Aswad
Posts: 6908
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
|
Tal Luther,
It would be no problem to have the same rule for the women of the Warrior Caste as is put upon the women of the Physician Caste. That said, I should think any woman with a sense of obligation and the desire to see her caste survive, would choose to procreate in the course of her training years. After that, there would be no need for her not to partake of warfare. Would you say losing a father is less important to a warrior than losing a mother?
Earth cultures wherein women have taken part in warfare have demonstrated some points.
Presumably, the main difficulty lies in the simple fact that women tend to fight to win, and the definition of winning in this case would be the utter annhilation of the enemy, civilians frequently included. They understand that honorable conduct is incompatible with complete commitment to battle, and presumably also see that killing without due cause for complete commitment is little more than a waste of resources on both sides.
Historically, we do see women participating in warfare.
Before the Christian Era, we see female warriors and leaders throughout the ancient world. Celts, Goths, Vikings and Spartans are well known examples. Chelidonis of Sparta reputedly fought with a rope tied around her neck so as to not be taken alive. Less known are Egyptians, Indians (India), Hittites, Chinese, Israeli and Arabs. That would be examples that are documented, rather than speculative (e.g. Amazons).
In this period, it was clearly demonstrated that women were willing to sacrifice their lives as well, rather than be captured. While we may speculate that this is due to the treatment they would receive at the hands of their captors, might not the same thing be said of those men who would be inclined to do the same when faced with defeat?
Valor is also demonstrated. As is fighting against a superior force. Female Cimbrian archers held to the rear at first, as the men did close-quarters combat, but when the men died, they took up swords against the superior army of the Romans. When their inevitable defeat was at hand, they killed themselves and their children. Not an easy thing to do.
And I doubt they would have become gladiators (documented by Tacitus, as well as by a later law that prohibited their participation, the reasons for which we can speculate on in a strongly patriarchal society... educated women with combat skills might make some uneasy) if they did not have the ability to appreciate combat and combative sports.
Looking ahead to the Christian Era, we see that the Christian churches enact laws against women in warfare, starting around the beginning of the 7th century CE or so. Interestingly enough in terms of contrast, we see women fighting in the Muslim armies, as well as against them. Some of these women were Arabs, while others were not.
An argument frequently seen these days, is that it would distress the men, but this seems to be cultural.
Cliff notes version:
Women in war has worked, historically, and there is no argument against the practice without a counterargument.
Pardon the length of my post, but this point has been one of the keystone examples of the supposed fields to remain the sole province of men, while, in fact, that is a legacy of the very cultures that Norman otherwise criticized quite heavily. And while it may not be the norm for women to fight willingly, it remains to be seen if that's cultural or not.
This in itself should provide good cause to reexamine other views on women that are held as "self-evident."
Health,
al-Aswad.
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|
RE: Is calling a slave a FC so you can marry just seman... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread