Tell me about shieldmaidens Veeky Forums

There a meme made up by fat chicks and feminists they didnt fight

Would you dare to tell that to her face?

>being credible in any way otuside of STEM

I agree comrade, sex is a cultural construct, there is no such concept in biology!

>a medieval womanlet
I'd probably have to squat to be able to see into her face.

Sounds pretty probable

Warrior lost and his body unrecovered, burial proceeds as normal but minus body sounds a lot more plausible than women professional warriors actually existing in any real capacity

SCANDINAVIAN SHIELDMAIDENS WERE SQUIRES —LITERALLY, SHIELDCARRIERS WHO ASSISTED WARRIORS ON THE BATTLEFIELD.

ACTUAL FEMALE VIKINGS WERE NOT CALLED SHIELDMAIDENS, NOR DID THEY HAVE A SEXSPECIFIC TERM —A FEMALE VIKING WOULD HAVE BEEN JUST ANOTHER WARRIOR IN THE CREW.

MEDIEVAL SCANDINAVIANS DID NOT JUDGE INDIVIDUALS BASED ON THEIR SEX, BUT ON THEIR PERSONAL QUALITIES.

do you consider yourself a feminist, Rei?

ha gay

NO.

Do you consider yourself an Assbaby, Rei?

What are your opinions with regards to gender, Rei?

There is no evidence that women participated in combat

SEX, AND GENDER, ARE MUTUALLY DISTINCT; SEX IS BIOLOGICAL, GENDER IS INEXTRICABLY CONTINGENT ON SEX, BUT ITSELF IS SOCIOLOGICAL.

TO JUDGE AN INDIVIDUAL ON THE CRITERION OF HIS/HER GENDER, OR SEX, IS A FORM IDENTITARIANISM, AS IS REGARDING ONE'S PERSON AS EQUIVALENT, OR CONTINGENT TO, ONE'S GENDER, OR SEX.

WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS PERSONALITY, NOT GENDER, OR SEX.

This. The viking made runestones in memory of people lost at sea or when the body wasnt retrieved.

It's more likely that the grave belonged to a rich jarl and they threw his favorite fuck slave in the grave.

>... IS A FORM [OF] IDENTITARIANISM...

Sounds far more likely than then burying a great warrior woman.

WE

Female soldiers should be able to pass the current standards to become soldiers fit for active duty. Men should be able to pass the current standard to become soldiers fit for active duty. This is neither sexist nor biased.

Prove me wrong.

You'll hang too.

They stood behind the lines and gave the men shields. That's about it really. That's not to say Nord woman can't beat the shit out of most manlets, but when it came to fighting most Northern European men it's a bit different

>Female soldiers should be able to pass the current standards to become soldiers fit for active duty.

NO, CURRENTS MILITARY STANDARDS FOR MILITARY SELECTION, EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD, ARE BIASED TOWARD MALES; CURRENT MILITARY SELECTION STANDARDS SHOULD BE REFORMED TO REMOVE ANY SEX BIAS.

so you want less train, less fit soldiers.got it

YOU SHOULD IMPROVE YOUR "READING COMPREHENSION".

>are biased towards males

No, they're no, actually.

In combat, a soldier must be able to carry their gear around without fail. Abandoning your gear is not an option. Your gear is heavy. You have to be able to carry all of it. You have to be able to carry all of it all day, for days on end, potentially. Current military standards for fitness reflect the need to do this and have been set accordingly. Lowering such a standard would result in soldiers who cannot perform as desired in combat with a full combat load.

There is also the standard for carrying your battle buddy out of combat if they are wounded or otherwise incapacitated. The standard has been set so that any member of any squad/battalion/regiment/what have you can feasibly carry any of their comrades out of combat, with two full combat loads (theirs and the wounded/incapacitated).

These are not biased towards men. They are simply requirements for realistic physical expectations of combat duty.

A male soldier must be able to carry his 240lb battle buddy with 100lbs of combat gear between them.

A female soldier must be able to carry her 240lb battle buddy with 100lbs of combat gear between them.

If you cannot acknowledge that this is both fair and equal as far as standards and expectations are concerned for soldiers, then you do not understand what equality means.

Please explain how the above is biased towards men and I will gladly explain why what you think is wrong. This is the fairest and most balanced system to go by. Everyone must meet the same standards. The standard is derived from what could be necessarily physically demanded of a soldier in combat.

>This is the fairest and most balanced system to go by.
Why the fuck do we even have reduced standards for females, just leave it at the male standards and if any women can keep up then so be it.

They existed

Because women aren't allowed in active combat duty yet in anything but support roles. Their standards would be revised if they were allowed to serve in active combat as regular infantry. As it stands now, they don't have the same standards because their roles in active duty do not demand as much from them physically.

me 2

This research was partially conducted by the Stockholm University. I spent a semester there as an exchange student and I honestly got a PTSD from all the things I saw on the daily there, those people were so deep in their ideology that they could not see reality anymore, it felt like living in a /pol/ charicature every single day.

who knew shouty Muslim man was such a progressive

>those two Irish areas coloured darker
What did they mean by this?

Rei, why do you have the caps lock stuck on?

stop posting in caps lock you spergy estrogen pumped motherfucker
go back to weak world and eat your soy

Ptolemy's 2nd century geography lists those two tribes as Bretonic in origin, hence their color. There is some evidence that they may have been, but nothing is concrete.

any stories?

I think Rei finally gave up.
I've made this argument three times already to this motherfucker and he never has anything to say back once I get to this point. He just stops replying.

Actually feels kind of good.

I don't think he even read your post. He gave up trying to argue with idiots.

>There

They're

Females need more time to achieve _female_ fitness peak levels compared with males, meaning they need longer training regimes, they are far more susceptible to injuries, meaning a larger drop out rate and more support staff, and take longer to heal from said injuries.

All you accomplish by allowing women in combat roles with men is that it costs you more to attain the same number of troop numbers and readiness status. This is without long-term health implications which take a larger burden on females (up to and including infertility). This is without going into psychology.

TL;DR putting females in almost any military role is less efficient than males in almost every way.

ruined Vikings with this shit

WE

This, desu.

Remember that random ring they found and tried to say Islam has always held place in Sweden?

>days later
>still hasn't actually read the article
>still blindly taking a Veeky Forums post at face value

>can't beat the shit out of most manlets
This is what nordcuck actually believe

We are conquering your land and your women

youtube.com/watch?v=YoqXLbchg6Y

Ywn deflower a beautiful shield.

quality thread

>mixing Eros with Ares
fool.
Womemes shouldn't be allowed into any organization in which discipline has life or death consequences for the same reason Fags shouldn't be.
When sexual desire is present to distract you from duty, everyone is weakened by it, and it leads to natural internal divisions and feuds.

Furthermore, we simply don't need them. For any job the nontypically stronk women can do, a hundred average men can do better.

They probably did they same thing as Spartan women, defended home while men want to fight the enemy or helped in camps and on battlefields. I don't think they would be in the front line, but if their side started losing they would probably be send in.
The fact is that women are too valuable to fight, while men are easily replaceable.

She would start crying and get some other men to come and beat me up.

That not what they said