Hyerdahl wrote:
> Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
> > On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 10:17:52 +1200, "geopelia"

> > wrote:
> >
> > >"Dave Symn"  wrote in message
> > >news:1112201844.ec5caabcc14fe247c5d2204bcf812322{at}bubbanews...
> > >> On 30 Mar 2005 08:57:10 -0800, John Templeton wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > What does food have to do with it?
> > >>
> > >> Nothing, she's just hell-bent on finding some fuct up criteria
to
> show
> > >> female soldiers as "superior" in certain
pointless aspects and
> discredit
> > >> this report. It's hopeless and her idiocy is in rare form today.
>
> I have no NEED to show women "superior" in order to highlight the
> sexist criteria men use to keep women out.

The criteria are sex-blind. Sexist criteria would be to say "if you
have a penis you can join." Sex-blind criteria would be to say "if you
can do this task, you can join.

>If an army travels on it's
> stomach, feeding a female military is easier than feeding a male one.
> If women have better eye hand cooridination, that would be another
> advantage to women.  But I don't see women trying to keep men out.
:-)

If all these advantages for women, why have there never been an
effective women -only fighting force??

>
>
> > > > > It's just more of the "women are strong and
good and men are
> bad and
> > weak" line that popular culture spews out.
>
>
> Again, I do see men continuously trying to exclude women based on
some
> few differences as contrasted and compared with the amount women and
> men have in common.  I don't see women trying to exclude men from any
> societal institution.

Inability to do the task at hand is not a difference, it is a lack of
meeting the requirement. A 400 lb man cannot be in the army neither,
nor can most peoples grandfather.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 4/3/05 9:00:37 PM ---