The TRUTH about FEMALE WARRIORS - Reply to Andrew Klavan of the Daily Wire
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 08. 2022
- A reply to Andrew Klavan from the Daily wire and his video, A Woman Wouldn't Win A Real Sword Fight...PERIOD: • A Woman Wouldn't Win A...
If you like the content and want to support the channel, you're welcome to do so through Utreon, Subscribe Star or Patreon:
utreon.com/c/shadiversity
www.subscribestar.com/shadive...
/ shadbrooks
Come check out my other channels!
THE SHADLANDS: / @theshadlands1142
KNIGHTS WATCH: / knightswatch
Subscribe to my website so you don't miss an upload: www.shadmbrooks.com/
Follow me on Facebook: / shadiversity
Follow me on twitter: / shadmbrooks
My novel, Shadow of the Conqueror Audio Book affiliate links:
US: www.audible.com/shadbrooks
UK: www.audible.co.uk/shadbrooks
CA: www.audible.ca/shadbrooks
AU: www.audible.com.au/shadbrooks
Ebook, Paperback and Hardcover available from most major book retailers, here are a few of the main ones:
Amazon affiliate link (be sure to navigate to your country's amazon site):
amzn.to/2XErUaR
Barnes and Noble:
www.barnesandnoble.com/w/shad...
Kobo:
www.kobo.com/au/en/ebook/shad...
Awesome Shirts and chainmail print clothing: teespring.com/en-GB/stores/sh...
Visit Calimacil for the best replica foam swords and LARP weapons: calimacil.com?aff=38
Buy my sword IMPERIOUS from Calimacil: calimacil.com/products/imperi...
Community run discord server: / discord
#medievalmisconceptions
I agree with most of your assessment here except for the examples when you talk about the strongest woman vs the strongest man. The assumption that you operate with here is that that would be like for like proportion to the Average man vs average woman. This is not the case. Because of the greater variability of males. In almost all traits males have a much wider spread between the maximum and minimum value of their group. For example, one of the biggest and strongest women in the world is gabi Garcia, an incredibly large and strong mixed martial artist weighing about 230lbs. By contrast one of the largest and strongest men in the world is Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson at 323lbs. This is a disparity of almost 100lbs. So the fact of the matter is that the upper end of the physical spectrum the advantages of the male would be immense.
The largest overlap in physical performance between male and female soldiers within the U.S. military are worst performing males and best performing females
it's not just sheer size, either. pound for pound men are stronger. it has to with DHT and our nervous system, as well as our structure.
If you're looking at how trans power lifters change their muscle mass when undergoing HRT, even if their excercise regime doesn't change, hormones play a huge part in the amount of muscle you can build.
That weight for Hafþór, if I recall correctly, is from when he cut down over 100 lbs for boxing. He was easily over 400 in his strongman days.
Okay but selection would also play a role on who would become warriors. Lets say we have some society of men and women, and for whatever reason there must be some amount of women on at least guard duty. The first is that we are more likely to select more men to take up fighting roles, but also that we (and they!) would only want the best of their society to take these roles. I'm applying a bit of modern military thinking for that last bit - You want every soldier to be strong enough to carry or drag the least able or heaviest of all the soldiers, for survival reasons. And soldiers need to be able to trust each other.
I'm not saying the absolute strongest is the best indicator - but it is a good one to think about who will be fighting after different selection methods, all under a series of constraints. After all, if we're not talking about people who are taking at least a semi-permanent role of fighting, then it may as well be a crapshoot about two untrained "militia", man or woman, who may not even be proficient in weapons, martial or improvised.
Learning not to harm random people weaker than you is morality.
Learning not to harm random people stronger than you is wisdom.
Being Not strong enough to harm a man and not attacking him isnt anger control ,it just being sane
If you are weak and peaceful you are a coward. If you are strong and peaceful you are a man.
Finding someone exactly as strong as you is going to be... difficult, to say the least.
So as a general rule of thumb, don't harm people.
Right?
What about learning not to harm any animal,including humans?🌏
Violent people will always lose, even when they are victorious.
As a retired HEMA fighter (female) I would never try to out strength a male opponent. In fact, a common winning tactic for me was to out footwork them and come in on the diagonal after they committed to trying to 'beat me down'. The physicality I have gives me a lower center of gravity, often making me faster and more agile than my male opponents. The biggest issue I have with many modern female warrior type stories is they often get this wrong. I would never try to grapple, or tank against a male because through training I've learnt that my smaller lighter body gives me other advantages that I've trained to use.
Interesting miss. I like hearing how people try to overcome tough obstacles.
Now, when you say you come in on the diagonal when they try to beat you down, do you mean to say that you circle around to avoid getting closed in on?
@@cadethumann8605 More, strategic advance/retreat, but never on the straight line, if that makes sense. This is more technique for once weapons engage, not just prior to engagement. Example: frequent attempt I'd face from a larger opponent would be that they would advance their attack straight on, thinking they could simply land heavy hits that would crumple an attempt to defend straight on. But rule number one: they can't hit me if I'm not where they thought I'd be. So, instead of simply retreating on the line with a strong defense, I would retreat on the diagonal with defense, allowing me to A) draw them further into commiting, while B) opening them more fully to my counter. Or, I could advance on the diagonal, and allow them to advance onto my placed weapon for example. In essence the technique is A) to not be in position for where they planned their line of attack to land, while B) allowing my movement to open a large hole with minimal effort on my part. My advantage is that being small and fast, I could open holes in defense that many larger opponents don't typically train for. A lot of male fighters are great at defending upper body for example, but suck at lower body defense. Also, by moving off line of attack, I could either steal or add time and more effectively control pace of the combat. A stronger opponent will often hit harder, which in turn means their blows are far harder for them to redirect once they commit to that blow. So by adding or taking distance off line, not only do I open holes, but the opponent is usually unable to do anything about it if you come in quicker than anticipated or they've over shot the mark and lost their flow. I hope that makes sense.
@@sonyablu7694 Fascinating (I'm not Spock, though).
One thing that detractors to swordswomen say is that "if both swordsmen are equally skilled, then the stronger one wins" and I'm like, "equally-skilled is very vague and that this isn't a numbers game". What I mean is that while both combatants can know the same techniques and be good at fighting, they will likely still have different approaches (even if they were equally-strong). While great minds think alike, they don't think at the exact same time. In this case regarding swordsmanship, I can see a female combatant take on a skilled swordsman by using tactics that prevent her weakness from being exploited easily.
I am happy that you lived a successful life following your passion miss. Many folks may dismiss swordswomen but I'm always interested in how women try to get around disadvantages without using cheap tricks like extra rules. In fact, if swords were to be made legal to carry for self-defense (one thing they have over guns is that due to their fixed range, they are less likely to hit bystanders (even if a bullet hits, it can pass through and harm innocents)), I'd hope that women can be encouraged to wield them to defend themselves or other innocent people.
@@cadethumann8605 I never considered myself disadvantaged. I saw and still see myself as having a different set of advantages than my opponent. Being 5 foot nothing and only around 130 pounds is only a disadvantage if I try to fight like my male counterparts. Which is why I don't. My body moves differently from a male body. My joints move in slightly different ways to a man's. So I need to fight and move in a way that works for me, and my female body. And that isn't fighting to out strength my opponent.
@@cadethumann8605 also, luck is a huge factor in fights that people seem to brush aside.
My sister growing up used to get into guys faces and slap them, she would also get into the middle of fights with the guys and start yelling at people. I warned her for years that one of these days she's going to run into a guy that doesn't care that she's a pretty girl and she's going to regret it. In her early twenties she came home with a big black eye. She had stepped in the middle of a fight that one of her friends had started. The other the guy punched her in the face, then proceeded to knock her friend out and walk away.
and what did you told her afterward
@@ArthurMorgan-uz1px not much, Just gave her a hug. Don't need to reinforce a message like that lol
@@LM5853 good
@@LM5853 Based
My mommy taught me a lady is smart and avoids fights. A woman is a pulled into a fight and fights to win by any means required. A female is a person whom starts the fight and gets no mercy the first two do.
I love how respectful Shad is. Zero misogyny, zero emasculation, just logic and fact.
It's nearly as if... you can have a political view without being crazy 😵
There's a series I've been reading called "Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter" by Laurell K. Hamilton. The main character, Anita, is a short, 5'3" woman, and despite being a skilled fighter and being in excellent physical shape that she works very hard to maintain, she absolutely NEVER gets into a fight with a guy without a weapon if she can help it. One thing she mentions constantly is that when two people are equally skilled, size matters. Thought you might appreciate this.
I’m not LDS like shad but I know what those books are about and you should stop reading that smut. I can’t tell if you are a girl or a guy but if the former try losing weight and picking up a fun hobby instead of reading about demon ess ee ex and maybe you could get a nice boyfriend. If you’re a guy then bruh, that s-t is pron for women, your nads are gonna shrink.
Thank you my person. Hadnt heard of these books till you mentioned them. Am now reading the first one.
Yes. Great books!
If you liked them try the Mercedes Thompson Series by Patricia Briggs. Again another female lead with realistic qualities even though it’s an Urban fantasy.
Goes with the statistic that women initiating violence against men usually do so with a weapon or weaponized item.
@@TheREALSimagination I didn't say anything about her initiating the violence. Just that she tries to avoid being in a fight unless she's armed.
My biggest problem is that Hollywood is to much of a coward to put very physically strong and muscular women on screen.
They exist and WE NEED MORE OF THEM
@Bread And Circuses I know. I just want MOOOREEE
i just like them a lot :)
Exactly this- it's this perpetuated idea that strong women aren't feminine that is so damaging to the attempts to break the social norm, and discourage people from training correctly.
More importantly, I think people are too dismissive to talk about what contributions women made in feudal times (besides housework and family rearing). Like, how did they maintain settlements while men were away at war? What jobs did they perform? What did they do during seiges on their homes? I'd like to imagine that women played extremely helpful support roles that helped armies. Strength isn't all about physicality. It's what and how you manage with it.
@@breadandcircuses8127 yes, but they arent often in hollywood because pretty bias tends to work them out of the business for not being conventionally beautiful
Someone in the comments mentioned David vs Goliath and I feel like that's a pretty good guide for what one should keep in mind for fictional female vs male combat scenarios. On one hand, even David knew going at Goliath with the armor and weapons Saul gave him wouldn't go well for him. At the same time, one can't easily call David's win "unrealistic" when his disadvantages were taken into account and his win was predicated on his advantages (God, skill with a sling, Goliath's arrogance).
Magic explains everything... NOT!
Good point, Jordan. Faith wins everytime.
Bruh have you seen how deadly slings were, the NKJ Bible downplays the usefulness of the sling due to being written in today's English but the sling back then was a legit deadly ranged weapon
@@rembrandt972ify What are you on about. Even if you don't believe in the bible and by extension the David vs Goliath battle. There is nothing Magical about it.
It's a telling about a man small in stature, steadfast in his conviction, going up against a fully armored giant arrogant warrior.
The man small in stature then used a sling and from a distance managed to hit the unprotected part of the warriors had and caused him to be stunned (or died) and proceeded to decapitate him.
Nothing magical about it?? Nothing in this telling is unrealistic or implausible. slings were widely used as weapons, so really nothing out of the ordinary here, now is there. You just can not hep yourself with your snarky remark.
@@mrshinybald2739
The sling was to ancient soldiers, what the pistol is to modern ones.
It really is insulting to value masculine women over feminine women. And I say this as a female who likes to roughhouse and fight. If anyone is interested, the Authentic Observer has made some videos discussing the growing hated of femininity, a uses Galadriel as a talking point in one of them
It can just be preference. I don't have a problem with feminine women myself but I still married a country tomboy. However while she is more masculine in nature she likes acting more feminine and being more feminine tends to make her happy in our relationship. I've actually always been a somewhat feminine dude but the more masculine I seek to become, the happier I am for my part.
People are just people. I don't personally think it's insulting to have a preference for certain kinds, but you're right that there shouldn't be a hatred of femininity. Personally I would suggest that even masculine women would feel happier finding purpose in femininity just as every man I've known has found great purpose and strength when pursuing their own masculinity.
It’s all about immersion and reflecting reality
The joys of feminism....
Just being roughouse doesn't mean you are masculine you can always have feminine quality with you and if you have seen galadriel it shows feminity has its own strengths that is different from masculinity and which something new woman bring to the table it's just these Hollywood and feminism and other folks want woman to do same things a man can do and show them doing it better while belittling feminity which kinda internalised misogyny
@@Sythirius sadly Feminist never see a woman as a person but rather as an object (how ironic) to push ideology.
I like how rational you are about this. I work out, I do a decent amount of manual labor as a hobby, and I'm 8 years younger than my brother, who lives a very sedentary lifestyle. And even just limited grappling with him on a few occasions, I was surprised that he's still stronger than me. Both men and women need to be aware of this reality, but women especially to avoid being hurt.
Men and women have evolved to perform different tasks in nature, to compliment each other. And no amount of feminist screeching can change millions of years of evolution.
You were surprised?
Also, historically, diets haven't been as good as they are today. The difference in the past would have been even more than now because testosterone allows men to build muscle with less calories
The trick is to use his body against him. Centre of gravity, height, weight etc.
Get creative
The average 80 year old man is stronger than the average woman 25 year old woman.
I get where Andrew's coming from, because a lot of the choreography for fights involving females fighting with swords in Current Year have them doing a lot of hacking and slashing and 'power' moves like a much larger male would do. It's a non-credible fighting style for the context, and often shows women in an open battlefield where armour is worn and advantages like agility, surprise, cunning, guile, etc. would be neutralized in favour of sheer strength and endurance.
But once you bring thrusting weapons into the equation, and take armour out? At that point, even a preadolescent child has the equivalent of a "puncher's chance," because pointy steel doesn't need a lot of help to go through you, even if you're quite muscular. If they'd just choreograph the fights to emphasize well-chosen weapons, tactics, training, the male's overconfidence, etc., you can absolutely make a credible fight scene where a weapon beats a man. Hollywood's just made it non-credible because they've got 110 lb scraps of fluff and out of shape wine moms trudging around in full plate, waving greatswords like they're The Mountain, instead of dancing around staying out of range, taunting their opponent into making a mistake, then putting a rapier through his throat.
To a large extent this bad choreography also infects fights involving male protagonists, it's just more egregious and more common with female protagonists.
But everything is worse nowadays regardless of sex and gender.
For a cheesy, over-the-top action movie, 'Atomic Blonde' actually did a decent job of showing how the strength disparity between men and women would play out in a brutal no-holds-barred fight.
@@stephensmith8140 I seem to recall lots of moments where she was performing easy hip throws and front kicks knocking men off their feet a meter or so backwards. The film was enjoyable and I suspended disbelief, but she was performing strength feats that the best Thai kick boxers could not manage.
yeah should fight like the baddie in Rob Roy, dancing around Liam Neeson like a boss
@@taddad2641 lol, and men wouldn't? Keep in mind that men are PER POUND about 20% stronger than women and have a grater percentage of fast twitch muscle fibers, meaning greater agility.
I love to read the Mercy Thompson series, and Mercy is one of my favorite examples of a strong female protagonist because she is very aware of the physical advantages others have over her. Because of this, she avoids direct confrontations whenever possible. Instead, she plays to what strengths she has to escape dangerous situations and even come out on top -- though a little worse for wear -- in the end.
try the "Wearing the Cape "series you will see Astra grow form a side kick to Major Heroine in the series. Yes She makes mistakes in both personal and professional life and grows, and nothing is given to her she earns what she gets.
As a former wrestler, I had a few female teammates over the years. All of them had been wrestling since elementary school and were far more technically skilled than me, they were all in higher weight classes, but it never mattered, because in any actual match situation I could simply overpower them. On the other hand I’ve watched guys who went into matches with girls, expecting it to be a breeze, get embarrassed. Even if they didn’t actually lose.
Wrestling is absent The Great Equalizer (Spears/Swords/Guns).
When equalized by weapon, the size is irrevelant and skill is essentially the only real determinant.
@@nowayjosedaniel I wouldn’t say that size or strength become irrelevant, but yes I made this comment in regards to his point about unarmed combat.
@@nowayjosedaniel irrelevant is very bold from you, its less relevant sure, but irrelevant xd? You can hit harder with a sword and literally make the other drop the sword pretty much a win pure on strength. Guns arent even inmune to this, if any weak person tried to shoot could easily harm itself and if it missed the shot could be left in a complicated situation, and more over the enviroment of the fight could easily make strength a must to win, you generalize too much. Skill is far more important in certain combats, I dont try to say otherwise, just simply pointing that raw strength isnt irrelevant at all under no circumtance almost.
One thing that the grappling and wrestling side of this question (and it is relevant as Shad mentions how grappling can be a huge part of armored combat, when swords are often really ineffective) reminds me of is the early UFC fights. Almost no rules (even eye gouging wasn't technically forbidden, but if you caused permanent damage like that you'd have to pay compensation or something like that), no weight classes, no time limits.
Now I don't think anyone would call Royce Gracie a small weak man, but he was smaller and of slighter build than a lot of his opponents (I mean he is 185 cm and 80 kg, he went up against some big dudes*), but he dominated the proceedings, because despite all of the fighters being trained martial artists, almost none of them were very good grapplers, and Royce won the matches with skill, tactics and simply tiring them out.
What followed is of course well known, grappling became as fundamental as hitting and kicking to the modern martial arts world, having not had that high of a profile in the past by comparison.
So back to the subject, I wonder how that all would play out with a highly skilled woman vs. an unskilled man... Normally when grappling size and strength are huge advantages, but Royce's success also shows that skill and tactics can overcome a lot. Admittedly though the gap between an average sized woman and an average sized man is much larger, but still I wonder...
*First UFC his final opponent was Gerard Gordeau, 196cm 98 kg, before that was Ken Shamrock at 185cm and 96 kg. 2nd UFC final opponent was Patrick Smith at 188 cm and 102 kg, before that Remco Pardoel at 192 cm and 120 kg (40 kg gap). 3rd UFC he won against Kimo Leopoldo, 191cm 107 kg, though injured himself and couldn't continue. UFC 4 final opponent was Dan Severn, 188 cm 115 kg.
Thank you!
I'm coming at this as a former Olympic level martial artist. I trained for years and when training, because there were so few women at my level in my area, I sparred with men. I can say that I learned enough to produce force shock to get a point and learn how to take a hit. There is NO WAY, I could punch a man, in good shape, and take him out. No. It would take several, very quickly placed strokes to incapacitate him long enough for me to run away, but there is little chance I would ever cause enough damage to knock him out or kill him. I trained in self-defense, street fighting and grappling and I'm still saying this. Now, you give me a force multiplier, like sword or stave and there is little chance the man is getting near enough to grab me and take me to the ground. I can keep him at length and do enough damage to run away without him pursuing. I don't need to take him out, I just need to get away.
Have you seen the Brazilian Jujitsu videos from GracieBreakdown CZcams Channel? This man/woman team has a Brazilian Jujitsu self-defense program specifically designed for women. Brazilian Jujitsu looks super highly effective and, I suspect, is the best self-defense martial art for a woman. I want to enroll in the Gracie jujitsu program one day.
What about a tmj nerve or liver shot? That's what i teach my daughter to go after because they force certain physical reactions.
@@britsunvaar9297 only if there’s enough force. They’re not Vulcan neck pinches.
I don't know your definition of "good shape", but really no way to take them out? I've seen a complety untrained women disable a men two heads bigger than her, but as a "Olympic level" fighter you want to tell me there is "NO WAY"?
Lol nice! Thank you for sharing your story!!
I've experienced the disparity firsthand. when I was 18 I was training in Brazilian Jui Jitsu. one of the teachers was a small woman in her 40s. she had at least 15 years of experience. I had been in the gym learning for a few weeks. we sparred and despite her far superior knowledge and training I could muscle out of the techniques she would apply. I was around 200 lbs and by no means stronger than the average male. she may have been 115. if she attempted to lock in an arm bar I could muscle my way out. I could sit on her and leverage my weight against her and control her
I found this in jujitsu when i trained in uni, probably close to 230lbs at the time, and i remember grappling with a blue belt half my weight, he tied me up in knots, but at one stage he jokingly said 'what you gonna do now?' As he was on top of me trying a different hold. I abandoned all technique picked him up, flipped him over and sat on him.. and he just kinda went 'huh' 😂 . It was something i used to do to my boxer friend growing up, again he was half my weight and his punches stung like hell.. but i could literally sit on him and pin his arms.. and he could do nothing. Lol
If you are 200lbs you must've been stronger than the average male, unless a lot of that weight was fat rather than muscle.
@@josephrobinson6171 I guess it's hard for me to gauge average 18 yo male strength. I may have been stronger than average. I did one season of high school football strength and conditioning and I always worked physically demanding jobs during the summer so yeah. possbly
@@josephrobinson6171 along with being on the drum line for 7 years which anyone who's done that knows that it's not easy and it will make you pretty strong
@Bread And Circuses it's not just "a drummer". Being a percussionist in a marching band (unless you're in the pit) is fairly demanding. the equipment weighs anywhere from 15 to 35 lbs and some days you're expected to carry that around on your shoulders for up to 10 hours a day. you have a harness. that doesn't stop your legs from working overtime with the extra weight. not to mention the actual process of picking the instruments up and putting them onto what we call "carriers" or taking them off of them and gently sitting them down. you do that motion a lot during the day. the actual mechanics of marching are grueling too. every step has to be measured and precise. heel-toe marching mechanics can really strain your calfs. especially with that extra weight. you have to drive your heel into the ground going forward and roll it forward and going backwards or sideways you have to be on your tip toes the entire time. not to mention that on my line we did a lot of push-ups when mistakes were made.
"we teach men restraint."
One thing to add, Shad: we really need to teach men to communicate more, alongside that. Most guys will just take a hit from a woman and not strongly communicate that it is not okay. They will more likely chuckle or laugh it off or very lightly tell them to stop but not be too serious about it.
That's because if you are hit from a woman you will more than likely not be hurt and have an injury( at 10 I was already stronger than an average grown up woman )
Most shrug it off because they're not hurt so they don't consider it something major
@@djibrilfaye5515 But still, whether it hurt or not, someone hit you. That's not okay. People will call that fragile, it's not, it's violence
@@hazeltree7738The only response to violence, regardless of gender, is to retaliate or to ignore. People who use violence, are not listening.
It occurred to me watching this that I have a story about a "female warrior" who behaves in traditionally masculine ways and often tries to fight battles head on - and fails, repeatedly. Not because she's a woman per se, but because her tactics are wrong for the situation. She learns over the course of the story that having a good strategy and being able to use the strength of her companions is the real value she has vs brute strength. I think it's fine to tell SOME stories about action-hero women, but it's a bit insulting to assume that stories about female characters will only be interesting if they act exactly like men.
Yeah... mulan
so they made her magically smarter than men because being magically stronger than men wasnt believable enough?
@@scramblex2692 Who are you talking about?
@@gon720 The animated version wasn't so bad, from what I saw of the live action it looked awful
reminds me , its like with some of the viking graves of warriors they found.. everyone agreed it must been a renounced warrior with high social standing and all quirky details of ''thats not the most traditional weapon'' or such brushed of as a sign of how 'experienced' they must been or such...
then scraps of gens or the like confirms.. it was a female ,and suddenly some people instead of going 'ahh , how interesting wonder if that played into x things we found maby she developed expertise in more areas her male associates forsake etc'' ...they questioned if she been a warrior at all , despite everything else in the grave being the exact same way like for recognised warriors :/
Few days ago, I saw videos about a recent popular rebellion in Iraq, and there was a guy commenting about how "few women joined the fight". Immediately, another guy commented that the women were helping on the homefront, treating the injured and helping to organize the protests, but without going to face the police themselves, because they would got hurt easily in comparison with the men, mostly veterans from the previous wars.
Also, they are the species. If historically we sent as many women as men into battle there wouldn’t be so many humans alive today.
The Kurds in Iraq, have female infantry fighting Isis. But guns do level the playing field.
@@mrfr87 if you have mechanized infantry this is doable. If they gotta hump all their ammo and food to the fight. They ain't gonna make it.
@@mrfr87 Mostly in scout/sniper roles - similar to Soviets, who also had an entire equality theme going. I think it's good when done reasonably - aka if you find a field, where males and females are more or less equal, it makes sense to utilize both. Simple specialisation - works regardless of gender too, if I had 100 people, and needed 20 to help with a very specific task (Let's say build a custom car), I'd prioritize those who have either experience or some natural predisposition towards that task. That doesn't make the remaining 80 without value however, they might have their own specialisation - maybe 20-30 excell in IT. Plus you should always consider willingness, that's a huge factor too.
@@Oumegi Agreed
Found your channel via Nerdrotic; I am so glad to find someone knowledgeable and nuanced about medieval combat! New subscriber gained.
One afternoon, my husband got out the punching pad, the kind that you hold on your arm, to let the kids have some fun punching and kicking, and teach them a little bit how to do it correctly. After they were worn out, he asked me to hold it for him a little. He has never had martial arts training, and at that time, had very little strength training. He pulled his punch majorly, and he still knocked me out of my stance (I do have a couple years of martial arts training). My respect for him, which was already great, shot through the roof when I understood better his power and restraint. I've never held the pad for him again, and he started going to a gym with a heavy bag. lol
I almost killed my wife and kids when sneezing. You really have to be careful with all of this male power.
While I am laughing at the image Im getting in my mind's eye and enjoying the idea of useful family time, I find myself wondering why your husband is teaching the kids' foundation in combatives when he has no knowledge to base that on, whereas you do.
@@thepewplace1370 I was there to provide instruction and example, he was the punching bag, basically. I didn't do a good job communicating that part, apparently. Lol
@@FebbieG ah OK lol, fair enough. Most dudes think we can fight, fuck, shoot and drive really well, even if we've had no training in the requisite area, so I really wouldn't have been surprised to find a guy with no training/experience thought he was the one to do the teaching. Sounds like yall have good and constructive family time!
@@thepewplace1370 No training does not mean no common sense or coordination, or not real world experience... Kids tend to lack all of those (compared to adults), so even untrained the guy would have plenty to offer...
I remember when playing the first Last of Us game, in the missions in wich you controls Ellie and has to go against the bad guys alone. It really managed to capture the tension and danger that the phisycal diference between them created (Ellie was not only just a woman, but also a 14 years old girl going up against adult men). And, even if it was possible for her to take the guys out, it felt much harder and dangerous than when playing with Joel. I think they nailed it there
And then they threw most of that out the window in the sequel.
@@selenagamya1612 not really, she still always uses a knife as opposed to Joel, a man in his 50s who literally uses his fists to beat people to death lmao. Either way is unrealistic as with either of them you can melee 1 vs hundreds bc it's a video game
Good point and because of it, you had to really modify and use a stealth approach more fully.
@@kingcrowsvo5994 I haven't played the second one yet, but on the first it didn't felt like Joel could beat a hundred people at once at all. If four or five managed to surround him, he was most likely lost. It felt pretty realistic to me
And that's pretty much why the new Predator movie is utter BS, lol
The true mark of an independent thinker is someone who’s willing to dissect any argument, no matter who makes it
And more importantly, no matter what it is.
Even if doing so would alienate you from others.
i think its also important to note when to let things go or let the other side talk.
you can dissect any argument or be willing to alienate yourself, but i think most of it is really for personal emotional satisfaction.
realizing that the other side is doing the same is critical to overall efficacy and well being, imo.
... not that i do this that well...
I notice you used a picture of *St. Joan of Arc* in this video. As a Joan of Arc scholar of some credential, let me contribute the following:
1. Joan was the army Standard Bearer; a very dangerous leadership role, but one which generally didn't involve melee or missile content (she was holding a giant flag, after all). By her own statement, she herself *never killed anybody,* which is actually extremely believable given her size, weight, level of training, and role.
2. Joan knew of the universal social gender issues such that she made it clear she was chaste, giving her maidenhood to God (thus dissuading men around her in such a religious time) and *actively chased away all other females who attempted to join the army.*
3. In addition to her impressive ability to endure armour and wounds, *Joan of Arc was a brilliant strategist and tactician.* That (along with her God-given) guidance was the greatest key to her success.
Good information right here
I’d be curious to hear how she was a ‘brilliant strategist & tactician’…she was only around 16-17 with no military experience during the siege of Orleans…I’d give credit more to Jean de Dunois (not to take away from her bravery - I’m sure the way she inspired people played a significant part in the victory)
@@scott2452 There's a debate as to whether she was crazy having hallucinations, or if she was called and supernaturally empowered/given insight by God. Either way, she was very convicted/confident that God was leading her actions. What you believe will generally depend on whether you're an atheist or believer.
Mark Twain though, despite being an atheist, wrote a book about Joan of Arc after twelve years of research--though I haven't read it yet. He believed she was the greatest human who ever lived, next to Christ, or something like that.
@@scott2452 I'm inclined to agree with you somewhat regarding Orleans, albeit mostly on May 6-7th of 1429. She did not initiate the attack on Ft. St. Loup, but she and the reinforcements she gathered pushed it through to victory. Similarly, she and La Hire led the charge on the south side of the Loire, and her reinvigouration of the army was what led to them at last re-taking the Tourelles.
May 8th was another matter. It was Joan herself who, seeing the English regrouped on the field with their archers ready to repeat the Battle of Agincourt, ordered back-to-back Holy Masses to be held until the English simply gave up and left!
Joan was also a quick study in strategy. She conserved her troops wisely and implemented tried-and-true tactics such as filling in moats during the Loire Campaign, and knew the necessity of liberating both Rheims and (ideally, though it didn't happen through no fault of her own) Paris via striking swiftly while the English were still off-balance.
Speaking tactically again, she also, according to those present at her re-trial, "excelled at the placement of artillery."
Doubtless the reason Joan succeeded was due to having a great many great men behind her, though she was a very special and unique young lady. Of course, she was also guided by St. Michael the Archangel, the Prince of the Heavenly Host who *literally took down Satan,* so there's that too.....
Agreed. She was more of a mascot and morale booster than anything. With her they felt God was on their side. That's a POWERFUL advantage... I think she KNEW this, and accepted it as her cross to bear to give her people a victory. Shame how it all ended, she deserves better, but humans have a habit of hating their heroes with a tiny bit of time.
My wife and I are actually watching the show Alias for the first time, and it honestly strikes me as a pretty good example of the female action hero. Obviously it's a sort of silly early 2000s TV show so the fight choreography isn't amazing, but I sort of find myself appreciating how mush the main character uses her speed and light weight to control the the positioning of the fight, or just run away. She does not just easily win every fight she gets into, despite obviously being trained. She doesn't knock dudes out with a punch to the head, but she might grab something and smash it into their face. Plus it's not scared to have her get straight up punched in the face, it really makes it seem like she's in a lot more danger when she's obviously losing this fight against a trained combatant.
It really stood out to me when you compare it to a lot of modern shows where a female combatant just never seems to be in any danger and is just as good as any man she goes up against. Even though fight choreography and effects have improved immensely over the last 20 years, the fights just seem so much less realistic because they have to make their female heroes be amazing at everything.
That Jennifer Garner would have been perfect for the MCU, she was very athletic.
@@daniel-zh9nj6yn6y Well she was Electra...That movie came out back along with Daredevil and was during the same time as Alias. I wasn't to impressed with her in Peppermint, she's getting older (She's 50) but when she was younger she did a good role of a realistic for some one her age and skill in Alias.
@@likeorasgod She was pretty good as Elektra, but the movies sucked balls. The thing is she actually looks like she could pull off some of the stuff rather than the Thick Scarlett Johansson that looks like she'd struggle to lift more than an average Dick.
I agree with you! My sisters and I aren't usually big into action movies, but one summer we all binge-watched that show on DVD and loved it. And I think Sydney Bristow was a factor in that. She also used her sexuality to lure men, which realistically would be the best "asset" a woman would have. Heck, even undercover police officers in real life are usually attractive women for the same reason.
@@likeorasgod That Electra movie never happened......
In high school, I saw lots of guys seem scary and violent amongst themselves, but they were extremely polite if, say, I said excuse me and wanted to pass them. But the worst fighting I saw? Girls. Fat ones, usually. Even picking fights with scrappy guys. It was an eye-opener. I've never been threatened by a man (okay, I can think of one--the type who got mad when we bumped into each other in a crowded hall), but several girls have threatened me violence.
I was at summer camp when I was 14, and Leah did not want me talking to her friend Valerie. Leah slapped me across the face once and I was so surprised I did nothing. A second time, she slapped me, this time in front of people who promptly grabbed me and pulled me away from her. (I remember the wolfish smile she gave me afterward.) On the third occasion, we were all standing in line for lunch, and she slapped me again... I coughed loudly, then kissed my fist theatrically and slugged her in the guts below her ribs. She crumpled like a wet rag and went down in a heap. I cheerfully offered to help her up whenever she gets her breath back. I pointed out angrily to the camp director, in his office- that nobody gave a damn when she hit me on two previous occasions, and I had come to realize that the rules do not protect me and I had best protect myself.
Boys generally understand that starting a fight will have consequences. Leah was very surprised.
Boys playfight a lot, girls usually backstab.
Where the hell do you live...
@@berilsevvalbekret772 somewhere """diverse""", I bet
@@berilsevvalbekret772 The phrase "high school" means that she's in America, like me. I think Brits and Aussies call it "secondary school."
I think the broader frustration for me is that conversations like this get tied up in culture war bs, which i find tiresome and a distraction from actual issues in the world. In reality most male action heroes are represented in an unrealistic way as well - most trained or even elite men cannot say overwhelm a whole facility held by a company of soldiers by themselves. At that point, whether or not the character is male seems irrelevant imo - both situations are unrealistic and we suspend our disbelief so that we can enjoy the film. Whether female or male, the best action characters are those that use their wits and adaptation to overcome the odds (eg ripley, sarah connor).
Some of the issues I have with it is that in some movies, female characters don't really takes hits like the men instead they dominate over a crowd while even some male characters are shown getting punched by one guy.
I pointed out Ripley in my comment too XD
Wait so youre saying an unarmed action hero cant 1v12 a bunch if armed opponents or 1 man named John Wick cant just walk in and kill an entire army of enemies so easily?
Transformer robots and Zombie Swarms arent real?!?!?
I am shocked hollywood is so unrealistic.
@@gimmeyourrights8292 i remember stranger things where Steve and the other girl got captured and he got beaten and bleeding and she's untouched. Like uhhh you think they wouldn't torture the girl too?
@@Jaypickels Right? I'm working on a screenplay about a female martial artist and she DOES take some hits.
I remember watching a crime investigation video and one of the clues about the killers identity was that it typically takes two or three more strikes for a woman to kill or incapacitate someone via blunt force head trauma.
Tbh for a man it could take two or more strikes too
Depends on circumstance, toughness of victim, weapon used (if any) etc
Punch to the face has less chance of KO’ing someone than a punch to the back of the head of someone who is unaware of the threat.
And an attack with a bat has more chance of KO’ing than one with fist. An attack with a metal bar has more chance to KO than one with a traditional wooden baseball bar etc
Love your work Shad. Not to mention your passion and kindness.
I believe the new saying is: “Equal rights equal fights”
Maybe, but "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". Who cares about wich genitals you have, just don't hit people
Equal Rights
Equal Lefts
This only further proves that Ripley from the first Alien movie is still the most well written strong female character to date.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Xena Warrior Princess are better.
True.. She didn't walk on the planet or crawl through the vents. She started the self destruct sequence before changing her mind 5 minutes later. She even saved the cat. She really was a strong Female character ;)
@@prescientspice2438 that was the first movie, she kicked ass in the second movie.
The role was first for a dude.
@@sidnusmagnus3144 😭
I’m glad I found your channel ! This was a great tidbit of nuance, history; a scholarly approach , greatly appreciated by a lummox such as I. Subscribed !
I really enjoy your perspective ! Love your channel so much!
George Lucas said in an interview at some point that "these are old stories, and every generation needs to retell them in their own way" specifically talking about values like friendship, family, self sacrifice etc. Say what you want about George, but I think he hit the nail on the head there, like with Terry Pratchett and his idea of stories, that humans need stories not to reflect reality (as in, stories shouldn't JUST be written to reflect current cultural trends etc, that's modernist BS) but rather to remind the reader of what it means to be human (truth, justice, kindness, etc.). That said, realism in fiction is always a good way to make the story feel, well, more "real" in order to make the core of the story more relatable.
totally agree. stories were a form of education, and oral history.
Think of the original Grimm fairy tales. many of them are meant to be Scary. They were a way of teaching young children valuable life lessons in a more interesting way that was easy to remember. Life was dangerous in those days, and there were lots of dangerous strangers and creatures in the forest and such.
Say what you want about George for me only good things he is wonderful and smart haters gonna hate
Look for the book The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell
@@carlogiurizzato2441 I mostly disagree with his tampering of Star Wars and such, but as a person and as a creator I love the guy.
I agree, I'm not the biggest fan of Star Wars but from the small clips I've seen of George Lucas, I do like what he says. I think adding realism to stories is good, but I don't fully agree with bringing the current cultures, society or times over into fiction. Personally I feel the point of fiction is to remove one self from reality, whilst still teaching us something that we can learn from. I don't want most stories to remind to remind me of everything in the real world. But for me, realism comes down more to decent melee combat in fantasies or characters making logical and sensible decisions.
I think having stories focused around the characters are better because you see the good and bad that we all have. I'm not particularly keen on the modern hero/protagonists we often get that's usually portrayed as perfect. And as someone who enjoys writing, I feel the themes within stories should be about the characters' journey and development.
Way back when, when I still did martial arts, I just could not get the male instructors to understand that certain moves were impossible for me because they required strength. They didn't even realize strength was involved, because to them, it felt like just moving a body part. Which is why I loved training with other women, because they would teach me "workarounds".
Workarounds you might share with us? pretty please
That is a rather severe failing of those instructors. Even as a guy I wouldn't be willing to train under an instructor like that, but I don't have the 'typical' build for a guy, so I tend to have similar problems.
@@Razmoudah How skinny are you usually.
@@Razmoudah I don't train there anymore either :)
@@greyngreyer5 Using two hands instead of one. But the "correct form" would be only one hand and when doing an exam if I used two I would "fail". Luckily the attacker would usually go along with it at those times.
Other things might be considered dirty fighting, like poking their eyes, punching the throat, stepping on their toes if you have heels on etc as a distraction before doing the "official" move. What works depends highly on the type of attack.
These are my favorite videos from this chanel, when they feel more like a classroom/TED talk than a rant. Keep it up!
Shad is a Chad. This was not only informative but also very respectful and gentlemen like. I wasn’t aware that Mr. Klavan made such a vid and will have to give it a watch.
In ASOIAF books, Brienne recalls her instructor's words on this (paraphrasing): When you fight a man, he will underestimate you and he will want to finish you quickly to save his pride. He can't be seen to trade too many blows with a woman. So use his pride and his haste against him, and fight with shock and surprise. Expect the attack, and don't let him know how good you are until it's too late.
That was the gist of it and I loved that detail. It added so much plausibility to the character.
Basically what Julie D'Aubigny did 90% of the time she was not dressing like a man lol.
@bastiat remember the context is an extremely gendered medieval society, the kind of place where a woman wearing trousers is unthinkable. It would be true most of the time and I’m sure that’s not the only thing he taught her in the decade or so he was training her.
@bastiat what an angry little man
@bastiat TIL that people can't wear armor because it's too heavy. Guess we gotta rewrite the history books.
@@tSp289 It's rather funny they always come out with the same 'arguments', complete with a "my fighter could beat your fighter cause I said so" bit.
Edit: lol Just go look at all their other comments under this video. They really are just a butthurt incel who goes around mansplaning about topics they have no knowledge, sources, or expertise on.
I once had an experience in middle school when not one not two not three but four girls lined up and hit me one at a time. Admittedly it was not particularly damaging series of slaps across the face, but because of social convention I didn't stop them nor did I respond in kind. I mistakenly thought that I must deserve this for some reason otherwise they wouldn't be doing this. I now know this is completely wrong. People should not hit other people. It doesn't matter if you're a man or woman. Violence has its place, but it is certainly not to punish someone over something trival.
Women do not understand violence. That's why they're so eager to inflict it upon others.
I say it's about time we start teaching them.
not the place for fetish discussion, thanks
I can relate. As a kid I once joined a game of king of the hill with a group of kids in school and pushed one of the older girls like the game demands. Apparently that was a mistake. Out of the blue all of the other girls targeted me even after the match had technically ended since I was the only one left standing. I got rammed off the top of the mound from behind by a gal rushing me at full speed and got knocked unconscious. They later apologized(I guess they got scared of me being seriously injured which they would have to answer for). I still think it was effing bizarre to get singled out like that.
@@scramblex2692 How in the fuck is is this kinky?
Universal dos and don'ts must be applied universally, or they are invalid.
ANYONE hitting you meaning harm is wrong regardless of their sex.
Shad! what process did you use to weather your aluminum chainmail? I bought a shirt & coif, but want to dull down the shine. What do you recommend?
Really interesting analysis of this topic. I really admire Shad's dedication to good behaviour on the behalf of Men,, and his encouragement of ethics as the basis of peace between men and women. Well said! 🙂
As for female heroines and their "unrealistic" abilities, I have two comments: 1) In some cases, it can be a fundamentally lazy way to make a female heroine - you take some archetype of a male hero and just turn him into a woman. Other times it may be an attempt how make a female action hero, but still present her in a way that makes her look attractive and feminine by general standards - i.e., make her slim, not too muscular, etc. It's basically a pretty unfeminist approach.
2) Even with male heroes, it's very common for the hero's abilities to be "unrealistic" because the hero has a major disadvantage against his opponents. For example, he's wastly outnumbered or his opponent is much stronger and the hero can't actually defeat him by brute force and has to outsmart him somehow. This is a very common motive that makes us sympathize with the heroes more. Take the example of Jackie Chan - in his movies, he usually has a disadvantage against his opponents - his enemies outnumber him, they are stronger, and Jackie uses fighting techniques against them that would be ineffective in a real fight, are difficult to execute, require a lot of luck or even cooperation on the part of the opponent. But it's done for the sake of spectacle and comedy. No one says Jackie Chan is doing harm to his male fans because he conjures up an unrealistic idea of how they can handle a bunch of muscular guys.
We should keep this in mind when we evaluate female heroines in fiction. It's not that every "unrealistically" capable heroine is automatically the product of some crazy woke fantasy.
The issue here is immersion I can believe a 310 lb 6'2" guy can toss a 150lb 5'7" guy across the room. When I see a 5'4" 97lb woman toss that same guy across the room with no other justification outside of "she's just that awesome" that's when we have a problem. It's not hard to justify the ability for women, mechanical augmentation, CRISPR alterations, gravitational anomaly, the list goes on so just justify it before you try to slam it in there.
the problem with #1 is they change the gender but miss the core of the archetype. Those male heroes are either young men learning to become better thru trial and error or they are like a James Bond who has years of experience and training. Too often they make their female heroines badasses without the trial and error phase or the experience. Rey from the recent Star Wars is the perfect example of this as she barely needs any training or help and she becomes the bestest in the shortest of time without any sacrifice
#2 that's a good point. We buy it more easily because it's a man which is an inherent bias however if it weren't Chan but a fat guy or a nerdy guy we wouldn't so much. But many of the female versions don't even go the Chan route of using trickery and luck to beat superior opponents. They just beat them because girl power, yo! The recent Charlie's Angels is a good example of this.
Your comparison is problematic, as Jackie Chan almost never uses brute force to defeat his enemies, but rather skill and speed. Woke fantasy female heroines are often depicted as being stronger than their larger male counterparts, dominating them with kicks, punches or sword strokes, and that's what destroys the immersion. Jackie Chan's situation is also mitigated by the fact that it is portrayed as obvious comedy, which is usually exaggerated by default.
If you take a man Jackie Chan's size and a woman that same size. The guy would splatter her across the room.
Men are also socially smart enough (within the male space, not necessarily in general) to know that they could not learn enough martial arts to fight off 9 guys trying to harm them.
Professional fighters have bodyguards for a reason. Men who have ever been jumped know better than to think comedy movies are realistic.
Movies that are much more "dangerous" would ones like John Wick, where it's more serious and extra detail is placed on realism (where they can afford it).
That being said, once a guy gets out there and begins to try and become as skilled as these characters, they will realize how unrealistic make believe stories are.
The concern here is that one of the few ways women can learn how unrealistic make believe stories are puts them at risk of getting laid out for the EMTs.
@@lqg4395 Jackie Chan also shows bloopers (mostly failed stunts) to show his actions are not failsafe
A lot of people, and especially CZcamsrs, seem to romanticize war. I was 11 years in the infantry. I served with women, some good, some terrible. My platoon commander was the first female to receive the Military Medal of Valor. But there are things you do not know, or understand, that go beyond whether or not a woman is strong enough to fight alongside men.
We took classes about the psychological effects of men fighting alongside women. The reality is, in war, when someone beside you is injured, you leave them and carry on until the fighting is over. When it's a woman beside you that becomes injured, her screams trigger something inside men, that make them go full berserker/protector, and forget everything they were trained to do. They taught us this, so that we had a microscopic chance at overcoming our emotions, were the worst to happen to one of the two women serving with us in the war.
The sad reality is that numerous western militaries have decided to allow more of their male soldiers to die for political and ideological reasons that amount to a childish claim of "if he's allowed to do it so should she".
That is a factor I never heard of before. Interesting.
Men are biologically programmed to want to protect women. Men care so much more about women than women care about men (generally speaking). Men will endure incredible hardship to protect women, because it's a primal response to them.
As a woman, it was something I barely understood until I got to know my husband - the first and only man I've been with. Women are not nearly grateful enough to the men in their lives, and to men in general.
Lol the gross ass fet teams on my deployments would have been pretty easy to do tc3 by the book.
It’s all instinct, when hunters hunt coyotes they use these sound boxes that make the sound of coyote pups in distress and they come running cause they think one of their kind is hurt
Cool video Shad, I appreciate hearing your viewpoints, and also appreciate the effort you put into your content.
I really like the breaking down of this complex and not easy topic for the different circumstances and combinations of training and skill levels.
Lara Croft.
Feminine but adventurous.
Not "strong" enough to face the enemies face on, instead plays to her strengths and sneaks, uses bows, uses the environment around her.
The only time Lara in the games (if playing along the story/within the lore) faces full on enemies face on is when they're scared out if their minds and running for the hills anyway.
She is a strong, feminine hero....who doesn't play along the lines of a male action hero (doom guy anyone?)
Her athletic ability is superhuman haha. I think i read somewhere that her standing jump is like 3 metres.. and she can do 7 metre running jumps.
I don't think you should use a character that guns down a T-rex as "realistic".
@@joshuarichardson6529 Why not?
@@joshuarichardson6529 i mean technically its possible to dual wield pistols while doing 7 meter backflips and somersaulting off the walls lol its not like she just ran up and punched the T-rex right ?
@@joshuarichardson6529 I mean T-rexes weren't bulletproof like in movies. Guns would easily kill them because its not like they had magical bones.
Great video and I'm glad there are people that aren't afraid to speak the truth. I have daughter's and we try to prepare them for the real world and reality.
This reminds me of the earlier berserk arcs. Casa was, for her, a very capable warrior but multiple times she ended up in situations that Guts ended up saving her from. One against a much larger stronger opponent with a polearm and another against multiple opponents that would've been too much for most singular fighters, comes to mind. And the first time she ended up embarrassed, frustrated and angry at guts who saved her. She very much wanted to be on his level which is a noble goal considering he's pretty much super human, but she had to learn her limits and how best to apply herself I think.
She's an excellent example of a well written female character
Berserk was an amazing Romcom and should be recommend to everyone
Have you seen that outtakewere guts berates her for constantly menstruating? Omegalul moment
Thats fair, but in your comparison you brought up a guy who swings an 80lb sword one handed.
I fully admit that there are differences between men and women, but the culture war stuff over action heros is getting crazy. Male action heros are just as unrealistic and just as bad of examples for realistic behavior and goals.
I just want my female action heros to have good writing. Like Xena.
@@dreadcthulhu1439 It was not and never will be a shallow romcom.
Great video. I'm also a fan of Andrew and I've defended his statements in the past but I really admire that you took a very respectful and clarifying position on this topic. I would like to add that I really love The Last Kingdom's portrayal of strong women; although many of them are very competent fighters, it is their courage, faith, loyalty, compassion or self-control which are highlighted moreso than their physical prowess, and I think that is not only more realistic to what life is like, but also demonstrates we don't always have to compete in the same way to be measured by our worth.
It's pointless discussing this from any sort of larping sport fighting perspective. Historical hand to hand combat was absolutely BRUTAL and to the death. One major factor that will never be fully displayed in mock/sport combat is aggression with the intention to murder the other person. This can not be simulated.
This is a good point. If a person genuinely feels in danger for their life, their body will be flooded with adrenaline and testosterone as an emergency measure. This advantages men much more than women when it comes to real combat.
In a sport like HEMA they also stop the round after each hit and reset the fighter's positions. That's not going to happen in a real fight.
I wanted to write the same thought. Reasoning about the average has nothing to do with the reality of what is happening, when life will depend on it. Hormones will give impetus to a man. And the fight itself will not be held according to the rules - it will be dirty and full of tricks.
@@karldecori9408 Exactly. You can never simulate a real fight. People are going to do anything in a struggle to the death. The larping/hema gives a false sense of how competent someone would be in a real situation. 99% of larpers have probably never even been in a street fight in their lives.
Those Slavic armored blunt sword battles come.pretty close. They fkn ruthlessly smash each other any weak spot inc in the mouth with their shields and blunt swords. It's absurdly brutal. It makes MMA seem tame tbh, saw a dude smash the rim of his round shield into the vulnerable mouth / face opening of his enemy repeatedly. Bro that dude must have swallowed some teeth at the very least
This video fails to consider that a 'warrior' isn't someone who has the occasional sparring bout in their spare time, its a full-time occupation. Soldiering was hard work even outside of fighting.
Most medieval soldiers had to march for months on foot, carry much of their own kit, forage, chop firewood, pitch tents and build camps before even getting near the battle. It was often a grueling and exhausting profession and while there was a class that had others to do the tedious work for them, that class also had to carry the hardest fighting.
Women are not incapable of any of these tasks but I can't think of a lot of combat roles where it would make sense to select them over men.
Another question to ask is, does it matter for storytelling? A character -be it a space trucker or a medieval general- having to overcome some seemingly hopeless disadvantage is a timeless aspect of stories. Odysseus beat a cyclops not by just socking it across the face and sending it flying, but by outsmarting it. Its absolutely possible to write a satisfying way for an underdog to win convincingly, Disney writers just suck.
yeah, as I recall, during the early dark ages, around the time of the Normand Conquest, the lowest rank that would fight were thanes. These were a sort of lesser 'lord' would have a few hundred acres each. The thanes were expected to provide their own arms and armor, be fit and able to fight, and, if required of them, fight up to a certain number of weeks a year. 'Peasant' armies would only be fielded for short periods and defensively, (and rarely too) the reason being that they were too expensive to keep fielded, as even keeping the thane army fielded was extremely taxing to the country.
my point being, it's also very costly to field soldiers, so if you only take the top percentage of ability, it would exclude even the best women from fighting.
and if it's by household, which a lot of places are, it's just plain dumb.
bingo! Too many people look at stats like a D&D game or their occasional HEMA sparring session and draw conclusions from that. The Romans didn't have women soldiers for just precisely those reasons you mentioned because in addition to fighting they had to march - A LOT. And they had to build a lot wherever they went. And they like many of the professional soldiers of the Middle Ages trained, fought, and killed much of their lives when they weren't marching, trying to avoid all the diseases rampant in the field, or foraging for food. Even modern combat vets can't really compare to the level of experience they had. These were men used to moving and fighting in some form of armor with swords, spears, and axes ie heavy weapons which delivered up close and personal blows. You can't expect suspend disbelief that a woman or an untrained man could fight them on an even footing.
And the kind of woman who can at least kind of keep up with the men isn't going to be the skinny princess. She will be a stocky squat woman who looks more like a dwarf than anything. Look at all the women who make up the 5% of the male dominated jobs no one wants. *Sewage, Farms etc* They are about half women who go for office, and half woman who look like longshoremen.
They US Mariens have done this testing. The mixed units had FAR more injures. The men ended up carrying the women's gear & getting hurt.
Glad you mention this because this is something the new Predator movie Prey disregards. Camache warriors foundation was living and fighting on horseback and were rather militaristic like the Spartans. Hunting is more of a sport and survival thing and the movie treats it like it’s a right of passage of a warrior.
I really like this take, it's good to acknowledge the big physical difference with men and women when it comes to fighting, but also to acknowledge that there are a lot of components besides strength and physical advances in fighting.
In general I noticed that fights are just messy, we grow up with these movies that makes fights look cool, but in reality it's really not. I honestly wished that violence in movies was differently curated, it's actually kinda gross if you think about it, there is still so much violence in movies our kids grow up with and it messes with our idea of fights and violence.
About movies thou; I think we all kinda miss with action hero movies is that it's fantasy. If we watch a movie were a guy can throw a car, and we think 'well, that's over the top', but when a woman in the same movie does the same is unrealistic? That sounds just like double standards. Action is most of the time such a fantasy, where our reality and physic rules doesn't really exist, why would that be the thing that bothers people? If it's an realistic movie, I get it, but most action movies aren't really. Women vs. men fighting really doesn't bother me that much in these movies, in general I actually enjoy it that they both have their own strengths and are able to work together because of this.
On the women in combat, I recently learnt about the story of Milunka Savić, a Serbian woman who joined the army instead of her brother, and kinda got in a rabbit hole of women who joined the army disguised as men throughout history. It actually happened a lot more then most of us know, all over the world.
It's not really a 'gotcha', but I wonder how you look back at women in history like that, that acted like men to join the army, it was most of the time not noticed till they got wounded, or something like (most served for years before they found out they were women), so apparently they were able to go on the same level as men until that moment.
Also just women who fought in battle is not that new (I read about the ancient Greeks, but also other civilizations that even inspired the Greeks back then).
Even in the early medieval times, like with the Norsemen en the Celts, women were allowed to join the fighting.
I know that most of the time a lot of women did not fight (through it would not surprise me they knew better how to fight then most women nowadays), but there were plenty of women who did join the fight and battles, and I'm just curious how this is taken into account and looked back at in this discussion.
I think Shad's take on skill vs strength is extremely accurate in this video.
I just think he's very much failing to recognize physical "outliers". I'm maybe in the 99.99th percentile, maybe add a few 9's to that even. I've never dated a guy who is as tall or as strong as I am, just because there's not very many guys who are. And while my own size is pretty rare among women, it does exist. Perhaps more importantly though, if you imagine a bunch of 5'7 romans invading norse tribal lands... I think women who are bigger or stronger than the invading men would actually not be uncommon at all.
I think that kind of fight could occur between someone who was a trained sword fighter and someone who was completely untrained. Shad has a video from a while back where he took on his brother (a completely untrained person) and easily wiped the floor with him. I don't think there would have been much difference to a female in his position taking on an untrained male because he wasn't using strength or even speed. Just reading the attacks and casually stepping out of the way before countering. I've seen the same kind of thing from Jiu Jitsu practitioners being able to take on much bigger and stronger opponents with no apparent effort because of the skill gap.
I'm with you. I'm not tall but I'm stockier than any other woman I've ever met (wide shoulders, chest as wide as my man), and I've never struggled with the so-called normal things that other women do (lifting heavy things, opening jars, outdoor work). I've got thick bones and despite living a rather rough and tumble life in the country that included horse riding, cattle wrangling, and being run over multiple times cause I'm a gotdang space case, I've only ever cracked a single bone (my collar bone), which healed back thicker and larger than before. I've also always run incredibly hot body temp-wise. I sweat like a maniac, am rarely cold (quite the opposite, actually) and my entire family considers me a space heater...so incredibly good circulation?
I've sparred and wrestled with multiple men, running the gamut in size, and not one had any clear advantage or wiped the floor with me. In fact, they often complained because I tend to hit or grasp harder than I intend, leaving bruises and welts. As for other women, I've rarely had difficulty; I even wrestled a trained wrestler (I have no training myself) and won, though I credit that to the fact that I had to have had at least 50 lbs on the woman at the time. Even my man, who works a very physically demanding job, freely admits he'd have great difficulty in a no holds barred fight against me--he might win, but it'd be a Pyrrhic victory.
All that said, I'm definitely an outlier. I suspect I produce more testosterone than the average woman, as I put on muscle it seems with far less effort, and I've always had shorter menses, though I know I'm not intersex pertaining to sex chromosomes, as I do just have XX, and I've got a kid that I produced with no special intervention.
@@thealrightygina5725 I wonder if us stocky-and-weirdly-strong types have more active Neanderthal genes than average. There's definitely something genetic. It doesn't let you ragdoll massive dudes, but it makes you outlier-strong even when you don't work out.
I wish more of the action-girls actually looked dangerous. If a heroine is magical or uses modern ranged weapons, it's not necessarily a problem if she is tiny. But if she is just supposed to be a non-magical bruiser, I wanna look at her and think, "Dang, she could mess me up." The only actress I've seen that looked the part was an actual professional fighter. (Though credit to the costume designers for Brienne of Tarth: She wore bulky stuff all the time, so it was plausible that she had big muscles under there.)
I'm mostly with Shad here, but I feel like one of the sub-cases he's off target. Now I could be wrong here, but I feel the whole 'trained woman vs untrained man' thing is where Shad is missing something.
Sure, size, reach, and strength are all important in unarmed combat. But. The human body is amazingly fragile in certain places. Is a trained woman likely able to hit a man hard enough in the chest, shoulder, or head to send him flying off his feet? No. But a rapid, well delivered strike to the throat, diaphram, or any of the dozen other weakpoints on the body seems likely to work, especially against some idiot that doesnt understand how quick and brutal a real fight can be. Yes, if he manages a grapple things can still go poorly for her, but part of training is knowing how to escape or avoid that in the first place, and knowing WHERE to hit at least as much as HOW to hit.
ofc in theory u are right. but its not like in the movies where its easy to hit someone exactly in the throat at the perfect place. in a streetfight 90% of hits and moves are miss and off target.
@@mrlakkie1612
Sure, but aren't streetfights like, by definition between untrained people? I'd wouldn't expect a gangster, even a career one, to know how to take someone apart in CQC the way a SEAL or spy would.
@@willb5278 i guess so.
small size doesn't make someone faster, that's just fantasy stereotype to give some advantage for smaller heroes.
First of all hitting weakpoints is incredible hard against moving target that also defends and attacks.
second, the reach, muscles and higher speed ensures that male is more likely to hit you before you.
I'm no the tallest guy but I'm still tall enough to hold woman by holding my hand over her forehead.
I am writing a fantasy book with a female elf protagonist. She prefers to lean more upon her better reflexes as an elf in combat rather than brute strength to win in fights against larger human male opponents, and even so she suffers an injury that greatly reduces her ability to fight well, forcing her to solve problems even more creatively. I wanted an element of hardship and challenge in her story, opposed to a character who is unrelatable.
Balancing between entertaining and unrealistic is not an easy line to find, and sadly modern media has decided to pretend that line does not exsist at all.
Great video as always, Shad!
Well, this channel was made to promote his writing, I guess you should be able to promote your own.
I like it when characters have to try and outwit their opponents, rather than simply winning by brute force alone.
Fantasy is fantasy though. Even depictions of male combat in fantasy are utterly unrealistic with male heroes very frequently fighting and defeating multiple opponents at the same time and walking away relatively unscathed. Whereas in reality, as soon as you are out numbered significantly in a combat you are going to lose. It simply isn't possible for one person to defend themselves from multiple opponents at the same time.
Sounds like an interesting book! Let us know when it's published. I do like female warriors in story but only when they are based in more reality. There's a ton of examples of female warriors in movies who are portrayed in more realistic settings but, sadly, a lot of movies made nowadays make female fighters way to overpowered. This might not completely ruin the film, but it kind of cheapens it.
Also, I've always thought that female elves specifically would do better in combat situations because elves are supposed to have more magical abilities. Enhanced speed, agility, endurance, eyesight. This is why I didn't have a problem with Tauriel in The Hobbit fighting so effectively against orcs and dwarves and such in the movie.
Interesting idea. I have a similar character, though only in concept form. She is also a female elf, but instead of reflexes relies more on tactics, stealth, experience and technology.
The setting in which this character operates has already reached the stage where firearms were invented and have gained some distribution, but are still not the main weapons of armies. This is an approximate analogue of Europe of the 16th century. Magic and alchemy also exist in this world, mainly of the hermetic kind - they are studied as sciences.
So, my character, being an elf, was nonetheless raised by a human forester, therefore she has predominantly human habits, morality and worldview. She also learned how to operate a gun, how to hunt, learned animal behaviors and so on what forester can teach her. Already grown up, she went to travel around the country, met with a master gunsmith and a alchemist, from whom she learned the trade. Using her new skills (and thanks to elvish longetivity), the character created a repeating rifle for herself (based on the real-life Kalthoff repeater) and also, based on rare magical ingredients, developed a formula for a substance that has the properties of smokeless powder, which she uses in her weapon. She keeps the secrets of gunpowder and sells it for a lot of money, mainly to various influential people, or is temporarily hired herself to create gunpowder (or other substances) at the request of these same people. When it comes to the use of violence, the character usually avoids being seen and attacks from a distance, taking advantage of her weapons and personal marksmanship to neutralize the enemy. If bullets fail, explosives, poisons, smoke screens, traps, feints, and bluffs come into play.
But still, she prefers not to fight at all - she is just a gun freak of sorts and wants to discover new horizons and investigate peculiar things.
A necessary conversation amidst the fantasy of our age. I would only add that we should also take endurance into consideration not just strength and skill. Carrying around a 50 pound pack for extended periods of time has been measured and I've seen it first hand in the military training standards, men have double to triple the endurance capacity which is highly significant in combat/battle situations. You tire first, you lose.
Which then begs the question how fit are the women of fantasy races compared to men of fantasy races, and human men/women as well.
Well the largest x-sex physical performance overlap in the military, is worst performing male soldiers and best performing female soldiers
Not just tire first. Disease and Hunger have throughout history killed more soldiers than injuries from combat.
Just a tiny clarification, men actually are better at stamina whereas woman are quite good at endurance. They can even outperform men a lot of the times when it comes to endurance. That being said, there was nothing wrong with your statement about men having an easier time carrying 50 pound packs than women.
If I understand stamina vs endurance correctly, stamina is the reason why men are so good at the 50 pound packs. Endurance is why women are good at long sustained activities, such as long distance marathons. The numbers show that as the distance in a marathon increases, the gap between men and women lessens. When the distance becomes long enough, like in extreme long distance marathons, women will start to outperform men.
@@AudraT I think Shad makes some great points but at the end of the day in our society females are parented in such a way that they will always be on the losing side against a men. It's just the reality. If females were to be parented like men over a few thousands years things would start to change. It doesn't help when religion pops into the picture and say women are to stay at home and do nothing. I'm not going to go any further into that topic but it's the reality. There are hundreds if not well over thousands of years into that mindset. There are obviously interesting exceptions and let's be honest women have always been on the lowside. There could have been scenarios in the long past that just aren't documented because womens were involved or a lack of recording events overall. At the end of the day a female born and raised as a female will be at a disadvantage no matter what because they lack the initial training, it would be much harder for them to try catch up as teenagers/ young adults.
In your example about modern military, a bullet doesn't care if you're a man or a woman. Period. Look up some disturbing Ukraine/Russia photoage, actually I wouldn't recommend it. In real life a woman will be more than capable of using a firearm with some training and will.
This helps me with my pursuit of how to write believable and enjoyable female warrior characters for some of my novels. Without knowing exactly how to approach it, it's very easy to lose either believability or enjoyment of the character's prowess. I thought of how incredibly difficult it would be for 99% of women to beat me in a fight in fictional scenarios if I were one of the characters, then thought about how tons of men could beat me. It seemed hopeless for women. But then I had an AHA moment where I realized that female warriors would need to fight male opponents similarly to how I would approach fighting any guy who is around 6' tall and 200 lbs since I'm smaller than that. I'd be using my greater speed, greater intelligence, faster reflexes, and hopefully a long weapon. Your video help confirmed that for me during my research, along with other sources.
this helps me for the same reason. I think its also why women tend to be tech heads in action movies ... its a brainy role they can fill easily. or they use a gun or something. But I agree with him. men and women have very clear physical differences people don't want to understand.
@@dragonstooth4223 The crazy thing is that billions of people do understand, but my country and few others seem to be the silly ones with women who try to act like they are the same as men in every way... ot in some cases act like they are in fact BETTER than men. It's sad. We all have weaknesses and strengths, but we are not all equal. Now why would we have separate words for men and women if they were completely equal? lol
@@t.r.everstone7 we set kids up for failure when we treat them all as equals. they aren't. some are better at sports, some are more academic, some are artists, some are scientists. its okay not to be good at something because of biology or something you can't control or just not be good at it because you don't enjoy it. but kids need to know that its not about everyone being equal, its about everyone being good at what they are good at.
you know ... like that saying "if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree it will forever be stupid". Well telling everyone they are equal no matter what does just that because everyone falls into their own place on the spectrum. Some will be good at being athletic and some won't be. If we judge those who are poor at athletics by that standard then they are forever dumb.
@@dragonstooth4223 Exactly. And it's infinitely bizarre to me how the people who talk the most about spectrums and justice are so blind to the real spectrums and justice that are staring them in the face
I was bullied by my older sister as a kid and because I wouldn’t hit her back it carried on for years. then I learned defensive skills blocks, dodges, etc. long story short she tried to hit me and her wrist got sprained by my block. So if a person significantly weaker than is attacking (unarmed) you and your concerned about causing them serious harm blocks work.
I write for predominantly female protagonists, so I greatly appreciate this video. While my stories are fantasy I do my best to portray the characters with some degree of realism. In one story, a female character is described as one of the greatest fencers in the world. She's short and not physically strong, but her reflexes are second to none. She's not perfect by any means and barely walks out of some fights alive, but "work smarter, not harder" isn't a bad lesson for people to learn in my opinion. We all have our shortcomings, and I find it more interesting when characters have to find clever ways to work around them rather than just overpower them. In another story, two women are traveling with three men, and while they're all very good swordsmen, they often carry crossbows. While the men are fighting out in front, the two women are picking off bandits with bolts. After all, a ninety-year-old grandmother is pretty deadly with a shotgun. Have your characters work smarter, not harder.
Walter White wouldn't be a bad source of inspiration when crafting female characters.
We definitely need more "work smarter" characters, in general
thats pretty clever. never tought of repalcing the cliched "woman magic and healing casters" in fantasy to a more realistic weapon firing squad. if you want them to have more distinctic weapons, one should be a slinger. slings are very deadly and its a very distinct weapon.
There is actually real life precedent for this. I forget the name, but there is a type of kung fu that was according to legend developed by a woman. (Bruce Lee learned it before developing his own style) additionally, BJJ was developed not by a woman, but by a small and weak boy, who then developed techniques in order to overcome his disadvantage. I think, though, that it is unrealistic that the best fencer would be short. Reach is important. I have heard though that women have better aim.
@@PeregrinTintenfish The Bruce Lee one? You're thinkin of Wing Chun. That's the style used in the Donnie Yen Ip Man movies
You'd think people would realize there's a difference between men and women's physical prowess when we've had sports separated by sex forever.
On the other hand, sports that are more focused on skill/precision vs power has less of a reason to be segregated, like target shooting, archery, motorsport.
@@Appletank8 Shooting is the only good example there. Men dominate the other two.
Chess is also segregated.
@@benito1620
Really? That sounds dumb. I've could've sworn I saw mixed gender chess tournaments.
@@Appletank8 there's far more male chess grandmasters, the isue is also that men have a far higher variability in skill, intelligence, athleticism ect. You'll be hard pressed to find any disipline which at the top wont be dominated by men because of that. Goes both ways though, hence the most braindead peoiple are usually also men
Thank you for this honest conversation. I am a small, petite woman, and it gets frustrating when I see (taller) but still petite women defeat a man "just like that". It's why I liked the fight scenes in the new Batman with Catwoman.
I appreciate the level of nuance and distinctions that you are working in. I mostly agree with your conclusions, however, I'm pretty sure that the first time this came up for Klavan was not just in the context of the Witcher, but specifically the armored queen on the battlefield. I agree he did a better job drawing it out since, but that context was there initially.
My husband was run over by a 45,000lb vehicle, when we play around, his upper body strength unexercised for 7 years still whoops me every time. I try to tickle him, he can just simply grab my hands while in a wheel chair and I can’t get free. Men’s strength is incredible, and I’m Uber thankful for all the men I know who use their strength to provide and protect the women in their lives.
Aw so sweet. Hope your husband is doing well.
Does he still let you drive after that
@@noop1111 😂😂😂
I used to take Ninjutsu martial art class, and there where several women in it. They emphasized to everyone, but ESPECIALLY the women, that you cannot use brute strength or speed against your opponent, since your opponent will ALWAYS be stronger and faster than you. Rather, you win by using your opponent's own strength and speed against them. That was the whole tenant on which that particular martial art was structured.
Being in a wheelchair means using your arms to move around, wich leads to increased upper body strength.
I was abused by my first wife, never again, touch me get hit. Act like a man, want the same rights as a man, get treated like a man.
I hope you aren't implying that violence is a good option against anyone, man or woman. And I hope you aren't under the impression that people wanting rights and fairness are signing themselves up for violence to be done to them.
@Fourspaces I think your jumping the gun a bit bud. I understand where your coming from but I think Latter here is just emotional about the topic and is trying to make his stance clear. He has been a victim before and will not allow it to happen again, not by anyone and it's an action I can respect.
@@JackaltheSaltySoul Discarding his personal experience, the second sentence is rhetoric i've heard before from hundreds of people. That rhetoric is inaccurate, harmful and disingenuous.
@@Fourspaces _That rhetoric is inaccurate, harmful and disingenuous._
Ahh yes, typical feminist bullshit. Allergic to actual equality. Because in feminism it only goes one way.
This is why I really like how Azumi the heroine of the manga Azuma is portrayed. She is one of the most skillful swordsmen in the series but even then she also knows her weakness in strength and tries her best to avoid direct parry and prefers to slash her opponents during their openings with her nimbleness. Absolutely recommend the manga.
There are 2 films but they absolutely massacred the well thought-out fight scenarios in the manga
Thank you that actually sounds dope.
Sounds so cool, and like great inspiration for something I'm working on! :D
I've been curious, when doing combat sports to simulate long-sword fighting, how realistic is it? They don't appear to be using steel swords so is the weight and weapon handling the same? And a dual is going to be very different from a battlefield where conditioning becomes a far larger factor.
Otherwise, I think the main issue was when Andrew said always instead of 70, 80 or 90% of the time. Because when you say always, it only takes a single and rather contrived example to disprove always. When realistically we're talking mostly about averages and generalizations.
I'm surprised you never brought up the challenge of swords and edge issues. A larger, stronger man pressing hard on his blade against a woman with a blade, if her technique is good she can easily redirect it. Every sword channel I've ever seen have pointed out that whacking with a sword as if it were a club is bad for the edge, bad for the sword, and bad technique. I think Skallagrim especially regularly says to never press on a blade any harder than you must, otherwise your opponent could catch the edge and manipulate your blade. In SOME sword techniques, with some sword types, strength means far less.
Really what I'm saying is we need more Inigo vs Wesley and less Rey vs Kylo - Wesley could easily overpower Inigo, but because of the type of sword and technique, Inigo stood a chance.
It's anime
Fair point, but on the other hand we think of "unarmored swordsman vs unarmored swordsman" as the most important fighting case. In real war, people often had something like armor + wooden shield + axe and you tried to use your axe to hack the enemy's shield to bits before he could do the same. In that case, brute strength matters far more.
To illustrate the previous example, viking duels often featured axe + shield, and you had a maximum of two reserve shields if one got hacked to pieces.
Very well thought out and worded. As for females action heroes, I enjoy them most when the hero recognizes her vulnerability and overcomes it with cunning or some other way. Also, there is nothing wrong with a female action hero fighting valiantly until she's overpowered and rescued by her male counterpart. The same happens with males heroes, it's called brotherhood or brothers in arms. I'm very bored and tired of the 115 lbs Mary Sue.
Give Mary Sue a poleaxe and more skill than her 8 ft tall armored opponent and she will defeat him effortlessly like we see in manuscripts of tournaments (where the winner just constantly headshot all the opponents, never even allowing them to get close, and being so victorious they wouldnt have even needed to wear armor like their opponent did.)
Skill trumps EVERYTHING because weapons are a great equalizer. It is only when without weapons or in mass battles that Skill isnt the single deciding factor almost every time.
@@nowayjosedaniel I would dispute that with melee weapons and armored opponents. I beat a competitive fencer once, simply because I charged forward, knocking her foil aside, and tackled her. Terrible fencing on my part, of course, but she was on the ground with my weapon on her throat. She HAD dared me to try anything, so she asked for it.
With ranged weapons, though, I agree with you. And it certainly CAN work that way with melee, I just don't see a weapon eliminating ALL physical advantages.
It doesn't eliminate all psychical Advantages but a weapon opens the door to victory. A 5 year old with a knife could kill you. Incredibly unlikely but possible.
@@nowayjosedaniel Terrible example. Or is this Mary Sue only ever fighting opponents in that extremely specific, unlikely, and unrealistic combat scenario? Then again, I guess if it's a Mary Sue that checks the box by definition.
I can at least appreciate it when the person playing the heroine looks like she can fight well. Far too often, I see these roles played by actresses with toothpick arms and 5 feet short. And in a setting without other enhancements, she's throwing around men 3 times her size with little effort. At least choose an actress who is tall and has muscles. Sara Conner is an example of the perfect actress playing the role well. She had visible muscles. She was tall. She could easily convince the audience that she was physically powerful. They don't have to be the Arnold level of huge, but they do need to be able to show their physical presence.
It's different when magic and technology gets involved. But even then, it's not like the physical body becomes completely irrelevant in these sorts of settings.
if they're both trained, both wearing armor, man gets stabbed in the back of the knee with a morgul blade by a hobbit, woman stabs man in the head fulfilling the prophecy that "no man will kill" this Witch King of Angmar.
Good video. This is what we need more New ones conversations focusing on the details. And keeping in mind the overall morality. You are a reasonable and academic. And I think everyone should appreciate that.
One interesting observation about the male codification of violence. I used to work in a restaurant near a MMA gym, and we would get men who had just finished sparing with each other sitting down and eating and laughing together all the time, I never saw women do the same, any time a woman would come over from the gym nobody would ask how their sparring went because it always turned nasty.
yup. half the guys i got into fights with in highschool became friends. but some of the women i knew back then still to this day hold grudges with each other.
Regarding bullies, it's always the kids who are larger naturally. People who work hard for their strengths mostly have respect for it.
Power for a man is knowing they have the potential to use lethal force but choosing not to. Men typically fight physically, women typically assassinate peoples character and manipulate ... both practice this from an early age and both tactics are powerful.
@@jasonsangwin4006
Jason is correct.
Men are not violent, they are aggressive. There is a huge difference. This aggression can then be channeled in a number of different ways. Strong men channel this aggression achieve great things, be it exploration of unknown lands or building empires. Weak men channel it into violence against he weak or becoming feminists.
In both cases it meant to achieve something. But only one of those groups actually achieves something beneficial to society.
Regarding the discussion at the fifth minute about attainable role models. I always found hillarious that feminists would whine about pretty women being "unrealistic" and giving girls insecurities while promoting the "action girl" trope where scrawny women can flip men twice her size...
thats less feminists but more maludjusted adults XD
@@berilsevvalbekret772 So, feminists.
@@wrongthinker843 Name checks out.
It's overweight unattractive feminists that are against beauty. Its called jealousy. Its no different than a poor person complaining about somebody that lives in a bad part of town that has to take the bus to work complaining about people on "the other side of the tracks." Alternatively they could always loose some weight and ditch the blue hair. Unless these feminists are gay they need to realize that even liberal woke dudes are still more attracted to beauty. They are lowering the level of their prospects for a future husband.
The marines did a study on women in infantry type fighting, their conclusion back when it was still ok to be objective was that they were slower, more injury prone and less deadly. This is with modern weapons, imagine putting the same limitations in pre-firearm battlefields. It was basically a no go, and almost never happened historically. I guess you could start pumping female soldiers full of male hormones and boost their physical performance.
One time I saw someone yelling at the screen while watching Darby O'Gill for Katie to "Deck him!" when she got ambushed by Pony. The action girl trope has become "reality" for her, and she thinks it's old-timey sexism when the woman doesn't kick the bad guy's ass. It was still one of her favourite movies though.
Man, I haven't even watched the video yet, but I was wishing for a reaction to this exact segment from his reaction to Ciri in The Witcher. Thank you, Shad, for making my dream come true!
Firstly, great video, Shad!!! It is so refreshing to listen to such a pleasantly measured discourse about a touchy subject, so thank you.
Secondly, I had a question about a hypothetical scenario. You made a point in your video that armor generally isn't as advantageous to a woman as to a man because women will tire more easily. So I'm wondering then, what do you think would be the projected outcome of a woman wearing lighter armor (maybe just a gambeson) versus a more heavily armored man (maybe chain armor and gambeson with minimal plate armor) in regards to melee combat? For some backstory, I'm writing a fantasy book and one of my protagonists is a female fighter. She's on the shorter side of average for a woman but is pretty stocky in regards to build and doesn't wear a lot of armor besides a gambeson and a boiled leather gorget and pauldrons (I know steel is generally superior but it isn't an option in this scenario). She has loads more experience than the man/men she is fighting. How much better of a chance do you think she would have at succeeding due to the facts that she 1) has more experience than her opponents and 2) is still wearing decently protective armor that isn't nearly as cumbersome, all else else being equal?
Apologies for the long post and sorry it's a bit late, but I would greatly appreciate any thoughts you or others might have on the matter if you have the chance to get to it. :)
Personally, I'm not sure Shad is correct that women would tire from wearing armor more than men. The studies he seems to be using are flawed in that the women examples were much less conditioned than the men. If you have a group of men and women fighters who have equal conditioning, the women tend to be better at carrying weights and endurance than the men, but the men are able to lift more weight and sprint faster.
For the second part of your example, I think that skill factors in quite a bit to combat, but on a different scale than strength. Strength seems to be kind of linear, where someone 10% stronger is 10% more likely to win for example. Skill seems to operate on more of a log curve, where a bit of skill makes a massive difference at first, but the more skilled you get the more it plateaus off. A modestly skilled person (who understands basic range, fight tempo, breathing, footwork etc.) is almost certainly going to beat a completely unskilled person who doesn't know anything regardless of strength differences. However, the most skilled person in the world would probably lose to someone who is only pretty skilled but has a massive size advantage. On the other hand, skilled people are more likely to understand their strengths and weaknesses and be able to work around their opponent's advantages, so a highly skilled person is less likely to lose catastrophically to an equally skilled but stronger opponent in an even fight.
@@Miyuki2319 Thanks so much for the detailed answer, that really helps!
My opinions on such things can be summed up in a particular example I witnissed first hand.
had a female friend. One of the strongest people I knew at the time. Very athletic in a wide variaty of sports and better then loads of guys I knew, and know to this day.
There was a point she was arm wrestling a guy who was, respectably strong but who we all knew wasn't quite on par with her.
He broke her arm. Not intentionally. They were just arm wrestling. Just, snapped like a very thick branch.
That stuck with me. Hammered home the fact that we're just built different.
@Какой-то Человек Not standard wrestling, arm wrestling, where you just push at eachother's hands to try and make theirs touch the ground first.
Bone density differences between men and women are real.
Breaking arms is a well known risk in arm wrestling. Far from uncommon.
@@fang4223
I think the person you replied to understand that - you misunderstood their comment. It's arm wrestling they are talking about. (I see how their comment could be easily misunderstood, though.)
@@Elora445 Mmm. Fair enough. I'm just not much of an arm wrestling aficionado myself. as far as I can tell it's just pushing.
Either way I feel my point stands. She was, by all rights, the more well built and more well suited to cause damage, let alone win.
I am a true egalitarian, and here are some rules that the society must tell everyone:
1. If you can't take it, don't dash it.
2. Don't cry if you started
3. Admit your mistakes
4. Violence is the last resort
5. Do not blame others for your bad choices
And yes, if a woman is violent, the response should be equal in nature. This "never hit a woman" does not work and leads to escalation from the aggressive woman as she knows she can do whatever she wants and no harm goes her way.
As she becomes more and more aggressive and violent, emotionally, verbally and physically, you as a man will become more and more challenged to restrain yourself. This is a type of bullying that will lead to great physical and mental problems for the men.
If you act fast, decisive and quick, way before the aggressive bullying starts, the escalation will stop at once.
On short, a good slap or if you feel generous a solid push, will stop the issue before it degenerates and helps the aggressor understand she cannot cross the line without repercussion.
Say what you want, but if a woman becomes physically aggressive and you do not fight back, you will be bullied to hell and back for ever.
I agree that using full force will destroy her, so restrain the force and don't use fists, but do act before you become a victim of abuse.
EDIT:
Many white knights are trying to deflect to all kinds of abuse and aggressions, including weapon assaults and deadly force.
They try to "muddy the waters" in an attempt to deflect from the JUST and RIGHT way to respond to ANY aggression and bullying! To FIGHT BACK!
I stated that you should not let the situation develop and act fast and restrained, using a simple slap or a push. This is the level of restraint that men must have when facing a violent and aggressive woman that HIT FIRST.
The idea that you should FLEE from bullying is TOXIC and leads to further escalation. There are situations where you cannot flee, for example if you're stuck in public transport where you cannot just "go away" from the violent, aggressive, bullying woman!
And as we all know, the violent aggressor will never ever be satisfied with a simple punch. If the victim shows weakness the bully will push for more, punching repeatedly seeking to inflict more as much pain and humiliation as possible onto the victim.
The passive resistance as well as fleeing leads to EXCALATION! This is well documented on all bullying situations! If you cannot instantly report to some kind of authority to deal with the violent bully, you must DEFEND YOURSELF!
And while the disgusting white knights are always siding with the violent women, thinking these individuals are somehow right, the reality is that violent women are far more prevalent in the society and their crimes often remain unpunished or brushed aside.
Also, the "law will punish you" argument is a lie! Self defense is not an "option"! Self defense is a RIGHT!
If your country does not have this as a legal right, then your country is insane and you live in a tyranny of bullying and violence where you can always be abused to no end and you cannot respond and defend yourself, your property or your family.
In reality, except some very few demented areas from California or UK and maybe some cities from Europe (not really, I live in EU, if you're slapped, you can legally punch back), the entire planet considers a RIGHT to DEFEND YOURSELF against VIOLENCE AND ABUSE!
If your country discriminates based on GENDER then your country is clearly a ill one and it needs to understand the concept of "gender equality" and what that really means in real life, not just as a label.
On short, slapping a violent aggressive bully, of any gender, that attacked first, is 110% legal and the right thing to do since will stop further escalation and will send a signal to the bully that attacking you leads to unwanted consequences.
All the rest of "arguments" are nothing but deflections and "muddying the waters" from deluded white knights that don't get the concept of GENDER EQUALITY!
Either fight back or be bullied is false dichotomy 101, and society does tell this to everyone. If a woman is violent, your response should be leaving. Whether the situation, relationship or literally the physical location, you are legally responsible to try to escape _before_ using any amount of force at all. 'I didn't start it' is not a valid court defense to an assault charge.
Agreed. Very fair. Don't let people bully others, but you don't have to destroy them in the process either lol.
If your society is functioning properly men should never have to worry about this. People would just know this stuff. But because western societies are functionally full retard at this point, basic stuff like women knowing they can't just fight men is lost.
Egalitarian to what end though? Me personally, I understand that people inherently are all different. Obviously more alike than different overall, but there's enough difference that no matter what circumstance we tend tocreate hierarchies. Some people are smarter so they control tech and academia. Some people are more beautiful and control sex and breeding. Or even simpler, some people are stronger and destroy weaker people. I'm not necessarily attaching morality to hierarchy, but I am explaining its human nature to seek the best quality of people to lead our tribe, nation, society, etc. I myself am not an egalitarian. I understand that I have a role as the leader of my household and that means providing comfort and security to my family. My wife's role is to manage the upkeep and accommodations for those living in the house. We're different and therefore necessitate unique roles to manage a home and family. Society is no different.
@@mrmcawesome9746 i guess that depends on local laws. Plenty of countries or states do not oblige you to leave before acting in self defense
This. This is what I LOVE. Good. Honest. Civil discussion. Two people who like and admire each other, and agree on many things, yet can still disagree. And discuss those disagreements.
on a horse reduces disparity too depending on who has a better horse
Without having watched the Video I think the biggest qualm will be over absolute statements like "never" or "always"
Pretty much.
"How dare you examine 99,7% of all data and draw the conclusion that the 0,3% are negligible! If we make countless contrivances and spend excessive resources, we could almost even the scales! Never mind that the other side would benefit far greater from the same volume of resources."
@@wrongthinker843 kinda. There have been duelists who were female and some military leaders who were female.
I personally would just divide this into two categories: duels and group fights.
Duels can be won by personal tactics while group fights or wars are often dependent on a multitude of factors women are majorly disadvantaged in. While in duels they would just be pretty disadvantaged.
The absolute statements are however professionally dishonest, as Paul Harrell would say
outliers exist, but we don't make statements based on them. "smoking causes lung cancer" doesn't mean all smokers will get lung cancer.
@@uberneanderthal Ironically, I'm pretty sure most smokers don't end up with lung cancer. It's just that the risk is significant.
@@wrongthinker843 it's rather that most (almost all) incidences of lung cancer are smokers, not that most smokers get lung cancer.
We know for a fact that women did fight at least in the ancient period but this was a very unique and desperate situation. We have reports of Marius’s battle with the Cimbri where the women of that tribe picked up weapons and fought. However, it’s worth noting that this wasn’t a raid or a war. This was a full blown migration into lands allied with Rome. They either fought and defeated the Romans or they died or were enslaved. The Cimbri were all but annihilated by the Romans.
It wasn't that women were terrible at fighting, it was that to maintain population levels, every single woman had to have 3 children and to have population growth, every single woman needed to have 5 children. You start losing women in battle and the number of children each women needs to produce increases in order to maintain competitive population growth. When the "man" of the house is away to fight in a war, it would make logical sense to have the women capable of defending the homestead in their absence, rather then just arbitrarily rely on the male underaged children to fight as letting the children die kind of defeats the whole purpose of trying to keep the women alive.
@@Edax_Royeaux You are wrong about the population growth aspect. For most of history the population didn't really grow and population growth was not something society valued (see Thomas Maltus's essays on the evils of population growth as an example). However, you are correct about needing to leave someone capable at the homestead however it wasn't to defend it perse but rather to work the farmland to make sure that whether or not the man came home from war there would be food for the family to survive the winter. Because for the bulk of human history 90% of the adult population used their daily labour to farm, fish, hunt, gather or prepare/preserve food just so that the family had sufficient calories to survive. It's really only been ~150 years where the majority of the population could do work other than farming.
@@agilemind6241 How exactly do you explain the Han Dynasty in 2AD reaching a population of 57 million if there was no population growth?
@@agilemind6241 The ancients like to boost the numbers of those they said to have conquered. A simple map check on rivers and available farmland and you can come up with more realistic population numbers. Other than that ..
Caeser claimed that Gaul/France had a population of about 4 million from the battlefield kill count and the population enslaved and taxed.
After the Black Death hit England tax records stated about 4million people were left alive in England not counting Scotland.
Current modern greater London city county area has close to 4million people living and working there.
So that is a way to look at population growth in the pass 2,000 years.
Also of note I forgot which century in Chinese history, a small community of seven families had to provide to the state a single young man for military service and supply them with a year's worth of food.
World population growth curves are easily available, so I don't know why you guys are citing random figures for population in one location at one point in time. Comparing England after Black Death to "Gaul" in the time of Caesar is apples to oranges. And even assuming they are comparable would indicate maybe a 30% population increase over 1000 years - a rate of increase that is imperceptible within a single human lifespan thus supporting my argument that hey did not think about population increase rate in historic times. Population growth has only been noticable with human lifespans since roughly the times of Columbus
Hi Shad, Nicely nuanced. You might want to take a look at the "Stair Fight" sequence in "Atomic Blonde" The fight choreographers agreed that that in hand-to-hand combat Charlize Theron's character would need to hit three times for every one blow landed by the male.
what you say is very very true. I remember when I was in High School my girl classmate slap me in the face and she was just laughing as though it never hurt. Good thing we boys are raised to restrain ourselves against this kinds of abuses. because we know what would happen if we answer back in kind to little girls.
It's interesting to look back at the books I read as a kid like Tamora Pierce's books. She has two series where the female character trains to become a knight, and one girl was 5'2" when she finished growing. On the one hand, these characters had to go above and beyond their peers in effort to keep up and eventually do well. So the author emphasized specialized training and conviction. On the other hand, that 5'2" became a master swordswoman, lol. She would towards the end win against grown men. The other girl was 5'10" and had a heftier body type, and she mostly specialized in the glaive and tilting before growing into a strategist, commander role. Great books growing up, but still very much more escapist than grounded. As an adult, I value strategy more, so I like the limits of being semi-realistic to force the characters to develop differently.
What's the one where she becomes a strategist/commander called?
@@Lukasaske Protector of the Small series. The books are First Test, Page, Squire, and Lady Knight.
I mean Alanna was literally gods touched, and was implied to have as much magic as her twin bro who raised a man from the dead, I'm guessing that helped a hell of a lot. And Kellory used plate armor and a pole arm and a massive fucking horse, that would absolutely let her win against anyone without the same elite training and equipment and potentially against them too.
Well, Alanna learned street fighting from George and hand to hand from Liam Ironarm, she can wield in both hands, she has significant magical power, and she works her ass off. She'd be outmatched by any fighter of greater size and equal skill, but she has no equal in skill.
Sounds like a painfully boring power fantasy.
Haven’t seen it all yet, but here is my like and comment just for the video topic in general. Here’s to hoping Andrew officially responds; I think the dialogue between you two would be awesome!
When I used to fence the biggest advantage I tended to have was height and reach, especially against female oponents. That being said if I faced a woman like Gwendoline Christie that advantage would disapear.
oh. fence as in fencing. not as in buying and selling stolen goods. yes.
same, I've fenced plenty of girls, and the difference in height, reach, and strength was clear. The thing is, they knew that and practiced their speed, accuracy, and reflexes. They can be very effective if they focus on their strongpoints instead of trying to match ours. Of course, fencing isn't quite the same as actual combat: if we tried to fight without rules I'd dominate
Anecdotally, during urban ops training when I was in the Army, women were far less aggressive and "died" far more often. They fatigued quicker, and they were less quick in general. Some of these females did quite well on the rifle qualification course, but strength is an essential component in speed as well. While the firearm is ultimately the great equilizer, there are still disparities.
not to mention that the army has lower the standards for women way too much therefor producing less trained soldiers
I was gonna right a comment about this but you put it better than I could.
While being a woman that knows how to fight and shoot absolutely matters, I find that it mostly helps by teaching you how to control yourself to stay calm (and therefore make an agressor read your body language and choose to bother someone else that seems less troublesome), and think in ways to escape, startle or confuse your opponent, because once you panic or a guy is as prepared as you, there’s just no way.
Thank you for going into the implied necessities of protracted combat. I used to say “I could teach a monkey to shoot a 240 if I needed to.” There’s sooo much much that goes into combat ops though and people just don’t get it.
Is it good or bad to be aggressive in urban ops?
I was taught to never hit a lady and while I suffered at the hands of a woman I never once hit her back.
In retrospect, she wasn't a lady.
Now, I don't care who you are, bring violence to my door and I will put you down and keep putting you down until you stop. Male, female, otherwise... It matters not to me. My experiences have shaped who I have become. I'm proud to have managed to walk away from the abuse, but I'll never take it again.
What do you mean otherwise? Those are the choices.
And it’s not even a choice.
Its noble to not support violence/abuse.
@@mhuh I mean, I don't care how someone chooses to identify. Call yourself a tree person for all I care. It's the actions I judge.
Well... My momma taught me to never hit a lady, but she also taught me that if a woman ever is willing to hurt me then she is no lady and I am allowed to defend myself against anyone regardless of gender.
I'm guessing, as someone who has watched neither videos yet:
Andrew: Women can never win sword fights
Shad: Women can win sword fights, but extremely rarely
Men obviously have the physical advantage in almost any circumstance, but even I can tell it's not never.
Both fail to realise the witcher is a FANTASY...its not a Documentary ffs lol. Remember when Bruce willis was riding a fighter jet in Die hard 4? These film's are supposed to be realistic
Sort of, yeah.
Andrews basic take is that “average male” vs “average female” will always result in the male winning.
And “trained male” vs “trained female” will always result in the male winning.
And “average male” vs “trained female” will usually result in the male winning, but sometimes the female will win.
Of course those are all generalizations, and Andrew admits that, but the exceptions to those general “rules” often involve lazy writing in fiction, and really convenient setups in real life
@@jonathanandrade2550 Complaining about his take is like complaining that "you will always lose to a bear in a fight".
I mean, you might win, somehow. But you shouldn't be trying.
@@brianmason8059 It Fantasy so why are people not flying? Gravity is only a physical thing it doesn't need to exist in Fantasy.
No, both are perfectly aware its Fantasy.
Your realise Shad is a Fantasy author right?
While the Witcher is Fantasy in the manner that it includes supernatural beings - however it is a grounded Fantasy where historical reality and physics are maintained as remembering the limits of reality prevents the suspension of disbelief being pushed to breaking point.
@@jonathanandrade2550 Yeah pretty much what I guessed. Someone made a comment in Andrew's video saying something like "it takes an excellent woman to beat an exceptional man, but an exceptional man can beat every woman". I think that holds true in reality like in most cases.
TBH I don't care if women are badass and can beat men in fiction.
What I don't like and I think most unwoke people would agree, is most of them are "badass" + horrible personality + The Message. I don't think most people would've minded being a bit woke if not for the horrible personality at least...
Only semi-related, but I've been diving into the history of the Scythians and I've found it fascinating in many ways. It theorized that they're the origin points of both the centaur and Amazon. They've also found quite a few graves of women warriors complete with the associated tattoos that were bestowed on warriors in their culture. It actually makes a lot of sense to me, because the weaponry and style of horse nomad warrior cultures plays to some of the strengths that women have, and force added onto a spear tip generated by a horse at full gallop could compensate for any strength disadvantage the woman may have, no pun intended. What I'm getting at is that it really depends on culture and fighting style. Contrast to infantry based warrior cultures like the shield wall that Shad mentioned, where women are put at a disadvantage. I just it fascinating how these variables could change the argument.
Yep. The Scythians and the Tartars were, in a phrase, fucking badass.
This plays into how socialization and culture would affect things as well, I think. Women in modern times are socialized to think that building and maintaining muscle is "unfeminine" or ugly (though to a lesser extent now-a-days depending on location) and they should allow the men around them to do anything that requires strength, denying them of a very easy way to build and maintain physical fitness. I wonder how much narrower the disparity would be if this was not the case. I know if we look at places like the US in a rural vs urban context you're more likely to run into women used to hard labor and thus at a higher level of strength than national average.
Genetics also plays a role in this, considering that there are many genes that can affect an individual's ability to build and maintain muscle, including people who are genetically female that naturally produce more testosterone or are 'double muscled', etc. It really is a complicated, nuanced subject that is marred by far too much generalization.
@@thealrightygina5725 no it stems from evolution. Men were more capable of it so they left those things as man’s business and didn’t bother and the reverse happened with caretaking and social awareness. Women are better at it so leave it to them. Then both these traits quickly became associated as defining traits of men or women
@@zzodysseuszz What are you basing this on? Archeological evidence shows that the farther back in time you go, the more muscular both sexes are. Ancient women had the muscles of Olympic athletes. Plus, both sexes occupied the caretaker role during prehistory; it's actually an incredibly modern thing for men to contribute so little to child rearing (from a western perspective). Humans actually have precious little sexual dimorphism...this is one reason why one sex can be so easily confused with the other with nothing more than a change of clothes.
I know they may not necessarily be within your interests, but this is one reason firearms are so fascinating. They level the playing field so much that it becomes a contest of training and sometimes luck rather than physicality (though yes, physical fitness comes into play with guns). It's a similar concept to crossbows vs bows, but even more magnified.
unfortunately that is still not true... Even in target shooting competitions men outrank the women by a considerable amount. In war women die at a much higher rate than men...
No matter how you slice it men are made for this stuff, and women are not...
@@chrismcaulay7805 When I was interested in that question, I got really mixed up answers (from different sources, obviously). Where did you get your info?
I was pleasantly surprised how practically you approached this. I appreciate your kindness and that you didn’t belittle women or girls dreams to be the hero. This is a very interesting conversation and why I enjoy your content. I use your channel as a resource for my own fantasy novel worldbuilding. Cheers Shad!
I feel alot of men feel the same as shad we just don't all express it as well as him lol once all this woke stuff is long gone and we go back to a merit based society I would love to see a movie where the female lead is weaker than men but fights like Jacky Chan to compensate like using the environment around her and tactics to outsmart all opponents not just men
@@volkerxd8821 ...when did humanity EVER had merit based society? XD
@@berilsevvalbekret772 For most of its existence.
@@wrongthinker843 not entirely accurate the ancient Egyptian Pharaohs loved nepotism and keeping it all in the family only recently has humanity been more merit based when you think about it how many empires was it simply down to blood for some rulers
@@wrongthinker843 ahahahah what a naïve way of thinking merits? Lmao a meritocracy never existed in this world
We've come to a time when modern feminist should start respecting women more.
Hey Shad, do you think if the Daily Wire didn't do their research here, they didn't do their research with any of the other things they say? because i struggle to find a single time they were ever correct other than citing literal holy books for sources.
I really appreciate how you didn’t say like and subscribe at the end like every other CZcamsr. Comes off as much more genuine
without getting into the "female warrior" thing - I am a straight female, I am built pretty solid, not a skinny tiny thing. I have always been drawn to doing boy stuff, and later on in life I became a firefighter, police officer and medic. It was not easy, because these jobs are tailored for men. I made up for the lack of strength vs. a man's by adaptation, speed and agility. I trained in martial arts for the police job - and NO as a female you cannot muscle down a man, you need technique. Even going to the gym every day and doing weight training will not get you equal to a good-sized man's strength. On the shooting range I was always in the top 5 - I think it was because of the lack of ego. Yes I have an ego, but its not man-size and never gets in the way of dealing with tough situations. As for sword fighting - first off, a regular sword made for a man is quite heavy. Once you build a sword for a woman, you lose the heft and the weight, so she would have to make up with speed. Do I believe there were "warrior women"? Absolutely - but I think you have to be 110% in training and ability to be able to go into hand-to-hand combat and survive. And there were not that many women warriors, as romantics want to believe. The viking graves that hold female skeletons with weaponry - it's a status symbol. They even placed swords, shields and lances into children's graves. Sorry to bust the bubble
Lol
THICC
Thank you for your input. I always encourage women to learn to use and carry a gun, to run away, and to cheat. There is no such thing as a fair fight. God made man, Colt made them equal.
Not to disagree or be critical but "jobs tailored to men" in my opinion are just much easier for the average man because of the physical nature of these jobs. Now, compare a 38 yr old out of shape guy like me to a woman almost close to your caliber, training etc., I'm toast lol
No, the Viking swords were net status symbols. Some were but other show skeletons with the standard wear and tear of a fighter. It's also how we know that the Scythian warrior women were warriors, and not just high ranking women, the specific injuries and specific wear and tear that occurs from consistent fighting.
I dunno, I think that criticism against female action heroes sometimes goes too far. Like saying that Wonder Woman and Starfire are unrealistic… Yes…? That’s the point. I don’t see their super strength as a problem, and they’re extremely feminine characters. Batgirl is without superpowers, but she’s in the same genre. No she can’t beat Bane, and she’s weaker than the male members of the Batfamily, but she’s still much more capable than a “realistic” woman would be. The willing suspension of disbelief matters, and should correspond to the genre. (Spy thriller? Historical drama? Has to be realistic. Superhero? Not so much.)
I don't think anyone claimed that super heroes ought to be realistic.
The criticism concerning wonder woman and her being unrealistic is most commonly in regards to her figure and "unfair/unrealistic standards of beauty"
That is also something you see in fantasy, and I don’t see a problem there
I think that the defining line as you said, fantasy vs reality based.
For instance the 355 where 125 women toss grown men in their universe are trained fighters like salad. Versus Salt with Angelina Jolie, where a 125 pound woman hits men with guns and with running starts, but takes one punch and goes flying.
I think there needs to be a distinction between "action hero" and "super hero".
An action hero represents the peak of skill, performance and strength that a very dedicated individual might be capable of under certain circumstances.
A super hero is by definition a character that goes beyond what any human is capable of in some way or another.
Mulan in the animated Disney movie is an action hero. Mulan in the life-action remake is a super hero.
Excellent assessment! Binging your content after your recent appearances on FNT. Awesome to find out your a Klavan fan. Have you reviewed any of his books? Another kingdom seems appropriate for your channel
I'm..... gonna need a chart to keep this straight. Thanks for the rundown!
I look forward to seeing how the upcoming movie THE WOMAN KING measures up.
As an aspiring looking to write some believable and interesting warrior women into his works, this is exactly what I need right now!
I love your analysis and your talking points!
I saw this short and it corrisponds so well with your talking points.
czcams.com/users/shortsitDyfK6PTDM
Feminism should not be about being a pig like bad behaved men, but about sherishing a man, who is good and treats her right.
I don't understand how some women always fall for the same kind of bullshit men.
Curs get bitches, you could say.
This reminds me of the martial arts dilemma. If you try to apply in real combat what you have been practising in a dojo on weekends you might get really surprised with the outcome
Friggin love Shad. Did fencing for years, we didn’t have enough guys and I was considered the most aggressive senior so the coach made me the boys team captain. Regardless of being able to beat all of them, when up against a guy my level, he’d simply play the stamina game and even if I won, the very next bout I’d get my butt kicked 🤷♀️. But gimme a guy who’d just run into the foil every time because he’s too aggressive, and it’s a win. That same guy could probably KO me with one punch though. Just thought I’d add to the sporting examples and nuances, I have fun with this.