"If a woman has the strength to bear a child, she can swing a sword as well as any man" is one of the worst nonsense analogies I've ever heard. It doesn't even make sense within its own internal logic. Either it's conflating strength of will with strength of body, or it's saying that pelvic floor strength equates to arm strength. Either way you'd have to be borderline retarded to think it makes sense.
AKHSCHAWULLEY, a proper sword swing in most styles involves the entire body, from a good stance to a good core to good edge alignment. It is indeed possible to inflict great harm with a sword by swinging with just the arm, especially with blade heavy weapons like calvary sabers. However, much like a good punch or even golf swing, the better cut will always come with the activation of the entire body.
This doesn't make the analogy any less shit though.
that's the point of the sword, or any weapon really. Weapons are a force multiplier that works to even the playing field between the strong and the weak. the more advanced the weapon is, the more even the playing field.
You don't need to be very strong to use a sword effectively.
you don't need to be a strongman to use a sword, but it still requires certain strength and endurance to wield it effectively. have you ever actually swing around a sword in "combat"? it's highly exhausting, most sword matches end in 5 minutes or less, usually 3, and do require upper body strength to hold the guards and perform cuts.
a woman will likely win against a man without a sword just by extra reach, but will lose 8/10 times when facing a man with a sword even if they have equal expertise and similar body size. that was the point.
even when you use guns, women will lose on accuracy because most of them have too low upper body strength to steadily hold the weapon or handle the kickback. force multiplier doesn't matter much if the other side also has the same weapon but is naturally advantaged in physical strength, endurance and spatial reasoning. it only works at point blank range and the other side was caught by surprise. within 21 feet, a determined man with no gun might still be able to grab the gun from a panicking woman.
one can argue even at the high tech level of using remote drones, men will still beat women using the same weapon, just look at esports, women still lose to men even if the activity only involved keyboard and mouse with minimal physical movements.
what's left? pushing a button to fire missiles in a secured bonker?
there's a reason why every competition is separated by sex, it's certainly not to the benefits of men.
"If a woman has the strength to bear a child, she can swing a sword as well as any man" is one of the worst nonsense analogies I've ever heard. It doesn't even make sense within its own internal logic. Either it's conflating strength of will with strength of body, or it's saying that pelvic floor strength equates to arm strength. Either way you'd have to be borderline retarded to think it makes sense.
AKHSCHAWULLEY, a proper sword swing in most styles involves the entire body, from a good stance to a good core to good edge alignment. It is indeed possible to inflict great harm with a sword by swinging with just the arm, especially with blade heavy weapons like calvary sabers. However, much like a good punch or even golf swing, the better cut will always come with the activation of the entire body.
This doesn't make the analogy any less shit though.
doesn't matter if they used their whole body with proper techniques, their entire body is WEAK
that's the point of the sword, or any weapon really. Weapons are a force multiplier that works to even the playing field between the strong and the weak. the more advanced the weapon is, the more even the playing field.
You don't need to be very strong to use a sword effectively.
lol month old zombie thread.
you don't need to be a strongman to use a sword, but it still requires certain strength and endurance to wield it effectively. have you ever actually swing around a sword in "combat"? it's highly exhausting, most sword matches end in 5 minutes or less, usually 3, and do require upper body strength to hold the guards and perform cuts.
a woman will likely win against a man without a sword just by extra reach, but will lose 8/10 times when facing a man with a sword even if they have equal expertise and similar body size. that was the point.
even when you use guns, women will lose on accuracy because most of them have too low upper body strength to steadily hold the weapon or handle the kickback. force multiplier doesn't matter much if the other side also has the same weapon but is naturally advantaged in physical strength, endurance and spatial reasoning. it only works at point blank range and the other side was caught by surprise. within 21 feet, a determined man with no gun might still be able to grab the gun from a panicking woman.
one can argue even at the high tech level of using remote drones, men will still beat women using the same weapon, just look at esports, women still lose to men even if the activity only involved keyboard and mouse with minimal physical movements. what's left? pushing a button to fire missiles in a secured bonker?
there's a reason why every competition is separated by sex, it's certainly not to the benefits of men.