"Hyerdahl"  wrote in message
news:1112465054.600519.267310{at}o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> 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.  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.  :-)
>
> (edit)
>
>
> > > > > 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.


Are you really as STUPID as you sound or are you just looking for attention?


We can easily prove that females are inferior to men. Take a 1000 men and
women of the same age, train them the same, equip them the same and let them
go to war against each other and see who wins :o)


>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 4/2/05 9:48:14 PM ---