On 2020-05-04 10:05 a.m., U.S. Janet B. wrote:
> On Mon, 4 May 2020 09:58:03 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:

>>> 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
>



I have a bias against women?? I have always supported equal pay for
equal work. I have supported equal opportunity. I don't have problems
with women advancing in the work force. Nor do I have a problem with
minorities having equal opportunity. I only ask that they be expected
to perform equal work for equal pay. I am not a big fan of people being
hired or promoted primarily to fill quotas.

I worked for the government long enough to see how it worked in
practice. Job competitions came with a statement about them being an
equal opportunity and what women, native people, francophones, people of
colour were invited to self identify. In other words.... we can't ask
you your race, gender, culture etc.... but less us know. I always
worked in what had been male dominated fields and over the years I had a
few female bosses. A couple of them were good. One was an idiot. Given
the nature of those who aim for management positions, that is actually
pretty good.