Molly

That's pretty concise, Tango. I was about to comment on that reply to Kimmy... so, Waldo... How many women were licenced medical doctors in 1900 (20 years after the first was allowed)? How many in physical sciences, even as recently as the 50's? How many in the trades 20 years after Rosie the Riveter? Probably not 13%, or even 2%. As I said, 20 years is an eyeblink... and right here, right now, we still have people (you) who do not expect scorn when they say they should not be 'allowed' to do it... ( cause they're so cute and tiny and weak, so fragile and incompetent)... and 'letting' them do it is a 'failed experiment. If you can't salute them, Waldo, then at least stay out of their way.

Fair enough. Our greatest difference of opinion is that IMO, 'compulsary' and 'good chance of success' are, in practical terms, very nearly mutually exclusive.

"When comparing men and women who perform similarly on lesser endurance events.... if you double the challenge, the women win." Your choice to believe or not, but it's a tidbit discovered in endurance studies. If they just look at marathons, men are way ahead of women, but when they compare men and women with similar results in marathons, over supermarathons, the men run out of poop and are hardly in the same race. So far they chalk it up partly to heat dissipation by smaller body-masses, and are looking hard at womens greater reliance on body fat, rather than carbohydrate for availabe energy. I could google it up for you, but it's a giggle, not a point.

" If on the other hand, if you have to haul a hundred pound pack up a mountain, march all day through the jungle, then fight someone, I'm fairly confident a bunch of men of average size would fair considerably better than a bunch of women." Haha! Actually you'd probably be wrong! Men almost always beat out women in lesser feats of strength and endurance, but when you seriously max them out.... ie: comparing men and women with similar performance in lesser endurance events, when you double the challenge... the women win!

I commented on that side of it specifically, Waldo, because that is the part that pushed my buttons... but if you really want me to comment on the rest, I can. You are right to suppose that I object to glass cielings, and bristle at your suggestion of this one... the notion of genitalia being the primary restriction on ones options is deeply offensive to me. I said as much, so there's no 'supposing' about it. Many things contribute to the numbers you brought in. 20 years is an eyeblink with regard to changing social attitudes. The fact that the Coren article was written points out how little they have changed in that time. The shift has been from horror at the thought to mere reluctance and disapproval... Yes, the attitude that questions the very presence of women, regardless of their wishes or their capability, is a part of it, but certainly not all. The women who take on combat roles remain pioneers. Regardless of the nature of a role, being a pioneer is its own kind of challenge. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, because it's living the hard way. And there are a lot of differences between men and women beyond size and strength. We could argue 'til the cows come home about how much of it is socialized and how much of it is inborn, but it doesn't matter which. It DOES matter that those differences exist. Statistically, you'll find that women (as a group) are a lot less enthusiastic about combat (by anyone) than men (also as a group), see less reason for it, less merit in its results, and more ways to avoid it... so any expectation of men and women in equal numbers in combat roles is pretty darned naive. And another huge difference between men and women is the tighter connection between women and children/family. There is little handicap for a single father participating in the military-- but a single mother? (for instance) The military is trying, and has made great strides, but the life really is not family friendly. That, all by itself, would take a huge number of women out of a position to be in a combat role, because for many the family un-friendliness erases the military as a potential career. I could get into more arcane stuff, but you see the point, I'm sure. 13% and 2%? I don't see that as a 'failed experiment' at all. I'm actually a bit surprised it's that high! And as to the optics of the death of this particular girl? I don't see it as having any effect at all on recruitment. The women/girls who enter the military, particularly those headed for the front lines, don't go in starry eyed. That's one of the effects of facing pioneering: you have to want it badly enough to face the downside head-on, because no one is trying to seduce you in.

Okay. For future reference: 45 kg woman = 100 lbs. 50 kg. man= 110 lbs. (I'd be more intimidated by the former than the latter.)

Unfortunate that the Napolitano has been trumped by booing fans. I'd save all my boos for her. Not only does her set of (false) assumptions threaten trade, but if North American security is in her hands-- and we are relatively unprotected from threats arising in and throught the actions of the US-- I'd prefer she was well-informed and *ahem* competent.

Waldo... while you are chasing statistics, check out height and weight stats for North American women. A 45 kg. woman would be in the tiniest 5 percentile... about 4.5. While gender size difference exists, it bugs the heck out of me that folks citing size difference in order to disinclude women almost always compare the physical capabilities of an outlandishly small woman to those of an equally outlandishly large man. A comparably tiny man would come in at about 50kg. ................................. Interestingly enough, men tend to wildly underestimate the weight of women, too. Baby girl, for instance, is routinely guessed at a petite 120 pounds or so, but her fit weight ranges from 160-180. I laughed hard at finding myself listed in the 'under 135' class in an arm wrestling competition. That was a 40+ lb. miss, too.

Ooooh, Shakeyhands.... Something in me thinks that the day they raid some outback farmer who doesn't ever hunt but who has held onto the 22 his Grandpa gave him, so he can pick off problem varments or kill a pig for butchering-- and throw him into jail-- is the day the poo will REALLY hit the fan over the registry.

Canadien, you have shockingly selective reading skills, a penchant for making some pretty insulting assumptions, a very big chip on your shoulder, and precious little knowledge of the community you cited or the circumstances and human relationships of that area. So be it. Ciao.

Universality isn't all it's cracked up to be. It is no more elitist for some to have multiple language fluency, while others do not, than it is for some to have impressive automotive skills, while others don't understand the signifigance of a dipstick. I'd love to see universal AVAILABILITY of top-level second-language instruction, but making it compulsary is doomed to poor results and honestly, counterproductive. (What really needs to be compulsary is improved first-language education. Not only would first-language communications be improved, but one is far better equipped to take on a second language when equipped with a solid grasp of linguistic mechanics.) Wherever worldview varies, mistranslation/misunderstanding will exist. Even perfect translation of words-- even common language-- is not proof against miscommunication. And no matter what vector language is used there will still be some struggle for true communication. Have you never struggled to understand a telemarketer or tech support person fluently speaking your own language heavy with the accents of the other side of the planet? Languages are living things. They are not static. There is no such thing as learning a language 'once and for all'- not even if it's a constructed language, because additions/deletions shifts in nuance, and meanings relative to other languages cannot be controlled.

Tip of the hat, Armyguy. Well spoken. And thank-you.

Would you say that if the zealot in question was a muslim googling for high profile converts? Or a Voodoo 'doctor' offering to heal you with dead chickens? Or if the god in question was Vishnu? I'm pretty darned sure that they are all quite sincere in their faith, and are all somewhat amusingly out-to-lunch.

It's something like that dichotomy now, but began as a false one. (I'd chalk Mr. Harpers dilemma up to 'self-inflicted wounds'.) As Rex Murphy pointed out, one does not get to choose ones forebears. With or without a card, Mulroney is as credible a representative of Conservative politics in Canada as Harper-- maybe even moreso-- and the strings that bind that relationship are a lot stronger than his name appearing (or not) on a list. So the dichotomy is this: Harper can comment either way on the 'under the bus' game, and bring even more attention to the pettiness of it and the immutability of the connection, or he can go mum about it, and hope folks will forget how petty it, was and how immutable the link. The rest of the potential damage is already done.

This bit appears to be the part that got your back up... that and noting that access to French language education is currently assured with little regard to the cost, in an area where access to English language education for the English-speaking majority is pinched to the point of being, by all practical measure, denied to more than a few. I call that disproportionate. What word would you use? I'm not backing down either, from observing that maintaining (any non-majority language) as a first language through multiple generations in a tiny, tiny outpost where for most of that time, it has to have served as a SERIOUS disadvantage, completely dumbfounds me. Insularity would have to be grimly nursed in order to do that. It represents several generations of cutting off ones nose to spite ones face.... Seriously... wow.

LOL How big a word is 'if'? 'IF' tax money had provided those wonderful resources to (any) other comparable communities, or even if there was a snowballs chance in Hades that such things would even be CONSIDERED for other comparable communities, much less built- then I couldn't point out the preferential treatment that put them where they are! Any community other than Gravelbourg would not even have gotten in to the offices so as to be to be laughed back out, in proposing them. For heavens sake, the preferential treatment is FACT. We can either approve of it or disapprove of it, but pretending it isn't so is blinkered and obstructive. Would you care to rejoin the conversation? Instead of huffing and puffing because I dare wonder why anyone would want to live in French in rural Saskatchewan-- I haven't suggested that it is not an entitlement-- tell me how national unity is served by it. This conversation would suggest that it is not unifying at all-- that it is a wedge, and being wielded as a wedge.

Your point?

In some folks' POV, it qualifies as BEING terrorism. At best, it's utter abandonment of moral high ground. I don't want my country doing things in my name, of which I must be ashamed. I'd prefer to avoid extraordinary ties to any other country so morally bankrupt, too.

I have to admit to a negative vote... who can rid me of Harper and the boys? It doesn't hurt that the history of the Liberal party is fiscally fairly conservative, and socially responsive. Wishy-washy for my taste, and Ignatief remains an unknown quantity-- but the dishonest, mean-minded, religion soaked, say one thing and do another, embarrassing, anti-democratic nastiness has to end. Getting on to yellow-dog necessity. I find myself deeply disagreeing with what the Conservatives say they will do, and then disagreeing even more vehemently with what they actually do.

What was that line about reformed smokers being the most obnoxious anti-smoking zealots? The same goes for folks who obsess over some ideological thing- religion or politics or what-have-you. The rabid can't just change their minds. Their opinions and conduct start off pegged at one side of the meter, and when it finally gets through to them that such a position is irrational, they snap over to the opposite, equally irrational end of the meter, and remain just as rabid as before.

Ditto. (and it strikes me as being very odd.) It particularly strikes me as odd because I see so little for Alberta to complain about. They are in the catbird seat-- in ascendance- thriving and well-to-do, for the moment in a position of striking influence... and the more they have, the louder and nastier and less rational they seem to become. The downturn seems to have subdued some of the worst loud, obnoxious ones! LOL Perhaps not so odd. I giggled right out loud in astonished disbelief at Ontario folks crying penury when we arrived here a few years ago. They saw programs gutted-- but I saw a bountiful, unbelieveably luxurious remainder (and waste that made my toes curl).

Take the chip off your shoulder. If you are at all familiar with that community- that area- (and you are the one who referenced it) then you darned well know that around there, reasonable access to education at all is by no means assured; that an indoor swimming pool is a breathtaking luxury; that all the outpost hospitals for miles around were shut down quite some time ago and ambulance wait-times of over an hour are more common than not; that even basic highway maintenance is a highly doubtful benefit. You know that the francophone 'specialness' is cynically milked for everything it's worth (and it's worth plenty) by the ENTIRE surrounding area-- and believe me they aren't complaining, because without that edge, they would all do with very much less. Compare services provided to Gravelbourg and district to those in Coronach, for instance. Or Bengough, Mankota, Consul, Rockglen... Hodgeville even, and tell me which of them is privileged all out of proportion with their population-- which recieves services and benefits and guarantees and resources that the others could only fondly dream about. A knee-jerk leap to an assumption that in being aware of it, I object to the presence of non-english language instruction is plain wrong-- laughably, even offensively wrong, in fact-- but it is aptly representative of my suggestion that language/language education really has diddly to do with the tribalist/nationalist stresses. It may be the public focus, but is not the cause, the root, the source.. of the isolation, the mutual misunderstanding, or of hostility.

A bunch of the northern Ontario route has been solved, Kimmy, and work is plowing ahead on more of it. About darned time, though, that stretch was made closer to anytime passable. Sheer distance will always be something of a barrier, but failure to have a decent land-link from end-to end? How rediculous is that! The east/west solitudes SHOULD be a serious national embarrassment. (North/south, too.) If we dare think of ourselves as a nation, then maybe we should make some effort to mingle a little- maybe share a little commerce.

LOL For someone so fixed on language, Machjo, you certainly have little respect for the integrity of them! I cringed at the suggestion that 'structured reform' would 'break the link with classical literature'. It would do a lot more than that! It would break the link with much of the moment-to-moment communication capacity of that language! I concur, Canadien, that an artifical vector language is a waste of everyones time. A grand theory, but why anyone would be interested in taking up such a sad, dead, uninteresting thing as a artificial language is beyond me. There are so many rich, live ones available. BTW, as per your suggestion of exploration of outpost francophone communities, I am intimately familiar with the community of Gravelbourg in particular. I have appreciated the positive side of its existence, cheered that community's success, and in particular, enjoyed the benefits of access to the impressive resources there -- but have also darned well resented the incredibly disproportionate share of education $ spent there; the outright defamation of the anglophone larger community with regard to local issues; the preferential treatment of that community with regard to government- both federal and provincial- services.... The coin has two sides. We mere anglophones in the vicinity would not have had access to any of those resources-- the hospital, the amazing sport facilities, the fascinating 'cultural events'-- if that (outpost) communtiy was not so very richly rewarded for being 'special'.

I freely admit that I have a difficult time to 'groc' such passionate language identity. I am 3rd generation Canadian, with grandparents who spoke neither French nor English, nor even any of the languages used in the homes of their neighbours. ALL set aside Babel and took up the lingua franca for the sake of understanding one another... and that's why that area is so very unilingual: they actually WANTED to communicate with one another. I really don't 'get' the elevation of a tool to an identity-defining status . It strikes me as being as misguided as equating an occupation to identity, or a place of residence to identity, or even a brand loyalty to identity-- Lot's do it, but it is a proclamation of determination to maintain ones limitations as immutable-- not a thing to be proud of. Downright obtuse, in fact. So I don't OBJECT to the learning of languages at all.. I applaud it. But I don't for one second think that if all Canadians moved mountains to the point of all becoming fully fluent in both English and in French that there would be one jot less tension between the province of Quebec and the other provinces of Canada-- between Canadiens and Canadians. Language is only one dimension of expressing far deeper-seated differences in worldview. We might focus on it, but it isn't the root. Tribalism is. I'm glad that you bring up the notion of francophony outside Quebec, and in part, agree with your assertion... but would also suggest that the 'fight' would be unnecessary but for a fruitless clinging to a non-functioning, anachronistic relic of an old fight. The impracticality of such steadfastness is utterly staggering. I know that's strong language... but I would not expect to live in English in Mexico, or in Germany, or in Sweden. Swedes and Mexicans and Germans do not come to dominantly anglophone areas of Canada expecting to live in either their langugae of origin, or in French.... Why then would folks who live in ... even if born and raised in... francophone outposts in the great anglophone sea of north america, have any expectation of thriving without learning to speak with their neighbours, or any expectation that their neighbours would move a mountain in order to more easily communicate with them? Again, don't get me wrong-- I welcome those outposts and value them much more highly than my comments suggest, but do they, or the determination to preserve them, really make any sense at all?