What's the earliest account of women on the battlefield? What was their role?
>>480361
Whores
Your mom in the battle of Salamis. She was used as cushion for the boat-pushing
There's multiple mentions of female warriors in pagan literature, such as the Celtic and Norse works
That's really hot
>>480361
Women in war would be used as fleshlights. Now that we have fleshlights thanks to technology, we can keep our women off the battlefield and out of harms way. To make more fleshlights.
>>480364
The funny thing is that this is actually true. They weren't actually on the battlefield though, they stayed back at camp, along with nurses, the second job that women had "on the battlefield".
>>480367
You mean the literature that was mythology written by Christians long after the pagans had converted?
>>480382
That must be hurting her nipples hard though
>>480410
Are you implying it was written with a bias intent??
>>480454
I'm implying pagans didn't write shit and the things you're referencing were pagan mythology rather that a comprehensive list of historical female warriors.
>>480468
>pagans didn't write shit
Neither did the first Christians
>>480445
Chainmail isn't that bad to wear honestly. Plus she probably has a bra on under the chain mail.
>>480468
Pretty sure rune stones were a thing.
>>480454
There were no women warriors. It's asinine to think there was. Think of football: war is a lot like that. Any women on a battlefield would be pushed aside by the pure mass of men on the opposing side (even a very large woman can't match an average man in applying force in the opposite direction). Compound this with significantly less upper body strength and you have someone incapable of fighting.
All of the women warriors were myths. There were weebs back in antiquity just like some of the faggots on here, who, because they wished it was true, made it true in their literature.
>>480445
That doesn't affect how much I'm aroused by the picture
>>480445
>hurting
depends by how Alpha is the guy taking the picture
>>480468
Do you think the writers of the sagas just made it all up? Or put female warriors in as part of their feminist agenda?
>>480507
It was mythology. The shieldmaidens and such were made up, yes. It wasn't even hidden mythology. They threw it in with the trolls, dragons, and other myths. No one truly believed women could fight. They aren't mentally or physically cut out for it.
>>480361
The Law of king Liutprand that forbids the groups of armed women comes to my mind.
But they obviously mean robbers not soldiers. They seem to be women who have been equipped by men to take advantage of the former legal vacuum.
>>480536
I wasn't arguing that. Op asked for sources on female warriors. I never said Brynhild actually existed.
>>480646
What was this for? Were there cases of men being seduced by women and robbed or something? I know that has happened before, although I don't know how common it was.
>>480704
>seduced by women and robbed
If the women had weapons and the victims didn't, I don't see why there would be need for seduction.
>>480364
>>480400
Ancient warriors of nearly all societies were ordered to refrain from sex while out on campaign.
>>480710
Most of the cases of this were women working in collusion with men. The women would seduce a man and the men they were working with would jump them. It sounds a little too bold for women to straight out rob someone, and I would be very surprised if there was ever anything other than minor reports of this happening. Do you have any cases of women engaging in armed robbery without being enlisted by men?
>>480704
"(...) certain perfidious and evil-minded men (...), gather together as many women as they have both free and bond, and set them upon weaker men. Seizing these men the women rain blows upon them and commit other evil deeds in a violent manner more cruelly than men might do. (...)
>>480739
So they were using women as their torturers?
>>480728
>Do you have any cases of women engaging in armed robbery without being enlisted by men?
Are you serious?
>>480721
I'd like some proof.
>>480746
They were using them as robbers as I said I my first post.
>>480747
Yes. That's extremely rare even today, and we have guns now to even up the strength disparity. I very much doubt there were gangs of robbing women roaming the countrysides; and if there were, I would like to see a source.
>The Order of the Hatchet (Sp. Orden del Hacha) is a military order of knighthood founded in 1149, bestowed upon the women of the town of Tortosa, in Catalonia, near Barcelona, Spain in recognition of their defense of the town against a Moorish siege.
>>480721
[citation please]
>>480536
>No one truly believed women could fight.
The Nazi's didn't. That was one reason why they were defeated in Russia. They kept ignoring the presence of female troops in their plans, and then getting overwhelmed by "surprising" resistance.
>>480646
>he Law of king Liutprand that forbids the groups of armed women comes to my mind.
Generally you don't explicitly forbid something unless it is actually happening. (No laws about armed squirrels.) So the law is evidence that such groups existed and were effective.
>>480361
According to Dan Carlin, the traditional role of Nordic women in the middle ages was to kill any of their own troops who fled the battle.
>>480361
nah
>>481034
>According to Dan Carlin, the traditional role of Nordic women in the middle ages was to kill any of their own troops who fled the battle.
Lady commissars?
>>481034
Thats why I posted it...
>>481034
>The Nazi's didn't. That was one reason why they were defeated in Russia. They kept ignoring the presence of female troops in their plans, and then getting overwhelmed by "surprising" resistance.
All of those stories are dubious at best. They had a gargantuan manpower advantage without enlisting women. All of the stories about the women pilots and such don't make any sense. Why would you have women take those positions when you have plenty of men to do so? If women are really better pilots/drivers than men, why aren't professional racers women? Why are women primarily just a marketing ploy, when it has almost nothing to do with physical strength? Men have better hand-eye coordination, reflexes, depth perception, less stress response, better visio spatial processing, and a multitude of other innate mental characteristics that make them much better warriors than women. It's not as simple as strength and body size, although that was the most obvious limiting factor in antiquity.
The Soviets lied a lot—and I mean a lot. Everything they have said should be scrutinized intensely instead of parroted blindly. I doubt the veracity of any of their woman warrior claims—among a vast majority of other ones.
>>480361
There are some eneolithic ladies buried with bows and weapons, but they were probably just some queens or wives of warlords rather than warriors.
Also there are some pretty brutal evidence of neolithic warfare, It would be quite uneconomical not to use women during desperate defense of their houses and families.
>>481102
>less stress response
untrue, we've got fuckloads more androgens than females.
The stress response actually increases performance.
>>481102
why to use only fuckload of people if you could use two fuckloads? And there was always shortage of qualified specialists. Soviets really weren't in situation to pick only the best possible people and planes or sniper rifles are far easier to use than bows or swords.
>>481183
>planes or sniper rifles are far easier to use than bows or swords
gtfo
>>480721
"Hey m8s don't plunder da booty" *winks* - General
Even in Paleolithic societies the men would hunt and gather and the women would tend to the children. It is simply how evolution has made us.
>>481182
We don't panic like women do. I don't care what the specific medical term or effects are. Have you ever seen a woman get into trouble? Their first instinct is to scream for male help. Men are more or less made to deal with the problem at hand.
>why to use only fuckload of people if you could use two fuckloads? And there was always shortage of qualified specialists. Soviets really weren't in situation to pick only the best possible people and planes or sniper rifles are far easier to use than bows or swords.
Planes are not easy to use. Nobody would risk some of their most valuable assets on a gender that performs significantly worse by every metric. It's asinine to think they wouldn't be enlisting the cream of the crop for something so important.
It also isn't as simple as mass. There has to be quality behind it. Sure, numbers can be better than quality, but there still has to be a minimal standard for this to be the case. If you can't coordinate, if you can't maneuver, if you don't have the endurance to march long distances while carrying equipment, etc., you are useless.
This was even more the case during antiquity. Think football: you stay compact, sprint into the enemy line, and dump all of your kinetic energy into them. It wasn't about technique in the way you are thinking. There were no fancy parries or any of that nonsense. Most of the skill from an elite fighting unit came from coordination, morale, and experience. An elite group would stay together better, was less likely to hesitate during a charge, and could cause a larger group to route. Women would only have hindered this significantly. Mass is not good unless it has a minimal standard of quality applied to it.
>>481223
Blanket statements like that are hard to back.
You can find exceptions such as the Aka, where separation of function is less marked.
Not to say there aren't different general tendencies.
>>481183
Bows and sniper rifles are a bit on the same level, though I will give you it's far easier to point a rifle and pull a trigger.
Accounting for factors that would make you capable of sniping? Easier to learn a bow.
As for planes being easier to operate than a slashing or stabling object... I can't help stupid.
>>480491
No bra, you can clearly see her nipples.
>>481233
They flew the crummy planes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches
>>480361
Oldest one I can think of off the top of my head would be the amazons, which were really a sarmatian tribe. So the Sarmatians.
>>480721
Probably because they would be too spent to care about raping the enemy's women otherwise.
>>481310
Even crummy planes are a valuable resource. No one would have let them fly, I don't believe it. It's just more Soviet lies, among a very, very large list.
I remember the Greek myth of the Amazons was loosely based on steppe nomads such as the Scythians having their unmarried women act as warriors. Allegedly women had to kill an opponent in battle before they had to marry, men had to kill over three. Plenty of women were buried with weapons and armor too.
>>481326
>it's a conspiracy
k
>>481339
>The Soviets weren't known liars and propagandists
K
>>481233
>Planes are not easy to use
I meant considering only physical strength
>some of their most valuable
thats why female pilots flew in the worst expendable planes Soviets had.
Defense of Russia was specific case, there was no need for long marches because there were already enough enemies around, less need for perfect organization, because everywhere was chaos anyway. Good coordination, morale and experience is preferred, but if all you have is a hammer...
tl;dr women are inferior troops but they could be still effectively used during specific situation
>>481357
Were the Germans in on it too?
My God! Were literal feminazis behind it?
>>481336
All bullshit. Read >>481233 .
There is no way a woman can create enough force to defeat a group of men. All melee warfare was just as much pushing as slashing and thrusting of swords. Women would be pushed over. It really doesn't matter how great their technique is. Technique was only relevant on a macro scale, really.
That's what you weebs need to understand: full-body force, not swinging a 20 pound sword around like you're in the LOTRs. Think of a football tackle. There isn't a woman alive that is going to hold up to high school boys let alone a group of elite seasoned veterans.
>>481373
>thats why female pilots flew in the worst expendable planes Soviets had.
Why not give them to a man anyhow and have the women do something else? You're not getting my point: plenty of men were operating less valuable equipment and had much better innate characteristics to operate an airplane.
>Defense of Russia was specific case, there was no need for long marches because there were already enough enemies around, less need for perfect organization, because everywhere was chaos anyway.
Sounds like a perfect situation to lie about women's participation.
>Good coordination, morale and experience is preferred, but if all you have is a hammer...
The word you are looking for is "absolutely required." Even in modern warfare ragtag groups won't hold up against a coordinated army like Germany's. Think of the Middle East conflicts we have been in: the casualty difference is astounding.
>>481379
Go watch women's rugby.
And stop worshipping the elite centre of the line. Plenty of the line was ungrown boys and feeble aged. And then there's the skirmishers.
>>481379
Why do you insist on making blanket statements such as these? They are easy to dismiss with single instances, of which there are plenty.
Not all warfare was done in the open fields in formations. There was guerrilla fighting, skirmishes and raids going on.
There were kunoichi but not very many from what I understand.
They mostly used deception and espionage though.
>>481421
>Even in modern warfare ragtag groups won't hold up against a coordinated army like Germany's. Think of the Middle East conflicts we have been in: the casualty difference is astounding.
>what is guerrilla warfare
>>481425
Elite women rugby players would be destroyed by male high school students. Women have inferior skeletal structure and less muscle to mass ratio. Men can sprint faster, even very large males weighing 200 pounds plus.
>Plenty of the line was ungrown boys and feeble aged. And then there's the skirmishers.
No women, though. Old men and teenagers are significantly more athletic than your average woman. The average man is better than an elite woman. Even today with steroid use and modern science, your average man is better than elite women. Muscle mass isn't the whole story. Women's skeletal frame is vastly inferior for combat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MF-YeWnIJfU
>>481432
>They are easy to dismiss with single instances, of which there are plenty.
All mythological. There wasn't steroids back then to even make it seem plausible. It's not plausible even with steroids, as the video above shows.
>Not all warfare was done in the open fields in formations. There was guerrilla fighting, skirmishes and raids going on.
I don't really feel like getting into it, but all of the things involved in guerrilla warfare are obviously male oriented, as well. If you really think women are going to live off the land in the freezing cold and take pot shots at enemy soldiers, you should grow up. Quit watching movies and reading comic books that depict women matching men mentally or physically. It's quite obviously not the case in the real world.
>>481421
>Even in modern warfare ragtag groups won't hold up against a coordinated
thats why Americans won in Vietnam or Soviets in Afghanistan? Its nearly impossible to hold area with hard terrain and determined population not carrying about k:d ratio.
>>481318
as a corollary aren't olympic athletes told to refrain from banging each other until after their events?
>>481495
actually they are, or so I heard
>>481478
>Elite women rugby players would be destroyed by male high school students.
Not where I live. I assume you live in the United States where testosterone analogues and steroids are ritually abused by footballers.
Your assumptions about male body forms are predicated on a ludicrous concept of what adolescent gainz are, my man.
>No women, though.
There are other, social, reasons for that; usually to do with the management of the economic unit. Christine de Pizan and the genre of household management (read: medium business) in the late middle ages show.
And of course in modernity: AK-47 is the tool. Look into the organisational structure of the PLAF and PAVN.
>>481489
Both the PAVN and PLAF held the ARVN, and minor operations by the United States, using mainline forces on the whole. Provincial and local forces were dedicated to political activity.
>>481478
This guy needs to step into a ring with a female mma fighter, not even a top competitor, just an average fighter. He'll run in a take a swing, and then the next thing he knows he'll be on his back with her knee plowing into his throat. He will redact his statements quickly. This coming from a heterosexual male
You're only problem is that you actually BELIEVE everything that you're saying, even when examples are given you cry bullshit. Get over yourself anon. Sometimes women actually can kick ass. Pick up the pieces and carry on.
>>481529
>This guy needs to step into a ring with a female mma fighter
I think that the major point anon is trying to make is that combat in antiquity was mainly about physical strength and discipline. MMA is a single combat discipline(s?), which is vastly different from the large tight formations that you see in the periods talked about in this thread (MMA is primarily skill based, although strength can be a big factor; I know, I'm a BJJ blue belt). Men are stronger than women, on average. The strongest men are stronger than the strongest women. While you could instill in women the same amount of discipline as men, the vast majority of the women you train to be line fighters will ultimately be able to match up against men of a similar amount of experience and training, which doesn't make for a good investment on the part of the commanders.
As for the examples in this thread, most of them have been women who:
-kill unarmed men
-kill routing men
-are mythological
While I don't doubt there were female-only or mixed units in antiquity, I do doubt they were ever fielded as elite units, which is what I think everyone is trying to articulate in this thread.
>>481529
That's why they have had that fight pitting Ronda Rousey against some amateur, right? It would be so unfair to the man. You are delusional, and you have bought the bullshit. Your average man off the street would clean up any of those MMA fighters. It's not even a matter of technique. Regardless of technique, your average 5'10, 180 pound male would knock her over and pound her face in. There are no special leverage points in this situation. She would be too outclassed physically to apply any holds. You know what helps? Think of children. Could a children with exemplar technique beat a grown man? No, of course not. Women are no different; they are just slightly larger. Even small men are often quite muscular. It isn't a fair comparison in the slightest.
>>481507
>Not where I live. I assume you live in the United States where testosterone analogues and steroids are ritually abused by footballers.
That's not true. You have never seen them pitted against one another. The high school students would win without a doubt. It would not be close. Watch the video >>481478 .
>There are other, social, reasons for that; usually to do with the management of the economic unit.
Women are useless fighters from any viewing angle.
>>481489
>thats why Americans won in Vietnam or Soviets in Afghanistan? Its nearly impossible to hold area with hard terrain and determined population not carrying about k:d ratio.
Yes. America had that war won. It was more a political loss than a military one. The superior quality of material and manpower was reaping dividends on the Vietnamese.
>>481625
>Yes. America had that war won.
I see you're a fucking idiot. Thank you for letting me know that.
>>480496
>ancient and medieval warfare isn't just two unorganised mobs of brutes slamming into each other
>>481619
Have you ever personally witnessed a male versus female fight were the male wasn't holding back? I'm guessing you haven't. It's not a matter of technique. The disparity is too large. Women are not designed to hit people, men are. Your average man would set someone like Ronda Rousey on her ass if he really wanted to. It's all market hype, and none of it has ever been field tested (pssst, it's not because they are scared the man will get hurt).
>As for the examples in this thread, most of them have been women who:
-kill unarmed men
-kill routing men
-are mythological
Mythological, discard the rest.
>While I don't doubt there were female-only or mixed units in antiquity, I do doubt they were ever fielded as elite units, which is what I think everyone is trying to articulate in this thread.
They were never fielded.
>>481643
>They were never fielded.
I see you're unfamiliar with the most common deployments of cavalry.
>Return of Kings: The Thread
>>481619
>I do doubt they were ever fielded as elite units, which is what I think everyone is trying to articulate in this thread
Well, yeah, no one made the claim that women were superior troops.
>>481643
Men are physically stronger than women, but to say that any average man could defeat Rhonda Rousey if he really wanted to is pure delusion, lad.
Please tell me that this was bait.
>>481625
>America had that war won.
and here we go. Good night.
>>481640
Like I said earlier, all melee warfare had a pushing component to it. That is how you got position: you would push your enemy to disorganize his lines and break his compactness.
Brutes slamming into each other wasn't the extent of warfare in antiquity, but it was a necessary element. If you couldn't apply enough force in the opposite direction, you were the one who would lose position.
Obviously flanking and other techniques were vital to success, but none of this was possible without good fundamentals—which did include coordinated pushing. The Lord of the Rings is retarded. Individual skill was irrelevant for the most part. It was all about the unit. If it had good morale, good speed, good concentration, and was able to comply with orders quickly, that was a top-notch unit, not some fairies whipping swords around. The actual hacking was the least important element of a good unit. The Spartans, for example, were noted for their charging ability above all else. They didn't hesitate, the hit all at once in one line, and would demolish the lines of less experienced fighters. If you couldn't push—which women cannot—you were useless.
>>481619
Sorry, I meant
>...the vast majority of the women you train to be line fighters will ultimately be UNable to match up against men...
>>481674
So why haven't they put an average man versus her yet? Why don't they show us instead of talking about it? Like I said, no one is defending men's egos, just women's. It's obvious to anyone who has actually observed women what would happen. Trust me, they would love to humiliate some average guy off the streets, they just realize it wouldn't work out that way.
>>481696
Because she's worth money you stupid dick. Are you saying a 5'7" 150lb guy with a black belt in whatever couldn't beat your NEET ass just because he's smaller than you? Because that's what you're saying.
>>481681
>The Lord of the Rings
Fucking what.
I'd say in a world where literal giants are swinging clubs the size of cars, and there's an entire race of men who are genetically superior to other men, your comparison falls flat.
>>481625
Holy shit I thought you were an idiot before, but you're just proving that I had underestimated with every post you splurge out. I can actually picture you there in your room, the lights off, the only illumination coming from your too bright slightly stained monitor. Your face red with melodramatic rage, the only sound in the room is your heavy breathing and muttering, the occasional fart, and the tacatactaca of keys as you excrete another post on 4chan.
>>481721
No, the guy could, she couldn't. A guy would demolish me. There is a reason they won't pit her against even unskilled males, and that's because she isn't even a fighter by male standards. A 5'7, 150 pound guy can be quite muscular and very, very quick. There are plenty of 5'7 men that are trained and can beat up larger men, just not women.
>>481674
1:1 fights aren't relevant. I've seen a sparring artist take a man with a foot reach, 18" and 40kg on her. Now admittedly 3/4 of the match was her bouncing around the room, but he was unable to exert himself.
Put her in even light line infantry circa 300BC and she'd fall in the first shield push.
Give her an AK-47, or an M60, or a remote detonated mine, or a 122mm mortar and she'd probably lack the infantry indoctrination to kill, but applying her level of training in martial arts to military science, and we'd get her shelling FOBs before being counter batteried.
>/r9k/ the thread
>>481729
Okay, whatever. I am in good shape, you faggot, regardless of what you say about me over the internet.
Pro tip: even 100 years ago men were under no delusions that women were their equals. You have bought some feminist bullshit that has absolute no empirical data at all to back it up. Get back to me when you have that footage of a woman beating up a man her size (not a 100 pound teenager wrestling match either; I mean striking). Get back to me when women have invented anything of use.
>>481731
>>>r9k
This is a new level of stupid.
Can Japanese Moot enact some kind of filter that has a cool down period before you can visit non-containment boards if you've been on one recently?
>>481749
>durr
https://www.google.com/patents/US2292387
Go jerk off to ASMR or whatever you people do.
>>480721
with each other
>>481729
So much this.
>>481749
https://youtu.be/5Nj9Eh17VhQ
>>481755
>>481766
I'm a /pol/ack. My line of thought isn't really /r9k/. They are more the self loathing, tfw no girlfriend type. I can assure you I am an above average height male, average weight, not ugly, nor have any of the other deficiencies that /r9k/ users have.
Women are still useless. They will respect your pathetic ugly ass more when you finally figure that out. Does Chad talk about how great women are at things? I didn't think so. There is nothing more beta than falling for feminist ideology. This doesn't even cover the fact that it obviously isn't true.
Women are a necessity for society to function, and I wouldn't want to live without them. They are not our intellectual or athletic equals, though, no matter how much you want that to be the case.
>>481777
fake and gay
>>481786
>>481777
Lol. I can show you a million of these. That's Asian culture for you. Men don't hit women. That guy just sat there and took it, he didn't even try to fight her. He still got up at the end, though, proving she didn't do much. A man pounding on you from that position could kill you in that amount of time.
I'd be curious if this was a law situation, actually. Maybe the penalty for mugging is greatly increased the second you add physical force into the mix. Like I said, he didn't fight her ... at all. He didn't get knocked to the ground, he crawled there.
>>481786
Nah you're pretty /r9k/ m8. Did a girl bully you in school? When was the last time you talked to a female?
>>481818
No; I actually love women. I don't know what the fuck is wrong with you people that you actually want them to be more masculine. When a guy acts like a girl, nobody says how awesome it is, he's just a faggot, which he is. Somehow when you switch the genders this logic doesn't apply. Why can't we get the feminine nurturing women back? Why do we have these lesbian cunt lickers in their place? I'm sick of it. I like real women. I like the women with soft skin, a deferential demeanor, a cute smile, with a face that my instincts make me want to protect.
Get the fuck out of here with your woman warrior bullshit, you fucking anime watching weebs. Women were never warriors, and evolution never designed them to be such. If you want your woman amazon, go find a trap and take his dick up your ass. It sounds like that's what you really want anyhow.
>>481842
>Why can't we get the feminine nurturing women back
>evolution never designed
Kek.
>>481858
They aren't warriors, you dingus. They have turned into self entitled cunts who have lost their bearings in the world. They used to watch their children, help keep their family healthy and prosperous, etc. Now they have been corrupted by feminist ideology. I want real women back, the kind of women that you can build a family unit with.
I already know plenty of intelligent and strong men; I don't need that in women (and no, it's not even possible). I just want a woman that does normal feminine things and makes life more enjoyable and meaningful. Like I said, if I want intelligent debate, someone with useful skills, or a fellow fighter, I'll go get my male buddies.
>>481786
>I'm gay, the post
Faggot
>>480361
Before Islam came, the Persians always had women in their army. I don't know the specifics, like who you had to be join, but they were there and they did fight. The best example is probably Artemisia of Caria. Persians in general were quite fair in how they treated women, compared to their contemporaries.They were allowed to do many things men could do.
>>481814
The goalposts aren't even on the field anymore, my man.
>>481878
Please stop. I'm dying.
>>481891
It's fake or he's not trying. It's one or the other. Either way, he got up. If I was kicking someone from that position, they wouldn't be getting up.
>>481881
>Wanting women to be fighters=straight.
>Wanting women to be mothers, wives, and companions=gay.
Uhuh. Go back to sticking tranvestight dick up your ass.
>>481912
where I describe*
sorry
>>480361
>Maille Bra, price varies based on size
Made 1/4" 16ga Galvanized for the cups and 3/8" 14ga on the straps. all 4-in-1 euro.
Did you crop the white trilby out of the original for a reason? http://s179.photobucket.com/user/joshuawy/media/DSCF1407.jpg.html
>itt: sexual dimorphism don't real, only feels are real
I can't believe we have to keep going through this argument every fucking week.
>>481989
Usually because cunts like you overstate dimorphism.
>>481994
More like people like you underestimate it greatly.
>If a movie can depict a woman acting strong, it can happen in real life.
You.
>>481994
>overstate dimorphism
Yes, because a lot of people don't do exactly the opposite right?
>>482003
I've never suggested that mate. I've suggested that the AK-47, and the machine in general, made strength a matter of person and culture.
>>481994
Gender divisions exist in sports for a reason, and it's not to protect the fragile male ego.
>>482028
Sexual dimorphism isn't just physical. I would say there are more mental reasons why women aren't cut out for war than physical.
>>482036
>I would say there are more mental reasons why women aren't cut out for war than physical.
You're not going to be able to demonstrate those here to the satisfaction of the standards of humanities, unlike physical dimorphism.
I'd say you'd be waiting 30-40 years for medicalised social science to catch up with your "hunch".
Until then, I'm quite happy to point to the PLAF / PRG / NFL being dominated by women harder than Granny Weatherwax during a 17 year war. I'm also quite happy to posit that Vietnamese culture in the 20th century had unique features of its construction and perfomance of gender that enabled this, and, for example, that white American women outside the blue collar proletariat are useless wooses.
>>482036
there are also modern examples of women fighting in war such as the female kurdish fighters against ISIS.
you speak of as if women have been tried and tested in warfare and demonstrated their inability to be of any use. however, women have mostly been prevented from partaking in war and so I think we have yet to see how well they will do. though i am mainly referring to modern western women who arent allowed in combat roles.
i think the point is that most woman arent interested or capable of war but neither are most men, not without training at least. however, when given unrestricted access to the armed forces there will absolutely be women who will thrive within the military lifestyle and prove themselves capable of participating in combat roles effectively.
>men have naturally larger frames
>men have naturally increased strength
>men have naturally increased testosterone
And yet its a coincidence/pure misogyny that women were kept off the battlefield all this time!
>>482067
>such as the female kurdish fighters against ISIS.
2 5 y e a r r u l e
>>482073
Oh women were allowed on the battlefield plenty.
Usually as emergency armed skirmishers during cavalry raids.
>>482067
Nowadays is completely different, a paraplegic can kill a strongman with a firearm. Shooting guns generally isn't the issue.
However, being able to carry a 190 lb man+40 lbs of gear on top of your own 40 lbs of gear over a battlefield is still an issue, and that's where women can't compete.
I don't mean to sound like a fedora here, but it really just is biology. Not cringe, biology. It's not to say women, under extreme duress, can lift significantly more than they would normally, anyone can do that, but its being able to do all this on a moments notice and doing it consistently. You need more than terror to accomplish it, you need muscle and lots of testosterone, something they lack compared to men.
>>482080
See I have no issues admitting I didn't know that, that's interesting I think, and if it was WITHIN THEIR CAPABILITY TO PERFORM IT then there's nothing wrong with that. It's delusional to think they could be front line or primary fighters that men were, like some anons ITT would like to believe.
>>482067
>there are also modern examples of women fighting in war such as the female kurdish fighters against ISIS.
The one that has 100 confirmed kills, right? I'm sorry, but that's just propaganda. They don't actually fight. It's a psychological ploy to make men enlist. "If women are fighting, how big of a coward must I be to not fight?" is what you are supposed to ask yourself. It works very well and has been used many times in the past.
>you speak of as if women have been tried and tested in warfare and demonstrated their inability to be of any use. however, women have mostly been prevented from partaking in war and so I think we have yet to see how well they will do. though i am mainly referring to modern western women who arent allowed in combat roles.
Israeli women are the best documented example we have. They ran away, and did many other things that would get them killed against competent combatants. They stopped fielding women after that. So the real question is, do you think some women are just WAY better than others—like the PKK vis-a-vis the Israelis? Or do you think the one that has very little documentation, other than a few videos of them shooting guns in the desert, is a lie?
>i think the point is that most woman arent interested or capable of war but neither are most men, not without training at least.
Average men have proven time and time again that they are capable of combat. All wars are fought by average men.
>>481786
No...no, I'm pretty sure you're /r9k/, anon. People can visit more than one board!
>>482082
Your decision to deploy heavy dismounted infantry is pretty indicative that you're a Yank.
There are other deployment modes, operational requirements, tactical doctrines and strategic purposes for infantry other than heavy infantry for imperial conquest and pacification.
>>482080
That's bullshit. Women can't throw. Women are also nice trinkets to bring home from said cavalry raid. Women are the prize, not the defenders.
>>481878
Oh my God this fucking post
>>482106
That you allege women could do 100% the same as men?
Also, you can't count stuff like what I brought up, out. Heavy dismounted infantry would absolutely be a male-only field, and that's honestly all I'm arguing.
>>482099
And I don't visit /r9k/, faggot. I visit here, /pol/, and /lit/ (occasionally, but they are mostly faggots). I'm right about everything. You are just delusional. Keep watching movies and reading comic books. Women really can do everything men can do (!)—especially when you have a male writer making them do it, not to mention using CGIs.
>>482107
>That's bullshit. Women can't throw. Women are also nice trinkets to bring home from said cavalry raid. Women are the prize, not the defenders.
I didn't say they were effective.
You really need to read more about light cavalry operations.
>>482118
Link please? Let me see your women skirmishers. Nobody would use them, I don't believe you.
>>482082
i think you are generalising too much. the kinds of women who will attempt and potentially succeed in combat roles are in no way average or representative of the average woman and will therefore have all the traits you are suggesting all women lack. at no point did i make reference to how easy it is to shoot a rifle. shooting is not the main skill that would prevent someone from gaining access to a certain role. rather as you mentioned it is long patrols and pack marches with large amounts of equipment that are the most difficult aspect of military training.
to exclude women from combat roles because they have ovaries is sexist. however, to exclude them based not on gender but instead on the merit of the applicant would not be sexist.
>>482115
>That you allege women could do 100% the same as men?
I don't. I'm the poster who keeps bringing up the PLAF.
>Also, you can't count stuff like what I brought up, out.
I'm really hard pushed for another nation that has the same use case of dismounted heavy infantry.
Most dis or non-mounted infantry is light.
Most heavy infantry is mounted.
In any case, in 1914 the game changed completely in terms of the mobilisation of manpower. "It is a hard heart that kills."
>>482123
>to exclude women from combat roles because they have ovaries is sexist.
Common sense. It is completely destructive to the integrity of the rest of the unit. This isn't to mention the fact that your super women don't exist.
>>482123
overgeneralizing? Perhaps. It's just that I think most of the proponents of women in combat ITT think women should be eligible for the draft and the like, which would be insane.
If you can hack it, you can hack it. If a female were able to do literally the exact same training effectively as a man then by all means, be a soldier.
>>482122
>Let me see your women skirmishers. Nobody would use them, I don't believe you.
It's called getting the carving knife when the ethically "other" cavalry make the sheep start screaming.
The lucky ones end with their legs spread and their bellies full.
>>482132
I respect your opinion, in my post here >>482137 I think we both are closer on the same page.
You do make a good point about the unnecessary requirements of most fighting.
However, I can't help but feel that if men evolved to be the primary fighters, then their would certainly be different brain chemistry involved between the two sexes when it came to fighting. This day in age I'd argue thats the biggest issue keeping women out of combat. I don't know enough about the issue (brain chemistry) to make assertions with 100% confidence but I see that being a big factor, the male vs female brain.
>>482142
So no source? Yeah, I didn't think so. You have a hunch that women would have defended their homes, but my hunch is you're wrong. Almost all of the records I have seen show the men being executed or enslaved and the women taken as a prize.
>>482133
it doesnt matter if they exist or not. both australia and america are opening combat roles to women because want to reduce the discrimination inherent in there organisation and move more towards a strict meritocracy; as all competent militaries should be.
there will not be a flood of women into combat roles obviously.
>>481786
>I'm a /pol/ack
Yeah, trust me, everyone realized that pretty quick.
Not something to be proud of, btw.
>>481379
Oh, I have no delusions that women, even from cultures as pants-shittingly-brutal as the Sarmatians/Scythians etc. were equal to males in combat. I'm sure for the most part they were mounted skirmishers (or were armed for self-defense rather than full on combat) and the heavy fighting was overwhelmingly done by men, for obvious reasons. There were outliers like Khulutun but they would have been extremely rare.
>>480739
Sounds hot desu
>>482169
2bh you should have specified who you were referring to, I think by saying that they were allowed on the battlefield frequently rustled jimmies. Mine too.
>>482176
>I think by saying that they were allowed on the battlefield frequently rustled jimmies. Mine too.
I intended fully to "rustle" your "jimmy". Just because women aren't effective or recruited by armies doesn't mean that they're not on the field.
The camp followers go out with the knives of mercy. The cavalry rain bastards on the peasants.
>>482176
The thing is Central Asian steppe nomad women were frequently buried with weaponry and there are plenty of attestations from multiple sources that their women did fight. I believe that it was just due to how warlike their culture was; they needed everyone over a certain age to fight, rather than letting women fight because muh equality and muh feminism.
>>482154
>I have seen show the men being executed or enslaved and the women taken as a prize.
post facto ergo pre facto
>>482169
Women do not have the skeletal structure to throw. I don't feel like digging up the science study to prove this, but it is well known. Women were not skirmishers, women were not melee fighters. Women weren't fighters.
>>482155
Both genders have their pros and cons. Everyone gets angry at men who don't do useful things, while it is acceptable for women. Men are expected to die in wars, do all of the hard labor, and not complain about any of it. Women shouldn't get the best of both worlds. You are either held to all male standards, period, or you are held to separate feminine standards. We should take a cue from our ancestors and keep the genders segregated. They were much wiser than us, I'm afraid.
>>480361
Birthing men and getting raped
>>482182
I just don't see why it would've been difficult to say "sarmatians/Scythians etc" because it otherwise paints a much different picture
>>482183
That's what most people ITT don't understand, is that both men and women evolved to be tough as nails. Men are quite clearly the primary fighters but women, when they need to (such as in a harsh steppe society) defend and fight.
>>482188
>Women do not have the skeletal structure to throw.
>>482183
>steppe nomad
Herding, as opposed to agriculture, tends to reduce cultural gender differentiation. So does industrialisation. Now pick up that fucking AK and die for your party.
>>482191
>That's what most people ITT don't understand, is that both men and women evolved to be tough as nails.
Only men. This is provable science. You are a fucking retard. Men have stronger tendons and ligaments, denser bones, larger jaws, etc. I don't even have to continue. What you are saying has been scientifically proven wrong many times before.
>>482195
They don't. You are retarded. Their hips are made for having babies. They can't put their whole body into a throw the same way a man can. They also have narrower shoulders, shorter arms, and less muscle mass.
>>482200
I can't help but feel like you're trolling at this point.
I am 100% with you in regards to science proving men are stronger and more fit for combat. That is true. But, this ISNT to say that women CANT lift a weapon or throw a rock or raise a gun to defend themselves and their property. Not bullshit shieldmaiden stuff, but the lives of your children depending on it and whatnot.
It is also extremely likely they die 9/10 times when this occurs and they are raped to death and their children enslaved, but it is what it is. No one, at least "back then" goes out without resistance.
>>482195
Not as well as men certainly, but that guys just trolling. Possibly a /lit/ false flag.
>>482212
I agree with you there. Women can certainly attempt to defend their children. If you think there has ever been women fielded (other than a few extremely rare cases) you are delusional. Even when they were fielded, they were decimated by the trained men. The martial artist woman who kicks all the men's asses does not, did not, and cannot exist in the real world. It's pure Hollywood delusion.
>>482188
Cavalry archers wouldn't have been throwing javelins, but shooting arrows. As you can see from the photo evidence, women are indeed capable of using composite bows while riding a horse. Can they shoot as far as men can? Hell no, and anyone arguing so is retarded. But they are capable of doing so if needed.
>>482231
Perhaps, but in a nightmare scenario where the troop numbers are too low, maybe it's time to teach women how to shoot.
>>482216
Yeah, I got the first part but I'm inclined to think the guy isn't really kidding. He got pretty defensive when he was accused of being from /r9k/.
I like to keep my replies short so that whomever I'm arguing with wastes more time replying to me than I spend replying to him. Makes my dick hard.
Amazons ? Is there truth behind the myth?
>>482234
I'm sure they are going to waste a horse—the most capital intensive piece of equipment they own—on a woman who is inferior by every metric. This is like the Soviet women pilots thing. It's not even worth discussing. Nobody with two brain cells to rub together would ever do something as asinine as waste resources in that manner.
Also, your picture looks like some gay ass Lord of the Rings bullshit. I'm willing to bet that the draw weight is less than twenty pounds, as well.
>>482243
I feel it
>>482245
Is it conceivable?
>>482243
I can type faster than 100 wpm, anyhow. It's not like it matters how much I have to say. I just think it and it appears on the screen.
>>480361
There's plenty of examples in history about women in battle. Off the top of my head, I remember Jeanne Hatchet, Katherine of Aragon, Margaret of Anjou, Boudica, Grainne O'Malley, and Joan of Ark.
>>482241
Right, historically when it is 'fight or become extinct' then women fight.
For the rest of time, women are too valuable to waste in combat. Society loses half of men, and recovers in a generation. Society loses ten per cent of women, it disappears.
Compare Israel, which has not put women into combat since 1948. The USA has huge surplus of women, and can afford to lose many in combat. Most societies don't.
>>482282
>Compare Israel, which has not put women into combat since 1948.
What do you mean by that? There's an entire female-majority infantry battalion. They aren't deployed on West Strip night raids, but they definitely see combat during policing actions, patrols, and guard duty.
>>482249
>I'm sure they are going to waste a horse—the most capital intensive piece of equipment they own—on a woman who is inferior by every metric
You're retarded. The cavalry heavy societies like the Parthians had a huge abundance of horses, that's why they featured so heavily in their armies. Each Mongol would carry 3-5 horses with him on campaign.
>>481989
those are all feminised nu-males who saw all the man-beating womyn in movies and now translate that to the reality. it's ridiculous how wrong they are and if they had a sister or a ever had a gf they would know it. r maybe they are just buttblasted women with an inflated ego. the kinds that will end up on youtube getting floored by man for assaulting.
>>482245
Victorian myth
>>480721
SOME kings ordered their progenitors to refrain from sex, who told you they obeyed?
several princes have abandoned their kingdom to live on other parts of the world during battles
>>481102
>always that one guy who defends the nazis strenuously
wish you would do that for other historical inaccuracies as well
>>482640
>progenitors
Doesn't mean what you think it means.
>>480361
In which civilization? The oldest accounts I can think of that were written are other sythians in Greece and hua mulan in China
>>482183
Being buried with weapons does not necessarily mean a woman was a fighter. She could have given birth to or been the wife of a great warrior. That not to say that they did not participate in raids aginst soft targets and things of that nature.
>>481740
>>481654
While it is getting a bit silly at places.
Let's not pretend this is simple woman hate. It has gotten a bit off topic.
But in the end it really does not matter.
There were the very infrequent female fighter but it never ended well for them.
Ultimately they contributed nothing if worth to the battlefield.
>>482435
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/25/womens-combat-roles-in-israel-defense-forces-exagg/?page=all
>>482249
>draw weight is less than twenty pounds
Obviously the draw weight on average would be lower for women archer but that is only a minor disadvantage really.
>>483070
>There were the very infrequent female fighter but it never ended well for them.
Considering that history is usually told about the exceptional people you can imagine that it didn't end well for the average male fighter most of the time too.
Also considering that female fighters where mostly in used in dire situations it's no wonder that there are not always a success.
See this>>480794 for a more successful example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Hatchet
Those occurences would have been quite common during the ages.
>>481786
I'm so glad you'll die alone.
>>481731
>women can't be muscular and I could fuck up any woman, even the strongest in the world
Fuck off, Elliot.
>>481878
Good Lord, the bait game is strong.
>>480364
Should've been /thread.
>>483814
That's not true most soldiers made it through their service. It was required in many places for the men to serve.
Women as defense was not as common as you would think situations rarely got that dire terms usually could be worked out.
>>480721
That's horseshit if I've ever read one
>>482266
>Katherine of Aragon
>Margaret of Anjou
>not miles away from the battle
>not putting a man in charge of organising the actual fighting
I just want to remind you of the OG 360noscope pro-skillz weapon: The sling.
http://chrisharrison.net/index.php/Research/Sling
If you think a woman couldn't be useful in a battle with one of these, you clearly haven't been hit in the head by a 0.6 kg rock traveling at 60 meters per second. Or maybe you have.
>>482266
>Jeanne Hatchet, Katherine of Aragon, Margaret of Anjou, Boudica, Grainne O'Malley, and Joan of Ark.
Women in Battle where so rare that they made it into History books. Millions and Millions of male soldiers didn't.
Face it, women never played an important part in any battle anywhere, ever.
>>480400
There is your story dear women, sorry if you don't like it, but thats how it was.
>>484112
Most people aren't arguing against women's usefulness on the battlefield. It's just that they're more useful as babymaking machines than being meat for the grinder.
>484120
>>484125
It seems to me the two sides to this argument are currently 'Women can fight, even if they're not as naturally advantaged' versus 'WIMMENZ ARE NO GOOD AT FIGHTING EVER' which to be honest is probably just one guy. Anyway, remember the OP?
>What's the earliest account of women on the battlefield? What was their role?
He's not asking about hypotheticals and the most optimal uses of women, he's asking about actual historical facts.
>>484137
>It seems to me the two sides to this argument are currently 'Women can fight, even if they're not as naturally advantaged' versus 'WIMMENZ ARE NO GOOD AT FIGHTING EVER' which to be honest is probably just one guy. Anyway, remember the OP?
But women can't fight for shit, especially not against well trained men in hand to hand combat. And thats why there are next to no historical accounts of women serving as normal soldiers. When a women took up arms it was more in a mascott function and the she was the only one who did that in an army entirely made of men.
>>480721
thats suchy an abstract statement it hurts to think about it.
On some war campaigns armies would bring their whole families with them. Like the muslim invasion of europe in the early middle ages. Which resulted in some cases a means to win a battle. Im sure some penis insertions were exchanged.
>>481290
I'm pretty sure the poster meant flying a plane or sniping is far less reliant on physical strength or stamina than using a bow or sword.
>>484538
exactly.
>>484112
>If you think a woman couldn't be useful in a battle with one of these, you clearly haven't been hit in the head by a 0.6 kg rock traveling at 60 meters per second. Or maybe you have.
Women can't throw. You're a faggot. There is no way woman could use one of those effectively.
>Throw like a girl has no basis in reality.
You
>>483876
>>481478
Watch that video: average guys completely demolish her. I would win against any woman in the world, even Ronda Rousey or some other propaganda ploy. You are underestimating how bad women really are at combat. They aren't much better than children.
Why haven't we seen that fight of some woman beating a man if it could happen? Why don't they take a 6'1, 185 pound male like me and show him getting his ass kicked? It's not because they are worried about bruising the man's ego. They know the man would dominate her like a child.
>>480721
>confusing war with boxing
Americans.
>>480496
You do realize that there is more than a preponderance of evidence to suggest that women were used in warfare. Germanic tribes certainly used them in warfare. The real question is why? In some cases it was a woman from a powerful family to whom the word "no" was not something they were accustomed to hearing, in other cases it was probably due to a shortage in manpower or the sheer stakes of the battles. (i.e. Germans starving due to harsh winters in 380 AD which forced migrations of tribes numbering into the hundreds of thousands through Gaul and into Spain.)
>>480364
/thread
>>484112
There's nothing funnier than sling fanboys.
Women aren't even useful in battle with guns.
>>484112
>>481786
kinda true, /r9k/ hates women in the "fuck that stupid girl she won't go out with me" way
>>485552
Look at shieldmaidens. What you're saying isn't true.
>>485588
Shield maidens probably weren't very numerous or didn't exist at all. We know from Salamis (female captain), Vandal Carthage, and Roman skirmishes in Gaul that women did, on occasion, fight. There's nothing to really suggest that it was a regular occurrence.
>>481503
I've heard they do it anyway though. There was something a few years back about the apparent sex fest at the winter Olympic village I think. Does anyone have more info on it?
>>481625
At first I thought you were having a giggle but you are actually retarded, aren't you?
>>485588
>we're going to go out of our way to recruit the equivalent of 13 year old boys in physical stature to fight in our heavily-physical melee battles
I'm going to go with "feminist revision of history" or exaggeration/extrapolation of isolated accounts
>>481889
If the Persians had employed a lot of women in their army, Artemisia wouldn't have been considered such a remarkable character by the Greeks.
As it was, she was apparently the only female military figure known to them since the days of myth.
>>481379
>>481478
Greater strength in melee doesn't guarantee victory you virgin. The Romans were almost always smaller than the barbarians they fought. If you are up against a bunch of women with swords who know how to use them you will get your ass kicked. They only need to get one stab in to get you down. Women need more training and specialist equipment (naginata for example) but they can make it on the front line.
>>481625
>be american
>win vietnam war
>come back home
>get shot
>>487292
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plj82F4kY7o
So why did the proudly misogynistic fag Greeks make their goddess of tactical warfare female?
>>481102
>Why would you have women take those positions when you have plenty of men to do so?
>when you have plenty of men
Dont you know that the Soviets sufferd massive losses?
Why are you people always
>NOT ONE WOMAN HAS EVER SET FOOT ON THE BATTLEFIELD IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE WORLD
or
>THERE WERE JUST AS MANY FEMALE FIGHTERS AS MEN AND MAYBE EVEN MORE SO
history isn't a zero sum game, desu
>>487292
>win vietnam war
Come again?
>>481326
>Even crummy planes are a valuable resource
They mainly use the Po-2. It's a obsolete plan that can only do night raids or other task where you could say is low risk of gettting shot down.
>No one would have let them fly
Hey woman, yeah you cant fly. Why? Because you are a woman, does not matter if you are tall enough to pilot it or know how to fly or we are in the state of total war and need every man woman and child to win this war.
>I don't believe it.
Okay.
>It's just more Soviet lies, among a very, very large list.
Great, now we can ignore soviet sources since they are all lies (mostly).
>>481625
You still aren't taking anon's advice though. You really just keep making sweeping generalizations. Sure even smaller men are more useful than the average woman because they are most likely faster but you make it look like the same way their are smaller men their can't be larger women. Can you please grow up? I don't even think you understand anatomy as much as you think you do. Most studies show men and women handle stress "differently:" That does not necessarily mean better.
you're going to ignore this but whatever her goes:
Also, please don't completely dismiss the effects that the way men and women are raise may have Even if it is less or just as much as hormones. Remember before you judge all the men and women you see today(and even in the past), boys were and still are traditionally encouraged to be more active/ athletic than girls. Society expects and rewards men for aggression as well.
>>487634
The fuck is this bullshit?
>>481102
>They had a gargantuan manpower advantage without enlisting women
Not that significant of one, when you count German Allies and slave labor.
>The Soviets lied a lot—and I mean a lot. Everything they have said should be scrutinized intensely instead of parroted blindly.
Well, then you should doubt the notion that they had so much manpower.
>>481625
>Your average man off the street would clean up any of those MMA fighters. It's not even a matter of technique. Regardless of technique,
> There are no special leverage points in this situation. She would be too outclassed physically to apply any holds.
So strenght beats skill? Even though these are two men in the video im gona show you, with your logic strenght beats skill and since women are naturally weaker then males they would fail to compete, males that are weaker then other males would also fail to compete.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjFp1R5klo4
>>480496
This is a good point. I'm an ordinary guy that doesn't exercise but I'm stronger than almost every woman on earth. Humans are a dimorphic species. That's not to say there are women that couldn't beat me up but they wouldn't be just an ordinary woman that didn't even exercise like me.
>>487682
>So strenght beats skill? Even though these are two men in the video im gona show you, with your logic strenght beats skill and since women are naturally weaker then males they would fail to compete, males that are weaker then other males would also fail to compete.
That's not true. Men were made for combat. Small men have speed, agility, and endurance to make up for their lack of size, and are still significantly stronger pound for pound than women. Women have nothing: they aren't made to fight. There are no women with the skill that man just exhibited in your video—absolutely none. What he's doing not only takes more speed than any woman on earth is capable of providing, it also requires better hand-eye coordination, better reflexes and reaction time, a visio spatial understanding of what moves will be effective or not, and a multitude of other mental processes that are absolutely required to be a good fighter, that no woman on earth has due to evolution being dimorphic.
Once again, watch football. Do you really think there is any woman alive that could compete with high school boys? If you are answering yes, you should re-evaluate your understanding of reality. Women don't get big like men get big: women get fat or awkwardly lanky, both of which are terrible for fighting. I'm not much over average height and I am average weight, but I haven't seen one professional woman athlete that I couldn't run over if we were both charging at each other. Everything about our constitution is made for fighting; everything about theirs is made for having children. Sorry if you don't like that.
>>480760
You sound really retarded and I rarely use that word.
>>487641
Care to actually make a argument?
The funny thing is you haven't even posted any real scientific evidence of any of the shit you claim. I can totally produce experiments on sex differences to stress reactions if you want.
>>487824
>Men were made for combat.
Did you go ask god?
>>487824
>than any woman capable on earth is able to provide
It's like you just don't get it do you? Keep making sweeping generalizations of 1/2 of 7 billion as if you the expert on the human race.
>>487856
You can look at the Olympics or any other professional sporting event: those are the top women. They are in no way comparable to men. Women aren't capable fighters, or the feminists would have paraded their woman fighter around beating up men. They aren't stupid (well they are, but not that stupid). They have had men and women spar many times away from the cameras. They know exactly what the outcome will be, even against untrained males. They looked at the real world data and knew there was no way a woman could ever win that fight. THAT'S why the fight has never taken place. It has nothing to do with oppression or any other feminist bullshit.
>>487824
>made for combat.
>there are no women with that skill
>what he's doing not only takes more speed than any woman on earth is capable of providing
>once again watch football
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJnyPLuHSIU
Look at the posts you have made in this thread. And then look at the question OP made.
>>487840
Take this you fucking pleb
>>480361
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_warfare
>>482245
Apparently there was some truth to it with steppe nomads. Since even women knew how to ride and at least shoot arrows from horseback even they could be used in a defensive role. Again, I doubt women were used as frontline fighters even among steppe nomads due to the fact that they are weaker and more valuable than men.
>>482249
This gent beat me to it: >>482474
>>487896
Those kids are playing. That isn't a fight, and he isn't a man, anyhow. Get me a real video of a real fight with a woman beating an average sized man up and we'll talk.
If women could be considered physically equal to men, why are sports segregated by sex? It's actually well documented that US soccer women's team (one of the best in the world) managed to get royally destroyed by a U-17 male team, literally boys.
>>487908
They are both at the same age group, Teens, most male teens have more strenght then the female.
And I dont think you really understood the point of my video. Skill beats strenght.
>get me of a video of a real fight.
That's so vague you can get.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6x1kRnGNU0
>>487919
Yeah, that was funny. A sport that doesn't even require physical strength and they get annihilated. There are still some people in this thread that think women could compete with men in something like football, I'd wager. They are faggots, all of them. They need to quit watching weeb bullshit and come back to reality.
Men are athletically—and intellectually—superior by every metric, get the fuck over it people. If it wasn't for male inventions we'd still be living in caves. If national defense was up to women, we would have been Muslim the day that arrangement took place.
>>487924
He looks like a faggot and he wasn't trying. You can see he has her in a position to harm her multiple times but never capitalizes on it. He is also moving at a snails pace. Just another woman suck-up faggot, who is going to perpetuate this woman stronk bullshit and get a woman killed someday when she hits the wrong guy.
>>487933
oh god, are you baiting in this thread? I almost took you seriously.
>>487933
I'd say soccer is 70% technical skill and 30% endurance, women are obviously lacking in both compared to men.
I mean this whole equality notion is absolute horseshit, notice how nobody is flipping out when someone points out that children are intellectually and physically inferior to adults, yet when you apply the same logic to men and women it somehow makes you an evil sexist.
>>487951
Shh! put down the computer and go to sleep anon. It's past your bedtime now.
>>487962
I don't go to sleep at half past six in the morning, darling.
>>480721
Literally every military campaign in the ancient world involved mass rape of women by invading troops.
>>487950
http://www.salisburyschool.org/page.cfm?p=1257
High school hockey team beats women's professional team. They won a gold medal at the Olympics. I don't feel like finding the article, but like >>487919 said, the same was true with soccer.
So essentially, you have a sport where technique is paramount, and physical strength is a minimal factor, and yet the mental processes of men are more than superior enough to give them a victory. You are a delusional fuckwit if you really think women can compete with men. Contact sports would only be more slanted in favor of men, obviously.
>>487950
Objective evidence means more than your opinion, faggot. I'm guessing you are a beta loser. Only beta losers would defend women like this. Women don't even want to be defended like this. They want a big strong competent man to dominate them. Good luck getting cheated on and having horrible experiences with women, you low testosterone faggot.
>>487896
So I see reliability, currency, and veracity of evidence isn't important to you?
For example, if I showed you the sociological study that supported the theory of sterotype threat for women in mathematics and that women and men are capable of performing equally you won't believe it because it was just one study(and you're sexist). Even though it has been repeated I believe.
Protip: you need more than one study to verify the claim. Also experiments by Tanner, Garn et al., and Burse need to be repeated more if not already done so. I mean 1959?! Are you serious? Preferably with some more recent results in the 2000s if not yet done so.
>>488026
Everything that constitutes modern living was made by men. Almost everything that differentiates us from other animals is only exhibited in men. We would literally—and I mean literally—be living in caves if intellectual activities were left to women. The funny thing is, men throughout history have known this. It's only recently that it has become cool to forget, thanks to feminism.
Look up brain mass in women versus men. It has a direct bearing on intelligence or it wouldn't have been selected for. Brains are extremely calorie intensive so there has to be a reason why men's grew bigger than women's.
>>487948
Dude, women like smaller men aren't retarded. They don't pick fights they can't win with huge guys(or gals).
>>488047
A trained smaller man can beat up a larger man. The same is not true with women. Your average high school kid could beat up Ronda Rousey.
>>488051
Ruined=telling the obvious truth in a way that conflicts with your emotional outlook on the world. Your moral framework has nothing to do with whether women are competent or not.
>>488042
>It has a direct bearing on intelligence or it wouldn't have been selected for. Brains are extremely calorie intensive so there has to be a reason why men's grew bigger than women's.
Brain size is correlated with body size in general
>>488042
Now you're being silly and this post just proves you don't know anything about anatomy and physiology let alone neuroscience. The brain does more than decision making (pre frontal cortex). It's all used for balance and coordination(cerebellum) , motor functions( grose and fine movements), general sight, emotions, and visceral functions you nimrod. I am now going to ignore anything else you post seeing as you're still stuck with the reasoning skills of a 3rd grader: "brainz are only used for thinking!"
For starters, look up encephalization quotient.
http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Encephalization_quotient
>>488074
>he thinks consciousness inheres in the brain
Sweet qualia, p-zomb.
>>488067
Brain size is bigger in men even when height is accounted for. Some sources say up to 15% larger on average. There is no evolutionary reason for bigger brain size other than it leads to higher intelligence (Obviously, the larger the body, the larger the head, regardless). If we could have gotten the same intelligence level with a small head, which would be less calorie intensive, we would have evolved like that. It isn't possible. Brain size has a direct correlation with intelligence. I'd say (and we will find out as science advances) that brain size is a better indicator of intelligence than IQ tests. This is an extremely politically incorrect issue because of women and certain races having significantly lower brain volume.
