Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Tuesday September 12, @11:05AM   Printer-friendly
from the Valkyries,-Amazons,...Xena? dept.

DNA proves fearsome Viking warrior was a woman:

A 10th century Viking unearthed in the 1880s was like a figure from Richard Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries: an elite warrior buried with a sword, an ax, a spear, arrows, a knife, two shields, and a pair of warhorses. [...] a new study published today in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology finds that the warrior was a woman—the first high-status female Viking warrior to be identified. Excavators first uncovered the battle-ready body among several thousand Viking graves near the Swedish town of Birka, but for 130 years, most assumed it was a man—known only by the grave identifier, Bj 581. [...] Now, the warrior's DNA proves her sex, suggesting a surprising degree of gender balance in the Vikings' violent social order.

Her name was Lagertha.

Reference: Charlotte Hedenstierna-Jonson, et. al., A female Viking warrior confirmed by genomics, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.23308


Original Submission

Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Reply to Article

Mark All as Read

Mark All as Unread

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Gaaark on Tuesday September 12, @11:14AM

    by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @11:14AM (#566679) Homepage Journal

    Her identifier was Bj..... Nice one! ;)

    Pretty cool. My wife would have been a warrior: raise the kids, kill some dude, clean my axe (nudge nudge say no more!)

    --
    --- That's not flying: that's... falling... with more luck than I have. ---
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 12, @11:28AM (53 children)

    Feminists would still have hated it. They didn't have special, lower standards on viking raiding parties. You can bet your sweet ass that Lagertha earned every bit of status she had.

    --
    Save Ferris!
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday September 12, @01:22PM (5 children)

      by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Tuesday September 12, @01:22PM (#566712) Journal

      Wanted to say similar. Feminists would be good to take a look at what women are capable of when not focusing one's energies on creating a pervasive narrative about how all womyn-born-womyn would be “rock star” programmers who write bug-free code on the first attempt every time, if only it weren't for $excuse.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 12, @01:31PM (2 children)

        Yup. I see the SJW types are out early this morning too. Must have been a sale on Venezuelan, organic, cruelty-free mocha-lattes down at Starbucks this morning. Here, have a preemptive upmod to counter some of the inevitable rage-mods.

        Mods: Now that was a Troll post. GP was just cold, hard reality even if it does hurt your pussies.

        --
        Save Ferris!
        • (Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Tuesday September 12, @01:48PM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @01:48PM (#566722)

          Mods: Now that was a Troll post.

          This was +Informative,
          But then... you can bring a mod to water but you can't make it drink

          (grin)

          ---

          Starbuck sells shit not coffee.
          Myself, I prefer Colombian, organic, cruelty-free double short backs with half-sugar but I'll be damn'd if I'd step in a Starbucks.

        • (Score: 2, Offtopic) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday September 12, @02:37PM

          by LoRdTAW (3755) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @02:37PM (#566748)

          Must have been a sale on Venezuelan, organic, cruelty-free soy mocha-lattes down at Starbucks this morning.

          FTFY.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @02:32PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @02:32PM (#566744)

        if only it weren't for $excuse.

        The Sex- part I get. What the hell would -cuse mean, though?

      • (Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday September 17, @01:15PM

        by turgid (4318) on Sunday September 17, @01:15PM (#569378) Journal

        To be fair, the majority of us misogynists imagine that we write correct bug-free code first time as well that's why we won't do TDD and we certainly won't test our code before shipping it to the customer. I fear for the human race, I really do. Never mind, the insects will thrive.

        --
        Don't let Righty keep you down.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by http on Tuesday September 12, @01:53PM (38 children)

      by http (1920) on Tuesday September 12, @01:53PM (#566726)

      I am honestly baffled when I try to figure out what Tmb thinks a feminist is.

      If you want someone to know what a bird is, you point at a sparrow, not a bat - and definitely not a lynx.

      --
      I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
      • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 12, @02:03PM (18 children)

        If you have a problem with that, start giving the bats and lynxes the boot from your cult. Currently, this [dailysquat.com] is what people think when they hear "feminist". Fat, ugly cunts who're too busy man-hating to be concerned with equal rights.

        --
        Save Ferris!
        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 12, @02:40PM (11 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @02:40PM (#566749)

          Currently, this [dailysquat.com] is what people think when they hear "feminist"

          A woman with red-dyed hair and eye-glasses was the last thing to pop into my mind when hearing "feminism".
          (maybe I'm not be of the "people", that figure tells me nothing)

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 12, @04:05PM (9 children)

            You don't follow modern feminism then. Easter-egg-colored hair, drab clothing, and thick, ugly glasses is the de facto uniform for feminist activists in the US. Do your research then tell me I'm wrong.

            --
            Save Ferris!
            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday September 12, @04:20PM (6 children)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday September 12, @04:20PM (#566807)

              Well, damn, I guess I'm not a modern feminist then with the all-black look and hair down to my knees. Meh, given how bankrupt the third wave has been for the last 10 years maybe this isn't a bad thing.

              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 12, @04:31PM (5 children)

                You're likely one of the few percent that understand conformity != rebellion. You likely also know what equality actually means, which disqualifies you for the third wave. I've pointed it out to you before but it hasn't sunk in yet: extreme fringe cases aside, we agree on nearly every social issue. You're just fiscal looter is why you can't stand me.

                --
                Save Ferris!
                • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday September 12, @04:39PM (4 children)

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday September 12, @04:39PM (#566826)

                  No, no we do not. Not even close. Don't try and drag me down to your level. And take your "fiscal looter" bullshit and shove it up your carrion-molesting ass so hard you choke on it; neoliberals are fiscal looters, the big banks are fiscal looters, in short, all the people transferring wealth upwards for the last 50 years or so are fiscal looters. Me, you give me a time machine, and I go after Reagan *before* I lay a finger on Adolf Hitler. Think about that one.

                  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 12, @04:48PM (2 children)

                    Directionality is irrelevant. Looting is looting. Punching up is not one iota more moral than punching down.

                    --
                    Save Ferris!
                    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday September 12, @05:01PM

                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday September 12, @05:01PM (#566842)

                      Thanks for admitting you put profit and blind ideology above people. Not that I didn't know that about you before, but only someone completely devoid of humanity could possibly say something like that. You're suffering from the moral equivalent of a massive priority-inversion bug; get your scheduler rewritten.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @06:32PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @06:32PM (#566896)

                      I just love the days when I can tell TMB he's a fucked up mess that doesn't deserve to live in a free country. I guess that is why he has such a hard-on for wealth inequality and justifies it with meritocracy.

                      He does not understand human society and lauds ideals that would turn this place into an even bigger shit hole than it already is. Shit birds laying shit eggs.

                      I do hope he is just full of hot air and stupidity that doesn't actually get played out in real world situations. He probably does pay his taxes even though they are "theft".

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @07:16PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @07:16PM (#566924)

                    Be sure to do that before he fucked up California in the 1960s.

                    ...and don't leave out all the Reactionaries/Neoliberals[1] who lied their way into the Oval Office since the coronation of the union-buster-in-chief.

                    Don't forget Lewis Powell before he wrote his infamous memo in 1971.

                    ...and Roger Ailes when he was still a flunky for The Mike Douglas Show, before he started advising the Nixon campaign on how to be more effective Reactionaries/racists/troglodytes.

                    ...and the Koch brothers.
                    ...and Sheldon Adelson.
                    ...and especially Robert Mercer--in particular, before he sired that vile daughter.

                    [1] If you want to make a fulltime job of it, go after the same lot in Congress/statehouses.
                    ...and don't forget the folks running Lamestream Media who provide the echo chamber for all the anti-worker, anti-consumer, pro-war crap.

                    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 12, @04:33PM (1 child)

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @04:33PM (#566816)

              You don't follow modern feminism then

              I don't follow many stupidities, modern feminism included indeed.

              Do your research then tell me I'm wrong.

              If this is an attempt to tell me you'd like to have confirmation you're right (in a geekish way, where right doesn't imply relevant), my apologies; while I'm inclined to follow many (other) stupid things, beat me if I have even the remote interest in this topic.

              Easter-egg-colored hair, drab clothing, and thick, ugly glasses is the de facto uniform for feminist activists in the US.

              For a moment I worried that photo might have been of someone I should know.
              My gratitude for showing me it's safe to continue ignoring it.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @07:08PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @07:08PM (#566916)

            Gloria Steinem & Erica Jong for the win. I've ignored all the more recent entries...

        • (Score: 2) by http on Tuesday September 12, @02:44PM (5 children)

          by http (1920) on Tuesday September 12, @02:44PM (#566753)

          I love you too!

          That was an excellent dodge of the question. I still don't know what you think.

          --
          I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday September 12, @03:49PM

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @03:49PM (#566785)

            I still don't know what you think.

            (between us: he doesn't actually. He's only capable of reflex-arcing on the topic)

            (grin)

          • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 12, @04:14PM (3 children)

            I think a feminist should be an egalitarian. What they are is nothing of the kind anymore though. For the most part, they're either bitter little hate-filled bitches in dire need of a good dicking or beta pussies who think going along with the bitter bitches will get them laid (It won't. They're lucky to get grudge-fucked with a strap-on.).

            If you fit the egalitarian model, you, like myself, are a couple decades out of date and need to stop calling yourself a feminist. That's not what it means anymore.

            --
            Save Ferris!
            • (Score: 2, Troll) by HiThere on Tuesday September 12, @05:05PM (2 children)

              by HiThere (866) on Tuesday September 12, @05:05PM (#566847)

              No. A feminist is in favor of female dominance. And egalitarian (or, possibly, an equalitarian) is what you call someone in favor of equal treatment. They've always been thin on the ground. Most people believe in better treatment for "people like me".

              --
              Put not your faith in princes.
              • (Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday September 12, @06:12PM

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday September 12, @06:12PM (#566889)

                No, only a small group of nutters, separatists, and loons are in favor of female dominance. That would be nearly as much of a disaster as the current male-dominated paradigm if you ask me.

              • (Score: 4, Touché) by aristarchus on Tuesday September 12, @07:44PM

                by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday September 12, @07:44PM (#566936) Journal

                Hi, there! Please leave your personal fanasyies out of the rational discussion everyone his having here, please!

                --
                guess who was the worst moderator on site, handing out more than twice the downmods of the next closest registered user
      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday September 12, @02:42PM (12 children)

        by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Tuesday September 12, @02:42PM (#566751) Journal

        Sure, there are people out there who are free thinkers and believe in equality, who, for reasons I cannot comprehend, call themselves “feminists.”

        Feminism is and always has been a cisfemale supremacist movement, and the arguments they use are just as execrable as the arguments that white supremacists use. The example I always like to go to are giftpilzen, Schrödinger's rapist, M&Ms, and Skittles. It was popular in Germany to compare ethnic Jews to mushrooms. Many mushrooms are good to eat (and it seems modern science keeps adding to the cornucopia of uses for different mushrooms), but some mushrooms are poisonous. These days people are conditioned to knee jerk at the mention of Nazis and their giftpilze, which I guess is better than nothing but clearly leaves something to be desired in the faculties of the knee jerker for deeper ethical thought. Why is comparing an entire demographic to poisoned mushrooms ethically deficient?

        We see the same pattern as the mushrooms with Schrödinger's rapist. Again, an entire demographic is compared to something dangerous, be it a poisoned mushroom or a “rapist.” The data will show that rape happens to men as well as women, and that violent assaults are most likely to be perpetrated by somebody the victim already knows, all too often a family member. However, the theory of Schrödinger's rapist proposes that rape is equally likely to be perpetrated by any man and only men. Finally, just like the advice the Nazis gave their children about ethnic Jews and poisoned mushrooms, feminism tells women that all men, without exception (this is explicit in the essay that describes the nature of this quantum, body-hopping rapist), a potential rapists, so they must be treated as actual rapists.

        I'm certain, too, that there are ethnic Jews who are international bankers, 0.01%ers, and all around poisonous mushrooms. That does not mean that all ethnic Jews are international bankers and poisonous mushrooms. It is wrong to propose that ethnic Jews be second-class citizens. Yet, feminism, by its actions, very much believes that all assigned males—and I'm not talking about gender here exactly here because that is not what it is a question of in practical terms; I'm talking about legal status—should be second class citizens.

        Now we get to the M&Ms and Skittles. So, it happened in the Twitsphere that there was a brief rallying around #notallmen. Iirc it was something about sexual harassment or something. Yet again, we see feminists rally behind the notion that all men are poisoned mushrooms. In fact, it could not have been more explicit in the Tweet that Salon captured and held up as an example of “enlightened” feminist thought. The reason that all men need to continuously receive degrading hate speech from feminist demagogues is because all men are like a bowl of M&Ms where “10%” had been poisoned!

        Finally, there are Skittles. When Trump's kid posted something about ethnic Jews being like Skittles, then the comparison to those old Nazi giftpilze rocketed forth in the media.

        So, in review:

        • It is reprehensible to compare an entire demographic to poisonous mushrooms. This is what the Nazis actually did.
        • It is acceptable to compare an entire demographic to particles in quantum superposition between rape and not-rape states. Somehow, this is totally different from what the Nazis did.
        • It is acceptable to compare an entire demographic to a bowl of poisoned M&Ms. Somehow, this is totally different from what the Nazis did.
        • It is reprehensible to compare an entire demographic to poisoned Skittles. This is like what the Nazis did.

        Well, I'm glad that's cleared up!

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday September 12, @04:24PM (11 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday September 12, @04:24PM (#566808)

          Okay you know what Kurenai? Go fuck yourself. I'm tired of listening to you compare the worst of the worst, the scummy genocidal TERFs, to ordinary women. Shit like this is in part WHY there are TERFs; your unhinged, aggrieved ranting does nothing but add fuel to the dumpster fire of the "transwomen are whiny, mentally-unstable drama queens" stereotype.

          And the answer to #notallmen isn't, you'll notice, #yesallmen, but #yesallwomen. I'd personally have worded that as "notallmenbutwaytoodamnmany, but I guess that wouldn't fly the the identity politics focus of an unfortunately large chunk of the Third Wave :/

          • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 12, @04:33PM (6 children)

            You just completely agreed with him while telling him to go fuck himself. This amuses me.

            --
            Save Ferris!
            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday September 12, @04:35PM (5 children)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday September 12, @04:35PM (#566822)

              Er, no, Uzzard. Try reading for comprehension. *She* is, once again, equating the entirety of cisgender women--she's not even sticking to just feminists now!--with the TERFy lunatics at the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival. My response to her is, once again, "cut that shit out; this is why no one takes you seriously."

              She's right that the TERFs and fellow-travelers are nuts. She's wrong that 51% of the human race wants her dead or worse.

              • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 12, @04:40PM (4 children)

                Read his post again without your panties bunched up your ass. He was talking about feminists not all women.

                --
                Save Ferris!
                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday September 12, @05:07PM (1 child)

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday September 12, @05:07PM (#566849)

                  Read his previous posts without your jockstrap tied tightly 'round your eyes and looped under your beak like some freaky avian BDSM slave; she has quite often dumped on *all* cis women ("cisgender hunnies") in the past and has been known to conflate them with feminists, and all feminists with the TERF brigade, sometimes in the very same post. Ironically, this very same sin of overgeneralization is what she accuses others of.

                  And yes, that is a she. I don't get the whole trans thing either, but there is enough evidence in the form of in vivo and cadaver brain imagery and dissections to show that trans people have different brain structures than we do and they're not faking it or insane. It seems to be a particular manifestation of some sort of body-image integrity disorder.

                  • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday September 12, @05:35PM

                    by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Tuesday September 12, @05:35PM (#566868) Journal

                    Clarification on the Hunnies thing. I see I failed with that one, and it did not adequate capture all that I had hoped it would.

                    What I had in mind was disgust levied equally at men and women. At men, because how disrespectful do you have to be to half the planet's population to believe they perpetually need some guy's protection (and only a guy's protection, and not only that, but the speaker's protection against other guys, because the speaker is often the One Good Man). At women, because how the crap can somebody be happy being somebody else's Hunny?!

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @06:36PM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @06:36PM (#566899)

                  I think TMB insists on calling Kurenai "he" because it is actually TMBs infiltrator account where he can post his screed from a "SJW" puppet. Horribly unstable people.

                  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday September 12, @07:33PM

                    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday September 12, @07:33PM (#566931)

                    Oh no, Uzzard's a known trans-hater. I won't say -phobe because he's not scared; he's an asshole. It's been pointed out to him several times that gender-noncomforming people have existed in every society going as far back as we have records, that modern brain imaging techniques show there's something different at the physical level about them, but he's immune to evidence. You see, he has an ick, and he has ideas of How The World Should Work (TM) and if the world doesn't work that way, well then by Crom the world is *wrong.* So sayeth Uzzard.

          • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday September 12, @05:24PM (2 children)

            by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Tuesday September 12, @05:24PM (#566861) Journal

            First, I am talking about feminists, not all women. One is not born a feminist. Our Viking here did not know the word feminist. Feminism does not even speak for all women, TERFs and trans women aside.

            Was about to post a correction to my post, since I thought I wasn't remembering the Skittles correctly, but I might as well work it into a response here. Turns out I was correct about being incorrect. Syrian refugees [nytimes.com] are the demographic most like Skittles.

            Compare Skittles:

            If I had a bowl of skittles and I told you just three would kill you. Would you take a handful? That’s our Syrian refugee problem.

            And Salon is the wrong source for M&Ms. Slate [slate.com] is the expert on M&Ms. (You're already aware of the context from our past conversations, but I'm also posting for the peanut gallery.) Martin Wagner tweets:

            Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. 10% of them are poisoned. Go ahead. Eat a handful. Not all M&Ms are poison. #YesAllWomen

            (For the peanut gallery, the M&Ms came before the Skittles. I've yet to read somewhere in the media where anybody has attempted to resolve the inherent cognitive dissonance here. There might be something out there, so please educate me!)

            So perhaps what we need to answer the Skittles is #yesallwhites. Does that sound agreeable?

            After all, quoting Karin Robinson as reported by Slate:

            No, #NotAllMen are violent against women, but #YesAllWomen have to navigate a world where those who are look the same as those who aren't.

            I think we can reasonably conclude that not all Syrian refugees are violent against whites for example (or they could be mutilating genitals, they could be rapists, take your pick of whatever morally reprehensible thing somebody who is a Syrian refugee might do), but all whites have to navigate a world where those who are look the same as those who aren't.

            Did it ever occur to #yesallwomen that people who aren't womyn-born-womyn also feel unsafe or vulnerable in public places from time to time, perhaps frequently? Did it occur to a single person going #yesallwomen that being assigned the male gender at birth does not make one a 6'5" linebacker?

            If it did, please post the link or give me something I can head off to the library to find, because I must read it. Would you please also refresh my memory as concerns violent crime statistics where a man is the perpetrator and a woman is the victim? That is what we're talking about, right, violent assault?

            Additionally, what do these perpetually frightened womyn-born-womyn plan to do about it, even if I'm supposed to accept that for reasons there is something I will never understand here, some special secret threat I will never know and cannot be articulated? I think our Viking warrior in TFS would have some helpful ideas could we ask her. Hint: when seconds matter, the… this isn't going to be strictly correct but bear with me… the húskarl are minutes away.

            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday September 12, @06:03PM (1 child)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday September 12, @06:03PM (#566885)

              Do you truly think it didn't occur to them? I don't know, maybe I'm giving the identity-politics brigade too much credit, but there is a very good reason my brand of feminism involves outreach to men and trying to help them break out of the prison the kyriarchy puts them in (and why I tend to say kyriarchy rather than patriarchy...). Society tells boys and men not to be kind, not to be nurturing, not to have emotions, and above all never to ask for help. This is why I think any feminism that intends to make real progress needs to face these issues and help our menfolk too. If nothing else, how many men are we losing from professions like nursing and teaching because society tells them it's unmanly? And let's not even get into the circumcision thing; no one's genitalia should be mutilated, no matter which set they have or neither or both.

              All that said, yes, there *is* some "secret fear" (and it's not even secret if you're paying afuckingttention) that most men do not deal with. It can be quickly if somewhat imprecisely summed up as "in the field of dating and romance, men worry about women rejecting them, women worry about men raping and/or killing them for said rejection."

              • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday September 12, @10:37PM

                by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Tuesday September 12, @10:37PM (#566993) Journal

                Wikipedia for kyriarchy [wikipedia.org] includes:

                …Kyriarchy relies on the creation of a servant class, race, gender, or people. The position of this class is reinforced through "education, socialization, and brute violence and malestream rationalization." Tēraudkalns suggests that these structures of oppression are self-sustained by internalized oppression; those with relative power tend to remain in power, while those without tend to remain disenfranchised. Structures of oppression also amplify and feed into each other.

                That checks out, especially the internalized oppression part. It's definitely a more complete theory.

                It can be quickly if somewhat imprecisely summed up as "in the field of dating and romance, men worry about women rejecting them, women worry about men raping and/or killing them for said rejection."

                That might be too imprecise for me, particularly the word worry. Do you have statistics I can take a look at?

          • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @06:31PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @06:31PM (#566894)

            Thanks for clearing up the hashtag there. I was wondering why feminists suddenly had a preference for short men.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Tuesday September 12, @04:58PM (2 children)

        by Grishnakh (2831) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @04:58PM (#566837)

        If you want someone to know what a bird is, you point at a sparrow, not a bat

        Actually, that's incorrect if you believe the Bible:

        (Leviticus 11:13-19)--"These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, 14and the kite and the falcon in its kind, 15every raven in its kind, 16 and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, 17and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, 18and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, 19 and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat."

        So if you believe in reality, where bats are warm-blooded and bear live young and are mammals, then you're right. If you believe the Bible, which literally states that bats are a type of bird, you're wrong. Roughly half of Americans believe the latter.

        • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Wednesday September 13, @03:29PM (1 child)

          by marcello_dl (2685) on Wednesday September 13, @03:29PM (#567247)

          *smacks forehead*
          of course! the bible should have proven itself true by telling goat herders not to consider the bat a bird even if by their definition bird was probably whatever flies by itself and has fur/plumage.

          I will stop believing nao. Or maybe I will edit the bible to correct the glaring mistake, but then scientists in 3000 years which classify creatures by their aural spectra or their brain programming will cease to believe and I cannot afford that.

          You are one of the enlightened people wanting the bible to write down a different arbitrarily exact value of PI, never mind the comma was not used and that PI is 3 when the precision is to the nearest integer, aren't you? No, I know, you wanted the bible to contain the exact value of PI.

          • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday September 13, @04:12PM

            by Grishnakh (2831) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 13, @04:12PM (#567264)

            If your god can't figure out there's a gigantic difference between a bird and a mammal, then it isn't exactly omniscient, is it?

            And if your god can't figure out basic mathematics, and would have me committing massive errors in calculation whenever I tried to do geometry, then why should I follow it? Even the ancient Greeks could figure out Pi, as well as the Chinese and Egyptians, to several decimal places.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @06:15PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @06:15PM (#566891)

        Without speaking for him, I can quite simply describe how many view feminism today. I used to believe I was a feminist. And by that I meant that I believe that women should have all opportunities, rights, and privileges as men. That, in the current wave of feminism, does not make a feminist. It makes me an egalitarian. The thing I think that makes this most apparent is their borderline militant response you can receive by pointing out gender inequalities that males suffer. For instance there is an enormous inequality in college enrollment. Females are favored there by about 3:2. And that naturally goes back to highschool. Boys are not being encouraged to go university in the same way that girls are. If somebody responds with defensiveness and aggression to that fact or starts tossing out labels onto anybody stating it, then they're probably a feminist.

        Feminism in its current incarnation is not about equality. The whole "Do you believe women should be equal to men and have the same rights? Cool you're a feminist then!" is like a white supremacist claiming "Do you believe that people should be able to be proud of their culture and the achievements of that culture? Cool, then you support white supremacy!" The movement has transformed into a sort of bizarre female supremacy. The only reason people are reluctant to call it what it is, is because we live in a society that's not only not sexist but overly protective of women. Go into a populated area and start calling a cohort female a variety of gender targeted expletives. It will probably be less than 10 seconds before somebody decides to confront you. Now have a female do the same thing to a man. Even if the female is physically larger than the man, nobody's going to intervene. And there's a good chance you'd end up with a few hushed chuckles.

        It's something that's wired into us. We want to protect and care for women while men are mostly disposable. I couldn't care less that fewer boys than girls are going to college, that we commit suicide at vastly higher rates, or any of the countless other issues. And it makes sense from an evolutionary point of view that we wouldn't care. A female can only produce one child a year while a single male can impregnate, potentially, hundreds of women in that time. Other males are just competition whereas women provide the means to further your lineage. It's only the primitive instinct that no longer has any real value in modern society that leaves us condoning behavior that when analyzed objectively and in a clear headed fashion is certainly in no way about equality.

        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday September 13, @04:25PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 13, @04:25PM (#567272)

          And it makes sense from an evolutionary point of view that we wouldn't care. A female can only produce one child a year while a single male can impregnate, potentially, hundreds of women in that time. Other males are just competition whereas women provide the means to further your lineage. It's only the primitive instinct that no longer has any real value in modern society that leaves us condoning behavior that when analyzed objectively and in a clear headed fashion is certainly in no way about equality.

          Furthermore, the idea that your "lineage" is even important really doesn't make sense if you think about it objectively. Your children and grandchildren, and especially later descendants, don't do anything for you personally. Your kids might bring you some happiness, but they might also bring you a lot of misery, and it seems to me that it's more often the latter. Your grandkids you'll barely have much contact with, and any later ones you'll probably be dead so you'll never see them. The whole idea of having kids is just a high-risk gamble requiring an enormous investment for really no payout. If you want companionship, you'll do a lot better with a cat or dog, and you won't have to spend nearly as much money or time. (Even the neediest dogs don't need as much attention as kids. Cats don't need much attention at all; you can hold them in your lap when you want, or ignore them if you're busy.) With a cat, you can leave it at home alone with food and water for several days at a time without worrying about it; you can't leave a kid more than an hour or two by itself, and have to spend a fortune on day-care or babysitters. And with a cat or dog, you don't have to worry about getting in trouble with the police and being prosecuted for child neglect, which can happen if you let your kids play outside by themselves.

          If we're worried about perpetuating the species and society, the answer is simple: let the government control breeding (perhaps all artificially), and leave child-raising to full-time professionals. Letting amateurs do it has had disastrous consequences, costing the society greatly in legal costs (how much does family court cost the taxpayer?) and resulting in countless troubled people (look at all the people in prison). There was an excellent book about such a society, called "Brave New World".

      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday September 12, @08:37PM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday September 12, @08:37PM (#566950) Journal

        what Tmb thinks a feminist is.

        Heck, I a still trying to figure out what he thinks a female is, let alone a woman. I suspect the two dysfunctions are related.

        --
        guess who was the worst moderator on site, handing out more than twice the downmods of the next closest registered user
    • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @02:05PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @02:05PM (#566731)

      I thought the idiots would have stayed over at slashdot. Sadly that's not the case. What is wrong with your brain? Can you really not see how irrational you are?

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 12, @02:10PM (3 children)

        Hold on, let me find you a mirror...

        --
        Save Ferris!
        • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @04:04PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @04:04PM (#566794)

          No, AC is right, you're a reflexive idiot. You have an image in your mind that covers a very large group of people, we call such images stereotypes. People who regularly use stereotypes as the 100% true version of reality are what we call "morons".

          For the opposite version of your stupidity: "all Republicans are racist Nazis!"

          • (Score: 2, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 12, @04:19PM (1 child)

            People who cannot tell the difference between the proper use of a generalization and the inability to see gradations and exceptions are bigger morons though.

            --
            Save Ferris!
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @06:38PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @06:38PM (#566902)

              Glad to know you consider yourself a massive moron beyond doubt. Didn't think you had the capability for such self-reflection.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by ants_in_pants on Tuesday September 12, @04:19PM (2 children)

      by ants_in_pants (6665) on Tuesday September 12, @04:19PM (#566806)

      That man is made of straw!

      --
      -Love, ants_in_pants
  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Spelli on Tuesday September 12, @12:04PM (8 children)

    by Spelli (6123) on Tuesday September 12, @12:04PM (#566698)

    How does that fit into the feminist/SJW agenda that there is no biological difference between men and women? There is no way DNA can prove sex!

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Tuesday September 12, @01:52PM (4 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @01:52PM (#566725)

      There is no way DNA can prove sex!

      But some yeast can prove sex.
      Or, lacking that, some dough at least.

      (grin)

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 12, @02:14PM (3 children)

        Or, lacking that, some dough at least.

        Bloody regressive left, always after my dough.

        --
        Save Ferris!
        • (Score: 2, Funny) by c0lo on Tuesday September 12, @03:03PM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @03:03PM (#566757)

          Bloody regressive left, always after my dough.

          You're - regressive or not - right again, no surprise for me here.
          Now, would you be surprised to hear I'm preferring to be after your yeasty dough than in front of it?

          (grin)

        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday September 12, @06:38PM

          by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday September 12, @06:38PM (#566903)

          > Bloody regressive left, always after my dough.

          Conversely, plenty of Neo-Nazis want to warm up the ovens!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @08:23PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @08:23PM (#566947)

          As I have pointed out to you (and others) repeatedly, that's not "The Left".

          The Left is Anti-Capitalist.
          The Left wants the collective ownership of the means of production by The Workers.
          The Left wants to own its workplaces; to make them worker-owned cooperatives and to continue making a living by doing labor--though with a better return on that through a more equitable ownership model.

          Now, The Left would like it if the gov't would help with that as has been done in Italy since 1985. [google.com]
          ...or if the gov't would at least not be antagonistic to the concept--instead of subsidizing megacorporations and the FIRE sector but not worker-owned cooperatives.

          .
          What you're talking about is Liberals who are to the Right of center and who do not reject Capitalism.
          They want to more evenly redistribute the profit that Capitalists make from using The Commons (roads, bridges, water systems, rights of way for e.g. communications networks, etc.) and do that via taxation by a government that is a Liberal Democracy where "democracy" means "the majority rules" and not "Those with the gold get to make the rules".

          N.B. This was done from FDR through Ike; the top marginal tax rate was over 90 percent then.
          It was a time sometimes called the "Happy Days".

          .
          Most Liberals don't want your measly accumulation from your pitiful income, produced by your labor.
          It would make them very happy, however, if e.g. the wealth of ONE family was to be redistributed.
          That one family alone (Sam Walton's deadbeat heirs), via the exploitation of the labor of others, controls more wealth than 40 percent of all USA residents.

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @03:30PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @03:30PM (#566771)

      It was clearly a transgender.

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday September 12, @05:29PM (1 child)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @05:29PM (#566862) Journal

      How does that fit into the feminist/SJW agenda that there is no biological difference between men and women? There is no way DNA can prove sex!

      Misrepresenting your opponents argument to such a laughable extent just shows normal people how weak your position is. Keep it up!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @02:38AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @02:38AM (#567056)

        He just can't wrap his mind around the theory that the brain is sexed organ, preferring his theory of gender that involves epicycles, denying any data his theory doesn't explain well. Never mind the inherent contradictions that crop up in gender essentialist talking points, especially of the MRA variety. (Never in the same comment, of course.)

        Flat-Earthers can get really creative, you know! The gender essentialists have some catching up to do! My favorite is the “shadow object!” [theflatearthsociety.org]

        Just sounds cool. Gender essentialists don't have anything that sounds nearly that cool.

  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 12, @02:00PM (11 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @02:00PM (#566729) Journal

    No mother-in-law jokes? What's this world coming to? Are Soylentils really that pussy whipped? "Oh my GOD, I can't compare this old battleaxe to my mother-in-law, what if the wife reads this? I'D BE DEAD!!"

    No, I'm not surprised that a woman could have been a respected Viking. There have been a number of women in history who have been warriors, and led troops and causes. Joan of Arc, anyone? Or, Jean D'arc, or something like that.

    --
    This broadcast is intended for mature audiences.
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday September 12, @02:25PM (8 children)

      by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @02:25PM (#566742) Journal

      My mother-in-law is dead, you insensitive clod!

      Also, Boudica in Britain and Dihya [wikipedia.org] in North Africa, resisting the muslim invasion.

      Women might not be as physically strong as the strongest men, but they're strong enough to be soldiers. They are certainly mentally tough enough. It comes down to training and conditioning.

      Culturally, matriarchies are as capable of martial prowess as patriarchies. The Iroquois were and are a matriarchal society, and they ruled their neck of the woods for centuries.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 12, @02:35PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @02:35PM (#566747) Journal

        "you insensitive clod!"

        She loves me after all! Gotta love those strong women!!

        --
        This broadcast is intended for mature audiences.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @03:34PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @03:34PM (#566772)

        Iroquois warbands were composed mostly of men and led by men. Civil society may have been matriarchal, but as far as my reading has shown, their warmaking was male dominated.

        • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday September 12, @05:14PM

          by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday September 12, @05:14PM (#566854)

          Which makes sense - two universal truths: war is a dangerous business, and women are the long-term strength of the tribe. Wipe out 90% of the men in a tribe, and you're going to have some manpower issues for a few decades. Wipe out 90% of the women, and you're not going to have a tribe in a few decades.

      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday September 12, @05:20PM (4 children)

        by HiThere (866) on Tuesday September 12, @05:20PM (#566859)

        OK... a bit of reality here. SOME women can train up to be strong enough to be excellent primitive soldiers, but usually only in positions of leadership. But most men can't either. Notable primitive warrior women always seem to come from the nobility, but so do almost all of the notable male primitive warriors. The only actual (as opposed to mythological) exceptions I've heard of is some tribes in the amazon jungles...and even then I believe it was only along one side of the river.

        There were rumors of some tribe along the northern shores of the black sea around the time of Homer, but I know of no actual evidence that they were real. (Homer gave us the word "Amazon" to describe them.)

        When sufficient evidence is available, it generally appears that the women famed as warriors were not actually warrior, but more political leaders forced into a position where they had to act as warriors. Some were capable enough to survive for quite awhile in that role, and nobody lives forever.

        --
        Put not your faith in princes.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @08:44PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @08:44PM (#566954)

          SOME women [...] primitive soldiers

          Maybe some day you will grow up and get over your silly chauvinism.

          Since the invention of the crank-cocked crossbow, hundreds and hundreds of years ago, it's been possible for a female to be just as deadly as a guy.

          Had somebody figured out the compound bow [google.com] earlier, they could even have had a high rate of fire from chicks.

          Now add gunpowder to the mix.
          The only "primitive" thing here is your "thinking".

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @03:13AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @03:13AM (#567060)

            Oh please, don't be on a hair trigger. He specifically indicated he was talking about primitive warriors. Additionally, he indicates this is something that not all men were capable of, either. It's not a surprise that not everybody is Gerard Butler's character or Lucy Lawless' character. Xena may not have a real-world counterpart like Leonidas, but there were a few real examples upthread.

            The fact that this idea that women can't be warriors persists with modern technology is a completely different issue, and it's interesting how even feminism is afraid to rock the boat there (have seen some boat rocking, though, so that's good). Despite that, even in present day, there are examples of women warriors. I believe we had two examples a while back.

            Personally, I'd like to know if the cultural conditions that gave us these real-world examples of women warriors both in primitive combat and modern combat were very different, in those times and places vs. our present global civilization. Is it the case that those cultures had more gender equality than our modern culture?

            In the book series I'm reading, which involves primitive-ish combat (sorceries of mass destruction, though, so ymmv), gender equality is a very common trait among humans of various ethnicities. I reserve final judgement until I've finished slogging through all 11,000 pages, but I wish the real world looked a bit more like that world.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @12:45PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @12:45PM (#567196)

              A burial site discovered in Peru shows that a Chachapoyas war band unit of Indian auxiliaries consisted of both men and women, and at the time of Pizarro their primary weapons were stone maces. Perhaps women were not as strong as men, but in a battle every pair of hands counts. Those chicks were grunts, peasants, not nobility. In times of great turmoil, when history is written, you'll see all humans, men, women, and sometimes even children, taking part. If they aren't, then whatever is going on is all just a make-believe.

        • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday September 12, @11:04PM

          by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday September 12, @11:04PM (#567000) Journal

          But most men can't either.

          "The Few, the Proud, the Not-too-bright, the Expendable."

          --
          guess who was the worst moderator on site, handing out more than twice the downmods of the next closest registered user
    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday September 12, @06:56PM (1 child)

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @06:56PM (#566914)

      I agree with the Runaway and extend the remarks to include a general dissatisfaction at the lack of

      1) Nobody making fun of the "no true scottman" argument for being a "no true scottsman" argument. Or Scotts-woman as the case seems to be.

      2) Nobody making fun of the ridiculous article text by juxtaposing "the first high-status female Viking warrior to be identified" with "suggesting a surprising degree of gender balance in the Vikings' violent social order". Its like claiming slavery in the confederate south was good because evidence has been found that one time a slave laughed out loud, so clearly the slavery experience was balanced life with a normal ratio of joy and sorrow. Seriously? One chick means viking society as a unit was all equality and feminism? Damn.

      3) Only one comment making fun of contemporary trans issues. We're all assuming this warrior wanted pronouns like "she" used for her, SN should be a safe space where Xe or He or WTF the warrior wanted to identify as is the pronoun we will use. If Xe wanted to be considered a warrior dude with the cis birth-males, well, we should consider Xe a warrior like the real ones.

      4) An absence is not necessarily proof there was never nutthin there, if some dude and his woman got the axe in some surprise attack or WTF, adjacent / combined burial is a thing, just because my G-G-Grandaunt is buried next to a headstone with my G-G-Granduncles name on it that doesn't mean she was in the Union Army in the civil war, although she was closely related to someone who marched thru Tennessee and all that stuff.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @03:35AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @03:35AM (#567064)

        #2 and #4 are too stupid to bother formulating a response to. #3 is your winner for lulz.

        Yes, there's a distinct possibility this is a trans man biologically speaking. In that case, the correct pronoun is “he.” Obviously, the brain is not available for an imaging study, so we'll never know. I don't understand why this is complicated or confusing. You're that freaked out by a 1 in 10,000 possibility? Or have you just read too much echo chamber bullshit?

        Either way, this is my new challenge! Come up with something that sounds as cool as a shadow object [theflatearthsociety.org] to attempt to fit the gender essentialist theory to all the data!

        I'm going to be really disappointed if this is where gender essentialism invokes a conspiracy. (Unless you can somehow blame it on NASA!) I guess I might as well get used to disappointment, because the conspiracy invoked is feminism, which in turn invokes rape culture. Amazing! Let's at least have one unified theory of gender essentialism. I want to know what gender essentialism's shadow object is.

        (Please, please, please not only come up with a shadow object but rope NASA in too! Crazy conspiracy theories are a hobby of mine. Make it as offensive as you want, but remember that it has to explain all of the data that could be measured in an independent study. Unfortunately, the feminism conspiracy theory just doesn't reach the threshold of crazy. Sad!)

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by looorg on Tuesday September 12, @02:17PM (4 children)

    by looorg (578) on Tuesday September 12, @02:17PM (#566737)

    After a quick read of the paper one can only conclude there are strong indications of wishful thinking on the part of the author. They are applying various modern feminist theories to their findings. They are questioning previous assumptions, which may or may not be correct. But they don't prove that she was a female viking warrior. The sex of the body has been known since the 1970:s, concluded based on normal osteological analysis, ie the pelvic bone gave her away as female. So no DNA analysis was really needed. So one is left to wonder why they are hyping this now.

    From the burial finds one can only really conclude that the grave was of someone with high status, weapons - horses - treasure and a boardgame. Not that she was necessarily a fearsome viking warrior, she could have been a trader or a leader but not necessarily a warrior. So it becomes somewhat interesting that the author blames previous scientists or archeologists for trying to hide women but what she is doing is just the reverse of trying to push the female status higher based on the same information. It's not certain one is more right or wrong then the other, since a lot of males have been classified as warriors due to he same grave content but they might not necessarily have been great warriors, they might just have been rich arseholes that wanted to go to the afterlife in style.

    "Do weapons necessarily determine a warrior? The interpretation of grave goods is not straight forward, but it must be stressed that the interpretation should be made in a similar manner regardless of the biological sex of the interred individual."

    "The skeletal remains in grave Bj 581 did not exhibit signs of antemortem or perimortem trauma which could support the notion that the individual had been a warrior. However, contrary to what could be expected, weapon related wounds (and trauma in general) are not common in the inhumation burials at Birka ..."

    "Although not possible to rule out, previous arguments have likely neglected intersectional perspectives where the social status of the individual was considered of greater importance than biological sex."

    The body, BJ 581 (BJ here stands for Björkö, which is the name of the island where Birka was located, the number is just the number -- there are thousands of graves in the area) , showed no sign of combat scars or any indications of being a warrior at all. It's all based on the items found in the grave. Her main argument here is that male bodies have been classified as warriors based on similar finds while female bodies are downplayed. She isn't necessarily concluding that she was an actual warrior. Since Birka was a trading post it's not very common for the bodies buried there to show battle scars or trauma so it's hard to draw conclusions one way or another based upon that information.

    It's probably not to hard to find alternative explanations but they are all downplayed here in favor of the warrior theory, which there are basically no basis for -- except that male skeletons become warriors if they are found with a blade, while female skeletons usually are not. So once again she is questioning the warrior classification of all male skeletons more then she is actually trying to turn her female skeleton into a warrior. For all we know she was the female slave they killed to keep a male company in the after life, then for one reason or another the male body was never buried or later removed.

    "DNA Proves Fearsome Viking Warrior Was a Woman"

    ... suggesting a surprising degree of gender balance in the Vikings' violent social order.

    No, it really doesn't. I know it's just a headline but that isn't really true if one bothers to read or just glance the entire paper. This is one of few graves with female bodies and treasure, hardly balances out the matter considering the umpteen graves of males bodies with similar or the same grave content. If anything is shows that this women might have been the exception to the normal social order. She is like that one female that managed to pass SEAL training, hardly the norm.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @03:50PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @03:50PM (#566786)

      ...intersectional perspectives...

      Well, when your only tool is a hammer, as the saying goes...

      • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday September 12, @05:55PM

        by maxwell demon (1608) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @05:55PM (#566877) Journal

        Well, when your only tool is a hammer, as the saying goes...

        … all gods look like Thor? :-)

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @12:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @12:54PM (#567200)

      ... they might not necessarily have been great warriors, they might just have been rich arseholes that wanted to go to the afterlife in style.

      Erm, it is Viking society we are talking about. No arsehole got rich or stayed rich, especially after death, without also being at least a competent warrior, at least at some point in their life.

      You know how it goes ... "A wimp and his gold are soon parted".

    • (Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday September 13, @03:37PM

      by Bot (3902) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 13, @03:37PM (#567250)

      My unbiased AI says she was a warrior, but all those splendid arms and stuff were gifts.
      Vikings were males, Beta males gonna beta and vikings were plunderers, golddiggers gonna golddig. QED

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Geezer on Tuesday September 12, @02:34PM (10 children)

    by Geezer (511) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @02:34PM (#566745)

    Any straight man who has ever been married can vouch for the ferocity, tenacity, and cruelty of the enraged female.

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 60 years.
    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday September 12, @04:27PM (9 children)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday September 12, @04:27PM (#566811)

      Let me tell you, we gay girls can too. My ex had a ferocious temper. It was like being a Ragdoll cat getting savaged by a smaller Siamese sometimes, I swear.

      • (Score: 4, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 12, @04:46PM (8 children)

        I know, right? Women... Almost enough to make you go straight.

        --
        Save Ferris!
        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday September 12, @05:04PM (5 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday September 12, @05:04PM (#566845)

          Sorry but nothing could make me "go straight" any more than anything could make you "go gay." It doesn't work like that. There just isn't any attraction to men here; nothing personal, but you all just don't look or smell (pheremones) right to me. I'm not grossed out by the idea, just about as turned on by men as by furniture or buildings.

          • (Score: 2) by jelizondo on Tuesday September 12, @06:09PM (1 child)

            by jelizondo (653) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12, @06:09PM (#566887)

            just about as turned on by men as by furniture or buildings

            you should try furniture... it rock... never mind

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @03:47PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @03:47PM (#567257)

              Also, be wary the way your GF eyes monoliths.

          • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday September 12, @06:42PM

            by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday September 12, @06:42PM (#566906)

            > just about as turned on by men as by furniture or buildings.

            Have you by any chance heard of Rule 34?

          • (Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday September 13, @03:43PM (1 child)

            by Bot (3902) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 13, @03:43PM (#567253)

            > any more than anything could make you "go gay."

            I guess you forgot

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb [wikipedia.org]

            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday September 14, @05:01AM

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday September 14, @05:01AM (#567646)

              Shutupshutupshutupshutupshutup. That's a SECRET. Are you TRYING to undo all the hard work the Scissor Brigade has done over the last 20 years?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @06:43PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12, @06:43PM (#566908)

          Haha, TMB is a closet gay? Makes more sense why he's always using penis metaphors.

          • (Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday September 13, @03:44PM

            by Bot (3902) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 13, @03:44PM (#567254)

            Hey you don't call my friend TMB "closet", ok?

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by RamiK on Tuesday September 12, @04:33PM

    by RamiK (1813) on Tuesday September 12, @04:33PM (#566817)

    Fearsome Viking Warrior

    No pathological or traumatic injuries were observed...stressing the buried individual's role as a high-ranking officer

    Fearsome Viking warriors die in the field clenching their swords and wearing their armor. It's those unlucky enough to have lived out their days peacefully that don't get into Valhalla or Folkvangr and need to worry about their good deeds and what they're carrying on them to Helgafjell.

    As for the existence of shield-maidens, considering the earlier Battle of Pliska [wikipedia.org], it's not too hard to see how a few starving viking women decided to join a raiding party from time to time... No?

    --
    compiling...
(1)