"Feminist" nightmare

[Chaos63]

Is there anything people don't complain about these days?

[zippy57]

No.

[gtouch]

Interesting discussion. For those who born in North America, where 'anti-men feminism' is very strong, you have one point of view, for me, born in a country, where man is a head of family, that cultural difference irritating my eyes like snow in the sunlight. Girls should have same rights as men, that's obvious, but they shouldn't exploit it to get advantage ( that's what happening nowadays). Open your eyes! Courts, police.. It all works for ladies advantage. Things changed long time ago and I feel so sorry for american guys who lost that 'battle'. Women need equality? No. In NA it is man who needs equality today.

About a game: As a part of culture, feminism couldn't miss the games and movies too. We see brave girls brawling and beating huge guys like pillows, but c'mon, two handed sword about 3-5 kilos, armor 20-25 kilos. Even considering ladies at that time were stronger that nowadays, it still unbearable and impossible to fight. Only few of them could do that. That's why we haven't heard of many women entering the medieval battlefield. But we under a huge influence of mass media which consistently changes reasonable way of thinking to the desired one.

Thanks for listening.

[panthercom]

 I have no doubt that radical feminism is partly responsible for the rise of radical

fundamentalism.

 

 Yes, the US is a dangerous place for a man to have any sort of relations

with a woman. We're in the middle of a failing social experiment at the moment.

Equal rights can never exist when one group is being oppressed and discriminated

against to gain them; and I'm talking about men being oppressed here.

 

 

[Someone92]

Even considering ladies at that time were stronger that nowadays, it still unbearable and impossible to fight. Only few of them could do that. That's why we haven't heard of many women entering the medieval battlefield.

The main reason why women weren't allowed to carry on a dangerous profession such as soldier was mainly because they were too valuable for society. Until about 100 to 200 years ago women were the bottle neck regarding reproduction, due to the bad medical treatment and high child mortality each girl who reached child-bearing age had to give birth to 6 to 8 children just to keep the population stable. A society that sends their women into war would simply eventually die out.

[Chaos63]

 

The main reason why women weren't allowed to carry on a dangerous profession such as soldier was mainly because they were too valuable for society. Until about 100 to 200 years ago women were the bottle neck regarding reproduction, due to the bad medical treatment and high child mortality each girl who reached child-bearing age had to give birth to 6 to 8 children just to keep the population stable. A society that sends their women into war would simply eventually die out.

 

This dates way back to the time when humans still lived in caves. A clan with ten women and one man is much more likely to survive than one with ten men and one woman. Survival existed long before any of our current freedoms were presented, and it worked out just fine.

All it takes is one OP virus and bam, we're back to the societal stone age.

[gtouch]

 

Even considering ladies at that time were stronger that nowadays, it still unbearable and impossible to fight. Only few of them could do that. That's why we haven't heard of many women entering the medieval battlefield.

The main reason why women weren't allowed to carry on a dangerous profession such as soldier was mainly because they were too valuable for society. Until about 100 to 200 years ago women were the bottle neck regarding reproduction, due to the bad medical treatment and high child mortality each girl who reached child-bearing age had to give birth to 6 to 8 children just to keep the population stable. A society that sends their women into war would simply eventually die out.

Dear Someone, do you really believe that medieval society was so careful about 'birthgiving' women to not let them fight?! They weren't that advanced in social sciences (yet). More likely they consider women worthless as a warriors since they need to oppose other ( and experienced) men. That's why.

[zippy57]

You don't have to be very advanced in "social sciences" to understand "babies good, lack of babies very bad".

[GrimReaper]

 

Dear Someone, do you really believe that medieval society was so careful about 'birthgiving' women to not let them fight?! They weren't that advanced in social sciences (yet). More likely they consider women worthless as a warriors since they need to oppose other ( and experienced) men. That's why.

 

 

It doesn't matter why they thought they did it. The point is that every other society that would have send women to the battlefield would have vanished sooner or later, leaving only those that didn't send women to the battlefield. How each society explains why they didn't value women as soldiers is null because it doesn't matter - what matters is that they simply didn't do that.

 

Also, if they would have valued battle prowess and experience above all else they wouldn't have comscripted masses of peasants to fight for them.

[gtouch]

 

 

Dear Someone, do you really believe that medieval society was so careful about 'birthgiving' women to not let them fight?! They weren't that advanced in social sciences (yet). More likely they consider women worthless as a warriors since they need to oppose other ( and experienced) men. That's why.

 

It doesn't matter why they thought they did it. The point is that every other society that would have send women to the battlefield would have vanished sooner or later, leaving only those that didn't send women to the battlefield. How each society explains why they didn't value women as soldiers is null because it doesn't matter - what matters is that they simply didn't do that.

 

Also, if they would have valued battle prowess and experience above all else they wouldn't have comscripted masses of peasants to fight for them.

Yes, they would.. That was battle tactic: set less valuable lightknechts/berserkrs/velits etc. at the frontline leaving experienced ones intact as long as possible to make the battle afterwards. Peasants were taken mostly during the siege wars. It was matter of surviving. Now, to make myself clear, I'm aware that women weren't fought because of their birthgiving value as well as low warrior value, it was just an example to support the main idea: today we have the men value in North America to be diminished in favor of women to the point that even obvious things like e.g. Brawling PVP man/woman result is not that obvious. That couldn't be considered as an advanced society achievement. 'Progress' of one gender on a specific continent leaded to regress of the opposite gender. That isn't a progress for humanity. Is it clear now?

If you critic enough about yourself you will consider my opinion otherwise continue fishing descrepancies out of my speech.

[gtouch]

The more interesting question to me is how did it happened? I'd like to hear from those born in NA. I have few hypothesis on that matter: biochemical ( steroids in food), social (no wars for a long time). We can open discussion on that.

For you to consider me right I'll tell a joke:

Man (with brutal voice): 'In my family I'm the main one. If I said to go to football, we will go to football'. Then his wife stood behind him putting her hands on his shoulders and murmuring: ' Hunny, what if we will go to my mom?'

He quickly responded: ' An if I said we go to her mom, we will'!

[GrimReaper]

The fun thing is: Peasants were mostly used during the early stages of medieval warfare. The constant warfare across europe evolved the military tactics - peasants were less dependable on the battlefield than trained soldiers and mercenaries. As a result, the armies went from "mostly peasants and a few knights" to trained and well equipped soldiers and mercenaries.

 

Early medieval warfare: Peasants.

 

Late medieval warfare: Soldiers and mercenaries.

 

Your argument was that women weren't able to fight back then because they are inferior to men on the battlefield. However I'd say that the expertise in fighting in a war was the same for the average peasant male and the average peasant female - non-existant. The only thing that prevented women on the battlefield was the society back then. From a military perspective, having women in your army doesn't make it weaker. The average female may be physically weaker than the average male, but that doesn't mean shit. Let women fill the ranks of the missile troops and that disadvantage would mean nothing, for example.

[gtouch]

That is very bright example of 'NA women supremacy virus'. You're so sure that weakness doesn't matter in medieval wars (that's what we are talking about) that I doubt if it worth to continue such discussion. There were no such mods to deploy missiles..

[zippy57]

There were no such mods to deploy missiles..

What does that even mean?

[Majuko]

I believe both and all sides honestly, women weren't allowed on the battlefield because that was just what was considered normal back then, they were wives and daughters and sisters. Even now I wouldn't want my mother fighting in war....would you? 

 

Their was alot less women back then also so you couldn't just send them in harms way the you can't birth new peasants and new generations to work the fields and manual labor, its economics and when things was back then you have to be very careful how many die and how many live....

 

Even today in certain aspects woman are looked down upon I agree totally and utterly hate this. Like I said in my older post tho, Sexism is like racism (I'm black) Its not going anywhere any time soon.

[GrimReaper]

That is very bright example of 'NA women supremacy virus'. You're so sure that weakness doesn't matter in medieval wars (that's what we are talking about) that I doubt if it worth to continue such discussion. There were no such mods to deploy missiles..

 

History has proven that superior numbers, equipment and training > personal skill and strength. It takes more skill to aim and hit with a bow than with a crossbow or rifle and yet what happened? Crossbows and later rifles made the bow less and less important over time. A weapon that requires less skill to use yet is more effective in what it does is always superior. That's why the fact that women are physically weaker than men wouldn't have mattered that much because an arrow, bolt or bullet fired by a woman will kill you the same way than if it would have been fired by a man. That's what weapons are for, to extend the killing potential of a person beyond of what would be naturally possible - humans don't fight wars with their fists and teeth, after all.

 

Even in melee combat equipment, training and discipline are more important than personal skill. Doesn't really matter if you are a legendary warrior when you face a shieldwall with spears and swords behind it.

 

Missile troops are archers and crossbowman, by the way.

[windpl]

 

There were no such mods to deploy missiles..

What does that even mean?

 

 

That's mean "Medieval Bow required significant strengh to draw"

Even eastern short bow. - child traning.

[gtouch]

 

 

That is very bright example of 'NA women supremacy virus'. You're so sure that weakness doesn't matter in medieval wars (that's what we are talking about) that I doubt if it worth to continue such discussion. There were no such mods to deploy missiles..

History has proven that superior numbers, equipment and training > personal skill and strength. It takes more skill to aim and hit with a bow than with a crossbow or rifle and yet what happened? Crossbows and later rifles made the bow less and less important over time. A weapon that requires less skill to use yet is more effective in what it does is always superior. That's why the fact that women are physically weaker than men wouldn't have mattered that much because an arrow, bolt or bullet fired by a woman will kill you the same way than if it would have been fired by a man. That's what weapons are for, to extend the killing potential of a person beyond of what would be naturally possible - humans don't fight wars with their fists and teeth, after all.

 

Even in melee combat equipment, training and discipline are more important than personal skill. Doesn't really matter if you are a legendary warrior when you face a shieldwall with spears and swords behind it.

 

Missile troops are archers and crossbowman, by the way.

Thanks for the brief history of the firearms development. For someone in this chat it could be useful. And thanks for teaching me what missile troops means. I truly didn't know that.

About importance of skills.. Who doubt that? It was proven many times, for example during the battle between romans and Boudica followers. But it doesn't mean that cohort of well trained girls could stand and defeat horde of savages. No. Because it requires a bit more than just knowing how to swing your sword. It requires.. balls.

As I said earlier we haven't heard much about any of well trained women formations, except mythic amazons, possibly because women were busy with their current things and didn't WANT to fight. Which is fine. Formation of 100 men will always defeat formation of hundred women disregard their skill. Everybody should do what they good at. Luckily, ancient women weren't that much 'amazon-minded', which help them to survive and develop humanity.

[zippy57]

That entire post: Bullshit of the highest possible caliber.

[GrimReaper]

What you describe as 'balls' is commonly called morale and discipline, which in turn depends largely on the training of the soldiers and the commanding officer, not so much on having a scrotum.

 

The japanese for example had female warriors. Not only that, but females were expected to defend their homes against invaders and criminals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onna-bugeisha

 

As said in the article, female warriors were the exception. Not because they weren't able to fight (they used the naginata and not a sword to offset the size and strength difference) but because the society in general promoted a different role. People don't exist in a vacuum, what you want and what you don't want is heavily influenced by how you are raised and educated. Saying that women generally don't want to fight because they are women is a statement which can't be proven. If you teach every women that they shouldn't fight in war and enforce that as a rule then most women won't fight in wars.

[Majuko]

Except now today, Women can fight in wars....So like what is the big deal. Women can fight and die like men.... Happy now?

[gtouch]

Here we are.. You mentioned society again. What is society, which made girls to feel so much unequal? Is it a bunch of grumpy guys, chasing them non-stop and didn't let them read books? Preventing them from doing wonderful things like beating huge guys and so on. Is that society, which chackled women and from which they were finally released? Where it all comes from? This isn't the first time I hear that. School textbooks? However, I agree that women were taught to be women and men were taught to be men and get ready to sacrifice themselves for others. It turns differently for them but.. Welcome to evolution. I agree that our behavior largely depend on our environment. That's why having kids I worry about that. I don't want my boys to feel down just because they are boys in NA.

[Chaos63]

I bet there's not a single woman in this discussion.

Hah.

[squid889]

Here we are.. You mentioned society again. What is society, which made girls to feel so much unequal? Is it a bunch of grumpy guys, chasing them non-stop and didn't let them read books? Preventing them from doing wonderful things like beating huge guys and so on. Is that society, which chackled women and from which they were finally released? Where it all comes from? This isn't the first time I hear that. School textbooks? However, I agree that women were taught to be women and men were taught to be men and get ready to sacrifice themselves for others. It turns differently for them but.. Welcome to evolution. I agree that our behavior largely depend on our environment. That's why having kids I worry about that. I don't want my boys to feel down just because they are boys in NA.

 

I would suggest that society's general tendency to send men off to war first had to do with a social interest in protecting women. This may have developed early on in human history during the time of small relatively isolated tribes. For whatever reason, these rules generally applied and men were generally recruited into peasant levies and militias instead of women. You're making this seem like history was defined by some massive male oppression of women, when in reality most violent and destructive conflicts seem to have been the outcomes of local power struggles, for instance one king or duke wanting one piece of land held by another. The peasants fought and died for it and they would loot the countryside as a kind of compensation. In short, male abuse of women historically was mostly a matter of women being considered part of war loot and men may have gone to war partially to keep them safe. I disagree with what you said about evolution, I don't think that has anything to do with what has happened. It's a bit of behavior that may be somehow biological in origin, but I don't think it's correct to attribute it to evolution. Evolution is a long-term biological process, it's not about socially accepted ideas.

[gtouch]

Thanks. Please read attentively what I said.

It would be nice to hear other people's opinion as well.