News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Medieval Cambridge skeletons reveal injuries to manual la... by ndiscussion on Monday February 01, 2021 @02:31PM (#25992608)
Interesting, do you have any examples of female warrior societies? The wikipedia article seems to start with WW1:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military

And even then, they were support, not infantry.

Re:Medieval Cambridge skeletons reveal injuries to manual la... by sudosysgen on Monday February 01, 2021 @02:48PM (#25992810)
Women have been in support and combat positions in war since antiquity. Women buried with weapons were found in Kazakhstan in antiquity, otherwise quite a few Chinese armies had women in infantry positions (most often manning defences). See : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_warfare

This generally doesn't happen unless either the society is quite rich but lacks strong men, or cases of emergency, or if there is surplus of land and food, because raising armies is very costly, and as a result it doesn't make sense not to send the strongest fighters possible as it is expensive to outfit them and to maintain production at home.

Nowadays, women are proving extremely competent as fighter pilots as their bodies are better at withstanding G-Forces, but in classical infantry where there is a large strength requirement again it doesn't make much sense.

Re:Medieval Cambridge skeletons reveal injuries to manual la... by WalterBright on Monday February 01, 2021 @04:22PM (#25994150)
> as their bodies are better at withstanding G-Forces

Likely coming from being shorter. The heart doesn't have to push the blood as far uphill.

Women do indeed fight, but not until it gets desperate.

Re:Medieval Cambridge skeletons reveal injuries to manual la... by sudosysgen on Monday February 01, 2021 @04:50PM (#25994491)
That is indeed part of why women are better at withstanding g-forces. The other is lower bodymass.

It's true that women generally don't fight until it's desperate historically. I explained why in the comment you replied to.