Lonestar51 wrote:P_Tigras wrote:Modern fantasy tales tend to assume all sorts of things that never existed in medieval times, ie. modern morals & cultural values, the plentiful availability of reliable birth control, modern extended childhoods until the age of 18, women soldiers as strong as men, etc.. Adding in adequate nutrition enabling people to reach their maximum possible height isn't really that big of a deal on top of all the rest.
While I agree that most fantasy stuff has only loose ties to anything resembling realism, I actually prefer those works where the author thinks before adding changes "
just because they are cool". In the case of amazons I can easily believe that the selective pressure is inverse to other humans: females are selected for being big (height) and general toughness, while males are selected for being submissive, and without a strong preference of any given height. (Yes, this is just the other way round as for us.) Thus amazons would be as big as male humans, and male Amazons would be as big as human females. And just to be sure, there is also a cost for being too big.
Now I can see anyone handwaving this away, in the name of "just because it is cool". But add too much fairy dust to the story, and the work is no longer consistent, or interesting. Then anything can happen, and nothing makes sense. Do it sparse, and when you do it make it meaningful, and explore the consequences, then I like it. But too often it is just horrible.
Well these are my 2 cents.
When I see comments like these a lot of times what I see is ignorance as to what is actually "realistic" for what not just the human body but the female human body is capable of achieving and doing. If we're talking historically the Shieldmaidens of the Old Norsemen (even predating their being labelled as "Vikings") were known for being able to look their men eye to eye, and those women who fought along side the Norsemen against the Romans in the northern reaches of the British Isles (primarily what today is considered Scotland) were said to be just as fiercesome and terrifying on the battlefield and in several cases were mistaken for being men themselves do to their large size and battle capability of being able to cleave Roman skulls in two with an axe. And that's just one example amongst many I can make throughout human history where women have fought beside men and proved to be just as deadly in combat.
The problem is perception. So often men think in terms of because of their larger upper-body muscle mass, that makes them stronger--and to an extent this is true. But it's also flawed thinking, because when women have trained just as long as many men in building up upper body strength, they prove to be if not nearly--just as strong as men, yet they lack the same muscle mass--why is this? It's because of simple genetics of the fact women have more muscle density than men do. But there is another factor, while it is absolutely true that the average man will have more upper body strength than the average woman, it is also an undeniable reality that the average woman has more lower body strength than the average man. This is for the fact that men carry their weight mostly on their shoulders, whereas women carry much of their weight on their hips. So what does this mean? Leverage. In terms where a man is swinging a weapon or fighting with his upper body strength he can most definitely overpower his female equal, but on the flip side, a doing strikes utilizing her lower body strength then that man will find himself overpowered by his female equal. For example, for a cross slash with a bladed weapon, what's taught is transferring weight and energy from one leg to the other, thereby relying on lower body strength. This is to a woman's advantage, for one shouldn't be using their upper-body strength for that unless they want to strain their shoulder muscles, because what you want is using the upper body for torque and the arms for as a lever, rather than raw power, the power should be coming from the legs. If we're talking about an overhead swing, it is to a man's advantage because it's heavily reliant on upper body strength, namely in the pectorals, biceps and shoulder muscles while using the arm(s) as the lever. If we're talking about a bayonet or spear thrust, while it involves thrusting the weapon forward with ones arm and shoulder muscles, which benefits men, the strength and power behind the thrust is comparing from the legs, i.e. lower body strength which benefits a woman.
It's a continual perception issue and what I often see as insecurity by those who feel the fictional "alpah male superior badass" being threatened, because god forbid women may prove to be able to do many of the same things they can, and others they cannot, in spite of the balanced reality between them. A perfect example of this to me is the recent thing McKayla Maroney and her latest amazing vault accomplishment. I used to be gymnastics, in fact, it's what got me into college, and while I don't really do it anymore because of a couple decades of compounded impact injuries, I still follow the sport closely. And when McKayla Maroney accomplished what easily blew out of the water the men's vault (Uchimura) by height, distance, form, and everything. They waves of male insecurity of guys tossing up things on various vaults he had done in the past saying stupid crap like "I bet she can't do those", but the reality is she can. And the further reality this is nothing new. For years in areas like the uneven/parallel bars, balance beam, floor routines, vaults, etc. female gymnasts have oft done better than their male counterparts. And why is that? Well, it's still they're smaller and lighter, thus it's easier for them to lift their own body weight which averages 90-100lbs, and each of those things I listed requires utilizing more lower body strength than upper body strength. When it comes to things like rings or horse, the men oft unquestionable do better because they involve far more upper body strength than anything else.
In a way, it's getting fairly tiring constantly seeing this blurted belief of any time a woman or women can be larger or stronger than the usual male or heaven-forbid better and even threaten the big-bad-super-duper-uber male warrior or some such nonsense, it's demeaned as being something as "just being done because it's cool", as if that same line can't be applied to the super-crazy-awesome male badass. It's all perception based b.s. where that line of thought comes from. It's often those who cry out for more "realism" who are the biggest mockery of this. An example, I like modding for Skyrim, and any time someone makes female armor, you gets these people crying for "more realism" dismissing the mod because it "has boobs". And it makes me facepalm every time, because of course the chest region is going to be shaped to compensate for boobs. When a blacksmith makes a suit of armor they tailor specifically to a woman (within a setting where women fighting is a commonality) they're going to tailor that armor to compensate it for her boobs, surprise surprise. Where that becomes nonsensical isn't for the fact the armor is compensated for such a thing but that its given some kind of "cleavage" because the indentation between the breasts the metal sliver that rests between there, if the woman took a shot to the chest, all the energy is going to transfer into that metal plate between her chest and crush her sternum. But the fact that some sort of boob support is there isn't outlandish in the least. The reason why it wasn't done in historical reality in the days of yore was because, first off women in the days and regions that had plate armor were forbidden from fighting under penalty of death (generally) and those who did, often wore a man's armor, however in the case of Jeanne d'Arc when she begun her official campaign under Charles VII's banner, she had a suit of white armor made just for her which was said to have been tailored her feminine little form. She was only 5'2" or so, about my own height (which in those days in France was considered somewhat tall for a girl). But it's examples like that, where every time I see complaining about something "not being realistic" or "logical" or "just being done because it's cool", they are simultaneously ignoring any form of logic themselves. It's an utter "I deny your logic for my own!" as they ignore anatomical/kinetic physics/logic and historical reality themselves.
It all just makes me shake my head every time, because what really should be said instead of "it's just being done because it's cool", it rather should be phrased, "I think my vision is better than yours". Because it's not anymore "realistic" it's merely in their perception--not as good as their own. That's what it really boils down to.
just looking at the image of Loren, she doesn't seem particularly muscular, while Krimm is (of course I couldn't put a body-building build since it would be a bit exaggerated and maybe in that case not much attractive 
).
( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8477683 )
