This past week, I spent time visiting with a woman who worked at the Curtis-Wright airplane plant in Columbus during World War Two. She wasn’t a Rosie the Riveter, but Blanche the Solderer. (I know the designation isn’t alliterative. But her name really is Blanche.)

The World War Two experience no doubt planted seeds for the modern Women’s Movement, which took off in the 1970s and has resulted in opening so many professions previously closed to women. (Although we have a long way to go in US society, especially in terms of paying women as well as their male colleagues doing the same jobs.)

This article says that the US military’s experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq have seen women taking on more combat roles. For traditionalists, especially those outside of the military, this may seem inappropriate. But if a woman can do the job, why shouldn’t she be in combat? Our military leaders seem to agree with that sentiment.

[This has been crossposted at my personal blog.]
Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2009 The Moderate Voice
Sort by:   newest | oldest

Yeah, then why are so many women committing suicide in Iraq/Afghanistan? The percentage is much higher than men.

Also I’d hate to have a high percentage of women in a squad when the enemy gets in close and it turns hand to hand with cutting throats and bashing in heads.


Man’s capability for horror and cruelty to his fellow Man is only exceeded by his capability for horror and cruelty inflicted on women.


Where brute strength is not required, I see no problem with women in combat roles. However, having seen war first hand, I cannot understand why anyone would want to participate if they didn’t have too.