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.

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?


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.

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.

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.
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.

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

Belinda Joy
Eldebbo, I know the same kind of women myself. I have female friends who I feel safer with if out on a darkened street than most men I know. Some "people" (not gender specific) are born with an internal confidence and strength that is beyond the norm. And THANKS GOD for them!
By Belinda Joy on 08/24/2009 4:24 pm
Lila Kuh
Belinda, you are right.  Training can make anyone more ready to fight and kill, more vicious, more crafty; but no amount of training will make me taller, give me a longer reach or heavier bones.  I can strengthen my punch or my bayonet thrust, but it will never be as long or have the kinetic energy that an average man’s does.  I wrote a longer post somewhere around page 8 or so.
By Lila Kuh on 08/25/2009 12:58 pm
S A

I am no less valuable than a human being that produces sperm. I should have the same opportunities and disadvantages which are applied to anyone else in our society regardless of gender. Religious convictions, personal qualification, education and social/familial responsibilities are up to each and every individual to weigh in their decision-making processes but if females are ever to be considered "equal to males" then they must be able to make all the same decisions regarding their lives with the same determining factors that any male uses. Please note that I said ‘any’ male and not a specific male.

 and…

regarding Mary Wells statement: "One almost became president of the United States…"

Not a snowball’s chance in hell.

The citizens of the USA are not ready to elect a female president and won’t be until you see female presidents in popular tv series and science-fiction movies. A black man as president of the USA required over 2 decades of Hollywood Star-Trek writers dedication to the abstract quality of equality before the majority of voters stopped laughing at the very idea. In the USA females are a uterus but at least we are a bit above some other areas of the world: those were female are viewed with less worth than a goat.

By S A on 08/24/2009 10:22 am
Leigh Hart

SA,

You are on target about not being ready to elect a woman president and the ties to entertainment television. Do you watch 24? My family is addicted.

The first president was a strong black man. This season was the first woman president. She was a disaster! She made decisions based upon emotion. She chose family over her duties. It was very disapointing to watch.

As an aside, Obama’s success or failure will also affect future minority and female presidential candidates.

By Leigh Hart on 08/24/2009 3:22 pm
Rachel F
Leigh, I will agree that many of the decisions she made in the show were absolutely ridiculous and even contradictory (like, it’s ok to negotiate with terrorists in some instances, even though she was willing to risk millions of civilian casualties earlier because she wouldn’t negotiate with terrorists, etc.). However, for the most part the portrayal seemed to be that she was very steadfast and committed to her principles, even when her feelings interfered. For instance, when she turned her daughter in, she knew that she was probably destroying her family, but she couldn’t violate her principles even if it did cost her her family. That was my interpretation, anyway. :P
By Rachel F on 08/24/2009 3:34 pm
Leigh Hart

Rachel,

Yes, she turned her daughter in at the end…I’ll grant you that. Where I was ticked off as a woman was that she was choosing to put US troops on the ground in a country engaged in civil war for humanitarian reasons…not anything to due with our national security. Doing so caused Americans to be killed on US soil. Since the president’s primarily job is to protect this country and its citizens she violated the Constitution because of her emotion based decision making. They would never portray a man like that.

By Leigh Hart on 08/24/2009 5:23 pm
S A
No, Leigh, I don’t watch tv at all. It’s not that I am a snob or anything. I simply turned it off on the commencement of Desert Storm because I didn’t want my children soaking all of that in. After that, I never turned it back on. Guess I just didn’t miss it enough.
By S A on 08/24/2009 4:29 pm
phyllis Doyle Pepe

I found your post very interesting, Leigh. I don’t watch those programs so your description of this season’s portrayal of a woman  president disturbing. It sounds as if she were portrayed as a stereotype  and not someone who actually breathes. Who are the writers for this series? Was there any flak about this? Has there been anything written in the media about this?

I disagree with your last statement. Whether Obama succeeds or fails has no impact on a female candidate. I’d be interested to hear why you think it would. 

By phyllis Doyle Pepe on 08/24/2009 5:52 pm
Dona Howlett

Leigh,

I would say the writers of 24 did woman a dis-service. During those scenes where she catered to her spoiled daughter.

I wanted to shake both of them and say Wake Up…………

I was irritated with the writing.  Otherwise it’s one of my favorite TV programs.

By Dona Howlett on 08/25/2009 4:41 pm
Deniseann Taylor

As a Female Veteran I was not allowed to be involved in ground combat, air combat, or on a ship except if it was in port.  We were stuck in the office, in the garage repairing equipment/cars/trucks/planes, We could march in parades and help to enlist other females. We were in the hospitals, and only in battle situations as corp-men/corp-women and doctors. 

Times have changed and women are finally being able to do the work they have the talent and will to do.  There is still a lot of prejudice in the military towards females, but were over coming that everyday.

When I joined the biggest challenge to a female recruit was to avoid the male recruiters and the other men who had it in their pea brains that we joined for their enjoyment.  We got hit on at least five times a day, and male recruiters were the worse, as soon as you got your green I. D. card you were fair game, even the married ones would chase after new recruits, and boots (fresh out of boot camp). Some would even threaten a promotion wouldn’t happen if you didn’t comply.

Thank God that has changed, because now you can report them and know something will actually happen to them for even trying ANYTHING. Back then it was still the GOOD OLD BOY routine. 

That was the only thing about being in the Navy I  hated.

Until you’ve been in the Military you have no idea what it really is like.  By the time I left Active Duty women were able to do so much more then when I joined.  I’m proud to have served and would do it all over again in a heart beat.

I was raised by a Marine father who had no son’s and that was one of the major reasons I joined in the first place.  To make him proud of me and carry on the family tradition (5 generation, but I was in the Navy, Marines were to marry not join, lol, they look so go in uniform, lol)

There are very few things a man can do that a woman can’t and we show them that every day as we continue to proceed to prove were just as good if not better at the job.

By Deniseann Taylor on 08/24/2009 11:28 am
MT C-Douglas

I am a female Vietnam-era veteran. I was a Korean-language trained soldier in the US Army Security Agency, reporting directly through NSA. We (myself and many other females) were not only stationed in a "combat zone," but were expected to perform just as our male counterparts. We had no problem with that. Why would we? We trained along side them. We were just as capable. Technically we were not considered "ground combat" troops. But because of our mission, intercepting North Korean military communications, we were often placed directly in harms way. Because we were also ‘techinally’ spies, we did not have the same Geneva Convention protections as ground combat troops should we have been captured. And that was in the 1970s.

The point I’m trying to make is, we’re already there. Remove the artificial semantics and allow women serving in combat roles the same respect and treatment we do the men in those same roles.

As others have said, why is this even a discussion in this day and age?

By MT C-Douglas on 08/24/2009 11:28 am
Chrome Toe
MT -C you probably didn’t read my post above but i’m wondering if you received less pay than the men you were serving alongside of BECAUSE you weren’t actually classified as being in combat. Less pay and less promotional opportunity?
By Chrome Toe on 08/24/2009 2:26 pm
John G

This seems familiar…

but yes, women should be able to kill and to be killed in the most terrible ways, too. 

By John G on 08/24/2009 11:29 am
John G
added: just like politics, the medical profession, the legal profession, board rooms, etc… if women are allowed in, htere’s a very good chance it’ll be changed for the better!
By John G on 08/24/2009 11:31 am
Susan Crawford
If a woman can go through the training, meet the physical and mental challenges of the military - or any other profession - and she has the fire in her belly to do that job (including combat), then there should be no question of whether she "should be allowed". She should just do it! (Although my dream is of a world where the job of combat soldier would be unnecessary. It’s a dream, but I cherish it, even as I bless every young man or woman in uniform.)
By Susan Crawford on 08/24/2009 11:42 am