Question

Please tell me how no women served in any way in the war, and how all of the 6 million civilian casualties were men, historybro.

Women were not combatants except in Soviet Russia. 10 million men DEAD just as combatants happened in WW1. British military administration actually had pampered women shame men into signing up as a policy. Fuck. Off.

Not on average, they are stronger. On average makes it seem more even than it really is.

That's not answering my question faggot. Either prove women didn't die in WWI or shut up. I'm tired you retards thinking women were somehow unaffected by large scale carnage passing through their towns and villages.

Uhh you do know women farmed with men?

>Do you know what you need to push a plow?

Draft animals?

Yeah they were. Seven million civilians died which means half were women. But half were men, ON TOP of the 100% male combatant deaths.
Sorry faggot, it's an objective FACT that men suffer worse in war. Fuck off back to tumblr.

I never claimed otherwise, retard.
You're the one who said women were spared from war entirely.

The affect of war on women is so insignificant as to not be worthy of mention. You must hate men a lot to see tens of millions of dead men and say "BUT THINK OF THE WOMEN!!!!!1!!!"

Of course women are effected, but to claim it's anything even close to men is ridiculous. Civilisation is made with the blood of men at all levels.

Even today more men die and suffer a day than women, there is a reason male life expectancy is low all over the world and Women elderly outnumber the male elderly.

How many women died for your TV? By the time your Tv makes it to the store men have likely been harmed or killed by the time it gets there, some products are even worse for this.

Thats before we account for warfare where the problem is amplified to levels of horrible heights.

>3.5 million women die in a war
>INSIGNIFICANT SPOILED WOMEN REEEEEEEE

and families having lost their main breadwinner and siblings pretty much dooms them to poverty. Some families lost all their males, my grandmother became an only child in the span of 1 sentence delivered by the poor man who had to deliver that news. Everyone suffers in war contrary to the shit spewed here and here

Not the user you're replying to, but let's be real - do you really think that men and women make equal sacrifices in wartime?
A woman may be forced to occupy a job once held by male, rationing may occur, and if they're unlucky their town may become a warzone.
But men are sent to the war zones, whereever they are. It can cost them their lives, their limbs, their sanity, and their friends. I don't think it's even slightly unreasonable to suggest that's more common. It doesn't take napkin math.
War sucks for everyone, and it really sucks for a single mother to raise her kid(s) alone. But I have trouble believing that's a fate worse than death or dismemberment.

The plow was invented before draft animals.
My understanding is that there was a not inconsiderable gap between the first harnessed plow and the invention of the push plow.
Using a push plow is back breaking work for a grown fit man.
With the advent of the harnessed plow, it was more possible for women to participate in agricultural activity, but at least in the fertile crescent, we don't have much evidence to suggest they did - though there isn't strong evidence I'm aware of that they *didn't*.
I heard this about 2 years ago from a college prof (granted he was old as fuck and 4 years from retirement), so if you can easily falsify this, I'm going to be demanding a refund.

>17.5 million men die
>FUCK THAT THINK ABOUT DA WOMMMENNNN

Hahaha literally Hill

Of course everyone suffers, but to claim female suffering is even close to male suffering in war is lunacy.

Is it worse to be the lady watching a man get eaten by a lion, or worse to be the man being eaten by a lion? You tell me who suffers more...

The over reaction to the idea of women suffering more in war is due to the focus of women in all situations. Charities, movies, books and even history always over emphasizes with women (and children) and to have women constantly brought up like they are forgotten victims really grinds the gears of the men of this generation. You'll see it in teenage boys (history teacher here) and the groans they give off whenever women in war is brought up over proportionately.

Women do not suffer in war in any way comparable to men, they do suffer, but they suffer in different ways, ways which men see as simple stuff. Kind of like when a child cries over dropped ice cream, it's hard to take seriously when a man is crying because his was blown into 3 pieces and dying.

Saying women don't gruel in third world sweat shops is even more delusional than saying women don't suffer in wars.

Most wars in history weren't industrial wars where hundreds of thousands of men are thrown into the meat grinder thousands of miles from home. They were comparatively small forces capable and willing to inflict far greater damage on the population. 30,000 soldiers altogether fought in the Siege of Constantinople, while 400,000 people waited impotently for the sword to come. Am I to think the soldiers had it worse in that situation?

This isn't to say that women suffered more. These sorts of pissing contests are retarded in every circumstance. The point is that women were there, and saying they were somehow spared from the sword because they didn't carry one is just a delusion.

I was considering modern warfare, but yes, in the context of ancient warfare, fucking everyone loses.
When losing the war means every male in the polis is killed and all the women are sold into slavery, then I'm willing to concede that the soldiers suffer less per capita.
Human life was cheap in the ancient world. It was a much more brutal place.

Power usually stems from having literal power, i.e. the ability to physically subdue others, which is also why the elites of society generally were the warriors. Also, men exhibit in general different personality traits, e.g. being more competitively minded, being more eager to get themselves heard, etc.

Fucking prosimians like lemurs are lead by their males meaning patriarchy is our instinct.

t. Faggot who knows nothing about farming

Well they tried to be matriarchal.
Look at some Roman histories of early Celtic tribes, or some isolated tribes in Africa.
Women are less capable leaders. Any civilization that went anywhere other than downhill treated women as property.
Like the Roman Republic, or Dark Ages Europe.
Anywhere women led, other area nearby were led by men. Who happened to make life better in every way for their people then women leaders. And so the hyper-efficient and strong ruling system survived and the materialistic, selfish, airheaded women led societies crumbled or were conquered.
It's natural selection with civilizations faggot. Women are less capable than men.

Reddit, /pol/ and /r9k/ answers the thread.
I think it has to do with the consolidation of "wealth" and the way power is passed on.
This probably happened almost as soon as groups started to become reliant on cyclically abundant and stable foods ie. grain. This allowed a smaller portion of the group to exercise control over the rest of the population.
Naturally this may lead to individuals trying desperately to consolidate power for themselves/ their linage. This process was more easily accomplished by the male.

Sweat shops have nothing to do with a television: mostly men will mine the rare-earth minerals, mostly men will drill the oil that becomes plastic.
The assembling factories, sweat shops you might call it, are hard working spaces and wear you down, but they are not dangerous to your life like oil drilling or mining, which is predominately male work.

t. heavy industry factory worker in a 100% male workspace because women cannot handle the physical stress (explanation the latest woman gave for resigning and getting a soldering job at a windmill maker instead).
And yes, I could get killed everyday I go to work, heavy industrial work is fucking dangerous even if you take all precautions.

Men build societies, men kill for societies, men have the strength to overpower women in societies, men have the innate, natural drive to succeed and to evolve and to expand and to dominate, because the human race is one of those races where the sexes have uneven balances, and males are the stronger sex.

Basically the answer to this whole thread is "biology"

If hyenas evolved to a sentient stage, it would most definately be female-dominated, and in the digital age, the males would be wondering why the females had historically held most of the power.

>dude berries and potatos were everywhere food just fell from the sky as you walked through the woods
Die

t. nice guy

Does any biology bro here knows around which time males started becoming stronger than females in our evolution? I would guess a bit after becoming mammals but idunno

It's just simple arithmetic m8. Women are attracted to strong men, and they continually mated with men who are strong across time, hence there are more of them.

That is not the case for the whole animal kingdom. Insect females are usually stronger than males, so I was asking when did that change?

It was easier to sustain larger populations with paternalism. In nature, polygyny is more useful than polyandry anyway plus men are stronger and all that. Not more civilized per se but definitely much easier to manage when you have more people.

Certain aspects of patriarchy were inevitable evil, other aspects were just plain oppressive for no reason. People with power tend to abuse it...We became so used to it and socialized that we forgot to question it.

>People still don't realise that civilians can die in war

>That is not the case for the whole animal kingdom.

No, and we aren't talking about the whole animal kingdom.