Female Witchers

[prince_of_nothing]

You are making a lot of bogus assertions here.

We shall see.

Woman are in direct combat in modern armies, not many of them, as they are held back by sexism, but they are.

Be careful what you say here. While many nations in the World today possess a standing Military, there are very few with an ACTIVE one. For example, Finland possesses a Military, but when was the last time Finland was involved in any sort of major conflict? Decades ago in World War 2.. Only a few countries have active Militaries, the U.S, Israel in particular come to mind.

And in both the Israeli and American Military, women are not allowed in direct combat operations. Same goes for the U.K..

You might also have heard of the Amazons, a nation with all-female warriors.

Please tell me you are joking. The Amazons are a MYTH (a long the same lines as Ares, Achilles etc), no such nation has ever existed. If you think otherwise, then show me your evidence.

Their raids have been recorded throughout Ancient history, and archaeological evidence confirming it has been discovered.

While there have been many female warriors throughout history, there has never been a nation that relied on women for it's defense..

Native Indians were very egalitarian, and both sexes fought side by side. You are the one ignoring history here.

I would be ignoring history if I said that there weren't any female warriors. Instead, I specifically said that there weren't any Civilizations or nations that RELIED on women for it's defense. In other words, show me a nation who's Military was comprised entirely of women, or even mostly of women, and I'll retract my statement.

The reason for looking down on woman in combat is not only because of men's physical superiority, mostly in muscle development; (this doesn't mean woman are weak BTW!) But mostly because of the culture of said civilisation.

If the culture was to blame, then surely you'd find at least one example of a female majority Military in History, but alas, there are none.

Religion in particular has made men look down on woman as inferior, with the rise of the Abrahamic religions (and Hinduïsm). Because those religions were developed by ignorant, jealous men who don't like it when their sex slave talks back at them.

War and conflict are much older than any religion. Again, show me proof of a female led Military if you want me to take you seriously.

 

[CostinRaz]

You are making a lot of bogus assertions here.

If there is anyone making bogus assertions here it's you. Amazons? That's a myth with little basis in reality.

EDIT: I am not talking of Guy's example but rather the myth of the Amazons in antiquity.

Religion in particular has made men look down on woman as inferior, with the rise of the Abrahamic religions (and Hinduïsm). Because those religions were developed by ignorant, jealous men who don't like it when their sex slave talks back at them.

Goes to show how much you know about those religions to give such an ignorant statement. What you are conveniently ignoring however is that countries where these religions didn't exist ( and where they still don't any have big following ) women still did not serve in the military for many years ( China and Japan for instance ).

Anyway I seriously don't want to see female witchers just to have some gender equality BS in a game. I am not opposed to the notion but if you are going to implement such a thing then do so for a good solid story reason.

 

[GuyNwah]

Prince_of_Nothing, if you had read the previous posts in the thread, you would have seen the well-founded examples of the Dahomey Amazons and the Soviets. Admittedly, in both those cases, the perceived need to develop an entire army (Dahomey) or combat units (USSR) of women was the fact that these countries had depleted their supply of combat-capable men. But in both of those cases, women commanded and served with courage and distinction.

And the absence of women in combat roles in the armies of the US and Israel is not seen as a Good Thing, but as a grave Injustice. One perpetuated by men who seek to assert their superiority (and importantly, the privilege of receiving combat pay) without any remaining foundation. To me, the absence of women in combat speaks more of the insecurity of men in command than it does of any other reason.

Anyway, the Witcher games may not have female witchers, for reasons that may have nothing to do with fitness of women for combat, but the games do have well-portrayed female warriors (Toruviel, White Rayla, Ves, Saskia), so the absence of female witchers is no kind of glaring flaw.

 

[wrathascending]

War and conflict are much older than any religion. Again, show me proof of a female led Military if you want me to take you seriously.

Joan of Arc, whom Saskia is an obvious allusion to.

*Puts on Biologist's hat*

Genrally speaking, males are better at physically demanding tasks than women. There are female outliers- by inclination, natural ability, training, and so on but even then they do not reach the same level of ability of a male who is good but not great in the same field; consider Olympic weight lifting, sprinting, marathon running, and so on. The most exceptional males drastically outperform the most exceptional females.

This being said, in tasks that require an application of skill the difference is much less pronounced; I would go so far as to say completely negligable. A skilled archer is a danger no matter the gender (though a male will probably be able to use a bow with a greater draw strength, which will result in greater range and potentially more forceful shots) and if considering the use of martial arts various nerve strikes, joint locks, trips, Ju-jitsu style force redirections and throws and so on can be used to devastating effect by trained combatants.

In the case of a Witcher, they usually go in having done their homework and with some awareness of what they will be facing. A simple killing contract typically involves an ambush (or other surprise attack) of the monster while under the influence of what amounts to combat drugs, with a short and decisive (one way or the other) battle as a result. So endurance may not be that big a deal, either- assuming Witcher-level combat prowess and preperation, ideally the fight will be over before it becomes a factor.

However, you cannot absolutely garuantee the element of surprise, so the greater baseline physical capability of males may be more desirable in the aggregate, especially given the difficulty in creating a Witcher.

As to why there are no (known) female witchers, I would say that this is due to both social mores and simple biology. When the Witchers were created, it was essentially so that the newly-arrived humanity would have expendable shock troopers who could take down post-Conjunction monsters that threatened the race. There were males who were, shall we say, "surplus to requirements" and this gave them a way of being made useful without having an adverse effect on humanity's chances of survival as a whole- quite the reverse, in fact.

The mutagens used in the first phases of the Trials seem to have negative effects when applied to females, which is why Yennefer made the Witchers stop the process on Ciri (not that they had any idea about how to complete it, much less access to anyone who could oversee it); it may be possible to use alternatives that don't have these side effects, but if the outcome is lessened capability or an increased failure rate this might not be a desirable option.

By Geralt's time, the Witchers are a dying breed. The Wolf School consists of just Geralt, Vesemir, Eskell, Lambert, and Coen in the books; the first game added Berengar. Everyone else was killed during the Kaer Morhen uprising several decades ago. The Viper school- at least everyone that Letho could account for- had a similar size, consisting of Letho, Serrit, Auckles, and the un-named Viper Geralt kills in the end cinematic for the first game. Two other Schools- Griffin and Cat- are known of only because Leo Bonhart had medallions from Witchers he'd killed; as no other Witchers from those schools are ever mentioned it's possible he killed the last members of those Schools and that none remain.

Mages who understand the mutagenic process are also in short supply. It seems that creating a Witcher would require Kalkstein-like alchemical knowledge in addition to Yennefer-level mastery over biology. Individuals with such capabilities are not especially common, and they may very well have to start over from scratch, with a lot of trial and error. When the "perfected" process performed by those with the required abilities and experience had a 70+ percent failure rate, this does not bode well for the creation of new Witchers.

This, however, leaves out the question of motivation. Successive generations of Witchers over the past 500ish years- coupled with other changes to the world following the Conjunction- have greatly lessened the need for Witchers. Where once a super-soldier type might have been needed, the monsters that remain are far less dangerous and can be handled by simply piling on enough soldiers; the Order of the White/Flaming Rose being a good case in point here. So the effort of creating a Witcher could probably be put to more effective use by training large groups of unaltered humans, with the added benefit of getting a standing army out of the deal.

There's also the matter of the part destiny plays in the creation of Witchers. At least in the first game it's implied there has to be something special about potential candidates, which is why Witchers often recruited via Surprise Children.

*Takes off Biologist's hat, puts on Literary Critic's hat*

Whatever the in-universe or in-character explanations, the most likely reason that there aren't any female Witchers is that the books are based in a Patriarchal, European-like fantasy mileau. One of the standards of the genre is the male warrior hero; given this it's notable that, while we don't see any female Witchers we do see quite a lot of competant, dangerous females. White Rayla and Ves might "only" be human females, but they are highly lethal and there are similar characters like Calanthe in the novels. Toruviel gets the drop on Geralt and Dandelion, and no matter how dangerous a single Witcher is they cannot devastate entire armies like Sabrina Gleveissig did or hold a candle to even Triss' power level.

There are enough examples of females who can perform at the rough equal of Geralt's level and/or better that I'm inclined to give the issue a pass. Your mileage may vary.

 

[zinux]

Be careful what you say here. While many nations in the World today possess a standing Military, there are very few with an ACTIVE one.

The Dutch army does, who were deployed in Camp Holland, Uruzgan, Afghanistan a region with one of the heaviest fighting.

Please tell me you are joking. The Amazons are a MYTH (a long the same lines as Ares, Achilles etc), no such nation has ever existed. If you think otherwise, then show me your evidence.

There is no clear line between myth and history in ancient times, you can't just dismiss ancient stories because they invoke gods and the supernatural. Greek history had in the early stages a lot of dramatisation and supernatural interventions, but they have historical value. Later, more credible, (Roman) historians have ascribed several nations, ranging from Gothic Germania to Asia Minor, as Amazonian, which had become more of a term for a womanised military.

It is common belief they were situated in Pontus, and were reported to have fought in the Trojan war and against Darius 1 of Persia. The archaeological evidence I hinted at was from the Scythians (who also situated at the Black Sea) with a significant amount of female warrior burials.

Towns relied most of the time on women for defence, when the men were gone hunting/raiding.
As for the Native Indians, they called on both sexes, thus relied on women for defence. And to that extend females were relied upon in defence of a nation/town. There is no evidence for an all female warrior nation (my bad for suggesting there is, was not what I intended )

If the culture was to blame, then surely you'd find at least one example of a female majority Military in History, but alas, there are none.

Why, because every possible culture has existed, and left enough evidence? Absence of evidence is not evidence for absence.

War and conflict are much older than any religion. Again, show me proof of a female led Military if you want me to take you seriously.

That is simply not true, religion already existed in hunter-gatherer societies. And traces of religion were also seen by Neanderthals. These relatively peaceful societies had few conflicts, and when they had one, it was only with neighboring tribes. These skirmishes would also include women, wars came to be after the formation of real nations pitting against each other. And nations only existed with a religion.

 

[Fandango9641]

If the books don’t speak to the (im)possibility of female witchers, I'm all for their inclusion in future games.

 

[GrakanOfBelhaven]

A lot of arguments against and for women O:

They gave Ciri a bit of this and a bit of that to make her combat efficient.
There ARE female Witcher's in the tv series though there is barely a story behind how.

Witchers in general are scarce, finding a female Witcher would be near impossible.
We'd most likely find female warriors, maybe even drug taking female warriors
just not Witchers.

Stop fighting about men and women, they're not equal and that is fact.
Women succeed in things and men succeed in things, saying men are superior
is being retarded, can men give birth? Nope. Men and women are meant to coexist,
they are equal in their own right, but they complete each other physically.

 

[arkblazer]

I dont know why all the argument is about when the whole main saga is about one.

 

[wrathascending]

Yes and no. Ciri had some Witcher combat training and underwent part of the Trial of the Grasses, but she wasn't fully trained or mutated.

People who play a sport on the weekend and people who represent their nation at the Olympics are both athletes, but when that word is used it typically denotes the latter rather than the former. Ciri might have been a Witcher in the sense that she knew some of their tricks and had some of their enhancements, but she wasn't a Witcher in the way that Geralt, Lambert, Eskell, and the rest were. Leo from the first game would be in the same boat as Ciri; a Witcher in name and theory only, not in fact.

 

[arkblazer]

She was still sort of one, but yeah more like a trainee. That said by the end she was fighting almost as good as one.

It could have been that the cat school was female. Thats the medallion that ciri took, the cats witchers were supposed to be weaker than the wolf school so it might have been that they didnt went through such extreme mutation.

lore wise however its mentioned somewhere somewhere that the witchers would trade with the dryads any girls that they had for any boys that they had captured. so there was also that.

 

[Garrison72]

It may not be entirely copacetic with the lore, as Ciri was 'babied' a bit. But I'd still love to see a female witcher in the games.

 

[wisielec]

Nah, Ciri was only trained by witchers who used their own methods (practice and theory alike). Ciri was far from even fledgeling witcher level. She was above average human, or a really good human... she may have been on par with elves but thats it. There is no equality between male and female human organism. Male is superior and only the toughest could survive the training, wear the medallion and hit the path.

 

[grregg]

Nah, Ciri was only trained by witchers who used their own methods (practice and theory alike). Ciri was far from even fledgeling witcher level. She was above average human, or a really good human... she may have been on par with elves but thats it. There is no equality between male and female human organism. Male is superior and only the toughest could survive the training, wear the medallion and hit the path.

Well, if memory serves Ciri took on Bonhart, a known witcher slayer, and came out victorious, so perhaps you're underestimating her skills?

Also, the most deadly part of witcher training was the Trial of Grasses which was a magical procedure involving mutations. May I ask where you got the information about the superior resistance of males to magical mutation? The other deadly part mentioned in the game is the special diet that might cause organ failure. Again, hard to judge which gender is more resistant, but if anything, it would seem that women are more able to subject themselves to crazy food regimens and survive.

 

[Sirnaq]

By this time ciri should be comparable to geralt with swordfight, she can't use potions or signs but she can teleport. She is not a witcher, she had basic of sorcery, and witcher training i think you can say she is dimension traveling exbandit/sorceress without magic/nonmutated witcher.

 

[GuyNwah]

It doesn't matter whether males or females are "tougher" or more resistant to mutation. What matters is whether they are "different" in ways that would affect the outcome of the known ways of mutating and training witchers.

Maybe somewhere in the libraries at Oxenfurt there are learned publications on studies of men's and women's physiology in the Witcher universe. We don't have library cards or interlibrary loan with Oxenfurt, or even Shani's snail mail address. When there's no book or game content to go on, and we don't want to settle for mere speculations and assertions, we have to go by analogy to real life.

What we know from real life is that anything that's influenced by hormones, and that includes bone and muscle development, is different enough between men and women that we can't assume what works for one will work (whether at all, or just without untoward side effects) for the other.

For example, we know that heavy use of anabolic steroids often causes psychiatric problems in men ("'roid rage"), but much lighter use of the same drugs causes profound physiological changes (virilization) in women. We know that training designed for men can cause the debilitating "female athlete triad" in women.

So, to me, it simply does not follow that because witcher trainers in Geralt's world once knew how to make boys into witchers, they know anything about doing the same with girls or even believe that they could.

 

[Oloroar]

So, to me, it simply does not follow that because witcher trainers in Geralt's world once knew how to make boys into witchers, they know anything about doing the same with girls or even believe that they could.

That's the point I raised a while back.

http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Triss_Merigold

It was through her intervention that Ciri was not inadvertently given harmful hormones which might have negatively impacted her "womanly assets".

The witcher mutations are simply not compatible with the female body, and this is an established fact from the books. Current techniques have them receiving hormones in a similar manner to people who want a sex change. It has nothing to do with whether women would make good witchers or not, the methods simply do not allow it.

 

[grregg]

(...)

The witcher mutations are simply not compatible with the female body, and this is an established fact from the books. Current techniques have them receiving hormones in a similar manner to people who want a sex change. It has nothing to do with whether women would make good witchers or not, the methods simply do not allow it.

I don't think this is the case. If you recall there is a scene in Blood of Elves where Triss wonders why she was invited to Kaer Morhen. One of the scenarios she considers is that the witchers want to mutate Ciri using the usual procedure and they need a wizard to do it. Nowhere in Triss' monologue it says "it's impossible, it'll never work on a girl." Granted, Triss is not an expert on witcher mutations, supposedly no living wizard is, but at least Sapkowski didn't close the possibility. Actually the whole monologue quite carefully says "kids" ("dzieci" or "dzieciaki") not "boys" whenever Triss contemplates witchers' past mutation procedures.

Sure, in light of later scenes showing how surprised the witchers were when they learned about Ciri's period, it is safe to say that they never trained a girl, but again I don't see anything saying that it is impossible.

Moreover, in the famous "womanly attributes" part, Triss simply says that the accelerated metabolism (the result of the diet and training) might impact Ciri's body fat and result in her having small breasts. Having small breasts is not the same as sex change. Right?

 

[M4xw0lf.978]

Moreover, in the famous "womanly attributes" part, Triss simply says that the accelerated metabolism (the result of the diet and training) might impact Ciri's body fat and result in her having small breasts. Having small breasts is not the same as sex change. Right?

She wouldnt do too well in a fight with huge breasts, so that's an advantage actually ^^
(But, after some thought - large breasts might be an incredibly effective weapon while fighting men... diversion )

 

[mastone1981]

It is just a preconception that women are weaker than men and it generalizes an entire group off people to much.
Women in general have no urge to kill and fight, that idiotic urge is something that only men in most cases seem to posses.

Enduring pain is something mental and has little to nothing to do with if you are a male or female.
There are women out there that could easily kick our collective asses here on the forum, in my opinion they already have the upper hand because a number of you underestimate them by default.

The amazones might be a legend but theses are always founded on a truth, I personally would quess that amazones were created/formed out of necessity and were more along the lines of a unit.

The only reason why women can't become Witchers is because apparently there are none in the books

 

[GuyNwah]

Moreover, in the famous "womanly attributes" part, Triss simply says that the accelerated metabolism (the result of the diet and training) might impact Ciri's body fat and result in her having small breasts. Having small breasts is not the same as sex change. Right? />/>

Women have lots of attributes, not just breasts. By most reckonings, fertility is a particularly important one, and it's one that's easily damaged by extreme training or hormone treatments.

Ciri's fertility has Plot Armor, but I won't speculate whether Triss's decision was written out for that purpose.