Theos-Talk Archives (November 1999 Message tl00334)

Randy wrote:

>The point of the army was to point out a difference between men and women.
>You changed the rules.  I said hand to hand combat.  You won't even concede
>this?

I am unaware of any "army" (your word) that doesn't go into battle - hand
to hand combat - with some kind of weaponry - be it a rock, sword, stick,
club, something.  Your scenario, which I took as at least plausible, was
just another fantasy, I guess.

Obviously, your question seems to really be about upper body strength.  Why
would I be hesitant to admit or "concede" that men usually tend to reign in
upper body strength?  I've often asked guys to open jars or unscrew
something - big deal.  Women tend to have stonger lower body strength -
which is why men "pull" and women "push."  Yes, these are differences, but
the recognition of such differences does not offer anything regarding male
and female equality - which is what this whole issue was about.

What is the point?  Why do you desire for me to "concede" of male and
female differences in upper body strength?  What does it have to do with
anything?  No "army" can maintain control of any society (or whatever they
end up winning in the battle) simply because they can punch harder.

It is clear that you are not taking me or the issues seriously - and I
believe it is not because of ignorance, but because of choice.  I have
attempted to treat you with respect, but have not received the same.  And
to think I just spent a goodly amount of time re-reading the Constitution
to further my points, believing you meant business.

You are just plain boring me now, especially since I can never know when
you are serious or fantasizing - the rush of the "challenge" has, alas,
gone bye-bye.

End of thread.

Kym