On Mon, 4 May 2020 10:28:04 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>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.

Yeah, I know. those second class citizens couldn't possibly be better
qualified than a white guy.. It was all rigged . So dinosaurs are
still alive.
Janet US