On 30 Mar 2005 07:40:18 -0800, John Templeton wrote:

> Big surprise, women can't all match up to men physically. Too bad if
> the injury rates go up, they should still be made to match the
> standard. Good thing they got rid of letting them do girlie push-ups
> and giving them extra time to complete exercises - equality's a bitch
> ain't it. They should show "GI Jane" to all female recruits haha.


I wonder if they show them Private Benjamin instead.

Favorite line from that movie: "This isnt the army i joined! I joined the
one with the condos!"

this report, about females getting injured in military training... not sure
what to think. Is there any comparison between percentages of men who get
injured, vs percentages of women?

three friends of mine were in combat in Vietnam. they told me it is
incredibly physically demanding, and if you cant hack it physically, you'll
get killed. In light of their comments, if true, it doesnt make any sense
to lower the physical training requirements to allow more women to complete
the training, if that will just increase their chances at being killed in
actual combat. So, where do real feminists, besides Parg, draw the line
between affirmative action and being killed for it?

just wondering, i have never been in combat or in the army.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/30/05 12:47:53 PM ---