Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.
Home › Politics

Question of the Day | 08/23/2009 11:00 pm

Do you think ground combat positions in the armed forces should be open to women?

A recent story in The New York Times about the rise of women in ground combat left us thinking about women in the line of fire. Join Candice Bergen, Liz Smith, Joan Ganz Cooney and Mary Wells in the conversation


© Shutterstock
Mary Wells

Mary Wells | 08/23/2009 11:00 pm

Mary Wells on Women in Combat

Women are now boxing in Olympics matches, entering high-risk mountain bike competitions, blowing themselves up because of religious convictions. They are running large companies. One almost became president of the United States and is the secretary of state, dealing in high-risk areas much of the time. Angela Merkel is the German chancellor in a difficult economic time. I am against war and combat in general, although I understand the simplicity of that thinking, but as they exist, if a woman chooses a combat position in the armed forces, why not find the best possible place for her abilities?


comments2 Comments
Liz Smith

Liz Smith | 08/23/2009 11:00 pm

Liz Smith Says Women Are Physically and Mentally Prepared for Combat

I think women have already been metaphorically in combat since God created the first woman! Women have always struggled for existence and then for position and then the right to do anything they damned pleased or were physically and mentally prepared for. Of course, women should be admitted to all aspects of military service if they want to serve and let the chips fall where they may.

comments6 Comments
Candice Bergen

Candice Bergen | 08/23/2009 11:00 pm

Candice Bergen and the Concept of War

I saw those pieces in the Times and was very impressed by the level of competence and commitment shown by women. Especially when you think of 10, 20 years ago and how it was an insurmountable challenge for them to perform and be successfully integrated with men in the armed forces and in battle. And since our whole concept of war is completely transformed — it seems more and more realistic. There are very few incidents of rape. They should decline. Most of the objections have been removed. Not to mention, with a volunteer army, we are in desperate need of recruits.

comments9 Comments
Marlo Thomas

Marlo Thomas | 08/23/2009 11:00 pm

Marlo Thomas: The Answer Is Always 'Yes'

Let’s cut to the chase: Any question that begins, "Should women be allowed to" should immediately be answered with "Yes." Do we ever hear debates about whether a man should be allowed to do something? The more specific answer to today’s question is, "Of course." From what I’ve read, there has never been a study that indicated that properly trained women are any less qualified for combat positions than men. As in all things, the choice should be the woman’s.
comments13 Comments
Joan Ganz Cooney

Joan Ganz Cooney | 08/24/2009 12:00 am

Joan Ganz Cooney on One of the Great Scandals of Our Democracy

Of course ground combat should be open to women and, for heaven’s sake, when are we going to insist that includes openly gay people? The idea that the armed services are closed to openly gay MEN (forget for the moment women) is one of the great scandals of our democracy.

comments4 Comments
Read more about: Army, Combat, Gender, Military, Politics, Soldier, The New York Times, War, women in combat

171 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Chrome Toe
I don’t want anyone to fight in a war. but with that aside…. ditto to what Joan Ganz Cooney said….
By Chrome Toe on 08/24/2009 9:20 am
Didi Lorillard
Women in the armed forced who are trained in ground combat should be given the option to fight on the ground;  just as men trained in ground combat should be given the option not to fight on ground.
By Didi Lorillard on 08/24/2009 9:21 am
Lila Kuh
No one gets an option not to do their assigned job, whether in peacetime or wartime.  If you can’t take an order, this is called, depending on the circumstances, "mutiny," "dereliction of duty," "cowardice," or "failure to obey a lawful order."  Misconduct like that is punishable, and generally you end up with a dishonorable or other-than-honorable discharge… thus losing your benefits, too.
By Lila Kuh on 08/25/2009 12:52 pm
rocky rocky

NO! And neither should our men. WAR! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv5BYEOQYLo 

By rocky rocky on 08/24/2009 9:36 am
C Hardy
Its interesting to see the comments on this subject…If a woman wants to train to be a combat fighter then why not allow her to do that?  Do you not have confidence she could handle it?  If that is what a woman wants to do so be it…who are we to tell her otherwise? 
By C Hardy on 08/24/2009 9:41 am
Chrome Toe
I just read the NYT article and something came to mind. Circumventing policy to have women in combat would mean that these women are doing the same thing as men including risking their lives in the same way as men for less money aeren’t they? from what i know of the military if you are in "combat" you get some sort of stipend for it while you’re doing it. as well… the military values that word "combat" so much that promotions and assignments are often based on whether or not youve been "in" combat. so wouldn’t it now be true that a woman fighting alongside a man without the real assignment of being in combat would be doing it while making less money and garnering less opportunity than a man?
By Chrome Toe on 08/24/2009 9:43 am
Frannie Em

Chromie

Women that are in combat are usually MP’s and I don’t know if they are paid more for being an MP in a combat zone.  They get overseas pay, but I don’t know how much. 

By Frannie Em on 08/24/2009 1:29 pm
Chrome Toe

Frannie - did you read the NYT article? those women aren’t MP’s. there in all kinds of roles and the administration is finding ways to get around the rules and basically sending them into combat zones and combat. they are doing it by not "calling" it combat on paper. i’d think that would change the pay and the promotion opportunities down the road.

By Chrome Toe on 08/24/2009 2:23 pm
Frannie Em
Thanks, after I posted that I read the article.  Eric says they are mostly called MP’s and that is how they get around it, because the MP’s can legally carry guns.  I don’t know what other fancy work they employ to get them into combat, but the fascinating thing is, those women have to volunteer to go into combat or as a medic.  I have the utmost respect for them - day in and day out stress, fear and then back at the base - boredom and lack of freedom.  No leave to go into town etc.  God bless them.
By Frannie Em on 08/24/2009 2:53 pm
Frannie Em

P.s.

Here is a list of the Members of the House Armed Services Committee if anyone wants to email to assure the benefit rates for women in the Military.

 U.S. House of Representatives, House Armed Services Committee

If you want to help women currently deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan here is a link to AnySoldier.com.  You can find female soldiers that are over there and they are grateful for whatever you can send in the way of feminine hygiene products (they are very limited over there)and just girl stuff that they can’t get over there. 

If you find someone you want to support with letters or goods, click on their name and they will send you an email with their address.  It is one of the best things that anyone can do.  Most everything that goes over there if for guys - or real generic, I like to help the women. 

By Frannie Em on 08/24/2009 2:24 pm
Frannie Em

Sorry, here is the link for AnySolder.com

 

 AnySoldier.com

By Frannie Em on 08/24/2009 2:24 pm
Lila Kuh

No, if you are in a combat zone at all you get the pay and service medals that go with it.  The women are getting the same pay as the men.

By Lila Kuh on 08/25/2009 12:55 pm
Chrome Toe
Thanks Lila! What about promotional opportunities? Does the fact that they aren’t supposed to be in actual "combat" but that the men are hurt their chances at promotions?
By Chrome Toe on 08/25/2009 1:45 pm
Lila Kuh

For most people, no.  Also, keep in mind that if get a bad evaluation for poor performance in a combat zone, it’s game over for your career.  Some people are duds no matter where they are, and just going to war isn’t going to help. 

Really, the big complaint is that women can’t serve in the combat arms branches like Infantry or Armor, and the impact doesn’t show up until you start getting up into the General Officer ranks and certain positions like MACOM Commanders or the Army Chief of Staff.  It’s not that you have or have not been in combat, but that certain GO positions are filled from the combat-arms branches.  And GO promotions don’t work like the lower ranks - there has to be a slot that you are selected and approved for, then you get promoted into it. 

On the bright side, some GO positions are traditionally filled from other branches, for example, the INSCOM commander would have risen through Intelligence, the USAISC or EPG commander would have risen through the Signal Corps, etc.  There are huge personnel battles over how many GO slots each branch gets, for this reason.  And men who serve in branches other than combat arms - Intelligence, Signal, Quartermaster, Chemical, etc. - have the exact same disadvantage as women; they can only aspire to the GO positions associated with their assigned branch.

By Lila Kuh on 08/25/2009 2:53 pm
Chrome Toe

I hope i don’t reply twice to this. my last post did something weird and i think it disappeared.

What I read in your post is that "yes" women do combat but are held back from promotional opportunities becasue they are not allowed to officially enter the combat branches. And while i totally get that men in those other branches don’t get opportunity for those positions either… the difference is that those men have a choice as to what branch they want to enter. They go into it fully aware that they have an opportunity to choose another branch and don’t. so…. women end up in Iraq and some commander does the hookie dance on a piece of paper so they can go fight the fight right along guys who have a choice to use it to go further than any woman will ever have the choice to go. unless they change the rules. Which they will of course.

It sounds like you like the military. and your posts are very competent sounding : ) so more power to you.

By Chrome Toe on 08/25/2009 8:20 pm
« first‹ previous…34567891011next ›last »