In response to:

Military and Society Threatened by Women in Combat

Gilchrist Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 8:45 AM
So? First, that is the standard for 17-20 year olds; old bitches are allowed six pounds more. Does that make a difference. BTW, the standard for males 5'5", 17-20 is 155 pounds max. Are you suggesting we should eliminate all males less than 5'5"?
David1735 Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 12:31 PM
I would agree. But you know they will "gender norm" the standard for "hacking it."
Kimbery Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 9:28 AM
I was in the military for 11 years and only knew 3 men less than 5'5. The average male is 5'10. For women, on the other hand, 5'5 would be the norm. A 5'5 woman has the upper body strength of a 12 year old boy.
ZealousConscript Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 9:22 AM
<--- This is my comment of the day.
Texas Chris Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 9:11 AM
There will be few who want to be in those units, and fewer still that actually qualify and pass.

I say if they can hack it in the suck, then let them hack it in the suck.
DH58 Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 9:00 AM
Unless you're completely blind, have never been in the service or entered a gym, there is a heck of a lot of physical strength difference between a 5'5," 150 pound man and a 5'5," 150 pound woman.They will have to lower the standards.
berettasskeeter Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 9:00 AM
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Nothing of the sort was said. A 5'5" woman has about 1/2 of the physical strength of the average 5'5" man. That is the point, regardless of weight.

The first line of attack in political battles is language. Getting people to phrase things your way is the first step to getting them to think your way.

In the foggy mess of the debate over women in combat, you will see media references to a “ban” being “lifted.”

Bans are bad. Lifting bans is good. Therein lies the bias strangling this issue in the dominant media culture.

Am I “banned” from the women’s restrooms at work? No, I’m just not supposed to be in there, so that word doesn’t come up. The...