"No, but look at the historical examples of...no, strike that, please don't."

Seriously, though. You have to reach pretty damn far to put women in fighting roles, outside of fiction. And, even then, it's still a reach, just less of one. Archers? A lot of fiction puts women in these roles...but men are still much better due to significantly different upper body strengths. Up until you get to freaking magic, if you apply any level of reality, women aren't suited to such roles.

Ironically, the feminists, troons, and their ilk want to have it both ways. One of the main reasons there are so many fictional warrior women is because they're catering to a male audience. And yet they cry about "sexualization," and "unrealistic depictions," and the "male gaze." Those things are the only reason there even are those fictional women to begin with. As you say, if we were going just of what's realistic, we'd have no female warriors.

"No, but look at the historical examples of...no, strike that, please don't."

Seriously, though. You have to reach pretty damn far to put women in fighting roles, outside of fiction. And, even then, it's still a reach, just less of one. Archers? A lot of fiction puts women in these roles...but ben are still much better due to significantly different upper body strengths. Up until you get to freaking magic, if you apply any level of reality, women aren't suited to such roles.

Ironically, the feminists, troons, and their ilk want to have it both ways. One of the main reasons there are so many fictional warrior women is because they're catering to a male audience. And yet they cry about "sexualization," and "unrealistic depictions," and the "male gaze." Those things are the only reason there even are those fictional women to begin with. As you say, if we were going just of what's realistic, we'd have no female warriors.