Q:
Are Charrs Sexist?
A:
Out of the four legions, iron, ash, blood and flame, only flame legion has the issue of sexism.
There’s historical documentation stating how the charr, back in Guild Wars, overthrew the flame legion from it’s position of power with the help of all the females that had been stowed away and fought back against them. In all actuality, without the female support, charr society might still be that way today, under the thumb of the flame legion.
In iron, blood and ash legions, as far as I know, they do not care if you are male and female. In actuality, if there’s any form of discrimination, it’s the inherent distrust of spellcasters. Iron legion deals with machinery, ash legion deals with subterfuge, blood legion deals with traditional forms of warfare and flame legion deals with magic. Each of these are the ‘main’ focuses of the legions (this however doesn’t stop any of those legions employing another’s methods, just the legion most associated with those focuses are usually not only more experienced with the focuses but are simply better at those focuses too). The flame legion’s focus on magic is the reason for this inherent distrust of magic in the other three legions.
That’s as much discrimination as I can discern within, um, ‘friendlier’ charr society.
As far as I can tell, no. Normal modern charr do not give a flying fig about what’s under the fur. I’m not a lore expert in terms of having memorized all the details, but my understanding from my general lore osmosis is that a female charr led an uprising against the Flame Shamans and most of charr culture came around to the current completely egalitarian situation. The Flame Legion remains, of course, but most charr are of the new mindset.
Physically the females do seem to be shorter and slimmer, though with a good deal of overlap. This hasn’t seemed to prevent any of them from holding high rank, being dominant in groups, or handling massive machinery.
The Flame Legion is the exception here, not the norm. One of the reasons the other legions finally overthrew the Flame Legion was because they were fed up of Charr females being second class citizens. We see in the Black Citadel statues of female Charr heroes from those days, further indication that mainstream Charr society does not have the same hangups as the Flame Legion. We see Charr females in many positions of authority in mainstream Charr society as well.
Physically speaking- male charr are said to be larger and stronger, but female charr are quicker. There are a couple points in the novel Ghosts of Ascalon where they’re shown to be more or less evenly matched when they both play to their respective strengths… and, of course, there are plenty of roles in combat that don’t involve hitting things with a sharp object. When it comes to magic and engineering, there’s no gender gap to speak of.
R.I.P., Old Man of Auld Red Wharf. Gone but never forgotten.
Iron legion deals with machinery, ash legion deals with subterfuge, blood legion deals with traditional forms of warfare
The original distinction was that the Blood Legion specialised in battlefield combat, while the Iron Legion specialised in siege work (both offensive and defensive). The Iron Legion focus on machinery grew out of being the premier builders and craftscharr of the legions.
Basically, each of the legions grew out of one of the Khan-Ur’s divisions – Ash was the intelligence division, Blood was the infantry, Flame was the magic division (such as the charr had at the time), and Iron were the siegemasters.
To those who think Scarlet hate means she’s succeeded as a villain:
People don’t hate Scarlet like Game of Thrones fans hate Joffrey.
They hate her the way Star Wars fans hate Jar Jar Binks.
People don’t hate Scarlet like Game of Thrones fans hate Joffrey.
They hate her the way Star Wars fans hate Jar Jar Binks.
I suspect part of the Flame Legion’s sexism comes from the real-world conundrum that a population that loses more males than females rebounds much faster than one that loses equal numbers of each (Assuming a single male is capable of impregnating multiple females), regardless of the physical and intellectual ability of the sexes.
I suspect part of the Flame Legion’s sexism comes from the real-world conundrum that a population that loses more males than females rebounds much faster than one that loses equal numbers of each (Assuming a single male is capable of impregnating multiple females), regardless of the physical and intellectual ability of the sexes.
Probably, as that is the logical root of sexism in real life. But since the other races (probably excepting the Sylvari due to their unique biology) and even the other Charr legions have been able to overcome this same inherent natural ‘bias’, it makes sense that they would look down on the Flame Legion for not being able to do the same.
As others here have said, charr society was definitely sexist prior to the schism between the four High Legions, due to Flame Legion’s influence on the other Legions.
Blood Legion was the first to change it’s tune – it needed more soldiers, and the charr females were ready to assume the role. Iron Legion resisted until Kalla Scorchrazor beat the kitten out of the Iron Legion Imperitor, Forge Ironstrike. Ash – usually seen at the Legion closest to Flame, but generally the most pragmatic of the Legions – was the last Legion to accept female equality.
Only Flame Legion continues to insist on the inequity of the sexes in charr society, and the in the other High Legions, you’ll be hard pressed in modern times to find examples of sexism. Flame’s repression of its females is used by the other Legions as another example of why Flame must be crushed.
Physically speaking- male charr are said to be larger and stronger, but female charr are quicker.
Though charr males undeniably tend to be bigger than charr females, the differential of strength or agility between males and females seems to be, in reality, minimal. There are tons of beefy charr females in service to the Legions. One even leads the Vigil.
I suspect part of the Flame Legion’s sexism comes from the real-world conundrum that a population that loses more males than females rebounds much faster than one that loses equal numbers of each (Assuming a single male is capable of impregnating multiple females), regardless of the physical and intellectual ability of the sexes.
The Flame Legion’s sexism actually stems from the real world conundrum that Guild Wars 1 didn’t feature any female charr models.
Yeah, charr lore was definitely shaped to account for that.
Long story short, they’re propably the least sexist race beside the Asura.
Asura: Got brains? you’re good to go
Charr: Can you wield a weapon? you’re good to go
Sylphari: What’s a gender?
Norn: there may be some appropriate classes for you, but for the most part, we welcome everyone who wants to make a legend, or wants to tend to the spirits.
Humans: some real world stereotypes are in place, but even among the humans sexism is very low. Males and Females are equally present in most fields. I’ve seen plenty of female soldiers, worked, etc, and male “caretakers or social field workers”
Blood Legion was the first to change it’s tune – it needed more soldiers, and the charr females were ready to assume the role. Iron Legion resisted until Kalla Scorchrazor beat the kitten out of the Iron Legion Imperitor, Forge Ironstrike. Ash – usually seen at the Legion closest to Flame, but generally the most pragmatic of the Legions – was the last Legion to accept female equality.
Hm. Do you have a source on that? I was under the impression that Iron and Ash both changed their minds because of that duel.
Though charr males undeniably tend to be bigger than charr females, the differential of strength or agility between males and females seems to be, in reality, minimal. There are tons of beefy charr females in service to the Legions. One even leads the Vigil.
I actually pulled that directly from Ghosts of Ascalon- and from a Vigil charr, no less. “The two warriors were well matched. As a male of our race, Ironstrike was the larger and stronger of the two, but Scorchrazor was by far the faster and more skilled.” Emphasis mine, but note that first line too. Even though she notes that there’s a physical difference between the sexes, she starts out by pointing out that it didn’t mean either had an advantage. Different strengths, but neither was clearly superior to the other.
The Flame Legion’s sexism actually stems from the real world conundrum that Guild Wars 1 didn’t feature any female charr models.
Yeah, charr lore was definitely shaped to account for that.
To be fair, though, both are more or less true. ArenaNet was writing to explain the absence of female charr in the first game, but they did a pretty good job of working out a believable reason why. Detestable, yes, but at least the Flame Legion didn’t just wake up and say “let’s invent misogyny today”… unlike another faction I could mention.
R.I.P., Old Man of Auld Red Wharf. Gone but never forgotten.
In ancient times, charr lived in Ascalon before humans. When humans came to the continent, they made war with the charr.
Humans had magic, and charr did not. Because of that, humans were winning the war. In desperation, charr of the ancient Flame Legion sought magic of their own—and long story short—found it.
Flame Legion started using the new magic, not only to fight humans, but to try and dominate their own society. For whatever reason—perhaps Flame Legion had issues with sexism even then—it was primarily females who rebelled against Flame Legion efforts to rule charr society.
This rebellion was led by Balthea Havocbringer—an ancient Blood Legion warrior. She was captured by Flame Legion and killed. After her rebellion was defeated, the Flame Legion enslaved women and made it law that women could not use weapons or hold power. They said that women were not trustworthy, and used Balthea’s rebellion as an example.
Thus, women in charr society were oppressed for hundreds of years. In Guild Wars 1, a charr named Pyre Fierceshot realized the Flame Legion gods were false, and started a new rebellion against Flame. However, even among the rebels, women were still slaves.
This changed when Pyre’s granddaughter, Kalla Scorchrazor, started to train women to fight in secret. She raised an army of women, and convinced the rebels to allow women equal status on the battlefield, by defeating one of their major leaders in hand to hand combat.
The rebellion was able to defeat Flame Legion because their numbers were greatly increased by female troops. As a result, women in Blood, Iron, and Ash Legion gained equal status with men. Today—200 years or so later—Blood, Iron, and Ash Legion make up the bulk of charr society—and thus, charr women in mainstream society have equal status.
However, Flame Legion still exists. It doesn’t control the other Legions any more, but it still holds to ancient cultural norms. Women in Flame Legion are slaves. Flame Legion tries to convert men from the other Legions to their beliefs, and will take female troops as prisoners of war—for breeding and slave labor.
For whatever reason—perhaps Flame Legion had issues with sexism even then—it was primarily females who rebelled against Flame Legion efforts to rule charr society.
As far as I’m aware, that’s not true. Or at least, there’s no source indicating it. The impression I got, from Ember’s account in Ghosts of Ascalon and from The Ecology of the Charr, is that the new Shaman caste needed a way to discredit Bathea- to make it seem like she rebelled for clearly misguided reasons, so that no one would wonder if she might have actually had a point,a and that the solution they picked was that she was “using her sexuality to tempt the males from the true path of the gods,” which was a suspicion that then spread to female charr as a whole.
R.I.P., Old Man of Auld Red Wharf. Gone but never forgotten.
For whatever reason—perhaps Flame Legion had issues with sexism even then—it was primarily females who rebelled against Flame Legion efforts to rule charr society.
As far as I’m aware, that’s not true. Or at least, there’s no source indicating it. The impression I got, from Ember’s account in Ghosts of Ascalon and from The Ecology of the Charr, is that the new Shaman caste needed a way to discredit Bathea- to make it seem like she rebelled for clearly misguided reasons, so that no one would wonder if she might have actually had a point,a and that the solution they picked was that she was “using her sexuality to tempt the males from the true path of the gods,” which was a suspicion that then spread to female charr as a whole.
And yet, in a society where men and women are seen as unquestionably equal—in a society where sexism does not already exist in some capacity—this “solution” would never work. For the men of a society to view women as “sexual temptresses”—or to accept the story that all women are such based on the actions of one woman—that requires that the men have been exposed to some sexist ideology already.
The Shaman Caste’s method to discredit Balthea would not have worked in a perfectly egalitarian society. So that brings up the question—where was the discrepancy?
I remember a source somewhere stating that Balthea’s rebellion was primarily composed of females. I don’t know if it was an interview, the wiki, or lore in-game… I would honestly like to locate it again. But, the fact that primarily females were willing to rebel against Flame’s bid for power, that also leads to the question: why? What would motivate ancient women to dislike Flame, even before Flame discredited Balthea?
And thus, my theory is that, A) Ancient charr society had some form of sexism, and B ) It was likely associated with Flame Legion somehow, since women were so willing to resist the Flame bid for power.
And yet, in a society where men and women are seen as unquestionably equal—in a society where sexism does not already exist in some capacity—this “solution” would never work.
Two reasons I’m skeptical of this argument- first off, the whole idea of religion, and thus, of sinfulness, was also new to the charr. Saying that their new gods disapproved of something would have been no harder than saying that the new gods approved of something… and we know that the charr were willing to swallow pervasive tyranny in other regards, so inventing sexism doesn’t seem any less likely to me. At worst, they’re equally unlikely, but brings me to the second point. We don’t know the time frame. We know that Bathea rebelled, we know that the Shamans banned females from serving in Blood, and we know that they then went on to ban them in the rest of the Legions, but we don’t know when these events occurred in relation to each other or the two hundred year span between the creation of the Shaman caste and GW1. Perhaps it all happened in the course of a few days, or perhaps it took the better part of those centuries.
I remember a source somewhere stating that Balthea’s rebellion was primarily composed of females. I don’t know if it was an interview, the wiki, or lore in-game… I would honestly like to locate it again.
Which is fair, and I’d also love to see this source if you do happen to find it, but in the meantime I have to work by what I know. By Ember’s account in GoA, females didn’t become heavily involved in the resistance until after they were kicked out of the legions.
B ) It was likely associated with Flame Legion somehow, since women were so willing to resist the Flame bid for power.
The problem with that is that it wasn’t a Flame bid to power, it was the Shaman caste. Most modern charr take pains to conflate the two, and it’s true that more shamans had previously been Flame than any other legion, but they were still drawn from all four and they agreed to set aside legion identity when they took power. Being a new entity, they couldn’t have had a history of sexism, because they didn’t have a history.
On the other hand, it could be argued that the fact that the Shamans were willing to institute such a policy meant that they didn’t have any influential females among their own number, but on its own I don’t think that makes a convincing case for entrenched sexism by the old charr society. It may reflect gender roles that originally only applied to the practice of magic, not prestige as a whole (which maps to your suspicions about Flame). It may reflect a simple divide among gender lines among the Shamans themselves, with the male side happening to achieve greater influence. It may reflect an instruction by the Titans to restructure their society in a way that would maximize war efficiency, combining the labor force that had to stay behind during the campaigns with the segment of society most valuable to reproduction. It may be that whichever person was leading the Shamans during Bathea’s time had just come out of a nasty breakup, and it was late enough in the time frame that he had the unquestioned power to pursue a childish policy over it.
Or, it might be as you say, and the ancient charr were sexist. Modern charr, in their return to their ‘glorious past’, may simply be whitewashing that fact away- they’ve certainly proven willing enough to rewrite problematic parts of their history. I just don’t think that what we know justifies confidence it that conclusion. There are too many equally possible alternatives.
R.I.P., Old Man of Auld Red Wharf. Gone but never forgotten.