Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Do I Hate Women?" video.

In middle age your would have been considered an hunting bow, not a warbow. The draw of warbows was at least double than that (and came up to 180lbs and more). Same for middle-age China. MIlitary archers back then had a completely different body complexion (due to the training in drawing very stiff bows) than regular soldiers. It had been reported that they looked like hunchbacks.
3
I think you should differentiate between warriors and military leaders. Zenobia, Boudicca, Joan of Arc, and in all likelyhood Artemisia didn't personally fight (Joan of Arc stayed in first line, but she didn't really fight). They were leaders (even commanding a ship is not personally fighting). And it's obvious that a female strategist can be as effective as a male (or as incompetent, and that's Boudicca's case). Matilda of Tuscany is an example of an higly successful female military leader that sometimes wore the armor and fought alongside his men, but even she didn't make an habit of it.
2
The job Metatron is referring is acutally fighting (the job you do with sword, spear, shield ecc...) not commanding an army. Armies are not made of generals. Generals are exceptions in itself. A person that stand in the first line and does not know anything about strategy IS actually a warrior, and can be very good at it. Those women were actually military leaders. It's rather strange you considering a person that command, but doesn't fight a warrior, and a person that fight, but doesn't command, a non-warrior. Keeping the logic further, the person that command the generals (IE the Emperor) is the best warrior of them all, and he is not even required to leave his palace to be it.
2
"If a woman does push ups, they will gain roughly the same as a man on average" Err... no. A woman will gain less lean mass for the same workload. Training for troops is a resource. It's not free, it has a cost. If you need more training for female soldiers to reach the same levels, then you are using the resource "training" inefficiently.
2
The percentage of US population in active military duty is only 0.3%. A ridiculous rate compared to almost all the historical civilizations. Metatron clearly excluded modern day soldiers. Automatic weapons and trucks obviously changed the battlefield a little in respect to the times of the sword and shield. Infact, in the US Army the fitness goals are lower for female soldiers.
2
The speed with which the body gain lean mass in response to training is due to inbuilt phisical differences. To the testosterone production to be more precise. For the same body mass, the average woman has about 50% less lean mass than a men. The rate changes for athletes, but never drop below 30%. To this you have to add the fact that men have, on average, more body mass too. Historically, the problem was not will, expectations or inclination, but the ability to lift the shield after a pair of hours of battle. Infact there are many categories of people that usually were not employed in battle due to physical considerations. Women were one of them.
1
The enemy doesn't care the number of push ups you can do. In historical warfare you have to lift a shield for hours, or draw a warbow, and there were no lighter shields for women, or lighter pull warbows, because their weight was already the minimum required for them to be effective. War was a physical thing back then, much more than now. It had nothing to do whit few minutes of sparring, and to have bigger muscles and more stamina was a HUGE advantage. Women, apart few exceptions, weren't taken to the battlefield for the same reasons children and old people didn't, because IRL, in a melee, a 50kg woman doesn't stand a chance vs a 70kg man unles she trained MUCH more, but, "training for troops is a resource. It's not free, it has a cost. If you need more training for female soldiers to reach the same levels of male ones, then you are using the resource "training" inefficiently."
1
Even with the same height men usually weights more, and, even with the same body mass, they have an advantage between 30% ahd 50% in lean mass (that means muscles, that means that a 50kg man, that would have hardly been considered a fearsome warrior on an ancient battlefield, still has from 30% to 50% more muscles than a 50 kg woman) and those advantges sums up. However almost any army that had a possibility on the matter estabilished a minimum height and fitness standards. IE you had to be at least 1.65m high to join the Legion. That excluded many potential exceptional warriors? Yes, but training is a scarce resource, and it's inefficient to vaste it on the weaklings to search for the exceptions. P.S. I get the feeling that you have little personal experience with history and biology. I think you'll find that almost every historical army decided that to fight on the battlefield was a demanding job, and women were not fit for it. P.P.S. To keep the arms high while holding a weight is one of the most demanding physical tasks. Boxers have problems in keeping their guard high for 12 rounds of 3 minutes each. Battles are not fought in rounds.
1
You met where? Playing reenactions is not like doing the real thing.
1
@silver4831 I'm not forgetting. Here we were talking about HISTORICAL battlefields. Maybe you should have guessed reading about shields and warhammers, or the expression "War was a physical thing back then". Simply female soldiers, like any soldier, NOW are carried on the battlefield on truck and their job is to pull a trigger. Physical requirements to be an effective soldier had been changed by technology. NOW in many conflicts there are children soldiers too. They are cheap. That's because automatic firearms changed the conditions on the battlefield. IN THE PAST, to use children on a battlefield would have been considered ridiculous BEFORE being considered cruel. Because a dozen of children would not have been a threat for a single men. As for training, I already answered (you are being willfully ignorant about this?) "War was a physical thing back then, much more than now. It had nothing to do whit few minutes of sparring, and to have bigger muscles and more stamina was a HUGE advantage. Women, apart few exceptions, weren't taken to the battlefield for the same reasons children and old people didn't, because IRL, in a melee, a 50kg woman doesn't stand a chance vs a 70kg man unless she trained MUCH more, but training for troops is a resource. It's not free, it has a cost. If you need more training for female soldiers to reach the same levels of male ones, then you are using the resource "training" inefficiently. Almost any army that had a possibility on the matter estabilished minimum height and fitness standards. IE you had to be at least 1.65m high to join the Legion. That excluded many potential exceptional warriors? Yes, but training is a scarce resource, and it's inefficient to vaste it on the weaklings to search for the exceptions."
1