So? A bow and gun are both fatal, only arrow stabs you in heart and a bullet goes trough you. Just because a weapon is more powerfull doesnt mean its more usefull.In 30 seconds, you can probably kill at least 6-9 people with bow and arrow and with a gun only 1-3 people. Bows and arrows WERE much more usefull than guns back than. Another FACT you are trying to denay.

There's no real strategy you can use against and army of people who have guns, while you yourself have none

There is actually. Especially if you have weapons that are much more faster and usefull than guns. its not like they had automatic guns back than. You had to reload every time you fired a single shot and that would take good 15-30 secs. Not to mention Africans had a total territorial advantige. They knew the war areas much better than Eurpoeans. They just got defeated because of Europeans advanced startegy and war logic, not to mention  they had better trained MALE soldiers that enslaved half of Africa. Maybe you should quit watching those clique action movies were small humble tribe destoryes thousands of soldeirs from a great empie (roman, english, french, spanish...) because they are such a amazing and well trained warriors by their ''culture'' (because cultures have amazing effect on the development of a human body, you know). And im sorry, but Asterix and Obelix DIDNT defend their villiage from Romans, Galls got defeated by them. Its NOT the reality. Im sorry, but the Eurpeans ensalved almost the whole world, and i dont think its only because they had guns (which were pretty lame back than)

this does however show you're a misogynist

I asked you nicely not to use that judgemental hippie ''ohhh your such a...'' liberal bullshit on me. its seriously starting to get old.

The men in the bolded sentence deserve to be called cowards because they used guns against opponents who had none, and immoral for deciding to steal their land and resources.

Read my second paraphraph. 

And that stuff IS NOT DICTATED by nature, it's culturally determined. All societies create cultural myths in order to naturalise their practices, hence why you believe all these gender stereotypes to be "natural". As for tthe animal examples, well animals on some level have "cultures" too, and they learn from immitation (there are also lots of examples of males being the ones who raise the child etc.).

why are you still denying this? if you're gonna keep this up, i wont seriously bother for 1 more second in this topic. It is a FUCKING FACT that men have generally superiour physical strenght than women. MEN were the ones who went to war, even in stone age, when no ''culture'' even eisted besides the one for survival. Another FACT. You keep brinigng africa, the place where they even send children to war. In all other civilizations around the world-Asian, Middle Eastern, Chinese, Japanese, North American, South American (for most part), European...in every region, in every culture the men were the ones to go to war. Its  history. Its ANOTHER fucking FACT. Culture has nothing to do with it, but nature. As for the animals, they learn from their instincts given to them by nature, and besides penguins, i really cant think of any other male animals that takes care of their babies.(tho im sure there are some more - who are in minority of course )

So now there's dispute on a woman's potential as a soldier? 

Alright, so yes, men for the most part have more muscle mass than women.  This is true present day and has been true for pretty much all recorded history.  However, women possess a higher pain threshold, are more flexible, more agile, require less nutritional intake to survive, are capable of withstanding greater G-Force, have a greater empathic awareness (which makes for major contributions in teamwork exercises, leadership, communications, interrogation), tend to plan ahead a little further, think faster in stressful situations and can detect subtle differences in color and texture better than men.  That is a military fact.

For an army to be effective, it must utilize the strengths of every individual within its ranks while safeguarding their weaknesses.  Men are biologically superior in some respects, women are biologically superior in others.  In times long ago, women by and large had no opportunity to fight because muscle mass meant being able to endure the burden of chainmail and swing heavy metal objects and leaders lacked the imagination to dream up alternatives for combat.  Nowadays, thanks to considerable advances in technology, front line soldiers perform pretty much equally regardless in differences in strength.  Firearms are light, easy to wield, and explosives kill everybody equally. The idea that women cannot perform as effectively as men is not only ignorant of reality, but symptomatic of the real problem--attitudes towards women have not changed as drastically as their role in the armed forces.

Historically speaking, most societies were of the patriarchal variety, which meant that the men called the shots and armies tended to be composed exclusively of them.  However, matriarchal societies have existed as well, and their armies of female warriors were not to be trifled with.  Sapphi_Snake is right on the money; culture is a determinant for gender roles, biology...not so much.  In some cases, they were more savage and brutal than the male forces that composed the troops for rival territories.  These matriarchal societies didn't collapse because their warriors were genetically inadequate; they collapsed because of the following: superior numbers and/or superior technology of invading forces.  It makes a difference.  Just ask any Browncoat.

What's more, excessive muscle mass is actually more dangerous when one gets injured.  Broken bones can shred through muscle, and high-velocity rounds render surrounding tissue hamburger.  Slender folks bounce back from injury faster than bulky muscular folks, and for those with massive muscles, a simple broken bone can be life threatening.  Not only is that a military fact as well, it is a medical one, too.

If any of you still think that female soldiers aren't just as capable male ones, well, you're entitled to your opinion.  In the real world though, women are valuable soldiers and perform admirably.

So now there's dispute on a woman's potential as a soldier? 

Alright, so yes, men for the most part have more muscle mass than women.  This is true present day and has been true for pretty much all recorded history.  However, women possess a higher pain threshold, are more flexible, more agile, require less nutritional intake to survive, are capable of withstanding greater G-Force, have a greater empathic awareness (which makes for major contributions in teamwork exercises, leadership, communications, interrogation), tend to plan ahead a little further, think faster in stressful situations and can detect subtle differences in color and texture better than men.  That is a military fact.

For an army to be effective, it must utilize the strengths of every individual within its ranks while safeguarding their weaknesses.  Men are biologically superior in some respects, women are biologically superior in others.  In times long ago, women by and large had no opportunity to fight because muscle mass meant being able to endure the burden of chainmail and swing heavy metal objects and leaders lacked the imagination to dream up alternatives for combat.  Nowadays, thanks to considerable advances in technology, front line soldiers perform pretty much equally regardless in differences in strength.  Firearms are light, easy to wield, and explosives kill everybody equally. The idea that women cannot perform as effectively as men is not only ignorant of reality, but symptomatic of the real problem--attitudes towards women have not changed as drastically as their role in the armed forces.

Historically speaking, most societies were of the patriarchal variety, which meant that the men called the shots and armies tended to be composed exclusively of them.  However, matriarchal societies have existed as well, and their armies of female warriors were not to be trifled with.  Sapphi_Snake is right on the money; culture is a determinant for gender roles, biology...not so much.  In some cases, they were more savage and brutal than the male forces that composed the troops for rival territories.  These matriarchal societies didn't collapse because their warriors were genetically inadequate; they collapsed because of the following: superior numbers and/or superior technology of invading forces.  It makes a difference.  Just ask any Browncoat.

What's more, excessive muscle mass is actually more dangerous when one gets injured.  Broken bones can shred through muscle, and high-velocity rounds render surrounding tissue hamburger.  Slender folks bounce back from injury faster than bulky muscular folks, and for those with massive muscles, a simple broken bone can be life threatening.  Not only is that a military fact as well, it is a medical one, too.

If any of you still think that female soldiers aren't just as capable male ones, well, you're entitled to your opinion.  In the real world though, women are valuable soldiers and perform admirably.

I wanted to bring counter arguments to all your points, but I don't have the time, and I doubt it's worth it. I'll just comment on your last paragraph. There was culture in the Stone Age (those cave paintings are proof of that, and also the existence of any type of organised society and practices which are passed down through immitiation - like hunting). Thee reson I keep bringing Africa in discussion is that some people (like yoruself) are uable to make distinctions between nature and culture, and the existence of such societies (regardless of whether or not they're the minority) is proof that what many consider to be natural is actually just a cultural practice (which cultures naturalise through myth in order to make them seem "natural" so that people don't question them). Cultural practices that nature caused. What led the frst generation of humans to hunt (that is the example you gave)? What led them to fight each other? To conqur other lands and tribes? Who did they immitate when they were the first humans on planet? Their monkey parents? You cant say cultural practice because there was no culture before them. It was in their nature.

Also, it's irrelevant what's happening in Africa today, as I was talking about African tribes which have disappeared long ago. Africans today have little in common with the African trribes of the past.Its less irrelevant than you think, seeing as african tribes are todays's africans grand grand...parents.  And no, african tribes didnt dissapear. There are still some active today.

And I couldn't help myself in also commenting on a point you made above: in fact culture plays a HUGE role in the development of a human body. A culture where, for example, the physical exercises of a particular group of people is encouraged will obviously produce individuals with different body types than a society which encourages said group to do take care of their physical conditions. You'd think something like this would be obvious.''Because a culture has such an amazing development in a human body development'' <---- I meant that in biological way.

So now there's dispute on a woman's potential as a soldier? 

Nope, there isn't. No one never said women couldnt pass as a great soldier. I said men were better build for war and combat than women.

Alright, so yes, men for the most part have more muscle mass than women. They also have much better knowledge of overall modern warfare, not to mention more interest, which are both MUCH AND MUCH bigger advantages than ''pain threshold and flexibility'' Also, higher endurance and stamina also favour male gender.   This is true present day and has been true for pretty much all recorded history.  However, women possess a higher pain threshold, are more flexible, more agile, require less nutritional intake to survive, are capable of withstanding greater G-Force, have a greater empathic awareness (which makes for major contributions in teamwork exercises, leadership, communications, interrogation), tend to plan ahead a little further, think faster in stressful situations and can detect subtle differences in color and texture better than men.  That is a military fact. If this military fact was true (the italic part) than you would think that women would have a higher position in military and on world - leading scene (politics). And yet how many females make it to the general, liutentant, commander, major, colonel... Yeah, not even remotly compareable to the males. And how many women are presidents today (because apperantly they have major advantiges in teamwork, communication and most importantly leadership) Im sorry, but the italic part of your parahraph is wrong. Even if you count warfare with fire weapons,(WW2-Today) men still showed better performance overall on the battlefield than females (Battle of Stalingrad is a honorable exception)

For an army to be effective, it must utilize the strengths of every individual within its ranks while safeguarding their weaknesses.  Men are biologically superior in some respects, women are biologically superior in others. <----- Agree on this In times long ago, women by and large had no opportunity to fight because muscle mass meant being able to endure the burden of chainmail and swing heavy metal objects and leaders lacked the imagination to dream up alternatives for combat.<----Agreed, as well  Nowadays, thanks to considerable advances in technology, front line soldiers perform pretty much equally regardless in differences in strength.  Firearms are light, easy to wield, and explosives kill everybody equally. The idea that women cannot perform as effectively as men is not only ignorant of reality, but symptomatic of the real problem--attitudes towards women have not changed as drastically as their role in the armed forces. Woman can perform as efectivly as man, yes, i never denied this. But a male soldier is a lot more likrely to perform better results than a female one. Thats what ranks and modern history are saying.

Historically speaking, most societies were of the patriarchal variety, which meant that the men called the shots and armies tended to be composed exclusively of them.  However, matriarchal societies have existed as well, and their armies of female warriors were not to be trifled with. Yet almost all (just all?) of them got defeated.  Sapphi_Snake is right on the money; culture is a determinant for gender roles, biology...not so much.  In some cases, they were more savage and brutal than the male forces that composed the troops for rival territories.  These matriarchal societies didn't collapse because their warriors were genetically inadequate; they collapsed because of the following: superior numbers and/or superior technology of invading forces. They didnt colapse because of smaller numbers.   Europe is actually 2nd smallest continent in the world, with smallest countries in the world and yet they ensalved 2/3 of the world. As for superior technology, it really depends on what time line are talking about. because i wouldnt call eurpean fire arms from 14 and 15 century superior to bows and arrows. Sure, they were more powerfull, but they were a lot heavier which effected the soldiers movement and required constant reloading which effected the speed of the attack.Western fire arms sucked pretty bed until early 19th centry/late 18th centry. It makes a difference.  Just ask any Browncoat.Well, i dont know one, but if i do meet one, I'll be sure to ask him :)

What's more, excessive muscle mass is actually more dangerous when one gets injured.  Broken bones can shred through muscle, and high-velocity rounds render surrounding tissue hamburger.  Slender folks bounce back from injury faster than bulky muscular folks, and for those with massive muscles, a simple broken bone can be life threatening.  Not only is that a military fact as well, it is a medical one, too.I cant argue here, fair enough

If any of you still think that female soldiers aren't just as capable male ones, well, you're entitled to your opinion.  In the real world though, women are valuable soldiers and perform admirably.

@pizzahut451:

Cultural practices that nature caused. What led the frst generation of humans to hunt (that is the example you gave)? What led them to fight each other? To conqur other lands and tribes? Who did they immitate when they were the first humans on planet? Their monkey parents? You cant say cultural practice because there was no culture before them. It was in their nature.

Nature doesn't cause cultural practices. All cultural practices are artificial, and have no connection with nature/reality, but are presented and perpetuated in such a way that the common man thinks they have a connection with nature, or even as a manifestation of nature. Most human beings have a hard time accepting that culture has nothing to do with nature. Something becomes cultural practice when a large enough group of people decide to perptuate said behaviour. There's no connection between culture and reality. You can't say "it was in their nature", because neither you nor anybody else was there to see what happened. It was probably irrational behavior that people were testing as they started reasoning. And if we're talking about "tribes", then that already can be called culture.

Its less irrelevant than you think, seeing as african tribes are todays's africans grand grand...parents.  And no, african tribes didnt dissapear. There are still some active today.

It's irrelevant because those tribes have nothing to do with contemporary societies in Africa.

'Because a culture has such an amazing development in a human body development'' <---- I meant that in biological way.

No, however culture has a huge influence in how people choose to develop their bodies (and in the end that's all it comes down to eat, as bodies don't develp themselves).