Women on the front lines??

Just a bit of background, I used to be an infantryman (11b) in the US Army.

To me, lifting these restrictions also means that there needs to be a reform in the standards for strength and fitness.

There shouldn't be strong enough/fast enough for a male, or strong enough/fast enough for a female, it should just be strong enough and fast enough.

Mental fortitude isn't a male trait, and you don't really know the mettle of a person until they're under fire or in a similar situation.

Some may take offense to this, but Basic Training doesn't really get you ready for much... that's your unit's job.

That said, I don't think that the US Military is prepared culturally for full gender integration at the line unit level.

Currently the provision still restricts placement of women to the battalion level, meaning philosophically anyway, they will be "away from the fight" still. (take that for what it's worth, I define the line as those that go looking for trouble vs those that get hit by trouble... getting hit by an ambush, vs. setting an ambush)

If line unit level gender integration is forced too quickly though, generally speaking you can expect the following:

There will be special treatment, and they will not be treated as equals.

There will be hazing/assaults.

There will be alienation.

There will be few success stories.

There will be resentment.

There will be trust issues.

The last one is really the sticking point for me. A female soldier may be strong enough, fast enough, and capable enough, but if her battle buddies don't trust her, be it a reason she can help or not, that's going to cause problems beyond the wire. Argue all you want about how they should be treated equally; the reality of it is they won't, trust won't exist and that will get people killed.

The trust thing, I'm not arguing the point that ideally, everyone should have a fair shot... I'm talking about the reality of what would happen. Right or wrong... that's what's going to happen.

that's all.

If they were able to train all armed services when the termination of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" then they can train the services to accept women in combat.

If they were able to train all armed services when the termination of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" then they can train the services to accept women in combat.

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion (re: DADT repeal) in such a hurry. Let's just say it is a "work in progress", for better or for worse.....and I don't think the consensus is nearly as clear-cut as you would believe. That's not a knock, it's simply the truth....

I am quite curious precisely what you feel are "certain things that we (women) are not and will not ever be able to be equal with men at on a regular basis"?

Do I feel all women are equipped to do the things required of combat. Well no, but I don't think all men are equipped to do what is required on front lines either. And neither does the military, not all men are put in the front lines. Historically they just haven't been prevented from even trying to attain those goals.

What I don't agree with is giving women completely separate fit eval goals. I know last year the marines asked for women to try, two signed up and they did not pass the requirements. But that is ok. Their fitness was apparently evaluated based on the same standards as the men. That is the right way to do it. Not all men can pass those requirements, many women will not be able to either. But should a woman pass those requirements, why should she be stopped from attaining a combat position?

I agree ^^ I went through Infantry Officers Course for the Marines over a decade ago, and my class started with over 40 men...we lost 4 on day one due to broken bones and other injuries. By the end of the class we had 26, nearly a 50% attrition rate. The infantry and especially the infantry officer isnt for everyone, but if you can pass the course, then good for you.

To clarify though, the women on the front lines still wont put the women in the infantry, it will put them in supporting roles in infantry battalions. This does get them a lot closer to the dirty nasty, but it isnt being a Plt or Company Commander which is a completely different thing altogether.

I don't want to be "equal"... I believe men and women both have there places in this world and in relationships. I believe men are built to protect. I believe a woman should be protected.

i support this 100%. as long as they pass the same tests the men do.


any claims of it disrupting morale are just dumb. they said the same thing about blacks and homosexuals. if someone is too prejudiced to accept it then too bad for them.

A soldier is a soldier. Man, women, white, black, gay, straight... they are all adequately trained and prepared for combat.

This is very much untrue. The military has various specialties, and if your specialty isnt combat, you get a rudimentary combat training and that is it, so you are not properly trained and on one is ever prepared for combat. 7x combat vet here, still in and I dont mean to crush your statement but we are NOT all trained for combat.

So would you say the problem with female intergration in the military is more of a problem with male persception and prejudice than an issue with the physical capabilities of a woman?

Yes, but not just male perception... just perception in general. But this is important as it causes a trust issue, that frankly could get people killed, really.

If they were able to train all armed services when the termination of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" then they can train the services to accept women in combat.

Are you kidding me with this? I'm sure you thought that was a clever parallel you drew but that just demonstrates how out of touch you are with the reality of things

lot's of friction has happened over the repeal of don't ask don't tell... you think you can train away prejudice? DO people actually think this went over smoothly and it's just done now??? wow...

i support this 100%. as long as they pass the same tests the men do.

any claims of it disrupting morale are just dumb. they said the same thing about blacks and homosexuals. if someone is too prejudiced to accept it then too bad for them.

I'm sorry, but again... it's not an issue of "get over it";

It's easy to say they should suck it up and treat everyone fairly... let's get our heads out of the clouds and get real here. These are guys that run around naked, watch porn, talk about women in less than "high moral" tones, cram on top of each other. Are you telling me that introducing a woman into that ecosystem isn't going to affect morale?? really?

and yeah... it's just dandy being an openly gay soldier in a line unit isn't it... coz everyone's just cool with it now?? please...

don't get me started on the racism that still exists in the military either... because that's a different issue all together

A soldier is a soldier. Man, women, white, black, gay, straight... they are all adequately trained and prepared for combat.

This statement is false. Let's get this straight. Not only do soldiers go through different specializations, the recurring training makes you proficient at your job. everyone re-qualifies on their primary weapon, not everyone learns how to clear a trench or a 6 story building, or to call for indirect fire, or to call for direct fire, or to set up an emergency landing zone fore a medivac. Truck drivers get good at driving trucks and maintain the basic rifleman skills they learned in basic... hardly qualifies as always prepared for contact with the enemy.

I wish I could properly articulate what I'm trying to say, and it's frustrating not being able to get my point across.

I think I'm just irritated by some people that have no idea what they're talking about, opining on an issue that really, like I said, they don't know anything about.

Mission first, that's all I'm saying.

Haven't read the whole post, but I think that if a woman is brave enough to sign up and can pass her pt...I woudn't hesitate for a second to fight beside her.

Edit: I admit though, having never been in the military, I have no idea what other kinds of issues this might raise. So I could be oversimplifying it.

I'm sorry, but again... it's not an issue of "get over it";

It's easy to say they should suck it up and treat everyone fairly... let's get our heads out of the clouds and get real here. These are guys that run around naked, watch porn, talk about women in less than "high moral" tones, cram on top of each other. Are you telling me that introducing a woman into that ecosystem isn't going to affect morale?? really?

and yeah... it's just dandy being an openly gay soldier in a line unit isn't it... coz everyone's just cool with it now?? please...

don't get me started on the racism that still exists in the military either... because that's a different issue all together

since it seems you are against this...then yeah the issue is for you to get over it. im sorry that women and gays in the military upsets your or seems like it bothers you but fortunately you dont get to make the decisions.

deal with it.

Secondly, this portion you quoted was in response to someone saying that the repeal of don't ask don't tell is just done and everybody is fine with it... not the case at all and it's something lot's of people still struggle with and a lot of units are still cleaning up problems that have come from it.

as I stated, there is no class you can take to train prejudice away.

that's all

can we get past the whole I can do what you can do bit?

Ability isn't the issue with integration... it's about prejudice and culture that needs to be slowly changed.