Lefties being angry at evidence
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (79)
sorted by:
Like so many things, they have missed the point.
In the past there were fewer resources, so efficiency and effectiveness were crucial to survival, therefore it was more efficient to train men and boys (who grow in to men) martial arts as they were considerably more likely to be effective as soldiers/guards/protectors compared to teaching "women, and teens of all sizes, races, ages, orientations, and physical abilities" with the off chace one of them will be as good as a man.
No matter their skill, they still wouldn't have had the muscle mass and bone density to wear heavy armor constantly without breaking their backs or becoming too tired to fight for more than 5 minutes once battle begins.
Even today, women in the military generally can't keep up with their male counterparts while wearing all their gear, and the men need to compensate by carrying their packs for them.
With swords, it's a lot about fast twitch muscles and reaction time. Women can't keep up wirh men in these categories. I've fenced women who were actually better than me in terms of form, and technical skill, but I just own them with pure caveman quickness.
More importantly, they are right that HEMA is indeed a coed sport. But HEMA doesnt simulate armor, all you have to do is get the hit. So you can indeed use technique to overcome strength differences that wouldnt apply IRL if armor was involved.
I think you're the one who has missed the point. They aren't in the past, and they aren't training soldiers. You might as well complain that they are training HEMA technique instead of telling people where to buy a gun.