Support NeoGAF

[Mister Apoc]

wouldn't woman be ahead of men in melee or h2h combat in the past

men might have higher physical strength, but women have the ability to stirke men in the groin area.

so in theory women would of been better soldiers during these times

right?

 

[Corderlain]

Equality bitch


E: please note this is a joke no ban pls

 

[nkarafo]

Eh, I don't think there would be an issue defending that area if it was eligible to strike. Plus, women are shorter so they would have to be able to reach first.

 

[bucyou]

they're not sending their best

 

[Straight Edge]

Groin armor

 

[Deleted member 713885]

Excuse me if I'm wrong but I think boobs get in the way, flipping around and all.

I thi k theirs a tale of women who cut a titty off to shoot bows better.

 

[BANGS]

women's weakness is their throat tho...

 

[DiscoJer]

If they could get to that area, sure. But spears have existed forever. Even a shorter weapon like a club or ax would prevent a close up strike in most cases.

 

[LordPezix]

I thi k theirs a tale of women who cut a titty off to shoot bows better.

Jesus. The fuck am I doing with my life.

 

[Texas Pride]

Equality bitch


E: please note this is a joke no ban pls

LMFAO X2

 

[Deleted member 713885]

Jesus. The fuck am I doing with my life.

Lol, seems like it's an Amazon myth

They indeed lived like soldiers and their life purpose was to make wars against men. From childhood, the girls were taught the nuances of warfare. The bow and arrow, the librys (a kind of double-edged axe) and a shield in the shape of a crescent were their weapons. The Amazons showed unsurpassed skill and excellence as horse-tamers and riders. Peculiar, but perhaps justified from the Amazons perspective, was the removal of a girl's right breast. While still a girl, the right breast would be cauterized using a searing hot bronze tool. It was thought to be a necessary evil, to mutilate and remove all possible hindrances to using a spear or drawing an arrow.

Still, Titties get in the way I'm guessing unless girls bind them.

 

[Texas Pride]

It's like.....What the fuck am I reading.

 

[JordanN]

Except Men wore armor and carried swords.

 

[Kadayi]

 

[cr0w]

Not in hand to hand, no, but there certainly have been bad ass female death squads who were frankly terrifying, most notably from Russia.

https://mashable.com/2016/07/30/soviet-women-snipers/#uD0N7.cy6aqp

The real question here, Apoc, is do you think Black Panther could have won every Oscar and been crowned the greatest movie of all time if they had cast a female T'Challa?

 

[Papa]

Apoc thread. Abort, abort.

 

[Grinchy]

It's not on topic, but "would have" contracts down to "would've" and "would of" has no meaning anywhere.

 

[infinitys_7th]

Excuse me if I'm wrong but I think boobs get in the way, flipping around and all.

I thi k theirs a tale of women who cut a titty off to shoot bows better.

The Amazons.

But, yeah, smash a woman in the groin and she will reel just like a dude.

 

[Ancient Gray]

Men are more expendable than women. And you know, that whole pregnancy thing can be problematic.

 

[cheststrongwell]

Wouldn't women get all distracted talking about their feelings and shit?

 

[Mochilador]

I don't think it's a weak point since you can use armor to protect these areas.

 

[Greedings]

I know this is an apoc thread, but I have always found this question fascinating.

If balls were such a weak point, they would have migrated back inside at some point. Balls aren't THAT hard to protect. They require a the assaulter to be close, and the assaultee must be not prepared to protect them.
Not to mention, the entire animal kingdom also has balls. Lions don't go after the balls of zebras, because they're not that much of a weak point.
Sure a kick in the balls hurts, but only if you're not prepared and the person is right up in your face. It's not a surefire incapacitation like a blunt object to the head.

There are obviously many examples of women fighting in history - the women of the steppe tribes often couldn't get married without having killed an enemy in battle. They also used bows that were considered to require inhuman strength to fire. It's just that it's very clear, that the physical strength and stature of a man dominates that of a woman. Weapons can even the odds, but balls don't.

 

[DESTROYA]

Apoc my man what is going through your head!
If that were true ancient armies would all have been women that and we would find ancient weapons called “ball crusher” or something like that.
In reality it’s easier to smash someone in the head than in the balls to incapacitate them.

 

[Shifty]

That feeling when you know it's a Mister Apoc thread before your eyes even leave the title.

And I dunno, higher physical strength in exchange for a critical weak point seems like fairly standard balancing. It's all about playstyle, man.

 

[Cybrwzrd]

 

[Shifty]

Alright, how about we dispense with the speculation and get down to the hard science.

Does anyone here have some solid numbers on the gender pain differential for getting kicked in the crotch? Multivariate tests with an acceptably high sample size? We gotta do this properly if we're doing it at all.

 

[DESTROYA]

Alright, how about we dispense with the speculation and get down to the hard science.

Does anyone here have some solid numbers on the gender pain differential for getting kicked in the crotch? Multivariate tests with an acceptably high sample size? We gotta do this properly if we're doing it at all.

Pretty sure you wouldn’t have to many volunteers for this test

 

[Rookje]

No.

 

[VAL0R]

Is this a joke thread? A better hypothetical might be, "How many women would it take to equal one man in hand to hand combat"? I'd guess it would take an exclusively female army at least three women per man, but as many as five, to better an army of male warriors. Five might not even be enough, honestly.

The men would just hit so much harder with so much more strength and ferocity. Men would be able to take far more punishment, recovering from blows that would break female bones. Men could, for example, throw spears much faster and to greater distances. Men could carry heavy shields and weapons for much longer. It would be an absolute slaughter if the odds were remotely even.

(I'm presupposing both armies have similar access to nutrition and knowledge of military tactics and combat, etc.)

 

[DESTROYA]

V Valor
Look who the OP is, that should tell you enough.

 

[cr0w]

Let's be honest, this question has already been answered.

 

[captainraincoat]

Striking someone in the balls is not always a guaranteed hit
the man could have a small sack..he could be cold and the balls have retreated or his mrs could have them in her purse

i think females have a much higher pain tolerance than males from watching childbirth twice so that would probably be a main advantage and their body shapes can be sharp and agile which would allow them to land some strikes in much harder spots than males

interesting topic though...
if you posted this on era everyone in this thread would probably be banned

 

[Osukaa]

Wouldn't women get all distracted talking about their feelings and shit?

As stereotypical as hell that this is ...it still made me chuckle

 

[InterMusketeer]

Why would you try to hit someone in the nuts if you can just cut them up or stab them? Both actions would hurt, but one is going to leave them wounded or dead too.

 

[5secondrulesucks]

 

[Mister Apoc]

should special forces be dominated by women today instead of men?

women are greater marksman, greater hand eye coordination and smaller targets

physical strength is unnecessary in modern combat?

 

[Barsinister]

It's not on topic, but "would have" contracts down to "would've" and "would of" has no meaning anywhere.

The best kind of Nazi, a grammar Nazi.

 

[-hal-]

should special forces be dominated by women today instead of men?

women are greater marksman, greater hand eye coordination and smaller targets

physical strength is unnecessary in modern combat?

For a second, I almost thought you were serious.

 

[Chairman Tickles]

OP:

 

[mekes]

Define ancient? These days that can mean last week.

 

[Deleted member 77995]

should special forces be dominated by women today instead of men?

women are greater marksman, greater hand eye coordination and smaller targets

physical strength is unnecessary in modern combat?

strength is pretty necessary when you have to carry 45+ lb loads and be able to drag a 180lb man with a full load on him as well.

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

should special forces be dominated by women today instead of men?

women are greater marksman, greater hand eye coordination and smaller targets

physical strength is unnecessary in modern combat?

Physical strength seems pretty necessary? Well, maybe specifically physical endurance?

Not saying women can’t be great soldiers. I am sure many are.

 

[bitbydeath]

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

Got his ass kicked by a woman.

Check. Your move.

 

[RedVIper]

I think woman should't be allowed in the military, change my mind. (In combat roles anyway)

 

[highrider]

wouldn't woman be ahead of men in melee or h2h combat in the past

men might have higher physical strength, but women have the ability to stirke men in the groin area.

so in theory women would of been better soldiers during these times

right?

Might be the most apoc thread yet!

Women can fight, but a much larger percentage of them can’t.

 

[G-Bus]

 

[ipukespiders]

I think woman should't be allowed in the military, change my mind. (In combat roles anyway)

Women have always been the primary victims of war.

 

[Tesseract]

uh no, all that's gonna do is piss the dude off and make him murder her faster

 

[MC Safety]

It's like.....What the fuck am I reading.

Another quality Apoc thread.