On Mon, 4 May 2020 09:58:03 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2020-05-04 9:33 a.m., U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 May 2020 08:44:51 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> One thing I know about the military is this:
>>> If an officer plans a military career and hopes to
>>> advance to high rank, they need some
>>> combat experience in their record.
>>> Attending the military academies right after high school
>>> damn sure doesn't hurt either.
>>>
>>> I've always suspected that this is why women in the military
>>> wanted to be allowed in combat. To have a chance to advance.
>>
>> I think you meant to say so that they could have the same
>> opportunities as men?
>>
>
>No. I think that he meant what he said... that the way to advancement is
>to have combat experience. That proven performance in combat has always
>been a factor in advancement in the military. If women want to have the
>same advancement opportunities they should have the same experience that
>men are expected to have.
>
that's what I said. The difference is that your reading of it is
skewed by your bias against women