.ll 72
.fo off
.co on 
.ce ((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))
.ce ADR - 149
.ce Copyright (C) Homer Wilson Smith
.ce Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes
======================================================================== 22
Date:         Fri, 14 Apr 89 01:38:24 EDT
From:         "Homer W. smith" 
Subject:      re: can you tell me
To:           Adore-l list 
In-Reply-To:  Message of Fri, 31 Mar 89 10:59:00 EST from 

>other arguments that have been used.  By "precious" I mean that from
>the point of view of tribal survival, the loss of a potential child-
>bearer would be more damaging than the loss of a male.  Fighting ability
>does not enter into the question.  Even if women were the better warriors,
>tribal survival would be better served by not risking them in combat.
     Would not the 'fact' that women 'should' not be risked in combat
also mean that indeed they would NOT make as good a warrior as a man?
Why would evolution bestow them with an ability (to be a warrior) that
evolutionarily they 'should' not use?

     Surely a few hundred years of over population would not change
the underlying genetic truths that have made us survive from the
beginning of time.

 Homer W. smith      Adore-l list         4/14/89*can you tell me