What is your historical and practical analysis of this statement?Well, there are always women who are crazy and warriors, greater male facility does not imply incapacity. Some cultures will have some women fighting. Don't think of this as being the same as modern American feminism - it's not. But there have always been some cases of women choosing to take physical risks like men.
If your cause has women armed, you're in the wrong.
>>16888850Not the point
>>16888726>What is your historical and practical analysis of this statement?History is complex, and any time you see the words 'never' and 'always' thrown around you know you're looking at an oversimplification. Weird variations are heinously common.
>>16888726Sure, there are accounts of warrior queens and crossdressers sneaking into the arny so I don't doubt this claim but I doubt you would make an army composed significantly of women and then send them out to fight a war. Even the USSR would never give it's women soldiers every military job, the army was never 50/50 gender wise.
>>16888880>there are accounts of warrior queensYes. We know
>>16888726They can
>>16888726Women have indisputably fought in armed combat, and in all of recorded history, there has probably been multiple instances of women defeating men in armed combat. The point is that if you took all of those instances away, history probably ends up looking exactly the same. Historians who popularize this talking point are taking an exception (Women have fought in combat) and trying to make it the basis for a rule (Women are as strong as men, and should fight in combat).
they would never be as good as a man trained from infancy
>>16888726Women do not fight in wars. In a fight to the death a well-trained woman would be turned into paint by a mediocre man. The fact that some women do martial arts does not dispute this fact. "muh technique" cannot make up for the gap in size, speed, strength, endurance, aggression, height, weight, muscle mass, bone density and pain tolerance.Not only this, it makes no sense to send the child-bearing sex into combat. One lost battle and there goes all your fertile-age females who are the rate limiting factor of reproduction. That's we we evolved to protect women.
muh wahmen warriors. https://youtu.be/gTMIO9OBpNY?si=4g2yeR8H9yVIFTLw
>>16888967See here>>16888938
>>1688872630% of women did it
>>16889166>30Do you have some sources for this claim? Or it's just "hey guys trust me ok?" Give to us some sources...>>16888967Yes. The same with these ancient "warrior women"Joan, boudicope etc etc
>>16889173>sources Sorry i mean steppe women*Check out the Anthony's books about steppe burials since the EBA, we have at least 25% of "warrior type" tombs with women skulls.
>>16888726It's obvious that they can use swords, many did in fact.
>>16889179I still need a citation.
>>16889191
>>16889180Many? Are you sure?
>>16889206Yep
>>16889206No hes lying
>>16889222>lyingNo?
>>16889226>>16889199N o
>>16888726>>16889226We have Queen Juana of Castile, who was a prominent warrior during the reign of King Philip II of Spain. She led an army and fought against the French at the Battle of Toro in 1567. We also have Catherine I of Russia, who was famous for her courage and physical strength in combat
>>16888726>Well, there are always women who are crazy and warriors, greater male facility does not imply incapacity.It's basically a naxalt fallacy. Greater (more like overwhelming, but w/e) male facility implies that systemically males were warriors and females weren't.The existence of exceptions does absolutely nothing to disprove this, and pointing at exceptions so rare they were reason for wonder and fame really doesn't help your argument in any way.Or to put it in another way: a young kid could definitely have the strength to raise a sword and kill a man with it. Does it mean that kids in general were fielded as soldiers together with or instead of adults? Fuck no. Yet this is the argument you're trying to make.
>>16889291>>1688919920%
>>16889370>females dressed for battle
