Michelle Monroe wrote:Hi people! I'm very glad to see more people on here! I was afraid I'd only be playing with two other people... Don't worry, mate, these things take time to get started. I find they tend to snowball:) Eric had written: "Why are the warriors only men? If they have primary succession with women being able to hold positions of power, then why couldn't they also be warriors? There are plenty of historical references to female tribal warriors." Michelle replied: "I never said the women never fight. They're just not expected to if they don't want to, and the women who want to fight do so." I would say to this, that the rulership of a nation, and who fights, have nothing to do with each-other. For example, commonly nations are ruled by old men, yet it's not old men who go fight! For every example of women warriors you give me, I can give you three examples of women leaders who sent men only to fight. Such as: Golda Meir (Yom Kippu War, Israel), Indira Ghandhi (1972, Bangledesh War), Mggie Thatcher (1982, Falklands War). This last actively opposed women entering combat roles in the military during her entire leadership. For ancient examples, Makeda, Queen of Sheba (Yemen War), Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt (Roman Civil War)... That said, of course Michelle should have women warriors if she wants. I would suggest, though, that in ancient/medieval societies, there's a very good reaosn we don't see many women going into wars: it destroys your society. If you lose half your young men, they just go polygamous, and that keeps the birth rate up. But lose half your young women... Note, I speak here not of what I believe to be right or proper, simply, of what usually happened: women did not fight. They were carried off as loot by the victor. best regards, Kyle --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! News - Today's headlines---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
