Women on the front lines?

[Anonymous]

How do you feel about women being on the front lines in our military? I'm not 100% against it. I do think that there are some jobs they could open up to women in addition to the ones they already offer. The infantry positions I don't really agree with though. What are your thoughts?

I'm only asking because I saw on the news this morning that they're changing the laws to allow women into most of the "female restricted" career choices & I was a little surprised! Lol.

[MaileysMommy]

That's another really good point. I know I would definitely second guess/hesitate.

Quoting CM_Junkie:

My husbands view was if there is a child with a in in his hand will they hesitate? What about all of the other hundreds of conflicting situations. If a man is holding a child as a Shield do ou second guess your ability to shoot past the child or do you trust our ability? Their are few women who wouldn't second guess. I know I would. Even my husbands cowork said she would. There are so many issues with this and I'm hoping they don't just jump right in without this slowly being put in to action. Even my husband admitted most of the guys he knew would put the women in the talk trying to protect them.

Quoting MaileysMommy:

Quoting wickedfiress:

I don't question the ability of some women to do the job. I question the ability of some men to not become overly protective/possessive of the women and stay focused on their own job, rather than keeping the women safe. Some men cannot accept that a woman does not need him to protect her.

My Dh is Ex Army. This is exactly what he said. I agree. 

[Anonymous]

This.

Quoting wickedfiress:

I don't question the ability of some women to do the job. I question the ability of some men to not become overly protective/possessive of the women and stay focused on their own job, rather than keeping the women safe. Some men cannot accept that a woman does not need him to protect her.

[Anonymous - Original Poster]

Well like a lot of you have pointed put, it's a mans instinct to protect a woman. If she is unable to function in a dangerous situation she wouldn't only be putting her life at risk, but the lives of the men she's working alongside. Obviously you don't leave a soldier behind so I can see where this may cause issues as well.

[Anonymous]

There are plenty of emotional men in this world LOL

If a PERSON is capable to meet standards for combat then they should be given a chance regardless of what's in between their legs. You need to snap out of that archaic frame of mind because you will be left behind. slowly our country is progressing, in a couple of decades hopefully religion will be in the shitter as well. And nobody can stop it :D

Quoting Anonymous:

I have an unpopular opinion, but I'm not really for putting women in the frontline.

Oh I know that women have fought long and hard for rights and for equality, but I don't agree with allowing them in the frontlines.  There ARE a few jobs where they are there, but opening it up almost completely is not really something I was always for.  Part of it is that a man's natural instinct is to protect the female and regardless of what ANYONE says, when it comes down to it, in times of pressure and stress, they have a tendency to act on instinct and I think it may cause conflict.

We don't have anything to prove and should not have to by fighting on the front lines.  So many women see it as a "I'm just as good as any man" and I think that sometimes that's the wrong way of thinking.  It's kinda shooting yourself in the foot.

[momof2boy2girl]

Quoting Anonymous:

I really think this will change some things that are in place.  PRT standards will have to be the same for men and women. 

Exactly. It w2on't be right if they relax the standards just so women can pass. If a woman can keep up with the men fitness wise, then she should be able to have the job. If they relax the PT standards, then they are putting all of them in danger.

[SommelierMom]

Quoting Anonymous:

Why not? Women are capable and shouldn't be punished if men let their hormones control their job.

It's not necessarily sexual.  Men are protectors by nature.

[hip2it]

My thoughts exactly.

Quoting wickedfiress:

I don't question the ability of some women to do the job. I question the ability of some men to not become overly protective/possessive of the women and stay focused on their own job, rather than keeping the women safe. Some men cannot accept that a woman does not need him to protect her.

[captaincw322]

I was talking with my dad about this last night and didnt understand why women wouldnt be allowed in the first place. He then pointed out, the options terrorists would have as form of torture if they were to capture a female soldier, the question of whether a fellow male soldier would be willing to do something for a female that he wouldnt for a male and the emotional responsibility of it, and the fact that women tend to be more emotionally driven then men. When put that way, i am completely torn on it. Im am ALL for equal opportunities and rights amongst the sexes, but that terrifies me. I honestly just dont know.

[Anonymous]

If a terrorist was holding a child as a shield and I needed to splatter the terrorists brains out or he'd continue to threaten our country id shoot with no hesitation. I know plenty if men in the military who would hesitate though.

Quoting MaileysMommy:

That's another really good point. I know I would definitely second guess/hesitate.

Quoting CM_Junkie:

My husbands view was if there is a child with a in in his hand will they hesitate? What about all of the other hundreds of conflicting situations. If a man is holding a child as a Shield do ou second guess your ability to shoot past the child or do you trust our ability? Their are few women who wouldn't second guess. I know I would. Even my husbands cowork said she would. There are so many issues with this and I'm hoping they don't just jump right in without this slowly being put in to action. Even my husband admitted most of the guys he knew would put the women in the talk trying to protect them.

Quoting MaileysMommy:

Quoting wickedfiress:

I don't question the ability of some women to do the job. I question the ability of some men to not become overly protective/possessive of the women and stay focused on their own job, rather than keeping the women safe. Some men cannot accept that a woman does not need him to protect her.

My Dh is Ex Army. This is exactly what he said. I agree. 

[Anonymous]

I think that if women want to do those jobs, or be combat arms, then they should have to perform at the standard that has already been established. I think that if the standard is lowered, some male soldiers will feel some sort of pressure to pick up some extra slack. Imo, there's enough pressure that they have to deal with and they dont need to be worried about slowing down for women. If women want to work with mortar systems or be in a Ranger unit (just examples), they need to be able to do what the men are already doing. I know it isn't a popular opinion, but that's how I feel.

Quoting jas_momof2:

Why?  I'm just curious... 

Quoting Anonymous:

We probably have an unpopular opinion, but I don't think the standards should be adjusted either.

Quoting Anonymous:

They shouldn't change a damn thing.

Quoting o0gone0o:

I think they will have to change some standards to make it even between men and women going into those jobs.