this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2023
335 points (95.9% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
3513 readers
43 users here now
Rules:
- Posts must abide by lemmy.world terms and conditions
- No spam or soliciting for money.
- No racism or other bigotry allowed.
- Obviously nothing illegal.
If you see these please report them.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It made sense to spare women fighting when weapons were strength based and you cared about population growth.
Now everywhere's overpopulated and an 3 year old can be given the means to kill someone.
The real killer is mass and bone density. When societies get large enough to make serious war upon each other, you end up with thousands-large shoving matches with blades and shields, and in those scenarios an extra 20 lbs and fewer broken bones per soldier adds up.
*was
I mean, 'is' in the sense that there's still a difference in mass and bone density between the sexes; if we went back to mass shoving matches now that issue would remain for mass participation of women in warfare. 'Was' in the sense that it's less relevant in warfare today as it's actually waged, ie with guns.
From now on, all international conflicts shall be resolved in the mosh pit.