| sapphi_snake said: @pizzahut451: Oh, oh but in Africa they send women and children to war and look how well they managed to defend themselfes against European colonists. if they had less women and children in their army, maybe they wouldnt be forced to salvery. Do you enjoy purposely lying? Old African tribes didn't send kids to war, that is going on in Africa now. Also, most of them did not have female warriors, only some tribes were like that. And European colonists had guns, and African tribes didn't, ergo they had no way of winning, same as the indians (who also had male warriors). The reason why some tribes had female warriors was that that was how gender roles had evolved over there: women were the heads of the household and did all the work, while men stayed at home and took care of the children. Women were the strong assertive ones, while men were the weak ones who needed to be protected etc. Those things aren't dictated by natire, they're indoctrinated culturally since people are born. Oh, and the famale warriors could kick the male European colonist's asses, but those cowards decided to use guns, as they were tired of getting beaten up by girls. |
So? it has happend multiple times in history that the weaker equpied and small numberd army defeated the bigger and stronger one. It wasnt impossible for them to win, they just didnt use their head and got defeated by much more advanced europeans and their superior war strategy. And correct me if I am wrong, but weren't bows and arrows much more usefull than the guns people had in that time ? Seeing as how much faster they were and easier to carry and it didnt took 30 seconds to reload a bow and fire 1 arrow from it again like it did wiht the guns and rifles
The men in bolded sentences you described dont deserve to be called men at all. And those stuff ARE dictated by nature. Just look at the animals, its almost always the female that takes care of its babies, while the fatther is the wild finding food.
