Women Joining the Ranks of Specials Ops

[quote]sjoconn wrote:
I can tell you that when the command decides numbers need to be met, the military will lower the standar until the numbers are met. [/quote]

I disagree with this point. They alter some standards like PFT’s but everyone still has to go through all of the schools and those are not dependent upon standards.

Let’s take Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course (IOC) as an example. The women who attended only had to pass the female PFT but they still had to pass the IOC course which none have

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20130402/NEWS/304020020/Two-more-female-Marines-flunk-infantry-officers-training

That school is not dependent upon the PFT or a number of “tests”. Any woman intending to be a SEAL, Ranger, or SF operator would have to go through the exact same school as the men would.

james

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]sjoconn wrote:
I can tell you that when the command decides numbers need to be met, the military will lower the standar until the numbers are met. [/quote]

I disagree with this point. They alter some standards like PFT’s but everyone still has to go through all of the schools and those are not dependent upon standards.

Let’s take Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course (IOC) as an example. The women who attended only had to pass the female PFT but they still had to pass the IOC course which none have

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20130402/NEWS/304020020/Two-more-female-Marines-flunk-infantry-officers-training

That school is not dependent upon the PFT or a number of “tests”. Any woman intending to be a SEAL, Ranger, or SF operator would have to go through the exact same school as the men would.

james
[/quote]

The Army is currently downsizing so I wouldn’t say they will lower the standard at the moment.

Saying that women have to meet the same standard is absurd. While I was going through air assault school we had a woman clip oval carabiner in wrong to her ruck. She put the thing backwards which its supposed to be an automatic no go and asked to leave the course and never come back. They gave her a second chance which she passed the second time. We had a male who was ranger tabbed do the same thing and he was told to leave and never come back. The instructors are so afraid of getting an EO(equal opportunity) complaint they let shit like that slide all the time. It will never be fair. Just how the world works.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

"As a company grade 1302 combat engineer officer with 5 years of active service and two combat deployments, one to Iraq and the other to Afghanistan, I was able to participate in and lead numerous combat operations… "

“…As a young lieutenant, I fit the mold of a female who would have had a shot at completing IOC, and I am sure there was a time in my life where I would have volunteered to be an infantryman. I was a star ice hockey player at Bowdoin College, a small elite college in Maine, with a major in government and law. At 5 feet 3 inches I was squatting 200 pounds and benching 145 pounds when I graduated in 2007. I completed Officer Candidates School (OCS) ranked 4 of 52 candidates, graduated 48 of 261 from TBS, and finished second at MOS school…”

“…By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change. My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment…”

“… I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement. I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females…”

[/quote]

That is by far the most reasonable explanation of why women should not be in the Marine Corps. It’s a simple matter of physical requirements. However the Canadian military does not seem to have many problems with women in the light infantry. The ones that can’t hack it quit early on and the rest seem to be able to serve their full contracts.

I wonder how much better women would fare in combat popping 25mg of anavar a couple times a day. Would that prevent the atrophy? If it worked, I wouldn’t have a problem with them being given that option. Every high-level athlete does it anyway.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

Conservative Women have more Test than Liberal Males.[/quote]

That would explain Ann Coulter’s penis, then.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Better to just make it men only and I don’t give a fuck if that’s sexist or not.
[/quote]

I don’t understand how America doesn’t have an equivalent to Canada’s BFOR process. The BFOR (Bona Fide Occupational Requirements) process determines legitimate minimum requirements for a physical job, and if those happen to favour one sex over the other it’s too bad so sad.

Under a BFOR process, the Marine Corps would easily find legally justifiable physical fitness requirements that <1% of women would be able to pass.

There is a BFOR determined fitness requirement for both wildland and municipal firefighting and feminists can’t touch them because due process was followed. No woman failing the fitness test has any right to sue for discrimination, no right to any human rights tribunal or any other process, because all fitness tests have already been proven to the courts as valid.

More detail here: http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/employment/employer_info/employment_contract/bfor.asp

In the land of weed, hippies, and gay marriage, we’ve found a legitimate way to keep women from getting jobs they can’t handle, while taking away their right to sue, and without pissing off all the nation’s feminists. The US military should take note.

The problem with allowing women into the special forces is the decision is not based upon common sense. Whenever any major change to special forces is considered there should be one overriding consideration that trumps all other considerations. That consideration should simply be, will this change make for a more effective war fighting unit. From everything I have read that is not the reason why this change is being proposed.

The reason why it is being pushed is because lack of combat experience was hindering the career advancement opportunities of women officers. So this is purely a political consideration that is being pushed by politicians who really don’t give a damn about the military.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. The only time women should be used by special forces is when it makes sense because there is a specific task that a man just cannot do as well.

It doesn’t matter how physically capable or how much steroids they feed her, a woman in a special forces unit will always be the weak link that brings down the overall effectiveness of the unit. It’s a simple fact of biology.

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]sjoconn wrote:
I can tell you that when the command decides numbers need to be met, the military will lower the standar until the numbers are met. [/quote]

I disagree with this point. They alter some standards like PFT’s but everyone still has to go through all of the schools and those are not dependent upon standards.

Let’s take Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course (IOC) as an example. The women who attended only had to pass the female PFT but they still had to pass the IOC course which none have

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20130402/NEWS/304020020/Two-more-female-Marines-flunk-infantry-officers-training

That school is not dependent upon the PFT or a number of “tests”. Any woman intending to be a SEAL, Ranger, or SF operator would have to go through the exact same school as the men would.

james
[/quote]

We have had different experiences

I just remembered a program based on the SAS. “SAS, are you tough enough?”

It wasn’t a true test of the SAS requirements but it was enough to knock out the majority of people who took it up. All but one of the women lasted and she didn’t make the last hurdles.

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
I don’t understand how America doesn’t have an equivalent to Canada’s BFOR process. The BFOR (Bona Fide Occupational Requirements) process determines legitimate minimum requirements for a physical job, and if those happen to favour one sex over the other it’s too bad so sad.
[/quote]

This. If a woman is tough enough to do the job, let her do it. Yes, this obviously means very few of them will pass the tests, but that’s life. Give the tough ones a chance.

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Better to just make it men only and I don’t give a fuck if that’s sexist or not.
[/quote]

I don’t understand how America doesn’t have an equivalent to Canada’s BFOR process. The BFOR (Bona Fide Occupational Requirements) process determines legitimate minimum requirements for a physical job, and if those happen to favour one sex over the other it’s too bad so sad.

Under a BFOR process, the Marine Corps would easily find legally justifiable physical fitness requirements that <1% of women would be able to pass.

There is a BFOR determined fitness requirement for both wildland and municipal firefighting and feminists can’t touch them because due process was followed. No woman failing the fitness test has any right to sue for discrimination, no right to any human rights tribunal or any other process, because all fitness tests have already been proven to the courts as valid.

More detail here: http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/employment/employer_info/employment_contract/bfor.asp

In the land of weed, hippies, and gay marriage, we’ve found a legitimate way to keep women from getting jobs they can’t handle, while taking away their right to sue, and without pissing off all the nation’s feminists. The US military should take note.[/quote]

Because in America it’s not about completing the mission, it’s about PR & elections.

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
I don’t understand how America doesn’t have an equivalent to Canada’s BFOR process. The BFOR (Bona Fide Occupational Requirements) process determines legitimate minimum requirements for a physical job, and if those happen to favour one sex over the other it’s too bad so sad.
[/quote]

This. If a woman is tough enough to do the job, let her do it. Yes, this obviously means very few of them will pass the tests, but that’s life. Give the tough ones a chance.
[/quote]

The only problem with this is that pressure from certain people (Congress being the most influential) will result in pushing women through just to say we have women in SOF.

I’m telling you, imo it will happen.

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]sjoconn wrote:
I can tell you that when the command decides numbers need to be met, the military will lower the standar until the numbers are met. [/quote]

I disagree with this point. They alter some standards like PFT’s but everyone still has to go through all of the schools and those are not dependent upon standards.

Let’s take Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course (IOC) as an example. The women who attended only had to pass the female PFT but they still had to pass the IOC course which none have

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20130402/NEWS/304020020/Two-more-female-Marines-flunk-infantry-officers-training

That school is not dependent upon the PFT or a number of “tests”. Any woman intending to be a SEAL, Ranger, or SF operator would have to go through the exact same school as the men would.

james
[/quote]

That might be the case now, but pressure will mount on the USMC to pass a female infrantry officer and the USMC will yield. So will every other branch. Generals take orders just like us Enlisted guys.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
…and he’s all of 21 years old and from Australia so for sure we know he has everything figured out about integrating women into the United States military special forces.[/quote]

Oh wow he’s not American, that makes his Jessica Lynch comments even worse…I guess at 11 he was following U.S. foreign affairs very very closely.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Because in America it’s not about completing the mission, it’s about PR & elections.[/quote]

Sad but true.

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
I don’t understand how America doesn’t have an equivalent to Canada’s BFOR process. The BFOR (Bona Fide Occupational Requirements) process determines legitimate minimum requirements for a physical job, and if those happen to favour one sex over the other it’s too bad so sad.
[/quote]

This. If a woman is tough enough to do the job, let her do it. Yes, this obviously means very few of them will pass the tests, but that’s life. Give the tough ones a chance.
[/quote]

And then, take the qualified women who can’t pass the physical demands and put them in a position to utilize their strengths and capacities she does have.

A 300lbs guy that runs a 5.8 40 yard dash will make a shitty running back, but that same dude might make a badass lineman… You know what I mean?

“PC” is fucking this up. Reality and common sense would be so much more simple and effective. Some ego’s might get bruised, but really, people need to get over themselves.

Our standing military needs to be tighter, smaller and tougher with a stronger(Large) reserve. I have no issue with women on the front line or in special forces. But in no way should the standard be lowered to meet some social agenda.

I have personaly trained a couple women to pass the test for the Canadian military, and have seen the book and requirements. I’m sure this is quite diffewrent from elite forces, but for the general army they have a different test than the men. They lowered the required push ups , situps, and the weight, on the dead weight drag, and carry. I’m not sure how I feel about letting them in the elite forces, but I’m sure there are jobs within the elite forces that women could do as well or better than a man.

From the point of a sniper or tactical layout, women might be better. There is the call for alot of hand to hand combat with these forces, this is where I would have concerns. If I was on say a 4 man team that included a women, and we got into a tight spot, where there was hand to hand combat 4 on 4, I would have concerns for the whole team. Smarter people than me have already made the decision on this, so I imagine they have adressed these concerns.

We’ll have to wait and see if a women actually makes it through the training, if so I wish them luck.

[quote]sjoconn wrote:
We have had different experiences[/quote]

We very well might have as my experiences are pretty dated. I was enlisted in the Army and was only around men from basic training, through MOS school, through my unit. I was a Marine Officer and was only around women really in The Basic School (TBS). Maybe they will lower the standards for the schools but I’m not totally convinced that the Marine Corps would do that and I’m not sure that women would want that to happen.

But there’s definitely some combat roles that women could do that aren’t as physical like being a tanker or operating an Amtrak.

james