Women on the front lines??

If they want it, let them have it. They don't know what they're in for***.

Just like Shannon Faulkner: "Let me in! Let me in! Wait, let me out! Let me out!"

***I am a 2-time combat Veteran.

But there are just certain things that we (women) are not and will not ever be able to be equal with men at on a regular basis.

Yeah, I can't quite piss out a campfire the same way my dh does. :laugh:

Women serve on the front lines in Israel. So already your point is blown out of the water.

A poli-sci teacher told me this in college:

"In combat should you come across a woman and two men coming to get you.. kill the woman first. The men will stop to help her. In combat the woman will not stop to help the men. She will also kill you quicker and more viciously than the two men."

NEVER underestimate a woman.

^ Agree 100%.

If women want to be "equal" we can't pick and choose where. Either we are equal across the board, or we aren't equal at all. And as far as what could be done to a prisoner of war (female)..I'm sure things very similar could be done to a man if they wanted to.

You will never know what you are fully capable of doing until you are pushed to your limits...I learned this in basic training. Some women are not capable of being on the front lines the same as some men are not capable. There are some women I would prefer to stand next to on the front lines than some men. Besides - throughout history, women have always been out there, whether it was allowed or not.

Truth! Whether we are allowed on front lines or not, women are still in danger in war zones regardless of their jobs. Convoys are hit by IEDs all the time, mortar attacks, woman are driving those trucks as well. Women are in the turrets of the security/gun trucks protecting those convoys. Women are the medics that are sent along with the convoys. Women are the drivers of the wrecker/tow trucks that pick up disabled vehicles. Our convoys were often 50% women. We did the same jobs the men did.

There are no front lines in modern warfare. The front line is where ever the current fighting is taking place, and there are no predesignated spots. We (soldiers - male and female) were attacked on base, we were attacked where ever the convoys happened to be. What is pictured in most peoples' minds vs. actual reality are often not the same thing. This isn't the 1800s militia where you know you will be going hand to hand combat. But things still happen that are not preplanned and predetermined. That is what all training is about. The what if's. There are no true safe zones when you're overseas and working directly with the locals. There is just as much corruption over there as there is with our own government.

The people on the "front lines" are the ones that are trained for that scenario. If you make it through training, then you are considered able to do the job. Again you are trained for the job. If you don't make it through training, you don't do the job. They aren't just going to put females in these combat units and send them out on foot patrol without training.

We all like to think of women as soft and nurturing and fragile, but we are just as strong (proportionately) as men. We all have different strengths and weaknesses whether we are male or female.

Woman are and have practically been doing roles that are front line involved for at least the past decade! Well in the British Army at least, I think unless you have been in that situation you have very little knowledge or experience to enable you to make fair judgement, although of course everyone is entitled to their opinions! its not necessarily about gender but more so character and the individuals ability, a lot of various traits go into making a good soldier, integrity, determination etc.. btw I have been in the forces and did do a short package tour to Iraq. Although not really sure of the point of this particuar debate on here! Im not American either. :smokin:

I like joking that about the sexes, but in reality I believe if a person wants to do something, they should not be denied because of their sex. Yes, there are things that seem to be more suited for either a male or female, but if that person is suited/capable to do something, their sex should not be the deciding factor if they can or can’t be allowed to do that something.

This.

Leave it up to them.

Women have just as much right to be on the front lines as men.

Regardless of other's opinions on their capabilities.

What I find funny here is, many people are missing why women were not allowed on the front lines and how much "the front line" has changed.

The front line isn't the same anymore. The "font line" really isn't hand to hand like it used to be.


As gross as this sounds, women weren't necessarily not allowed from the front line because they physically couldn't handle the job. Take this for what it's worth, I've had cadre from West Point (Male and Female) and it makes complete sense....basically a big sticking point had been "at certain times of the month women can be picked up by tracking animals".

Yikes! Touchy subject. I think that it would be difficult for men to work with women on the front lines. An army guy friend of mine told me that when a woman steps into the equation, men naturally will try to defend or help her out. It's not that women are weak and can't do her job... but even "nowadays" good men try to protect women. The mission becomes "protect her, and do my job" rather than just "do my job." Sometimes, theres not room for both.

If someone put me on the front lines.... I'd be an emotional crazy wreck. But thats just me.

Hearsay is not always the truth. I know a bunch of men that didn't cut it in combat. They had to go home crying. Sex had nothing to do with it, at all.

Prejudice against women is taught to most of us. We have to leave the old world thoughts behind. That “men couldn’t control themselves” excuse is used in the Middle East as a reason women’s faces should be covered. It sounds just as injudicious in that situation as it does in this one. We women can work, drive, vote, run for office and fight in wars.

True... Hearsay/experience is not always truth. This is my opinion. Also, I'm from the south... and the guys/people around me are pretty traditional/protective.

I think that sometimes us, ladies have a quick-kneejerk-freakout-response to things like this. I wouldn't say that I agree with the OP's approach... or even with everything that she's said... but I think we can discuss it without getting nasty (not that you were) or without putting down guys. I hate when women try to prove they are strong by "outdoing" or putting down men. When men do that to us, we call them jerks.

The Isreal army already tried this and it failed miserably. Men were not emotionally equipped when they saw women blown up or mortally wounded in combat and it made them less effective as soldiers. I believe woman can handle combat, but the ingrained nature of a man being a protector for woman could be a detriment to the mission.

Women have been a part of Israel's military since it was founded in 1948. They make up 33% of soldiers and 51% of officers.

Given the fact that there still IS an Israel, I would hardly say it failed miserably....

Not only Israel.

"There were 800,000 women who served in the Soviet Armed Forces during the war. Nearly 200,000 were decorated and 89 eventually received the Soviet Union’s highest award, the Hero of the Soviet Union. Some served as pilots, snipers, machine gunners, tank crew members and partisans, as well as in auxiliary roles"

Also OP...get bent.

Does this mean women will be required to register for the draft now?

I'm fully supportive of allowing women to any branch of service they may qualify for and be inclined to volunteer for, but I don't think there should be different standards for guys and chicks (besides the basic stuff like separate sleeping quarters and heads if possible). If a lady wants to G.I. Jane the seals more power to her, but she better meet the minimum physical requirements laid out for men, not some BS 1/2 the number of situps, knee pushups, and 2 minutes more time on the run or whatever.

This.

When I was in (90's) - females had "equivalent effort" standards. So, lower counts, longer times, things like "arm hangs" instead of pull-ups.

So, assuming that the male standards all made sense (and I think they did) as long as the females we'd be putting in harm's way meet those same standards - then go for it. If we're planning on sticking to an "equivalent effort" type deal - we're probably sending people in who are not fully prepared for the whole job.

This is making me laugh so hard.

If they think women aren't already out there sending rounds down range they are ignorant. I've had multiple friends who were shot and blown up. All my female friends left the wire and engaged in combat. It doesn't mean that's the job they signed up to do. There are plenty of women I served with that I would never want beside me when **** hit the fan (and some men too). Some people in general can't stand up to that kind of stress and some function very well under that kind of stress.

Thank you for your service. I think that's all I, or any other civilian, should ever really say on this subject. If a woman wants to serve, let her serve. My hat's off to you.

If they think women aren't already out there sending rounds down range they are ignorant. I've had multiple friends who were shot and blown up. All my female friends left the wire and engaged in combat. It doesn't mean that's the job they signed up to do. There are plenty of women I served with that I would never want beside me when **** hit the fan (and some men too). Some people in general can't stand up to that kind of stress and some function very well under that kind of stress.

Thank you for your service. I think that's all I, or any other civilian, should ever really say on this subject. If a woman wants to serve, let her serve. My hat's off to you.

:flowerforyou: Thank you!

I feel as though if your making the choice as a woman than you know what your signing up for. The end. Everything is a choice.