Kleenex drops the MANSIZE label from tissues...because of complaints that it's sexist.

by Syl Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:10 pm

Words fail....what next Rolling Eyes

Once more the deranged minority stamps it's foot and a big international company bows down.

"Kleenex has binned its "Mansize" branding after some customers complained it was sexist.
After 60 years, the tissue boxes will be renamed "Extra Large" in response to criticism from customers and feminist campaigners.
Kimberley-Clark, which owns Kleenex, said it succumbed to growing public demand to change the name, despite not itself believing that the Mansize branding was sexist.

Kleenex announced the changes on social media after customers challenged the branding.
Customer Lisa Hancox wrote: "Hi @KleenexUK. My four-year-old son asked me what was written here. Then he asked, why are they called Mansize? Can girls, boys & mummies use them?... He suggests you should call them 'very large tissues'. It is 2018."
Another consumer tweeted: "In this day and age, is it right for @KleenexUK to have a product that is MANsized? The world is changing, maybe they should too?"

Sam Smethers, the chief executive of feminist group The Fawcett Society, explained why the move matters.
She told Sky News: "Kleenex's re-branding matters because throughout marketing and advertising, we use lazy gender stereotypes to sell products and convey messages which reinforce those stereotypes."

https://news.sky.com/story/kleenex-rebrands-sexist-mansize-tissues-following-customer-complaints-11528558

by nicko Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:22 pm

"Sigh"

by 'Wolfie Thu Oct 18, 2018 4:09 pm

"The Fawcett Society" !!!

Quite an apt name for what sounds like a collection of drips !

by Syl Thu Oct 18, 2018 4:42 pm

In the last few weeks....
Some major department stores are now not labelling clothes for boys or girls....they are unisex.

At the start of term the parents of one school were up in arms because the toilets on the main school premises are now unisex.

At the Labour party conference one speaker addressed the room to insist delegates should not be called Mr/Mrs or Miss...because it was sexist.

Hijabs for primary school children are being sold by M&S.

They are just the stories that have been discussed here...no doubt there are many more.
Minority groups seem to rule now....and the rest of us just put up and shut up at best, follow like sheep at worse.

by eddie Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:38 pm

I guess we could start including men on the front of Tampax boxes and advertisements for “coping with your period”.

I’m sure the male population don’t want to be left out by the River of Blood brigade.

That’s the second time today I’ve said “river of blood”.
How odd.

by Fred Moletrousers Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:52 pm

nicko wrote:"Sigh"

Exactly. It's high time that companies told these tiresome, mouthy, self-interest "campaigners" to piss off.

by nicko Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:12 pm

I'm a bit worried by that City that's called Manchester !

by magica Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:53 pm

I'm sick of the pc brigade. What next rename a lady Bird to a people bird as not to offend men. Stupid.

by eddie Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:52 pm

What if they changed the word “manhole” to “womanhole”?

That would be interesting.

by Guest Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:57 pm

nicko yeah Manchester lol

by Vintage Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:03 pm

This is all getting ridiculous, since time immemorial all sorts of societies have had only two genders - male and female, these societies were separated by seas and oceans, mountains and rifts and all came up with the same idea, where there was a problem the person generally decided which gender of the two genders they preferred to live as and was known as that gender from then on, inanimate objects were often referred to as male or female, some languages only have male and female nouns, yet here we are at least until recently functioning perfectly well without having to rename everything to be neutral so as not to offend a minority who really seem to have lost the plot.

by nicko Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:24 pm

by Syl Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:58 pm

nicko wrote:I'm a bit worried by that City that's called Manchester !

Sshhhh Nicko, dont give people ideas.

by Syl Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:02 pm

magica wrote:I'm sick of the pc brigade. What next rename a lady Bird to a people bird as not to offend men. Stupid.

I got covered in people birds the other day...swarms of them invaded my garden.

by Guest Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:21 pm

Thought I would post this here and everyone knows I dispair at PC, but in this instance, I disagree.

To be honest that argument on man size is silly to me Syl

Most things come in sizes already, from small, medium, large and extra large

What is man size anywhere?

In height?
Width?

On average men are certainly taller and broader, and its a real biological difference between men and women, but and its a big but.

So what, that they have changed the name to make it more universal

Its not really a big deal and do not see this as PC

I mean, can you imagine women buying clothes that stated man size?

So all they are doing is making the sizes more in line with just about everything else that is sold in sizes

Unless you think we should change clothes sizes to add, man size for women?

Unless people want to apply the same principle to sizes in all things, that we have "man size" on clothes, toilet roll, kitchen foil, handkerchiefs etc. Then you have no argument.

Nobody in their right mind, as a woman, would buy clothes, stated man size, would they?

Hence this is not PC, but basic common sense

by Vintage Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:32 pm

You don't wear tissues, its a product where such things are of no real significance, its just a brand name so getting wound up enough to demand change is a bit silly.

by Guest Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:36 pm

Vintage wrote:You don't wear tissues, its a product where such things are of no real significance, its just a brand name so getting wound up enough to demand change is a bit silly.

Do you wear handkerchiefs?

How about condoms?

I mean, how do you apply man size there?

I agree on why people are getting wound up over nothing

This is simple applying the same principle on sizes, that we see with everything else

hence what is the big deal here and maybe again you can tell me, what is man size?

by Syl Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:21 pm

Didge wrote:Thought I would post this here and everyone knows I dispair at PC, but in this instance, I disagree.

To be honest that argument on man size is silly to me Syl

Most things come in sizes already, from small, medium, large and extra large

What is man size anywhere?

In height?
Width?

On average men are certainly taller and broader, and its a real biological difference between men and women, but and its a big but.

So what, that they have changed the name to make it more universal

Its not really a big deal and do not see this as PC

I mean, can you imagine women buying clothes that stated man size?

So all they are doing is making the sizes more in line with just about everything else that is sold in sizes

Unless you think we should change clothes sizes to add, man size for women?

Unless people want to apply the same principle to sizes in all things, that we have "man size" on clothes, toilet roll, kitchen foil, handkerchiefs etc. Then you have no argument.

Nobody in their right mind, as a woman, would buy clothes, stated man size, would they?

Hence this is not PC, but basic common sense

It is being overly pc though......a tiny percentage of radical feminists object to the description of a product thats been sold for 60 years....and a well established company bows to their demands.

Man sized means large....why do we buy a king sized bed and quilt instead of a queen sized bed and quilt? because of the size....or should that now be frowned on and changed to suit the whinging minority.

Clothes are different...we dont see man sized clothes for men because why state the obvious?
We see sm/med/large/xlarge etc.....womens clothes are labelled accordingly, or 10...12...14...and so on.

I have a cold...I want nay need a man sized tissue....I dont see the problem. Rolling Eyes

by Syl Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:27 pm

Didge wrote:
Vintage wrote:You don't wear tissues, its a product where such things are of no real significance, its just a brand name so getting wound up enough to demand change is a bit silly.

Do you wear handkerchiefs?

How about condoms?

I mean, how do you apply man size there?

I agree on why people are getting wound up over nothing

This is simple applying the same principle on sizes, that we see with everything else

hence what is the big deal here and maybe again you can tell me, what is man size?

Handkerchiefs are often labelled as ladies handkerchiefs or mens handkerchiefs.

Most women dont wear condoms so there is no need to specify they are for MEN....the sizes are not labelled as small to large, rather snug to Trojan (yes I just googled) .....no doubt to spare the less endowed man his blushes when buying a packet. Razz

by Guest Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:31 pm

Syl wrote:
Didge wrote:Thought I would post this here and everyone knows I dispair at PC, but in this instance, I disagree.

To be honest that argument on man size is silly to me Syl

Most things come in sizes already, from small, medium, large and extra large

What is man size anywhere?

In height?
Width?

On average men are certainly taller and broader, and its a real biological difference between men and women, but and its a big but.

So what, that they have changed the name to make it more universal

Its not really a big deal and do not see this as PC

I mean, can you imagine women buying clothes that stated man size?

So all they are doing is making the sizes more in line with just about everything else that is sold in sizes

Unless you think we should change clothes sizes to add, man size for women?

Unless people want to apply the same principle to sizes in all things, that we have "man size" on clothes, toilet roll, kitchen foil, handkerchiefs etc. Then you have no argument.

Nobody in their right mind, as a woman, would buy clothes, stated man size, would they?

Hence this is not PC, but basic common sense

It is being overly pc though......a tiny percentage of radical feminists object to the description of a product thats been sold for 60 years....and a well established company bows to their demands.

Man sized means large....why do we buy a king sized bed and quilt instead of a queen sized bed and quilt? because of the size....or should that now be frowned on and changed to suit the whinging minority.

Clothes are different...we dont see man sized clothes for men because why state the obvious?
We see sm/med/large/xlarge etc.....womens clothes are labelled accordingly, or 10...12...14...and so on.

I have a cold...I want nay need a man sized tissue....I dont see the problem.

Okay , so a number of peopple object to this and its wrong that people bow down to demands

I get that, but and here is the but, what the fuck is man size?

Seriously?

I am still waiting for someone to explain this to me?

I mean, this application of man size is not even applied to many other aspects of sizes in industries.

So whilst i agree its wrong for people to apply pressure through poor ulterior means. What you are not explaining to me. Is why on earth should we keep such a size specification and only for tissues?

Maybe you want to elaborate why Syl?

As to your view of king size and queen size, they are simple forms of size, that you have become accustomed to. Which if i am being honest is a very elitist form of view to view sizes. As its a view to see rich and poor based on sizes of the beds they have. Thus it holds very poor view to hold that the bigger size of bed you have, the greater you may perceive yourself to be.

I mean, for women to really argue on size, says it all really and espcially on man size. When many of those same men, do not even know where the clitoris is.

So your argument, is about as dumb as it gets, as we might as well apply the same rulling on sex, to everything

We no longer have miles, but "man miles" and we know longer have heavy weights, but "man weights".

Where is your insanity going to end with your poor inconcieved arguments here?

There is no scientific bases for man size and unless you can porve so, you are simple backing an age old poor ill concieved sexist and poor thinking view to grade tissues, by genders. When the size of a tissue, matters little when wiping your arse or nose.

by Guest Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:36 pm

Syl wrote:
Didge wrote:

Do you wear handkerchiefs?

How about condoms?

I mean, how do you apply man size there?

I agree on why people are getting wound up over nothing

This is simple applying the same principle on sizes, that we see with everything else

hence what is the big deal here and maybe again you can tell me, what is man size?

Handkerchiefs are often labelled as ladies handkerchiefs or mens handkerchiefs.

Most women dont wear condoms so there is no need to specify they are for MEN....the sizes are not labelled as small to large, rather snug to Trojan (yes I just googled) .....no doubt to spare the less endowed man his blushes when buying a packet.

And do you not see how dumb that is?

Its simple a piece of cloth/paper, that has been upgraded to mean something else, by an elite of society?

You see you are applying a view that a piece of cloth is only based on a gender

Do you not even see how sexist that is?

As again, how does sixe apply here on the size of a condon, tissue, or handkerchiefs, when they are universal to all humans and not even just humans?

by Syl Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:37 pm

Man size means larger than ladies size....or in the case of tissues standard size, isnt that obvious?
Its hardly insulting anyone is it...it's just a description that if a handkerchief is labelled man sized it will be bigger....maybe stronger, ie it wont disintegrate if it gets a lot of snot in it....is that a clear enough explanation?

I haven't heard of man miles or man weights....and I agree it sounds ridiculous, miles and weights are whatever distance or weight they are....applying gender to them is a bit baffling.

by Guest Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:41 pm

Syl wrote:Man size means larger than ladies size....or in the case of tissues standard size, isnt that obvious?
Its hardly insulting anyone is it...it's just a description that if a handkerchief is labelled man sized it will be bigger....maybe stronger, ie it wont disintegrate if it gets a lot of snot in it....is that a clear enough explanation?

I haven't heard of man miles or man weights....and I agree it sounds ridiculous, miles and weights are whatever distance or weight they are....applying gender to them is a bit baffling.

So what you are saying, is any large women, is man size then?

In other words, you are fat shaming women, as men?

And also claiming men as this size

This is coming from you, that does not like fat shaming people

The point is, your argument is so weak, it has no scientific bases and its based on an ill conceived and dumb view

Something you have grown up with. Now again, I dispair at most PC bullshit, but this is not PC, as there is no standard, for what on earth is "man size".

Can you give me the dimensions of what is man size?

No and do you know why, you made it all up in your head

In other words, its as bollocks, as the mountain of PC bullshit I hear everyday

by Syl Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:41 pm

Didge wrote:
Syl wrote:

Handkerchiefs are often labelled as ladies handkerchiefs or mens handkerchiefs.

Most women dont wear condoms so there is no need to specify they are for MEN....the sizes are not labelled as small to large, rather snug to Trojan (yes I just googled) .....no doubt to spare the less endowed man his blushes when buying a packet.

And do you not see how dumb that is?

Its simple a piece of cloth/paper, that has been upgraded to mean something else, by an elite of society?

You see you are applying a view that a piece of cloth is only based on a gender

Do you not even see how sexist that is?

As again, how does sixe apply here on the size of a condon, tissue, or handkerchiefs, when they are universal to all humans and not even just humans?

Ladies hankies, both cloth and paper ones, often have flowers on them....should they not be labelled as 'ladies handkerchiefs'?
What about socks....knickers, underpants, shirts, ties, lets lump everything together less some hairy arsed feminist objects. Rolling Eyes

by Guest Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Syl wrote:
Didge wrote:

And do you not see how dumb that is?

Its simple a piece of cloth/paper, that has been upgraded to mean something else, by an elite of society?

You see you are applying a view that a piece of cloth is only based on a gender

Do you not even see how sexist that is?

As again, how does sixe apply here on the size of a condon, tissue, or handkerchiefs, when they are universal to all humans and not even just humans?

Ladies hankies, both cloth and paper ones, often have flowers on them....should they not be labelled as 'ladies handkerchiefs'?
What about socks....knickers, underpants, shirts, ties, lets lump everything together less some hairy arsed feminist objects.

So you are saying men can not buy hankies with flowers on?

Seriously, what the fuck are you on about here sly?

I am against hard arse idiots feminists, who do nothing for equality

I believe in equality

Man size, is not equality, is simple made up bullshit, that has no scientific bases

As men are only on average bigger than women

That means average

So to you, any tall woman, has to wear, man size gloves

Why can she simple not wear large gloves?

by Syl Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:46 pm

Didge wrote:
Syl wrote:Man size means larger than ladies size....or in the case of tissues standard size, isnt that obvious?
Its hardly insulting anyone is it...it's just a description that if a handkerchief is labelled man sized it will be bigger....maybe stronger, ie it wont disintegrate if it gets a lot of snot in it....is that a clear enough explanation?

I haven't heard of man miles or man weights....and I agree it sounds ridiculous, miles and weights are whatever distance or weight they are....applying gender to them is a bit baffling.

So what you are saying, is any large women, is man size then?

In other words, you are fat shaming women, as men?

And also claiming men as this size

This is coming from you, that does not like fat shaming people

The point is, your argument is so weak, it has no scientific bases and its based on an ill conceived and dumb view

Something you have grown up with. Now again, I dispair at most PC bullshit, but this is not PC, as there is no standard, for what on earth is "man size".

Can you give me the dimensions of what is man size?

No and do you know why, you made it all up in your head

In other words, its as bollocks, as the mountain of PC bullshit I hear everyday

Its not fat shaming anyone at all....I think you are reading far too much into this, and tbh I am surprised you are backing up the pc minority that are demanding a company change their established branding in order to pacify the mental few.

Again....MAN SIZED = LARGER than STANDARD size.

by Guest Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:49 pm

Syl wrote:
Didge wrote:

So what you are saying, is any large women, is man size then?

In other words, you are fat shaming women, as men?

And also claiming men as this size

This is coming from you, that does not like fat shaming people

The point is, your argument is so weak, it has no scientific bases and its based on an ill conceived and dumb view

Something you have grown up with. Now again, I dispair at most PC bullshit, but this is not PC, as there is no standard, for what on earth is "man size".

Can you give me the dimensions of what is man size?

No and do you know why, you made it all up in your head

In other words, its as bollocks, as the mountain of PC bullshit I hear everyday

Its not fat shaming anyone at all....I think you are reading far too much into this, and tbh I am surprised you are backing up the pc minority that are demanding a company change their established branding in order to pacify the mental few.

Again....MAN SIZED = LARGER than STANDARD size.

So what standard is a woman who is 30 stone?

And what weight is man size?

So by your reasoning, man size, would make your 300 pound model, man size, would it not?

Do you not even see, how you are associating fatness, with gender?
I mean she is larger

Do you want an escape route?

by Syl Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:52 pm

Didge wrote:
Syl wrote:

Ladies hankies, both cloth and paper ones, often have flowers on them....should they not be labelled as 'ladies handkerchiefs'?
What about socks....knickers, underpants, shirts, ties, lets lump everything together less some hairy arsed feminist objects.

So you are saying men can not buy hankies with flowers on?

Seriously, what the fuck are you on about here sly?

I am against hard arse idiots feminists, who do nothing for equality

I believe in equality

Man size, is not equality, is simple made up bullshit, that has no scientific bases

As men are only on average bigger than women

That means average

So to you, any tall woman, has to wear, man size gloves

Why can she simple not wear large gloves?

Men can by whichever hankies they like, it still doesnt alter the fact that ones with flowers on are very often labelled as ladies handkerchiefs.

A tall woman buys clothes and gloves to fit her size...gloves are often sized if they are not stretchy. You are being daft now. Rolling Eyes

by Syl Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:54 pm

Didge wrote:
Syl wrote:

Its not fat shaming anyone at all....I think you are reading far too much into this, and tbh I am surprised you are backing up the pc minority that are demanding a company change their established branding in order to pacify the mental few.

Again....MAN SIZED = LARGER than STANDARD size.

So what standard is a woman who is 30 stone?

And what weight is man size?

So by your reasoning, man size, would make your 300 pound model, man size, would it not?

Do you not even see, how you are associating fatness, with gender?
I mean she is larger

Do you want an escape route?

I dont need an escape route....I'm not the one going off on a tangent.

by Guest Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:54 pm

Syl wrote:
Didge wrote:

So you are saying men can not buy hankies with flowers on?

Seriously, what the fuck are you on about here sly?

I am against hard arse idiots feminists, who do nothing for equality

I believe in equality

Man size, is not equality, is simple made up bullshit, that has no scientific bases

As men are only on average bigger than women

That means average

So to you, any tall woman, has to wear, man size gloves

Why can she simple not wear large gloves?

Men can by whichever hankies they like, it still doesnt alter the fact that ones with flowers on are very often labelled as ladies handkerchiefs.

A tall woman buys clothes and gloves to fit her size...gloves are often sized if they are not stretchy. You are being daft now.

So they would have to buy in your world view "man size"

As that is how you have designated sizes?

Again and I keep asking, what on earth is man size?

Is this 2 foot tall or 7 foot tall?

by Guest Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:55 pm

Syl wrote:
Didge wrote:

So what standard is a woman who is 30 stone?

And what weight is man size?

So by your reasoning, man size, would make your 300 pound model, man size, would it not?

Do you not even see, how you are associating fatness, with gender?
I mean she is larger

Do you want an escape route?

I dont need an escape route....I'm not the one going off on a tangent.

I think you are very much running away from my points

Answer the points or stop wasting my time

Seriously

by Syl Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:04 pm

Didge wrote:
Syl wrote:

I dont need an escape route....I'm not the one going off on a tangent.

I think you are very much running away from my points

Answer the points or stop wasting my time

Seriously

I have answered your points, but you keep changing the goalposts.

We were talking about tissues being labelled man size....which they always have been till the nutty few objected.
Man sized = larger sized.

You then swapped this to clothes and condoms....I answered those points....you then accuse me of fat shaming, and now I am wasting your time.

I give up. Laughing

by Guest Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:08 pm

Syl wrote:
Didge wrote:

I think you are very much running away from my points

Answer the points or stop wasting my time

Seriously

I have answered your points, but you keep changing the goalposts.

We were talking about tissues being labelled man size....which they always have been till the nutty few objected.
Man sized = larger sized.

You then swapped this to clothes and condoms....I answered those points....you then accuse me of fat shaming, and now I am wasting your time.

I give up.

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr no you have not syl

We are talking about sizes.

So should sizes based on your principle appply to everything?

First your have to explain what on earth is man size

Second, you have to say, why we should then apply this made up category to then sizes on everything?

As surely you would have too, as what would be the point on fighting for some mad up bullshit concept on simple tissues\?

by nicko Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:23 pm

I think we should Man up and stop this PC shit !

by Guest Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:25 pm

nicko wrote:I think we should Man up and stop this PC shit !

And apply man size to what industries Nicko?

Can someone explain what on earth is man size to me?

by Fred Moletrousers Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:49 pm

nicko wrote:I think we should Man up and stop this PC shit !

The thoughts, words and deeds of mankind are being managed and manhandled by the maneuvering manifestations of these manipulative twerps who manufacture mandatory manuscripts and manifestos aimed at manipulating our manifold mannerisms and expressions of manliness....

by Guest Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:53 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
nicko wrote:I think we should Man up and stop this PC shit !

The thoughts, words and deeds of mankind are being managed and manhandled by the maneuvering manifestations of these manipulative twerps who manufacture mandatory manuscripts and manifestos aimed at manipulating our manifold mannerisms and expressions of manliness....

Oh for goodness sake

On that I agree with, as the word man, is being seen to be evil and wrong

And that is wrong to associate

This however, is about size and what other aspects do we apply man size too?

Still waiting to know what on earth that is?

by Victorismyhero Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:15 pm

well now...not sure about tissues BUT, I CAN tell you about man sized and woman sized bows (as in bows and arrows)

a "Man sized" bow is the height of the man plus the span of his hand
a "woman sized" bow is to her shoulder

the man sized...(long bow) is drawn to the shoulder
the woman sized is drawn to the breast

(stops her shaving a tit off with the bow string Shocked

)

curiously the short bow was favoured by forresters poachers and welshmen, because it is easier to carry, heft and draw in dense woodland.

A much shorter bow still was favoured by mounted archers, the so called horse bow

by Guest Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:19 pm

Lord Foul wrote:well now...not sure about tissues BUT, I CAN tell you about man sized and woman sized bows (as in bows and arrows)

a "Man sized" bow is the height of the man plus the span of his hand
a "woman sized" bow is to her shoulder

the man sized...(long bow) is drawn to the shoulder
the woman sized is drawn to the breast

(stops her shaving a tit off with the bow string )

curiously the short bow was favoured by forresters poachers and welshmen, because it is easier to carry, heft and draw in dense woodland.

A much shorter bow still was favoured by mounted archers, the so called horse bow

How does that pan out in the rest of the world?

Kind of a pure Rule Britania bullshit argument mate

I would think the Scithians for exmple, would laugh at your argument

If you want to make a poor argument on gender, seriously think of far better archers in history

Like the Mongals for example

The longbow, certainly never won any crusade

Just saying mate

by Victorismyhero Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:41 pm

the mongols almost exclusively used the horse bow
and the scythians also MAINLY used a short bow 119cm or so from end to end (although being a recurve they measured typically 130cm around the curves.

firing arrows tyically up to 60cm long (hardly the stuff of long bows)

some scythian arrows have been found up to 80 cm long suggesting along with pictures on pottery etc that they also used a longer bow drawn to the ear

nowhere does it say that women used these longer weapons

and the reason the longbow never won any crusades....

although in use to good effect primarily as a support weapon for infantry and cavalry from about the early 12th century, the use of the long bow as a weapon of mass destruction (think Crécy (1346), Poitiers (1356) and Agincourt (1415). did not arise until AFTER the crusades.

by Victorismyhero Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:44 pm

there is also roumour that some women (and I cant remember if it was the ficticious "amazons" or a real peoples...) had their right breast removed in order to be able to draw a long bow to the ear/shoulder probably myth...but it persists......

by Guest Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:45 pm

Lord Foul wrote:the mongols almost exclusively used the horse bow
and the scythians also MAINLY used a short bow 119cm or so from end to end (although being a recurve they measured typically 130cm around the curves.

firing arrows tyically up to 60cm long (hardly the stuff of long bows)

some scythian arrows have been found up to 80 cm long suggesting along with pictures on pottery etc that they also used a longer bow drawn to the ear

nowhere does it say that women used these longer weapons

and the reason the longbow never won any crusades....

although in use to good effect primarily as a support weapon for infantry and cavalry from about the early 12th century, the use of the long bow as a weapon of mass destruction (think Crécy (1346), Poitiers (1356) and Agincourt (1415). did not arise until AFTER the crusades.

1) They also uses lances

2) Wrong, they also used lances, swords etc, with the Scythians

3) In Scythians society, Spartan society, Celtic society, women were trained as warriors and as a last line of defense

The eastern bow or composite bow was far superior to any bow by the west for centuries

The long bow was effectivelly stolen from the welsh

Those are the facts mate

by Guest Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:50 pm

Lord Foul wrote:there is also roumour that some women (and I cant remember if it was the ficticious "amazons" or a real peoples...) had their right breast removed in order to be able to draw a long bow to the ear/shoulder probably myth...but it persists......

I think that is based on the Argonauts myth mate?

by Victorismyhero Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:57 pm

Didge wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:the mongols almost exclusively used the horse bow
and the scythians also MAINLY used a short bow 119cm or so from end to end (although being a recurve they measured typically 130cm around the curves.

firing arrows tyically up to 60cm long (hardly the stuff of long bows)

some scythian arrows have been found up to 80 cm long suggesting along with pictures on pottery etc that they also used a longer bow drawn to the ear

nowhere does it say that women used these longer weapons

and the reason the longbow never won any crusades....

although in use to good effect primarily as a support weapon for infantry and cavalry from about the early 12th century, the use of the long bow as a weapon of mass destruction (think Crécy (1346), Poitiers (1356) and Agincourt (1415). did not arise until AFTER the crusades.

1) They also uses lances

2) Wrong, they also used lances, swords etc, with the Scythians

agreed...my point was that in the choice of bow they mainly used the short horse bow

3) In Scythians society, Spartan society, Celtic society, women were trained as warriors and as a last line of defense

true but few would use a full long bow, few indeed would be ABLE to use a full long bow

The eastern bow or composite bow was far superior to any bow by the west for centuries

of that there is little doubt, it was centuries ahead, but again tactically the use was more of a support weapon or a shock tactic...ride in shoot and run like f**k the use of massed ranks of archers didnt happen...

The long bow was effectivelly stolen from the welsh

of course........old taffy knew a thing or two.......

Those are the facts mate

by Victorismyhero Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:58 pm

Didge wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:there is also roumour that some women (and I cant remember if it was the ficticious "amazons" or a real peoples...) had their right breast removed in order to be able to draw a long bow to the ear/shoulder probably myth...but it persists......

I think that is based on the Argonauts myth mate?

ahh TY.... I couldnt remember where I'd seen it.....

by Guest Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:40 pm

You see rags, this is where I am humbled

Vic knows better than me and only once in a while I only remember something he cannot place

It actually makes me feel good, that, I can help Vic remember something he is far knowledgeable on something than I am. If I do not , then I strive to read and understand more. He has always instilled that in me.

I look up to him and have learnt loads from him

Hence he more than anyone, has instilled a view in me to learn and question everything

Hats off to him

Night everyone

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:41 pm

Didge wrote:You see rags, this is where I am humbled

Vic knows better than me and only once in a while I only remember something he cannot place

It actually makes me feel good, that, I can help Vic remember something he is far knowledgeable on something than I am. If I do not , then I strive to read and understand more. He has always instilled that in me.

I look up to him and have learnt loads from him

Hence he more than anyone, has instilled a view to learn and question everything

Hats off to him

Night everyone

Why are you addressing me? I haven't even posted in this thread until now.

by Guest Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:51 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:You see rags, this is where I am humbled

Vic knows better than me and only once in a while I only remember something he cannot place

It actually makes me feel good, that, I can help Vic remember something he is far knowledgeable on something than I am. If I do not , then I strive to read and understand more. He has always instilled that in me.

I look up to him and have learnt loads from him

Hence he more than anyone, has instilled a view to learn and question everything

Hats off to him

Night everyone

Why are you addressing me? I haven't even posted in this thread until now.

Tohelp make you become more humble Rags Laughing

by Raggamuffin Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:52 pm

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Why are you addressing me? I haven't even posted in this thread until now.

Tohelp make you become more humble Rags

In other words, you got your threads mixed up.

by Guest Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:54 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:

Tohelp make you become more humble Rags

In other words, you got your threads mixed up.

Not at all Rags

I hoped you could be humble

In this instance i was wrong

You cannot sadly

Night