[Aeris (OP)]

Warning. The following question, despite being framed as scientific exploration, is primarily for a pseudo-realistic book I'm currently writing that uses very real science supported and backed-up by the words of professionals and certified practitioners of physics, cosmology, biology, etc. Please do not disregard my question's validity SOLEY off of the notion that it is being asked for unconventional reasons.

Ok so, I’m writing a fantasy story at the moment which takes place in a world where there exists a special race of warrior women called Golden Girls (that’s a awful name, I know. Just consider it a placeholder) who evolved into basically near perfect life forms. They’re Strong enough (both physically and mentally) to join men on the battlefield, beautiful enough to attract companions and metabolically fit enough to give birth. They’re also slightly taller in height than the women of our reality and have reactionary, fine-motor, hand-eye coordination and spatial awareness skills on par with men. In simple terms, I basically wanna design a realistic race of women similar to the Mythology Amazons (Zelda’s Gerudo Tribe or Wakanda’s Dora Milaje might be better comparisons. Ignore their blood-red hair and lack of hair though) without invoking magic, biogenetics or similar forms of hand-waving.

This is where the problems start to arise. Not only am I trying to rewrite history and alter evolution itself without relying on the things that could solve the issue near instantly, but I’m also trying to defeat the the exact purpose behind evolution making women less optimised for hunting and fighting than men. Based on the information gathered from scientific Q&A websites, Wikipedia, Quora, Reddit, Biology Stack Exchange and various other online sources, the reason that women are so much more unsuited for the things men are capable of doing is because evolution found that splitting up our species into two sexs (one optimised for fighting, lifting and hunting and another optimised for birthing and nurturing offspring) was the best method of speeding up sexual reproduction. Not only that however, but in order to in order to make a human physically stronger, you have to increase their testosterone levels, which in turn, decreases the things men find conventionally attractive in women (e.g. medium-large-sized breasts, soft skin, minimal muscles, small frames, wide hips, high-pitched voices and a few more I’m probably missing). There are also other factors that contribute to the massive gap in physical strength between the two sexs such as our male ancestors lacking the intelligence to consensually mate with females, thus oppressing them through forced copulation and gender divisions preventing women from doing the same jobs that men do and vice-versa but based on the things I’ve read, the first point seems to be the most important.

Of course, not every species of animal is like this. In fact, in some species like Spiders, Spotted Hyenas and Preying Mantis, certain Birds of Prey and Angler Fish, the females are physically stronger and far more aggressive than the males. Seahorses and Lions are the ones that interest me the most though. Seahorses have borderline no sexual dimorphism at all between each other in regards to size and strength, yet they still have different inner workings that make them unquestionably different from each other and Lions have males that are very visually distinct from females and stronger than them too, yet they choose to use that strength to defend their pride from outsiders. As far as hunting and gathering food is concerned, that duty falls onto the females. This right here is what I’m trying to create using real evolutionary science. A species of human where women are visually distinct from men in regards to appearance, yet are close enough to them in physical and mental strength to justifiable enlist them into an army (a medieval-period-inspired army with swords, shields, bows, spears and bludgeons specifically).

Ok so now that context has been supplied, here are my questions:

Is what I’m trying to create scientifically possible?

If the answer to this question is yes, the next two questions will be:

What changes is history would need to be made in order to make this possible and what things about my fictional society’s culture and the personalities of those a part of said society will be different from how they are in our reality?

If the answer to the first question is no however, the second question now becomes:

Is it possible to maybe create a watered-down version of my described race of female warriors? Like, would removing sexism and gender roles from history potentially make women stronger than they currently are, or is it scientifically and evolutionarily impossible to increase the physical and mental strength of a woman without compromising her ability to safety give birth to children and altering her appearance so much that she no longer looks like a woman?

[alancalverd]

a world where there exists a special race of warrior women called Golden Girls (that’s a awful name, I know. Just consider it a placeholder) who evolved into basically near perfect life forms. They’re Strong enough (both physically and mentally) to join men on the battlefield, beautiful enough to attract companions and metabolically fit enough to give birth.

Israel?
And don't forget that being generally smaller, better insulated, mostly having better color discrimination, and consuming less food and oxygen, women are strongly favored as aviators and snipers. Modern warfare isn't about hand-to-hand combat, but the ability to identify a threat and do mental arithmetic, either behind a sandbag in the rain or whilst pulling 4g at 600 mph.

PS my nephew's fighter pilot partner is stunningly beautiful.

[Petrochemicals]

 Eauty is in the eye of the beholder, male primates seek loyal women, obedient women child bearing and nurturing women and submissive women therefore not likely.

[alancalverd]

You only need one male, therefore highly likely. Ask any stock breeder.

Group loyalty, looking after your mates, and obedience to orders are essential military characteristics. So if you don't need upper body strength, women make better soldiers.

PS fine motor control too. Essential for a sniper. And for frontal assault,  Armalite and Uzi styles are lighter and more lethal than the old M1 and Kalashnikov. 

[Colin2B]

Eauty is in the eye of the beholder, male primates seek loyal women, obedient women child bearing and nurturing women and submissive women therefore not likely.

That may have been true in some of early human evolution, but is not universally true today*. Also, the OP is talking about a different evolutionary track.

*when I say today, I mean recent evolutionary history.
In the early 1990s a team of archaeologistswere excavating 2,000-year-old burial mounds near the Kazakhstan border. They found over 150 graves which included graves of warrior women who had been buried with their weapons. One young female, bowlegged from constant riding, lay with an iron dagger on her left side and a quiver containing 40 bronze-tipped arrows on her right. The skeleton of another female still had a bent arrowhead in it.
This isn’t now considered unusual, I’ve watch documentaries of Celtic and bronze age burials which have similar evidence of warrior women.

Group loyalty, looking after your mates, and obedience to orders are essential military characteristics. So if you don't need upper body strength, women make better soldiers.

Quite a few women being recognised as heroes in Ukraine, one sniper recently. I’ve also come across Danish mixed infantry units working in Afghanistan.

[Janus]

Eauty is in the eye of the beholder, male primates seek loyal women, obedient women child bearing and nurturing women and submissive women therefore not likely.

That may have been true in some of early human evolution, but is not universally true today*. Also, the OP is talking about a different evolutionary track.

*when I say today, I mean recent evolutionary history.
In the early 1990s a team of archaeologistswere excavating 2,000-year-old burial mounds near the Kazakhstan border. They found over 150 graves which included graves of warrior women who had been buried with their weapons. One young female, bowlegged from constant riding, lay with an iron dagger on her left side and a quiver containing 40 bronze-tipped arrows on her right. The skeleton of another female still had a bent arrowhead in it.
This isn’t now considered unusual, I’ve watch documentaries of Celtic and bronze age burials which have similar evidence of warrior women.

Group loyalty, looking after your mates, and obedience to orders are essential military characteristics. So if you don't need upper body strength, women make better soldiers.

Quite a few women being recognised as heroes in Ukraine, one sniper recently. I’ve also come across Danish mixed infantry units working in Afghanistan.

The thing to consider is that the standards of "beauty" are subjective.  If we are talking about a world where the females evolved to fight right along men, then what the males of that world generally considered attractive in a female would take that into account and could very likely not coincide with standards of "beauty" in say, the present day US.

[Aeris (OP)]

Israel?
And don't forget that being generally smaller, better insulated, mostly having better color discrimination, and consuming less food and oxygen, women are strongly favored as aviators and snipers. Modern warfare isn't about hand-to-hand combat, but the ability to identify a threat and do mental arithmetic, either behind a sandbag in the rain or whilst pulling 4g at 600 mph.

PS my nephew's fighter pilot partner is stunningly beautiful.

I wasn't talking about current-age warfare, I was talking about medieval warfare. Granted, those type of battles were fought with weapons as opposed to fists but that's exactly why I asked this question. I want realistic female knights and soldiers that can actually handle the weight of those kind of weapons (maybe not 200 pound warbows and 8 pound greatswords, but something like a mace, battle axe, war hammer or a pike would satisfy me).

[Aeris (OP)]

The thing to consider is that the standards of "beauty" are subjective.  If we are talking about a world where the females evolved to fight right along men, then what the males of that world generally considered attractive in a female would take that into account and could very likely not coincide with standards of "beauty" in say, the present day US.

That's true. I do wonder though what women like that would look like?

[Kryptid]

I can think of a practice that might lead to less physical differences between men and women: monogamy. If some outside force strongly reinforced monogamy within a species (perhaps the existence of potent STDs, for example), then I would expect males to be choosy with their mates just as females are. After all, if you only get one mate, you'd better make sure it's a good one. In species where males are polygamous, male-to-male competition over mates would be more fierce and thus the selection for larger body size and strength would be an advantage.

[Petrochemicals]

The skeleton of another female still had a bent arrowhead in it.

There are millions of troops buried in France from ww1, this does not mean the battle went well.

[Colin2B]

The skeleton of another female still had a bent arrowhead in it.

There are millions of troops buried in France from ww1, this does not mean the battle went well.

No one said it went well, we were just talking about female warriors.

[Petrochemicals]

No one said it went well, we were just talking about female warriors.

😁

[alancalverd]

The warriors among bees and wasps are all female. And in the early days of Aeris's Planet the same was true of the humanoids. A few males were reared until sexual maturity, at which point they fought for the right to mate with the breeding females, and were then killed off as surplus to requirements.

Then one exceptionally bright female (Alanna) said "Hold on, girls, the blokes are bigger, stronger and more stupid than us, so instead of killing the ones we don't need, why don't we let them do the hard work, including defending the nest? Then our enemies can kill off the surplus and we won't have to fight. Or even forage for food: we'll just promise them the occasional bit of hanky-panky if they do as we tell them, and we can stay at home, paint our toenails and drink sherry in front of the TV."   

[Zer0]

Thanks/Credits/Copyrights -
Cut Corner Channel/YouTube/ Gods of Egypt (2016)

Re: Is A World where Women Evolved to be both Beautiful and Fit for War Possible?

Could the Women not simply be Taller & Bigger in comparison to the Men?

Like say a 2 : 1 body ratio.
That way They could be Stronger than the Men & still retain Beauty(in the way You described it)