Thanks Airi, long post there but really interesting! Definitely makes sense for me.

Funny thing is, this thread is making me consider what Eru just did (because I have a question that related to this, but in a different direction...)

Thank you all for making me think

I seriously thought you meant Eru from Middle-earth... as in Iluvatar.

I have been stalking this thread, though not participating, and I think I will just agree with Airi's long post. That seems to sum it all up and even cover some other related topics.

I'm glad the post helped clear up some people's questions. I also think it is very cool that you guys are seriously thinking about this thread and what everyone has said. Two of you are actually looking back over your stories, which has me totally impressed. This is part of why I love HW. You all actually want input. You want other opinions so you can judge it against your own and decide what the Lord would have you do with this new information. That is impressive. Most people would just blow it off as not that important. Keep trying to serve God in your writing guys, even if your writing isn’t strictly about him.

True, Celearas, but aren't men made for fighting more than women?

Amazing post Airianna.

I believe I love Holy Worlds. I have to admit, it's much more conservative than my own forum, where I'm one of the most conservative. We have outright feminists over there who would skewer somebody for saying what you said. 'Course, it makes me say it all the more. But yeah, what a breath of fresh air.

Holy worlds is like a place where I can rest and agree instead of battling for what I believe all the time.

Oh I've been skewered before. You don't know my past I still say it. But I agree. I feel at ease on HW. I don't agree with everyone, and they don't always agree with me, but there is respect on this forum. Which is very rare.

More than just respect... I've had people who respected me skewer me, people are willing to listen to what you say without having to tear it to shreds.

Agreed.

You had better believe there is!

Numbers 1
3 From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies.

20 ...every male from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;

22 ...every male from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;

Joshua 5
4...All the people that came out of Egypt, [that were] males, [even] all the men of war...

Significantly, the same people who violate this first commandment, also violate this commandment.
Deuteronomy 22
5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.

You cannot be too firm on this, it is an abomination. Women cannot be soldiers, no matter how well they can fight.

And they should be able to fight well. I personally believe that every man and woman, young or old, fit or infirm, should do their best to learn how to fight.
But, as Airiana said, to be a soldier means far more than fighting.

Deborah.

Judges 4
4 And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.
6 And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedeshnaphtali, and said unto him, Hath not the LORD God of Israel commanded, saying, Go and draw toward mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun?
7 And I will draw unto thee to the river Kishon Sisera, the captain of Jabin's army, with his chariots and his multitude; and I will deliver him into thine hand.
8 And Barak said unto her, If thou wilt go with me, then I will go: but if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go.
9 And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the LORD shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh.
10 And Barak called Zebulun and Naphtali to Kedesh; and he went up with ten thousand men at his feet: and Deborah went up with him.
11 Now Heber the Kenite, which was of the children of Hobab the father in law of Moses, had severed himself from the Kenites, and pitched his tent unto the plain of Zaanaim, which is by Kedesh.
12 And they showed Sisera that Barak the son of Abinoam was gone up to mount Tabor.
13 And Sisera gathered together all his chariots, even nine hundred chariots of iron, and all the people that were with him, from Harosheth of the Gentiles unto the river of Kishon.
14 And Deborah said unto Barak, Up; for this is the day in which the LORD hath delivered Sisera into thine hand: is not the LORD gone out before thee? So Barak went down from mount Tabor, and ten thousand men after him.
15 And the LORD discomfited Sisera, and all his chariots, and all his host, with the edge of the sword before Barak; so that Sisera lighted down off his chariot, and fled away on his feet.
16 But Barak pursued after the chariots, and after the host, unto Harosheth of the Gentiles: and all the host of Sisera fell upon the edge of the sword; and there was not a man left.
17 Howbeit Sisera fled away on his feet to the tent of Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite:
for there was peace between Jabin the king of Hazor and the house of Heber the Kenite.
18 And Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said unto him, Turn in, my lord, turn in to me; fear not. And when he had turned in unto her into the tent, she covered him with a mantle.
19 And he said unto her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water to drink; for I am thirsty. And she opened a bottle of milk, and gave him drink, and covered him.
20 Again he said unto her, Stand in the door of the tent, and it shall be, when any man doth come and inquire of thee, and say, Is there any man here? that thou shalt say, No.
21 Then Jael Heber's wife took a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died.
22 And, behold, as Barak pursued Sisera, Jael came out to meet him, and said unto him, Come, and I will show thee the man whom thou seekest. And when he came into her tent, behold, Sisera lay dead, and the nail was in his temples.

Two mistakes people seem to make about Deborah are that:
She ruled Israel: God ruled Israel, as he told Samuel. (1 Samuel 8:7 )
And,
She went to war: she went to the camp on mount Tabor, and sent Barak down from mount Tabor to fight.

Isn't that referring to cross-dressing?

- Terra

I guess that all depends on your interpretation, and how you interpret cross dressing. I know people who believe that wearing pants is cross dressing, so that is not an easy question to answer, Terra. Each person would most likely answer the subject of cross dressing differently.

I was studying some commentaries on that verse the other day, and some commentators thought that it was referring especially to men's battle gear and related weaponry. While I believe that the verse applies to all dress, I thought that contextual/cultural bit was interesting.

My stance on that has always been the following:

That law or commandment or whatever you want to call it is referring to what the culture has defined as male/female clothing. In our society, jeans or pants do not 'pertain unto a man', instead there are different cuts and styles that make each appropriate for either a male or female person to wear. Where the problem comes in is if what you are wearing will make society and whoever else sees you think: 'Hey, that outfit looks more like a girl's than a guy's!' or vice versa. If I see a girl wearing pants, I don't think that she is wanting to look like a guy in the way she dresses, I just think that she went to Wal-Mart and picked up a pair of jeans from the girl's department...(well, not actively...that would just be weird...)

Anyways, to me that verse isn't referring to something that is uni-sex, instead it is referring to something that is specifically designed for one gender worn by the other...that is an abomination.

Anyways, I'm kinda jumping in without having read everything before me, . That's just what I think, I hope it helps you understand that verse...

Well, that kinda went offtopic, sorry...

Yeah a girl who would actually go into war by choice (which as far as I know isn't many), she would probably not be one of the people in the front lines. Archery and other things like that would be good.

Yeah, we're deviating a bit... If anyone wants to continue picking the cross-dressing topic in specific, please move it to another thread. Thanks!

I love the idea of women in battle.

Deborah led the armies of Israel by keeping her hands up.
Judges 4:9
"Of course I will go with you," Deborah answered, "but you will not get credit for the victory. The Lord will let a woman defeat Sisera." So Deborah went with Barak to Kedesh.
Judges 5
There were no warriors in Israel until I, Deborah, arose, until I arose to be a mother to Israel.

Joan of Arc is an historical figure, but certainly can be a model for fiction.

There are also the times when the battle may be small, but nonetheless a brave warrior type is needed.

The Marys went to the tomb, knowing they would face the guards and then they encountered the angels which made them afraid. Yet they didn't run away, but stood their ground.

Xena, Warrior woman is beloved by many.

Wonder Woman is respected for being both a warrior and female.

I can't remember the name of the woman with Conan the barbarian. Red...something??

Croft of Tomb Raiders is clearly a warrior.

Celtic women were considered fierce warriors. I believe women followed the British Queen Boudicea and the Amazon women.

Google search produced a number of books on Women warriors:
http://books.google.com/books?id=AEF6t0wDRKQC&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=what+women+warriors+cut+off+breasts&source=bl&ots=IQoXYdaLRU&sig=-cJycJdLyEPGhekOjNjQcSSVX9g&hl=en&ei=oEwCTu7xJsPViAL43pCnCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFQQ6AEwCA

One of my favorite novels/trilogy is about the top warrior of her planet Tedra de Arr of Warrior's Woman by Johanna Lindsey. It was the latter's foray into science fiction and she did well.

Just as there are men who are great in battle, so woman can be. Just as there can be men not suited for battle, so can some women not be suited for battle. It all depends on the character. But certainly women can be warriors and very great warriors.

At the present, the Australian government is pushing to allow women to go to war. I firmly believe this is wrong. Though women have many great strengths, men have much more physical strength than women. Having a woman on the front line is taking the place of a stronger man. Plus, if a woman were to fall in battle, a man would feel obligated to bring her to safety. A woman in turn would not be strong enough to rescue a fallen man. Not to condemn my own gender, but I think having women on today's battlefields would be more of a liability then an asset.

There are many ways for women to be an aid in war without being out there fighting. Like Riniel said, there is much to do in the background such as archers, attending the wounded, or even crafting extra weapons.

Having said all this, I'm not adverse to reading/writing about women in battle in historical/fantasy scenes. The appeal comes from the fact that the adventures young men have in war become even more exciting for a girl because she is rooting for a fellow girl. However, I think it should be written in such a way that the young woman is still a lady and not tomboyish. The perfect example of this is a book called The Silver Sword by Angela Elwell Hunt.

That's my $0.02, anyway.

I served in the US Navy, US Marines and US Coast Guard. The 'novelty' of being a woman wears off as soon as the hard work hits.

I've humped and marched with 46 lb packs and bivowaced in mud and rain. Trust me. In the cammis and boots, one soldier looks like another.

To suggest that you need 'strength' in today's wars is a misnomer. Today's wars are fought by computer. There are occasions to conduct urban warfare as in Iraq, but even there, sometimes the smaller person can slip in and out places where bulk prevents. On the ships, women proved to be quite useful in several ways. The first was the cleanliness of the ship. Spaces became cleaner. The second thing, scores on tests were higher. My captain thought it was because the women studied harder and the men didn't want to be shown up. We didn't have studies that told us why, just studies that proved they did.

Aircraft mechanics reported that some women repairing some of the hard to reach and small areas were actually better than the larger hands of the big strong men.

Armies, Marines, Navies and Air Forces are made up of all types of personnel. They range from sharp shooters to the cook and dishwasher. The fact is, the standards are there. Whether women or men (because there are smaller men that can't do all that big strong guys can do) achieve the requirements determines who does what.

Yes, there were some times, my being female got in the way. It was more often when crew members had too much time on their hand or and the like. In the middle of damage control, general quarters or anything related to battle, female-male, tall-short, fit or other, disappeared in the race to do the job. Most things are on time limits, so getting a gas mask on, a woman doesn't pay attention to whether her hair is coiffed. When I was on the hose line to put out fires, I had the same responsibilities as the next guy. If I didn't I wouldn't have passed my fire fighting test and earned my credentials. Yes, I've carried someone over my shoulders. No I'm not a muscular woman. It's learning what you can do and using the resources available. I can create a stretcher, too.

Women have been an asset wherever they have been. There is always a small group that protest, but those numbers grow smaller each year as the system works.

Another advantage the men discovered, having women on the rotations: instead of holding down the cushy jobs at home and not opening them up for rotations, meant the men didn't have as long a tour away from families, and they didn't have to cycle back as soon.

I could go on.
IMO woman make great combatants.

Lyn

"...by keeping her hands up."
What does this mean?


Judges 4
9 And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the LORD shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh.

14 And Deborah said unto Barak, Up; for this is the day in which the LORD hath delivered Sisera into thine hand: is not the LORD gone out before thee? So Barak went down from mount Tabor, and ten thousand men after him.
15 And the LORD discomfited Sisera, and all his chariots, and all his host, with the edge of the sword before Barak; so that Sisera lighted down off his chariot, and fled away on his feet.

17 Howbeit Sisera fled away on his feet to the tent of Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite: for there was peace between Jabin the king of Hazor and the house of Heber the Kenite.
18 And Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said unto him, Turn in, my lord, turn in to me; fear not. And when he had turned in unto her into the tent, she covered him with a mantle.

21 Then Jael Heber's wife took a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died.

Judges 5
7 The inhabitants of the villages ceased, they ceased in Israel, until that I Deborah arose, that I arose a mother in Israel.

(emphasis added)


There is no example of a woman warrior in the Bible. Rather, it was not allowed:

Numbers 1:20 And the children of Reuben, Israel's eldest son, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, by their polls, every male from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war;

There is nothing wrong, of course, with women doing computer and mechanical work away from the battlefield. It is wrong for women or children to go out to fight in the field with swords and rifles and so on.

Whether or not a woman can win a fight is beside the point. It is not wrong for them to fight, in fact I believe it would be unwise for them not to know how to fight. It is going forth to war that is wrong.

I have opinions about some things, but not this. This is something I believe.


It would be as wrong for me to go in to the battle field as it would be for any woman on this forum. But it would also be best if every girl knew as much and more than I do about Gracie jiu-jitsu and Front Sight.


A good example of the difference between fighting, and going forth to war, is Susan in the movie called Prince Caspian. When she held back the Telmarine scouts in the woods so that Lucy could escape, that was what Reepicheep would call, "...a noble and heroical act." But when she rode with Caspian back into field of battle, it was complete foolishness. Of course it did not happen that way at all in the book.




22 Then answered all the wicked men and men of Belial, of those that went with David, and said, Because they went not with us, we will not give them ought of the spoil that we have recovered, save to every man his wife and his children, that they may lead them away, and depart.

23 Then said David, Ye shall not do so, my brethren, with that which the LORD hath given us, who hath preserved us, and delivered the company that came against us into our hand.

24 For who will hearken unto you in this matter? but as his part is that goeth down to the battle, so shall his part be that tarrieth by the stuff: they shall part alike.

25 And it was so from that day forward, that he made it a statute and an ordinance for Israel unto this day.

(emphasis added)


I do not know what you meant by what you said, but I think it would be better to say it a different way, because people are not less important who take jobs at home.

Lyn, I respect your experience and your knowledge on this subject. Thankyou for sharing it with me. However I believe that God made men and women for different and unique purposes. The Bible often stresses that man is the protector of woman. In my view, this is showing us that it is not a woman's place to go to war. (As Tsahraf said)

I concede to your point that women are capable of battle; but I don't think this makes it right. I don't wish to sway you at all, I'm just stating my view on the subject.

Coming from a military brat, I know for a fact women are a distraction to their male companions. No matter what. They may not tell women, but it is a fact.

However, that has little to do with actually writing a woman in battle, which is what this thread is discussing. Let's try to look at this from a biblical and fictional standpoint. We can draw from personal experience, but this thread should not become a discussion on whether or not women are biblical, appropriate, or helpful in the US Military.

Also, I would recommend that people read the rest of this thread, as a lot of this has been discussed with lots of scripture verses to backup people’s views.

I believe what I said, because I did not make it up. And, as passionately as I believe what I said is true, I would be glad if some one decided to love God by obeying his command. It would be an honor and a privilege to me to guide some one to this decision.


Here is the original question:



I have been confronted with women warriors again and again in Fantasy literature (even the great ones C. S. Lewis and Tolkien do not escape its sickening touch) and it was time long ago for some one to supply the people with clean, God honoring Fantasy.

I meant my original statement, Patrick.

Sorry, I was trying to answer two people in one post. I shall edit. Tell me if I am still ambiguous.

*chuckles * I still don't think that has anything to do with my statement of male soldiers having issues with female soldiers, but that's fine. Don't worry about it.

As a (big) fan of the Prince Caspian movie, despite its worldview flaws, I think that's a wonderful example, Patrick. I think you can make some similar comparisons between Lucy and Susan all throughout PC (Lucy, in general, stayed home and then went for Aslan - Susan was usually trailing the guys). Also compare the girls' plot in LWW with that in PC. I'm not going to make a formal consensus here at this time, but the two movies handle women in battle differently, and it makes for interesting study.

Thanks, everyone for the lively discussion. It's interesting to see the range of opinions.

~The quote that I was addressing was a question about real life soldiering in today's armies, specifically re: Australia's army.

For that I used real life experience as retired US military:
"Cushy jobs"
Whenever someone is deployed (to sea/war/anywhere away from family) it is considered harder work than having a tour at home where you can go home to family every day. Those jobs at home are labeled "cushy" by anyone deployed, regardless of their degree of difficulty.

It used to be the rotations of tours at sea for men were six years at sea for three years at home then back to six years at sea. This was because the women were not allowed to go to sea (which was considered combatant tour) for a long time.
When they opened the women at sea program in the U.S. and introduced all service members into the mix, rotations for men changed to four-five years at sea and four years at home.
It equalized the rotation and made it better for men to be with their families.

~Regarding the interpretations of warrior in scripture:
If I am understanding the distinctions people are making correctly:
It is not going to war that makes one a warrior, only those that are on the front line can be considered a warrior. So not all the men in the camp on Mount Tabor are warriors (e.g. those involved in archery, catapults etc.), just the few that encounter hand to hand combat down hill from the army camp.

Consider Othniel in Judges 3:
"And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he judged Israel, and went out to war: and the LORD delivered Chushanrishathaim king of Mesopotamia into his hand; and his hand prevailed against Chushanrishathaim."
Would you consider Othniel a warrior?

The dictionary defines warrior:
1. a person engaged or experienced in warfare; soldier.
2. a person who shows or has shown great vigor, courage, or aggressiveness, as in politics or athletics.

Deborah as leader can meet both definitions, IMO.

~Tsharaf, in my fatigue, I typed Deborah holding up her hands. I was typing and reading...and typed about Moses holding up his hands and influencing the battle, only on Deborah's line. Thanks for catching the mistake.

When I was in seminary, one of the dear professors of over forty years was in the pre-stages of Alzheimers (it hadn't been diagnosed yet). His lectures were full of mis-statements. He'd speak of Moses and the Ark. I always felt sorry for the students who didn't know the Bible well, and had to constantly check through their lecture notes for errors, not of their own making.

I hate it when I make mistakes. I don't wish to misdirect. Thanks again.

~In terms of fictional characters women warriors: One of my favorites is Teyla in Stargate Atlantis. She was amazing to watch in action. She balanced being a warrior and being feminine in a beautiful way.

Why I Do Not Feature the Woman Warrior in my Writing:

1. The entire idea of the woman-warrior comes from pagan mythologies, which often featured goddesses and heroines equal, if not superior, to their masculine comrades and/or enemies. This is probably a result of the prominent role women played in pagan culture. For instance, the family name and inheritance passed through the female line, rather than the male. As a Christian who believes there are certain roles for both men and women as laid out in Scripture, I prefer not to reflect the pagan ideology on gender roles. This is particular only to me: I'm not saying those who feature female soldiers are actively attempting to tear down traditional distinctions on sex. My book features women who wield weapons and even kill. But when a man is around, it's a given that doing so is the man's job.

2. It's unrealistic. The idea of the typical woman running out into a field knocking over men in full armor and slashing through shields with a heavy sword is plain ridiculous (no offense). In modern day combat, it's easy: you only need to pull a trigger. But the heat and intensity of a medieval battle is, to put it in oldish ways, "no place for a lady." I like to make my books as real as possible (being a fantasy, you can imagine the difficulty). This allows the context of the story to make an easier application with the life of the reader. Women doing what men do doesn't cut it.

3. It dishonors women. When women do what men do, all distinctions are dropped but the biology. This is sick! The idea that women should be treated like men means that women have nothing to contribute except their physiological differences. Today, men take advantage of that idea: using women like tools. This is another idea I do not wish to reflect in my writing.

Deo Volente,
Pavalini

1. As a Christian I study these issues repeatedly. The more texts we have of ancient Hebrew, the better we can understand the usages. Translation is always a challenge.

Have you ever considered that the inequality of women was a result of the sin of Eve and the fall?

When God breathed life into male and female...they were help-meets or equals, not subservient. The Hebrew ozr (helper) and kngdu (in front of him) has been translated as help meet. See the interlinear online Hebrew Bible http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen1.pdf The verse could technically be translated as the one in front of him, or guide or leader of him. After all, when God questioned Adam about eating from the tree, he pointed to her leadership of him--"she gave it to me," as in "so I had to do it."

However, that was pre-fall of humans. With the fall, Eve and all women, suffer many things as a part of the curse.

If we are to "create" fantasy fictional women in the image of God (Gen 1:27), wouldn't it be better if they follow in the perfection of God and not the fallen state of humans?

2. Unrealistic?
Are you suggesting that the historical story of Joan of Arc is false? That she didn't wear armor or fight because it is unrealistic for women to be on the battlefield?
I've seen some women who were stronger and much more skilled at fighting than many men. Even among men, fighters are put into equal classes--welter weight, heavy weight, etc. so I'm not about to suggest that the strongest woman could beat the strongest man in a physical fight. But I do know that it is realistic for them to be on the battlefield, and not just because they can shoot a gun.

3. "It dishonors women." I don't see the connection. How is it dishonoring of women if women are competent on the battlefield or treated equally?
Why is it not honorable to treat everyone with respect and let the each be guided by God to be the best at whatever God wants them to be?

Whoa, Lyndsey, I think you totally misunderstood what Pavalini said here. I don't know anyone on this forum who doesn't believe that women are equal to men, even after the fall. Everyone I know here holds the utmost respect for us women.

I believe that Pavalini is discussing the fact that God gave men and women different roles, even before the fall. Men and women are still equal. They just serve Christ in different ways. Both genders reflect the beauty of the Lord in different ways. Just as the Father and Son are equal, they still have different roles. Neither is inferior in any way. They simply carry out their Godhead in different ways.

I firmly believe that the Lord created us equally; I just believe He was given us different areas of strength. That's why women were man's helpmeet. Because with us at their side man was stronger, more capable.

I agree, Airi.


I like this and agree, Pavalini.

I only go by what someone says.

Pavalini was the one who stated women being equal was pagan.

I don't think I misunderstood his statement of women not being equal.

Pavalini seemed to me to be talking about women warriors, not women in general, which is why I think you are possibly misunderstanding what he meant.

Well, when Pavalini comes back here, I think he will set the record straight that that is not what he was saying.

Also, while the question of equality relates to the issue of women in battle, it is a deep and broad topic that goes far beyond the battlefield. It is a topic that has been discussed elsewhere, and if you want to carry it out in more detail, please move to an appropriate thread or take it to PM. Please keep the focus of this topic on women in battle and not women's roles in general.

You are quite welcome.


Women are certainly equal to men in respect. It is disrespectful to women and children for a fully mature man to allow them on a battlefield. Adult men need to take the responsibility given them by God to provide for and protect their families, risking their lives if necessary.

Joan of Arc wasn't on the battlefield because she was a good fighter. As far as I know, there isn't even any particular reason to think she was a good fighter. Her situation is something to consider, sure, but that situation is by far an exception. And, along with Deborah, she believed God called her to it, which is, as far as I know, not true of most women.

And for the women who were stronger and more skilled than many men, were they stronger and more skilled than men who put the same amount of effort into it?

Now, I'd say it isn't necessarily wrong for a woman to fight in a war, but I'm not sure it's the best idea, either. Personally, I think it's a bad idea for psychological reasons, along with a few practical ones, most of which aren't at all the fault of the women.

I am apt to be somewhat leery of woman in the battlefield. Sure they can, but that doesn't make it wise.
I've noticed that Deborah has been cited many times in this discussion, and with good reason. But I just noticed something rather interesting. She tells Barak to go first, but it is when he refuses to go without her that she agrees to go. Now correct me if I'm wrong on this; perhaps she was planning to go along the whole time. Still, I think the implications of that are important.
~Phyllis~

Aie, caramba.

1. I did not mean that men and women are not equal. God says plainly He views them equally (Galatians 3:28). However, each has their own distinctions. Each has their own roles, and these roles were present before the Fall (I Cor. 11:3-9). It was only afterwards that men became tyrants and women insubordinate. The harmony between "the loving stag and the graceful doe" was changed.

After they had eaten the fruit, you wrote that Adam addressed Eve's authority over him by saying "She gave it to me." You say the phrase "so I had to eat it," could be added afterwards. However, that doesn't follow given the text. Adam was not addressing her authority, he was blaming her. And though the serpent had no authority over her, she followed suit and blamed him. Furthermore, when God first came into the Garden, He addressed - not Eve - but Adam, for Adam was the figure of authority. We see this throughout the story of Eden. When God first created Eve, Adam not only called her "woman," but also gave her personal name, "Eve." This alone is a case for his authority. She was, indeed, a "help-meet," but as I Corinthians 11:8-9 states, "For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man." My point is that the roles between men and women were set long before the Fall came. I therefore portray my "fantasy fictional women made in the image of God" as role-bearer; the same I do for the fantasy fictional men. If they were to be modeled after the fallen state of man, they would fall short of these roles.

2. Joan of Arc lead only one battle throughout her entire campaign. One battle, once victory, then she got captured. It is unlikely she engaged in combat herself, but more likely stood off-field with her generals manipulating the troops.
I agree there are a great number of women who could beat the tar out of me. But if we were walking down a dark alleyway and a thug jumped out with a knife, I don't care if she knows kung-fu and could disarm the vagabond better than I could - I'm still going to stand in front of her and protect her, because I'm a man and she's a lady. It's a matter of place, not ability; of honor, not efficiency. The fact that a few women could fight in a medieval battlefield doesn't mean they should. In my opinion, it's not ideal.

3. For this point, I tried not to be graphic before. But here goes.

Men and women coexist on two plains: the spiritual and the physical. In marriage, these plains are bound into one: the spirit through the vow, the physical through the consummation. The distinction of roles is a part of this spiritual realm (yes, I believe our souls have genders - this seems to be the biblical case, but to understand it you have to look past the biology and confess there is an innate difference between men and women based on how they think, feel, and whatnot, which are matters of the soul - imagine males and females being distinguished based on essence or substance, not organs). When the roles and distinctions in the spiritual realm are dropped, then only the biology remains. Theoretically, men should start treating women like men. But instead, they start to harvest them, abuse them, find them as objects of pleasure simply because of their biology. Once they have disregard for the feminine essence, there is no end to the perversion. I agree that women are equal. I disagree that women are the same. When I get married (Lord willing...it's possible) I don't expect to only acquaint with my wife sexually. There will be a regard, a respect, and a beauty about her that's entirely spiritual. She not only brings love's consummation to the table, but true femininity.
This is why I think it important to preserve the distinctions and roles between genders. It is the only way to ensure equality, purity, and unity. When I "see" women in the battlefield, I can only think it's because a man wasn't there to fight for them - which is sick. When women act like men, it's often because men are not being men. So just as much as I wish to protect true femininity, I wish to reflect true masculinity.

Deo Volente,
Pavalini

I wrote between the lines, so it would be easier to follow the track of the segments. Then I added color to make them stand out from each other.
Nice chatting with you.
Lyn

Thank you both for your discussion in the thread. We appreciate the thoughts you have shared with each other, and with us. However, due to the purpose and nature of this thread, we would like to back up Pavalini's suggestion of carrying this discussion on through PM and returning to the original goal of this thread.

Thanks, guys.

If you believe something is true, then you also necessarily believe that anything contrary to it is untrue. If it is thoughtless to argue for what you believe in, then it was wrong to start this thread in the first place.



For myself, I think that both Lyndsey and Pavalini have done very well in giving their opinions about whether it is right to have women warriors in Fantasy.

But if they no longer feel comfortable discussing it here, I will cheerfully bid them a sad farewell.



So say I.

Yeah... the original topic kinda went out the window... let's stick to the subject

I didn't take your comments personally at all. I simply used a personal experience to document the nature of what interpreting the scriptures can be.

I have no need to promote my personal interests or process of faith, nor interest in that.

This thread was about answering a viable question about the right of women in battle. That's my interest in learning people's opinions and why. If I challenge your opinion, I get a clearer idea of your position.

Back on the thread: I don't see anywhere in Scripture that God expressly forbids it.

Saying it is not right to wear men's clothing doesn't suffice as an argument against women in battle/military. If you want to make women wearing trousers/pants the issue of wearing men's clothing is forbidden by God, then a whole lotta women are sinning and don't know it. Wearing "men's clothing" is descriptive, not prescriptive. Clothing and hair styles adjust with culture. There are very few scholars that would argue for following the men's clothing issue. Women aren't wearing "men's clothing" in the military. Not when women have to pay three times the amount the men do for their uniforms because they made them to fit 'women' and not 'men.' So the fact they appear similar is simply that they are using the same fabrics and people cannot discern the differences in cut from afar. A woman's gig line is different than a man's gig line. I don't see anything in the Scriptures that says women cannot wear the same fabrics as men, either.

And if you want to get real picky. If you are following the scriptures to the letter on the clothing issue, may I suggest you get your Roman style boots polished and your toga laundered? Just funning.

There are three ways of interpreting Scripture and each person can decide how they must live.
1) Only do things expressly stated within the Bible to the letter; all else should be avoided as sin. The Pharisees in their effort after the return from Babylon to Jerusalem worked hard to be righteous before God, so they wouldn't lose the temple and the land, again. By the time Jesus walked the earth, the extra laws the Pharisees wrote to aid the interpretations, they ran into problems with some who only operated on the letter and not the spirit of the law. Nicodemus and Paul fell into the latter group, while many leaders that challenged Jesus fell into the former category.
2) Do or don't do things implied in the Bible; sin is interpreted depending on whether you should or should not do something implied.
3) Do anything freely beyond what is expressly stated in the Bible. The truth shall set you free and Seek first the Kingdom of God and all these things shall be added. This belief stems from Jesus speaking of Loving God and our neighbors as the basis for the whole law of God. Everything relates to love.
It's important to be consistent, once one determines how to interpret God's law.

This is how I feel about putting women in battle in my novels:

While men & women are equal, equal does not mean the same. In my books, I have portrayed women as knowing how to use a gun for purposes of safety. In the historical period of the 1800s, women knew how to use a gun if there were wild animals, robbers, etc. It really depends on the circumstance for the issue in the novel.

In my book I will not have women fighting/battling unless it's absolutely necessary. Such as the times men are defeated and the women are the only ones left to defend their homes. If you insist upon having women fighting, I think they would have to be tough. It takes a lot of muscle to carry a suit of chain mail or any medieval armour and swing a sword. Some of you have said you would have women as archers, but I disagree. To pull back a bow far enough to pierce armour you would have to have very strong back/shoulder/arm muscles.

I have to disagree with your last point, Daniel. I don't want to debate with you on whether or not woman should be archers, since my opinion isn't that well-formed ( ), but I do think they can be archers. I, personally, can't pull back a full-sized bow, but I know plenty of girls who can.

My grandpa makes longbows, for the purpose of hunting deer, and their draw weight is usually about 75 pounds. Some of my friends at swim can bench upwards of 100 pounds, which means they would be perfectly capable of using a bow.

I'm not saying that's the norm for girls, but there are plenty of girls out there who could be deadly with a bow if they had to.

Good for them!