Aw Shucks, the women failed

[JakeStarkey]

Jake, simple fact, everyone lies. This is human nature, everyone lies. If you want to claim to be an exception to human nature and claim to be the only person on Earth that does not lie the burden of proof is on you, not me.

Simple fact, bubble brain. I have tried very hard to never to lie on this Board knowingly, particularly when I realized my reactionary brethren and sistren here do it as policy and procedure.

Yes, the burden of proof lies on you to find a deliberate lie of mine.

I was willing to let you off easy, but you insisted on having it shoved in your face. I can't count the number of lies I have caught you in Jake, the latest being your claim to have served in the infantry with women. Infantry has always been a combat billet, and women have not been allowed in combat billets.

There is my post from earlier. Above is your lie. I was infantry, for a long time. Some of the women I served with would have made fine grunts. To say that is impossible, women in the infantry, is simply asinine. Show where I served with women in the infantry. I did not. They were at headquarters, in finance, in medical, in military police, in maintenance support, all at division level, brigade, and battalion levels. Many of them were very fine soldiers.

You are stupid. I always knew that.

You lied. Outing the lies of reactionaries is so easy!! Yet they keep trying.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am talking about endurance, not speed. Again, you guys are failing the intelligence test.

Running for 6 days is not about speed, how am I failing any intelligence test?

I've been joking around a bit about intelligence, but, seriously, everything in the article says that though women may not have the speed men have, they have better endurance, no matter how long the run is. If you are tallking about 'wining' a six day run, that is speed because it means who gets there first; it is not about endurance. The article makes it clear, women may be slower, but they have more reserves of fuel; it apparently has to do with estrogen.

The article did not say that, what it says is that 2 of the 3 major studies indicate that estrogen helps increase endurance, and that the extra stores of fat also give women an advantage in marathon races. What that tells me is that women have natural advantages. What the numbers tell me is that men can overcome those natural advantages.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Simple fact, bubble brain. I have tried very hard to never to lie on this Board knowingly, particularly when I realized my reactionary brethren and sistren here do it as policy and procedure.

Yes, the burden of proof lies on you to find a deliberate lie of mine.

I was willing to let you off easy, but you insisted on having it shoved in your face. I can't count the number of lies I have caught you in Jake, the latest being your claim to have served in the infantry with women. Infantry has always been a combat billet, and women have not been allowed in combat billets.

There is my post from earlier. Above is your lie. I was infantry, for a long time. Some of the women I served with would have made fine grunts. To say that is impossible, women in the infantry, is simply asinine. Show where I served with women in the infantry. I did not. They were at headquarters, in finance, in medical, in military police, in maintenance support, all at division level, brigade, and battalion levels. Many of them were very fine soldiers.

You are stupid. I always knew that.

You lied. Outing the lies of reactionaries is so easy!! Yet they keep trying.

You are lying Jake, you can't help it. It is one thing to admire women, it is another to claim they can do the same thing an infantry soldier does. Keep in mind that the women who have tried to get into the Marine OIS had the advantage of knowing what was coming, and training for the actual test, and they still couldn't pass it. I am willing to bet that, dpeite your claim to have served with women who could, none of them could have done it either.

 

[Esmeralda]

Running for 6 days is not about speed, how am I failing any intelligence test?

I've been joking around a bit about intelligence, but, seriously, everything in the article says that though women may not haotve the speed men have, they have better endurance, no matter how long the run is. If you are tallking about 'wining' a six day run, that is speed because it means who gets there first; it is not about endurance. The article makes it clear, women may be slower, but they have more reserves of fuel; it apparently has to do with estrogen.

The article did not say that, what it says is that 2 of the 3 major studies indicate that estrogen helps increase endurance, and that the extra stores of fat also give women an advantage in marathon races. What that tells me is that women have natural advantages. What the numbers tell me is that men can overcome those natural advantages.

Okay, you need to be right. LOL How very male.

We ARE talking about 'natural advantanges' for men as well as women. If you are talking about strength in men, you are talking about a 'natural advantage,' so it is quite disingenuous to try to dismiss a fact about the physiology of women giving them an advantage because it is a 'natural advantage.' That is what we are talking about.

There is NOTHING in the article which proclaims "that men can overcome those natural advantages." You and your male ego made that one up.

Tracy Sundlun is a senior vice president of Competitor Group, which puts on the Rock ’n’ Roll series of marathons and half marathons, among other events, and he is also an Olympic track coach who has trained over 30 Olympic Trials Marathon qualifiers. In Sundlun’s view, “The differences as you probe farther into the ultradistances seem to indicate men and women are competing more on an even plane.” Women are, indeed, beating men at ultradistances!

It may be a simple matter of fat stores—the increased body fat so many women athletes resent in themselves as some kind of deadweight, wishing it were muscle instead. We know that after about 18 miles of steady running, the body begins to get low on glycogen— hitting the famous “wall”—and turns increasingly to other energy stores to keep going. But only recently, thanks in part to increasing numbers of women ultra-athletes and the times they’re turning in, have we begun to suspect women may be more efficient at using that body fat early in a race and saving the glycogen for the long haul. A bigger tank and a more efficient fuel injection system? That could be.

Until now we’ve had only two major studies on the subject, and they conflict. But a recent one [study] suggested that women may in fact have some way, not yet understood, of preferentially burning fatty acids better than men do. If that’s the case, and we factor in that ability with women’s greater body fat reserves, the implications are obvious. Assuming there is some glycogen sparing going on along the way, women might be able to get more out of that premium fuel than men do.

Larger fuel tanks aside, women ultra-athletes may also have additional chemical advantages that are not only perfectly legal but also perfectly natural. The more we find out about the powerful hormone estrogen, the more athlete-friendly it seems. For one thing, estrogen is a formidable antioxidant. And whatever your position on Dr. Kenneth H. Cooper’s Antioxidant Revolution, a book that contends that exercise releases cancer-inducing free radicals and that ultraathletes could be most at risk, it’s highly probable that antioxidants help protect us from some pretty malignant conditions, whether we run over 60 miles a week (Cooper’s “ultra” cutoff ) or not. And though clean arteries don’t help us run faster or longer, women athletes can be grateful that estrogen is also an antilipid agent, meaning it helps fight atherosclerosis, more commonly known as hardening and clogging of the arteries.

Even bottomless energy reserves wouldn’t do much good for the athlete who is too pooped to access them, however. Muscles get tired as they run out of fuel, but the brain also has a mechanism by which it tells our body that we are weary. And if some recent studies are correct, estrogen attaches to a neurotransmitter in the brain, and the combination may delay the fatigue message. The result: The body doesn’t feel as tired, so it doesn’t race as tired.

Should all this prove true, does it mean women will ultimately own the longer distances? You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who’d say so. “Do I believe that women marathoners will ultimately run as fast as men? I absolutely do not,” declares Sundlun. But the fact that women are still relatively new to all this endurance work provides some pretty interesting headroom.

“Will women’s marks continue to drop more precipitously than men’s for a while? Absolutely,” Sundlun adds. “And I think the evidence will prove that percentage-wise, the difference between the records in the ultra areas should ultimately be closer [between men and women] than at those events where power and muscle mass are more involved. It does look like women have some genetic qualities that would make them more efficient in those areas.”

So, a word of warning to marathoning men: Even postmenopausal women have more estrogen than you do! Remember that the next time you’re planning a really long workout and wonder whom to ask along to make you look good. Your female running friend may be slower, but she’s probably a bundle of potential energy. When it’s all over, you might be surprised to find that the “weaker sex” is you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I was willing to let you off easy, but you insisted on having it shoved in your face. I can't count the number of lies I have caught you in Jake, the latest being your claim to have served in the infantry with women. Infantry has always been a combat billet, and women have not been allowed in combat billets.

There is my post from earlier. Above is your lie. I was infantry, for a long time. Some of the women I served with would have made fine grunts. To say that is impossible, women in the infantry, is simply asinine. Show where I served with women in the infantry. I did not. They were at headquarters, in finance, in medical, in military police, in maintenance support, all at division level, brigade, and battalion levels. Many of them were very fine soldiers.

You are stupid. I always knew that.

You lied. Outing the lies of reactionaries is so easy!! Yet they keep trying.

You are lying Jake, you can't help it. It is one thing to admire women, it is another to claim they can do the same thing an infantry soldier does. Keep in mind that the women who have tried to get into the Marine OIS had the advantage of knowing what was coming, and training for the actual test, and they still couldn't pass it. I am willing to bet that, dpeite your claim to have served with women who could, none of them could have done it either.

My duty does not include teaching you the elements of basic composition and understanding.
those
You, as a reactionary, are marked on this thread in our general society as mental misfits. Like most male reactionaries, you don't like being corrected by Esmeralda, a female, or other superior to you.

I do not know if any of the women, with whom I served at various times in the Army, could have made it in the Marine OCS. Neither do you.

Take a basic composition course, misfit.

Give up the sexism, misfit.

 

[mamooth]

There are many ways that women are at least as good as men because of the benefits of society and technology, and I would even say they are close enough to equal in intellect that I can't tell which sex is smarter, but the simple fact is that, in general, men are almost always better at or equal to women in everything. I am sure there are some exceptions, but my guess is that you cannot even name 5, much less many.

Look out. We got a live one here!

Women are big majorities in colleges, in med schools, vet schools, all without a hint of affirmative action. Dang, that's really inferior.

Physically? Women live longer. Women have babies. Women are born with genetic defects less often. They float better. That's a quick 4.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I've been joking around a bit about intelligence, but, seriously, everything in the article says that though women may not haotve the speed men have, they have better endurance, no matter how long the run is. If you are tallking about 'wining' a six day run, that is speed because it means who gets there first; it is not about endurance. The article makes it clear, women may be slower, but they have more reserves of fuel; it apparently has to do with estrogen.

The article did not say that, what it says is that 2 of the 3 major studies indicate that estrogen helps increase endurance, and that the extra stores of fat also give women an advantage in marathon races. What that tells me is that women have natural advantages. What the numbers tell me is that men can overcome those natural advantages.

Okay, you need to be right. LOL How very male.

We ARE talking about 'natural advantanges' for men as well as women. If you are talking about strength in men, you are talking about a 'natural advantage,' so it is quite disingenuous to try to dismiss a fact about the physiology of women giving them an advantage because it is a 'natural advantage.' That is what we are talking about.

There is NOTHING in the article which proclaims "that men can overcome those natural advantages." You and your male ego made that one up.

Tracy Sundlun is a senior vice president of Competitor Group, which puts on the Rock ’n’ Roll series of marathons and half marathons, among other events, and he is also an Olympic track coach who has trained over 30 Olympic Trials Marathon qualifiers. In Sundlun’s view, “The differences as you probe farther into the ultradistances seem to indicate men and women are competing more on an even plane.” Women are, indeed, beating men at ultradistances!

It may be a simple matter of fat stores—the increased body fat so many women athletes resent in themselves as some kind of deadweight, wishing it were muscle instead. We know that after about 18 miles of steady running, the body begins to get low on glycogen— hitting the famous “wall”—and turns increasingly to other energy stores to keep going. But only recently, thanks in part to increasing numbers of women ultra-athletes and the times they’re turning in, have we begun to suspect women may be more efficient at using that body fat early in a race and saving the glycogen for the long haul. A bigger tank and a more efficient fuel injection system? That could be.

Until now we’ve had only two major studies on the subject, and they conflict. But a recent one [study] suggested that women may in fact have some way, not yet understood, of preferentially burning fatty acids better than men do. If that’s the case, and we factor in that ability with women’s greater body fat reserves, the implications are obvious. Assuming there is some glycogen sparing going on along the way, women might be able to get more out of that premium fuel than men do.

Larger fuel tanks aside, women ultra-athletes may also have additional chemical advantages that are not only perfectly legal but also perfectly natural. The more we find out about the powerful hormone estrogen, the more athlete-friendly it seems. For one thing, estrogen is a formidable antioxidant. And whatever your position on Dr. Kenneth H. Cooper’s Antioxidant Revolution, a book that contends that exercise releases cancer-inducing free radicals and that ultraathletes could be most at risk, it’s highly probable that antioxidants help protect us from some pretty malignant conditions, whether we run over 60 miles a week (Cooper’s “ultra” cutoff ) or not. And though clean arteries don’t help us run faster or longer, women athletes can be grateful that estrogen is also an antilipid agent, meaning it helps fight atherosclerosis, more commonly known as hardening and clogging of the arteries.

Even bottomless energy reserves wouldn’t do much good for the athlete who is too pooped to access them, however. Muscles get tired as they run out of fuel, but the brain also has a mechanism by which it tells our body that we are weary. And if some recent studies are correct, estrogen attaches to a neurotransmitter in the brain, and the combination may delay the fatigue message. The result: The body doesn’t feel as tired, so it doesn’t race as tired.

Should all this prove true, does it mean women will ultimately own the longer distances? You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who’d say so. “Do I believe that women marathoners will ultimately run as fast as men? I absolutely do not,” declares Sundlun. But the fact that women are still relatively new to all this endurance work provides some pretty interesting headroom.

“Will women’s marks continue to drop more precipitously than men’s for a while? Absolutely,” Sundlun adds. “And I think the evidence will prove that percentage-wise, the difference between the records in the ultra areas should ultimately be closer [between men and women] than at those events where power and muscle mass are more involved. It does look like women have some genetic qualities that would make them more efficient in those areas.”

So, a word of warning to marathoning men: Even postmenopausal women have more estrogen than you do! Remember that the next time you’re planning a really long workout and wonder whom to ask along to make you look good. Your female running friend may be slower, but she’s probably a bundle of potential energy. When it’s all over, you might be surprised to find that the “weaker sex” is you.

Did I stutter when I typed this sentence?

What the numbers tell me is that men can overcome those natural advantages.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is my post from earlier. Above is your lie. I was infantry, for a long time. Some of the women I served with would have made fine grunts. To say that is impossible, women in the infantry, is simply asinine. Show where I served with women in the infantry. I did not. They were at headquarters, in finance, in medical, in military police, in maintenance support, all at division level, brigade, and battalion levels. Many of them were very fine soldiers.

You are stupid. I always knew that.

You lied. Outing the lies of reactionaries is so easy!! Yet they keep trying.

You are lying Jake, you can't help it. It is one thing to admire women, it is another to claim they can do the same thing an infantry soldier does. Keep in mind that the women who have tried to get into the Marine OIS had the advantage of knowing what was coming, and training for the actual test, and they still couldn't pass it. I am willing to bet that, dpeite your claim to have served with women who could, none of them could have done it either.

My duty does not include teaching you the elements of basic composition and understanding.
those
You, as a reactionary, are marked on this thread in our general society as mental misfits. Like most male reactionaries, you don't like being corrected by Esmeralda, a female, or other superior to you.

I do not know if any of the women, with whom I served at various times in the Army, could have made it in the Marine OCS. Neither do you.

Take a basic composition course, misfit.

Give up the sexism, misfit.

They didn't even pass the same PT test you did Jake, how could they have passed the Combat Endurance Test?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There are many ways that women are at least as good as men because of the benefits of society and technology, and I would even say they are close enough to equal in intellect that I can't tell which sex is smarter, but the simple fact is that, in general, men are almost always better at or equal to women in everything. I am sure there are some exceptions, but my guess is that you cannot even name 5, much less many.

Look out. We got a live one here!

Women are big majorities in colleges, in med schools, vet schools, all without a hint of affirmative action. Dang, that's really inferior.

Physically? Women live longer. Women have babies. Women are born with genetic defects less often. They float better. That's a quick 4.

I said 5, not 4.

 

[there4eyeM]

There are many ways that women are at least as good as men because of the benefits of society and technology, and I would even say they are close enough to equal in intellect that I can't tell which sex is smarter, but the simple fact is that, in general, men are almost always better at or equal to women in everything. I am sure there are some exceptions, but my guess is that you cannot even name 5, much less many.

Look out. We got a live one here!

Women are big majorities in colleges, in med schools, vet schools, all without a hint of affirmative action. Dang, that's really inferior.

Physically? Women live longer. Women have babies. Women are born with genetic defects less often. They float better. That's a quick 4.

Small, fragile male egos have to 'cherry pick' select areas where they can feel superior. 'Real men' accept women as their other half of life and existence.
These little masculine minds are the biggest source of problems in the world as well. They can only think of resolution by means of their supposed ares of superiority. Thus, there is violence, rape, abuse, Sharia...
Yeah, men are superior...at repression, murder and domination.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

That means nothing, friend.

The issued us weapons, remember?

What is your point: you don't want women in the military?

That time is gone.

I dont have a problem with women in the military. Just not in a combat roll.
If it even has the slightest chance of endangering other soldiers it shouldnt be done ...period.
And I can think of many problems that could arise where strength could make the difference between living and dying. It has nothing to do with chicks dying on the front lines. It's all about their weakness causing the death of other soldiers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That means nothing, friend.

The issued us weapons, remember?

What is your point: you don't want women in the military?

That time is gone.

I dont have a problem with women in the military. Just not in a combat roll.
If it even has the slightest chance of endangering other soldiers it shouldnt be done ...period.
And I can think of many problems that could arise where strength could make the difference between living and dying. It has nothing to do with chicks dying on the front lines. It's all about their weakness causing the death of other soldiers.

That is taken care of by the training. If they make it, they are good to go. if they don't, they won't be in such units. There is no issue here.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I'm not making any mistake. You're pathetic. Endurance is endurance. LMAO You poor little guy, keep trying.

No it's not. So it's your contention that a 105 lb chick can endure a beat down by someone who is twice as strong and weighs in at say 210? I doubt it.
Videos all over the internet of female cops owned by male suspects. This is no different.

And your next argument will be....But one out of a thousand girls could.

You are talking about strength and brute force, I'm talking about endurance. Two different things. One thing this thread is clarifying is that women appear to be smarter than men.

That you only apply "endurance" to running is retarded. We've already shown women dont have the strength of men. So put 60 lbs of weight on her back and see how much endurance she has. She'll burn herself out trying to haul the weight because she's not strong enough to begin with.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No it's not. So it's your contention that a 105 lb chick can endure a beat down by someone who is twice as strong and weighs in at say 210? I doubt it.
Videos all over the internet of female cops owned by male suspects. This is no different.

And your next argument will be....But one out of a thousand girls could.

You are talking about strength and brute force, I'm talking about endurance. Two different things. One thing this thread is clarifying is that women appear to be smarter than men.

That you only apply "endurance" to running is retarded. We've already shown women dont have the strength of men. So put 60 lbs of weight on her back and see how much endurance she has. She'll burn herself out trying to haul the weight because she's not strong enough to begin with.

So will the average man.

That's why the training, troop. If he or she washes out, so be it

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I'm not making any mistake. You're pathetic. Endurance is endurance. LMAO You poor little guy, keep trying.

No it's not. So it's your contention that a 105 lb chick can endure a beat down by someone who is twice as strong and weighs in at say 210? I doubt it.
Videos all over the internet of female cops owned by male suspects. This is no different.

And your next argument will be....But one out of a thousand girls could.

How many girls do you know that weigh only 105 lbs?

My wife when I married her,unfortunately as she got older......well thats another story.
Plenty of young chicks out there who weigh 105. You wanna quibble over fifteen pounds?
Fine will say 120. Same results.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

No it's not. So it's your contention that a 105 lb chick can endure a beat down by someone who is twice as strong and weighs in at say 210? I doubt it.
Videos all over the internet of female cops owned by male suspects. This is no different.

And your next argument will be....But one out of a thousand girls could.

How many girls do you know that weigh only 105 lbs?

My 15 year old grand daughter. But if she had ten feet and a .22, which I taught her to fire, and which we go to the range at least once a month, she would shoot an assailant through the eyes (her own special 'double tap') before he took a step. She has no mercy for attackers since one of her friends was attacked two years ago.

That's the point. No combat infantry person is going to let someone get close if they at all can avoid it.

They cant always avoid it,thats the problem. If all they had to do was sit behind a rifle it wouldnt be an issue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then the smaller infantry person (man or woman) is in trouble, hmmm?

That's the point.

Question: did you serve? I ask because either you are woefully inadequate in knowledge to make such conclusions or you are playing the devil's advocate.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

That means nothing, friend.

The issued us weapons, remember?

What is your point: you don't want women in the military?

That time is gone.

I dont have a problem with women in the military. Just not in a combat roll.
If it even has the slightest chance of endangering other soldiers it shouldnt be done ...period.
And I can think of many problems that could arise where strength could make the difference between living and dying. It has nothing to do with chicks dying on the front lines. It's all about their weakness causing the death of other soldiers.

That is taken care of by the training. If they make it, they are good to go. if they don't, they won't be in such units. There is no issue here.

Upper body strength can be increased through exercise,but there are limits,and no amount of training will make a women as strong as a man.
If they can pass the physical side I dont have to much of a problem with it. But at what cost? Most young men can go to boot camp and be whipped into shape in short order.
While you would have to go through a crapload of women to get a few that were capable.
Not very cost effective. All in the name of being PC?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Then the smaller infantry person (man or woman) is in trouble, hmmm?

That's the point.

Question: did you serve? I ask because either you are woefully inadequate in knowledge to make such conclusions or you are playing the devil's advocate.

No I didnt enlist. Had their been a war I would have or if I had needed the GI bill for college.
I was thirty six when the first gulf war started.
As far as being "woefully inadequate in knowledge" LOL... You would have to be blind to go through life and not notice that chicks cannot compete with men in almost all cases of physical strength and it's stupid to say different.(I would say all cases but you would probably find some obscure situation that would fit your agenda)

Oh....and the smaller women could very well be in trouble. The smaller man,not so much. Because he's still stronger then the strongest women there.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, end of discussion. You have some theoretical conclusions based on your evaluations. Thank you.