Metal swords are easier for a weaker person to use: Even IF they're not lighter they're much better balanced than a forward heavy Og smash! club and require less force to be effective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Evopsych isn't the root of this argument. Look at current crime statistics across every country that has it - men are perpetrators of violent crimes to a far, far larger degree than women. Look at who is the victim of this violence in statistics: Men. Look at suicide statistics: Women make far more attempts (10x or so), but men are twice as likely to die from suicide, sum total. This means men are 20x as likely to die from a suicide attempt than women, which is confirmed by the method chosen: Death by car or gun - more violent methods. Check medical research: Men are far more likely to have Asperger's syndrome than women. Women are far more likely to be anorectic than men. Men are significantly more likely to develop schizophrenia than women - and if women do get it, they get it ten years later in life, on average, and have less severe forms of it. Check psychology research: Women are far better at reading emotions of strangers - except anger, which men catch far easier.
All across the line, men's lives are different than womens'. Violence is a far more prevalent phenomenon to them. You're welcome to find statistics that paint a different picture, but you aren't going to find much.
Add to the above that we see massive differences in testosterone levels, growth hormone and so on, big differences on average sizes of various structures between male and female brains, and you will, again, need pretty serious evidence to make a serious claim that male and female behaviour doesn't differ on biological grounds.
Evopsych isn't the root of this argument....
Add to the above that we see massive differences in testosterone levels, growth hormone and so on, big differences on average sizes of various structures between male and female brains, and you will, again, need pretty serious evidence to make a serious claim that male and female behaviour doesn't differ on biological grounds.
Including, apparently, what they like in their movies.
I think it might help to start with "Is 'women dislike action films' even a true statement?"
In class we discussed this, and scientists took three tribes of natives from africa and taught them to be "modern" but in doing so changed the gender roles. One tribe they gave women the "masculine" roles and men the "feminine" roles. One tribe they gave equally the gender roles. And the last tribe they gave only feminine roles.
The result, things stuck. They were succussful in altering the gender role balance in all three cases.
Personally, I feel the biological effect basic methodologies which can be used on any role, the masculine (direct, overt, and very visual aspects) vs the feminine (subtle, covert, and noticed more through analysis). Obviously everyone does both, but whatever role men do they normally use more direct tactics which are easily identified on an instinctual level.
Notice that swinging a sword to hit harder is masculine, to swing a sword to hit accurately is feminine.
Notice that guys judge others combat ability by sight, who has big muscles and can hit hard, ignoring the scrawny individual until that individual proves a mastery of other forms of combat. (And even then, it commonly engenders hate more then respect) This I know from experience.
Also, the prevelence of male dominated religions of recent times probably affects how many follow partucular roles. People in charge dont want the submissive to feel like becoming the dominant, so the more dominant a group, the lesscombat ability they want other groups to have, because that combat ability can be used to make the submissive become the dominant.
Slave women, I read somewhere, did most of the work on American plantations. The idea that they are physically incapable of carrying 100 lbs. of battle gear seems pretty suspect to me.Also I should point out that women (carrying that aforementioned 100lbs of gear) have been on the "front lines" in the Canadian armed forces since '89 or so, and the Canadian military has been actively recruiting women for combat roles since '98
The 100lbs was in resonance to Wolf's comments on high tec weapons getting lighter.
Yes. Women can do it, they have done it, the training can help them do it better. The roles of a society and its organisational hierarchies does not mean other women outside of those possibly strict conditions in other societies (or other times) cannot fight, cannot haul their weapons and kit, cannot ride, shoot, chop, scout, camp and laugh at those that think they are inferior. They can do it, they can be trained to do it in an exemplary fashion, they have done it and continue to engage in warfare and soldiering.
2.7% fighting women in the American armed forces doesn't mean jack in the history of the humanity and all its peoples. We could point to the women of the bushi class in Samurai Japan that learned to fight in very high numbers (polearms and bow mostly, both weapon types which require strength, training, discipline and coordination to use well).
Big Norse Wolf, you can teach a woman to use a club or a long club like a staff, I've done it and seen it done across years. Also, don't forget that any female police officer is trained in baton usage. A baton is a modern club. Or does that not count? Sigh.
Simply, nothing is inhuman or unnatural when humans can do it. Women can fight and wage warfare at the personal, group or army level.
Just last week, went to a presentation on child soldiers in Columbia.
In Columbia, 43% of child soldiers are female (with most of these joining voluntarily, 80% across both sexes). So yeah, they can march and shoot.
Whatever your views on war and fighting, maybe you think it is a quintessentially male thing, it simply isn't beyond the capacities of women.
2.7% fighting women in the American armed forces doesn't mean jack in the history of the humanity and all its peoples.
Agreed. But its one of the better examples FOR your point.
We could point to the women of the bushi class in Samurai Japan that learned to fight in very high numbers (polearms and bow mostly, both weapon types which require strength, training, discipline and coordination to use well).
And what % of the troops were they?
Big Norse Wolf, you can teach a woman to use a club or a long club like a staff, I've done it and seen it done across years. Also, don't forget that any female police officer is trained in baton usage. A baton is a modern club. Or does that not count? Sigh.
It doesn't count enough to have a measurable effect on population genetics.
Simply, nothing is inhuman or unnatural when humans can do it.
Quote me saying that women fighting is inhuman or unnatural or own up to the strawmanning you're doing here.
I'm not sure the number of people in military forces is a good indication of a specific sex's interest in violence. Society decides who gets to serve in a combat position, historically in the US at least women were not allowed to serve in combat roles. This was not due to physical differences, though those were used to justify it, but instead social prejudice.
Now there are certainly reasons why it is better to have males in positions of danger from a purely survival of the species point of view (one male can father multiple children with multiple females at the same time, while one female can only typically mother one child from one father at any one time, ergo males are less valuable). Also more males are born than females (not a hugely larger number but a measurable difference), so we need less males and we have more than we need anyway, thus from a species standpoint it makes sense to "waste" males on combat.
But that doesn't indicate if females are any less violent than males, just that they are more valuable than males and so should not be squandered in combat. Now at this point, the species is doing just fine (what are we at, 7 billion?) so we can afford to be less protective and allow more women into combat roles.
Yes, prejudice rears its head. One of the unfortunate results of this prejudice is that some women think they are helpless and inferior and could not possibly fight. When what they need is training and dedication, should their interests (and desire for safety) lie in this area.
Norse, on what percentage of the army were they, the better question is what percentage of those trained could actually fight. The answer is all, the ability to fight is a learned ability and women can learn it.
They were from a small warrior class, so their numbers were not high compared to the peasant ashigaru dominating the battlefields of the daimyo wars (male samurai were also not the majority in the Sengoku era battles). Their martial development was encouraged in the centuries it was considered good and seemly for them to be able to defend themselves and their family's property (while the samurai men were away). The potential and possibilities when it is encouraged by a society is key. These martial arts have continued in modern Japan for Japanese women:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZN4ScARN58
Scroll forward a bit to check out the match.
Wearing the armour, the quick and effective use of the two-handed weapon, women can do it. You could also check out women's fencing for how enjoyable women have found it to increase their physical and sword-fighting abilities and then compete.
Yes, and we can keep bringing up the Scythians and the Mongols where the fighting women were not a tiny minority. The other poster favoured the Sarmatians and others. I'm sure they can talk about their points. "Don't" becomes "did".
These cultures had plenty of warrior women in the field, fighting and raiding alongside the men.
Further on "they don't", they already do. The Canadian example above.
Essentialising women as all non-combatants is false. Overwhelming doesn't work when you examine specific culture contexts.
Except that BNW isn't saying that women can't do it, he's saying they don't. (Mostly, overwhelmingly, across cultures and across history.) A tiny handful of upperclass women, trained mostly to defend themselves while the men were away doesn't go against that at all.Yes, prejudice rears its head. One of the unfortunate results of this prejudice is that some women think they are helpless and inferior and could not possibly fight. When what they need is training and dedication, should their interests (and desire for safety) lie in this area.
Norse, on what percentage of the army were they, the better question is what percentage of those trained could actually fight. The answer is all, the ability to fight is a learned ability and women can learn it.
They were from a small warrior class, so their numbers were not high compared to the peasant ashigaru dominating the battlefields of the daimyo wars (male samurai were also not the majority in the Sengoku era battles). Their martial development was encouraged in the centuries it was considered good and seemly for them to be able to defend themselves and their family's property (while the samurai men were away). The potential and possibilities when it is encouraged by a society is key. These martial arts have continued in modern Japan for Japanese women:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZN4ScARN58
Scroll forward a bit to check out the match.
Wearing the armour, the quick and effective use of the two-handed weapon, women can do it. You could also check out women's fencing for how enjoyable women have found it to increase their physical and sword-fighting abilities and then compete.
One more thing. The wives of bushi that could defend themselves were not "a tiny handful". There was widespread training of this side of a class. The methods have continued down to the present for modern Japanese women to pursue in high school and after if they wish. Not a tiny handful now, not a tiny handful hundreds of years ago.
It was not a tiny book club on an obscure author. It was self defence training for the women of a class of warriors.
Indeed Guy. There was another piece I was reading ages ago that had a few things to say. In the pre-modern times of warbands with the constant threat of raiding, women had to do a great deal more fighting. When the frontline is not clear, when neighbouring villages are dangerous and homes had to be defended, women did their part.
For besieged towns and castles, there are records of them being involved, desperately dropping rocks on heads and the like.
One more thing. The wives of bushi that could defend themselves were not "a tiny handful". There was widespread training of this side of a class. The methods have continued down to the present for modern Japanese women to pursue in high school and after if they wish. Not a tiny handful now, not a tiny handful...All the wives of the bushi is still a tiny handful, compared to the mass of the wives of the peasants.
You think rough rural women can't fight? Okaaaaaay.
One more thing. The wives of bushi that could defend themselves were not "a tiny handful". There was widespread training of this side of a class. The methods have continued down to the present for modern Japanese women to pursue in high school and after if they wish. Not a tiny handful now, not a tiny handful...All the wives of the bushi is still a tiny handful, compared to the mass of the wives of the peasants.
Things should be given their proper names. What was not a tiny handful should not be called a tiny handful. This is basic stuff. There were not just a handful of female warriors on the islands of Japan in 1550; there are not only a handful of combatants in the globalised world now. Or put it another way, a history of repetition is not an outlier.
Again nurture vs nature, is it that women don't like combat and aren't interested in fighting? Or were women throughout history denied the right to learn combat and warfare? Knowing modern women and looking at the few historical reference we have I tend to believe it's the latter.
For nurture we have..
The argument that there are women warriors. Which isn't an argument against nature. Nature doesn't set down an ironclad rule, it sets down dice. 8d6 is going to be bigger than 4d6... MOST of the time.
For nature we have
-parallels with our closest relatives
-the known effects of testosterone on the brain
-the known effects of testosterone on brain development
-indisputable natural physiological differences that make men better fighters under the conditions of our evolutionary development
- astronomically higher incidences of violent crime by men accross times and cultures
- a clear cost benefit analysis for reproductive success that would encourage male fighting and discourage female fighting
-We evolved for it physically... but not mentally?
-the fact that every single documented culture on the planet has had a majority male army. How on earth is that supposed to be a cultural decision that was reached by consensus by cultures thousands of miles apart?
"Women made up 67 of the nearly 3,500 Americans lost in hostile fire in Iraq and 33 of the 1,700-plus killed in combat in Afghanistan; more than 600 others in Iraq and 300 in Afghanistan were wounded."
Exactly! 1.9% of the casualties. With no other factors in the equation it should be 50%.
If the effect was purely cultural shouldn't different cultures get vastly different results? For every culture that gets 2% shouldn't there be a culture that gets 98%?
Is there any cultural factor that the entire species agrees on?
Yes, and we can keep bringing up the Scythians and the Mongols where the fighting women were not a tiny minority. The other poster favoured the Sarmatians and others. I'm sure they can talk about their points. "Don't" becomes "did".
These cultures had plenty of warrior women in the field, fighting and raiding alongside the men.
Further on "they don't", they already do. The Canadian example above.
Essentialising women as all non-combatants is false. Overwhelming doesn't work when you examine specific culture contexts.
Define "plenty".
What percentages of the armies were women? Sources?
I'm also curious if there was a big difference between the numbers who would fight in defense of the village when attacked and the numbers that would actually go out on raids or offensive war.
A soldier or warrior doesn't cease to be what they are, because they fight on defense as opposed to offense.
Are defensive footballers not footballers?
Again nurture vs nature, is it that women don't like combat and aren't interested in fighting? Or were women throughout history denied the right to learn combat and warfare? Knowing modern women and looking at the few historical reference we have I tend to believe it's the latter.For nurture we have..
The argument that there are women warriors. Which isn't an argument against nature. Nature doesn't set down an ironclad rule, it sets down dice. 8d6 is going to be bigger than 4d6... MOST of the time.
For nature we have
-parallels with our closest relatives
-the known effects of testosterone on the brain
-the known effects of testosterone on brain development
-indisputable natural physiological differences that make men better fighters under the conditions of our evolutionary development
- astronomically higher incidences of violent crime by men accross times and cultures
- a clear cost benefit analysis for reproductive success that would encourage male fighting and discourage female fighting
-We evolved for it physically... but not mentally?
-the fact that every single documented culture on the planet has had a majority male army. How on earth is that supposed to be a cultural decision that was reached by consensus by cultures thousands of miles apart?"Women made up 67 of the nearly 3,500 Americans lost in hostile fire in Iraq and 33 of the 1,700-plus killed in combat in Afghanistan; more than 600 others in Iraq and 300 in Afghanistan were wounded."Exactly! 1.9% of the casualties. With no other factors in the equation it should be 50%.
If the effect was purely cultural shouldn't different cultures get vastly different results? For every culture that gets 2% shouldn't there be a culture that gets 98%?
Is there any cultural factor that the entire species agrees on?
I really must contend your physical nature point.
If women can physically use their bodies to fight, and they can, how did they also not evolve for it? Why are the males only considered to have evolved for conflict but not women?
Size and bulk of course isn't everything when training is so important (and size matters less in modern forms of warfare) and even if size was paramount (small people may really contend with this), there are plenty of rather robust and strong women out there (some women are larger and fitter than men). Unfortunately this focus on size gets away from the simple fact women can fight, they can be trained to fight better (like men), and men aren't the only ones endowed with bodies that can control and direct conflict.
I've totally lost what people are even arguing about here. How about those revolutionary movies, Comrade Goblin?
One of them passed the Bechdel test in the trailer.
To sum up my Og grunt
Men are genetically predisposed towards violence+
Violence is easy to film+
Its easier to identify with a protagonist when they're your gender=
Lots of lead characters are male=
Flunked bechdel test
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I bet throughout the world currently and historically, women haven't made up the majority of scientists. Thus this is evidence that women are not interested in science and are ill suited to it, biologically speaking.
Yes, and we can keep bringing up the Scythians and the Mongols where the fighting women were not a tiny minority. The other poster favoured the Sarmatians and others. I'm sure they can talk about their points. "Don't" becomes "did".
These cultures had plenty of warrior women in the field, fighting and raiding alongside the men.
Further on "they don't", they already do. The Canadian example above.
Essentialising women as all non-combatants is false. Overwhelming doesn't work when you examine specific culture contexts.
Define "plenty".
What percentages of the armies were women? Sources?
I'm also curious if there was a big difference between the numbers who would fight in defense of the village when attacked and the numbers that would actually go out on raids or offensive war.A soldier or warrior doesn't cease to be what they are, because they fight on defense as opposed to offense.
Are defensive footballers not footballers?
No, but there's a big psychological difference between, "You'll have to learn to defend yourself while the men are away" and "Prove your manhood on this raid!"
And again, these cultures were notable because of "women warriors". Nobody's actually given any evidence that they had "plenty of warrior women in the field, fighting and raiding alongside the men". Or exactly what was meant by "plenty". What little evidence I've seen poking around the web suggests that they weren't really fighting and raiding alongside the men, but defending villages while the men were away. Or at least not in great numbers.
I'd love to be proven wrong.
Many veterans being male doesn't invalidate the presence of female combatants. Going on the attack doesn't mean those on the defense don't know what they are doing.
I'll put it like this, if a Norman spearman is trained up and then partrols in and around a safe castle in a safe region for the rest of their life, are you saying they are not a warrior, and not a soldier? Why does a woman cease to be a combatant if they have the training and the arms and the will, but circumstances mean they only drill, train and spar?
For nomadic steppe peoples, the men and women hunted from a very young age. Riding and archery were as important then as the major subjects in school today.
A Mongolian champion talks about the history of her people and archery: http://www.atarn.org/mongolian/mn_nat_arch/mn_nat_arch.htm
I bet throughout the world currently and historically, women haven't made up the majority of scientists. Thus this is evidence that women are not interested in science and are ill suited to it, biologically speaking.
Yeah, it really hurts to see this view. So often it is repeated. Good point though pres.
I bet throughout the world currently and historically, women haven't made up the majority of scientists. Thus this is evidence that women are not interested in science and are ill suited to it, biologically speaking.
What you're saying is certainly possible but...
S&E Bachelor's Degrees by Sex. Since 1982, women have outnumbered men in undergraduate education. They have earned relatively constant fractions of all bachelor's and S&E bachelor's degrees for several years (see sidebar "Gender Gap in Undergraduate Enrollment"). Since the late 1990s, women have earned about 57% of all bachelor's degrees and about half of all S&E bachelor's degrees. Among U.S. citizens and permanent residents, women also earn about half of all S&E bachelor's degrees (NSF/NCSES 2011). Linky
while women are underrepresented in the sciences, I can probably name more historical women scientists than soldiers... and there are a LOT more mooks on the battlefield than geeks in the lab. The numbers simply aren't as dramatic as they are with warfare.
http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc-877-herrmann-palmieri.pdf
Good stuff starts on page 21-22. Such as the army of women that was 7,000 strong.
Perhaps someone will ask what percentage of that army was women? Lol.
"Women have always been present in wars. This is one of the conclusions drawn by research carried out at Carlos III University of Madrid (UC3M); the study analyzes the role of women in times of peace and in armed conflicts throughout history."
http://www.uc3m.es/portal/page/portal/actualidad_cientifica/noticias/women_ wars
Don't forget the nationalist movements and the female fighters and partizans of the 19th century. The above does not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So cross-cultural and historical trends are not necessarily complete evidence of biological determination? That if a culture changes it can reveal that these supposed biological dispositions might actual be cultural directives, assuming enough time and cultural change is present? Interesting.
So how long has the US government allowed women to serve in front line combat positions? How long would you expect to see a change in the number of females participating, assuming of course the issue isn't biologically determined? A year? A decade? Several decades?
EDIT: One thing I would not expect is for it to happen before the military actually enacts such an allowance.
U.S. Military Vows to Put Women in Combat Roles by 2016
So cross-cultural and historical trends are not necessarily complete evidence of biological determination?
Blatant strawman.
A trend in a population is not determination for any individual. A heavy biological influence is not determination.
That if a culture changes it can reveal that these supposed biological dispositions might actual be cultural directives, assuming enough time and cultural change is present? Interesting.
We have had one broad category of culture with formalized science for only ~300 years (I usually consider newton the last sorcerer, rather than the first scientist) , and other societies have picked it up since. I don't see how you're doing a cross cultural comparison, much less a cross species comparison, or dealing with physiological differences.
The rates of participation in the sciences seem MUCH higher than in warfare, around 10% even with a heavy bias. Take out the bias and the rates could rise to anywhere from 40% to 60%
So how long has the US government allowed women to serve in front line combat positions?
In theory? 6 months. In practice? AT least 10 years.
How long would you expect to see a change in the number of females participating, assuming of course the issue isn't biologically determined? A year? A decade? Several decades?
60 years for 2 generations?
|
In class we discussed this, and scientists took three tribes of natives from africa and taught them to be "modern" but in doing so changed the gender roles. One tribe they gave women the "masculine" roles and men the "feminine" roles. One tribe they gave equally the gender roles. And the last tribe they gave only feminine roles.
The result, things stuck. They were succussful in altering the gender role balance in all three cases.
That study sounds almost perfectly designed to not make it past the ethics board. What tribes were they, or what were the suthor's names? I'd love to look it up.
So cross-cultural and historical trends are not necessarily complete evidence of biological determination?Blatant strawman.
A trend in a population is not determination for any individual. A heavy biological influence is not determination.
That if a culture changes it can reveal that these supposed biological dispositions might actual be cultural directives, assuming enough time and cultural change is present? Interesting.We have had one broad category of culture with formalized science for only ~300 years (I usually consider newton the last sorcerer, rather than the first scientist) , and other societies have picked it up since. I don't see how you're doing a cross cultural comparison, much less a cross species comparison, or dealing with physiological differences.
The rates of participation in the sciences seem MUCH higher than in warfare, around 10% even with a heavy bias. Take out the bias and the rates could rise to anywhere from 40% to 60%
So how long has the US government allowed women to serve in front line combat positions?In theory? 6 months. In practice? AT least 10 years.
How long would you expect to see a change in the number of females participating, assuming of course the issue isn't biologically determined? A year? A decade? Several decades?60 years for 2 generations?
No. Someone asking if the evidence of one argument proves your argument is not a strawman.
This is frustrating. Please go read up on rhetoric and logical fallacies. You are using strawman eagerly but incorrectly.
In class we discussed this, and scientists took three tribes of natives from africa and taught them to be "modern" but in doing so changed the gender roles. One tribe they gave women the "masculine" roles and men the "feminine" roles. One tribe they gave equally the gender roles. And the last tribe they gave only feminine roles.
The result, things stuck. They were succussful in altering the gender role balance in all three cases.That study sounds almost perfectly designed to not make it past the ethics board. What tribes were they, or what were the suthor's names? I'd love to look it up.
It was last year and I've moved since then. I'll have to find what happened to my text book, if I do Ill post the info here, until then, I know not of internet references.
We all know that virtually everywhere we look today, men VASTLY outnumber women as soldiers, at a scale of 10/1 or more. If you're trying to argue that this TREND is wrong, for heaven's sake find arguments that speak against it. Hint: If this is what you want, you need to do FAR more than prove the EXISTENCE of female soldiers in a certain army/country/time in history. A trend will not change because you find exceptions, unless the exceptions are so many that they are the real trend. With 2,7% (?) of women in the US army, that's pretty damn exactly what the trend is saying. That it's eminently possible for women to fight, kill, carry stuff and otherwise function as soldiers, that's obvious. But those who do do come few and far between, at least compared to the men. That women have at times decided to fight to protect their village proves nothing more than desperation, since you don't really expect them not to even try fighting "because we're women and can't fight so we'd better just welcome the bandits", do you? That noblewomen were sometimes taught to fight to some degree, IIRC mainly to protect the honour of their husband, is also well known. That various cultures have had some female soldiers still doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of soldiers in EVERY SINGLE CULTURE we know about have been male.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ahhhh... Oh. Well, I never considered that. Thank you for pointing it out, Guy. Of course the Mongols and Scythians had more egalitarian TV shows than we have today, and that's why they had female soldiers!