Posted on 09/08/2006 12:52:18 PM PDT by andyk
Give that professor a raise.
He has made a stunning discovery.
I don't know what that proves, other than that you are/were in great shape.
My fiancé is a small man, a career officer, who has always weighed about 10st (less than 140lbs). He is retired from one of the British Special Service Regts. You know what those are, right? Do you know what their training consists of?
I can't discuss what he is doing now, only that he is with the British army on the front in Afghanistan. Most women I know weigh more than he does, and many are taller. Size isn't everything.
Mark
Ever see colonies of ants go at it? Talk about "Carthage Protocols"....
the infowarrior
That is, indeed, "The Death Dealer", by Frank Frazetta, one of my favorite artists...
the infowarrior
Not always... Celtic women recieved the same military education as girls that Celtic men received as boys, and took it quite seriously. The only major difference lay in the fact that Celtic women usually only "took the field" in defense of the home turf, and seldom, if ever, went on the more agressive raid the other guys scenarios. They held their own on defense, though, and were accorded a far more equal stature in their culture than most premodern cultures...
the infowarrior
Where I'm from woman do 99.9% of both.
I wasn't including the insects. As one writer once put it with regards to insects, "there has been an unrelenting state of warfare there for millions of years."
The OP was confining herself to mammals, so I did the same. :)
As I said, though - when those women came in contact with Roman heavy infantry, the Romans won - almost invariably.
I would argue that women are the cause of wars
They have the babies and demand that their men obtain the resources needed to feed them. By whatever means necessary.
You see it in the "inner cities" in its most raw form. The most popular guys with the women are the drug dealers with all the cash, not the guy who works night shift at the local convenience store
You're quite right, size isn't everything. I'm a big guy, way out of shape, but even when I was in good shape from playing lacrosse in college, some of the little guys on the wrestling team could easily have taken me out. They also had better long distance endurance, since they weren't carrying as much of "themselves" around as I was. :-)
I had a friend many years ago who was about the same size as your finance... He was a sergeant in the special forces, and a "Pathfinder," meaning that one of his jobs was to secure a drop or landing zone. If that job doesn't get done, he and his team are on their own... So, it wasn't unusual for him to make combat jumps wearing gear that actually weighed more than he did without it!
Mark
I think you're mistaken. There are one-woman men, and one-man women, and that is the type that will form a bond.
The type of woman attracted to a drug dealer with lots of cash is anybody's punch.
Celtic men were defeated by the Romans, as well. According to Tacitus, 400 Romans died defeating 80,000 Britons at the Battle of Watling Street.
Maybe an exaggeration but had nothing to do with the gender of the fighters. Romans had better military skills.
But very little of Roman invention was devoted to war, despite your argument. Road building, aqueduct building, their laws, were devoted to peace and trade.
America's most important inventions over the centuries have been devoted to law, government, architecture, agriculture, navigation, transportation, medicine, space exploration, communication . . . . sure, we're good at war but that's not what made us great.
We didn't invent planes, trains, and automobiles to wage war. The military adapted these inventions to their use, not vice versa.
Sorry, you're wrong. Trade was not the primary function of most Roman infrastructure.
The primary purpose of the roads was to get Roman infantry to distant parts of the empire quickly, not trade. The purpose of the Roman aqueducts was to provide cities under siege with a secure water supply. Most Roman law was originally promulgated by or for soldiers. The very word "salary" comes from the amount of salt in which a Roman soldier was paid. You need to study your history a bit closer.
You are also wrong in your American history.
The interstate system was built to get American troops around the US quickly - instigated after Eisenhower saw the autobahn and old Roman road systems in Europe. The space program was originally a military endeavor. The very Internet we're communicating on was created because of the Cold War. Medicine? Penicillin was not adopted until WW2, and only because of the war. Transportation? The government was funding early airplane studies, and quickly bought the Wright flyer for observation of enemy forces. The first major use of aircraft, and the one that really advanced the art, was World War I. World War 2 jumped aircraft design ahead light years - we started the war with wood and cloth biplanes and ended the war with jets! Navigation? The lensatic compass was a military invention, as is GPS. War *is* what has advanced America, far more than peace.
You don't seem to have a very firm grasp on the history of jet aircraft, penicillin, or even interstate highways. Like countless other peaceful inventions, they were adapted for the use of the military during warfare. No reason why they shouldn't be used by the military, but the military didn't invent them.
But, to a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Anyone mention football yet in this thread? Let me see :D
It really is a matter of individual ability. The importance that genetics (even gender genetics) play in an individual's suitability to do a job or task depends on the individual and nature of the job/task itself.
Some of the men here ought to look up Boadicea, the Iceni queen and Cartimandua, warrior queen of the Brigantes. Then there are the brilliant administrators, like Elizabeth I and Maggie Thatcher. There is nothing new or modern about strong women who work to better their families' circumstances and to improve the conditions in their communities, even fighting when necessary.
I see your point, but mine was that women and men are physically different. Even a small special forces guy can hump 30 miles in a day with 100 pounds on his back. There may be some women who can do that, but not very many.
Surprise, surprise.
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.