On 2 Apr 2005 10:04:14 -0800, "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. 



Actually, Puke, you seem to have a tremendous need to declare women to
be superior to men, but I was addressing something that geopelia said,
not something that you said.





> If an army travels on it's
>stomach, feeding a female military is easier than feeding a male one.



How ya figure, Puke?  Maybe women eat less than men do, though I'm not
so sure about that.  But then again, children eat less than women, so
your argument could be used to justify a children's military.


>If women have better eye hand cooridination, that would be another
>advantage to women.  



No doubt, but if men have better hand/eye coordination, which, in fact
they do, that would be another advantage to men.



>But I don't see women trying to keep men out.  :-)



Keep men out of what?  The military?

Men make up about 85 - 88% of the military in this country and the
make up larger percentages in other countries and do most of the dirty
work within the military.

Women are not in a position to "keep men out" of it.



>(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.  
>


Just the opposite is true, Puke.

Men scarcely exclude women from any societal institution, but women
exclude men from a variety of institutions.



------------------------------------

grizzlieantagonist{at}yahoo.com

"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause for tonight's
player of the game - FRAN-CIS-CO SAN-N-N-N-TOS!
    - Brian Anthony (P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium), June 11, 2004


"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their
disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as
their love of justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their
soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and
presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the
counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. 
Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be
placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must
be without.  It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men
of intemperate minds cannot be free.  Their passions forge their
fetters."
     
     - Edmund Burke, Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791)


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 4/4/05 5:01:09 PM ---