This blog is now sugar FREE, fat FREE, gluten FREE, all ORGANIC and all NATURAL!!

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Women In Combat

Women In Combat

The USA is currently about to remove a restriction that keeps women from the front lines in combat situations.  This is somewhat controversial, and a ripe topic for:


Politically correct opinion is of course that women are every bit as capable as men in combat situations.  We all know that most women are unemotional, strong both physically and mentally.  I hardly know any women who could not handle themselves and be victorious versus any man in combat.  Most women also are knowledgeable with guns and are expert markswomen (marksperson?).  Clearly carrying a forty pound backpack all day long in boiling hot or freezing weather would not slow any woman down.

Except all the above is unadulterated bull shit. 

If it makes you feel good ladies then go ahead and believe it, but I am 67 years old and I am willing to bet that I could beat the snot out of 90% of anyone without a penis.  Sorry, but you cannot bend facts just to make people feel good.

There are clearly women who are capable of fighting on the front lines both physically and mentally.  If these women choose to volunteer for combat should they be allowed to fight with the men?  I guess, but I’m not sure that men all volunteer for combat, and I’m not sure I would want women to be forced onto the front lines.  If they are to be treated as equals, that would be the case.

Occasionally women have competed professionally with men in golf; none has ever won a tournament.  No women has ever competed professionally with men in Football.  No woman has ever competed professionally with men in baseball or basketball.  Billy Jean King once beat an old man in tennis and it was acclaimed as a major breakthrough.  If a woman comes along who could throw a pass 60 yards and win the Super Bowl she would get a contract.  If a woman could hit a baseball 450 feet and bat 300 the Yankees would sign her.  There are no rules against women competing against men in professional sports, it just hasn't happened.  Is competing with men in combat any different?

Perhaps when we declare war against another country both sides could agree on a separate female army which would only fight against the other’s female army.  This might make things fair, but I have my doubts such an agreement could be accomplished.

I suppose there shouldn’t be a rule against women in combat, but allowing women on the front lines should only be for extraordinary situations and not be the norm.

We used to have a draft where any man 18 or older could be forced into service and be on the combat line in time of war.  We no longer have a draft, but it could be reinstated if needed.  If you are in favor of allowing women in combat, ask yourself this all you moms and dads out there:

Would you be in favor of a country that would draft and sent your 18 year old daughter into combat?


The above opinions are those of a Cranky Old Man and do not necessarily represent those of management – Mrs. Cranky



  1. Your view might make some sense if this was 1943, or 1950, and even 1970, when wars were really fought on the ground by "grunts." But warfare is so mechanized these days, that I'm not sure I see any reason why women can't serve in combat. There's really no such thing as hand-to-hand combat anymore, after all, as it is all about electronics and technology. The Israelis have had women serving this way for years, and their military frankly every bit as vigorous as ours.

    And frankly, when you look at the evidence, women are already in combat. I know women who serve as firefighters, and there's no problem whatsoever.

    So thought I'm pretty much of your vintage and level of crankiness, I think you're off base here.

    Would I want my daughter in combat? No, of course not. But then again, I don't want my son there either.

  2. You make some good points here Cranky, but then so does Geezer.

    IMO the USA will never again face a traditional uniformed foe in direct front-line combat. On that battlefield we are invincible and the world knows it. They also know any military power is succeptable to guerilla warfare, and that's what we will be faced with from now on. In that situation where is the "front-line"? A female could be working in the motor pool or electroncis repair shop one minute and fighting for her life along side men the next. Is this "combat"?

    My daughter was a plane captain on helicopters on board the USS Camden when they rushed to the aid of the USS Cole (her ship was the first one there) when it was attacked in Aden harbor. Because she was qualified to use a .50 cal machine gun they put her manning one of the 4 they had with orders to shoot to kill. Is this a "front-line" situation? Could she have been in a "combat" situation? We're splitting hairs on definitions I'm afraid.


  3. I think women should have the right to get their limbs blown off if they wish. It is an interesting argument regarding whether men volunteer for the front lines or are assigned somewhat arbitrarily, and that may not so easily apply to all women. But those who wish to be there should be given their opportunity.

  4. I also read an opinion that abuse will end when women no longer have inferior stations in the service. Another feeble argument bandied about. My friend's niece is as good as in combat when deployed in her munitions job but cannot go out alone at night at her base. The military still has much to sort out. Women in combat will work through the system and become the norm. May equality rise to the top.

  5. I do NOT want anyone in combat & I definitely do NOT want another 18 year old daughter--been there, done that!!

  6. I'm just a few months shy of another decade on this Earth.
    All I could think was, "Is it a coincidence if you combine the word women and the word combat, you end up with wombat?

  7. Next week: Disabled in Combat.

    They should be entitled to full participation in defending our country. Anything else would be considered discrimination, right? That's what I see coming down the pike, after this

    “This is a landmark moment for students with disabilities,” Terri Lakowski, chief executive of Active Policy Solutions, a Washington-based advocacy group, said. “It will do for kids with disabilities what Title IX did for women."

    I have never worked at any school where a special needs student was denied the opportunity to participate on an athletic team. This makes it sound like schools have to set up separate teams for them, like they did for girls.

  8. The skills required to succeed in professional sports are different from those required to fight in the military so I'm not sure i agree with your comparison. Women pay taxes just as much as men and they have a right to fight if they want to, and they have--they just have been limited when it comes to pay and promotions. But we owe it to these women to be sure they are trained every bit as well as the men and no excuses should be made for them. An enemy won't care that they're women.

  9. Hey, Cranky. Well, I have three perspectives to share on this topic, none of which are mine; however, they have caused me to think about this topic often.

    One is from a couple-friend who are both Anthropologists, and this is a scientific and opinion view. "All this crap about women in combat is, I suspect, mainly cultural. Our Puritan heritage betrays us yet again. Perhaps in some limited circumstances the ability to carry heavy loads is a concern, but we are not living in the Middle Ages, and we no longer fight with swords or battleaxe. Females have faster reflexes (sorry guys), and they can tolerate more Gs, so they are probably inherently better fighter pilots, helicopter pilots, tank commanders, and so forth. Personally, I would much rather trust my life to someone with superior physical skills than someone without. The best lead plane pilot I ever knew was female. Maybe combat is different but when your life is on the wildfire line (pardon the pun) I'll take a lady."

    Secondly, Sociology was one of my minors in college, and I spent more time on it than the avg. 15 hours. I had a professor who used to say that it was not physical limitations that made women in combat dangerous, but more our societal mores. Men behave differently around women. Think of manners, holding the door open, for one. Think of when you and your male cohorts get together and the uh, goofy stuff you do that you would not dare do/say in front of a woman. These roles are taught to each gender at an early age and continue throughout our upbringing. My professor argued that it would not be easy for males to unlearn this ingrained behavior, and combat is certainly not the time nor place for deprogramming.

    Lastly, observing the Israeli Army's roles of men and women would be a good place to begin, but having different, life-long expectations does throw a bias into the mix.

    Good discussion topic, Cranky. Enjoy your Sunday.

  10. I remember when I was studying Ancient History one of my professors told us that, regardless of the reasons given for keeping women off the front lines, the real reason was always preservation of the species.

    The average man can have almost an unlimited number of kids for practically his whole adult life, but a woman is limited in how many she can have. Women had to be protected to keep the species going. It started thousands of years ago, and has been that way ever since.

    Of course, that concept got twisted as time went by and gender norms were established, but it doesn't change the fact that it was the origin of that particular restriction.

  11. women have become their own worst enemy. if killing their own babies in their own bellies brings no remorse, what is killing a stranger? Everyone is an enemy! that is why Pope John Paul called this a culture of indeed current events demonstrate.

  12. I'm quite sure that your management, Mrs. cranky, wouldn't agree with you. One of the benefits of diversity is that you have all kinds of people and they are good at all kinds of different things. War isn't just about who can carry heavy objects. In a perfect world the military would have the smarts to assign soldiers to the areas where they would do a good has nothing to do with gender.

  13. For the most part, I agree with you (given your proviso that some women certainly can do all of those things you've outlined, and if those women want the opportunity to be blown to bits, more power to them.)

    Better, of course, would be if there were no need for anyone, of any sex, to be blown to bits.

    (Yeah, like that's gonna happen.)

  14. "Would you be in favor of a country that would draft and sent your 18 year old daughter into combat?"

    I have no sons or daughters at this point, but a government that presumed to force either one of my nieces or one of my nephews into harm's way would encounter the same reaction from me - cold, icy rage. ALL of our children should matter to us, no matter how old they get, whether they can give birth or not.

    Our lives belong to ourselves, not to the society around us and certainly not to anybody in Washington. The only military I could ever support would be a volunteer military. If a country can't get enough volunteers to defend it in a time of crisis, then it almost certainly isn't worth defending. If it can find enough, then how does one defend such a presumptuous attack on the right of an individual to make life and death decisions for himself or herself?


I love comments, especially some of my commenters are funny as heck!

Oh, and don't be shy, Never miss a Cranky Post.

Sign up for an email of every post...over there...on your right...go on!