that women are already serving in combat. Wars aren't nice and tidy any more, with discernible front lines. Anyone in a war zone is serving in combat, whether it's a woman driving a truck or a guy with guns and grenades sitting next to her.

or checking a village for any ambush.

Should women be combat boots-on-the-ground? If anyone needs to be in that position then women can certainly serve as well as men.

role deliberately seems to me not to be a stretch. In today's warfare, they can handle just about anything the men can. It's not like they have to do hand to hand combat with swords and axes. Does the military even use bayonets and face to face combat anymore? For that I would say, no.

Ask Tammy Duckworth. Her combat position was not inadvertent. She volunteered. And that was back in GWB's Iraq war.

So, women are serving in combat positions as pilots and have been for years. Their numbers are few, but they're there.

eom

There are numerous examples of women in pre-gun powder ages who fought directly in Battle. One better known example is Boudica, queen of the Iceni in Roman occupied Britain. She led the warriors of her tribe against the Romans and won more than once. However she was defeated, certainly not due to her being a woman of course. But rather that she choose to fight the Romans in a Pitched battle. The Iceni, like many Tribal cultures it would seem were better with hit and run, ambush, irregular warfare, etc. Romans( along with the Greeks, Persians, and Eqyptians to some extent or another) on the other hand had pretty much set standard for the fighting of pitched battles.

My latest research is on queen Maeve of Ireland. Warrior queens like Boudicca "led" from mostly the rear in a strategic position so they could give orders. Generals like Julius Caesar did the same and so did Patton and Eisenhower.

Leading from the Rear? Every thing I've read implied that Boudicca led from the front. Again, the Iceni being a Tribal Society I had always assumed that a War Leader would have been expected to lead from the Front. I know you see that with various Germanic and Gallic Tribes on the Continent at the time. But then the size of Warbands amongst tribes of both Cultures as far I've read weren't very big and Boudicca wasn't leading a Tribal Warband either but a rather large force made up of the Iceni and various allied Tribes so I guess a Leading from the Rear approach probably does make more sense in that regard. You say write stories? Are you a published Author? If so mind pointing me in the Direction of your books? I'm always looking for a good read.

written references of the time and archaeological evidence how she might have. Most of what is said about her is mostly fiction. I don't publish books. I'm not that good of a writer. I like ancient history and like to write stories about them from the female POV for my own entertainment. I don't share them and frankly haven't finished most of them.

The warrior kings who led from the front usually ended up rather dead. They were usually in a place where they could observe the battle and run the operations do it. They had champions who did that for them instead. This is why you have legends about Achilles, Lancelot, Cuchullain et al

Did you know Cleopatra was a warrior queen? She only gets credit for being some kind of femme fatale but in fact as Pharoah, she was general of her armies and admiral of her navy. She went to war, but of course remained in the relative safety of her barge or camp, but was otherwise quite involved.

FUCK the military and fuck war.

They would not exist if it were not for men.

Feminism took a permanently wrong turn when feminists took men as their role model.

It should be the other way around.

When issues of war, recruitment, the military, combat, etc, come up, feminists should respond with an uncompromising, "HELL NO!!!"

"Feminism took a permanently wrong turn when feminists took men as their role model." I agree with that 100%.

Feminism should be about peace, even radically for peace, not trying to get a woman promoted to be a general in charge of killing another thousand people.

Why don't we quit the gender bashing?

There's a ton of other (good) things that wouldn't exist without men:

-Science
-The internet
-TV
-Cars
-Radio

and so on. Oh, you say, that's because women never had the opportunity to invent those things (and I agree with you). But by that logic, aren't wars started by men b/c they have the power?

Why is it that when men do good things, it's because women never had the opportunity to, but when men do bad things, it's a reflection of how evil men are?

invented and discovered. And when there were women, who got too big for their britches, taking credit and all, like Hypatia of Alexandria, then the men killed them.

War is a man's game. Only they should play it.

There is absolutely nothing to indicate women would be less likely to go to war or less likely to adopt extremist political ideologies than men.

If anything, politically, women have shown themselves to be completely equal with men, in the good and the bad.

TWO women.

have been two that have been warlike out of the few women leaders we have had so far speaks to how much the "war is all men" idea doesnt work.

And by the way, those aren't "the only ones I can find", those two women just happened to immediately come to mind. Im sure with digging, we could find more.

Disappointing as it sounds, I am convinced women are the equal of men in every way, and that includes propensities toward bad behavior and psychiatric and emotional issues like aggressiveness and megalomania.

And as I said -- that is where women's liberation took a wrong turn.

I'm sure you think that you are saying something positive about women by claiming that, absent men, women aren't capable of certain things or wouldn't come up with certain ideas about how to act, but what you are saying isn't a net positive for women at all.

You are taking part of women's humanity away from them if you are claiming that, absent a male example, they are not capable of the same range of emotions, motives, responses and actions that men are.

And the evidence suggests otherwise, both on a macro and micro scale.

and having been the primarily caretakers of children over thousands of years of evolution, on average, women have less a propensity to be risk takers than men. And going to warfare is certainly a major survival risk probably less likely to be rewarded with ones continued survival than evasion of confrontation entirely.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/9005552/Men-twice-as-likely-to-take-risks.html

Given the destructiveness warfare brings to the world and humanity itself, I don't think it's damaging to women at all to maybe conclude they have less propensity for it. How could a propensity for seeking a peaceful resolution over a violent one degrade anyone's humanity? Doesn't it enhance it?

win.

They do not see it as a risk-taking endeavor. They have convinced themselves their side will come out on top in the end.

In the case of Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher, they turned out to be right. But the fact is, you never know what is going to happen in war. History is replete with examples of wars where one side seemed to be at massive advantage and somehow managed to lose. My favorite such example is the Spanish Armada in 1588. The Spanish should have won that war and conquered Great Britain. If they had, Spanish would probably be the national language here in this part of the world.

only voluntarily - and I would say the same for men.

That includes those who volunteer for military service in general. If the powers that be can't convince enough individuals in the military that a particular war is worth fighting/dying for, they get no troops for it and the mission doesn't happen. The troops should be able to opt out. Maybe outprocess them from the military at that point - and I'd even be okay with saying with a loss of benefits, to prevent people from making a 20 year career of refusing to serve in combat.

I thought they pretty much already did? The women who can hack the physical requirements should be fine. Don't other countries have women soldiers in combat?

And pay and distinctions that officially "allowing" it would do.

Jessica Lynch: technically a "REMF" support soldier, and look what ahppened to her and all of her buddies. Killed, injured, and/or POW.

Be it the RedBall Express in Europe to the stand of the Marine Depot unit on Iwo Jima. Support doesn't mean no risk, never did. Direct combat units in WW2 comprised only 10% of uniformed forces. The other 90% being required to maintain the lines of supply to keep that 10% engaged in combat.

Qualifying for Direct Combat units should be based solely on merit and ability not gender. As all of you who have seen the movie Hell and Back recognize Audie Murphy wasn't the stereotypical Combat Soldier either.

Even when they aren't.

WWII: nurses were killed and became POWs, and many died in captivity. There are female names on The Wall, too, and finally a statue there, although one Senator sneered why didn't the K-9 Corps get one, too (I think we should have a memorial for animal service members, but...).

If there's anything I love from it, It's the Russian flying night witches.

"A stealth technique of the night bombers was to idle the engine near the target and glide to the bomb release point, with only wind noise to reveal their location."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches

Badass.

Reading about women in combat is refreshing. Maybe that's sort of a historians point of view... But I do like to dig around for strong women in books.

Equality is equality. 18 year old females should have to register.

Just because some women choose to voluntarily take themselves out of combat status by becoming pregnant does NOT mean they should be disallowed from holding combat positions. Pregnancy is beautiful and completely different than other kinds of malingering. The military has plenty of other people it can use to go out on those combat rotations, so it should just recall their stateside tours and use them for what they are trained: combat.