Rape Academy Case

[enchanted]

1 hour ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

Well what we see in the news are woman and children in danger because of men.

Women and kids lives are EXTREMELY important. And if you watch a movie you might get the impression that they are even MORE important going by the number of people killed. 

In real life too way more men get killed from: violence, homicide, war - not to mention suicide, dangerous workplaces, homeless, and drugs. By statistics alone the average man has more to fear than the average women. This is regardless of who the victimizers are. 

Edited 54 minutes ago by enchanted

[Leo Gura]

I just feel that moral outrage is not a serious solution to stopping rape.

[VioleGrace]

On 16/04/2026 at 9:41 PM, Rafael Thundercat said:

I heard this counter argument a lot in many podcasts. Think for yourself parrot. 

And it is a valid argument, sorry but all your posts stinks of bias and truthless ego 

[Lila9]

Intresting.

Prompt:

Is there an evidence of women fighting in wars in pre patriarchal socities?

 Response:

Yes — there is evidence.
But it’s often misunderstood because we tend to project later patriarchal war models onto much older societies.

Across archaeology, anthropology, and ethnography, we have multiple independent lines of evidence showing that in many egalitarian, pre-state, and likely pre-patriarchal societies, women did participate in warfare, raids, and defense.

Importantly: they were not exceptions, “disguised as men,” or symbolic figures. In some cultures, it was normal.

Archaeological evidence (graves with weapons)

Andean highland burial near Wilamaya Patjxa (9,000 years ago)

A burial of a young woman with a full big-game hunting toolkit: projectile points, knives, scraping tools.

Analysis of many similar burials in the region showed 30–50% of big-game hunters were women.

In these societies, big-game hunting and warfare skills overlap (projectiles, tracking, group tactics).

This strongly suggests women were trained in the same combat/hunting skills as men.

Birka grave Bj 581 (Viking Age)

A high-status warrior grave with sword, axe, arrows, shield, horses, and a war strategy board game.

Long assumed to be a male warrior.

DNA (2017) proved the skeleton is biologically female.

Not just a fighter — likely a military leader/strategist.

This overturned a century of assumptions about “male-only” Viking warfare.

Ethnographic evidence (tribes observed in recent centuries)

Dahomey Amazons (West Africa)

An all-female military regiment for centuries.

Elite shock troops of the kingdom.

European observers documented their combat effectiveness in detail.

A surviving example of a much older tradition of women as formal warriors.

Scythians (Eurasian Steppe)

Multiple female burials with bows, arrows, horse gear, and battle injuries.

Greek accounts of “Amazons” likely came from encounters with these steppe cultures.

Women rode horses, hunted, and fought like men.

Anthropological observations of egalitarian tribes

In several egalitarian forager groups recorded in the 19–20th centuries:

Women joined defensive raids

Women used bows, spears, and clubs

Warfare was seen as community protection, not male domination

Skill mattered more than sex

Examples documented in classic ethnographies include:

Agta — women hunt with bows and join raids.

Mbuti — collective defense; no strict male monopoly on violence.

Inuit — women trained in weapons for survival and defense.

What changed with patriarchy and states

As societies shifted to:

Property

Lineage control

Standing armies

Territorial conquest

Warfare became:

Professionalized

Male-dominated

Hierarchical

About domination, not protection

Women were excluded, not because they couldn’t fight — but because war became tied to male political power.

Key takeaway

In many pre-patriarchal / egalitarian societies:

Fighting was a human skill, not a male role.

Women hunted.
Women defended.
Women fought.

The idea that “war has always been men’s domain” is historically recent.

[VioleGrace]

4 hours ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

Dont you feel enraged with the violence towards woman in this world?

I feel enraged and act the same toward all violence, im not biased toward violeces that hit only one type of human ... 

[Lila9]

This is why gender roles are a social construct.

Sex is a biological fact but gender roles are flexible. 

https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aman.13914

"The Paleo-fantasy of a deep history to a sexual division of labor, often described as “Man the Hunter and Woman the Gatherer,” continues to dominate the literature. We see it used as the default hypothesis in anatomical and physiological reconstructions of the past as well as studies of modern people evoking evolutionary explanations. However, the idea of a strict sexual labor division in the Paleolithic is an assumption with little supporting evidence, which reflects a failure to question how modern gender roles color our reconstructions of the past. Here we present examples to support women's roles as hunters in the past as well as challenge oft-cited interpretations of the material culture. Such evidence includes stone tool function, diet, art, anatomy and paleopathology, and burials. By pulling together the current state of the archaeological evidence along with the modern human physiology presented in the accompanying paper (Ocobock and Lacy, this issue), we argue that not only are women well-suited to endurance activities like hunting, but there is little evidence to support that they were not hunting in the Paleolithic. Going forward, paleoanthropology should embrace the idea that all sexes contributed equally to life in the past, including via hunting activities"

[Raze]

18 minutes ago, Lila9 said:

This is why gender roles are a social construct.

Sex is a biological fact but gender roles are flexible. 

https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aman.13914

 

That paper was largely debunked

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513824000497?via%3Dihub

Quote

Gendered divisions of labor are a feature of every known contemporary hunter-gatherer (forager) society. While gender roles are certainly flexible, and prominent and well-studied cases of female hunting do exist, it is more often men who hunt. A new study (Anderson et al., 2023) surveyed ethnographically known foragers and found that women hunt in 79% of foraging societies, with big-game hunting occurring in 33%. Based on this single type of labor, which is one among dozens performed in foraging societies, the authors question the existence of gendered division of labor altogether. As a diverse group of hunter-gatherer experts, we find that claims that foraging societies lack or have weak gendered divisions of labor are contradicted by empirical evidence. We conducted an in-depth examination of the data and methods of Anderson et al. (2023), finding evidence of sample selection bias and numerous coding errors undermining the paper's conclusions. Anderson et al. (2023) have started a useful dialogue to ameliorate the potential misconception that women never hunt. However, their analysis does not contradict the wide body of empirical evidence for gendered divisions of labor in foraging societies. Furthermore, a myopic focus on hunting diminishes the value of contributions that take different forms and downplays the trade-offs foragers of both sexes routinely face. We caution against ethnographic revisionism that projects Westernized conceptions of labor and its value onto foraging societies.

 

Edited 51 minutes ago by Raze

[Basman]

2 hours ago, Raze said:

Its not like the soldier comes home and somehow uses his military knowledge to conquer his woman. In reality women are the ones who demand he take the lead and go toil at the factory and be the breadwinner or she’ll drop him like a hot potato. 

Women have been completely dependent on men for basic survival for most of human history. Female independence is historically abnormal and thanks to all the modern inventions and systems that men built.