"Society" (Society{at}feminism.is.invalid) writes:
> "Andre Lieven"  patiently
explained in message
> news:d2f4eo$j5p$1{at}theodyn.ncf.ca...
>>
>> Dave Symn  noted for the record...
>>>
>>> Carol Ann as Hyerdahl spouted cow shit, as usual:
>>>>
>>>> You're assuming that military positions are
>>>> effected by the difference.  I'm sure you
>>>> would be offended if we created a fake
>>>> sexist standard [...]
>
> 
>
> Here, Carol Ann is trying to compare her
> imaginary "fake sexist standard" with a REAL
> WORLD standard that isn't "sexist".  Again
> Carol Ann drops one of her many cow patties
> in hopes that her stink can confuse the issue
> at hand.  But all she did was show why her
> feminism is rooted in soft-on-women/demanding-
> more-of-men double standards.  Sheesh!

Exactly.

>>> "Women are already doing everything men
>>> are doing".... and failing.
>>
>> Indeed. Here's a repost of my cite from a work
>> on the uselessness of women in the military.
>>
>> Note the specific performance data that
>> I reproduced from a table in the cited book,
>> and note that, of the eight tested jobs, in only
>> one case were even *4%* of women able
>> to do the job, after training:
>
> AFTER training?!!  Wow.

Actually, thats a " my bad ", as what that was was
the *only* case where a few men couldn't do a job,
after training, to that tune of 4 %. In all the others,
ALL the men could do the job and some/most of the women
could not.

In that task where, after training, 4 % of the men
still could not do the task, 99% of women, both before
and after training, could not do the task ( P250 Pump,
carry down, below ).

> Well, that just means that to be equal in combat
> performance a lot more women will have to be
> drafted and higher casualties among women
> tolerated too.  Anything less would be holding
> women to what Carol Ann so dreads, those
> "penis standards" (her own term) -- you know,
> Andre, what the adults here know are
> Real World Standards.  ;-)

Exactly. The point is that the JOBS need to be done,
and need to be done, well, by folks who can consistantly
DO them.

Since some/most women cannot do them, and cannot be trained
to do them, they have no place or use in the forces.

> Anyway, on to the empirical data (the kind
> Carol Ann and other feminists detest!):

Like that Gregory guy who got into it from sci.med,
demanded facts, and, *when I provided them*, flounced
away, as a loon like he, could NOT refute/debate the
*facts*... 

>> Number of recruits NOT Capable Of Performing Damage Control Tasks:
>>
>> Task                  % Of Women,   After     % Of Men,       After
>>                    Before Training Training Before Training Training
>>
>> Stretcher carry, level    63        38         0             0
>> Stretcher carry, up/
>>   Down ladder             94        88         0             0
>> Fire Hose                 19        16         0             0
>> P250 Pump, carry down     99        99         9             4
>> P250 Pump, carry up       73        52         0             0
>> P250 Pump, start pump     90        75         0             0
>> Remove SSTG Pump          99        99         0             0
>> Torque engine bolt        78        47         0             0
>>
>> Source: " Women In The Military; Flirting With Disaster ", Brian
>> Mitchell, 1998, Page 144.
>
> But don't you know, Andre, that in The Feminist
> Zone  all the
> medic's stations will be gently sloped DOWNHILL
> from where any casualties are taken, with no
> need traverse any ladders or stairs?

And, Pizza Hut will deliver to the foxholes... 

> 
>
>> So, pretty much all those jobs can be done by ANY man,
>> with the *maximum* rate of male failure being *4%*,
>> while the maximum rate of *female inability* is *99%*.
>> And, the usual, minimum rate of male failure is ZERO,
>> while the minimum rate of female failure is 16%,
>> and only one of the female rates of inability are
>> under a third of the cohort.
>
> Hmmm.  Clearly women are not cost-effective.

Not in the military, no.

> Taxes should be laid on women to defray the
> added costs on the public for the expenses of
> providing extra physical fitness training for these
> women as well as the cost of having to recruit
> more women in order to make up the numbers
> of women lost to washing out.  I'm only taking
> a leaf from the feminist handbook by suggesting
> this women-only tax!

Not to mention special rights for the folks who can
do the jobs, IOW, the men. Thats another of their leaves.


>> So much for " equal "... Boom !
>
> Yup.
>
> Even the ancient Greeks knew this.  After two,
> going on three, generations of feminist-induced
> collective amnesia, we moderns have to learn
> the obvious all over again.  Sheesh.  To speed
> up the lession, I suggest that ONLY women be
> sent into combat until this madness (of which
> Carol Ann is an exemplar) passes.

As long as we won't lose, when they get their asses
handed to them...

> --
>    All those in favour of rounding up every feminist
>    in Australia and shipping them off to Afghanistan
>    so they have something REAL to complain about,
>    please raise your hands.
>
>    Rowena
>    "UQ succumbs to the No-Mind Cult"
>    http://student.uq.edu.au/~s323363/uqfuture.html

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
                                    The Man Prayer, Red Green.


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/31/05 1:44:18 PM ---