Be warned! This post has most of the ‘qualities’ of a rant… ;-)
Earlier today I received a link from a guy to a site claiming that there were female Vikings. In fact, quite often do I hear such or similar claims; in news medias, in YouTube videos or comments, in e-mails from strangers and you name it. There seems to a trend here: for some reason some people want us to believe that women can be warriors too, and that they in fact have always been. We are in other words all equals in that respect too…
Some name Jeanne d’Arc as evidence of this, but in reality she was just an 18 year old girl who did nothing but inspire the men to fight – in other words, she did what all women have always been tasked to do: she urged the men to fight.
Others name the shield maidens as evidence of this, but in reality all the shield maidens did was to supply the fighting men with shields and weapons in the heat of battle. They approached the friendly lines from the rear and handed a new weapon or a new shield to the men who had lost or broken their weapons or had had their shields lost or smashed in the battle. The shield maidens didn’t participate in the battle in any other way!
Then we have archaeology, where female remains are found, wearing armour and resting with shields and weapons alongside them. They have no battle injuries though, and the fact that women were buried with weapons and armour does in no way suggest that they were warriors. This was the custom: to bury the dead with their belongings, or with their family’s belongings. They wanted to be reborn after all, and be able to use these things in the next life as well, or be able to hand them over to their husbands or sons in the next life – like shieldmaidens used to do (all over Europe at one point).
I urge you to ask a single simple control question in this context: are women physically fit or even suited for combat? The answer is a clear no! No, no, no no! They are not suited for combat at all. They have a bigger fat to muscles ration than men do, they are thus slower and physically weaker. That alone is enough to disqualify them as fighters, but you can also add that they have breasts, that their pain threshold is lower, that they have big hips and that they are much less aggressive too.
Sure, you can train a woman to become at least a little bit dangerous in combat, but for the amount of training needed to do that you would be able to train ten average men to all become much more dangerous in combat than even the best female fighter could ever dream of becoming.
Not only that, but what happens to a tribe if they send their women into combat? A tribe can do without many, or even most of, the men, but a tribe will disappear from the face of the earth, if their women are killed in battle. Only complete idiots would send their women into battle! Thankfully though, none of our forebears were that stupid, so we are still around. Also, what kind of tribe would want to send their women into battle? If they were willing to do that, why not send the children too? And the old? And the blind? Sorry, but no: there is no culture in Europe that would even consider doing that. Even today men have too strong a sense of honour to do that. Or so I hope…
I trained martial arts when I was young, actively for about five years, and we had some women there. Although we were training a form of karate, a martial art tailor made for small and physically weaker human beings, which should thus be ideal for women, the women there stood no chance in Hell in matches against any of the boys or men there. If they were to hit us we had to let them hit us, or else they would never hit. If they were to block our attacks, we had to hit or kick veeeeery slowly, or else they would stand no chance to block our attacks. In matches, the only thing that ever let them score a hit on one of the guys, was the guys’ reluctance to hit or in other ways hurt women or let women be humiliated in front of others. The male reluctance to hit women, can best be explained to women like this: try to imagine you being asked to hit a child. Would you like that?
When we know that, the claims by – yes – feminist extremists, that women were and perfectly well can be warriors, just like men, is just ridiculous. They can be buried with all the armour and weapons in the world: it doesn’t make them warriors! Any army made up of even a small portion of female warriors would have been butchered in the old days, and today – even though firearms evens the odds out a bit – the females still stand no chance, because they are not even able to carry all the gear they need to the front.
So if you still believe in “Viking Women” and other such nonsense, please take a moment to think. There were no such things. Physics alone rules female warriors out. Biology does too. The female soldiers we have today are – ‘big surprise’ – not front-line soldiers. They work in transport units, in kitchens, in intelligence, in entertainment units, in communication units, and so forth. They don’t have what it takes to be a real soldier.
Enjoy what happens when one of the deluded female ‘warriors’, presumably with tons of training, challenges a male soldier for a boxing duel in Iraq:
Dear women: try to be good women instead, and leave being good men to the men.
Hail the strong European gods – and hail the feminine and caring goddesses too!
