplied are your opinions and assumptions

Atanchan1 votes

[{quoted}](name=The steam life,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=UEmdhvyO,comment-id=000600000000000000000001,timestamp=2017-11-19T18:25:17.608+0000)

No what he's saying is that there have been studies and that generally in our day and age we know how to conduct it so that there are minimal variables getting in the way.

We still have a major variable in the way, though: we're stuck with humans doing the research, and humans raised up in a culture that influences their view of the world incredibly.

[{quoted}](name=The steam life,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=UEmdhvyO,comment-id=000600000000000000000001,timestamp=2017-11-19T18:25:17.608+0000)

basically questioned his scientific knowledge and science in general when up to this point hes given a ton of facts and all you've supplied are your opinions and assumptions

I mean, you're only giving me more reason to question his and your's scientific knowledge, since you seem to be under the impression that modern sciences don't fall under all the same pitfalls intrinsic to older sciences. Facts as we define them don't really exist - we just flat-out don't have the ability to understand the universe in such a way that we can truly find out the facts about it over just making really educated guesses.

The steam life5 votes

We still have a major variable in the way, though: we're stuck with humans doing the research, and humans raised up in a culture that influences their view of the world incredibly.

I mean, you're only giving me more reason to question his and your's scientific knowledge, since you seem to be under the impression that modern sciences don't fall under all the same pitfalls intrinsic to older sciences. Facts as we define them don't really exist - we just flat-out don't have the ability to understand the universe in such a way that we can truly find out the facts about it over just making really educated guesses.

I really dont think you understand how studies work, opinions dont affect data. If I thought my class had low iq's and made them take an iq test that wouldnt affect the results

In regards to your second point thats just stupid and you know it. Our understanding of the world is mostly correct or we wouldnt be able to create things like computers. They are based on theories on how electrons move and how they can be influenced and interact with elements and if our theory didnt really exist then we wouldnt have the tech we have now. Youre honestly just speaking nonsense and its kind of funny. In addition, we dont have the the same pitfalls as ancient science because we can actually prove and test things with the technologies we created. For instance, before they had to go based on star movements and came to the wrong conclusion but we can actually see the planets now and we know for a fact that we are in a heliocentric solar system.

Unless of course youre going for the arguement that nothing is real and were all in like some thought bubble in which case??? Or you might be thinking theres always a chance that something could be different from how we percieve it, in which case you are going for the 0.00000000001% arguement so just... why

Atanchan1 votes

[{quoted}](name=The steam life,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=UEmdhvyO,comment-id=00060000000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2017-11-19T19:59:35.249+0000)

Our understanding of the world is mostly correct

This is where you've lost me in why you're arguing against me, because you've just admitted I'm right.

Yes, we're a lot closer to what's really factual than we were in the past. No, that doesn't mean we can take that knowledge as fact, because it's still only what we currently understand of the universe. We make new discoveries that contradict sciences that were taken as indisputable all the time.

Based on your examples, I feel like you've under the assumption that humanity is perfect and can do no wrong, unintentionally or not. But really, if you misplace a 0 when writing down the results of that IQ test ( also, side note, do you really want to bring up IQ when talking about our flawed sciences ), you've affected the results. If you have a grudge against someone and slash their results in half, you've affected the results. If you take an IQ test of third graders and compare it to the highest IQs of all times, you've affected the results - not in the numbers, sure, but in what people interpret from them.

There's plenty of ways studies can be flawed and their results very questionable, and unless we can remove the human element from them then they'll always be.

Berserknurple1 votes

Ok, I understand your argument about how internal biases can affect studies. Unfortunately, in this particular instance it doesn't apply. You're basically arguing that men can also give birth because biological studies are subject to gender discrimination.

We are different. It's very well-known biology. Sexual dimorphism is incredibly common in species around the world. Humans don't have as big of a disparity as say, walruses (males have 800lbs of additional mass on average) but we still have that disparity.

Let me ask you a few questions:

Do you agree that the average male is taller than the average female?

Do you agree that the average male weighs more than the average female?

The answer to both of those should be yes, because it's well-documented and I'm sure you've noticed this anecdotally. A taller, heavier person will be stronger than a smaller one barring intense training.

Already you should understand that men are on AVERAGE stronger than women (note that this doesn't mean some women can't be stronger than some men)

BUT men have other advantages. Men have greater vasculature in their extremities which means they can cycle blood more efficiently through large muscle groups, important to any physical actions. Testosterone means men will naturally grow larger muscles than women, even with little to no exercise. Male bone structure is denser, and hips don't need to be shaped to accomodate birth.

If this won't convince you, let's go to anecdotes. Personally, my girlfriend is a very intense powerlifter. She works out multiple times a day of heavy lifting. I work out 2-3 times a week, or less. If we wrestle I can easily overpower her. I lift larger weight than she does. I have visually larger muscles. I weigh 60 lbs more than her, and I'm only 3 inches taller. None of that is because I'm working harder than her.

Or take a look at the Olympics. These are people at the very top of their game, they are training as much as is physically possible for humans to do. Yet men's times and men's weight are almost always significantly better than women's.

This doesn't mean men are better. It's not sexist, it's just biology. In the world we live in today, these physical differences mean almost nothing and the cultural differences mean everything. Cultural differences encompassing the patriarchy and inherent sexism in the system.

Atanchan1 votes

{quoted}

A taller, heavier person will be stronger than a smaller one barring intense training.

No, they'll be more massive, as in literally having more mass. Which means they'll be able to resist force more easily, as well as passively put more weight on something just by being on top of them, but it means nothing in terms of actively exerting force.

{quoted}

If this won't convince you, let's go to anecdotes. Personally, my girlfriend is a very intense powerlifter. She works out multiple times a day of heavy lifting. I work out 2-3 times a week, or less. If we wrestle I can easily overpower her. I lift larger weight than she does. I have visually larger muscles. I weigh 60 lbs more than her, and I'm only 3 inches taller. None of that is because I'm working harder than her.

Or take a look at the Olympics. These are people at the very top of their game, they are training as much as is physically possible for humans to do. Yet men's times and men's weight are almost always significantly better than women's.

And this specifically means that men are stronger than women? It can't possibly be because of anything else, either related to other parts of the genes, individual health, or inhibitions due to culture?

The only reason why you jump at the "men are stronger than women" explanation is because you've been fed it your entire life without questioning it. You're banking on that by default without diving deeper in what other factors there could be. That's exactly what I'm talking about with those internal biases.

Berserknurple3 votes

We’re talking about averages here. All things equal, a taller, heavier person will be quite literally stronger. They are larger, so their muscles are larger. This is basic stuff. They weigh more and their muscles have to be capable of normal function, which requires them to be stronger.

The male Walrus that has 800 lbs. of mass (mostly muscle) on the female is unquestionably stronger.

And no, the reason I believe this is because I literally study anatomy and biology as part of my job.

Again, men are stronger on AVERAGE, that’s the point we are making here. If someone quite literally has a larger bicep than you, AND has better vasculature to supply blood (I have dissected cadavers and personally see this, it’s not bias), they will be able to pull more weight, for longer than you. There is no way around that.

Testosterone is extremely well-understood. Trans-men undergoing hormone therapy become stronger and gain muscle mass because of it. This is well documented and well known. If we didn’t understand chemical receptors as well as we do, 90% of medicines would be ineffectual.

It’s incredibly insulting to woman athletes that you are implying they just “aren’t trying hard enough” to accomplish what male athletes can. These women don’t train less than men. They don’t put in less work. They aren’t even any less genetically gifted. These are the best of the best.

Implying some kind of “mental block” prevents them from excelling is so backwards and thickheaded I’m having trouble taking you seriously. These athletes don’t give a damn about cultural inhibitions. Many aren’t beautiful. They don’t care. Their lives are dedicated to very specific physical feats.

Keep in mind that the pool of athletes is very large, even for women. Individual differences can’t account for the marked differences in averages. The correlation between gender and averages is so close. It comes down to biology.

If you can provide any evidence that there is another factor at work here, you’d likely get a Nobel.

Atanchan1 votes

{quoted}

We’re talking about averages here. All things equal, a taller, heavier person will be quite literally stronger. They are larger, so their muscles are larger. This is basic stuff. They weigh more and their muscles have to be capable of normal function, which requires them to be stronger.

And they also get a lot less shit when they try to opt into physical things. Again, jumping at something you've been fed your entire life when there are tons of factors right in front of you that you actively refuse to consider. Like,

{quoted}

And no, the reason I believe this is because I literally study anatomy and biology as part of my job.

I don't know if this is saying you're a researcher or just someone who keeps up with every new discovery in those fields, but if it's the former, you've justified my questioning incredibly well as you're the perfect example of someone who goes forward trying to prove something without also trying to disprove every other factor to it. That's exactly an internal bias affecting studies.

{quoted}

Testosterone is extremely well-understood. Trans-men undergoing hormone therapy become stronger and gain muscle mass because of it. This is well documented and well known. If we didn’t understand chemical receptors as well as we do, 90% of medicines would be ineffectual.

And that's a really good reason to think that men aren't stronger than women, just because of how malleable the human body is. I mean, it's not like hormone treatment isn't a fairly common thing in women to treat post-menopausal symptoms and such, so utilizing it to promote muscle growth doesn't seem like too big of a stretch. Raw testosterone would bring up too many issues, of course, but we utilize artificial hormones in fields like food production all the time to do what natural ones are unsuitable for - it's not a stretch to assume testosterone's effect on muscles and bones can't be replicated without dragging in heaps of its other effects on the body.

{quoted}

Implying some kind of “mental block” prevents them from excelling is so backwards and thickheaded I’m having trouble taking you seriously. These athletes don’t give a damn about cultural inhibitions. Many aren’t beautiful. They don’t care. Their lives are dedicated to very specific physical feats.

Gov, you're going to have to change the world so that a majority of women don't get society's toxic norms buried into their heads and forced to listen to them the entirety of their life to dismiss this. The human mind is too complicated to take someone's "I don't care" at face value, considering that can easily mean "I don't think I care, but it really eats away at me in the back of my mind every time I lay down at night."

Especially considering that they can't admit this, at least not to the public. They have to appear as strong as possible both physically and mentally to justify themselves being there.

You really have too high of an opinion of humans, to be honest, considering you're insulted that I'm insinuated that people would have issues in a world that fights against them. Like, seriously, who wouldn't have issues when they have such goal posts to reach that people like you don't think they'll even come close to?

The steam life2 votes

No what he's saying is that its idiotic to assume that any olympic athlete cares enough about some persons opinion on looks to warrent them not working as hard as men towards their goals. Their entire purpose is working towards that goal and a little societal pressure isnt going to stop them. I dont even know how you have this opinion.

You keep talking about how people don't include outside factors WHEN YOU DISREGARD EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE AND FACT THAT WE THROW AT YOU AND YOUR COMEBACK IS AN OPINION. Seriously we know that testosterone builds muscle, that is a 100% certifiable fact. We also know that men have more of it meaning they build muscle easier. We also know that women were built to have different uses than men. As they are the child bearer they needed as wider hips as beserk said. They have weaker bones and have different hormones that do not help build muscle. Theres no way youre gonna tell me that societal pressure changes the entirety of biological structure and influences which hormone we create.

It's not sexist to assume these things to be true which is why I assume youre arguing they just are. Woman are way better at other things they are less agressive can spot the differences in color better and are more patient than men. This is because its genetically unimportant to waste energy (which muscles do) when you basically have to stay at home for however many months with a baby and then raising a child. You couldn't have a dad take care of a child because thats not what our tribal purpose used to be. Men would hunt and explore and women would.

Its the same reason we lose muscle mass when we dont exercise because if you arent using them they take up energy that sometimes you cant spare. In conclusion, just dont assume it has to be that its society that has us believing this because if you truly 100% believe what you are saying then nothing will change your mind because all the facts we use in your mind will be biased and pointless. Opinions never come to reasonable discussion.

Thefrostyviking1 votes

Except the studies of genetics and stuff is already pretty advanced,

And it had been confirmed that if a man and a woman, eating the same stuff and doing the same training will end up with the man being stronger.

Because genes.

It's the result of evolution, it has been mainly the males hunting and doing heavy lifting since the stone age and it was the primary system going from the dang bronze age to the middle/end of the industrial age.

We're talking several thousands years here, if it wasn't already clear, and i am fairly sure that animals have evolved with less time.

Heck, even when some american elite army group opened up for women they had to make the intro test easier because it was too difficult for women, because it was made for the average military man at the physical peak.

And the 2 who did the test still came out completely exhausted, while men who did the easier version came out tired and sore but still able to keep going.

Despite the fact that the men and women who did the test had eaten basically the same food while in the army and had the same training for a few years up until that point, and still the men came out of it a noticeable lot stronger.

Nope fact is, that due to the gender roles enforced since the time monkeys were still busy evolving men and women have evolved slightly differently.

With men having a advantage in physical strength, due to their lifestyles and the lifestyles of a hundred thousand generations of ancestors.

Men also have it easier to build muscle while training when in their teens(and a little bit later as well), due to hormones and other things, because genetics.

So yes, men posses a greater magnitude of brute physical strength, we also tend to be taller and heavier due to this.

While women, seems to have evolved to have a better sense of pacing and movement efficiency when running&moving, among other things but this for the physical aspect.

If you have complaints you can invent a time machine and go back to the first humans and tell them their idea of how to do stuff is wrong and that they should work on a equality system.....provided you find a way to communicate with them.

I myself am just rather thankful we aren't in a society where social status is based of physical strength, due to problems with my lungs.

Thus it makes sense, that Demacian's in league, a society heavily inspired by the medical dark ages, would be quite sexist and biased towards men.

Because in a society ruled by warriors and knights the most important thing after wealth is physical ability, which is why they look down on Fiora so much despite her being a skilled fencer and wealthy noble.

Because in a real fight she´d stand no chance at all in beating something like a fully armored knight, for she could never wear a equally good armor and she could never swing a equally heavy weapon.

That is how muscle headed medieval men judge a persons worth :(

Atanchan1 votes

I'm inclined to believe that your evidence is pretty damn uselessly biased.

See, you can say that it's genetics that the current strongest women aren't as powerful as the current strongest men, but you're forgetting to factor in that the current cultural landscape considers strong women ugly and ugly women worthless pieces of shit that deserve to be endlessly mocked and ignored until they develop serious self-esteem issues and start believing that, too. That's a pretty significant issue with any sort of practical evidence to your case, before you even factor in the fact that women rarely have to compete with men physically in the first place and the avenues for them to do so only just opened up recently.

It's not like when competitions of raw strength first began that there were suddenly people just as strong as Aleksey Lovchev stepping up. If anything, this is pretty comparable to two people racing with one guy getting a handicap of starting 90% of the way through, then using the results as evidence for immutable physical superiority / inferiority of their kind.

Thefrostyviking1 votes

You seriously underestimate the dedication and willpower that people truly dedicated to sports posses.

Women considered ugly with too much muscle? As if men are not? When a man starts beefing up for real he'll start looking hella ugly by society's current standards, because that much muscle is considered aesthetically displeasing, very much so.

Men will not look like the male supermodels you see in movies when they are into heavy weights, nothing like that at all.

But still there are men and women who go into it and keep pressuring themselves like few others to reach the top and beyond, to archive their dreams and even leave their names behind in the history of their chosen sport. That or they just like the feeling of challenging themselves physically, some people do that.

Both men and women who go into that kinda deal for real know full well they´ll be become ugly looking by the end of it, they are by no means stupid.

And it has been scientifically proven, that men gain muscle and mass faster, and can hold more of it, its because we naturally produce more testosterone which in turn helps build more muscle and makes it stronger.

It's completely 100% certain that testosterone functions like that, because it's easy to observe and female scientists have worked on the subject as well their research came out with the same results.

Because of genetics, mainly the need for males to have muscle and endure stress to those muscles, so as a result of those genetics male muscle are about 5-10% "stronger" than a female muscle of equal size.

We also posses more skeletal muscle as well, this along with the testosterone is the reason why a man will end up with noticeably bigger muscle compared to a woman doing the same training.

So, men build muscle faster, muscle's are specialized in sudden power, and we can support more of it with less health issue's.

Women however, posses a few advantage's as well.

Their muscles and genes have evolved for endurance, recovery, and not at all surprising really, pain tolerance as well as movement efficiency.

So women are basically better at long time exercises like marathons and other similar stuff that require....well good endurance.

While men are better at stuff that requires a lot of explosive power, like wrestling, short distance runs, single time heavy weight lifting.

This is all science, science that women have participated and double and triple checked, and it has been proven true hundreds if not thousands of times by now.

You seriously think the female parts of the science world would ever take it lying down if the male ones went around claiming that women were weaker and build muscle slower if it was false?

Now the degree of difference in muscle power is small, the muscle building part is important and significant as is the womens superior recovery, and their ability to pace themselves near automatically.

Men and women are equal, but we are not exactly the same, accepting differences and working to ensure they don't get in the way of what's truly important is what people should focus on rather than futilely claiming that there is no difference and everything aside from that between the legs and chest size is exactly the same.

You can argue best you wish but a large part of these studies on genes were carried out by women, and/or inspected by them.

This kinda stuff would never go public in todays society if it were incorrect, anyone trying to spread it around it would face hell on earth dealing with the repressions.

Do you really believe anyone would be that stupid? Just for a lie that is easily proven false?

Atanchan1 votes

{quoted}

You seriously underestimate the dedication and willpower that people truly dedicated to sports posses.

You seriously overestimate the power of raw willpower, and this is coming from someone who loves shonen anime. You can't beat self-loathing and depression with willpower alone.

{quoted}

Women considered ugly with too much muscle? As if men are not? When a man starts beefing up for real he'll start looking hella ugly by society's current standards, because that much muscle is considered aesthetically displeasing, very much so.

Yes, but society doesn't peg men's worth on their looks. That's the major distinction

{quoted}

Do you really believe anyone would be that stupid? Just for a lie that is easily proven false?

We as a species are literally making the only planet we can inhabit uninhabitable just for paper we claim has any value.

Just to have that paper. Not to actually use it.

You really seem to have a poor grasp on how stupid humanity gets, and that's just for intentional grasps for power. The rabbit hole goes a lot deeper when you just go about assuming what they were raised to think as normal as being right.

Thefrostyviking2 votes

You seriously overestimate the power of raw willpower, and this is coming from someone who loves shonen anime. You can't beat self-loathing and depression with willpower alone.

They don't go on willpower alone, they have friends, family and other people will good sense to tell them it's alright to keep going even if they deviate from the general beauty standards of society, because that is how you have to go to reach the pinnacle of physically intensive sports.

Yes, but society doesn't peg men's worth on their looks. That's the major distinction

I don't know how you are doing over in america but if anyone tried pulling that shit in Sweden they´d be facing a lawsuit and a horde of angry feminists and another horde of reporters and police if you try to run.

We as a species are literally making the only planet we can inhabit uninhabitable just for paper we claim has any value.

We're doing it for a lot more than that, energy to warm our homes, keep our cities and societies functioning and a multitude of other things, good and bad, useless or needed.

Just to have that paper. Not to actually use it.

As far as i know the average American person doing work considered bad for nature does it not out of malice towards the world, they do it just to feed themselves and their families, to live.

At least, that's the average workers.

You really seem to have a poor grasp on how stupid humanity gets, and that's just for intentional grasps for power. The rabbit hole goes a lot deeper when you just go about assuming what they were raised to think as normal as being right.

And you underestimate how clever and driven people can be when they get focused, inspired.

Countless geniuses, scholars and inventors, years of dedication, work and sacrifice.

All for the sake of a few goals that to others looked small and insignificant, but changed the world when truly understood.

And while it's true that political games and power-struggles have caused oceans of strife and pain it's also true that in the past such things could be hidden, or in some case when tyrants forced their people to look the other way with force.

This world as we know it, the societies we live in, are built on the trial and error processes of those who came before us, they lived to the best of their ability and they passed down what they learned so we might avoid their mistakes and go forward.

But along with the wisdom we inherited we also got the poison, lifestyles we now know cause issue's, the usage of substances that cause's harm to nature and more.

However how many problems haven't been fixed? How many more are we not looking for solution to?

You need to cheer up a bit i think, for while it's true that people can be stupid,greedy and shortsighted the opposite, open minded, clever, generous and far sighted also exists.

If they didn't we'd still be in either the dark ages, the industrial revolution or a part of the third Reich.

But we are not, all manners of progress is faster than it has ever been, things are improving, both technological and social aspects.

So cheer up, become a scientist or donate to some and help&watch them change the world right in front of our eyes^^

And before you ask no, i am not a idealist or the type to close my eyes and pretend everythings alright.

But i recognize there is a limit to what i myself can do, and i also recognize how powerful the emotions of desire, ambition can be, just look at history and you can see what the ambition of a few can accomplish.

And when such ambition turns towards science, towards possible fame, riches and improvement for mankind all at once?

I don't really doubt that the scientists aren't capable of working hard, not even a little despite my general distrust and lack of faith.

For i truly do trust that people will follow their ambitions, be they small or great.

Atanchan1 votes

I realize I sound like I have no faith in humanity, but I do. It's just a matter that you really shouldn't neglect how incredibly flawed we are, especially nowadays when those flaws are causing so much damage so quickly and they really need to patched-up before nothing will have any faith in humanity.

Because we'll be gone. As well as everything that we know of that has even the slightest bit of intelligence.

Thefrostyviking3 votes

Flaws in character and perception can be overcome with knowledge, flaws in lifestyle can be overcome with alternatives and ....a lot of willpower.

Flaws in the foundations of society? Will need time but they do go away, even if slowly.

And the world will hopefully not end quite so fast, we´ll just end up really flooded here and there but maybe that will be a good wakeup call.

Particularly to the happy americans that seem to believe that global warming isn't real and doesn't exist because it still snows x)

A few lost cities would definately let them know it's very real, that or they would think someone's invading or performing terrorism,.....also seems possible given that Trump became president....

I just kinda feel bad for everyone that does understand that's it's very real and are trying to do just about anything about it x)

But i actually dont think we can end the world and most life on it without at least a few very strong bombs at the wrong spots.

At least not before someone invents solutions to the reasons to start such wars.......hopefully.

WTBeGirl100EUhr2 votes

Let me try to phrase this in a way you'll understand.

Empirical data is not affected by a person's world views. If you bother to read anything into the science done into this topic, you will find evidence which is as undeniably established as is possible with modern science. Studies where they take men and women who have similar lifestyles, get them to eat and exercise in specific manners. Through that they can measure muscular growth and see what differences there are between men and women. They can do this for a range of people from a range of lifestyles.

What's the result they find? Men build muscle more quickly, peak at higher muscular tissue and other things, presuming they lead the exact same lifestyle that the woman does not through a subjective opinion but with numerical data.

This means that societal views of women, the researcher's world views, and other bias do not factor in. You would be absolutely correct to state that a societal view that discourages women from becoming strong would cause the average woman to be weaker. You would be wrong to state that a woman living an identical lifestyle will be weaker because society.

This does not mean that a woman is incapable of matching or surpassing a man in terms of strength or any other metric you wish to use. What it means is that a woman is at a biological disadvantage that will require her to work harder. This means that for the people in the top 0.0001% - women who I assure you do not care about society not finding them pretty - who cannot work any harder, the man will end up stronger.

And it's not sexist to say that. Sexual dimorphism exists, both in this and in other things. After all, you aren't going to state that the reason guys don't naturally develop breasts is due to our culture, right?

Atanchan1 votes

{quoted}

This means that societal views of women, the researcher's world views, and other bias do not factor in.

Perhaps this would be true if everyone on the planet could sit an observe that the study is 100% mirrored, the data is put down 100% correctly, and the subjects are 100% comparable within what's reasonable ( read: obviously, the groups would have to be different sexes, but what about metabolism, medical conditions, and genetics regarding muscle growth? )

But no, there are so many factors both out of and in the researcher's hands that are free to flub the results. Hell, we're only getting the researchers' interpretations of the results. This doesn't even have to be intentional misinterpretation for personal gain - but even the intentional stuff only gets called into question if there are people who disagree enough to do so in the first place.

{quoted}

And it's not sexist to say that. Sexual dimorphism exists, both in this and in other things. After all, you aren't going to state that the reason guys don't naturally develop breasts is due to our culture, right?

Guys do develop breasts, though.

Like ... that's not even an uncommon thing.

Destínum3 votes

After reading through this entire conversation; Did you actually go to school or do you just get your ideology straight from tumblr? Because denying that men are on average physically stronger than women is just ridiculous.

Just god damn look at the average man compared to the average woman. Notice that height and overall size difference? Yeah, that's not just for show.

Atanchan1 votes

Gov, at least try to make an argument like the others that isn't instantly destroyed by the fact that people can be fat and tall with little muscle, while others can be thin and short with a lot of it.

Destínum3 votes

Don't really need to make an argument, because pretty much everything has been said.

Statistics saying one thing overwhelmingly speak for themselves.

Also, once again, if you're going to be that person and question everything just in case we're living in the matrix or something like that, literally just look at the people around you, like family, friends etc. It's not difficult to notice a trend.

Atanchan1 votes

{quoted}

Also, once again, if you're going to be that person and question everything just in case we're living in the matrix or something like that, literally just look at the people around you, like family, friends etc. It's not difficult to notice a trend.

... Y'do realize that anyone coming from a place with a culture that stems from matriarchal hunter roots would instantly make this implode, right?

Destínum2 votes

I do realize that no, they in fact would not. Cause that's not how sexual dimorphism work. Read up on it and you might realize everything isn't a social construct.

Am I going to be able to make you understand, or are you too stubborn to accept facts and reality? Because if it's the second, we're done here.

Border Knight1 votes

Man, i do also 'member when the amazon empire almost took over Europe, before the mighty Patriarchus Maschiubs took their power with a cunning and vile trick.

Oh w8, matriarchal society actually fell, becouse the moment men realize they re so weak compared to them, they topple as always, if not by inside, from an outside male based society when the strong wins, the weak perish.

You re still clinging to the individual case, it dosent matter, you can be the mighties warrior, but you re still going down if you get cornered and stabbed with spears and arrows.

You know the old saying, a chain is strong as the weakest link, thats why you try to reach an average in the armed forces instead os pushing for the absolute best (thats left for special forces), becouse a decent mass of soldiers will always win agasint strong warriors, who base their force on the individual, while the masses are the key to success, both in war and in buisness.

Atanchan1 votes

So, basically, what you're saying is that military might is literally entirely decided by raw force, and a particular society can only be taken over due to being too weak and not, say, because they have poorer resources, less advanced technology, a smaller military, or subpar tactics?

Border Knight1 votes

Such was the case for ancient history, before masses of cavalry, gunpowder and engines were invented.

Humans started at the same level, we suppose (unless we factor in biolgical difference between races) so yeah, the minimum common denominator was a bunch of bad dressed warriors leaded by the strongest one, but when there are enough people to creat an army host, then you have to start applying tactics that are more than "run in and smah it".

You can take a part in history and start the foundation of a new mighty nation, or you can be stuck in the past and get trampled by it, matriarchal society fall on the latter.

Another fun saying "brute force dosent work only when you dont apply enough of it".

More from Story, Art, & Sound

More by Blood Magicks