| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Vikings, Women Warriors, Screeching Feminists and Toxic Masculinity |
| 2017-09-18 |
| Yes, this subject brought out all the nuts. BACKGROUND: Over the years, a number of Viking era graves were found with swords. The base assumption was that these were all males, and military. A lot of us always insisted this was a false assumption. Swords were often a mark of rank and wealth (and still are). It meant the interred was of status, not necessarily a warrior. Then, some DNA tests showed a lot of them were actually female. This is where the screeching harpies came in with their popular conspiracy that there were literally thousands of women in this and every generation who were doing the things men did, and then somehow erased from history so no one would ever know, over and over. This is of course, ridiculous on several levels. Then the small-dicks got into it because obviously, no woman ever measured up, so the females had swords as marks of rank, but the men were still probably warriors. So here's the problem with that: If the sword is the mark of a martial person, you don't present it to a non-martial person, except to honor them for something martial. (Much like the US has civilian and military decorations, and civilians can't earn the military ones, except for a rare handful like the Civilian Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor, who fought as combatants because there was no choice). Once again, as a lot of us said, those swords were badges of rank, and may or may not indicate the owner was ever part of the military caste, or ever fought. The Sagas and other documents record a small number of women fighting as combatants in the Viking Era. Let's go through them one at a time: ...So now we come to a recent, fully documented instance: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.23308/full So, this burial does contain a sword. It also contains an ax, a large langseax that is purely a weapon, not a tool, a two handed axe, a spear, two shields, bodkin tipped arrows, stirrups and two entire horses. It was first called a male warrior's grave. Then someone observed the pelvis was probably female. Then it was genetically proven the occupant was female. Then all of a sudden it wasn't a warrior's grave at all. Within seconds of me posting this link on my wall, one individual had a complete, screaming, online meltdown. I strongly suspect he actually crapped his pants. |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #3 I see why you noted the author. Good read. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2017-09-18 18:25 |
| #2 (Clicks link) Oh. It's Mad Mike. So anyway, I haven't read it yet, but the article may actually be worth reading. And I'm off to read... |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2017-09-18 17:51 |
| #1 Some time ago, I recall a discovery of a Dark Ages-era cemetery in England. Due to the residents' size--bigger than the average for the time--it was presumed they were upper class. But were they monks or nobles? That would be determined forensically. Nobles would show evidence of battle wounds, possibly the last one, and various which had healed. So, let's see if this woman's skeleton shows evidence of actual fighting. |
| Posted by: Richard Aubrey 2017-09-18 08:01 |