Women on the front lines. The horror.

Not like it’s already going on. Not like women don’t already fly helicopters and fight alongside men.

They’re already allowed to fly fighter jets, serve on missile-bearing submarines and work as medics assisting soldiers on the front lines.

The fact that I could use the word “allowed” in the last sentence astounds me. Why is it that the nation still has to allow women to do anything?

Equality should not be an issue anymore.

Let’s not insult intelligence here or look to ancient prejudice. Call the move what it is: progress.

The sad part is that we’re among the first to allow women on the front lines, along with Israel, Australia and most of mainland Europe.

The U.S. military led the way in desegregation for the nation, then more recently by letting openly gay members serve without legal retribution.

Many find it ludicrous that we, as a nation, once thought skin color had anything to do with a fighting group’s morale. As long as someone can and will fight, what does his or her race or gender matter?

It’s not like your inseparable-from-her-jewel-studded-iPhone-sister will rush to qualify for the Marine Corps infantry  — that one’s difficult for men, even with their muscular advantage. Your sister wouldn’t sign up to fight because she doesn’t have the desire.

Some men don’t, either.

But now the option exists for any woman who so chooses to fight at the leading edge of a war zone, which is how it should be.

Rick Santorum said women shouldn’t serve because of “emotions.”

Really? So you’re a stone-faced man’s man? So you didn’t cry on the campaign trail in 2012 discussing the death of your premature son?

I’m not saying the tears were unwarranted, just that Santorum’s a hypocrite.

Some worry whether women will meet the physical requirements.

If they’re already hardcore enough to want a front-line combat position, don’t you think they’re already aware of the rigorous physicality required and are prepared for it?

Another concern is a man’s somehow overprotective response to seeing a wounded female on the battlefield. Pretty vague.

If that’s a realistic concern, then it sounds like a male problem instead of a female one.

I doubt men on the job would think about it for a second longer than necessary to file away the information that a comrade has been hit.

Sexual harassment? Same thing.

That’s not the problem of the victim, that’s the problem of a mindset, and it will exist no matter the number of women or what capacity they fulfill.

The move might be more ceremonial than anything, allowing women to advance in rank while carrying out the same duties they always have.

Our commander-in-chief will not force recruiters to head across the strip mall from their offices to lurk in the stiletto-carrying corners of Payless ShoeSource to find the next five-star general, but that’s not to say they couldn’t.

Certain women have the physical strength and desire to serve their country just as men (most of them) have been able to since the advent of the Armed Forces, and they can finally be recognized.

While there are fewer women than men in the Armed Forces, the percentage of women who are commissioned officers is higher — 17 percent of women versus 15 percent of men, according to a Pew Social Trends study.

Good for them.

At one point, people argued that women’s hormones would change the atmosphere of a submarine, therefore making it unsafe for women to work in an enclosed space underwater.

Newsflash: that didn’t happen. The first two women on submarines carried out their jobs, like the Navy hired them for, paving the way for future women in expanded roles.

Joan of Arc led men to victory. Eowyn killed the Witch-king. Mulan saved China.

This is a non-issue. Let our women advance without further question.

Megan Dunbar is a 19-year-old English junior from Greenville, S.C.