August 19, 2009

Wednesday 090819

Rest Day


Enlarge image

Henri L., Hochstrass, Lower-Austria

"Psychology of CrossFit" with Greg Glassman by CrossFit by Overload, CrossFit Journal Preview - video [wmv] [mov]

"Women at Arms: G.I. Jane Breaks the Combat Barrier"
by Lizette Alvarez - The New York Times

Post thoughts to comments.

Posted by lauren at August 19, 2009 12:33 PM

thank god! 2 weeks of crossfit finished!! i'm hooked!

Joey Scafidi 28/m/175/5'9" Prague,CZ

Comment #1 - Posted by: joey at August 18, 2009 5:33 PM

Wow, talk about a super early post! I guess I'll do Sunday's workout tomorrow since I took Sunday off.

Comment #2 - Posted by: Patrick at August 18, 2009 5:37 PM

My shoulders are SMOKED!!! Thank you rest day!

Comment #3 - Posted by: BryanG at August 18, 2009 5:40 PM

Everyone should watch today's journal video.

Comment #4 - Posted by: Kevin C. at August 18, 2009 5:45 PM


Legs and abs are WRECKED from the GHD SU and Double-Unders from Monday. I skipped today, no 1-armed Push Presses for me. Thank you for the rest day.

FRAT 30 Day Paleo Challenge is going strong. 17 days down, 13 to go. Stay strong, FRATers :)

Today marks 8 weeks post right shoulder surgery (2nd shoulder surgery this year!)

This last week has been great for my shoulder's recovery process! I'm now doing Overhead Squats, Shoulder Presses, Muscle Snatch, Deadlift, and Sumo Deadlift High Pulls all with an PVC, and almost doing full Sampson Stretches. Also generally putting much more loading onto the joint, with both pulling and pushing (mainly pulling). I'm very pleased at this point.

***FRAT OUT!***

Comment #5 - Posted by: Herm at August 18, 2009 5:52 PM

Biking and Boxing.. total bliss :)

Comment #6 - Posted by: Diana F/25/5'9/145 at August 18, 2009 5:56 PM

Really just feeling grateful for eveything! Happy rest day everyone. :)

Comment #7 - Posted by: snix 33 M 5'11 178 at August 18, 2009 5:57 PM

Awesome awesome Journal video! Probably one of, if not the favorite, of Coach.
As for the article posted...I say let the ladies do whatever they want or can so long as they hold to the standards needed to perform as such. In the end that's all that really matters if you ask me.

Comment #8 - Posted by: Eric Gohl 22/5'10/163 at August 18, 2009 6:09 PM

no rest for the wicked. Slacked off early in the week, will do favorite CF endurance workout:
row at 100% the following:
10 meters in the first minute,
20 meters in the 2nd minute,
30 meters in the 3rd minute,
keep going until you can't...

Great, fun metcon workout. Starts out so easy but gets ugly after 15 minutes or so.

Best so far is 24 minutes, keep bailing with plenty of time on the clock due to uncle pukey.. Lets go for 25+ tomorrow.

Comment #9 - Posted by: dan m at August 18, 2009 6:12 PM

I want to ask ppl about my muscle up sub, cant quite get 'em yet, so instead i do 1 jumping MU with the rings 5" above my head, then i do the negative as slow as i can and finish with one L pull up before touching the ground. Is this a legit sub?

Comment #10 - Posted by: Ian M/32/84kg/1.85m at August 18, 2009 6:12 PM

Ian M, without seeing exactly what you are doing, I would deem that a legit sub, just make sure you keep it progressing. For example, next time, make the rings 6" above your head, then 7", and try to minimise the jumping each time. As long as you are working the movement & working hard as hard as YOU can, I say it's a legit sub.... just dont go claiming any records for the Rx'd workouts until you're doing them as Rx'd ;)

Comment #11 - Posted by: Crawf at August 18, 2009 6:21 PM

Nice journal video =D I dunno if anyone else does this, but sometimes on rest days I"ll end up doing some kind of workout. The last rest day we had I ended up running 3 or 4 miles. I think I'll actually REST on this one, lol!

Comment #12 - Posted by: Megz at August 18, 2009 6:22 PM

In regards to the picture, does Henri have the biggest bells of them all? Too bad Bon Scott didn't stick around to enjoy CrossFit, especially with the Aussies representing they way they are these days.

Comment #13 - Posted by: WeemsFit at August 18, 2009 6:39 PM

Quick question; been doing crossfit for about 5 months now, great program, lost 20 lbs and built a whole ton of lean muscle. Amongst all our different lifts I am surprised that we never do snatch grip deadlifts. There is a higher range of motion than traditional DL, hence it is definitely a functional movement, and has been proven to significantly increase serum levels of testosterone. We love snatch and we love deadlifts, why not marry the two?... Thoughts?...

Comment #14 - Posted by: dan m at August 18, 2009 6:48 PM

aren't we meant to do the DL with whatever grip we choose? So if you want to do a DL WOD using a snatch grip, should be cool.

Crawft: thanks bro, I will deff. keep raising the ring until I am doing the legit MU's! and don't worry about me posting any records just yet, my time for "Ryan" using this sub was 28:13!!!
It was still tough and I'm glad I finished....

Comment #15 - Posted by: Ian M/32/84kg/1.85m at August 18, 2009 7:09 PM

"YEH"-- Who's war are you referring to? And why should women not have the opportunity to serve?

Comment #16 - Posted by: Leslie P at August 18, 2009 7:35 PM

First of all, I would like to say that the article on women in combat is from the liberal (an understatement) rag The New York Times. If that doesn't speak enough about the slant put into the article, then look closely at the first picture of Sgt. Flannery dashing across a rooftop "as other soldiers (her male counterparts, nonetheless) used a wall for cover." They are clearly not under attack because the soldiers in the background are relaxed and don't have their weapons at the ready. Also, consider the fact that in order to serve in a combat zone, it is necessary to carry up to 80lbs of ammunition/equipment over large distances just to get to the fight. What happens when these women in combat arms get to the fight and a wounded American soldier is lying exposed (with the same amount of ammunition/equipment as G.I. Jane) and under fire? Personally, I would prefer not to have my life in the hands of someone incapable of rescuing me from harms way. And before anyone gets upset, it is a fact of life that the majority of women would be incapable of carrying that "burden," so to speak; just look at the top scores in absolute strength from the CF Games 2009 website. It is enough that the military already has had to minimize physical standards across the board for women in the military, and it is too much to ask our soldiers to place their lives in the hands of someone incapable of holding up their end of the bargain.

Comment #17 - Posted by: Cory D. at August 18, 2009 7:35 PM

Interesting article. It makes some good points about the role of women in the military. I like one of the last paragraphs about how very few women have shown interest in joining light infantry. That's the one thing I will bet will never happen. My Marine recruiter gave us some nice stories about rucking a machine gun for 20 miles.

Comment #18 - Posted by: al at August 18, 2009 7:36 PM

i should say that i do not have an opinion on women in combat roles. my comment was on the physical demands of light infantry.

It would be interesting to see if an appreciable amount of women could hike with the weight

Comment #19 - Posted by: al at August 18, 2009 7:41 PM

When your life comes down to the ability of the person next to you to carry you on their shoulders to a medevac helicopter ask yourself this: would you rather have a woman be responsible for the task because it was morally "wrong" to not allow them, or a man?

Comment #20 - Posted by: chuck at August 18, 2009 7:58 PM

"I would never want my life in those hands and the liberal left"

Comment #21 - Posted by: smitty at August 18, 2009 7:58 PM

Implicit in the article is the fact that in many instances, it's just a question of semantics. If you are forward deployed, you have the potential to be in a combat situation.

As a medic, I've done my share of convoys where I did more than simply perform duties as a medic. Whenever you are "outside the wire", combat situations happen, regardless of your job or what type of unit to which you are assigned.

Comment #22 - Posted by: B Bowen at August 18, 2009 8:00 PM

Read the whole sentence - don't cherry pick smitty.

Comment #23 - Posted by: Cory D. at August 18, 2009 8:05 PM

I don't intend this to be crude or unwholesome, but I thought I would throw this out for discussion...

Recently, at the gym, I was talking with a guy I work out with and he said that since he started CrossFit he has not only noticed the increased work capacity, gpp, etc.; but he has also noticed an increase in sexual performance as well. He described it as almost a "6th Sense" for his partner as well as increased capacity. Just wondering if anyone has noticed anything similar?

Again, this isn't intended to be crude, it is just not a benefit of CrossFit that I would have ever thought of, so I submit it for your intellectual digestion.

Comment #24 - Posted by: ConversationStarter at August 18, 2009 8:15 PM

towards #25

it seems to make sense. I mean, working out with high intensity leads to increased metabolism and testosterone.

Comment #25 - Posted by: al at August 18, 2009 8:18 PM

I heard this story, link in a moment, the other day on the news. The Marines--who apparently REALLY get counter-insurgency (I'm not denigrating anyone, but from what I read they are nearly on par with or on par with SF in this regard; same applied in Vietnam)--have recruited a group of female Marines to in effect gather intel and engage in pro-Western salespersonship with Taliban women. They put head scarves on under helmets. Freaking beautiful:

As far as women in combat, it seems to me the only real objection would be that sectual interest would distract from unit cohesion. Clearly, there are some jobs MOST OF THEM shouldn't do, like hump large machine guns, but I remember reading about an SF guy who got the Medal of Honor for pulling a bunch of guys out of a kill zone, who was something like 6'0" and 120 pounds. You take one of our CrossFit badasses, and I think they could handle the job.

I'll point out, too, that in the stories in the article, women pulled people to safety, if I read it correctly.

Integration happens gradually, like cream homogenizing in your tea. It is an organic thing, and it sounds to me like positive things are happening overseas. Women are EARNING respect in life and death situations.

Now, in any issue, there are multiple points of view possible, and many of you have more real world experience than I do. But it does seem to me that if someone WANTS to do something--and the extent of the call on the part of women to join the combat is unclear--and they can PROVE they can do it, they should be listened to.

Comment #26 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at August 18, 2009 8:18 PM

One in the hopper. I REALLY don't get the filters. Bad words: makes sense. Links to known spam and bad sites: check. Insulting words: of course, you need to look at it. The varying ways of referring to the 3rd Reich: sure.

What, though, when none of that is in play?

It should come out between #26 and number 200.

Comment #27 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at August 18, 2009 8:23 PM

If women desire to be in combat arms I firmly belive they need to be able to output the same as their male counterparts. I need to know in a combat situation they are able to pull the same weight.
So it comes down to same training and same standards. If I'm expected to complete a swim, pushups, situps, pullups, and a run in a specified time/minimum amount they need to have the same exact time/minimum number constraints to pass that evolution to continue training.

Comment #28 - Posted by: NavCrab at August 18, 2009 8:24 PM

Barry, I got one in the hopper too, but it's a FRAT post and involves the 8 week point post surgery. Go figure.

Comment #29 - Posted by: Herm at August 18, 2009 8:30 PM

Being a firefighter and working side by side with women firefighters there is an obvious difference in strength while "performing the job". With that being said if the physical standards are met regardless of sex then that person has put in the work and deserves a job. HOWEVER that 1% of time when I need someone to drag me out of a fire or a "combat" situation I would obviously feel better if it was a male who works out with CF.

Comment #30 - Posted by: Mike M 29/M/5'11/175 at August 18, 2009 8:40 PM

What kind of country sends its mothers and daughters to fight for it?

Comment #31 - Posted by: Jason NWA at August 18, 2009 8:43 PM

toward #24

I messed up on the part I quoted but the point remains. Your whole "libruls are cowards" BS is belied by (probably) the single most famous soldier of the decade being a liberal. Liberal, conservative, whatever, all soldiers wear green and bleed red, and your attempt to try to paint with a broad, "only-people-who-agree-with-me-are-real-patriots" brush cheapens that.

Further, it is possible to state an coherent position against women in combat roles w/o going on "generic rightwing rant 23C." You are welcome to do haven't done so yet.

(Further, I would just add that, as a grad student in International Relations with an emphasis in national security studies, I am currently in school with a number of young "liberals" who intend to enter the officer corps upon completion of their program of study.)

Comment #32 - Posted by: smitty at August 18, 2009 8:50 PM

I really like that workout idea. I will have to try it. However, how do you keep count of the meters since the wheel continues to move after you stop? Just add to the new number after it finally stops. This will be difficult as time progresses.

Comment #33 - Posted by: Blanco 31/M/72/198 at August 18, 2009 8:55 PM

The U.S. military is all voluntary. Who would anyone here be to fuss about a woman who chooses to put her arse on the line to serve her country. What right would you have to tell her 'no'. And for that matter if you are one of the posters who are saying no, I certainly hope you have already served, since you are making such a bold statement.

Comment #34 - Posted by: PatE at August 18, 2009 9:07 PM

I agree that anyone going into a fire, combat, or similar situation, where the success of the group is dependent on the abilities of it's members, that only those physically capable should be in. I also argue that having a vagina should not automatically disqualify someone. I'm not saying we need token women in those roles. I am saying they should be allowed to apply, enlist, etc. Even if they are (gasp) a mother or daughter.

Comment #35 - Posted by: Leslie P at August 18, 2009 9:29 PM

There is much more to women in combat than just 'females are morally equal males'. It does not follow that therefore males and females are equally suited all possible tasks.

Some points have been raised about how if anyone wishes to serve in a combat unit they should meet the physical requirements set by that unit, regardless of their gender.

In the article it was noted that women are not typically applying for the grunt jobs, but are working, and fighting, in artillery and armour combat units where physical differences are less important.

There is also the psychological impact of mixed genders in combat units for people in those units. I have not done any research in this area, can anyone contribute knowledgeably as to the benefits and handicaps in this area? (At the moment I can only think of the line in Starship Troopers (the book, not the movie) about hearing a female voice just before they went into combat reminding them of their reason for fighting.)

Finally there is the psychological impact of mixed genders in combat units on the people fighting against them. Similarly the effect of increased unmanned operations by high tech armies on the psychology of their enemies is often overlooked in the drive to make combat 'safer'. In this case 'the military is going to do what the military needs to do' leads to a message of 'your culture is cowardly because it sends their women/robots to fight'.


Comment #36 - Posted by: Zeke at August 18, 2009 9:33 PM

I am an Infantryman currently in a Special Forces unit, a card carrying member of the Libertarian party (i.e. not "a Liberal"), and I know several female soldiers who I would gladly go into a firefight with. All of them are solid, dependable people and they all take their role as soldiers seriously. These traits are rare in both sexes, but in my experience they occur roughly as often in females as they do in males.

I think it's important to understand that soldiers know who in their unit is reliable and who is not, and soldiers - both male and female - who are known to be unreliable are generally kept in places where they can do the least amount of harm. The opposite is also true. If a female in your unit has demonstrated that she is solid and dependable, why wouldn't you take her on patrol?

The "can she pick me up and carry me" argument is a straw man. Yes, someone needs to move casualties, but while they're doing that someone else needs to be providing covering fire, another person is laying on their face in the dirt and yelling into the radio, and someone else is getting ready to treat the casualty when they're under cover. I've met females who can carry men in full battle rattle, and males who can't. We (the people in the firefight) know who's good at what, and we naturally fall into the roles we are good at.

#13 (YEH) - I don't think it is disgraceful that American women are serving their country. We are not "using women" at all- they volunteered of their own free will. And most of them (and I, as well) volunteered to serve so that civilians can have the FREEDOM to choose to live their lives however they want to. Even if we don't like their facial expressions or tattoos.

Comment #37 - Posted by: Dan at August 18, 2009 9:39 PM

performance based evaluation pre-requisites for entering any performance-dependandant job should be the norm, not pre-conceived notions as to what a person can or cannot do based on sex, race, preference, etc.
On average, people of Japanese descent can lift less weight than people of African descent. Should we bar ethnic Asians from the armed forces for this reason?
I know a few women who can lift more than most men...
If they pass the tests, I say let 'em serve!

Comment #38 - Posted by: Ian M/32/84kg/1.85m at August 18, 2009 9:41 PM

I mean no disrespect to the service-members, firefighters, and policemen who frequent these boards and are in this community, but it appears that those professions have a higher ratio of sexist, chauvinist, blowhards who think women belong in kitchens and only men should be serving their country in the military.

One downside to the many benefits of being in the crossfit community is the increased exposure to those idiots.

Comment #39 - Posted by: Adam at August 18, 2009 9:45 PM

Cory D, I've historically been against females serving in special operations, and if pushed, probably in other direct action roles including infantry. Your argument - not mine - is that women would be too physically weak.

But I happen to know that Gillian Mounsey, a female, can in fact outperform many active duty SEALs. While she's one extraordinary example, she's not the only. This gives me pause.

Comment #40 - Posted by: Cash Reynolds at August 18, 2009 9:54 PM

Nicely stated. Thank you for your service brother.

Comment #41 - Posted by: snix 33 M 5'11 178 at August 18, 2009 9:55 PM

Verbatim from the discussion between Coach and Tony Budding:

GG: "Really what's going on with CrossFit Kids is a moral and character education / conditioning plan. We're gonna have some very successful children -- not just fit but capable in the broadest sense of the word."

TB: "You're not talking about movement quality, you're talking -- "

GG: "I'm talking about doing the right thing, about not giving up, about industry, about perseverance, about self-reliance, about commitedness... you know, give it a million names but there's a lot there in that vat of chili. It's all critical, and those are the things that are going to have a more determining effect on the quality of your life, than your heart, your cholesterol, or even your work capacity across broad time and modal domains."

Comment #42 - Posted by: Cash Reynolds at August 18, 2009 9:56 PM

Women have proven themselves over and over out here in Iraq. Are there issues with integration? Sure, always are when change occurs. But Military Police, Combat Engineers, Psyops - all of these areas allow women, where they have excelled both on post and out on the street. Law Enforcement and firefighting has allowed women for years - where women get the job done every day. Police officers have a job as dangerous and physically demanding as probably 90% of all military jobs. Same for Firefighters.

Do I think the physical fitness standards should be the same for the same job - yes I do. But I'm a fan of MOS (job) based PT score baselines (read that: performanced based) not "one size fits all." But that's a topic for a different day!

Comment #43 - Posted by: Dave at August 18, 2009 10:06 PM

Dan @ 9:39 PM

Well said.

Comment #44 - Posted by: jakers at August 18, 2009 10:10 PM

Cash 9:56

I had a new Elements class start Monday. One of the athletes commented after the WOD that the only thing he needed to go faster was in his head.
My response was for 90% of the people I train they will never use their functional movement to it's fullest capacity in their daily lives. But the conditioning that takes place in their head will be invaluable to them in everything they do.
Again Faster had a great article on that subject today as well....
here it is:

Comment #45 - Posted by: jakers at August 18, 2009 10:51 PM

Re: Adam #38

No disrespect huh? If I made that kind of generalized statement on the street I'd have my badge taken away. And rightly so, it would be pretty disrespectful.

Comment #46 - Posted by: dutch at August 18, 2009 10:56 PM

“We have crossed that line in Iraq,” he said. “Debate it all you want folks, but the military is going to do what the military needs to do. And they are needing to put women in combat.”

I would think watching the amazing women at the 2009 crossfit games show that there are women with grit, determination and heart who would make excellent warriors.

I am a female that has retired from police work as sergeant with 28 years of service. I would not trade it for anything. It is the same reason I love crossfit. It takes everything you have and asks for more and you give it willingly because it feeds your soul and heart. Why deny capable women something that builds character and allows them to become something greater than themselves.

I think Dan said it best, but had to throw in my two cents.

Comment #47 - Posted by: KarenH at August 18, 2009 11:01 PM

I'm conflicted about the article. On the one hand I'm extremely grateful and proud of the women that serve in our military. It takes tremendous fortitude to do the job with out being an odd duck in the group and bucking the system.
Now comes the long list the other hand is holding. The job of the US military is to defend the Country. It's not a social experiment. Or a place in society to push social norms.I don't know that the benefit is so great as to out weigh unit cohesion (worrying more to protect the woman in the platoon) or the greater instances of voluntary disability, or sexual harassment and rape. Personally I think any soldier who rapes another soldier should be executed. I realize that's a bit extreme and I'll thankfully never get my wish but it certainly would curtail the activity. But if they aren't there they can't be raped.

And this leads to one of my pet peeve's. Women have quite a few women exclusive groups. Women's chamber, Mommy and me, Stroller Stride, Women's networking groups. Yet I'm willing to bet that with in 3 months of setting up a Men's only group some fine young woman will be banging on the door demanding entry and that she is being denied access to some right if she isn't allowed to join.

Comment #48 - Posted by: jakers at August 18, 2009 11:07 PM

Let me begin by saying that I serve in the Canadian Forces, I am a Hull Tech in the Navy, Reg Force. We are responsible for, among other things, damage control, flood control, firefighting, and plenty of other technical taskings.

I believe that simple standards should be more strictly adhered to with regards to capability. While our element is not all directly in the line of fire such as the Army and it's combat arms, my point is valid across all of our modal domains.

Recruits are being taken in off the streets now in almost ANY physical condition, and then tested on their physical capabilities during the first week of basic training. If they pass the basic standards, they are kept for further training, but if they fail, which about 20% do if my figures are correct, they are given the chance to release, or be put into "remedial fitness training" for a maximum of 3 months. While I agree with this to a certain extent, I have personally witnessed MANY recruits come in in absolutely horrible physical shape. While well intentioned and good hearted, 19 year olds who have hardly ever gotten up off their couch after school, that got the idea of joining the Army from playing entirely too many video games and swelled up to 280+ lbs have no place in my eyes crowding up our training centers and forcing other willing and able to wait while we need the bodies over seas. While I was in St-Jean for boot camp, it was out of hand. We have become an "equal opportunity" employer, to further extend Canada's reputation of kindness. I have also witnessed first hand amazing physical improvements in basic training; a good buddy of mine lost 60 lbs in 14 weeks and completed the course. Mind you, that is just basic training, and usually the ones that merely scrape by and actually make it to their combat arms training usually get sorted out...

All that being said, if a man or woman completed every test and met or surpassed any standard of training related to dragging my 213 lb wounded butt, plus armor, to a medivac, awesome. If not, they need to be re-evaluated, in my opinion.

Combat requires physically and mentally capable individuals, regardless of the sex.

Go Navy!

Comment #49 - Posted by: Varp at August 18, 2009 11:09 PM

Adam #38,

We get that in my profession too. As a pilot, and having worked with awesome female pilots, they at times get the "I thought you were a flight attendant" comment from passengers sometimes. Idiots are everywhere; we just have to put them in check and move one...

I also want to make a comment on the short video on the Psychology of Crossfit. I have to agree with the gentleman that talked about Dr. Sear's zone diet as having anti-inflammatory contributions to the brain. Having been gluten/casein free, my daughter who has autism has improved remarkably well just by diet change alone. She's on other biomedical protocols at the moment not to exclude chelation of toxic metals, etc. but overall, I have to say that the zone diet does well toward her recovery.

Comment #50 - Posted by: JR at August 19, 2009 12:10 AM

Jakers, 10:51 (sensible notation!) -- very cool, thanks for the link.

In other news, I decided to cut 95% of my dairy intake, and glutens, today. So I'm more than 99% paleo now. Count me into the FRAT Paleo challenge.

My average dosage of insulin has been at 54 units/day (down from a pre-paleo of 85 units/day).

Today I dosed 41.5 units, which included a big corrective dose for a mishap.

* * *
The protective disposition which you express toward women in combat is what, historically, has been my biggest reason for preferring they be excluded from spec ops and direct action roles.

I think Dave @ 10:06 addressed this argument: Are there problems with integration and a disruption to military units' culture? Sure. But the article, and statements here, are arguing that the needs, proven action records and benefits outweigh these concerns. I'm not in a position to disagree. I think if I were in a combat unit that included females, I'd be preferentially protective of them and I'd expect others to be as well. And soon enough we'd all know how we felt or how those feelings affected our behavior / performance... But as I said, I'm not in a position to really know. I think I've changed my mind, though, and am no longer opposed to women even in raiding teams.

Comment #51 - Posted by: Cash Reynolds at August 19, 2009 12:13 AM

To #4

Yes the journal video managed to pump me up even more. It was so simple yet incredible to listen to.

Comment #52 - Posted by: Rian Moe CF Ames/Iowa at August 19, 2009 12:36 AM

Jakers 11:07
I really struggle with what you're referring to as well. I'm a female that has benefited (in one small way) from the larger discrimination against females. In high school there wasn't a wrestling team for girls so I practiced with the boys but competed only with girls. In college I both practiced and competed with the boys. I also know that a male who wanted to play soccer at my university (there was only a girls team) wouldn't ever have been allowed to play. I struggle with that. However, I get paid 73 cents for every dollar my male counterparts in my state make, get treated like a sex object, a doll, or a complete effing moron by males daily just because of my gender. So while I fully recognize that it is unfair for that boy who wants on the gymnastics team or that man who wants in the mommy stroller club, I tend to think that he could maybe find comfort in his extra 27 cents and never being looked down upon by society because of the genitalia he was born with.

Comment #53 - Posted by: Kelly at August 19, 2009 2:13 AM

Rest day. Today's WOD: oral surgery.

Comment #54 - Posted by: Dan P. at August 19, 2009 3:30 AM

Quick question. Im new to crossfit...(its awesome), but I see everyone saying what they did besides the workout of the day. What are some good exercises to add to the workout of the day for either warm up/ or post wod??

Comment #55 - Posted by: John at August 19, 2009 4:45 AM

#47 Jakers Seriously dude? Women shouldn't serve because someone might rape them? Do you think women should be allowed to go to college, because many sexual assaults happen there as well.

I don't get it. Army dudes are TOUGH, right? Surely they're tough enough for their manhood to survive getting their butt saved by a woman...or by a gay man or woman for that matter. As recruiting standards go down, it's a shame that people want to exclude capable individuals just because they're not straight guys.

Comment #56 - Posted by: ataraxite at August 19, 2009 5:02 AM

I will be the first to state that there are women in the service that can out perform some males physically. However, let's ask ourselves if this is the exception or the rule?

I've met many a female soldier, marine, sailor, airman that proved to be exceptional. But, it always appears to be the exception and she is regarded as such.

Were there guys in Ranger School that couldn't hang climbing the TVD with 90 pounds of kit...Yep. But, the percentages are lower for the male population that cannot hang than the female population, it is simple anatomy and biology. Most of our combat operations with General Purpose Forces (regular troops) are centered around motorized operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. This precludes the need to carry heavy loads long more 20k movements to daylight.

Concerning the comment about LEO, Firefighter, Military being chauvinistic...that's just as ignorant of a comment as an LEO, Firefighter, Military stating that a woman can't do a combat job. Of course there are examples to prove your theory, but until you give me all the numbers and stop cherry picking I'm going to continue to make judgments based on the majority of the population, not the exceptional members that disprove the commonly held belief.

Comment #57 - Posted by: Chuck B at August 19, 2009 5:31 AM

John, #55:

Welcome to Crossfit!

I recommend you read the whole FAQ for Crossfit. You can find a link to the FAQ in the left-side bar of the home page. It will answer many questions for you. I've been doing this for a while, and I still refer to it frequently.

To answer your question, see the answers to 1.8 and 1.9 in the FAQ.

I hope this helps. If you have more questions after reading the FAQ, post them to the forum, and we'll be happy to help.


Comment #58 - Posted by: Dan P. at August 19, 2009 5:31 AM

Dan's post at 9:39

Well said! Thanks!

Comment #59 - Posted by: Andy W. at August 19, 2009 5:48 AM

Briefly, I believe that the use of female soldiers in combat situations illuminates the need for more comprehensive Physical Readiness evaluation, as described by 1Lt. Hoff wrote in "Toward Better Military PT Tests". This belief should in no way serve to restrict soldiers based on gender, but would help create a standard that moe closely resembles the duties all soldiers should be able to perform.

Comment #60 - Posted by: Justin at August 19, 2009 5:52 AM


Great news about your shoulder. It sounds like you are even a little ahead of where you were at eight weeks with the first surgery. 2010 is going to be your year!

Comment #61 - Posted by: Kevin C. at August 19, 2009 6:07 AM

I’m an officer in the CF, and have seen few systemic issues (but a few one ofs) with our zero gender limitations on employment within the CF. (Frankly language discrimination is a bigger issue, but that’s another topic altogether.) Most females in the CF are aware that they are physically not capable of all the trades we have, especially the infantry and they more or less self select themselves. Those females that can hack it generally do well and as was noted by Dan (Comment 37) in any unit it is well known who is good at what, and while you do want everyone good at everything that’s not realistic so you think before you task people.
I’d like to rebut a few of the posted postitions that I feel are most flawed.

Comment 17, Cory D.

So are you trying to say that being strong enough to carry 250 or more pounds of deadweight is an integral requirement for being a soldier? I’d have to disagree. Firstly, there aren’t a huge number of people who could do that in the first place, secondly, who on earth carries someone out of a kill zone? First you stop the other guys from shooting, then you worry about dealing with the casulties and if you absolutely have to move someone while you’re under fire, only someone who has watched too many Hollywood movies will actually pick up and carry someone. Our kit has umpteen hand holds perfect for grabbing and dragging deadweight.

Comment 20, Chuck

See above.

Comment 31, Jason NWA

The female of the species is more deadly than the male, so anyone who wants to win sends their mothers and daughters out to fight.

Glad to see that the US military’s personnel policies are starting to enter the 20th century :)

Comment #62 - Posted by: KCN at August 19, 2009 6:08 AM

Good set of comments. I just want to add one thing for now: Male POW's--and as far as that goes, male recruits--can be raped too.

He would not have done this, had he not intended to leave a latent message, so I hope I'm not pointing out something he doesn't want out there, but Andy McNabb, in his book Bravo Two Zero, points out, very early on, that if he were raped in captivity, he would never admit it. When he does get captured, he does not discuss that as one of the things that happened to him. It's subtle, but I think his point was made in an indirect way.

I personally don't think women should be camping out with men on extended patrols. We have good men, but it's asking too much, I think, to resist a woman right there. Doable, sure, but contrary to human nature, and requiring more discipline than will likely be present over a long period of time and across many units. That's not HER fault, any more than it is the fault of women in Islamic countries that their MEN feel the need to protect THEMSELVES from excessive desire by covering them head to toe.

I have some comments on the Psychology discussion, but need to watch the whole video.

Comment #63 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at August 19, 2009 6:13 AM

Blanco #33

I do just add on the next distance to the standing distance. The math starts to get hard after a while but it is a good distraction. I also have a playlist on my iPod that has a tone every minute.

Comment #64 - Posted by: dan m at August 19, 2009 6:23 AM

part of your argument is that you know people who will one day apply to be in the military? did you really just say that?

this debate is a little overblown. do women do well in the jobs where they are already accepted and proven efficacious? yes. I think that is what the article is about.

should women be in infantry/sf units?

no. but more importantly and i think the article did point this out, I don't think women are asking to be included! I dont ever remember meeting a military woman who said 'i wish i had your job geez the "man" is oppressing me.'

this is where the liberal/conservative point comes in, feminists and liberals assume that because it is a boys only club women WANT to be included. Why don't they listen to actual ladies?

Comment #65 - Posted by: badnews at August 19, 2009 7:04 AM

That picture was not taken "during an attack," and the male soldiers are using the wall for shade.

The mindset of a society that puts women in combat is nihilistic, and demography is destiny.

Comment #66 - Posted by: Doug at August 19, 2009 7:09 AM

My schedule doesn't allow me to CF on Tuesdays so I did yesterday's workout today.

Push press 1x1x1x1x1x1x1

Comment #67 - Posted by: Ron White 26/M/67.75"/165LBS at August 19, 2009 7:32 AM

service is a very personal thing; who are you to deny them of the freedom to choose?

the standard rag against liberals is that they are against the freedom to choose, and that they impose their values on others because they believe it is for the greater good. well, if women wish to serve, then who are you to demand that they not?

the argument that it is more or less effective to let women serve is besides the point. in a nation prides itself on being free, women, like men, should have the freedom to choose to serve in defense of the very freedom that they enjoy

nobody is arguing for a quota system that has a "minimum" number of women per unit. have a standardized test to serve in combat roles, if they pass it, good. admittedly, making such a test that is "fair" is easier said than done, and outcome of the test would be heavily influenced by the content of the test, but, aside from that, whatever the results are, those should be accepted.

what was that CF banner? "truth divined through competition, not debate"

Comment #68 - Posted by: tj at August 19, 2009 7:40 AM

in retrospect, seems like i was beating a dead horse. haha, oh well.

maybe it'll stir the pot, regardless, good comments all

Comment #69 - Posted by: tj at August 19, 2009 7:48 AM


Yesterday - warmed up with 1 hr of mowing, then did the DU/SU workout:
2:00 55/55
1:30 45/34
1:00 42/24
0:30 24/12
Total 166/125

First set of DU's was rough -- a lot of misses. Succes rate got better with each set. SU's were unanchored, but I still feel like I should have been able to do more.

This morning - 7x1 Push Press
175 (f)
165 (f)

Comment #70 - Posted by: Lunchbox at August 19, 2009 8:06 AM

Thank you for the thoughtful comments on an emotional topic!
I appreciated how the Times article called them "lionesses", harkening back to the Sabras of the IDF, Isreali Defense Force.
I keep thinking of what CAPT Brian Chontosh, USMC, said about combat fitness to be prepared ... it includes the physical, mental, and psychological reaction to the situations. I think that is what really matters.
And I like the idea of a woman frisking & questioning a woman, rather than a man!

#66 Doug, said "The mindset of a society that puts women in combat is nihilistic, and demography is destiny." But, Doug, the battlefield is no longer for lines of tanks, but rather for new methods in urban settings in the midst of different cultures. We needs the best troop in the new situations... not 'nihilistic', but evolving!

Comment #71 - Posted by: michaelchasetx 56y/74"/234# at August 19, 2009 8:12 AM

#39 Adam, "no disrespect" and "idiots" in the same discussion?! What is wrong with men wanting to protect our country and communities while others (women) can feel safe at home or at their jobs. These individuals lay down their lives for you so you can sleep safely at night and have the freedom to make these statements. So, in closing Adam I am sorry you couldnt pass the public safety test to have one of the best jobs in the world. Don't be jealous!

Comment #72 - Posted by: Mike M 29/M/5'11/175 at August 19, 2009 8:39 AM

CrossFit Rehab would do wonders for people with addiction disorders.

Looking forward to seeing a CrossFit Basketball in the future too...even though I don't play would be nice to see b-ball players working in the method of CrossFit.

Comment #73 - Posted by: SSgt B USMC MCAS Miramar at August 19, 2009 8:55 AM

Comment #53 - Posted by: Kelly at August 19, 2009 2:13 AM

I am sorry that you don't make as much but I don't think it's an accurate statistic. And trust me if you were a man people would still treat you like you were an effing moron. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the people who mistreat you (what you perceive for your gender) mistreat everyone that way. You can't get much more middle class white male than me and fairly regularly while I'm at a store someone who works there will provide terrible service with an attitude. If I was black I could blame it on being black but I have the luxury of going through life and realizing that the other person is just a D-bag. Doesn't have anything to do with me. They are the one with the problem.

I really don't want to join the stroller club (gymnastics would have been cool). what I want is to have a men's group that someone isn't demanding that they be allowed to join just so they can make everyone else uncomfortable.

Comment #74 - Posted by: jakers at August 19, 2009 9:09 AM

Comment #56 - Posted by: ataraxite at August 19, 2009 5:02 AM

Dude you brew your coffee kinda weak that early in the morning.

Co-ed dorms and being the only female in an operational platoon are not similar.
There are only two proven aphrodisiacs the presence of a woman and the absence of the presence of a woman. Quick story. I go away for 3 weeks of training for a job. There is one girl and 10 guys. At the end of week two being locked in a hotel with no time off 9 guys think this girl is hot and we all want to get with her. Thankfully none of us do. Group photo at the end of training and we all go home. Two weeks after returning to our normal daily life you get the photo of the group and you realize this poor girl in the class is ugly enough to haunt houses on Halloween with out a costume.

Being the only woman in the field on long deployment would cause problems. That said it appears the military is willing to accept those problems for the benefit of having them serve.

I'm grateful to all those who serve. I can't imagine how difficult it is for a woman serving in a line of fire position.

Comment #75 - Posted by: jakers at August 19, 2009 9:21 AM

To Dutch #46 and Mike #72,

Yes, I mean no disrespect to the honorable men AND women who serve me and my community and are not sexist, chauvinist idiots. I have little respect, however, for the men who would unequivocally deny women the opportunity to serve because they aren't "strong enough."

I hope we can have a healthy debate about performance-based standards without resulting in absurd and unfounded attacks against women in general, and my physical fitness in particular.

Comment #76 - Posted by: Adam at August 19, 2009 9:29 AM

Jakers 9:09

There are plenty of groups where someone isn't demanding entrance, or if there is it might just one lonely person in a country of millions. Anywhere there is an equal opportunity for females there seems to be very few people trying to make you guys 'uncomfortable'. Look at most professional sports for a reference.
I will take it into consideration that everyone's treated like morons, or into consideration that it's just you and me.

Barry Cooper 6:13am
As long as I'm expected (by law and social norms) not to punch people in the face who claim rape is unavoidable, I will also expect them to be able to control their urge to rape women.

Comment #77 - Posted by: Kelly at August 19, 2009 9:31 AM

Did Diane today....3:37!! PR by 1:40. Look out BR is coming

Comment #78 - Posted by: Joe Costanza at August 19, 2009 9:31 AM

Lies, damn lies and statistics!

Comment #79 - Posted by: jakers at August 19, 2009 9:37 AM

toward #65 badnews:

The previous commenter basically called all liberals cowards who were afraid to serve in the military. My point was is that I am in school with a number of liberal-leaning, highly educated 20-somethings who are choosing to pursue careers of service in the military rather than relatively cushy jobs in government service or high paying jobs in the private sector.

Comment #80 - Posted by: smitty at August 19, 2009 9:41 AM

I like your enthusiasm in that one. We can all agree that Crossfit makes us all more energetic, no? I was concerned about your belief of the first link due to who did the study, hence the second one from the government. I'm headed out to stroller club, want to come? (haha, totally kidding, don't get offended please).

Comment #81 - Posted by: Kelly at August 19, 2009 9:42 AM


Actually I would like to got to stroller club. But just to ogle/leer and baby doll the girls. If I can get a pass from my wife I'm on my way.

I realize I've been pretty quiet lately and you might not know me but it's generally pretty tough to offend me. Unless you are going to say Speal isn't just a total stud. them is fighting words.

Comment #82 - Posted by: jakers at August 19, 2009 9:50 AM

#61 Kevin, thanks brother. I'm looking to gain back the strength I once had as a young man in 2010. :)

Comment #83 - Posted by: Herm @ CF Los Altos, CA at August 19, 2009 9:55 AM

Herm to the Games in 2010!

Comment #84 - Posted by: jakers at August 19, 2009 9:58 AM

Did anyone watch the "receiving the bar video" yesterday? I was extremely disappointed with that demonstration. She was not catching those cleans properly at all. I have trained olympic lifts for the past 8 years with extensive coaching, five of which as an NCAA division I athlete. The point of the receiving position is to catch the bar at the maximum height of the pull in order to minimize the distance that the bar "falls" Athletes are trained to "push themselves under the bar" and not let it collapse them down after the catch as was demonstrated here. This technique presents serious risks to both the back and the patellar tendons. In looking out for the health of fellow crossfitters I would advise you go to youtube and watch some olympic footage and DO NOT emulate this technique.

Comment #85 - Posted by: ExCard08 at August 19, 2009 10:00 AM

#77 Kelly: that is a reasonable expectation. The question is if public policy should be based on it.

Currently, rape is against the law, but we have many people in jail who are guilty of it.

And I wasn't just talking rape. In fact, I was primarily considering consensual "relations", which would be quite counterproductive. You have both the distraction, and the jealousy, both of which are not conducive to unit cohesion.

Is that problem surmountable? Maybe, with proper training. But my guess would be you would get a lot of pregnant women, some violent crimes, and a lot of distraction. This applies to people out in the field for extended periods of time. People working together for short 24-48 hour periods, with separate quarters--that would be much less of an issue, and apparently in effect something that is happening today.

I was talking to an Army Medic in a bar the other day, and he said for all intents and purposes he may as well have been infantry. He got shot at, and on his account he shot back.

Comment #86 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at August 19, 2009 10:15 AM

Make that Communications Specialist. Of course the Medics are there. His point was that many specialties are de facto combat even if they aren't technically declared as such.

Comment #87 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at August 19, 2009 10:22 AM

How about CrossFit for returning Wounded Warriors? Psychologically and physically wounded...

Comment #88 - Posted by: Andy at August 19, 2009 10:35 AM

#63 B Cooper 6:13 am--

At some point, I hope that you look back on the last paragraph of your comment with a large measure of shame. The right to free speech does not necessitate the obligation to speak. To even hint at the unavoidability of rape is not only assenine but irresponsible.

#37 Dan

Thank you for your service and the great post.

Comment #89 - Posted by: Mateo m/34/5'10"/190 at August 19, 2009 10:37 AM

How long are the rests for yesterdays push press?

Comment #90 - Posted by: Dave J at August 19, 2009 10:40 AM

Here is a great article regarding exercise and more importantly INTENSITY of exercise.

Comment #91 - Posted by: javier_miami at August 19, 2009 10:45 AM

After being in the army, and serving in combat I have this opinion on the article: whether or not women are allowed to serve in combat units is not the scariest part of the discussion (I have personally experienced situations that one could use to argue both sides of the argument). My problem with the article is that the issue will be decided by civillians. I personally do not care if it is a woman or man next to me in the firefight, as long as they can handle the physical demands. But I do not think that the argument should be decided by people who have not served in combat, and definitely should not be decided by people who have not served. You can read all of the studies, articles, and testimonials you want; however, it does not mean that you know about the demands of combat. The only way to have an important opinion on that is to have "been there, and done that".

None of this is to say that you can not have an opinion on the subject. We luckily live in a country where people have fought and died for that right, and I always like hearing all sides of an argument.

Comment #92 - Posted by: Zach at August 19, 2009 10:53 AM

All I know is, my SMAJ in Iraq was one bada** 50yo chick that put most men in my unit to shame. Shoulda seen her lock up 1SG's who though they could lean on her. I'd go on patrol with her any day; no matter how strong you are, or how you crush the physical standards, if you shut down under pressure it doesn't matter. She performed, always. Never underestimate that mother-tiger instinct.

Comment #93 - Posted by: moak at August 19, 2009 11:01 AM

Male or female, gay or straight, black or white, christian or muslim, as long as they pass their APFT, qualify with their weapon & would rather die than fail their mates, I'll take any troop who moves TOWARD the sound of the guns, with me. There are too many posers in this business who don't move in the right direction at the critical moment.

Comment #94 - Posted by: sgt feather at August 19, 2009 11:27 AM

I'm a career USAF fighter pilot who trained the first cadre of British and American female fighter pilots beginning in 1993. My instructors kept standards high and acted professionally. In that environment, I could see no difference in the unique capabilities exhibited by the guys and the gals. What I did see were other social issues that required commander attention and energy that did not exist in an all male environment. I have never believed it was a matter of ability. But cohesion is definitely affected. Everyone who has been there sees it and talks about it. Sticking men and women in very high stress, combat environments leads to issues, especially over the long haul. Quite frankly, a primary reason we (the US Military) has embraced females in the military is because of the poor recruiting rates of recent years. Females, especially single mothers of non-Caucasian background, are a plentiful recruiting market. If we did not use some of these women in combat support roles, our manning would be severely reduced.

Comment #95 - Posted by: Deano at August 19, 2009 11:41 AM

#89: I have a great idea: why don't we ban rape, unwanted attraction between different (and same) gendered individuals, stupidity, murder, war, poverty and discrimination?

It's all so simple. How did we not think of that earlier? My shame is overwhelming me. I keep forgetting that we live in an earthly paradise where everyone given a responsibility fulfills it without fail every time, and that no matter how stupid and ill considered our policies might be, it will all work out, since we can all just laugh and hug one another.

We live in a consequence free world, right? So why bother thinking things through, if they lead us to uncomfortable conclusions?

Comment #96 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at August 19, 2009 11:42 AM

Cory D, wow, way to post one of the most sexist things I've seen in a very long time! Congrats to you. I hope us liberals don't get to you.

Smitty, good points, can't wait for those intelligent liberal men and women to join the ranks of today's Army. Bring on the conservatives too, what the heck.

Forgive me everyone as I haven't read all the posts thus far but I'll say this to Cory D and his "men are always stronger than women" theory: I crossfit and can put some men in the Army to shame. I'm not saying that I can put every man to shame and I'm not saying that every woman is like me but what I'm getting at is the fact that no one should generalize anything. I can tell you all right now that there are plenty of men that I've deployed with that I sincerely doubt their abilities to react under fire, treat a wound, and carry a battle buddy back to the vehicle. Simply put, just because a man is in the Army doesn't mean he is actually fit. As scary as this sounds it's very, very true.

So, the point of this posted article is to observe the fact that things have changed in fighting wars. Can we all just look at the Soldier as a Soldier instead of a woman or a man?

Comment #97 - Posted by: Kassi at August 19, 2009 11:43 AM


Great post and thanks for your service...

Comment #98 - Posted by: jpatrick at August 19, 2009 12:31 PM

Those acts by and large have been "banned" or deemed to be illegal and have remidies punishable by law...with the exception of couse being stupidity but I'm still lobbying for that one.

I agree that to not examine policy becasue it would lead to an uncomfortable conclusion is short selling oursleves. I would take it a step further and add that BECAUSE they lead to uncomfortable conclusions we have an obligation to examine them more deeply. I am also well aware that we do not live in a consequence free world.

Terrible things happen to good people, daily. While you cannot enact policy that would eradicate those acts completely nor should you deny sound policy for the possibility that crime may occur.

Comment #99 - Posted by: Mateo m/34/5'10"/190 at August 19, 2009 1:56 PM

Too bad we do not have a test to see how someone will react in a combat situation, I know of two examples of very big strong men who at the first sound of gunfire either run (with no regard for those around them) or freeze and won't fire their weapons. All this talk of strength - I want someone that can / will do their job in a combat situation - not the most physically fit person.
#31 - the United States and many other countries do not send it's Mothers and Daughters to war - we choose to go to war, we volunteer just as any man volunteers.
#37 - you said everything I really wanted to say - except I am not an Infantryman in a Special Force's Unit.
Jakers- I will disagree with you stating that the military is not a social experiment - not only is it exactly that - it is an amazing one to track and watch. Think about racial integration (happened in the military first - think Tuskegee Airman) - think about socialized medicine (unsuccessfully happens in the military) - one big social experiment and it is amazing to watch. Women can and are raped in many situations not just the military - really really bad example IMHO - being a female in the military or a female in a male dominated field does NOT invite rape.
I co-lived forward deployed for a few weeks at a time - there were other women around - guys do start to think girls are hotter then they are there are terms for this (Kandahot - desert queen) - women know who they are and how to handle themselves in these situations - yes bad things happen sometimes - but situations can and are avoided and believe it or not we take care of each other - the women and the men. The worse part for me and the only thing I was jealous of were 'piss-tubes' damn bathroom was far away - btw this did not prevent me from doing my mission.
I want to serve my country - it is my choice - F anyone who tries to take that away from me.

Comment #100 - Posted by: discogirl at August 19, 2009 2:10 PM

22 / M / 5'9" / 135lb

Catching up, so I doubled up today--

Pull-up ladder
12 rounds + 5 pull-ups = 83
Better than last time, but a few pull-ups were questionable.

Front squat 1-1-1-1-1-1-1

Comment #101 - Posted by: BC at August 19, 2009 2:24 PM

Decided to do Barbra today:

5 rds
20 pullups
30 pushups
40 situps
50 squats

3 min rest between rds



Comment #102 - Posted by: martin at August 19, 2009 2:46 PM

There are many women who have as much or more courage than the men around them. The example of the 82nd Engineer Captain in the article is a very good one. Also the SGT Hester from the National Guard who won the Silver Star for her heroic actions.

The trouble with the article is that it is taking the war in Iraq as it is currently being fought and making it the standard. What it fails to take into account is that infantrymen, rangers, and special operations forces must be able to walk for a real long way with a lot of weight for many days in a row. When I was a platoon leader in the 82nd we had units that did quarterly 25 mile foot marches with full load. (Not to mention jumping 100+ lb rucks into 3 week field problems). In Ranger Regiment back in the '90s we used to do quarterly 30 milers. In Ranger school we carried rucks weighing in excess of 90 lbs for 10-15 miles a day for a week at a time, over and over again for 58 days over some very unforgiving terrain (the TVD, Eglin AFB, etc.) All this puts quite a strain on the skeleton and I really don't believe the skeletal structures of 98% of women can handle that.

Can some? Perhaps - but not enough to justify opening these units to the few who want to try and the fewer who can.

Again, this is not meant to take away anything from the women who serve and go into harm's way for the cause of freedom - you have my respect and admiration. I just think the infantry needs to continue to be all men.

Comment #103 - Posted by: MurphIZ at August 19, 2009 2:50 PM

Discogirl: nicely said! I raised my right hand fully aware of what I was getting myself into. I'm on my second deployment right now, and I am expected to live up to the same standards as all the other 11B's that I work with. I deserve the right to serve my country, and anyone who thinks that should be taken away from me, well, go fook yourself.

Comment #104 - Posted by: Megz at August 19, 2009 3:02 PM

Male.. .45/5'6/218lbs


Barbell movements @ 135#

8 front squats
8 push press
8 thrusters
15 ring rows
15 burpees

6 FS
6 PP
6 thrusters
20 ring rows
20 burpees

4 FS
4 PP
4 thrusters
25 ring rows
25 burpees

2 FS
2 PP
2 thrusters
30 ring rows
30 burpees


Got through the first grouping of 8 unbroken.Put bar down after the 6 PP, then cleaned and finished thrusters

put bar down after the 4PP then cleaned and finished thrusters

grouping of 2s unbroken.


Comment #105 - Posted by: irishrhino at August 19, 2009 3:16 PM

Furthermore, MurphIZ:
"When I was a platoon leader in the 82nd we had units that did quarterly 25 mile foot marches with full load. (Not to mention jumping 100+ lb rucks into 3 week field problems)."

FYI, I am currently in the 82nd ABN, and I am airborne qualified. I can't even begin to tell you how many times I've jumped out of a plane with all my gear on + a 100lb, heavey-ass ruck. What is your point???

Comment #106 - Posted by: Megz at August 19, 2009 3:18 PM

I have a question about the aesthetic benefits of CrossFit. I have been lifting weights recreationally, not religiously, throughout high school and college. I am by no means a big guy (5'11, 185, naturally thin frame) but I put on some good muscle and got to a good size with good strength. I wanted to become a better athlete, so me and my buddy started CrossFit a few days ago. I love the philosophy behind it, but I'm worried about one thing: If I don't work specific muscles with the same specific intensity doing CrossFit as I was with weights, won't I lose muscle mass? I'm all for cutting up a little bit, and I know the aesthetics is not the primary goal here, but I'd also like to not lose what I've worked several years to get. Things like flys for chest, shrugs for traps and bicep curls could be added in, but where? Anyone else with a similar situation? Thanks!

Comment #107 - Posted by: Jeff at August 19, 2009 3:32 PM

Jeff. . .#107. . .

the size will come with Crossfit. Depending on your genetics of course. Crank up that protein. . .focus on your post workout shake and nutrition. In my opinion. . .The Zone is awesome but, for people looking to put on size w/crossfit and get sig. stronger. . .a little more protein and LOW glycemic carbs are needed.

Comment #108 - Posted by: irishrhino at August 19, 2009 3:48 PM

discogirl 2:10 -- Do you think that we should change policies in the military for the sake of social experiments, for instance to investigate, research and compile data on interesting questions, or do you think policies should be based on what is most effective and will best achieve the mission?

Comment #109 - Posted by: Cash Reynolds at August 19, 2009 4:25 PM

Total coincidence, here's a video showing an experiment conducted with british military in the field:

Comment #110 - Posted by: Cash Reynolds at August 19, 2009 4:32 PM

I need some help after only 4 rds of Ryan the other day my pain level went thru the roof. During the workout my shoulders did not hurt but between rounds my shoulders hurt and my upper back/lat/ribs hurt like hell the pain continued to increase. When I got out of the shower I layed down thinking the pain would subside but it kept increasing, and I started holding my breath becaues of the pain. I finaly got into a postion that I could catch my breath and the pain started to subside,by then my wife had given me some ibuprophen. The rest of the day I felt fine. The next day tuck-jumps and sit-ups was all good.
Today the push-press started hurting I stopped after 6 rounds maxing at 143 which I had to have a spoters help to complet. The rest of my day was not active, until I got home and did a few chors (not anything that was stressful at all) my shoulder are hurting agine but with out the post work-out gas out, ice and time and the pain is starting to subside. Can anyone help me figure out what is causing this intense pain

Comment #111 - Posted by: L. Clark at August 19, 2009 5:05 PM

12 mile TT bike crossfit endurance
level 13 random 29:40

Comment #112 - Posted by: Deano at August 19, 2009 6:01 PM

12 mile TT xfit endurance
lvl 13 random

Comment #113 - Posted by: Deano at August 19, 2009 6:02 PM

Henri - deines Foto ist geil!

Comment #114 - Posted by: leah at August 19, 2009 7:50 PM

10 pull ups
6 squat cleans
-8 rounds for 21:25

followed by...
50/40/30/20/10 Double unders and sit ups

Biked around pb to work out the kinks.

Comment #115 - Posted by: Jake/22/180/5'11 at August 19, 2009 9:17 PM

Dan and KCN, very clear, thoughtful and pursuasive posts to my mind.

Kelly 77,
You are exactly right. The onus is not on women to avoid the danger posed by their fellow male soldiers by exiting the military, the onus is on the male soldiers to not commit secsual assaults. It is also on the officers to deal appropriately with reported incidents.

Jakers 48,

At 75 you wrote: "Being the only woman in the field on long deployment would cause problems."

This is patriarchy talking. You see, Jakers, it is having a rapist in the field on long deployment that would cause problems, it is not having a woman in the field on long deployment. This is exactly the same thinking that had the Afghan parliament in 2005 voting on a law that would require every female over the age of 9 to be accompanied by a male relative in public - men "naturally" are sexual predators, therefore men must imprison women to make them safe, must deprive them of rights afforded to men, to keep them safe (same rationale was used to keep women out of the legal and medical professions, and upteen million other places in civil society).


Comment #116 - Posted by: Prole at August 19, 2009 9:22 PM

#110 Cash -

First off, mission first, that is why policy should / will change. I don't think the military is intended to be a social experiment - it just is one. The military changes personal policy because of what works (Obviously this is not perfect). The military shifted policy after the Tuskegee Airmen; they have shifted policy in women’s roles, and there has been a shift on the physical preparedness of the war-fighter.
Megz – thanks for your words – I really believe it is up to every person to be the best they can be and to know why they are doing what they do. We all take the same oath. (period). Good luck and be safe. I’ll keep a beer cold for you.

Comment #117 - Posted by: discogirl at August 19, 2009 9:28 PM


I agree the US military can be, and has been, a social experiment. I think that the integration of women into the military is of great importance to women competing for promotions in the corporate world and in other places, and ultimately for our notion of what it means to be female. It is also of great importance for redifining what it means to be "male". This is part of the reason why it will meet steadfast resistance from many males. It has a role in redifining the most ancient of tribes - woman and man.

Comment #118 - Posted by: Prole at August 19, 2009 9:31 PM

Herm to the Games in 2010!

Comment #84 - Posted by: jakers

To the FRAThouse!

Comment #119 - Posted by: Herm at August 19, 2009 10:22 PM

To repeat myself: I never said I thought the potential for rape was the primary problem. Read my posts. They are clear, in my view.

I have no issue with the de facto status quo. What I question--and this is for people in the field to decide--is whether men and women, on extended patrols, would be able, over the the long haul, to keep their hands off each other, and avoid lapsing into petty jealousies, and unwanted attractions that would damage unit cohesion.

If you got ten guys that want one girl, and she decides that, as a woman, it is her right to be with whomever she wants (we are already working here to establish that what is POSITED as a right, is thereby ESTABLISHED as a right), you got one guy who's happy, and nine who are pissed. If she tells them all to leave her alone, this doesn't make them stop thinking about it.

I have no principled objection to women in the field. I just think that, practically, this is a potentially serious problem. If you want to talk in a scientific way about the "nature" of men and women, you could do little better than to talk about hormonal responses, and pheremones floating in the air. Those are categorically NOT the results of socialization. That point is unambiguous. It is ONLY socialization that enables us to coexist (mostly) peacefully in SPITE of these things.

Here is a report on military rape. It's from PBS, so its accuracy depends heavily on who did it, but the rough numbers don't see all that off, although of course I have terrific basis from which to judge:

Now, rape and sexual harrassment happen in civilian circles as well. Can we ban them, and prosecute offenses? Of course. This does not stop pheremones from floating in the air.

The question is what is smart, to me, not what is "right", and, again, I will defer to the judgment of those responsible for getting our missions accomplished. From what I've seen on this thread, though, people in a position to know seem to agree with my basic position.

Comment #120 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at August 20, 2009 4:03 AM

". . . don't seem all that off, although of course I have no terrific basis. . ."

Comment #121 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at August 20, 2009 4:05 AM

You know, I think more structured thinking is warranted here. I would like to try to show my own method.

You begin with the end in mind. What is the purpose of our Armed Forces? It is the security, through direct force projection, of our nation, preferably not on our soil. That would be a failure.

In that regard, historically, their role has been breaking things and killing people until other people stopped trying to break our things and kill us. We call that a war.

Recently, they have been playing the role of diplomats, nation builders, and heavily armed law enforcement officers. We adjudicate disputes between tribes; we build roads and bridges; we provide food and other material assistance; we arrest bad guys, and keep them or turn them over, depending on the case.

Now, given the mission, the question is not CAN women serve in direct combat roles, but what the BENEFIT is, relative to all male forces.

Women make up half of our population. I think it can be accurately be assumed that their levels of talent and motivation can be described with a Bell Curve, as can those of our men.

If the Armed Forces fail to use ANY women, they would be shutting themselves off from an ENORMOUS pool of talent. The smartest women are as smart as the smartest men. The most motivated women are as motivated as the most motivated men. Given this, to use only men would be to force us to recruit the dregs of our society, when very high caliber women are out there, quite able and eager to do the jobs.

Thus, the current policy of allowing women in the military, in general, is the only defensible and intelligent one.

Now, modern combat places a premium on intelligence, persistence, and courage, as fought in most places and most times. I see no reason to believe these traits are distributed preferentially to men OR women.

(I will note, that I was once told by a Navy SEAL who had trained both men and women that he thought women had a higher pain tolerance.)

Given this, the current de facto policy of allowing women to participate in combat is unobjectionable, as I've said.

Where the question is, is would it INCREASE the combat effectiveness of units that do week or more long patrols in hostile areas to include women? Boiled down, the question is: are we lacking in sufficient numbers of highly qualified and motivated men that we would increase our combat effectiveness by including women in these units? This question cannot be divorced from the issues outlined above, with respect to potential damage to unit cohesion.

Thus, if we have a handful of women out there who are smart enough and tough enough to ADD to the combat effectiveness of even Special Forces units, is that ENOUGH to outweigh the potential negatives?

In general, the answer appears to me to be no, even though I have no doubt these women exist. However, I will caveat that: as shown in the link I posted above, with the Marine women doing intel and "hearts and minds" work with Afghani women, there MIGHT be some benefit to women being in SF units, in some cases, especially if they spoke the local language and dialect. They could access information sources otherwise unavailable to the men: to whit, the women.

This is not a uniquely Muslim problem, but certainly one that exists. There is no chance for most men to talk to most women, period.

I had more, but that will do for now.

Comment #122 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at August 20, 2009 6:19 AM


I understand you do not have any principled objection to women having access to field and combat positions in the military, and that you are concerned what "is" rather than what "ought to be", but would you consider the following?

What Ought to Be?
Imagine it is 1931, and that you are the mayor of a Mississippi town, and you have before you stats collected from the police department, or at least you are aware of a commonly held understanding) suggesting that a black man who kisses a white woman on Main Street has a ?% of being attacked by white men in reprisal for what they see as a subversion of the "natural" order. Would it be ok to deny the black man and the white woman the right to kiss in public in order to avoid the ?% likelihood of the man being attacked?

What Is?
If, as you say, socialization can counter what you identify as men's "natural" "hormonal" attributes so that men may live peacefully with women in society generally (I challenge your notion of what is "natural" in men), why cannot the countering affect of socialization make it possible for men to live peacefully with women in military and combat contexts?

What happened to personal responsibility?

Do we throw personal responsibility out the window when it comes to holding men accountable for their supposed "instinctual" "need" for sex?

Where is the science you speak of? If %95 of men would not S-assualt their fellow soldiers (of course a rate of %5 that would is abominal), wouldn't that disprove any "scientific" hypothesis about hormonal determinism?

Comment #123 - Posted by: Prole at August 20, 2009 6:38 AM

This may be a day late.
Clearly, integrating women and men into the same units presents problems: from segregated hygiene and berthing areas to relationship problems as described.
One thing that I did not see in the threads was answer to the question: SHOULD women be soldiers?
Let me describe just ONE reason to consider that women SHOULD NOT be soldiers.
Soldiering is a necessary evil in a free society. Force or the threat of force is what guarantees individual rights. Soldiering and warfighting are not necessarily desirable to a free society for the obvious, gruesome reasons. If soldiering is both necessary and undesirable, aught we not to limit the number those who must endure that burden – and coincidentally limit those who may wield the power of force – to the absolute minimum?
Military service is not a career opportunity, but rather a foundational requirement for securing individual freedoms. Until recently conscription was an acceptable practice in America. Even today all men must register for the conscript lottery. Women do not. Apparently, women are not apt to request assignment to light infantry units. Men have no such luxury. We treat them differently because a free society views male and female value to society differently – men are considered more expendable. Biologically, men can father many children at one time. Women are limited on the number of children they can mother at one time.
Since we draw those whom we recruit and retain from within society and even restrict those members of society who qualify for service, we should concern ourselves with the burden on the society as well as the individual. If we as a society choose to recruit and retain healthy, strong and intelligent women into the warfighting sector then we are unnecessarily increasing the number of potential mothers who are at risk of physical harm.

Comment #124 - Posted by: greg at August 20, 2009 7:01 AM


That's a red herring, and you should know it. The question I asked was what BENEFIT flows from putting women in patrol units, that is unobtainable in any other way?

In your own example, the clear benefit is that of simple liberty. The job of the State is to allow any and all forms of social intercourse that do not necessarilyi conflict with the rights of others. You do not have the right to never be offended. This applied, then, to white people who objected to interracial couples, and it applies NOW to those who are offended at those who suggest women may not belong in long range patrol units.

I have a longer point to make, and I'm glad you brought that up, since your logic is unavoidable, GIVEN YOUR STARTING POINT. No time at the moment.


We have a population of some 300 millions. We are not at risk of losing our ability to maintain our population. The U.S., in fact, is one of the only industrialized democracies which is NOT shrinking in size.

Comment #125 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at August 20, 2009 7:33 AM


Respectfully, why are we even considering the question: "what BENEFIT flows from putting women in patrol units, that is unobtainable in any other way?"

Why must it be unobtainable in any other way for it to be permitted?

My point was not a red herring. And yours was based on a misinterpretation of the reasons for discrimination, whether against blacks and interacial relationships, or against women and the gender-integration of the combat functions of the military.

The men and women who objected to interacial relationships did not do so on the basis that they had a right "not to be offended". They did so on the grounds that permitting interacial relationships would result in moral corruption and the breakdown of society. People have argued on this rest day that inclusion of women in combat roles in the military would result in the moral corruption of soldiers (S-assualts and other things) that would result in the breakdown of the fighting unit.

The situations are analogous, in so far as in both situations the insiders (whites/men) view the prospect of allowing the outsiders (blacks/women) access to things enjoyed by the insiders as a moral and social threat, while in fact the danger actually lies with the insiders who punish the outsiders for indisiders' own moral failings (systemic - racial/patriarchal).

Comment #126 - Posted by: Prole at August 20, 2009 7:54 AM

OK, I'll make the time.

The foundational difference between common sense and Leftism is this: in the first, you base your decisions upon your observations of how things actually work. In the latter, you base your decisions on how things SHOULD work.

Socialism, for example, is based upon the idea that people will work equally hard for $10,000 as $100,000. There is no harm, for example, in the 100% tax rate that President Obama's father proposed for the wealthy in Kenya, since those people had a moral duty simply to donate their wealth--all of which he wanted to define as "excess", so the poor could have more. Once they were done, they could create MORE wealth, and donate that too.

Hugo Chavez, more recently, has been progressively more and more autocratic. Why? Simple: his "land reforms" involved taking property from those who had it and knew how to work it, and giving it to those who had never had it, and didn't know how to work it. The loss of productivity was entirely predictable. More: the smartest landowners simply sold what they could and left the country. The reduced the total amount of money. Then he caused the capital flight of most American oil producers. They left.

What does this have to do with this issue? Simple: what I am saying is what is LIKELY to happen, not what SHOULD happen.

If you look at the root of the brainwashing that ALL leftist societies perform, what you find is that the PRINCIPLE ALWAYS PRECEDES THE REALITY. You don't study history because you don't have to. You know what OUGHT to be true, so you know what the "people" need to be taught.

The path from this to Mao's massive concentration camps--where dissenters were systematically starved, forced into confessing crimes they didn't commit, and worked from dawn til past dusk seven days a week until they broke or died--is very short.

Your dichotomies (white/black, man/woman) are false, and frankly nothing but clumsy Marxism. Demonizing those who don't agree with you IS PRECISELY demonizing the Other. White males are the Other to you. Rather than reform the existing order, you want to invert it so that all the existing inequalities of OUTCOME are reversed, and racism enshrined in all the ideological purity of the KKK, just from the perspective of the leftist radical.

The KKK killed some thousands of people. Your fellow travelers enslaved and killed some 100 MILLION.

Even now, if you took all the crimes against women in this country, I doubt it would equal the number of crimes against dissidents in China, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, and all the other nations favored by the "Hate America First" crowd.

How do I always get back to Communism, you ask? Simple: the mindset Prole is offering here is the SAME mindset that led to the horrors of the gulags and laogai of the 20th Century. Excessive? Well, let me ask this: given the manifest evil of those systems, why have not well meaning, self identified "liberals" not repudiated them en masse and unambiguously? Why do prominent academics continue to pretend that the most just system of government ever created is somehow WORSE than those systems?

Make no mistake: ALL of the crimes of the Communists were JUSTIFIED and EXPLAINED by them. They were working to expand human rights.

In this case, to return to the topic at hand, the question remains: what concrete BENEFIT, given the mission of our armed forces, flows from putting people in roles where they MIGHT decrease our combat efficiency? This is the question, not "why not, since we are all basically the same sorts of human machines who should be equal in all ways and without attributes unassigned by the State?"

Comment #127 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at August 20, 2009 8:21 AM

@Comment #124 - Posted by: greg at August 20, 2009 7:01 AM

My value to society or my "expendability" is not determined by what is between my legs.

Comment #128 - Posted by: Megan at August 20, 2009 9:00 AM

I have more to say on this. The basic argument Prole and some others are making is that because harassment and violence are wrong, we can, in making our plans, pretend they don't exist, and that they should not be factors in our calculations.

Can you all see the fundamental homology with Neville Chamberlain arguing that because it wouldn't be "cricket" for Hitler to break his word, again, and violate the Munich Agreement, that the British were safe in assuming no further preparations on their part were necessary? That because it SHOULD be so, it IS so?

Now, I am arguing for a meritocracy. If there are unique assets that women bring to bear, then by all means lets employ them.

But to argue that women should be employed everywhere without any regard whatsoever for the utility of that is silly. The average man is 5'9". The average woman is 5'4". The average man produces VASTLY more testosterone than the average woman. Are there 6'5" women out there that would be in the 90th percentile in all athletic categories with men? Probably.

I am not saying no, never, can't be, impossible. I am saying this needs to be evaluated carefully.

The average man, in an average work day, thinks about sex at least once every day, and as often as dozens of times a day. You read different reports, but whatever you read, it is always a multiple of the amount women think about it. Then add shared stress, homesickness, and long term physical proximity.

Can we breed lust out of men? Sure, we could do some sort of Clockwork Orange operant conditioning; or we could use our brains, and decide when, where, and if FURTHER use of women in combat is warranted, and leave the decisions to the people affected by them.

Comment #129 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at August 20, 2009 10:52 AM

I can't resist adding one more point, then I'll stop--try to--for a day or so.

If you read him carefully, Prole divides the world into two basic groups: those who divide the world into dichotomous groups, and those like him who don't.

Think that over.

Comment #130 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at August 20, 2009 11:09 AM

Getting back in the swing today; nearly a year long layoff after 3.5 years active CrossFitting.

Conditioning has gone to crap; feeling fat, dopey, slow and weak, psychologically in the dumps. Ready to start turning it around.

48yrs. 6' bw 213, up from a best bw of 189 in full xfit mode.

Active rest day; CFWU x 1, 14 minutes on the treadmill, alternating run/walks.
Start for real tomorrow.

Comment #131 - Posted by: Baron at August 20, 2009 11:44 AM

1. Whenever you put men & women together there will be sex and sexual tension.
2. The military supposedly takes care of all soldier's needs.
3. They conviently pretend one of those needs doesn't exist ... until it's time to prosecute.
4. I've seen full-bird Colonels go down for fraternization. Plenty of Article 15's and court-martials.
5. I've seen unit discipline and effectiveness diminished, plagued by favoritism, jealousy, lost respect, protectionism, personal and professional weakness and poor behavior, etc., etc., etc. Even a married Army lawyer (LTC) flouting regulations and General Order #1 brazenly with another "leader" (LTC) because he knew the limits of what could be proven & prosecuted.
6. I've also had to sit through periods of over-the-top stupid and insulting rape and sexual harrasment training. Apparently man's natural instinct is to rape. ... and then the head scratching line "He never told me he was married".
7. False rape accusations ruin lives and careers.

If I had my druthers units would be either exclusively male or female. Units would mix only due to mission requirements. It's not about physical strength, it's about human nature.

Barry is correct. Men and women, ESPECIALLY on extended deployments, can not keep their hands off each other and avoid lapsing into petty jealousies and unwanted attractions that damage unit cohesion and EFECTIVENESS.

Comment #132 - Posted by: InfidelSix at August 20, 2009 12:42 PM


You wrote:

"Now, I am arguing for a meritocracy. If there are unique assets that women bring to bear, then by all means lets employ them."

You are not arguing for meritocracy. You are arguing for discrimination on two fronts (1) by defining the rights and abilities of individual women based on their memebership in an group defined by immutible characteristics (sex), and (2) by requiring them to bring "unique assets" to the feild.

Why must any individual woman bring "unique" assets to the field? Why is not the case that, like a man, insofar as any woman is able to do the job of soldiering she may be permitted to do so?

You wrote:

" The basic argument Prole and some others are making is that because harassment and violence are wrong, we can, in making our plans, pretend they don't exist, and that they should not be factors in our calculations."

You imply that these things are a given. Is theft a given? Should we abolish property rights because property is apt to get stolen? The things you mention should factor into the way women are integrated into the military. They should not be a bar to that integration.


I had been enjoying your posts of late. But this...:

"How do I always get back to Communism, you ask? Simple: the mindset Prole is offering here is the SAME mindset that led to the horrors of the gulags and laogai of the 20th Century. Excessive? Well, let me ask this: given the manifest evil of those systems, why have not well meaning, self identified "liberals" not repudiated them en masse and unambiguously? Why do prominent academics continue to pretend that the most just system of government ever created is somehow WORSE than those systems?" rediculous. You haven't even bothered to link my "mindset" with any of the horrors you mentioned. Are we supposed to take the link as self-evident? What about what I have written indicates any affinity with totalitarianism?

Or is it simply that anyone who is "well-meaning" is a Maoist? Couldn't we say that your upholding of distinctions based on sex is a "well-meaning" attempt to maintain cohesion and fighting fitness in the military? Are you a Maoist for this (misguided, though not entirely irrational) "well-meaning" position?

What are you on about? Makes me think of the boy who cried wolf. Please, dial back the "I don't like you so you're Stalin" Barry of old, and stick with the debate.

Comment #133 - Posted by: Prole at August 20, 2009 2:51 PM

If you believe woman should NOT be in combat and you are NOT in the military, go outside the wire and see what it is like before you decide. I have been there in Iraq and Afghanistan, with men and women. No one has the corner of the market for bravery, physical strength or weapon accuracy. The women I served with held up their end of the job and delivered fire when appropriate when many men couldn't or wouldn't. Take a look at the average soldier, he is not SF or a SEAL or part of the Marine Recon, he can't bench his body weight or dead lift it either. He is just a guy trying to do a job and stay alive. Why hold a woman to a different standard?

Comment #134 - Posted by: scotta at August 20, 2009 2:52 PM

Let me review what I have claimed. I have claimed that, for leftists generally, the aim they claim they are trying to achieve is paramount, and their actual ability to achieve the effect is secondary. Workers are always abused and disempowered in all "worker" nations. Programs which try to help the poor, impoverish the nations where they are tried.

For those with common sense, which is most of the political spectrum uncorrupted with Leftist "educational" propaganda, the idea is that you decide what you want to achieve--here, victory in war--and then decide the best means by which to achieve it. The military is not and should not be an Affirmative Action program. We need to be efficient, to minimize loss of life on both sides, and expense.

For example, the so-called War on Poverty is clearly the root of our impoverished ghettoes today. It subsidized and thereby enabled the destruction of the nuclear family in the African American community, with utterly predictable consequences we have had 30 years to process--thus far unsuccessfully where do-gooders are concerned.

The "anti-war" movement in the Vietnam era engineered the loss of a war we had won, with the result that some 65,000 people were shot in cold blood immediately, and many hundreds of thousands of the "usual suspects" were interned in horrific conditions--worse than slavery, since the plantation owners in general were just trying to plant and harvest crops, whereas the Communists were trying to PUNISH dissenters--where many more died. Today, the whole nation is one vast totalitarian State, with secret police everywhere. No peace, no freedom.

Here, we have several people who have spent a lot of time in the military saying that, in their view, women create a lot of problems on deployment that would be absent if they weren't there. This is VERY different than the race issue, since sex is not a factor there.

This is also very different from claiming that women are not brave, motivated, or physically capable of performing many or all of the combat tasks out there. Those are discrete questions.

Within broad limits, we seem to be managing much of this, but the limit condition--extended patrols in small or large groups--seems to extend beyond that.

Prole asks: "Why must any individual woman bring "unique" assets to the field? Why is not the case that, like a man, insofar as any woman is able to do the job of soldiering she may be permitted to do so?"

I answered the question several times over: because they are empirically disruptive, and therefore unless they can bring unique benefits, they have no place there. What part of this is ambiguous? What part are you incapable of grasping? Perhaps if we want to deploy all-women units, that might solve the problem, but right now that is not on the table, for general purposes.

ALL of my points stand. Prole has apparently not even understood them, much less refuted them.

As far as Maoism, it's really pretty simple: if you have chosen to privilege what OUGHT to be true over what you can see with your own eyes, you have eliminated ALL the means by which to stop a slide into tyranny. There were moderates in China. They were killed, when the time was right. They were there in Russia. They were there in Cuba--Che killed some of his insufficiently radical "friends" (that's what they thought he was) himself. Ho Chi Minh eliminated thousands of people. The list goes on. You had moderates and genuine liberals in EVERY "liberation" (totalitarian) movement.

If you can't tell the truth, you can't stop the sociopaths to your Left, because your words are the same, and there is no reference point--i.e. reality--by which to distinguish them. It's that simple. And from what I see consistently, you can't tell the Truth. Your views all arise from a subset of the perceptions available to you. There are certain ideas that you simply can't think: for example that there are manifest and ineluctable differences between men and women. Clearly part of this is true. The extent and signficance of those differences are open to debate and ANALYSIS. Perhaps there are ineradicable differences between African Americans, Asians, and Caucasians. I choose not to think that, but I do not skip that possibility in my checklist of thinking. It's not impossible, simply because it's politically inconvenient. It's a question of empirical data, not wishing.

Is that clear enough?

I get sick to death of PC BS. There is always a stopping point. Nobody can do everything they want to do. If we can't be guided by common sense, then we will be dictated to by a tyranny. Those are our two choices, as I see it. They exist on a continuum, but the one lurching into tyranny is sloped, and well oiled.

Comment #135 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at August 20, 2009 7:01 PM

Here is an even simpler formulation: on what basis can you say, in principle, that there are NO places women should not be, simply because they are women?

Is it not, for example, discriminatory to have one set of bathrooms for men, and another for women? Why shouldn't they share showers? Hell, why is public nudity against the law?

I'm actually reminded, now that I think about it, of Fellini's "Orchestra Rehearsal", which I watched in Italian with German subtitles many years ago. I assume that's the title in English. Clarinets are not bass drums. The hormonal attraction between men and women is ineluctable, and to pretend otherwise is to parade ignorance publicly. This factor can be addressed, but NOT ignored.

Comment #136 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at August 20, 2009 7:20 PM

Now that I think a bit more about it, there might be some merit to forming all-women combat teams. There would have to be a need for it, but that would vitiate the objections I've been voicing here--provided, of course, they were up to a normal Infantryman's proficiency.

The Marine unit I mentioned above was mainly an Intel and "Sales" team. What might be the PsyOp value, though, of an all-woman unit in the Muslim world? What if the Taliban got their asses handed to them by a battalion of women?

That would be cool.

I am often misunderstood, because I categorically refuse to follow some types of unwritten rules. So be it. But I really do like women. Most of my close friends are women, and I have two daughters. I'm not a chauvinist, or hack. I'm just trying to speak Truth to Bull$hit. I think that's the saying.

Comment #137 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at August 20, 2009 7:39 PM


No one is disputing that "there are manifest and ineluctable differences between men and women". What some of us are disputing is that those differnces make woman qua woman unfit for combat operations.

I'll say it again, this is as much about redifining what it means to be male as it is about redifining what it means to be female. A certain type of man likes to know there are things he (or his more capable brethren) can do that no women can do - it empowers him by association (yes it oozes, but it is true - ever watch a man watching a fight on television and the way he looks at his female companion? - farsical, pathitic, disheartening).

You and many men (and women) exhalt the virtue of military service, and prize most highly and as the greatest sacrifice an American citizen can make, the act of engaging in combat with the enemies of America. Then then you would deny women the ability to do just that thing which is of the highest virtue in the American Republic - you would keep it for the boys, your brothers, so that when you look in the mirror and see your man's face, you can think, you can feel, that you share that ability, that potential for supreme and unalloyed virtue with the Special Forces man in the field, that you could if only, if only, if only and on another day, ....and it empowers you. That is the Bull$hit that needs to have the truth told truth it Barry. That is the Bull$hit you and I (and every woman we know) inherits, and we can either lie around in the muck of it, learn to like the taste of it and thrive in it, like we haave since Adam and Eve, or we can say enough!, no more!

This thing called crossfit explodes that type of man's gender-world view on a nearly daily basis.

I could thank crossfit for that, but really, the credit goes to the women who sweat it out, who do sets of HSPUs and muscle-ups etc. You would hold them back because you fear they would disrupt the social cohesion of the fighting unit? Exactly the same arguments were used to keep blacks out the military or in segragated units until the late forties and mid-fifties. Sure there were some problems, and the military did it reluctantly, ordered to do so by its political bosses, but was it a mistake? Does anyone other than a racist think so today?

Would a person looking back on the debate about integrating women into fighting combat units taking place today ask: could anyone who wasn't sexist think that women capable of the job should have been denied those opportunities?

Comment #138 - Posted by: Prole at August 20, 2009 9:14 PM

My opinion:

Woman do not belong in combat roles in the military. Period!

Sooner or later, the standards are always lowered to accommodate more woman. It happened in law enforcement work, and it happened in the fire department. It is a fact of life that woman are the weaker sex, mentally and physically.

There are exceptions, but they are, EXCEPTIONS. Woman often become heat casualties when working in the field because they stay dehydrated. They are often too embarrassed to drop their pants to urinate, and taking off all their gear to drop their pants places them at a tactical disadvantage, thus endangering their team mates, and themselves.

Men will always take on a protective role when fighting alongside a female, and there will always be a lack of unit cohesion. Sooner or later, they get offended, and when they do, all Hell breaks loose, and the whole unit suffers! Ask me how I know.

No offense to the CrossFit woman here, especially those working hard as LEO's and firefighters, but you know as well as I do, you are the exception, and many of you would be out of a job if they brought back the height and weight requirements.

I know first hand of a police department that had its choice of service weapon influenced by the fact that the female officers had to be able to handle the weapon used.

Everyone is so afraid of offending someone these days, that hardly no one speaks their mind anymore, and those that do usually water down how they really feel, thus turning our society here in America into a cesspool of weak minded liberals that want the same everything for everyone. If that is you, then too darn bad!

Comment #139 - Posted by: Greg/M2 at August 20, 2009 11:00 PM

@Comment #128 - Posted by: Megan at August 20, 2009 9:00 AM

“My value to society or my "expendability" is not determined by what is between my legs.”

Actually, it is. The basis for society is the nuclear family. Regardless of reproductive technological advances and LGBT propaganda claims, everybody has a mother and a father. A man can no more be a mother than a woman can be a father. And so the value to society is different. Mothers have a peculiar role as do fathers. That is not to say that one is more or less valuable to society because of your sex. Admittedly, some of those roles can intermix disciplines: for example, provision of food and shelter is not exclusively the father’s domain, since women can certainly perform work for compensation just as nurturing children is not exclusively the mother’s domain as a father’s love and affection is necessary for a child’s emotional health.

Regarding expendability: it is not simply a question of whether our society is at risk of population shrink. Expendability is a question of who ought to be first in line as the sacrifice. Warfighting necessarily results in death. Even a just war, well-prosecuted will sacrifice many friendly lives. If men and women are equal in abilities and expendability to society, then recruit and retain only women for the armies. But that is not palatable. And one reason is that masculinity involves physical courage, to the point where a boy feels shame when he shrinks at danger but pride when he confronts danger – even if he is defeated.

Barry says that men and women ought to soldier perhaps in separate units. That implies a kind of ‘separate but equal’ kind of consideration, for the sake of ‘allowing’ women the ‘chance’ to serve. I say again that soldiering is not a career opportunity, but a foundational requirement for a free society. At some point armies will use the talents and resources of the people who are available to them – regardless of sex, race or religion – because every war involves attrition at the tactical level. But just because women CAN accomplish the job or men and women CAN work together in the small unit does not mean that they OUGHT to be doing so.

Comment #140 - Posted by: greg at August 21, 2009 12:22 AM

@Comment #128 - Posted by: Megan at August 20, 2009 9:00 AM

“My value to society or my "expendability" is not determined by what is between my legs.”

Actually, it is. The basis for society is the nuclear family. Regardless of reproductive technological advances and LGBT propaganda claims, everybody has a mother and a father. A man can no more be a mother than a woman can be a father. And so the value to society is different. Mothers have a peculiar role as do fathers. That is not to say that one is more or less valuable to society because of your sex. Admittedly, some of those roles can intermix disciplines: for example, provision of food and shelter is not exclusively the father’s domain, since women can certainly perform work for compensation just as nurturing children is not exclusively the mother’s domain as a father’s love and affection is necessary for a child’s emotional health.

Regarding expendability: it is not simply a question of whether our society is at risk of population shrink. Expendability is a question of who ought to be first in line as the sacrifice. Warfighting necessarily results in death. Even a just war, well-prosecuted will sacrifice many friendly lives. If men and women are equal in abilities and expendability to society, then recruit and retain only women for the armies. But that is not palatable. And one reason is that masculinity involves physical courage, to the point where a boy feels shame when he shrinks at danger but pride when he confronts danger – even if he is defeated.

Barry says that men and women ought to soldier perhaps in separate units. That implies a kind of ‘separate but equal’ kind of consideration, for the sake of ‘allowing’ women the ‘chance’ to serve. I say again that soldiering is not a career opportunity, but a foundational requirement for a free society. At some point armies will use the talents and resources of the people who are available to them – regardless of sex, race or religion – because every war involves attrition at the tactical level. But just because women CAN accomplish the job or men and women CAN work together in the small unit does not mean that they OUGHT to be doing so.

Comment #141 - Posted by: greg at August 21, 2009 12:24 AM


I read your posts. I would appreciate the same. It does not appear to me the issue is lack of intellectual capacity, but of course even a strong man will fare poorly with both hands tied behind his back with (ideological) shackles. You can't imagine that there are thoughts you can't think. But in reality, I can fully grasp your position, IN ADDITION to mine, which makes me the more complete thinker. If you read what I wrote, there is nothing there about some sort of vicarious testosterone thrill. I don't romanticize war in the slightest. It is an ugly, brutish, dehumanizing, NECESSARY aspect of existence in this world, for now. The question is how to be smart about it.

I can't believe how much time I have wasted on the basic proposition that "full combat integration of women may not be a good idea". That's it. That's all I'm saying.

You add to that the opportunity to show to everyone the process by which leftists reach their erroneous and indefensible conclusions. I've seen it so many hundreds of times, I have diagnosed and explained it. You won't understand this, though, for the simple reason that your politics are so inextricably linked with your personal identity and raison d'etre. That's par for the course.

I've been doing these Rest Day discussions nearly daily for 4 years in December. It takes time I should be spending on other things. Therefore, I've decided to stop doing them until the end of September, in pursuit of another goal.

I think we have more than enough "cats" to keep the mice at bay. Since I no doubt tend to monopolize discussions, this may well have a salutary effect in general.

Comment #142 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at August 21, 2009 5:14 AM

I like Barry

Comment #143 - Posted by: White, S. at August 23, 2009 9:48 AM


I don't come with Barry's "baggage" (excuse me M. Cooper), but neither do I come with his intellectual capacity, so maybe we can keep it simple and address the issue of whether or not having the small numbers of uniquely qualified women involved in the kinds of units Barry is talking about justifies their presence, given the attendant problems in integrated units.
Let me rephrase as that's awkward and state my premises openly, based upon my 18 years as a Marine officer, both in combat arms (Cobra pilot) and as a JAG, which includes time in Afghanistan a few years back (almost 5 years ago now - where did the time go?)

First, as a general premise, men and women are physically different. (Doh!) I've been told this and have some evidence for the claim (including 3 daughters).
Second, kidding aside, men produce more testosterone and are generally stronger because of it. It also is the force behind sex drive.
Third, soldiering (in the kinds of units we're talking about, like SF, Rangers, Recon, and long-range patrolling units) requires significant physical capacity, as well as significant mental fortitude individually. It also requires, for unit success, significant cohesion, esprit, trust, and camaraderie.
Fourth, it is my empirical observation that having young women side-by-side with young men in tight quarters in the military produces sexual activity, notwithstanding any number of general orders and proscriptions to the contrary. It also produces bickering, jealousies, and any other number of counter-productive morale issues that may be attributed to either gender's fault, depending upon the specifics of that case. For my purposes, fault doesn't matter (it can be the guy's or the gal's) - and I've seen plenty of both. Sometimes, it's neither. People fall in love, fall out of love, feelings get hurt, $hit happens, etc. in compressed time frames while on deployment.
Fifth, the goal of the military units at the tactical and strategic level is to succeed in the mission above al other considerations.

Query: given these sets of premises and observations, is there not a legitimate question as to whether same-gender units would not be a better idea in SF, Recon, or other such units? Or am I conservative, right-wing, chauvinist trying to extend my patriarcy over the weaker sex for even suggesting this and my testosterone-soaked brain is chemically incapable of seeing the proper view?

I would respectfully suggest that this is a nuanced issue, as you are usually wont to say about matters.

CF explodes my notions about what men and women can do. I'm grateful for that as a father of girls. But it doesn't change the realities of having mixed-gender units (of the kind to which I have referred in this post). In most "regular" units, even those participating in combat, there are as many in-capable men as women (that's opinion, but I have some observation for that claim). Or, maybe it would be better to say that the differences are homogenized in these units and are not as stark between the genders, and the opportunities to live separately are better and the gender differences can be better managed.

Comment #144 - Posted by: Dale_Saran at August 25, 2009 7:38 AM

Does this guy look just Steve Nash or is it just me?

Comment #145 - Posted by: Aaron D at August 28, 2009 2:56 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?