She could probably quickly pin my elderly butt, but against a top-ranked MMA fighter, she would last under 5 seconds. I doubt she could take one solid punch from a male professional fighter.
Posted on 01/04/2014 2:41:29 PM PST by nickcarraway
Not necessarily. She's fairly cute. The male MMA fighter might decide it would be amusing to pin her to the mat in a submission hold in the first five seconds, and then just lay on top of her while discussing her mental and emotional deficiencies with her, with her unable to do a damn thing about it, while the cameras rolled.
Hmmm...
She could probably quickly pin my elderly butt, but against a top-ranked MMA fighter, she would last under 5 seconds. I doubt she could take one solid punch from a male professional fighter.
They’d break her pretty face like a piece of glass...She best stick to wrestling lesbians.
BS. The uterus, with no help from the mother, is contracting and opening the cervix on its own. The woman has no control or participation, just endurance of the pain. And the pushing is just pushing. It doesn't require strength, just enduring the pain and lasting until the job is over.
When a starved enemy infiltrator jumps into a foxhole in the middle of a pitch black night while brandishing a bayonet, the ability to withstand mastitis and thrush are going to factor heavily into that outcome.
The author is pointing out the obvious differences between men and women, but I suspect that while she may understand those differences as well as some freepers on this thread, she doesn't see the issue the same way.
There are a lot of Freepers, male and female, who readily acknowledge the difference in physical ability between the sexes, but do NOT have an issue at all with women being promoted to various duties and positions they are clearly not the most qualified for. They believe it is WORTH it.
That is where I think this author is. She sees the difference, but pooh-poohs the downside of putting unqualified people in position where you need the best person, not the one who is 67% as good but has the correct anatomy.
She states near the end of her article: "...The problem is that we are all supposed to pretend that men and women are identical. It doesn’t help men, women, children or the institutions they inhabit to pretend natural differences don’t exist. And here, it’s actually dangerous. We may have forgotten in our rush to drone warfare what actual combat entails. It’s grueling and requires tremendous physical and mental strength and discipline..." but it is clear to me, that what she is saying here is: "...The problem is that we are all supposed to pretend that men and women are identical. It doesn’t help men, women, children or the institutions they inhabit to pretend natural differences don’t exist. And here, it’s actually dangerous. We may have forgotten in our rush to drone warfare what actual combat entails. It’s grueling and requires tremendous physical and mental strength and discipline...BUT..."
It is clear she sees the folly in it, but she thinks the downside is outweighed by what she sees as an upside for females.
She is fairly not guilty in that image...
Did we read the same article?
I don't see that at all. I was with you in your reply until that last comment. The author is talking to people who think women, as a whole, can meet the physical requirements to be line infantry. I don't see the author agreeing with that idea at all. She clearly states that men and women are strong in different ways, but that it is male strength (in this case, upper body strength) that is required to fight and win our nation's wars, according to those who fight and win them.
I don't see a single thing in the article that implies that the author thinks we should ignore that for some greater good.
You are correct.
I overstated her point and attributed to her what I see from many posters on FR (and from some on this thread, which I know from previous discussions) which I should not have done.
I do maintain that if this had been a serious effort by an author with some real principle, the article would have had a title quite different from the one that it had.
I will grant that the author does not always have the final say in the composition of the title, but this title is the epitome of the trope trotted out by feminists of all stripes, including some on FR who claim to be conservative.
it doesn’t mean women aren’t strong-—
it means they aren’t strong enough!
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.