Why women don't take black

[Dolorous22]

Well I think it's been sufficiently squashed by many posters now. But just to really nail it home...

1. Westerosi women are property of their male counter-parts.
2. The wall is comprised of rapists and thieves.
3. Love, feelings of duty outside of those for the watch are problematic.
4. Westerossi women by and large have zero fighting experience.

The exception would be women of the free folk, a few high born girls too but even these women would have it pretty rough. 

We get a lot of really exciting female characters who on the face of things seem like exceptions. But, almost every one of these women need a man in close proximity just to prevent them being raped....

Dany had Jorah.
Asha has a devout group of Iron Born.
Cersei has the power and influence of the Rock and Jaime and now Ser Robert Strong.
Arya had Yoren, then the Brotherhood, then The Hound.
Catelyn had Rodrick Cassel.
Sansa had some help from Tyrion but we see first hand how she fared as a lone girl.
Mel enamored Stannis.
Arianne had a knight of the KG.
Gilly has Sam.

Our truest exception is Brienne who has enormous size and strength and training and by now, a very tasty sword and good armor.
But even a women such as her who is a true match for any man is considered a target and a liability by basically everyone.

Westeros sucks for any woman who doesn't want to cook, clean and breed. Why would you want to leave of them at the mercy of NW recruits... 

SHORT VERSION
Remember Craster's Keep? 
 

[LIVIA]

On 22.03.2017 at 11:55 PM, Protagoras said:

The "right" is that you are allowed to do so if you please. ie - it is forbidden for one sex to join = a sexist structure. And sexism is seen by many, including me as a bad thing.

That very few women would like to join such a structure is irrelevant.

Right is always accompanied by liability. The moment you allow the likes of Brienne Tarth to join the NW, you'll allow the ladyes like Catelyn Stark or Cercei Lannister to BE LEGALLY FORCED to do the same. Without any chances to survive, of course, because 1) noble ladies are more likely to prefer death rather than shame and contempt 2) they are physically weaker than men, including criminals and other scum, and are unable to protect themselves with the sword or another weapon 3) some aren't used to such climate and so hard living conditions.

And I don't even speak about simple girls, who can only do some housework and were sentenced, for excample, for murdering their cruel husband. Do you prefer death or the life of constant rape and derision? I would certainly choose the first option.

[LIVIA]

On 25.03.2017 at 5:23 PM, Dolorous22 said:

Well I think it's been sufficiently squashed by many posters now. But just to really nail it home...

1. Westerosi women are property of their male counter-parts.
2. The wall is comprised of rapists and thieves.
3. Love, feelings of duty outside of those for the watch are problematic.
4. Westerossi women by and large have zero fighting experience.

The exception would be women of the free folk, a few high born girls too but even these women would have it pretty rough. 

We get a lot of really exciting female characters who on the face of things seem like exceptions. But, almost every one of these women need a man in close proximity just to prevent them being raped....
 

+++++++++++++!

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

On ‎3‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 3:58 PM, Brandon Baratheon said:

When characters like Theon and Tyrion think about taking black they complain there are no women in NW. If women take black the watchers can marry and produce NEW WATCHERS for the Wall. 

You have forgotten the song about Brave Danny Flint . The woman who dressed up as a man in order to join the watch , and her cruel fate . And the problems that is occurring now with the wildling women in Hardin's Tower .

[Protagoras]

2 hours ago, LIVIA said:

Right is always accompanied by liability. The moment you allow the likes of Brienne Tarth to join the NW, you'll allow the ladyes like Catelyn Stark or Cercei Lannister to BE LEGALLY FORCED to do the same. Without any chances to survive, of course, because 1) noble ladies are more likely to prefer death rather than shame and contempt 2) they are physically weaker than men, including criminals and other scum, and are unable to protect themselves with the sword or another weapon 3) some aren't used to such climate and so hard living conditions.

And I don't even speak about simple girls, who can only do some housework and were sentenced, for excample, for murdering their cruel husband. Do you prefer death or the life of constant rape and derision? I would certainly choose the first option.

Don´t really see the problem. Forcing both genders in the exact same way removes the sexist structure. Such an act would make the structure just from a gender perspective, removes one of the many roadblocks in the way for equality and places the burden of responsibility on everyone equally.

Now, is Westeros ready for this? Certainly not. But forcing everyone to serve equally do indeed strike me as the most fair course in a more enlighened society. Indeed, your 3 points do strike me as very likely, but then, if you get sentanced you could still choose death (Death or The Wall seem to be the common choice) if you prefer it. And maybe, if you don´t want death, rape and/or derision, you shouldn´t commit crimes no? You seem to portray that the women in these cases would be victims, something that they most likely are not. At least not more so than the men who is also sent to the Wall.

If you murder your cruel husband, you should have the same punishment as a man who murders his cruel wife, no? Claiming that you are physically weaker should not be used as a crutch to avoid the consequences others have to suffer. Indeed, this works the save way as with people who have some kind of mental diagnosis - its not others that should adapt to them so they don´t feel provoked. Its them, who because of their deficiency should realize that cannot partake in discussions in the same way as everyone else. The idea that "the weakest putsdown the rules" are a very disingeniuos principle.

[LIVIA]

5 hours ago, Protagoras said:

Forcing both genders in the exact same way removes the sexist structure. Such an act would make the structure just from a gender perspective

Men and women don't fit for such measure of punishment equally. Thay differ physically, and even if Brienne would be able to survive on the wall, Margaery wouldn't. You cannot force all the girls in Westeros to learn how to fight and make them equal to men in sheer strenght.

And one more moment. It is prohibited for the BB to fall in love and to have children. But if a man can easily alienate from his offspring, a women can't. What are you going to do with her children born from her "brothers"?

The best way to reform the NW today is to make it a sort of a militarised commune. The abcence of women is not the problem of the NW now. The problem is that its whole structure is ineffective.

[Protagoras]

3 hours ago, LIVIA said:

Men and women don't fit for such measure of punishment equally. Thay differ physically, and even if Brienne would be able to survive on the wall, Margaery wouldn't. You cannot force all the girls in Westeros to learn how to fight and make them equal to men in sheer strenght.

And one more moment. It is prohibited for the BB to fall in love and to have children. But if a man can easily alienate from his offspring, a women can't. What are you going to do with her children born from her "brothers"?

The best way to reform the NW today is to make it a sort of a militarised commune. The abcence of women is not the problem of the NW now. The problem is that its whole structure is ineffective.

Indeed, and as I stated before - this refom won´t work in Westeros at its current state. 

I fail to understand what your point is. In an optimal scenario, the sexism should be removed. But this is not an optimal scenario. As I wrote in my first post in this thread there are alot of issues. Issues that make it questionable if women could be integrated with the Wall. 

But if we are talking an optimal scenario, a more modern Westeros if you will, then the child should be raised by others outside of the wall, the parents punished and moon tea imported to avoid this problem in the future

And again, womens physical strength is of no importance. I am not "making them equal to men in sheer strenght", I simply do not care if they had said strength or not. Nor do I force them to fight. If they prefer to be beaten like Sam was in the training yard, then that is certainly an option. They are criminals sent to a glorified prison - their lives and well being are not a concern so if they are too weak, they die. Nothing to see here, carry on. 

[Tralalala]

On 21.03.2017 г. at 9:58 PM, Brandon Baratheon said:

When characters like Theon and Tyrion think about taking black they complain there are no women in NW. If women take black the watchers can marry and produce NEW WATCHERS for the Wall. 

That's slavery,and the watch doesn't have women at the wall exactly because they are women.

[Bhotharh]

On 2.4.2017 at 0:03 PM, Protagoras said:

In an optimal scenario, the sexism should be removed.

In an optimal scenario, annihilation by the Others should be avoided. This is actually one of the very few occasions where I'd put necessity before equality.

 

[Protagoras]

2 hours ago, Bhotharh said:

In an optimal scenario, annihilation by the Others should be avoided. This is actually one of the very few occasions where I'd put necessity before equality.

 

But if the needs are so great, shouldn´t the watch allow women to join? I mean, if the Others are such a threat to humanity, then every person, regardless of strength and physical advantages as long as they are somewhat able-bodied, will be useful. If you are excluding women, based on that you don´t want them on the Wall out of principle due to stereotypes, then you are acting like manpower is luxery. To be trained to wear armor and use weapons is less important than to be able to throw enough people - enough meat, in order to win (or at least use them for logistic and supplies during the fight). And if the morale will be that much lower because of such a reform then maybe the problem is the males in question, who refuses to understand that the great need and the dangers involved transcends any complain about their comfort and that their complaints show that they are not motivated enough and doesn´t understand the danger since they still find time and energy to bitch about useless traditions.

And especially, if you refuse any able-bodied person you sort of loses the right to complain about the lack of manpower, no? Something that they do constantly in the books (granted, they are unaware of the current immediate threat). It remembers me about Tolkien hypocrisy. First "Women and children were being huddled into laden boats in the market-pool" and then they complain about that "Most of them have seen too many winters, as I have, or too few". Shut the fuck up, Gamling and either fix the problem by conscripting women or fight willingly and free of complain with less soldiers for those ethical opinions, I say.

[Bhotharh]

@Protagoras, I agree with you that every person would be useful in some way. But I also agree with many other posters who pointed out the difficulties of integrating women into the Watch.

What I don't understand in this discussion is the reluctance to take an outcome-based point of view. War is ugly. You tend to avoid it. If you cannot avoid it, I think it legitimate to ask "Who or what gets the job done?". Preferably as efficiently and with as little casulties as possible. And I think it reasonable to then act according to the results of this cost-benefit analysis.

If the maesters and builders were to suddenly invent a kind of wight-proof Other-proof tank that could only be manned () by small and light persons, I'd probably be the first to overthrow the Watch's all-male structure.

I am as much against sexism as the next person but I don't see it as a priority in an army.

[Bhotharh]

7 hours ago, Protagoras said:

If you are excluding women, based on that you don´t want them on the Wall out of principle due to stereotypes, then you are acting like manpower is luxery. To be trained to wear armor and use weapons is less important than to be able to throw enough people - enough meat, in order to win (or at least use them for logistic and supplies during the fight).

[...]

And especially, if you refuse any able-bodied person you sort of loses the right to complain about the lack of manpower, no?

It's not that I don't want women on the Wall. I value human life. That's why I am willing to compromise on the sexism part. I'd rather have the commanders concentrate on beating the Others with as little manpower - or personpower - as possible. That is the sole purpose of that army. Implementing reforms to protect half of the force from the other half distracts from that purpose.

[Prince Yourwetdream Aeryn]

On 02.04.2017 at 5:48 PM, Tralalala said:

That's slavery,and the watch doesn't have women at the wall exactly because they are women.

 

I didn't mean slavery. Man needs woman as woman needs man. No one will force them. It is not Essos.

[Protagoras]

3 hours ago, Bhotharh said:

@Protagoras, I agree with you that every person would be useful in some way. But I also agree with many other posters who pointed out the difficulties of integrating women into the Watch.

What I don't understand in this discussion is the reluctance to take an outcome-based point of view. War is ugly. You tend to avoid it. If you cannot avoid it, I think it legitimate to ask "Who or what gets the job done?". Preferably as efficiently and with as little casulties as possible. And I think it reasonable to then act according to the results of this cost-benefit analysis.

If the maesters and builders were to suddenly invent a kind of wight-proof Other-proof tank that could only be manned () by small and light persons, I'd probably be the first to overthrow the Watch's all-male structure.

I am as much against sexism as the next person but I don't see it as a priority in an army.

 

2 hours ago, Bhotharh said:

It's not that I don't want women on the Wall. I value human life. That's why I am willing to compromise on the sexism part. I'd rather have the commanders concentrate on beating the Others with as little manpower - or personpower - as possible. That is the sole purpose of that army. Implementing reforms to protect half of the force from the other half distracts from that purpose.

But you don´t know how much manpower that is needed. In fact, considering th threat, getting all the fucking manpower that you can seems like a good idea no? Certainly, efficiently and few casulties would be optional - but (again) nothing in this is optimal. If the others are strong enough to threaten human existance then this will be the next Vietnam, rather than a short shirmish. Having little manpower was never an option.

As for "protect half of the force from the other half", who say I will. Those women that force-joins are criminals. I am not going to bother that much if something happens. Both groups need to learn that due to the threat, everyone is needed. And if the morale is lowered because they are more interested in rape, patriarchial structure and paternalism then maybe humanitys flaws mean they don´t deserve to survive against the Others.

And again, I am aware of the integrating problem. I was talking about either an optimal situation or a genuine threat to existence.

[Tralalala]

4 hours ago, Brandon Baratheon said:

 

I didn't mean slavery. Man needs woman as woman needs man. No one will force them. It is not Essos.

Then those children are free to leave the wall?

[Prince Yourwetdream Aeryn]

1 hour ago, Tralalala said:

Then those children are free to leave the wall?

 

Yes. But many children will not go:

• Because their father and mother cannot leave the Wall.
• Because they will see Wall as their home.
• Because maesters and watchers will teach them how proudful to serve there.
• Children will know that they will not be accepted in Westeros. They are bastards of criminals.

Beside it, the main point is presence of woman in the Wall, not making all children the soldier.

 

[Bhotharh]

9 minutes ago, Brandon Baratheon said:

 

Yes. But many children will not go:

• Because their father and mother cannot leave the Wall.
• Because they will see Wall as their home.
• Because maesters and watchers will teach them how proudful to serve there.
• Children will know that they will not be accepted in Westeros. They are bastards of criminals.

Beside it, the main point is presence of woman in the Wall, not making all children the soldier.

 

Eh... because no young adults ever left their parents or their homeland, and always listened to reasonable authority figures? Because no parents ever encouraged their children to seek a better life for themselves?

And in your opening post you suggested that the parents marry and make new Black Brothers?

 

[Bhotharh]

5 hours ago, Protagoras said:

 

But you don´t know how much manpower that is needed. In fact, considering th threat, getting all the fucking manpower that you can seems like a good idea no? Certainly, efficiently and few casulties would be optional - but (again) nothing in this is optimal.

Agreed, more manpower certainly doesn't hurt. But what I meant was that I would rather not treat people like canon fodder - or "meat" as you so nicely called it - in any circumstances. Therefore, I would always choose efficiency over sheer numbers.

5 hours ago, Protagoras said:

As for "protect half of the force from the other half", who say I will. Those women that force-joins are criminals. I am not going to bother that much if something happens. Both groups need to learn that due to the threat, everyone is needed. And if the morale is lowered because they are more interested in rape, patriarchial structure and paternalism then maybe humanitys flaws mean they don´t deserve to survive against the Others.

Are you sure you're not a cylon? Anyway, I cannot argue against this, so touché.

 

5 hours ago, Protagoras said:

And again, I am aware of the integrating problem. I was talking about either an optimal situation or a genuine threat to existence.

That was actually the point i was trying to make: Even in an optimal situation - like our oh so modern Western societies - I would still think it legitimate to restrict personal freedom in very select areas like warefare. Or at least consider restrictions after weighing all my options against each other.

War is not about eqality, fairness, justice, glory or whatever. "You win or you die". So you better make decisions based on what helps you win.

Because all your new womanpower will help you none if it severely disrupts discipline, morale, decision making and what not without some serious benefits.

[Protagoras]

5 hours ago, Bhotharh said:

Because all your new womanpower will help you none if it severely disrupts discipline, morale, decision making and what not without some serious benefits.

But if it´s severely disrupts discipline, morale, decision making and what not, isn´t that the real issue? Cohesion is certainly nice, but if the conflict is very "real" it should be a short-lived factor. Do you think the kurds fighting ISIS has a problem with women? Or do you most of them prefer to beat ISIS?

Because we DO have a serious benefit, more manpower. Not sexy, I know - but numbers do have a value, even today.

I am also very, very sceptical that a mixed force will perform worse than a all-male force. If intriduction of women disrupts discipline, morale, decision making and what not, then it seems thatcertain males have a bad mental strength to do their job. And in the modern world that is very important. Physical strength on the other hand is less useful than before. Hercules-types had an advantage in melee in the olden days, but how much physical strength does it take to pull a trigger? Certainly, you want people that are fit and able-bodied, but the old maxim that more muscles = better soldier is simply not true or not as true as before. And I am very sceptical about the need for a certain amount of push-ups to qualify as a soldier. There are other factors like reaction, mental fortitude & alertness since frontline combat is getting rarer and we instead have more irregular warfare. As for emotions in a unit, love can be a powerful motivator. Google Sacred band of Thebes if you want an example. People are simply less likely to flee or perform poorly if you have to leave someone you care about behind or shame yourself in front of them.

So to me it certainly sounds that the issue is not really efficiency but that male soldiers want people they care about or people they consider to be less good soldiers out of harms way. A sort of high-school mentality (seriously, grow up) which is argued for by false arguments. And that physiological reasons are quoted for a reason too much and from bias. And then we havn´t considered even more technology in the future like exoskeletons, that will further reduce the difference.

And tbh, if you are unwilling during ANY circumstance to "treat people like canon fodder" then I don´t want you as a general during a zombie apocalypse. And yes - war is not about equality & fairness. Which is why a 20-30% or maybe a 50% larger force (assuming that far less women are suitable for active combat) should have an advantage. After all, do people prefer to bitch about skirts or do they prefer to live?

[Jaak]

The Watch faces another military population. The Wildings.

And an advantage of Watch over Wildings is that unlike Wildings, Watch is not raising their own young.