Beowulf the Talky

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

fortunately for us few do, and those that do are usually younger of middle sisters tired of being beaten up by their brawling brothers...

I have noticed that women who do fight are scarier in general, because they do things that guys wouldnt normally do, like go for the eyes.

Going back to the topic of 13th Warrior I liked that there were few women in it, because the beowulf legened has few women in it. The one prominant woman is half monster half woman, Grendels mother. After all the story really is one of Warriors and leadership, and not of romance. For romance you have to wait a few more centuries untill french troubadors invent it.

Yes Beowulfs men are manly vikings, but I think that by focusing on that as opposed to relationships was a good choice. I think your just not getting enough red meat and mead in your diet Fell, watch it again while eating a side of beef with a mug full of mead.

[Skar]

No doubt.  I agree that a woman who maximised her potential as a fighter could probably defeat most mall-dwelling males.  Stories like "King Arthur," and "13th Warrior" or "G.I. Jane" for that matter, are not about mall-dwelling males and inserting "Warrior Princesses" is PC silliness.

And, frankly, if you define "fighter" as someone who makes his living fighting, whether it be a boxer, or a run-of-the-mill marine infantry-man it doesn't matter how much the woman trains and pushes, she's not going to measure up.
Now, I'm not saying a woman who has trained and pushed would be useless on the battlefield.  There are a thousand things a "warrior princess" could do to make herself useful on a battlefield.  Short range archery, dashing and dodging along stabbing enemy warriors who are otherwise engaged in the kidneys or hamstringing them, etc...  But the cold reality is that if she comes face to face with a male warrior she's going to get her skull caved in and if a male warrior sees what she's doing and decides to make her stop he's going to catch her and kill her in short order.

And the other aspect of that is that as she's dashing around trying to make herself useful all the males on her side are going to be distracted with trying to keep her safe and be less-effective themselves.  And it doesn't matter how rabidly feminist she is at insisting that they treat her just like a man.  It's not going to happen, humans aren't wired that way.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

mmm... but Kiara Knightly Scar,...

[Lieutenant Kije]

I am hesitant to say that men are inherently more skilled fighters...skill in fighting is learned, and perhaps you could say that men have more experience fighting than women.  

Strength also factors in, and most men are stronger than women.  I think intelligence pays as much of a role as strength, and I wouldn't say that men are generally more intelligent than women.  Confidence also plays a part.  In this, I think most men are more confident in their fighting abilities than are women.  That's in our society.

Skill being equal, I think a confident, intelligent woman would be a match for a strong stupid man.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Yeah, Skar, I don't agree with what you're saying here. Your premise is that because men are stronger on the average then women they're automatically better fighters.

when I studied martial arts, I asked once how best to block a powerful attack. My instructor said "don't be there." IE, when strength is brought to bear, sometimes usually  your best option is not to respond directly with opposing force but just to move out of the way. Speed and coordination are at least as much a factor as strength and last I checked women aren't significantly behind men in that. Plus there's talent and skill. Even among trained fighters, the woman may have more talent and skill that could more than make up for a simple strength difference.

Sorry, i don't buy your argument.

[Skar]

Kije-

I find that to be a reasonable assertion.

Notice that it rules out nearly all of the situations where we find women fighting with/alongside men in fiction. (I can't think of any examples where it doesn't right now but surely there are some)

And the PC woman warrior gag has been done so many times that I greet any situation involving a "woman warrior" with deep suspicion.

What I would like to see is a film that treats the subject reasonably.  

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

now, i'll concur that it's over used, and displayed wrong. A woman without some sort of supernatural or enhanced strength trying to block a mighty sword/club/axe blow from someone obviously bigger and much stronger than her should be knocked to the ground, and possibly, like in the RotK, have her bones broken by it. Because that woman doesn't know how to fight, and she'll lose because of it.

[Skar]

SE-

That's not my premise. I never said it was because men were stronger.  It's a whole slew of factors, including that one.

I was serious when I made that challenge to the women in my literature class and I'm serious now.  Still no takers.

Throw a woman into a battle, where most of the men can reasonably be expected to have some idea of what they are doing and she's going to die as soon as someone bothers to take care of the matter.  Throw a woman champion up against a man champion and she's going to die.

There were plenty of women in different roles in the military while I was overseas and the principle I'm describing held true, both in hand-to-hand combat (theoretically) and general ability to perform on long, strenuous combat missions.

As for your martial arts axiom I agree with the principle you sited.  On a battlefield, however, it doesn't work.  Fade away and you've let the guy skewer your buddy.

However, I want to make clear, as I tried to in my previous post, that I am not saying a trained woman would be useless... Oh, just read the applicable post.  My description of what a woman could do to make herself useful on a battlefield sounds an awful lot like a woman taking advantage of things other than strength, like you described.

[Skar]

mmm... but Kiara Knightly Scar,...

I can't stand that woman's face.  I know it's just me but there's something about her upper lip...it looks like shes flexing it all the time, like she thinks that if she flexes her upper lip she'll look more serious or something...that alternately makes me want to punch her in the mouth and laugh derisively.

The rest of her face is fine.  But that lip...

And her acting stinks.  A confused pretty girl pretending to do things just doesn't work in very many situations.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

ok, i misread a post about strength. Your "challenge," however, is severely flawed. How many women at BYU have had the sort of training that would allow them to remotely challenge even a woman of their own build who has been through the training you have? You would also be able to beat the males, thus not proving anything about the innately superior fighting ability of men over women.

Note that also most of those movies don't involve women fighting in formation either. Most of the warrior princess stories, with few exceptions, that I know of involve Conan-esque protagonists: Xena, Red Sonja, etc. I think also that your "protect the woman" example is culturally based, and it's easy to imagine many situations where that cultural baggage would not significantly factor.

In short, it's not hard at all for me to realistically imagine a woman who can beat most men she meets in a sword fight.

[Skar]

Real life experience in combat zones contradicts your opinion.

I too can imagine a woman who could beat most men she meets in a swordfight.  I've neither met one nor even heard of one who even comes close in real life.  There are more factors at play than the list we've come up with.

You're right about the challenge thing, it's mostly facetious in this setting.  The discussion in the class stemmed primarily from a discussion on women in the military (a whole 'nother can of worms I have no wish to open here)  and there were women in the class who were claiming they could do anything a man could do. I had only very recently joined the National Guard, no training to speak of, so the challenge was apropos.  Incidentally, I have had almost no training in hand-to-hand fighting.  The military does not like to spend money on that kind of thing for intelligence geeks, even when said intelligence geeks participate in combat missions alongside green berets.

As for the cultural baggage I think it's deeper than culture.  The Israelis tried it in their military, women infantry units.  They finally had to stop because of the effect I alluded to.

However, I don't see anyway to prove whether its cultural or not.  I think it's hard-wired.  You think it's cultural.  Not really an issue.

But back to the strength issue.  The advantages conferred by strength, even the strength difference between an ordinary man and an ordinary woman, are far more than just the ability to hit hard.  

And no one mentioned endurance, another attribute where women are significantly weaker than men.  If you've ever wrestled or participated in a full-speed Martial arts bout you know how big a part endurance plays.

P.S.
I reread and I discover something.  I don't have an objection to a woman being presented as a great individual warrior.  What I have an objection to is no one taking the time to explain why that particular woman went to the trouble to develop herself in that way.  And said woman warrior winning her fights with male warriors who have gone to at least as much trouble as she without being smarter, faster, more confident, and more talented.

[EUOL]

Thirteenth Warrior did perfectly what it was trying to do, which is--in my estimation--a fine way to measure the worth of a film.  It did worldbuilding and society in a way that few action movies even attempt.  So, I'm going to agree with Skar and say it didn't, in my opinion, need any sort of improvement.

That doesn't mean, however, that a true-to-text working of Beowulf couldn't be extremely different from 13th Warrior and still be very good.  As has been mentioned, the movies would be very different, including such things as supernatural elements.

I actually think the framework is there.  Despite Beowulf's general lack of action (if you actually look at it closely, most of it is filled with people talking about great deeds) it could make a very interesting story.  

And as for women warriors...well, the average woman placed against the average man would lose.  Add equal amounts of training, skill, or talent to either one, and the woman will always lose.

However, there are other factors as well.  Put an African man against a European man in a similar contest, and the European will usually lose as well.  Place a taller man against a shorter man, and the tall man wins (because of reach.)  

Warriors have to compensate for their shortcomings, and find places in the fighting where they can capitalize on strengths.  For women, this probably isn't--as Skar has mentioned--going to be on the front lines.

[Skar]

However, there are other factors as well.  Put an African man against a European man in a similar contest, and the European will usually lose as well.  Place a taller man against a shorter man, and the tall man wins (because of reach.)

I'll go with you on the taller shorter bit but...

Which Europeans are you talking about here?  The Vikings who still rule the world (see some other thread I remember)?  The Celts who stopped the Romans cold? The Germans who eventually conquered Rome and, in modern times nearly ruled the world twice?  

Upon what do you base your conclusion?

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I don't think there's really a disagreement then, aside from the culture/biology thing, which I don't think we can reach a rational conclusion with.

I don't have a problem with extremely talented individuals fighting as an individual. I always have a little bit of a start though when I read about them mixing with men in armies. Maybe that's because I'm not used to htem in real life, maybe it's because I subconsciously don't believe that would work. *shrug*

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Psychology is part of it, there is a psychological advantage inherent in height and size. Once upon a time size mattered more than it did now in combat as well, but for different reasons than you might think. Usually the taller, stronger warriors were the nobility, they could afford to eat which allowed them to grow stronger and more powerful, they also were able to have enough leisure to seriously train for warfare. Combat was almost wholely muscle driven, bows, swords axes all take strength to wield. The English longbow had something like a 50-60 pound pull. Armor while actually fairly light can be heavy if worn in combat... just ask Skar how light his "light" kevlar felt like after an hour.
To some extent modern warfare has become easier and harder to fight. Without a combat pack and full load our troops are much lighter, and a bullet kills a small or big foe with ease. A big element of combat though involves logistics, there are just some things that a soldier needs, water, food, ammunition, protection and a weapon. The modern infantryman carries 80-120 pounds of gear depending on their mission. Most women cannot do that.

Some can.

On a one on one fight, if the man or woman were equally sized and with melee weapons, then the person with the most training will probably win.