Yeah the problem is that I've been people say that, and they talk about blocking with the sword, which kind of makes me question how much they know about swordplay. Long story short, if you do the clanging sword on sword action you see in movies, your sword is gonna break PDQ, because they're not meant to take abuse like that. It's why shields exist, to have a hunk of metal to take a beating without the need to keep a sharp edge at the same time.
Just wanted to point out that, as evidenced by historic sources like medieval fighting manuals and contemporary reports, sword-to-sword blocking was not only possible but quiet the norm. Yes, sure, the blade suffers somewhat, but medieval swords could withstand it without trouble, and not all fighters would use shields at all times. Fighting manuals of the time are full of instructions and techniques for sword-on-sword fighting.
Yeah the problem is that I've been people say that, and they talk about blocking with the sword, which kind of makes me question how much they know about swordplay. Long story short, if you do the clanging sword on sword action you see in movies, your sword is gonna break PDQ, because they're not meant to take abuse like that. It's why shields exist, to have a hunk of metal to take a beating without the need to keep a sharp edge at the same time.
Just wanted to point out that, as evidenced by historic sources like medieval fighting manuals and contemporary reports, sword-to-sword blocking was not only possible but quiet the norm. Yes, sure, the blade suffers somewhat, but medieval swords could withstand it without trouble, and not all fighters would use shields at all times. Fighting manuals of the time are full of instructions and techniques for sword-on-sword fighting.
Yeah the problem is that I've been people say that, and they talk about blocking with the sword, which kind of makes me question how much they know about swordplay. Long story short, if you do the clanging sword on sword action you see in movies, your sword is gonna break PDQ, because they're not meant to take abuse like that. It's why shields exist, to have a hunk of metal to take a beating without the need to keep a sharp edge at the same time.
Just wanted to point out that, as evidenced by historic sources like medieval fighting manuals and contemporary reports, sword-to-sword blocking was not only possible but quiet the norm. Yes, sure, the blade suffers somewhat, but medieval swords could withstand it without trouble, and not all fighters would use shields at all times. Fighting manuals of the time are full of instructions and techniques for sword-on-sword fighting.
That unfortunately I can't answer. I'm not a medievalist, so someone with more expertise would need to elaborate on that.
My best guess is that it probably depended on the axis of the attack. i.e. where it was coming from. From your left, you probably catch it with the shield, from the right with the sword.
Pure speculation: I imagine blocking a blow with a shield is a lot easier than parrying it with a weapon, plus it leaves your weapon hand unoccupied to attempt a strike yourself. So I assume if you had a shield, then that was the go-to. But again, this is just me pretty much guessing.
There was a really good youtube channel by a guy with a background in archaeology and history who had made it his mission to disspell popular myths and mistakes about medieval fighting, but I can't remember for the life of me the channel name.
I don't have any problem with the women in Dragon Age (or any Bioware game) being strong fighters, wielding swords, etc.
I think the only unrealistic aspect is that when playing as a human female in Dragon Age or as FemShep that the build of the character doesn't match reality. Femshep and the femhuman warrior DA:I characters are both really petite and skinny characters. To be realistic, both should be a lot more muscular and their bodies should reflect that.
For a perfect example: http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Vjp0gyp6--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/17g69x63n8gjtjpg.jpg
What a load of crap, nobody is saying women cant use swords. You made this up so you could dispute it. I am reminded of the "fake geek girl" controversy that nobody supported, the only reason anyone even knew about it was from people decrying it as evil. Same thing here, you should be ashamed.
I see some people saying that they would have a more difficult time, and possible suffer in endurance with a sword. That much I can understand, there is a reason physical competitions are separated by gender.The longsword is a graceful weapon, however fighting is fighting. Can women fight? yes. Can some women fight better then some men? yes. Are we going to merge women and men's boxing into one league? Of course not that would be unfair.
I do not see anyone saying women flat out could not use swords.
Well I don't think the argument wasn't that woman couldn't use swords. It's that they couldn't use long swords and should use short swords. That's what the article was disagreeing with. And not to mention I've seen plenty of people who have experience with swords saying that longswords aren't that heavy and really endurance wouldn't be too much of a problem, so it seems like the people who are saying it would be are not exactly on the ball.
Besides, as bad as the Escapist can get at times, it's honestly one of the most tame websites I've seen. If it's this heated here, it must be even worse elsewhere.
I dont even, endurance is always a problem in any kind of fighting, any kind. Adding another 3 or so pounds to your weapon is not a non-issue. I will go back to boxing again, add a few pounds to the gloves and see if it makes a difference.
Also to be considered, is most accounts I have heard say it is a lot more about how many blows you can deflect or withstand, rather then how much you can dish out.
nerd out begins now
*nasal breath* when luke defeated dearth vader he was not even trying to hit him, just wear him down into submission with his superior endurance and youth, and that is using a weapon that arguably weighs nothing *nasal breath*
Actually, lightsabers, as both originally designed by Lucas and throughout the majority of the EU prior to the abomination that was the prequel trilogy, were meant to have a rather severe gyroscopic resistance. Which incidentally is why the lightsaber fights in the original trilogy looked like what the historians at the time figured two-handed sword fights looked like between knights in plate armor.
Didn't even know there was such an argument. I guess it makes a degree of sense when games depict women a foot shorter than their male counterparts ; for me that's where the issue is. Like the infamous case of GoW, which stretched sexual dismoprhism to the breaking point. In a more sensible setting you can easily find women as strong as the average man and able to perform the same tasks - but they don't look like models. And however tired that sentence goes, at the end of the day we don't have to ground everything.
What a load of crap, nobody is saying women cant use swords. You made this up so you could dispute it. I am reminded of the "fake geek girl" controversy that nobody supported, the only reason anyone even knew about it was from people decrying it as evil. Same thing here, you should be ashamed.
I see some people saying that they would have a more difficult time, and possible suffer in endurance with a sword. That much I can understand, there is a reason physical competitions are separated by gender.The longsword is a graceful weapon, however fighting is fighting. Can women fight? yes. Can some women fight better then some men? yes. Are we going to merge women and men's boxing into one league? Of course not that would be unfair.
I do not see anyone saying women flat out could not use swords.
Well I don't think the argument wasn't that woman couldn't use swords. It's that they couldn't use long swords and should use short swords. That's what the article was disagreeing with. And not to mention I've seen plenty of people who have experience with swords saying that longswords aren't that heavy and really endurance wouldn't be too much of a problem, so it seems like the people who are saying it would be are not exactly on the ball.
Besides, as bad as the Escapist can get at times, it's honestly one of the most tame websites I've seen. If it's this heated here, it must be even worse elsewhere.
I dont even, endurance is always a problem in any kind of fighting, any kind. Adding another 3 or so pounds to your weapon is not a non-issue. I will go back to boxing again, add a few pounds to the gloves and see if it makes a difference.
Also to be considered, is most accounts I have heard say it is a lot more about how many blows you can deflect or withstand, rather then how much you can dish out.
nerd out begins now
*nasal breath* when luke defeated dearth vader he was not even trying to hit him, just wear him down into submission with his superior endurance and youth, and that is using a weapon that arguably weighs nothing *nasal breath*
Actually, lightsabers, as both originally designed by Lucas and throughout the majority of the EU prior to the abomination that was the prequel trilogy, were meant to have a rather severe gyroscopic resistance. Which incidentally is why the lightsaber fights in the original trilogy looked like what the historians at the time figured two-handed sword fights looked like between knights in plate armor.
I think it would make sense if you consider that lightsabers would generate a lot of heat and therefore might cause a lot of convection when swung through air. That's maybe what Lucas was thinking.
A child can swing a longsword. It's well within the capabilities of the average 8 year old. The warriors of old trained since age 7, and they could start swinging the sword at that age. By 14 they were considered a man grown, and a full-fledged soldier or knight.
The main problem for women in combat, then as it is now, is carrying heavy equipment for extended periods of time, their bodies don't recover as well as men, so they get worn down, sometimes with permanent results(bad knees, bad backs, etc, musculoskeletal injuries). This is similar to injuries common among daycare workers, and especially nurses.
Thus the armor and kit is the problem in the long run. But it won't stop them from being able to spend a couple of years in the field, it just takes a toll for doing so.
Yeah the problem is that I've been people say that, and they talk about blocking with the sword, which kind of makes me question how much they know about swordplay. Long story short, if you do the clanging sword on sword action you see in movies, your sword is gonna break PDQ, because they're not meant to take abuse like that. It's why shields exist, to have a hunk of metal to take a beating without the need to keep a sharp edge at the same time.
Just wanted to point out that, as evidenced by historic sources like medieval fighting manuals and contemporary reports, sword-to-sword blocking was not only possible but quiet the norm. Yes, sure, the blade suffers somewhat, but medieval swords could withstand it without trouble, and not all fighters would use shields at all times. Fighting manuals of the time are full of instructions and techniques for sword-on-sword fighting.
That unfortunately I can't answer. I'm not a medievalist, so someone with more expertise would need to elaborate on that.
My best guess is that it probably depended on the axis of the attack. i.e. where it was coming from. From your left, you probably catch it with the shield, from the right with the sword.
Pure speculation: I imagine blocking a blow with a shield is a lot easier than parrying it with a weapon, plus it leaves your weapon hand unoccupied to attempt a strike yourself. So I assume if you had a shield, then that was the go-to. But again, this is just me pretty much guessing.
There was a really good youtube channel by a guy with a background in archaeology and history who had made it his mission to disspell popular myths and mistakes about medieval fighting, but I can't remember for the life of me the channel name.
Sword blocks in european sword fighting, at least in those few manuals that survive, are all flat-on-flat deflections, rather than edge on edge parries. You'd knock or push the sword into a missing arc, rather than stop its momentum.
This makes sense, since edge on edge blows risks breaking the blade at worst, and nicking it at best. Mind you people probably did parry that way occasionally out of desperation.
A child can swing a longsword. It's well within the capabilities of the average 8 year old. The warriors of old trained since age 7, and they could start swinging the sword at that age. By 14 they were considered a man grown, and a full-fledged soldier or knight.
The main problem for women in combat, then as it is now, is carrying heavy equipment for extended periods of time, their bodies don't recover as well as men, so they get worn down, sometimes with permanent results(bad knees, bad backs, etc, musculoskeletal injuries). This is similar to injuries common among daycare workers, and especially nurses.
Thus the armor and kit is the problem in the long run. But it won't stop them from being able to spend a couple of years in the field, it just takes a toll for doing so.
In Dragon Age medicine is one thing they have more advanced than us, thanks to magic potions and healing spells recovery and wear and tear could be much less of a burden for a woman.
Oh, I don't know about that. I've run into many men who've argued that the invention of the gun hasn't changed anything, because men are better at using guns, too. Women shouldn't be in the army, because men can carry heavier backpacks/do more pullups/have faster reaction times/have a better "killer instinct"/could fight someone hand-to-hand if it came down to it.
I've known men to in all sincerity argue that even if a woman were armed with a gun and they not, they would win, because she would be scared and miss, they would react faster and rush her, etc. etc. There are men who absolutely refuse to accept that they could in any way be beaten by a woman at any fight under any circumstances, ever. (Not a hypothetical or a strawman - my own father and brothers argued that if they were the man at the end of Double Jeopardy - the film - and a woman was standing in their office with a handgun, they would just duck and dive and tackle her and grab the gun away before she could do anything.) We even had someone here on this board argue that all accounts of successful female snipers have been Soviet/Scandinavian/IDF propaganda, and that women make "naturally" terrible shots.
You might think these men are idiots - so do I, honestly - but there are scads of them out there, and we've all heard them before.
Which is why I don't blame people for being a bit skeptical when someone says "men are just better at X, because biology" because men have said that about everything in existence in the history of the universe at some point or another, it seems like, except possibly childbearing. (Certainly not child-rearing, there are whole websites dedicated to the "natural", "biological" superiority of fathers out there.) And if it were biologically possible for men to be better at child-bearing, I'm sure many of them would say they were naturally better at it.
I think it's fairly obvious that men have a natural advantage when it comes to sword-fighting, so as I've said I agree with you, but I also sympathize with people who'd argue the point, if not for any reason other than they've heard too much "men are naturally better at X" about literally everything to take such claims at face value right away. It might seem tedious in an obvious case like this, but skepticism is always healthy, I think.
I agree with your point and I also think some of the skepticism has to do with which women we are talking about. Take Victorian times for example, there were a lot of physical tasks that women were not supposed to be able to to, which were later proven wrong. But beyond that there were women who weren't counted as women who lived very physical lives. Women who were not higher class worked and worked hard while somehow surviving long enough to leave descendents. Of course no one gave a shit about the supposed fragility of a female if she were a slave or servant.
I agree with your point and I also think some of the skepticism has to do with which women we are talking about. Take Victorian times for example, there were a lot of physical tasks that women were not supposed to be able to to, which were later proven wrong. But beyond that there were women who weren't counted as women who lived very physical lives. Women who were not higher class worked and worked hard while somehow surviving long enough to leave descendents. Of course no one gave a shit about the supposed fragility of a female if she were a slave or servant.
Oh yeah, people forget that as late as the 60s women were still being told not to certain sports (like pole vault) because of potential damage to their breasts/wombs. Between that and the complete shitshow of "hysteria" and "women are dumber because they have smaller skulls" that science has made of "factual, scientifically proven" gender differences in the past, I don't blame women for being skeptical of even supposedly scientific claims of their inferiority/fragility in a given area. In this era of "well we put a bunch of people in an MRI machine and some stuff lit up differently in different areas and sometimes those differences correlated with gender; ergo, bitches suck at math" I think that's the only logical stance.
Oh, I don't know about that. I've run into many men who've argued that the invention of the gun hasn't changed anything, because men are better at using guns, too. Women shouldn't be in the army, because men can carry heavier backpacks/do more pullups/have faster reaction times/have a better "killer instinct"/could fight someone hand-to-hand if it came down to it.
I've known men to in all sincerity argue that even if a woman were armed with a gun and they not, they would win, because she would be scared and miss, they would react faster and rush her, etc. etc. There are men who absolutely refuse to accept that they could in any way be beaten by a woman at any fight under any circumstances, ever. (Not a hypothetical or a strawman - my own father and brothers argued that if they were the man at the end of Double Jeopardy - the film - and a woman was standing in their office with a handgun, they would just duck and dive and tackle her and grab the gun away before she could do anything.) We even had someone here on this board argue that all accounts of successful female snipers have been Soviet/Scandinavian/IDF propaganda, and that women make "naturally" terrible shots.
You might think these men are idiots - so do I, honestly - but there are scads of them out there, and we've all heard them before.
Which is why I don't blame people for being a bit skeptical when someone says "men are just better at X, because biology" because men have said that about everything in existence in the history of the universe at some point or another, it seems like, except possibly childbearing. (Certainly not child-rearing, there are whole websites dedicated to the "natural", "biological" superiority of fathers out there.) And if it were biologically possible for men to be better at child-bearing, I'm sure many of them would say they were naturally better at it.
I think it's fairly obvious that men have a natural advantage when it comes to sword-fighting, so as I've said I agree with you, but I also sympathize with people who'd argue the point, if not for any reason other than they've heard too much "men are naturally better at X" about literally everything to take such claims at face value right away. It might seem tedious in an obvious case like this, but skepticism is always healthy, I think.
Hmm, I'm not sure why they'd even make the argument aside from anecdotal evidence. Men do appear to have an advantage in hand eye coordination but we've also known some absolutely deadly female snipers. Is a man more likely to be more skilled with a firearm? Oh yeah, I'm sure. But I bet that can be largely overcome with just a little bit of training which you have to have anyways if you've got a conceal and carry permit. What's more is you don't really need to be the best shot. We don't carry single shot muskets around and a girl drawing a gun on you isn't going to wait for you to draw yours and get to cover. The truth is, even a five year old kid with a gun can kill a full grown man. That wasn't so true with a kid and a sword unless the man was completely vulnerable and unaware.
Fieldy409 said:
Hey heres a 14 year old girl who can bench press more than 140kg (and I was proud to be able to do 100kg...)
Why is she arching her back in that manner? Is she distributing the weight to her legs rather than using them for balancing the body? Weird. Is that actually a legal style of benching?
She also doesn't appear to be steroid stacked. Not like modern girl power lifters. 330 is actually a tremendously large amount if she really isn't using steroids. Her body does not reflect a weight lifter at all. So... honestly, I would suspect this even if I saw a male of her physique doing that. Wouldn't you?
EDIT: Ah, yes. It turns out that the real problem is her foot placement and how far the bar goes. It actually turns her body into a bow allowing her to lift with muscles in other parts of her body than her arms. She is also not doing a full-lift where the bar touches her body like is part of benching and doesn't go all the way back up by herself. You'd be surprised how much you could lift if you only had to let it fall just a little bit and only push it back up a little bit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=channel%3A52415139-0-2a60-9983-1a1132f710&feature=iv&src_vid=AFziFoCvhUM&v=42ZAv5DYOG0 (read the first comment to get an example)
So, while impressive to look at, there's actually a science to it and she should not be considered alongside the women who take massive amounts of steroids but can honestly life that much weight.
Here, this is an honest girl benching an honest 220 lbs totally legit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipOfuIsoMpo
See if you can spot the differences.
The average man in his 20's can bench his own weight three times in a row. Let's just put that in perspective. Now, how does this translate into fighting with a sword and showing endurance during battle? Not sure.
Not really true, even if you're facing a person in full suit of armor using a longsword as a club is just as legitimate a style as aiming for the weak points by hacking or stabbing. Again, longswords do NOT puncture plate armor.
Additionally, most people didn't wear armor. So hacking and slashing would be standard for you to use against most of your opponents. Especially if you were mounted and hacking down at people where stabbing requires you to get in much closer before thrusting and hacking can be done in unison with arriving at the target.
Second I meant, halberds and estocs did have points, sorry about that. And no I am not imagining dudes running around stabbing knights in the chest, I always knew that the weak points were the joints, the neck area and the crotch area. Also you are putting too much faith in the longbow. The longbow actually didn't have enough power to penetrate plate armour. Crossbow yea, longbow no. Case in point: Battle of Agincourt, 1415. The English won because the French knights got stuck in the mud, and the English infantry and archers practically walked up to them and stabbed them in the face, or they drowned in the mud (rainy day that day).
A longbow with a needle bodkin would do the job even through plate mail to lethal measures.
Heck, here's a video of guys actually puncturing carbon steel plate armor which if made with modern processes is likely to be far stronger than what they had.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCE40J93m5c
Third no what you are saying is not sexist. I just believe that you are wrong in believing that women couldn't use swords, as rapiers (yes even the ones with an edge, and if I remember my history, the French Musketeers were equipped with muskets and rapiers), estocs and other types of longswords weren't meant for hacking and slashing. Could they be used for that? Yes. Now claymores, 2handers and other swords like that were mainly used for hacking and slashing. But these differences in biology were used in the Victorian era to completely strip women of the rights they had. So celebrating them is not that good of an idea based on the historical evidence we have.
1. I actually never made that claim. What I did say was that the additional weight of a long sword would outweigh the benefits for most women as compared to something like a rapier. It would be nonsense to claim that people who can lift and swing something couldn't go into battle with it. It's just that endurance is often more important than a blade being one thing or another. Weaker men also had to make the same choice of not wearing armor or using lighter weapons.
A woman would not wear armor and swing one of these things around. Maybe chainmail and then something lighter. It isn't that they couldn't swing a claymore and cleave a guy in twain. It's just that endurance is more important.
2. A rapier is not a long sword. A longsword is by definition a 2 hander. They are called longswords because the hilt is long enough for two hands, not because the blade is larger. It's just that a two hander provides enough additional leverage to make a larger blade more viable. Not as much leverage as a polearm like female Japanese warriors used, but just enough. So in admitting that claymores and 2 handers were primarily used for hacking and slashing, you are actually conceding the point.
Now the issue of the modern female soldiers suffering in military training due to their lower bone density and muscle mass can only be solved (short term that is) through genetics research. Long term, well it will take some time. There are other ways, but to be honest I don't have time to look them up.
So, you support genetic engineering to make women stronger on average? For what purpose and why would men not be allowed to also benefit from said engineering? You would genetically re-engineer girls just in case they ever wanted to join the military? Look, strength has it's trade offs. In being more muscular we (males) are giving up specialization in other areas that women succeed in. It does society no good to make men more like women or women more like men. Our differences are for a reason and to be celebrated. Getting rid of those differences loses specialization that women already bring to the table and is inadvertently deciding that men's specialization is more important than women's. I'd consider that to be incredibly sexist if it ever came into practice.
What's more is that strength is becoming less and less important as technology improves. The mind is where it's at.
Wouldn't using steroids achieve the effect like women are currently doing without taking away the girl's right to choose whether or not she wants to be engineered to be more like a man physically? I would think the above notion of genetic engineering would be an affront to feminists.
Lastly I never said that biology was sexist. I never said that. I said that if we allow to entrench backward ideas in our culture just because of biology, that is sexist. Yes biology has nothing to do with feminism, but culture (and politics) has everything to do with feminism.
Do you feel like I was using culture and politics in my discussion with you? It seemed to me that I was using science that I backed up upon your request.
Power lifting form for a bench press is a different beast to how a bodybuilder might do it. The arch of the back is normal form taken to an extreme thanks to young flexibility. Your butt and your upper back are supposed to touch the bench but your spine can be as curved as you want. You can even see it in that video you deemed honest lifting shes arching her back just not to an extreme. Powerlifting is all about the form that gives more drive, whilst a bodybuilder may lay more flat on the bench to get less drive and more time under tension for his muscles.
You keep talking about 2handers,, when I am talking ABOUT ONE HANDED SWORDS. You keep referencing to that style. I am talking about something completely different than the picture that you showed. And it is getting on my nerves now. I don't care about 2handed swords, that were meant to be used as a hack and slash style. I care about 1h swords that require dexterity and less strength. Women are more than capable to use such swords. And no if you faced someone in full armour, you wouldn't use a sword as a club (unless it is a 2hander). You would go at the weak points, not the breastplate. And with this this discussion is over.
On to the other part: What specialization? The fact that women can bear children and take care of an house? Guess what: The Western world has allowed that "specialization" (based on biology) to enter its culture and practically treat half of the population as second class citizens. Even today we have issues with that (mainly the issue of sexism in corporate culture and attempts to restrict abortion in NA). You brought politics when you said that "women can do everything as well" is a lie. Tell that to the women who manned the factories during WWI and WWII. Tell that to the female soldiers in the countries outside of the US who have managed to be integrated in their respective militaries. Yea those differences were sure celebrated during the Victorian era.
And like I said even when the sexual dimorphism is present, we are humans. We can override it by using our brains. And with this this discussion is over, cause I am sick and tired of this entire argument, with you unable to understand that I am talking about 1h not 2h swords. Take it as you will, it isn't meant as an insult.
Edit: 2handers are longswords, but I was always referring to 1handers.
Edit2: Thanks for the longbow research. Nice read
You keep talking about 2handers,, when I am talking ABOUT ONE HANDED SWORDS. You keep referencing to that style. I am talking about something completely different than the picture that you showed. And it is getting on my nerves now. I don't care about 2handed swords, that were meant to be used as a hack and slash style. I care about 1h swords that require dexterity and less strength. Women are more than capable to use such swords. And no if you faced someone in full armour, you wouldn't use a sword as a club (unless it is a 2hander). You would go at the weak points, not the breastplate. And with this this discussion is over.
The thread is about longswords so I guess a more apt question for me to ask is why you keep talking about one-handed swords when we're all talking about two handed swords. Weapons like the rapier would be ideal for a female fighter to use. Great reach, light weight.
No one is debating that.
But weapons commonly used by armored knights to best fight other armored knights? Not really going to happen due to the weight of the armor. So the weapon by itself? Sure... they can use it but it'd be far less efficient than a one hander for the vast majority of women but potentially a liability around non-armored opponents with more agile blades. Now, a woman fighting an armored opponent? That's a really bad match up for the woman. Like a mounted unit making it to the archers.
So on that point, you and I may be agreeing. I don't know, you tell me. Do you agree that two handed weapons, aka longswords, would be a far less efficient weapon for women and that one handers would be particularly deadly and efficient in their hands?
On to the other part: What specialization? The fact that women can bear children and take care of an house?
Yes, women can bear children and yes, that is at a cost to their physical strength. They can also grow food in their body to sustain the child's life. They are also less aggressive thanks to the lack of testosterone than males and so are naturally more nurturing and more risk adverse which can often make them more reliable parents. Anyone can clean the house. Why would you seek to belittle those specializations? Are they menial specializations to you? They shouldn't be. They are vital to mankind being where we are today and will continue being vital to wherever we're going. But those aren't the only advantages and those aren't roles that sum up their purpose.
I would consider the advantages in the physical capability of males to be far less valuable in today's society than many of the advantages women have in other areas. Let me tell you, I'm very strong. I can leg press over 1,000 lbs for example. Never really put that much time into strength training my legs but have always had crazy strength there. But aside from moving heavy things around it really hasn't benefited me that much. I make my living with my mind only and that's an even playing field for humans regardless of sex. Though, even there we may have specializations that can't be accounted for even with social conditioning. Such as women being naturally better at multi-tasking and men having an advantage in spacial reasoning.
So yeah, women got the short end of the stick where physical strength is considered. That doesn't make them weaker overall. It just means that their specialization is in areas other than brute force.
Guess what: The Western world has allowed that "specialization" (based on biology) to enter its culture and practically treat half of the population as second class citizens.
Yes, treating people as second class citizens is wrong. What's your point and who are you telling this to? Does it make the acknowledgement of "specializations" (based on biology) any less true? Does the fact that people treated women as weak mean that they aren't the physically weaker sex as compared to men?
Truth isn't our enemy. It's just how we use it that can be good or bad. That people have used the truth for evil does not detract from the truth or add to it.
Even today we have issues with that (mainly the issue of sexism in corporate culture and attempts to restrict abortion in NA).
I'm unsure how abortion relates to anything we're talking about. But since you brought it up, abortion falls into a grey area between women's rights and ethics depending on the person you're talking to. Well, religion as well, let's face it that some people aren't even looking at the discussion on its merits for the sake of religious programming rather than actual self-reflected belief.
But at least I can understand why someone would have an issue with abortion without it being a women's rights issue if they actually value the life of an organism that is both genetically human and consuming energy and ergo alive. That's an ethical conundrum that should be able to be viewed as a legitimate question and weighed against the very real claims of women rights. But, ethics being what they are often means a difference of opinion rather than fact. If someone views it as a human life that's in a coma and about to wake up then I understand their hesitation at pulling the plug. I certainly understand all of the concerns and claims for women as well. It's quite a difficult issue to resolve if it can be resolved at all.
So the topic isn't as cut and dry as you think. But it's just that anyone too firmly on either side can't even consider one another's position. I would say the biggest hindrance is because of religious opponents of abortion just trying to impose their faith in the discussion rather than there being more vocal ethicists on the matter. But even then, I think women's rights advocates are generally being smart by not tackling the potential human rights issue and just focusing on the women's rights side of things. You can't really win an ethics war but can win a right to do what you want with your body war.
I'm still unsure where I side on the issue. I understand where both sides stand and why they stand there. I am inclined to believe that a fetus is a human life but am uncertain as to how to gauge the value of that life and whether it should be considered more or less worthy than the impact to the quality of life a woman would have to deal with should it persist. I'm simply not equipped to be the judge and so I stand on the sidelines and watch both sides fight it out in curiosity
You brought politics when you said that "women can do everything as well" is a lie.
If their jobs required strength, reaction time and endurance then sure, men could have done the work better on average. That is a scientifically accurate assessment. That's a fact and above reproach as such.
Tell that to the female soldiers in the countries outside of the US who have managed to be integrated in their respective militaries.
Yep, guns sure are great. Doesn't make them better at physical tasks or more likely to win in a physical confrontation. Doesn't mean that they don't get injured more frequently or are somehow able to carry as much as their male counterparts or even run as fast. Able to do the same job =/= able to do the job as well. But as I already said earlier, a bullet from a girl makes people just as dead.
And like I said even when the sexual dimorphism is present, we are humans. We can override it by using our brains.
That's audaciously false. A woman cannot mind control her bones into getting denser anymore than I can will my tits to lactate. Modern science may provide alternatives but it isn't a matter of the mind.
Sexual dimorphism is biologically programmed. It is not a social construct. We are genetically dimorphic and that's not something to wave away no matter how load someone shouts it from a soap box.
Out of fear that acknowledging one sex is physically weaker than another will turn into claiming one is actually inferior to the other you are dismissing a truth that is true regardless of how that truth is used or whether or not you believe it.
Difference does not mean weakness. To believe that is to err greatly. The knight and the archer on the battlefield have greatly disparate functions and yet neither would necessarily be considered better than the other in general but would be considered differently depending on the task at hand. Specialization is key to humanity's existence and survival.
Edit: 2handers are longswords, but I was always referring to 1handers.
2handers are longswords, longswords are 2handers. Yes.
Please refer to the title of the thread and the point of the discussion:
"Yes, Women in Dragon Age Could Use Longswords"
Do you happen to know why you joined the argument regarding things that aren't longswords? Seems a little hit and miss for a target audience don't you think?
Women do make testosterone. Their ovaries and adrenal glands make it. Also don't ever piss of a woman, or get between her and her children, she will murder you with whatever tools she has at hands. Granted not to the extent that males make it, but they still make it. I do like how you use the word "truth". Truth is a relative thing. Yes we can acknowledge that women are 50% weaker than men. But we must ensure that we never ever go back to the ideals of the Victorian era, otherwise we are no better than savages.
And when I said we can override our sexual dimorphism using our brains I MEANT WE CAN THINK ABOUT IT to develop plans to override nature, not use our brains to influence our growth and development. There is a reason for our dominance of the earth.
I still believe women could use longswords, they just had less endurance as you say, because of a lack of training. Regardless of the technique at play.
Yeah, but I also didn't say they didn't. Women also have muscles and are perfectly capable of performing most tasks that men can perform even if they're at a disadvantage of doing so as efficiently. But the difference in amounts produced is significant. Surely you're not dismissing the impact testosterone has as a steroid in males? Women produce 5-10% the amount that men produce.
Also don't ever piss of a woman, or get between her and her children, she will murder you with whatever tools she has at hands.
Holy crap, ever seen a fight between girls? They're like whirlwinds with nails flying and gnashing of teeth. Their intent appears to be to maim or damage the other rather than to just overcome them like a lot of male fights I've seen. Terrifying, really. But I've also seen the other way around where a man is intent on fighting back and once the switch is flipped and the man is pushed to defending himself the woman had better have better training or better tools at her disposal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRPtPbAPNgU
The general sentiment is universal that men can't hit women. Ever wonder why that's a strong belief? Do you think it's just Victorian era residue or due to the power disparity?
Please understand that I am not calling women weak. I am saying that they are weaker in comparison to men. But not weak in general. There's a huge difference there.
I do like how you use the word "truth". Truth is a relative thing.
No, it's not. The sky is blue because of the wavelengths we see. Facts are truth. Opinions are relative. Whoever started claiming that truth is relative defeated themselves the moment they made an absolute (aka, non-relative) claim about the nature of truth being relative. Relative truth is seldom used in debate by the honest and objective.
Yes we can acknowledge that women are 50% weaker than men. But we must ensure that we never ever go back to the ideals of the Victorian era, otherwise we are no better than savages.
I agree that we should never return to the mentality that anyone is second class. But I hardly think Victorian era people were savages .
And when I said we can override our sexual dimorphism using our brains I MEANT WE CAN THINK ABOUT IT to develop plans to override nature, not use our brains to influence our growth and development. There is a reason for our dominance of the earth.
Ah, so we could use science to overcome sexual dimorphism. That makes far more sense than it purely being a mental task to overcome.
As I asked before, do you think we should? Do you think it is right to alter an infant female to be more like a man? I find that notion incredibly sexist. Like admitting that women are inferior to men and need to be genetically modified to be equal. I just don't agree with that at all. Sounds like an extreme form of sexism, really, and I'm surprised to hear that come from a woman.
I still believe women could use longswords, they just had less endurance as you say, because of a lack of training. Regardless of the technique at play.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
