I've got to disagree with the worth of your statement "I know first-hand that women are not warriors"...unless...you merely mean 'some' (as in an innuended 'most'). Such a categorically-put statement (which implies NO exceptions) is one that properly can only be induced from MORE than mere experience; it is blatantly fallacious to say 'From my experience with x-amt of cars, MUSTANGS (implying all) are junk cars.' --- 'First-hand' experience is a base-factor to generalize from, true, but, rarely sufficient.---Now, if you merely meant 'most' (in *your* specific experience), ok, but even in that case, to rule out ALL others as potential 'warriors' is definitely over-generalizing, unless you can refer to something more than...well...only your personal experience re those you happen to have observed.
Re your 'challenge,' I'd say that you're offering it to, and in, (safely, methinks) the wrong group. Put up the 'challenge' ad in the ARMY TIMES (or whatever the paper's called) and the equivalent places for the NAVY, MARINES, AIR FORCE, etc. Methinks there'd be a few females ready to wipe an aircraft-carrier deck with you. They ain't ALL lookin' for curtains on windows, you know.
I know. I've met 3 females that impressed me as 'warriors' in my former military sojourns. And...they definitely weren't 'dykes'.
Some females are definitely 'warrior' material; but, I'll agree: not many (percentage-wise, that is; who knows, quantity-wise?)
But then, what 'percentage' of males are anything worth calling 'warriors'? Think about it. --- That one would expect 'more' males than females, few (even females) would argue against methinks. But, so much more that...females should be ignored in the category? I think not.
Methinks, Byron, that you are giving too short a shrift to a large percentage of a group based on a narrow personal experience of...I'll agree here...lessers that just didn't measure up.
Think twice...if I may suggest.
Re your 2nd post, like, what 'choice' did Thatcher really have, given the agreement re Hong Kong going to China? Even Reagan couldn't have unilaterally decided "Well, we're keeping it anyway" if it were the US rather than Britain, given the treaty. Well, he 'could' have, and caused WAY MUCHO TO THIS DAY probs for us, as Thatcher also 'could' have for Britain; but, think sense here.
Sorry I mentioned a couple of sore spots for you which clearly distracted you from my main points. You don't like Clancy; ok. He's yucky; and Demi's GI-JANE is yuckier. Ok. But, about the points I was making when referring to them, I'm a bit unclear about your agreement or disagreement. To remind, re 'Clancy' I was arguing about the worth of gender-identity 'teams', and re Demi's movie I was mainly referring to the worthlessness of 'co-ed' policy in combat (though I stress: ONLY in combat...ahem.)
Re Margaret; I agree, she was something else. Clearly a 'no-nonsense' person. My hat's off to her. (Then there was Indira Ghandi, for that matter). But, I can really only think of them in terms of their 'domestic' orientation, regardless their involvement in dealing in international affairs. I really think that if Thatcher didn't already have an agreed backing from/of the US (whether Reagan or Joan D'Arc) she probably wouldn't have been that noticeably 'aggressive' re the Falklands. No reflection on her, so much as her country's LONE military capability.
Yes, I saw Meryl Streep in (the new re-make of) The Manchurian Candidate. Some actresses (like Jane Fonda) are definitely 'amazing' in their acting capabilities; and some seem to be type-cast.
Re other females 'carrying' a show, well, I used to be a real TV (not to be confused with "RealTV") watcher, but, over the last decade, not really all that much, re routine-watching of series. Yet, I do believe that a few series have been around the last couple years where a female 'carried' a dramatic (as opposed to comedy) -if not 'action'-show. I'm sure some readers here can amplify on this.
Re your concern about Byron's comments, I see your rhetorical points as a bit superfluous, sorry to say. What any given past President hasn't done is not really a good bar to place as a criterion for what future electable Presidents should be expected to jump over. Reagan didn't serve in the military; methinks maybe he should have. Do I really have to spell out exactly...w-h-y? Re his lugging a pack, I give him credit: he sure seemed strong enough to. For that matter, if he can take a bullet and come back, then for THAT continuance, he passed my bar (unfortunately, it was AFTER he was in office, for such to be relevent.)
You ask Byron, again, clearly rhetorically, "He or she just has to be tough enough to issue the orders. Right?" --- I'll ask you, rhetorically, "Where do us voters find out if 'he or she' is tough enough? The military, Right? If not, then an Enron executive is acceptable?" If they weren't in the military, then we don't know that they're '...tough enough to issue the orders," ...to risk the lives of others. One doesn't find this kind of 'toughness' in CEO work ('casualness', maybe, if the CEO is in league with the Yakuza or some such.)
Re Clancy, I do have a fondness for commando-Clark who knows how to get justice/revenge on organized-crime thugs while simultaneously handling his military duties, but, Ryan's the one put more often into the 'thick of things' reluctantly getting shoved up the ladder, almost like a bubble in the ocean.
Re your view that this thread "...seems to have pretty much died in regard to its original purpose," such seems, given 8 (not counting this) posts in only 4 days, and the thread's average que-location in the list across that time, I'd say such a perspective is premature. --- Maybe if some started commenting on the MAIN points made (I've noticed that no one has any problem with my...and a 'noted author's...idea about 'gender-teams' being worthwhile and/ or equivalent in function regardless of gender), rather than trivia, there might be more thoughts provoked in others to add posts; ya think?
At the risk of sounding like I may have contradicted myself re my above arguments against A, B, and C, as well as against my earlier post, I hereby nominate Camille Paglia for...C-I-C.
I think we need a good Joan D'Arc now. (What that, as Rand might ask, implies about us males...I'll leave readers of this to think about.)