New hard evidence of female Scandinavian warriors

I didn't know that the existences of female scandinavian warriors were ever in doubt. Legends and myths are usually based on some historical events etc so there must have had at least one woman who took arm or in this case shield and fought. Women had fought in wars around the world in many different cultures so this is not something new. They didn't part taken in war to the extent men have but they certainly did fight wars.

I get confused by this whole gender and sex thing, for most of my life, its supposed to be the same thing and now I am told gender is a social construct!

If we go beyond genitals - then I'd say gender is largely a social construct.

Then again, what isn't?

Originally Posted by NewDArt
I assume we all agree that slaughtering people during a conquest for more land is a bad thing, regardless of gender, right?

Did you just assume my conquest identity?

Originally Posted by Wisdom
Did you just assume my conquest identity?

I'm going to need a translation for that.

Originally Posted by NewDArt
Why do we care about this?

I assume we all agree that slaughtering people during a conquest for more land is a bad thing, regardless of gender, right?

History proves that it has been an effective strategy for many conquerors. Much easier to rule when most of the orginal inhabitants have been wiped out. So if you're planning to invade, it is a sound strategy to crush them all before they make any trouble!

Local news reported on the OP story. It says that in 1970s, the skeleton was already identified as a woman via a osteological analysis (mentioned on the http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com link but not the other one) and that the sex of that skeleton have been debated for 130 years.

Looks like the actual sex of the skeleton have never been an issue, the issue is that some archaeologists don't want to admit that this women was a high ranking viking warrior.

Originally Posted by NewDArt
Why do we care about this?

I assume we all agree that slaughtering people during a conquest for more land is a bad thing, regardless of gender, right?

Because learning history is awesome.

Originally Posted by Caddy
Because learning history is awesome.

Yes and then you die.

Originally Posted by NewDArt
Yes and then you die.

I think you need some beer.

Originally Posted by Caddy
I think you need some beer.

I need MORE beer

You want to speed up your death?

Originally Posted by Eye
You want to speed up your death?

No, my life.

Originally Posted by NewDArt
No, my life.

Originally Posted by NewDArt
Why do we care about this?

I assume we all agree that slaughtering people during a conquest for more land is a bad thing, regardless of gender, right?

Because history is very important, without it we are doomed to make the same mistakes again and forget many of the interesting things we have learned through history.

Such a cliché. I don't think I've ever come across someone who said "O, I don't think I'll do that, because this was the outcome for xxx in yyy", or "Let us take these xxx steps now, otherwise we'll end up like yyy in zzz".

History never repeats itself exactly. And because the present always differs from the past people think the/their present will have a different outcome.

But yeah, when present tendencies are discussed history is often set as an example and (mis)used to put some weight in the political arguments.

History is good for science, and to learn what good and awful things homo sapiens is capable of.
So yeah, women can and will fight just like men. Duh. And some societies were smart enough to acknowledge that and rewarded them for it by giving them important positions.

Well, my point wasn't that we shouldn't care about the past. But why this particular find is more interesting than other finds.

Some women would make much better warriors than some men. But the ideal of a warrior is far from an actual ideal in my view.

I think it's sad that we still have such a fixation on war and the capacity for slaughter.

Then again, I'm not a Marvel movie fan either.

That said, it would be stupid to pretend that women are as suited for (the physical and psychological aspect of) war as men, because biology and cultural conditioning go against that, for obvious reasons. I only wish we could cultivate our male population in the same ways.

The whole concept of males needing to protect their women and their young is sad - and we should have been way, way past that stage by now.

I guess I just don't find it interesting or positive that we have found some non-evidence to support women might have been warriors in some way or another.

I mean, ok, WOW.

Let's move on now, please.

Originally Posted by NewDArt
The whole concept of males needing to protect their women and their young is sad - and we should have been way, way past that stage by now.

……said no dad ever.

Originally Posted by Caddy
……said no dad ever.

So, you're happy that you actually feel the need to protect your kids?

That's a strange position to hold.

To each his own, though.

I would much prefer living in a world where there wouldn't be a need to protect anyone from anyone.

Originally Posted by NewDArt
So, you're happy that you actually feel the need to protect your kids?

LOL! Because that's exactly what I said…

Originally Posted by Caddy
LOL! Because that's exactly what I said…

Yes, but I don't think you actually meant it - or gave it much thought before answering.

But I assume that means you agree that it's a sad thing that we need to protect our loved ones.