Sam, take off the tinfoil hat. You're embarrassing yourself with this conspiracy crap.

1. Again, the Rebellion can't afford to be picky with it's members. The only reason we don't see child soldiers is because of moral implications in our RL societies.

2. There's like 6 people in this 'Rogue One' team. Only ONE is a woman. And she doesn't look like the 'soldier' or 'heavy weapons expert' of the group.

3. You act like we haven't seen weak women or flawless men before. I could name a dozen movies off the top of my head where the male lead is the epitome of humankind and a dozen more where a women is nothing more than goal to achieve.

4. Actually the story may have emotional conflicts (which is 'apparently a woman's strong suit...) since Jyn's father is one of the creators of the Death Star according to small script/casting leak.

5. How is Rey any better or worse than Luke was in A New Hope? Luke went from being a farm boy to blowing up a space station the size of a MOON which completely changed the tide of the Galactic Civil war while during his first time ever piloting an X-Wing in a few hours. What flaws did Luke have that Rey didn't?

6. Also you can't compare humans from Earth to the humans in the Star Wars universe who are practically aliens to us. Humans in Star Wars live in different cultures and even planets. Whose to say that women in the Star Wars universe can't equal the physical strength of their male peers in a universe where things like cyborg enhancements and the Force exist.

You know, all six of the original movies all centered around a whiny little *****. It just looks like Disney got rid of the whiny here.

Yea, the new flaw in Both arguments are "why would the rebellion trust a woman who is not a commando to do this job". Because you're talking about Star Wars, the movie that sent a kid that grew up on a farm shooting rats into the biggest military operation that their lives depended on.

So not only is the universe that you obviously love because you're on this forum built on silliness of that nature, but it also isn't that silly this time. Why? It's a Hiest movie from what I can tell. You never send the most capable in a Hiest movie, you never send an army, you send the person who has nothing to lose and everything to prove. You send your suicide team in, not to mention that I doubt they have many commandos other then the two weapons masters shown to be on her team.

And last, but not least, when it comes down to it, yes, biologically the XX and the XY create different biological variants. Men have been found to have a biologically stronger upper body, however, does this make them more physically capable? No. humanity is vast, it's diverse, and I honestly believe that women can do all the things men can do, even if they got to try harder. Men might have it easier, we always have had it easier, but it does not make us better. The times, they are a changing.

Wow this thread got really..."REAL" in the past 24 hrs. In the end, its Sci-Fi, so it can be whatever it wants. If Disney wants more woman heroes in SW, then thats what we are going to get. Remember, almost every Disney movie has some sort of main female character that has to drum up some sort of courage in the end to fight an evil villain. I dont see anyone complaining about that? And yes there is USUALLY a male main character that must do the same.

In the end, all I want is good writing, good action scenes, and some sort of actors/actresses that can act and show emotion to draw me in. I think thats why I dont care for the prequels. They have good action, some decent writing, but a lot of the acting is terrible.

Anyways, Im excited, Donnie freaking Yen is in it, so itll be some good fight scenes!!

And who doesnt think Forest Whitaker doesnt look the part of being the bad guy???

Now if a CGI of Robin Williams shows up as a Jedi Ghost screaming "GOOOODDDD MOORRRNNNIINNNNGGG ORD MANTELLLLL!!" then we might have a problem...

~D

The "men are more physically capable" argument is unfounded.

It is a physiological fact. You can believe your cultural nonsense all you want but don't bother telling it to an expert unless you want to get laughed at.

I have no idea what country you come from, bub, but the science doesn't back it up. Men and women are not interchangeable and their differences go quite a bit further than sex organs.

Yes Patrick, the physical differences between men and women make a female protagonist less suited to gruntysweatyactionshooty. So, the question is, why do they insist on casting them there? I would lay more money than I own that the story is not going to be about her overcoming her weaknesses. No, she's going to be like Rey, a mystical "grrl power!" character who is better than to boys at hand to hand combat and machinery she's never seen before by virtue of no other quality than her bearing a uterus and the fact that if she is portrayed as having ANY WEAKNESSES WHATSOEVER then there is going to be a lot of nasty letters from angry feminists.

Only males are allowed to be portrayed as flawed.

Gender differences are smaller than individual differences, so yes, men and women are "interchangeable" to a very large degree. The only time this isn't really true is for the biggest gender difference, size/strength, and then only at a professional level where you're only looking at the very top 0.001%

Rey was a ridiculous girl power character though. Never touched a gun, outshoots storm troopers, never touched a light saber, out fights a sith, never heard of force powers, uses an advanced technique first time and over powers a sith, never been in a space ship, knows the Aluminum Falcon better than Han Solo. Ugh, what a horrible bloody character. What makes her worse was she was coupled with "trained from birth to be a garbage man" Finn who betrays the rebellion to get a free ride to pick up a chick.

So why does Disney insist on casting women in roles where they have to be good at being men, rather than casting women in roles where they can be good at being women?

Because no one wants to watch a show about space knitting. They did cast Princess Leia and Mon Mothma as leaders of the rebellion, but that wasn't enough. What they really should have done is cast most of the pilots as women because that is exactly what they'd be good at while all the men were busy dying as echo base trooper running around with guns. But then every feminist would explode over the fact that women couldn't get the torpedo down the hole but a man could. So really, you can't win without casting everything but the villain as a man.

My problem with this is that it doesn't feel natural to me. It's similar to the Lego "Female Scientist" debacle of a few years ago. My wife is a neuroscience PhD. I know there are scientists that are women. So make the kit a "Scientist" kit. Promoting it as a "Female Scientist" only serves to call attention to the exact thing you are claiming to be fighting...

In this situation... sorry, it is unrealistic for a 5'3" wastrel to beat up armored men in droves. If children look up to this then you are giving them an empowering unrealistic expectation no worse than the mis-proportioned Barbie. Give kids real role models. Ellen Ripley didn't need to beat people up to be strong or a leader. Neither did Han Solo, Leia, or Mon Mothma.

Sorry Sam, but I'm with CheapCreep on this one. I don't see the problem with having 'another' female lead. Women are just as capable of being strong as men are.

Besides, I doubt there is any ulterior motive... its most likely just coincidental timing that we have 2 new female leads in 2 new Star Wars movies back to back.

I'm sorry but this is a ridiculous assertion if your definition of strong = physical strength. They are biologically incapable "of being strong as men are." I'm sure it will be taken as such, but this is not an attack against women. Simply an acknowledgement of biological fact. It isn't insulting to say a leopard doesn't swim as well as a shark.

Are you a man? I bet there is a woman out there in the world that could beat you up.

I rest my case.

And the day Ronda Rousey fights in the male MMA, I will consider your point valid. This isn't her beating up 5'3" men of similar weight due to skill. This is her throwing around armored soldiers. At least in real martial arts movies, the little Jet Li hero gets thrashed by one big guy for several minutes before finally winning based on skill.

The "men are more physically capable" argument is unfounded. Men in North American culture are raised to be physical by the societal rolls the culture puts them into. In cultures where women share the physical work with the men (Somoan) the women are just as physically capable, strong, and muscular as the men because they are raised to be equal.

Now, The role of genders in Westetn society are seeing a shift and media is showing that fact. I'm not American, but in my country women are on their way to being able to do whatever a man can do. I'm sorry if in America it's still an uncomfortable notion.

Dude... just no. This isn't about lifestyle or society. Women have slighter bone structure and different sex hormones which promote fat building rather than muscle building. Can women change their biologic predispositions to be stronger? Yes. Can they EVER compare to a male of similar height and weight? No. This is why sports are segregated, especially combat sports.

My problem with this is that it doesn't feel natural to me. It's similar to the Lego "Female Scientist" debacle of a few years ago. My wife is a neuroscience PhD. I know there are scientists that are women. So make the kit a "Scientist" kit. Promoting it as a "Female Scientist" only serves to call attention to the exact thing you are claiming to be fighting...

In this situation... sorry, it is unrealistic for a 5'3" wastrel to beat up armored men in droves. If children look up to this then you are giving them an empowering unrealistic expectation no worse than the mis-proportioned Barbie. Give kids real role models. Ellen Ripley didn't need to beat people up to be strong or a leader. Neither did Han Solo, Leia, or Mon Mothma.

Ellen Ripley in Alien is a great example of a great woman character. She didn't ever go toe-toe with the Xenomorph. She stayed alive through wits and courage, but she never fought it, and she saved her cat.

My problem with this is that it doesn't feel natural to me. It's similar to the Lego "Female Scientist" debacle of a few years ago. My wife is a neuroscience PhD. I know there are scientists that are women. So make the kit a "Scientist" kit. Promoting it as a "Female Scientist" only serves to call attention to the exact thing you are claiming to be fighting...

In this situation... sorry, it is unrealistic for a 5'3" wastrel to beat up armored men in droves. If children look up to this then you are giving them an empowering unrealistic expectation no worse than the mis-proportioned Barbie. Give kids real role models. Ellen Ripley didn't need to beat people up to be strong or a leader. Neither did Han Solo, Leia, or Mon Mothma.

Ellen Ripley in Alien is a great example of a great woman character. She didn't ever go toe-toe with the Xenomorph. She stayed alive through wits and courage, but she never fought it, and she saved her cat.

Amazing woman character that was *very much not "one of the guys"

Once again, how is it trouble? Are you troubled by seeing a woman in a leading role? Does seeing an Asian rebel make you feel weird? Why are their presence anything different, their characters are what matters not the race or gender. You said that aiming for diversity is funding problems where there is none but I can easily say your obvious problem with it is just as unfounded. I can say that your problem with it is the exact reason they are doing it. To make people aware that the world is diverse, that women and races are equal and that white males are not always the heroes. To give little kids a array of different people to look up to.

It would have been perfect if they put in the 'real' Jyn Orrs as the lead with Kyle. Asian female lead... perfect.

Short summary of the thread so far:

If a lead is a woman (if she is even the lead of Rogue One...), it is because of an agenda. If a man is, it isn't.

Also, several of you have admitted to flatly refuse to play Verena and must clearly have house-ruled her out of your games, as it is simply "unrealistic for a 5'3" wastrel to beat up armored men in droves". Movie and game are both works of fiction after all and we cannot have the slightest dent on their realism (or rather we can on a godzillion number of other issues, just not when it comes to the inherent physical inferiority, sorry, difference of women).

Did I miss anything?

Short summary of the thread so far:

If a lead is a woman (if she is even the lead of Rogue One...), it is because of an agenda. If a man is, it isn't.

Also, several of you have admitted to flatly refuse to play Verena and must clearly have house-ruled her out of your games, as it is simply "unrealistic for a 5'3" wastrel to beat up armored men in droves". Movie and game are both works of fiction after all and we cannot have the slightest dent on their realism (or rather we can on a godzillion number of other issues, just not when it comes to the inherent physical inferiority, sorry, difference of women).

Did I miss anything?

a.) A game is different from a movie.

b.) Verena's ability is that she takes the weapon of a dead person and uses it, not that she has super strength, agility, or sassy-pants.

c.) Look at Game of Thrones... The only combat-able woman is freakishly large and strong. They don't even try to have any other woman actually fight, they use poison, deception, and stealth. This character looks more like Daenarys than Brienne, so I think this characterization is less believable. I honestly don't see why that is so sinister or hard to grasp in its simplicity.

Short summary of the thread so far:

If a lead is a woman (if she is even the lead of Rogue One...), it is because of an agenda. If a man is, it isn't.

Also, several of you have admitted to flatly refuse to play Verena and must clearly have house-ruled her out of your games, as it is simply "unrealistic for a 5'3" wastrel to beat up armored men in droves". Movie and game are both works of fiction after all and we cannot have the slightest dent on their realism (or rather we can on a godzillion number of other issues, just not when it comes to the inherent physical inferiority, sorry, difference of women).

Did I miss anything?

Short summary of the thread so far:

If a lead is a woman (if she is even the lead of Rogue One...), it is because of an agenda. If a man is, it isn't.

Also, several of you have admitted to flatly refuse to play Verena and must clearly have house-ruled her out of your games, as it is simply "unrealistic for a 5'3" wastrel to beat up armored men in droves". Movie and game are both works of fiction after all and we cannot have the slightest dent on their realism (or rather we can on a godzillion number of other issues, just not when it comes to the inherent physical inferiority, sorry, difference of women).

Did I miss anything?

Yes, the point, entirely.

Okay, 2 points:

1. This thread should perhaps be locked and forgotten. I created it to highlight a possible IA character in the new Star Wars trailer and that was shot down by the 3rd post.... since then, it's turned into a monster. Kill the monster.
2. I teach a 17 year old Chinese girl who has spent her entire life practicing martial arts. The lightning speed at which she can move, combined with her ability to sneak out of our prison-school simply by convince the security guards she is a teacher* with a change of clothes and body language is quite astonishing. If she were a trained killer, conscripts in body armour would stand no chance. She weighs 90lbs tops, and I am a 6 foot 2, 230lb weightlifter. she would kick my ass in seconds, and I know this by how I used to spar with a similarly trained woman at Kungfu class.

* I'm not supposed to know this. Hehehe.

Short summary of the thread so far:

If a lead is a woman (if she is even the lead of Rogue One...), it is because of an agenda. If a man is, it isn't.

Also, several of you have admitted to flatly refuse to play Verena and must clearly have house-ruled her out of your games, as it is simply "unrealistic for a 5'3" wastrel to beat up armored men in droves". Movie and game are both works of fiction after all and we cannot have the slightest dent on their realism (or rather we can on a godzillion number of other issues, just not when it comes to the inherent physical inferiority, sorry, difference of women).

Did I miss anything?

a.) A game is different from a movie.

b.) Verena's ability is that she takes the weapon of a dead person and uses it, not that she has super strength, agility, or sassy-pants.

c.) Look at Game of Thrones... The only combat-able woman is freakishly large and strong. They don't even try to have any other woman actually fight, they use poison, deception, and stealth. This character looks more like Daenarys than Brienne, so I think this characterization is less believable. I honestly don't see why that is so sinister or hard to grasp in its simplicity.

A) Please elaborate how that in the context of a strong female lead in a game is different from a strong female lead in a movie?

B) How do you know Jyn doesn't fight just like Verena?

C) Comparing Star Wars to Game of Thrones is laughable... Game of Thrones is much more serious and darker while Star Wars is something for something the family could watch. They are completely different tones both in realism and mood.

Once again, how is it trouble? Are you troubled by seeing a woman in a leading role? Does seeing an Asian rebel make you feel weird? Why are their presence anything different, their characters are what matters not the race or gender. You said that aiming for diversity is funding problems where there is none but I can easily say your obvious problem with it is just as unfounded. I can say that your problem with it is the exact reason they are doing it. To make people aware that the world is diverse, that women and races are equal and that white males are not always the heroes. To give little kids a array of different people to look up to.

Agenda first, story after.

I dont expect they agonized at all over the casting of General Hux, but Abrams was concerned enough about the agenda to cast Cumberbach as Khan. Hiddleston gets to be Loki, but were going to make Thor a woman. Baron Mordo can be made black, but only because he's not really the bad guy, and Tilda Swinton is perfectly cast as a 100 year old Asian man.

But what of Star Wars? How does the agenda address existing white male heroes? Here's the hint, it involves a lightsaber the chest and falling off a bridge.

Thor isn't being made a woman, a specific character is being given the power of Thor (which has happened many times already). Thor still exists and will regularly appear in his own book, and will become super powered again soon if it hasn't happened already.

For a guy who constantly insists other people shouldn't be pushing agendas, every time I see you post it's to push your personal agenda regarding your pretty blatantly obvious conservative politics. This gaming forum isn't really the place for that.

Hello Imperial Assault forum community-

This thread has now been locked because it has gone completely off-topic and devolved into arguments. Please remember that these forums exist to talk about the game of Imperial Assault. Feel free to continue beneficial conversation in other threads.

Thanks, and keep playing,

FFG Forum Moderator