tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7467549889510324132.post7832164954325068455..comments2024-03-28T05:23:34.861-05:00Comments on Pretentious Title: Why Fantasy Armies Can and Should Include WomenRachel Aaronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13917123007610750274noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7467549889510324132.post-6663594698674664742015-07-23T22:21:29.242-05:002015-07-23T22:21:29.242-05:00This is a couple years old, but I just ran against...This is a couple years old, but I just ran against it.<br /><br />Well put, especially the last part debunking the ideology doesn't belong in fiction argument. Seems like a lot of people are making it lately, and it's a real head scratcher, because I don't think I've ever read a novel that doesn't have some sort of underlying ideology, even if it's simply that "the status quo is the only possible reality," which is what the author of that article you took on seems to have posited. Interesting that she was a woman too. I've gotten used to running across guys telling us, "Sorry ladies, you can't have any military or adventure fantasy with characters you can identify with because it's not realistic, but it's depressing to see a woman who's drunk that kool aid.<br /><br />I don't know why it ticks some people off so darned much to see books that give women a little escapist fun too.E.L. Wagnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631080231126783838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7467549889510324132.post-76520212680711232992014-05-23T04:58:10.614-05:002014-05-23T04:58:10.614-05:00Well, I think, it is far more simple.
In medieval...Well, I think, it is far more simple.<br /><br />In medieval Europe, women married at the age of 14 years (normally) to 18 years (late).<br /><br />Most women had several children and were pregnant quite often. Many women also died in childbirth.<br /><br />Therefore, the number of women, who could have qualified as regular soldiers or mercenaries was quite small.<br /><br />This does not imply that women did not fight if their village or city was threatened. Women were quite able to use boiling water, throw stones from a city wall or use a pike or a bow if necessary.<br /><br />But to fight as a knight or mercenary, you have to train with armor and weapons for years. Therefore, it would have been a waste of time to train a women, who will most likely get married by the age of 14 and will have several children.<br /><br />Therefore, if you want to depict a "medieval" world, human women will not be fighters that roam the land. They may still qualify as local militia. Woman associated to mercenaries also accompanied mercenary companies. They did not fight, because they had children. Putting dad and mom at risk at the same time would not have been a good idea. <br /><br />What is more, society in the middle ages did not think, that women should occupy themselves with manslaughter. It was not seen as befitting a woman. Your fantasy world could be different however.<br /><br />Women from a fantasy race like elves, which live far longer (and most likely do not spend as much time on having children) will not be faced by these limitations as much as humans are.<br /><br />Women from "barbarian" tribes (mongols, germanic tribes, slavic tribes) will figth to some extent, because everyone was constantly on the move and therefore had to be able to defend the animals and the stuff (defending the tribe on the move is the equivallent of defending home in these cases). <br /><br />Nomadic raiders will not take womans along to a raid. Someone has to stay home and look for the children. Why not chose the physically weaker women for this task? <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7467549889510324132.post-64737245364944003922013-08-07T06:25:08.593-05:002013-08-07T06:25:08.593-05:00Neat post, I love thinking about these things. Bu...Neat post, I love thinking about these things. But I always thought - at least since I was old enough to know about such things - that the main reason for excluding women from regular combat ranks was because of the prevalence of rape. Rape has always been a tool of war, and a horribly effective one, for terrorizing and subjugating civillians. A female soldier - especially in a pre-industrial situation - is going to be a target not only by the enemy but (as we see even in our supposedly civilized society) by her own peers and commanding officers. Sure, a badass woman can defend herself, but if you go maiming your own platoon mates - or commanding officers - on a regular basis, your career is going to be pretty short. They call it the "morale" problem - of course it's a much bigger problem than that. I have heard & read some pretty devastating stories from survivors of sexual abuse in the military. They are strong women, absolutely - but their willingness/committment to support the military, to keep silent for the sake of their career, becomes unsustainable on a personal level.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7467549889510324132.post-78369281042817447042013-07-29T00:17:59.829-05:002013-07-29T00:17:59.829-05:00As someone who has spent some time with traditiona...As someone who has spent some time with traditional weapons, I can say that nearly everyone vastly underestimates just how much strength and endurance these took, especially to use them in actual battle. Even a bokken (wooden katana) requires noticeable effort to swing, and 5 pounds is a lot of sword to be swinging around. So is a spear, a staff, or more or less any other melee weapon. And bows require a lot of upper body and arm strength and endurance. Moreover, this is just when using them in a practice situation. Blocking strikes, cutting through enemies, and taking blows adds incredible fatigue, amounts that most people, male or female, cannot imagine.<br />Living without many of our modern conveniences meant that historical people, male and female, tended to have higher endurance and tolerance for pain than most people with access to a computer. So it is quite reasonable to assume that women could learn to fight, although making half the combat force female would be far too much of a stretch for me.<br /><br />The second two points made, to me, are quite strongly related. In our own history, ancient through medieval, there were many reasons for the men to do the fighting- one of the biggest being that if we make the very generous assumption that one in five pregnancies will eventually result in an adult, it takes an average of ten conceptions to come out with a couple capable of having more children. That being the case, it would be safer to risk the men's lives in battle, since if necessary the surviving men could still impregnate the women. In addition, considering the fact that men tend to be physically (and in certain ways physiologically) better suited for combat, we can understand why traditional gender roles became, well, tradition. Ignoring all of this because you simply feel like having women serving as soldiers is what I think Ms Savage (and you're right, that name is awesome) means in that quoted section. And I believe she has a point. Whatever world you're using needs to make sense, and shoving equal opportunites into a medieval world feels like bad writing to me.<br /><br />The catch is, we don't write fantasy about medieval life, or ancient life. In reality, medieval life sucked. People worked there asses off all day, slept on bug-ridden piles of whatever, used chamber pots...the list goes on and on. The values were different, life was not worth much, and ultimately it was not something we want to live. Most fantasy is written in a medieval-ish world because it's just more fun than the real thing. If I recall my feudal European history correctly, there weren't many large standing armies, and most soldiers were a sort of conscript militia, which was a large part of why crossbows and guns became so widely used for their ease of training. The presence of magic often explains the differences between real medieval and fantastic medieval. In one of R.A. Salvatore's books, one of his characters contemplates what would happen to the world if magic ceased to function, and the changes make the world he envisions more like the real medieval world. Same goes for mythological-based stories, because actual Greek mythology doesn't make the same great stories that adapted mythology does.<br /><br />And because this is a fantasy story happening in a medieval-ish world, if having female soldiers makes sense according to the rules of this world, than go right ahead and put them there. I feel that David Weber did a good job in both having believable female warriors and explaining why they do or do not exist in different parts of his fantasy world. Ditto for Brent Weeks's Lightbringer series, and for your own Eli Monpress series. So long as the worldbuilding has logical reasons for women soldiers, there is no reason not to include them.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13123397752983491271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7467549889510324132.post-51041218394540363552013-07-29T00:14:17.570-05:002013-07-29T00:14:17.570-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13123397752983491271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7467549889510324132.post-855834057072407452013-07-03T10:06:18.820-05:002013-07-03T10:06:18.820-05:00This post makes me happy for so many reasons. I s...This post makes me happy for so many reasons. I saw someone making the same original argument ('women are too weak and necessary for baby-fabricating!') over on the NaNoWriMo forums and I was instantly sent into incoherent rage--after a few minutes, I tried to formulate a response much like this, but not nearly as detailed or elegantly presented.<br /><br />In any military encounter, numbers and tactics and preparation are going to have so, so much greater impact than whether one side can carry slightly heavier weapons than the other. The truth of the matter is that someone writing a war scenario in which all women must be and are kept out of fighting due to their weaknesses is the one guilty of letting their moralization ruin their story.<br /><br />Also, since this is my first comment on your site, I should add that I love this blog and it's provided great advice on my writing technique. I haven't got around to the Eli books yet, but I'm really looking forward to them when I can.Will Wildmanhttp://somethingshortandsnappy.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7467549889510324132.post-40643597715310270642013-06-25T02:44:14.992-05:002013-06-25T02:44:14.992-05:00Don't you think it comes down to simply the am...Don't you think it comes down to simply the amount of sexism present in a given society? Sometimes pre-industrial societies can correlate to a high degree of sexism and strictly defined gender roles. Sometimes they don't. <br /><br />Besides that, I don't think you can just sweep away the fact that men are stronger and swords are going to get heavy. Even crossbows take strength to pull back. Sports analogies aren't invalid if you compare elite women's teams to elite men's teams, or rec level women's to rec level men's. I've played rec hockey with guys. I wouldn't if we were playing with contact. I'm the same height as my husband. He's got more muscle mass than I do. Do I have better endurance? Yep. Is he stronger? Yep. If your army's based on physical logistics, then whether it can use women or not is going to depend on a lot of factors. Besides the whole standardized sexism thing. CL Freyhttp://christianfrey.canoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7467549889510324132.post-43596606317320180312013-06-24T16:38:43.334-05:002013-06-24T16:38:43.334-05:00Oh, good heavens. I can't stop myself. I will ...Oh, good heavens. I can't stop myself. I will after this one, I promise.<br /><br />I was responding more to the comment regarding combat in relation to sports. These articles and comments set me off, in a very good way. I need to turn this blathering into my own blog post. Sorry about the thread-jacking. <br /><br />I realize that the original article was talking about women in medieval fantasy combat where M-60’s, helicopters, and tanks were not available. However, there were – and still are – many specialized weapons well suited to female mercenaries. <br /><br />A quick-footed woman with a <i>naginata</i> could slice the tender bits of a strong man lickety-split before he got his sword swinging. This female samurai led 3000 men into battle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangaku and was felled by an arrow, not a strong-armed sword. Yeah, I just googled this today. I’m not a Japanese weapons/history buff. <br /><br />Long bows, crossbows, throwing knives, spears, cannons, catapults, and warships are just a few examples of weapons that medieval female mercenaries could utilize in a manner that would level the playing field in devastating fashion. <br /><br />To postulate that women were unable and/or unwilling to become medieval mercenaries for fun and/or profit is an uneducated mindset. Not all women chose to (or were able to) have children. Not all women were saddled with fields to harvest. Not all women had brothers or husbands to do the wet work. Some women simply appreciated the relative freedom a mercenary life entailed. Some felt it was better to die fighting (and spending their spoils) than to die under the yoke of an oppressive patriarchy. With choices being limited to submission to men or submission to the church, some women chose to kick ass. <br /><br />This is fact and, in a perfect world of my making, the author of the original article would have a new think coming.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05693787685153814102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7467549889510324132.post-18909385834504252832013-06-24T13:04:14.730-05:002013-06-24T13:04:14.730-05:00Speaking of battles: If the goal of NFL football w...Speaking of battles: If the goal of NFL football were to kill the opposing team, all bets would be off – or on, depending on your thirst for blood – in regards to gender. Arm and armor the players according to their strengths and a female warrior with a crossbow could dominate a male gladiator with a mace if her nerves were steady and her aim true (genderless skills acquirable through disciplined training).<br /><br />War is not hand-to-hand combat and brute strength is the stuff of entertainment, not battle. Denise the sniper can devastate a squad of men as well as David. Jennifer can navigate enemy airspace to rescue trapped teams while Miranda, the door-gunner, clears a path with her M-60. Sexual assault on colleagues in the military is a sign of weak men, not women, and needs to be addressed as such. <br /><br />An argument that sites physical weakness based on gender can be neutralized with basic combat training. For instance: videos that depict women being knocked onto their backsides by the improper handling of assault weapons (usually captured by ‘friends’ who knew the situation would result in YouTube gold) completely ignore the reality of basic training. <br /><br />This is a video of inexperienced female shooters taken for sexist, political, and entertainment reasons (skip the first 30 seconds to avoid the political bit): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzEd6MNihlg<br /><br />This is the video of a <i>thirteen-year old female</i> who has been trained in the handling of multiple weapons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZE-EDGw2vo<br /><br />I did not post a video of myself handling these weapons because I have not considered filming my time at the range until this very moment (and she is far more impressive than I am).<br /><br />The common reason women are not drafted or conscripted in times of war (not taking into account Israel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Israel_Defense_Forces) is sexist is nature and based on the questionably valid fear of losing good breeding stock. Because men can father children in their later years – and would appreciate a young wife – the thought of losing a great swathe of women in the prime of their fertility is frightening. However, if the battle is for life as we know it – and the avoidance of it would mean certain loss – then all able-bodied beings should join the fight unless they have no issue with the surviving women and children becoming the spoils of war. <br /><br />The argument of a woman’s more nurturing nature making her ill-suited for combat is one that I do not consider valid in any way, shape, or form as a nurturing nature makes for a vehement defense of home and hearth.<br /><br />And there are women would love to fight in battle. If it were strictly men who appreciated the guts and the glory then every single able-bodied, age-appropriate male in America would be at the recruiting office right now. <br /><br />Some folks just don't feel the urge, regardless of gender. Whew. Done now. Thank you again for the opportunity.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05693787685153814102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7467549889510324132.post-86239044770477966472013-06-24T12:57:18.217-05:002013-06-24T12:57:18.217-05:00Thank you, Rachel, for this post. I did not realiz...Thank you, Rachel, for this post. I did not realize I had been looking for an opportunity to speak on this subject until I read your blog this morning. Since my response is so very long, I will have to break it up into two comments. I apologize up front. <br /><br />As mentioned in Rasputin’s comment, sports is a poor analogy in relation to combat but I believe I can present a female viewpoint that incorporates the ever popular athletic argument using NFL rules:<br /><br />Because the objective of sanctioned professional sports is victory – not death – there are many rules in place. For instance: no holding, no grabbing the facemask, no spearing someone’s gut with your helmet, no tackling the quarterback after he’s thrown the ball unless he’s blocking… and no women. <br /><br />In order to <i>survive</i> a tackle from an offensive linebacker, a player must be either physically comparable to the opponent or remarkably fast. Since high body mass may hinder speed and accuracy, wide receivers and quarterbacks are usually smaller and need to be protected by their teammates. If a receiver or a quarterback is taken down, it’s because his men didn’t do their job (unless there’s some sort of long-play strategy in motion). Because of his potential weakness – due to the fact he was selected for traits more conducive to throwing, catching, and running over blocking and tackling – it is imperative that stronger men surround and protect him. <br /><br />If you take a look at Table 1 and Table 2 of this pdf (http://www.getbodymetrics.com/cmsAdmin/uploads/18119416.pdf) you will see the average body mass disparity between the different positions. <br /><br />Without the quarterback or the receiver, there is no game even though they are physically smaller and weaker than most of their teammates and opponents. This makes them the <i>women</i> in the one-sex fantasy world of the NFL.<br /><br /><i>Note: This argument does not include the position of kicker/punter: an actual woman could play that position without fear of death. I would like to see that happen. Games have been won or lost in hangtime. </i><br /><br />The reason I don’t have a problem with the <b>No Women</b> rule in the NFL is three-fold: 1) I appreciate the sausage-fest, 2) there are not many women who could take a tackle from an offensive lineman without serious injury, and 3) there are not many linemen who would tackle a woman with every ounce of his strength unless his goal was to cause <i>grievous</i> injury. The presence of a woman on the field would change the game completely and I don’t have an issue with the way it is now. If someone disagrees with my opinion on this matter, I can accept that without further argument because it is not my battle.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05693787685153814102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7467549889510324132.post-15889931883019260102013-06-24T10:32:09.283-05:002013-06-24T10:32:09.283-05:00And, expanding on Jeff Baker's point, technolo...And, expanding on Jeff Baker's point, technology radically reduces the need for brute physical strength. Even something as simple as knives radically evens the odds - the amount of damage you can do with a blade makes any difference in strength and weight <em>much</em> less important. Bring that blade out to the length of a sword or spear, and the advantages of greater reach become similarly negligible. Move to bows or guns - anything that offers some standoff capability - and accuracy becomes the deciding factor (along with things like cover and concealment, but you see what I mean, I hope).<br /><br />There are situations where physical strength can make a difference, but - at least as far as I can tell - effective military combat depends far more on tools and training. Michael Mockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06233321050691782148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7467549889510324132.post-50222031888871678272013-06-23T19:16:39.679-05:002013-06-23T19:16:39.679-05:00Strength definitely has little to do with abilitu ...Strength definitely has little to do with abilitu in martial arts. I wrestled in high school, although I was nowhere neat good enough to be a state champion, I won more matches than I lost. After a match, I regularly talked with my opponent (it was considered good sportsmanship). In my senior year, every opponent I talked to go bench at least 50 pounds more than me. The matches I lost were not do to my opponent being stronger than me. I even wrestled in one tournament in the 167 lb weight class. I weighed about 145. Both matches I had were close affairs that were in doubt until the final seconds (I lost both times). The weight difference did effect the outcome, but not as much as one would think.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14684912709276599113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7467549889510324132.post-69536958452812445232013-06-23T12:51:18.957-05:002013-06-23T12:51:18.957-05:00Hey, loved your blog post! <3
I liked your re...Hey, loved your blog post! <3<br /><br />I liked your reasonings and thoughts VERY much. It's nice to see a well-thought-through post about this topic, which definitely gave me something to think about.<br /><br />Oddly, I'm opposite to you: I liked the Paks book, I'm fine with it in fantasy/SF, but I'm opposed to women serving in combat in the real world. I just can't support my nation getting women to enter the military while there's so much sexual abuse hidden and tolerated by the system. Basically, I'd as soon let my son become best buddies with a Catholic priest as my daughter enter the military where her officers are allowed to cover up any rape or sexual abuse.<br /><br />If that was ever different, I'd look at the matter again.<br /><br />Sorry for being anonymous--I'm not as brave as you about having opinions that may be divisive under my own name!<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7467549889510324132.post-72895250342579392932013-06-22T20:58:00.536-05:002013-06-22T20:58:00.536-05:00In our own history, especially prior to the birth ...In our own history, especially prior to the birth of Christianity, woman warriors were not unheard of. Off the top of my head, I seem to remember specifically a daughter of Ghenghis Khan who fought in the Mongol army with the men. And who could forget Boudica, the british warrior-queen who led a revolt against the romans? So if our own history has women fighting alongside men, why can't a fantasy country?Tealahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10063338745538325598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7467549889510324132.post-16901406734572083122013-06-21T18:20:13.775-05:002013-06-21T18:20:13.775-05:00First up, Michael Mock, that is some AWESOME quota...First up, Michael Mock, that is some AWESOME quotage right there that I am currently stealing forever into my quote bin. Thank you!<br /><br />Thank you all for the great comments. I really appreciate the discussion.<br /><br />And I think Rasputin is dead on the nose for debunking the sports analogy. We're not talking about the top 1% of athleticism, we're talking about a fantasy army (presumably from a pre-industrial world) and whether or not women could serve in it realistically. I say they could. <br /><br />I wouldn't want to compete against male weight lifters because that is a straight up competition I will always be at a 20% disadvantage for. But as soldiers who undergo the same training, I think men and women could serve together perfectly (and realistically) well.<br /><br />Thank you all for commenting again!Rachel Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13917123007610750274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7467549889510324132.post-30197643685990742172013-06-21T16:48:19.795-05:002013-06-21T16:48:19.795-05:00Franklin,
The sports analogy is a terrible one. T...Franklin,<br /><br />The sports analogy is a terrible one. The players in the major sports leagues are in the top fraction of a percent of all the people who play such games.<br /><br />There are about a thousand players that play major league baseball over the course of a season. <br /><br />Wikipedia tells me that there are about 1.4 million active personnel in the US military, with another 850 thousand reservists.<br /><br />You're comparing a tiny fraction of the most elite athletes in the world to a much, much larger portion of the general populace. It doesn't wash.<br /><br />Also, the physical training requirements you mention that are curved for women aren't the ones that are combat related, they're the ones that are fitness related. <br /><br />Why? Because with those tests they are looking for people who can adapt to military life, not those who can perform specific functions in the military.<br /><br />The physical tests for various roles in the military aren't curved, nor should they be. It has only been recently that the US military has allowed women in combat and even more recently that they have been allowed to test for special forces. Now that they are, it is only a matter of time before some women pass.<br /><br />A woman does not have to be in the top third of a percent of all athletes in the world to be in the military. Gregory Lynnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11469505900506304292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7467549889510324132.post-11653960696689482492013-06-21T14:28:22.645-05:002013-06-21T14:28:22.645-05:00On the baby front -- Somehow medieval Europe manag...On the baby front -- Somehow medieval Europe manage to keep itself populated even though a good slice of the female population was sent off to be nuns. Now, a story that posited that a sizable number of women did not have babies WOULD be unrealistic. But the number of women you usually see as professional soldiers in fantasy stories is MUCH smaller than the actual number of nuns in medieval Europe.<br /><br />The physical barriers are formidable, for today's army as much as for a fantasy story army. But it is not unreasonable to think there will be exceptional women that could meet that challenge. In the fantasy stories I've read, the number of women working as professional soldiers is small -- and, I think, perfectly reasonable.<br /><br />The most unbelievable point of most fantasy armies is they never seem to eat anything except beef stew.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7467549889510324132.post-88476461217817898532013-06-21T14:17:18.443-05:002013-06-21T14:17:18.443-05:00First, let me preface this comment with the follow...First, let me preface this comment with the following: I am a husband to a very strong woman, and a father to a very strong daughter. My wife is a 5'9" Nordic goddess that is equal parts Viking and Cowgirl. She can wrestle cattle, toss 120 pound bales of alfalfa, and ride horseback better than anyone I know. My daughter has played coed sports for two years and is always the best athlete on the field, boy or girl. However, she's 8 years old. <br /><br />There is a reason why there are no women in the NFL, MLB, NBA, or NHL, and why professional soldiering, especially at the most elite levels, remains almost exclusively all-male.<br /><br />I think you already make this distinction, to some degree, with regards to emergency conscript armies vs. full-time professional armies, but I think you have to take a realistic point of view with regards to professional, full-time soldiers. <br /><br />This is where the MLB/NFL/NHL/NBA analogy comes into play - because governments, due to their public accountability, allow for females in the military, but their PT requirements are lower than their male counterparts to make this possible. But professional sports leagues afford no such consideration. Simply put, they take the best athletes available. If a woman could play, she would, because these leagues are competitive, capitalistic, free-market animals that will do anything to win. <br /><br />And no woman has even come close to breaking that barrier. Not in any professional sport, not even close to the higher levels of the sport. It's not prejudice that keeps them out - it's a simple, unbiased, athletic reality. The worst Division III college football team would destroy a team made up of the world's best female athletes. Any NBA developmental league squad would annihilate the WNBA champion. <br /><br />So, while I agree that in an emergency, conscript scenario, it might be plausible that women would be given swords and asked to stand alongside men to hold the orcs at bay, we should reasonably expect that in any sort of merit-based application of professional soldiering, they would not regularly outperform their male counterparts. They do not today - special operations soldiers (my brother happens to be one) do not have any women in their ranks, because they are exempt from grading on the curve that allows women to serve in the regular army, and women cannot pass the physical. <br /><br />Medieval professional swordsmen would be no different. A king or lord would very rarely hire anything but the strongest soldier, and, given the choice, it would be highly unusual to find a women that would truly be better than every male alternative. <br /><br />It can happen, but it should not be written as a commonplace occurrence; it would be completely unbelievable. <br /><br />You are stronger than the average male couch potato, but in the larger picture of overall physical prowess, you would never be as strong as even an average professional soldier. This isn't prejudice - I would take you at my side in a bar fight any day of the week - it's just a fact of life. Franklinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18075092999168430214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7467549889510324132.post-12559906863274245122013-06-21T13:36:25.971-05:002013-06-21T13:36:25.971-05:00I am in agreement with you on all the points.
A ...I am in agreement with you on all the points. <br /><br />A classic example of the standing army Eowyn was a sword sister (or something of the like). Trained in use of arms to protect the lands from invasion just as any other man in the Rohan. Much of Tolkien was taken from fable and such. Not to mention the reality of countries like Russia that brought men and women up as part of their military. This was a truth of the Cold War. <br /><br />When I read the third reasoning I jumped to exactly the same place you did. One of our biggest reasons for stories is to study our very human condition. We use them to teach lessons to the young; to ignite our imaginations as we search for new answers to life's questions. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13096021087395266714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7467549889510324132.post-65866451716010969582013-06-21T13:36:09.988-05:002013-06-21T13:36:09.988-05:00You've seen this, right? http://www.sfwa.org/2...You've seen this, right? http://www.sfwa.org/2013/05/guest-post-we-have-always-fought-challenging-the-women-cattle-and-slaves-narrative/<br /><br /><i>"When I sat down with one of my senior professors in Durban, South Africa to talk about my Master’s thesis, he asked me why I wanted to write about women resistance fighters.<br /><br />“Because women made up twenty percent of the ANC’s militant wing!” I gushed. “Twenty percent! When I found that out I couldn’t believe it. And you know – women have never been part of fighting forces –”<br /><br />He interrupted me. “Women have always fought,” he said.<br /><br />“What?” I said.<br /><br />“Women have always fought,” he said. “Shaka Zulu had an all-female force of fighters. Women have been part of every resistance movement. Women dressed as men and went to war, went to sea, and participated actively in combat for as long as there have been people.”</i>Michael Mockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06233321050691782148noreply@blogger.com