Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
And of course Boudica. While there are reasons for a sexual division of labor in hunter gather societies -- pregnancy, lactation -- these are societies that have flipped the sexual divisions and cultures where the divisions are fairly close to horizontal with men taking care of children while women hunt.

And there is a chicken - egg issue with European history. So much that history is about the imperial rule and the aftermath of empire. Which is why fantasy settings always have a Nethril / Myth Drannor like setting. Why did the Romans invest so much energy and resources into crushing Boudica? was She was an ally, she was tithing . . . and the answer was the Roman were fighting for patriarchy. Boudica and her daughters were a threat to Roman law itself and the notion that property is controlled by the father and that all authority comes from the father.

What we don't know is how many other matriarchies and gender horizontal cultures were eliminated by the various empires.

Very interesting, I didn't know that.
Originally Posted by Sordak
again, exceptions to the rule.
also the latter was a leader, wether or not she participated from the front, who knows. also "Charioteer" isnt a DnD class.
Joan of arc was basically a glorified figurehead

>Romans were fighting for patriarchy

listen to yourself. You realy think the mightiest empire in europe for most of its history bothered that some barbarians were ruled by a woman?
Romans foguht for conquest. For political and economic advantages.
Do you understand how different barbarian law was to roman law? And how many non female led barbarian tribes were subjugated by the romans? Despite them beeing "allies" before?
Pretty much all the gauls suffered this fate.

Its also not like the Romans fell over themselves to invade scythia to get rid of the *actual* women warriors, rather than boudicca who was a family of women in a male dominated culture (the celtic one)

>Matriarchies were eliminated by various empires
well, i have a different conclusions as to why that is.
History is brutal and only the strong cultures survive.

Its a bit sad that in our era, some folk still believe man to be superior to woman. I know girl that could break you like a twig, and other that do martial art that could floor you in five seconds, even though they probably weight 40 less pounds than you. But whatever, keep being delusional.

Originally Posted by Waltc
Amazingly, science proved many, many years ago that physical differences between men and woman are actual facts--not myths. The science of genetics, for instance, proves it indisputably. Differences in apparel for men and women merely reflect the proven scientific realities of the genetic differences between the sexes. Do not expect to see maternity gowns for men any time soon, etc...;) However, gowns for big, fat, slobs may look like maternity gowns when worn by men, but I can assure you this is not the case...;)

You should be more specific. What are you talking about?

Everyone knows that man and woman have a few differences . Women have breast and men don't, wow, what a surprise !! I needed genetic to show me that !

Doesn't mean woman can't fight or take care of themselves. We also know that man have , on usual, more muscle fiber than women. But how does it matter? Black skinned people are proven to have more muscular fiber than white men, on average. Should we call white man unable to fight because of that? because that's the same kind of comparison. Minor difference that don't really show or mean anything.

Last edited by Hachina; 13/01/21 11:19 PM.

If it's what it's takes to save the world, then the world doesn't deserves to be saved - Geralt