LogFAQs > #969973432

From what I remember of his stance on women in war, it makes sense. He basically argued that a large, strong woman would outperform a smaller, weaker man, but those were the exceptions rather than the rule. And, at the time, physical strength meant more. However, if one side had men and women fighting, it'd make sense for the other side to bolster their numbers in the same way.

As for nunchucks, a lot of people have claimed they aren't a good weapon and demonstrated the issues. However, the fact they weren't widely used in warfare comes down more to their short range than anything else. Spears and other polearms were traditionally the kings of the battlefield, and then there were a lot of other weapons with a shorter reach which were still longer than the range you'd get from nunchucks.

A lot of Shad's speculative fantasy stuff has sounded kinda bunko at times.

funkyfritter posted...

Pretty sure any relevance gender had to warfare vanished when we invented tanks, planes and ICBMs.

iirc, he was only talking about historical warfare. Guns started to change things and then gender doesn't mean as much now.