Would You Send This Woman into Combat?

Emily Geiger

Emily Geiger

President Truman signed the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act in 1948, allowing women to enlist in the Regular Army for the first time. But women have played a part in every American conflict since the Revolutionary War.

From Martha Washington’s mobilization of the home front to modern women in combat roles, what do women contribute to the Armed Forces?

Share your opinions in the comments below.


  1. Linda says

    Women have long played a part in war throughout history. It is because of their strong independant spirit, self sacrifice and bravery during war that helped our country to win their independence as well as paved a path for women to achieve greatness in our society.

    • Linda says

      As a living historian, I have paid homage to those women who deguised themselves as soldiers that fought and died in the line of duty for a cause that they believed in-the right to be free from oppression and slavery by portraying these women as a civil war soldier. It is my belief that the women who fought in the Revolutionary war, were fighting for their countries freedom from british oppression, their sacrifice was valiant and noble. I would definately say if the woman could hack the trials of war, was willing to do so then I say she deserved to fight in the war.

  2. David Nagle says

    Women have since before the founding our our great nation served her to the best of their ability and then some. However, a nation that sacrifices its women in the first line of combat is neither great or civilized to say the least. Women have always been the steadying influence in all civilized societies since time began. It is women who ultimately bring about cessation of hostilities either directly or indirectly. What war has America fought that wasn’t predicated on winning for “Mom and Apple Pie” or to keep the home front safe? Women have always represented the home front since they are the foundation for creating and recreating a society. That is not to say that women can’t or shouldn’t participate in combat, they should be used as a last resort and not needlessly wasted to fulfill some societal experiment on so called gender equality. Women are in fact superior in a civilized society.

  3. says

    As with race, gender should never be a barrier to opportunity. Individuals motivated to serve their country should be bound only by physical and intellectual abilities. History shows that when necessity has opened a door of opportunity, women have stepped through to gladly and successfully meet the challenge.

  4. Caleb Buford says

    I see no point of holding her back from going to war. It is her choice if she wants to go or not. So why not let her go? She even might be STRONGER than anyone else in that army!!! Who knows?!

  5. Christine Hansley says

    I’m sorry – I misspoke.
    Kimberly Mitchell – U.S. Navy – was on surface Navy combat
    Rhonda Cornum – U.S. Army was captured in the Middle East.
    Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.

  6. Christine Hansley says

    Women are already serving in combat zones. They are copter pilots, truck drivers and as far back as the Korean War, as nurses and doctors and in many other jobs. Tammy Duckworth – U.S. Army, current U.S. Rep. from Illinois, didn’t lose her legs in a crash joyriding in her copter. She was shot down by enemy fire. Kimberly Mitchell – U.S. Navy, was not taken prisoner in the Middle East while on vacation. She was on duty when captured and treated in ways I will not discuss here. Some women can handle combat, and some can’t. If a women volunteers for combat, she should be allowed to go if she is physically capable. That’s where the military needs to draw conclutions. The woman needs to be physically capable to carry the equipment needed for her job. She should not be a burden on the men in the unit. Her test scores should be the same as the men. The women should not be given an advantage of lower scores because they are women. Either they make the grade or they don’t go.

  7. ParrotHead421 says

    Combat is so small of a part of war itself. This post mentions Martha Washington who raised money and helped the soldiers have enough warm clothing, without which they would have died. Other women even today are involved in intelligence, logistics, and leadership. To say that the scope of war includes only men and that the jobs of war can only be done by men is more than dim-witted, it is ignorant.

  8. Pia Connors says

    It is not a question of whether history can show that women have played a part in combat or not. It is a matter of civilization. When both men and women become hardened and brutalized by war, it is that much harder for healing to take place in a nation. Contrary to popular opinion, there are God-given differences between men and women for a reason. It is not that one is more important than the other, it is that they complement and balance each other that is so crucial. When men think no more differently about taking a woman’s life than they do about taking a man’s, we are not making progress; we are degrading the human race, dulling the greatest thing women can do which is to keep conscience and tenderness alive.

    • Brian Ervin says

      Here Here!

      Let us not forget that allowing women to serve does NOT just apply to them either! It means that in the event of a draft they will be forced to serve. This is a disgusting and terrible trend!!

  9. Laurel Schumann says

    The Greeks and the Vikings both had tradition’s of warrior women. There’s no reason to think the idea of women in combat is new, and there’s certainly nothing new about people being ignorant about what women can do.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *