VexilloidPalaiologos wrote...
caesarott wrote...
If this is the case, I would say that the behavioural traits of a man would constitute that, like aggressiveness, being physically strong, inclination to take charge so and so for.
By this definition every bodybuilder would be manlier than the bravest soldier. Also, unprovoked phsyical aggressiveness is anything but manly. Almost all warrior codices that ever existed held honor and respect even towards the opponent in very high regard. Physical fitness is certainly a very important aspect in the way to manliness, because it teaches self-discipline and self-control, but it's not its goal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuERSRNKZXM
caesarott wrote...
Women can't take up that role because I believe these societies want to protect these women as that they can reproduce. A medieval way of division of labour I would say.
How often is a woman unable to work because of pregnancy? 1-2 months in a year? In the medieval age especially women and children used to work. The "housewife" role came only in existance in the 20th century, when because of economic development a single job was able to provide for the entire family. The working proletariat of the 19th century was as female as it was male.
I do not know what is meant by "manliness" so I am going by the stereotype of masculinity which is unfortunately whatever I have said. If that means a stereotypical bodybuilder looks more masculine than a worn-out soldier then so be it.
Whatever I have said applies in an ancient patriarchal society when technology is backward, not in modern societies, not in a communist societies. You don't send your women to battlefields to be slaughtered or to do back-breaking labour unless you really have to. And the period of gestation is 9 months a year, the last I have checked.
I did not mean picking up a fight for no good reason when I said "aggressiveness". I apologise for the wrong use of the word. What I meant was being more active or opposed to being passive.