.ll 72
.fo off
.co on 
.ce ((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))
 
.ce ADR - 149
.ce
 
.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