Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/uspatri1/public_html/index.php:32) in /home/uspatri1/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-super-cache/wp-cache-phase2.php on line 1197
Debunking the Argument Against Women in Combat Roles | U.S. PATRIOT NEWS & REVIEWS

Debunking the Argument Against Women in Combat Roles

Recently, an article was posted on this blog decrying the ability of women in combat. This would be expected if we lived in Saudi Arabia, but we do not. We live in a country that not only champions equality but also encourages women to enter job markets typically dominated by men. We do this not only because it’s the right thing to do, but also out of necessity. What sense does it make to deny half of your workforce based solely on what’s not between their legs?

With that being said, let’s go point by point to explain that, yes, women should be allowed in combat roles. Aside from the fact that it isn’t 1890 and we are no longer afraid of women falling victim to hysteria, that is.

Strength, Speed

Originally these were covered under two separate titles, but I’ve grouped them together because they both fall under the same belief: women are not built for battle. Some numbers are thrown out in the article explaining that women don’t have the same upper body strength as men and how they just don’t have the get up and go as their penile blessed counterparts. These numbers don’t matter.

If you think they do, go ahead and say that to Captain Or Ben-Yuhda, a female officer in the Caracal Battalion in the Israel Defense Force (IDF). After her jeep was attacked in 2014 near the Egyptian border by small arms fire and an anti-tank missile, Captain Ben-Yuhda was injured. Despite her injuries, she dismounted from her vehicle and killed one militant during the ensuing fire-fight. It’s almost as if her weak upper body strength coupled with her puny woman legs had nothing to do with her ability to fight. Crazy.

Or speak to the Kurdish female fighters in the Middle East who also fight alongside males to great effect. Allowing women to fight in combat roles hasn’t stopped Kurdish forces being one of the only groups to be able to push back and win against ISIS in the region. With all of the news coming out of this region, you’d think you’d hear something about how ineffective and weak women are considering all of the science behind women being the “weaker sex.” Except we haven’t heard anything like that. Not even from ISIS, who has only threatened to marry Kurdish female fighters that are captured. If anything, ISIS is terrified of these female fighters who can’t even bench press as much as them.


Combat WomenIn case you’re unaware…women have vaginas. Men have penises. Due to this fact, when both sexes are put in the same room, babies always happen. Every time. Yep. Sex. Just so much sex every time men and women get together. This point was made by my counterpart more eloquently by citing this article in TIME and an incident aboard the supply ship Acadia in 1991. Let’s take a closer look at these cited sources.

The article in TIME quotes retired Navy Captain, Kevin Eyer. This Time article was used to prove warships are floating dens of sin and that senior leaders are being punished in record numbers due to sexual misconduct. Except, no… no they’re not. Eyer points out that 10% of Navy commanders are fired for “personal misconduct” as some kind of evidence that senior leadership can’t contain themselves around vaginas.

There’s two important things to note here. One, personal misconduct does not necessarily mean sexual relationships with crew members. It can mean that, but it can also mean sexual misconduct with another service member’s spouse, alcohol related offenses or anything that an officer probably shouldn’t be doing. Two, saying women should not be in combat roles because men can’t help but harass them is called victim shaming which has recently fallen out of style because it’s 2015 and Mad Men isn’t a playbook for moral decisions. The problem isn’t that women are present. The problem is that we aren’t doing enough to teach men that this type of behavior isn’t acceptable.

As for the Acadia…to give some backstory, 36 women were transferred from a supply ship in 1991 because they were pregnant. A Navy Spokesman told the New York Times “…nine women became pregnant before the Acadia left San Diego on Sept. 5, but were not tested until the ship was under way. Five others were transferred to the Acadia while she was sailing to the gulf, but their pregnancies were not discovered until after they were on board.” That leaves 22 women who got pregnant after the ship deployed but there are also multiple ports the ship stopped at, including Hawaii and the Philippines. The Navy spokesman denied any allegations that improper sexual relationships occurred on the ship. There’s just no evidence that it happened. So, how about we put some effort into sexual education regarding birth control instead of demonizing women who want to serve their country?

Safety, Security and the Savior Complex

This would be the most erroneous of all the charges laid against women in combat. The idea that men will lay down their life for a woman in danger is ludicrous. It’s ludicrous not because it wouldn’t happen, but because that mindset is already there in our all male combat forces.

Meet Kyle Carpenter, a US Marine who, in 2010 while standing guard on a rooftop in Afghanistan, jumped on a grenade in order to protect his friend and fellow Marine, Lance Cpl. Nicholas Eufrazio. Meet Michael Monsoor, a Navy SEAL who, in 2006 while engaged in a fire-fight with insurgents in Iraq, jumped on a grenade in order to protect his fellow SEALs. Meet Jason Dunham, a US Marine who, in 2004 while in hand to hand combat with insurgents in Iraq, fell on a grenade dropped by an insurgent in order to protect his fellow Marines.

In. Order. To. Protect.

All three men were awarded the Medal of Honor for their sacrifice and bravery because they put their team member’s lives before their own. Would their actions be considered any less heroic if one of their team members had been a woman? At the end of the day, does it matter if you have an innie or an outie in a combat situation? No, it doesn’t.

Arguing against integrating women into combat roles is eerily reminiscent of the resistance to integrating African-American units into the rest of the military. It’s archaic and on the wrong side of history, regardless of your intentions. But that’s just one veteran’s opinion.

Disclaimer: The content in this article is the opinion of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of US Patriot Tactical.

Mark Wasson

Mark spent 7 years in the Minnesota National Guard as a combat medic. When's he's not busy losing friends, he's drinking with his dog. Befriend him on Facebook or follow him on a Twitter that he doesn't use.
Mark Wasson

3 thoughts on “Debunking the Argument Against Women in Combat Roles

  1. Nice emotional counter-argument. Unfortunately, it lacks the scientific data provided by your counterpart’s argument, instead using random anecdotes of women doing this and women doing that. Funny thing is, you had to encompass several different countries to build up a large enough pool of anecdotes to cite. Perhaps we should include examples of women fending off rapists and purse snatchers to further reinforce this notion.

  2. Why aren’t professional sports integrated? Probably be cause the teams want to win. As a Recon Marine and combat veteran I will not say that there are no women capable of taking on a combat role, or even being capable of possessing what it takes to be a Recon Marine, Or Army Ranger. What I’m saying is, that for every one woman that can meet the requirements. There are many more me, more capable, that won’t get the chance to serve their brothers due to what y’all think is politically correct. The IDF incorporated women in their combat arms because they fight from home, defending their home. Just like some of our women did during the Revolution and Civil War. That comes more from necessity. The only reason the United States would have for putting women in combat would of be to push some liberal agenda that would, in the end, get more Americans killed. Having been shot and left incapacitated by the Taliban, I would not have been comfortable with the most qualified woman dragging me to safety, as opposed to the least qualified Recon Marine

Leave a Reply

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