I wonder how many pounds the "independent Adult Learning Inspectorate" was paid to arrive at this obvious conclusion. I'm not sure which is the more frightening: that an 'Inspectorate' is governing the British military, or whether its premise begins by criticizing 'much of the culture behind Armed Forces� training.'

All feminists have 2 theories. One is that women are identical to men and must be treated identically. The other is that women are the victims of men and must be given special deferential treatment. They believe both theories and use whichever one comes to hand as the need arises.

This something that no man could ever pull off with a straight face.

This is something that no man could ever pull off with a straight face.

Patently untrue, and the examples are unfortunately legion. Perhaps you mean "no self-respecting man"?

But then, that would also go for "no self-respecting woman"; since this is not a gender issue (that is, the self-respecting part).

The curious thing (it seems to me) is how, so often, "empowerment" movements appear to make it a point to sacrifice self respect. Though it may be no paradox; since "self respect" and "group empowerment" may, in fact, be totally contradictory.

Though maybe I'm painting with too broad a brush.

Robert, I am a woman, and you are 100% correct. Feminists make all women seem ridiculous. I disavow them totally!

I went through Marine Corps officer training in the early 70's. We had a B.A.M. outfit going through the program at they same time, and some lessons and exercises were joint, but most were not. All-in-all, it worked very well.

Number One Son did it with the Army about 5 years ago, and reported that it was a farce. The ladies simply can't keep up, and guys wound up carrying their packs on marches and such. Uni-sex training seems to be firmly rooted within the alternatives to military service, but the Marines are still doing things the right way--the old way.

It is a very bad idea to change job requirements because you want 'gender equity', especially when matters of life and death are at stake.

"It is a very bad idea to change job requirements because you want 'gender equity', especially when matters of life and death are at stake."

Unless, of course, your real desire is to see the effectiveness of the US military crippled.

Has anyone asked Larry Summers what he thinks about this?

Robert,

One would think so, but then these same idiots cause Fire Departments to give up the strength requirements that existed for decades, even though a significant number of deaths of innocent people result from firemen no longer being strong enough to haul unconscious people out of burning buildings. While undoubtedly these loons do have allies among the Blame America First crowd, they are motivated by something akin to religious fanaticism. Regardless of all evidence, there is no difference between men and women and if people have to die unnecessarily in burning buildings because women firefighters can't get them out or people have to die in airplane crashes when women pilots aren't strong enough to stop a crash dive or women soldiers aren't strong enough to fend off the enemy in hand-to-hand combat, that is merely the price 'we' have to pay so that truth will win out.

Forget Larry Summers - someone should interview Nancy Hopkins.

One could extend those findings to qualifications to firepersons and police persons.

If I were a woman weighing 140 lb and in a burning building, I would not be encouraged seeing a 120 lb "fully qualified" female firefighter coming to rescue me.

Bart: I belive that their first desire is to cripple the US military. The deaths of a few innocent civilians in fires is a mere by-product of their real design.

Collateral Damage. tha's the phrase I was trying to remember.

The deaths of a few innocent civilians in fires is merely collateral damage.

Strange? They live in flammable buildings like the rest of us.