Like the DungeonMaster says, a lot of your argument is still based on a society that heavily promotes the feminization of girls. Girls are raised and innundated from birth with images of delicate, beautiful women going about preforming daily housewifey chores. Girls are not
given toy guns, ships, action figures, or pretty much anything related to martial combat. They are not raised to believe that they could or should be firemen, police officers, or enter the military (which, by the way, has strict rules regarding women's roles in combat and even basic service. It was just two years ago that the first female four-star general
was nominated). Girls are
discouraged from sports, in part because of sneers and derision from people like you (at least, you've sounded mocking in all your references to how you "don't watch/care for them"), and also because other girls, "popular" girls, aren't raised to praise and get into sports like boys are. Women are not raised to excel at math, and even dissuaded
from it quite strongly. Read some more about why arbitrarily assuming that preformance differences
are based on the inherent nature of gender is just stupid
There's also zero merit to women "choosing" caring professions because of some inherent desire- that's somehow greater than in men- to nuture or care. The positive reinforcement that women recieve from family and peers for saying that they "want" to do something in a caring profession is overwhelming. Many women are ob-gyns because, hey, guess what, a lot of women have vaginas
, and most women are generally more comfortable talking about their vagina with someone else
who also has a vagina. Here's some more data+articles
about the skewing of women towards certain degrees/their exclusion from the workforce
Basically, a lot of gender is just a social construct. I suppose that's probably my ultimate point here, but I really don't care to go and track down every source available about it. If you really care and actually want to understand the arguments, go pick up any book about it. They usually say a lot of the same things, along with numerous facts that most people aren't aware of, such as how some babies born as boys naturally develop into girls
, and while genetically male, most don't realize they're women
(oops this is supposed to say men
) until attempts at conception.
But that's really irrelevant. Sure, there ARE some basic, physiological differences, but they rarely affect anything other than the function of the body in day to day life. Here's
a good article with a line that sums a lot of gender construct up nicely. "You can’t generalise about men and women. Cultural differences are much bigger than gender differences. You need to specify what culture and what community within that culture... ...it is intriguing to people that there are differences, but people use it as a prop”.
Personally, (and this is just my own opinion here) the culture of Elegrost is very, very egalitarian, which is why it's so funny (at least to me) that a horde of A) monsters, B) monster-women thinks that they have to go and do battle in a righteous crusade through a C) already egalitarian land. I mean, just the fact that there was no outcry over a woman potentially becoming Queen(re: King) by winning the Melee would be evidence enough that it's not at all rare or unusual to see a woman in battle, and basic logic would indicate that there would a long, long history if women doing just that in the DnD realms.
Aside from that, though, the vast majority of older fantasy is written by men, ostensibly for men, and follows in the footsteps of Tolkien, who had all of, what, two female characters of note in his original Hobbit+Trilogy? I mean... come on.