On 2020-05-03 3:59 p.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 2:47:41 PM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2020-05-03 2:24 p.m., dsi1 wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 8:13:19 AM UTC-10, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>> On 2020-05-03 1:34 p.m., Gary wrote:
>>>>> Lucretia Borgia wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight
>>>>>> in combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to
>>>>>> actually fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.
>>>>>
>>>>> Join the military and you might get a choice of jobs. Get drafted
>>>>> and you lose all choices and during a draft that often means
>>>>> combat for most.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given the equal rights and equal opportunity of this day and age,
>>>> it should not be a right to fight in combat. It should be an equal
>>>> obligation. They want equal access at all levels..... if they want
>>>> it, but few are interested in combat. Since combat is the primary
>>>> purpose of the military, they should be assigned there too.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't worry about that too much. American women are engaging in
>>> combat situations. They have been for years. They get killed and
>>> maimed and PTSD'ed just like any other red-blooded American boy in
>>> combat. I mean, this ain't the friggin' 60's!
>>>
>>
>> Women make up only 1.7% of combat infantry positions in the US. It is
>> 2020 and they should be 50-50.
>
> Or perhaps a percentage reflecting the relative numbers of men and women
> in the service. The Army is 14% women. Why should the ratio of combat
> infantry positions be 50-50?
>

Equal rights. Women want equality everywhere else. They want equal pay,
to be equally represented in management, company boards and in politics.
I thought there had been some sort of unwritten law on military
promotion that emphasized combat experience.