Posted on 03/29/2003 8:07:11 PM PST by narses
...
Riggs said one woman who spoke at yesterday's press conference, Charmaine Yoest, a national advisory board member with the Independent Women's Forum, relayed a recent example involving DACOWITS that illustrated the need for less military feminization.
"On Sept. 10 – the day before those awful terrorist attacks – DACOWITS was discussing lactation and the need for breast-feeding policies within the Army," Riggs said. "This, the day before so many people died" in New York City and at the Pentagon.
"This is no longer a power game where ambitious women can try to advance their careers," Rios said during her speech, "this is a matter of life and death. Any claim that women are equal to men in combat settings is utterly irrational."
Rios cited a recent Royal British Army study that found stark differences between men and women under combat conditions. In one phase of the study, men failed 20 percent of the time to carry 90 pounds of artillery shells over certain distances, she said, adding that women failed "90 percent of the time."
"In a mission simulating wartime conditions, male and female soldiers were asked to carry 60 pounds of equipment while marching 12.5 miles, completing the exercise with target practice. Seventeen percent of the men failed, [as did] 48 percent of the women," she said.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
There is now a thread up on FR ( no, I don't do links ) which thoroughly decimates your simple minded position, as well as specifically proving my position. Shall I ping you to it ?
You think that it's only FAIR, that women die, if men are going to . Is that IT ?
BTW, female officers is , in a very large extent, due to affirmative action / PC garbage.
In REAL life, females now out number males, who are accepted to / graduate from colleges / universities.
In REAL life, males pay scales, exceed females, due, in large part to the " mommy tack ".
I could go on; however, you don't do anything but ignore facts.
The sourced " data ", which you post, comes from one man's whacky book. It's NOT much more than cherrypicked stats, twisted around to comply with his agenda; and your's.
Site as oposed to cite is a residual from talking about web sites. As to medicine, well you should see the typos I catch.
In palin English, she thinks that if men are killed , women should also be killed; it's a paruty thingy. You know, just as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton complain that more blacks are in jail, than whites are. It matters not one whit, that as 12 % of the American population, black males commit MORE crimes, than whites do.
You think that it's only FAIR, that women die, if men are going to. Is that IT?
No that is not what I am saying. You can't seem to understand that his whole argument is refuting the feminist agenda. You are so set in your idea that I'm a feminist that you can't see that.
BTW, female officers is , in a very large extent, due to affirmative action / PC garbage.
NO kidding. And your point? I believe his was that affirmative action was not fair to the males. Do you disagree with that?
In REAL life, females now out number males, who are accepted to / graduate from colleges / universities. In REAL life, males pay scales, exceed females, due, in large part to the " mommy tack ".
Neither of which would I argue against. The fact that you think I would shows how you have misunderstood what I was arguing for.
I could go on; however, you don't do anything but ignore facts.
You haven't stated any that you can back up with numbers let alone cite sources. I've given numbers and a source. I can give his sources too if you would like. You would find reason to disagree with those as well though.
I am the mother of two boys. Beyond that I am for equality where possible. Not government forced equality like affirmative action etc. If you go back and reread that one post of mine you will see that just like affirmative action has cause an inequality between blacks and whites in favor of blacks, feminism has caused a government force inequality between women and men in favor of the women. I try to point this out but I get called feminist and socialist. Go figure.
Happygal posted the link, you then claimed that YOU agreed with it in toto. Did you actually read the article ? Did you understand what it said ? It refuted your position 100 % ! Why then did you say that you agreed with it ?
Why is it FAIR for females ( and it is NOT, for the most part, AA )to get into and graduate from college, in larger numbers, than males do, if you want " fairness " for men ?
Just as the crazy feminist twist facts and use smoke & mirrors, not to mention skewed logic, you and the author totally dismiss facts, which refute your position. I don't need to list sources for facts, which are irrefutable, well known, and accepted by the medical, pyschological, and YES, military experts. You just refuse to accept the truth.
I have asked you once, already, now I shall do so, once again. 1) Should we do away with all of the armed forces ? 2)If it is required for the legal " right " to vote, should we take the vote away from ALL females, because they aren't serving on the front lines / aren't required to refgister for the military...even though there is NO draft for males ? 3) What about homosexuals ? Since they can't be " out ", in the military, and can be discharged / not accepted for service, should THEY NOT be allowed to vote ?
I'm not doing the bobbing and weaving. I'm responding to nopardon's statements.
It doesn't refute what I said. You only believe it does because you are stuck on this idea that I support women in the military.
Why is it FAIR for females ( and it is NOT, for the most part, AA )to get into and graduate from college, in larger numbers, than males do, if you want " fairness " for men ?
I'm not for affirmative action. I don't advocate forced government fairness. I do however expect that they not force things to be unfair.
I have asked you once, already, now I shall do so, once again. 1) Should we do away with all of the armed forces ?
No2)If it is required for the legal " right " to vote, should we take the vote away from ALL females, because they aren't serving on the front lines / aren't required to refgister for the military...even though there is NO draft for males ?
Either require the women to register or stop registering the men. I think that is simple enough. Personally, I think they should stop registering the men. We don't need a draft. Our all volunteer forces are doing a great job without it.
3) What about homosexuals ? Since they can't be " out ", in the military, and can be discharged / not accepted for service, should THEY NOT be allowed to vote ?
No. They are required to register. Remember, requirement to register was the issue.
Well, in fact, I never mentioned the on this thread. Yet another example of you inventing things people have said.
OTOH, that is NOT the topic of this thread.
I agree. You just inserted the CIA into the thread out of the blue and then proceeded to claim I did.
You can call anything, whatever you care to, that just doesn't make it so.
Pot kettle black. You invent what I've said and then call it off topic !!! (You know, it was also off topic what you said about the use of camels in the military).
The military has an obligation to its members--that the members thereof are trained for and capable of self-defense AND the defense of others.
The military obliges its members, REGARDLESS of seniority, to pass certain physical tests, as well as target-shooting, etc., tests, REGULARLY.
If they want a computer engineer, they'll hire him/her as a civilian at the Pentagon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.