<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: WE Magazine Wonders of FALL Issue is Now LIVE</title>
	<atom:link href="http://wemagazineforwomen.com/we-magazine-wonders-of-fall-issue-is-now-live/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://wemagazineforwomen.com/we-magazine-wonders-of-fall-issue-is-now-live/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=we-magazine-wonders-of-fall-issue-is-now-live</link>
	<description>Resources and Articles for Empowering Women in Business and in Life including Honoring Ordinary Women Doing Extraordinary Things</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:52:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Kathleen Scheller</title>
		<link>http://wemagazineforwomen.com/we-magazine-wonders-of-fall-issue-is-now-live/comment-page-1/#comment-3144</link>
		<dc:creator>Kathleen Scheller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 02:59:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wemagazineforwomen.com/?p=2207#comment-3144</guid>
		<description>I appreciate your gracious response. Please know that I am not attacking WE; I was simply responding to inaccurate information that, it seems to me, does women a disservice in the long run.

There was really no research involved in my clarification regarding Capt. Bray; it’s widely known and I’m surprised anyone gives it any credence. Private Lynch was a more notorious example; and now I fear that Sgt. Munley (Ft. Hood) will join the unfortunate listing of this “Rush to Glory” imposed by an opportunistic military and an undiscriminating media.  And the losers are, as usual, the women involved, who were simply performing their jobs well. 

There is really no reason for us to compete with men on their terms. Each of these distortions was a “Rambo” scenario; and none of them was either realistic or accurate. And in the end, it makes women in general look foolish.

I was a stand-out athlete in high school and also in college.  I’m strong, fit and athletic; and I’m a leader. So when I went into the military, I was not willing to compromise because of gender. But in basic training I came to terms with the differences between men and women.  For example, although I objected at first, women were not given live grenades to throw, as were the men, simply because most of us could not throw them a safe distance from ourselves. And even some of the men who were physically smaller than I were noticeably stronger. 

There was indeed some sexism; however, I myself was not subjected to it. Ironically, I found that the men respected the women for simply giving it our best; our falling short by male standards seemed insignificant to them. I was part of a good, professional team of men and women. I’m a woman, and that’s okay; I neither made the coffee nor crashed a weapons-firing jeep through a gate. I learned that it’s all about whom you can count on; and in that regard, the men and women were on equal footing.  The women who had to constantly prove themselves were as much of a liability as were the men of the same ilk.  And that is what I resent about this recurring “Rush to Glory” about women. 

Keep up the good work. WE is a fine publication.

KS</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I appreciate your gracious response. Please know that I am not attacking WE; I was simply responding to inaccurate information that, it seems to me, does women a disservice in the long run.</p>
<p>There was really no research involved in my clarification regarding Capt. Bray; it’s widely known and I’m surprised anyone gives it any credence. Private Lynch was a more notorious example; and now I fear that Sgt. Munley (Ft. Hood) will join the unfortunate listing of this “Rush to Glory” imposed by an opportunistic military and an undiscriminating media.  And the losers are, as usual, the women involved, who were simply performing their jobs well. </p>
<p>There is really no reason for us to compete with men on their terms. Each of these distortions was a “Rambo” scenario; and none of them was either realistic or accurate. And in the end, it makes women in general look foolish.</p>
<p>I was a stand-out athlete in high school and also in college.  I’m strong, fit and athletic; and I’m a leader. So when I went into the military, I was not willing to compromise because of gender. But in basic training I came to terms with the differences between men and women.  For example, although I objected at first, women were not given live grenades to throw, as were the men, simply because most of us could not throw them a safe distance from ourselves. And even some of the men who were physically smaller than I were noticeably stronger. </p>
<p>There was indeed some sexism; however, I myself was not subjected to it. Ironically, I found that the men respected the women for simply giving it our best; our falling short by male standards seemed insignificant to them. I was part of a good, professional team of men and women. I’m a woman, and that’s okay; I neither made the coffee nor crashed a weapons-firing jeep through a gate. I learned that it’s all about whom you can count on; and in that regard, the men and women were on equal footing.  The women who had to constantly prove themselves were as much of a liability as were the men of the same ilk.  And that is what I resent about this recurring “Rush to Glory” about women. </p>
<p>Keep up the good work. WE is a fine publication.</p>
<p>KS</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Heidi Richards</title>
		<link>http://wemagazineforwomen.com/we-magazine-wonders-of-fall-issue-is-now-live/comment-page-1/#comment-3130</link>
		<dc:creator>Heidi Richards</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 03:32:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wemagazineforwomen.com/?p=2207#comment-3130</guid>
		<description>Thank you Kathleen for your comments about Capt. Bray.  

I was not aware of the controversy surrounding her commendations (or lack therof) and appreciate you setting the record straight.

Mostly appreciate that you took time to detail the events as I am sure our readers will.

Wishing you all the best... and then some.

Heidi Richards Mooney, Publisher</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you Kathleen for your comments about Capt. Bray.  </p>
<p>I was not aware of the controversy surrounding her commendations (or lack therof) and appreciate you setting the record straight.</p>
<p>Mostly appreciate that you took time to detail the events as I am sure our readers will.</p>
<p>Wishing you all the best&#8230; and then some.</p>
<p>Heidi Richards Mooney, Publisher</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kathleen Scheller</title>
		<link>http://wemagazineforwomen.com/we-magazine-wonders-of-fall-issue-is-now-live/comment-page-1/#comment-3104</link>
		<dc:creator>Kathleen Scheller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 06:40:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wemagazineforwomen.com/?p=2207#comment-3104</guid>
		<description>I see you praise Capt. Linda Bray for her heroics in Panama and hold her as an example for celebrating women&#039;s accomplishments. It is curious to me why you would post such widely discredited, now discounted information.
 
During the December 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama, initial reports from Pentagon sources indicated that Captain Bray had led a military police squad into fierce combat, capturing a dog kennel and crashing a jeep through a fence. At the time, Captain Bray&#039;s actions were publicized by the Pentagon and hailed widely as proof that women are well suited for combat, -- which your site still does. Later it was revealed, however, that these initial reports were wrong: 1) Bray in fact had been a half-mile from the scene when the shooting occurred, 2) there were no casualties after a ten-minute scuffle, and 3) not she but her male subordinate had driven the jeep through the fence. This is not to say that Captain Bray did not act honorably; simply that Army inaccurately glorified her role, as it did Jessica Lynch&#039;s in Iraq, and now regarding Sgt. Kimberly Munley&#039;s at Fort hood.  

As the accurate information about Panama emerged, it was revealed further that during the invasion, a female truck driver taking male troops into a combat zone started crying. Another woman who had been performing the same job also broke into tears; and the two women, who were refusing to continue as drivers, were relieved of duty. After reporters learned about the incident, the Army took pains to convey that the women had not disobeyed orders or been derelict in their duty. On the contrary, according to an Army official quoted in the Washington Post: &quot;They performed superbly.&quot; 

Since men, too, have been relieved of duty after breaking down emotionally during combat, the point is not to single these women out. The point is that the Army was dishonest about the incident. To call the performance of a soldier who breaks down and cries during combat and refuses to follow orders &#039;superb&#039; is ludicrous and patronizing. 

There might be a case made for women as full partners in the military, but this is known to be in accurate; and by profferring it you are part of the dishonesty and patronization that, ultimately, only undermines the cause.  

Kathleen Scheller</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I see you praise Capt. Linda Bray for her heroics in Panama and hold her as an example for celebrating women&#8217;s accomplishments. It is curious to me why you would post such widely discredited, now discounted information.</p>
<p>During the December 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama, initial reports from Pentagon sources indicated that Captain Bray had led a military police squad into fierce combat, capturing a dog kennel and crashing a jeep through a fence. At the time, Captain Bray&#8217;s actions were publicized by the Pentagon and hailed widely as proof that women are well suited for combat, &#8212; which your site still does. Later it was revealed, however, that these initial reports were wrong: 1) Bray in fact had been a half-mile from the scene when the shooting occurred, 2) there were no casualties after a ten-minute scuffle, and 3) not she but her male subordinate had driven the jeep through the fence. This is not to say that Captain Bray did not act honorably; simply that Army inaccurately glorified her role, as it did Jessica Lynch&#8217;s in Iraq, and now regarding Sgt. Kimberly Munley&#8217;s at Fort hood.  </p>
<p>As the accurate information about Panama emerged, it was revealed further that during the invasion, a female truck driver taking male troops into a combat zone started crying. Another woman who had been performing the same job also broke into tears; and the two women, who were refusing to continue as drivers, were relieved of duty. After reporters learned about the incident, the Army took pains to convey that the women had not disobeyed orders or been derelict in their duty. On the contrary, according to an Army official quoted in the Washington Post: &#8220;They performed superbly.&#8221; </p>
<p>Since men, too, have been relieved of duty after breaking down emotionally during combat, the point is not to single these women out. The point is that the Army was dishonest about the incident. To call the performance of a soldier who breaks down and cries during combat and refuses to follow orders &#8216;superb&#8217; is ludicrous and patronizing. </p>
<p>There might be a case made for women as full partners in the military, but this is known to be in accurate; and by profferring it you are part of the dishonesty and patronization that, ultimately, only undermines the cause.  </p>
<p>Kathleen Scheller</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: uberVU - social comments</title>
		<link>http://wemagazineforwomen.com/we-magazine-wonders-of-fall-issue-is-now-live/comment-page-1/#comment-3102</link>
		<dc:creator>uberVU - social comments</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 04:42:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wemagazineforwomen.com/?p=2207#comment-3102</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Social comments and analytics for this post...&lt;/strong&gt;

This post was mentioned on Twitter by HeidiRichards: WE Magazine Wonders of FALL Issue is Now LIVE: Fall is my favorite time of year. I love the rich bold colors, t.. http://bit.ly/29UFWi...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Social comments and analytics for this post&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>This post was mentioned on Twitter by HeidiRichards: WE Magazine Wonders of FALL Issue is Now LIVE: Fall is my favorite time of year. I love the rich bold colors, t.. <a href="http://bit.ly/29UFWi.." rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/29UFWi..</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Valuable Internet Information &#187; WE magazine for women » WE Magazine Wonders of FALL Issue is Now LIVE</title>
		<link>http://wemagazineforwomen.com/we-magazine-wonders-of-fall-issue-is-now-live/comment-page-1/#comment-3101</link>
		<dc:creator>Valuable Internet Information &#187; WE magazine for women » WE Magazine Wonders of FALL Issue is Now LIVE</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:43:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wemagazineforwomen.com/?p=2207#comment-3101</guid>
		<description>[...] See the original post: WE magazine for women » WE Magazine Wonders of FALL Issue is Now LIVE [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] See the original post: WE magazine for women » WE Magazine Wonders of FALL Issue is Now LIVE [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

