Women Joining the Ranks of Specials Ops

[quote]bdocksaints75 wrote:
Nothing but politics [/quote]

So you are telling me a social construct that had well meaning intentions has snow balled into a tyrannical, first amendment and common sense killing elephant in a room full of fine china that represents freedom to organize and express ourselves in a manner that promotes the most productive and effective use of ourselves and our resources?

Go figure.

God damn this thread is fun.

If they cared about the military they would do what’s best and makes them stronger not weaker which is what will happen with woman in combat mos and spec ops

[quote]bdocksaints75 wrote:
If they cared about the military they would do what’s best and makes them stronger not weaker which is what will happen with woman in combat mos and spec ops[/quote]

As we learned from this thread

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/hormone_levels_determine_your_politics

Conservative Women have more Test than Liberal Males. That takes almost have of the men out of the equation. The military has to find soldiers somewhere.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]bdocksaints75 wrote:
If they cared about the military they would do what’s best and makes them stronger not weaker which is what will happen with woman in combat mos and spec ops[/quote]

As we learned from this thread

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/hormone_levels_determine_your_politics

Conservative Women have more Test than Liberal Males. That takes almost have of the men out of the equation. The military has to find soldiers somewhere.[/quote]

Oh damn, if that’s true that might be the single coolest thing I’ve learned in the last couple weeks!

Bwahahahaha…I can’t wait to tell my slackjawed friends that hot chick over there on the end of the bar is more manly than they could hope to be.

Unfortunately it probably will never be proven. Sigh. Oh well, it was an amusing thought for a second. :stuck_out_tongue:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]bdocksaints75 wrote:
If they cared about the military they would do what’s best and makes them stronger not weaker which is what will happen with woman in combat mos and spec ops[/quote]

As we learned from this thread

Conservative Women have more Test than Liberal Males. That takes almost have of the men out of the equation. The military has to find soldiers somewhere.[/quote]
I think its more than just a physical issue

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
I’m sure they’ll have to pass the same training that the men do.

So… good luck I guess.[/quote]

HAHAHAH, no they wont. [/quote]

hahahaha, Well they Need to pass the EXACT same training if they are to be on the front lines and shoulder to shoulder with other rangers and seals doing the EXACT same shit.

Now having said that. Not sure if they will have many that can.

But I have no issue with them on the front lines doing things other than medical and driving. Not a hit against women in the service but they are not doing the same things as the men, but they are getting blown up and bombed in the same way.

As a 12B(Combat Engineer) in the US Army, currently serving going on 4th year in July, I could never see women truly being integrated into combat arms. I have served one deployment in Afghanistan, we were tasked as an infantry company so patrolling has an area I know very well. I was an M249 dismount so I usually had no issues keeping up just it would be quite painful for everyone walking 10+km 6 days a week especially for someone carrying 800 rounds.

I’m 5’4" 155-160 during deployment, my best lifts at he end of deployment were 330 bench, 420 squat and 440 DL to get an idea of my strength level then. I am not much bigger than USMCCDS423 and she was injured during deployment carrying the basic load. I was carrying 2 1/2 times the normal weigh of a riflemen counting all the ammo, weapon weight, and just other shit. We had a female medic dismount with us in Germany during our deployment field rotation prep. We went on 2 week dismounted missions and she only lasted 2 days. My platoon sgt was pissed and for good reason. She eventually got switched out but as a medic you need to be able to carry your aid bag and we had to carry that for her and she still even fell out. Not saying a woman can’t do it or keep up but a 120 pound woman in great shape will not be able to carry the same load as a 180 pound male in alright shape.

I just got stationed in Ft. Hood last year and it was my first time seeing a female PL in a combat engineer company. I was used to being in a sapper company where that isn’t allowed. She is bi-sexual and is a West-Point graduate so I thought she would be pretty professional. Boy was I wrong. She constantly would be flirty and joking around with soldiers. Hang out with them on her off time and just various things an officer isn’t supposed to do with lower enlisted. One being having sex with my friend which is a big no no. It didn’t turn into anything more then sex as he called it quits. If it would of been her way I don’t know what would have happened.

There are just too many issues that is why it should never happen. Women don’t belong in the jobs(not saying that they can’t) but it will do more harm then good. I have seen 3 cases of sexual assault not one of them being real. All being the woman trying to get back at the man for cheating, they broke up or her trying to cover her own ass. One got pregnant by another man down range, husband thought it was his, after she figured out it wasn’t she cried rape and we have him trying to kill the other soldier on our little JCOP which it nearly happened.

I have never agreed with it and never will.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Egg Head wrote:

Good idea? Will entrance requirements become more lax? Will new roles be created just so women can play a part? Is this just more political correctness fall out?[/quote]

Well somebody’s gotta cook for them. MRE’s suck.

All kidding aside, the russians found women to be very good snipers. I could see the capacity for that. Close combat, hell no. Close combat has no patience for political correctness. [/quote]

Snipers have to shit in a bag and leave nothing behind. Women menstruate and leave their scent all over the place - that’s the reason a usmc recruiter told me why women can’t be snipers.

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
I’m sure they’ll have to pass the same training that the men do.

So… good luck I guess.[/quote]

HAHAHAH, no they wont. [/quote]

“Further, the strenuous physical standards required for entry into special-forces jobs and combat-infantry assignments will not be lowered for anyone, they say.”[/quote]

You need to better discern when someone is feeding you a line of bullshit. If they lower the standards for men then women will be able to meet the same requirements as men. Which is essentially what this article implies.

The plan, expected to be announced today, calls for women and men to meet the same physical and mental standards to qualify for certain infantry, armor, commando and other front-line positions across the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.

This could involve a review and change of existing standards.

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
I’m sure they’ll have to pass the same training that the men do.

So… good luck I guess.[/quote]

HAHAHAH, no they wont. [/quote]

“Further, the strenuous physical standards required for entry into special-forces jobs and combat-infantry assignments will not be lowered for anyone, they say.”[/quote]

You need to better discern when someone is feeding you a line of bullshit. If they lower the standards for men then women will be able to meet the same requirements as men. Which is essentially what this article implies.

The plan, expected to be announced today, calls for women and men to meet the same physical and mental standards to qualify for certain infantry, armor, commando and other front-line positions across the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.

This could involve a review and change of existing standards.

[/quote]
I would be beyond disgusted if they lowered entry requirements.

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
I’m sure they’ll have to pass the same training that the men do.

So… good luck I guess.[/quote]

HAHAHAH, no they wont. [/quote]

hahahaha, Well they Need to pass the EXACT same training if they are to be on the front lines and shoulder to shoulder with other rangers and seals doing the EXACT same shit.

[/quote]

I’m sure that’s what it says on the nice press release.

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
I’m sure they’ll have to pass the same training that the men do.

So… good luck I guess.[/quote]

HAHAHAH, no they wont. [/quote]

“Further, the strenuous physical standards required for entry into special-forces jobs and combat-infantry assignments will not be lowered for anyone, they say.”[/quote]

You need to better discern when someone is feeding you a line of bullshit. If they lower the standards for men then women will be able to meet the same requirements as men. Which is essentially what this article implies.

The plan, expected to be announced today, calls for women and men to meet the same physical and mental standards to qualify for certain infantry, armor, commando and other front-line positions across the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.

This could involve a review and change of existing standards.

[/quote]
I would be beyond disgusted if they lowered entry requirements.[/quote]

Ya, especially since they are pretty low as it is. To enlist/commission anyway. SF requirements are far more strict, as they should be.

Seeing as how the VAST majority of healthy males are not cut-out for SF service, I think that it is extremely unlikely (but, not 100% impossible) that there is even an infinitessimally small number of females out there who could handle the indoc and then day to day operations of SF. However, I guess you never really know.

I once knew a guy who was in the South African Recce’s during the 1980s who filled me in a little on his experiences both in training and during the bush war in Angola (aside: if you want to really blow your mind on the limits of human endurance, do a little reading on the indoc of the “recces”; unreal shit). He said the guy in his intake group who excelled more than anyone and who also went on to be the most accomplished operator came in off the street from his job as a bus driver, so I guess it is possible some females out there may make the cut.

In many wars, frontline female soldiers have often proven themselves to be quite vicious, sometimes more-so than their male counterparts, and more than capable of handling the hardships of combat (female Soviet soldiers in WWII come immediately to mind). However, any instances of this that I can think of (WWII, Vietnam, etc.) were cases where a civilian population was involved in combatting a foreign occupying force. Maybe this lends an urgency to how aggressive combatants are and increases the ability to put up with hardship when they are literally fighting on their own soil.

What I think the main problem with this, as has already been stated, is that it seems to be a PC maneouver designed specifically with an end goal in sight, that end goal being to achieve a certain quota of female SF or frontline combat troops. With current standards intact, it is inconceivable that more than a small handful of females would ever qualify. Therefore, it does seem inevitable that the standards would then be seen as a problem and subsequently lowered to achieve this quota.

However, I think things would change quickly as soon as a significant number of female combat troops started being shipped home in bodybags. The general public seems to have a low tolerance for female war casualties. Cases in point are when the female soldier (Lynch? sorry I forget her name) was taken prisoner in Iraq and it became priority number one for the entire U.S. armed forces to recover her. Here in Canada, a few years ago, a female infantry Captain was KIA in Afghanistan when her FOB was overrun by Taliban.

The media coverage on it was tremendous as it was the first female Canadian combat death since WWII. There was a lot of hand-ringing and much “gnashing-of-teeth” by the Canadian population as to what a tragedy this was, despite the fact that by that time, I think close to 100 male Canadian soldiers had died in combat with very little coverage in Afghanistan. I think the military would quietly find ways to keep females out of combat to avoid such a public backlash.

^It’s the typical double standard society we live in.

[quote]CMdad wrote:
However, I think things would change quickly as soon as a significant number of female combat troops started being shipped home in bodybags.[/quote]
My God it would be so senseless though for it to have to come to that just for the sake of some political correctness campaign.

TBH normally its pretty rare empathize with feminists or the majority of their viewpoints, but a lot of the commentary in this thread suggests you think women are inferior people, thats kind of fucking weird tbh.The commentary isn’t that different from when white dudes were lamenting the dismissal of segregation in the army I bet. “darkies? In MY army? The negro man is inherently less intelligent, they will be a liability in any combat situation”

If the woman can do the exact same job to the exact same standard - then who gives a flying fuck?

It might be a problem if they were lowering the standards just to accommodate women, but its pretty clear they aren’t.

Most of the justifications for women not being in combat situations are some of the most straw-grabbing and dumb shit I’ve ever read. All the dudes in the infantry that I’ve talked, that actually were in combat, that were there with woman in afghanistan (and to that point, this whinging is fucking moot, women have and are in combat situations regardless whether some old fashioned dudes dont want to let them serve in infantry units or not), didn’t have a single bad thing to say about them. And no they didn’t give them preferential treatment just because they had a vagina, people arent fucking stupid, a wounded person is a wounded person.

And seriously? You’re worried about soldiers fucking eachother? For a bunch of dudes who waxed poetic about how much they loved 300 and how much it tickled your “real men” fancy, did you all forget spartans were notorious bum buddies? They gave each other the pound town every night, it hardly affected their capabilities as a fighting force now did it?

People who make it to SF are exceptional. So are olympic athletes, but I don’t see any of you dudes outworking female olympians just because they have a vagina now are you? Honestly why would you fucking care that the opportunity is being given to women to try for SF selection?

[quote]CMdad wrote:
However, I think things would change quickly as soon as a significant number of female combat troops started being shipped home in bodybags. The general public seems to have a low tolerance for female war casualties. Cases in point are when the female soldier (Lynch? sorry I forget her name) was taken prisoner in Iraq and it became priority number one for the entire U.S. armed forces to recover her. Here in Canada, a few years ago, a female infantry Captain was KIA in Afghanistan when her FOB was overrun by Taliban.

The media coverage on it was tremendous as it was the first female Canadian combat death since WWII. There was a lot of hand-ringing and much “gnashing-of-teeth” by the Canadian population as to what a tragedy this was, despite the fact that by that time, I think close to 100 male Canadian soldiers had died in combat with very little coverage in Afghanistan. I think the military would quietly find ways to keep females out of combat to avoid such a public backlash.[/quote]

This is dumb.

The media attention is generated because there are so few women in combat. If it was normal, people wouldn’t take exception to it.

And please, lynch was given the same treatment any captured American soldier was. Why aren’t you making an issue about any number of rescue operations for male soldiers?

You dudes are pretty misguided, you think this is some product of a feminization of society or some shit, when really its just caused by dogmatic thinking towards women. Again, if it were normal for women to be apart of combat units, nobody would fucking pay attention. As it stands, a woman in an infantry unit is exceptional, so the media is going to treat it exceptionally.

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
TBH normally its pretty rare empathize with feminists or the majority of their viewpoints, but a lot of the commentary in this thread suggests you think women are inferior people, thats kind of fucking weird tbh.The commentary isn’t that different from when white dudes were lamenting the dismissal of segregation in the army I bet. “darkies? In MY army? The negro man is inherently less intelligent, they will be a liability in any combat situation”

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
So… Men and Women are different, and it is blatantly obvious that the two sexes are better suited for differing roles that are equal in importance and actually make us stronger as a whole because we aren’t trying to fit a square peg in a round hole to appease some bullshit social construct that does nothing but make us less efficient and weaker?
[/quote][/quote]
If you’re trying to read in some kind of “women are inferior people” subtext that’s your problem. None of us think that. Leave your racist and sexist issues elsewhere rather than projecting them on us.

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
If the woman can do the exact same job to the exact same standard - then who gives a flying fuck?

[quote]T11 wrote:
We had a female medic dismount with us in Germany during our deployment field rotation prep. We went on 2 week dismounted missions and she only lasted 2 days. My platoon sgt was pissed and for good reason. She eventually got switched out but as a medic you need to be able to carry your aid bag and we had to carry that for her and she still even fell out. Not saying a woman can’t do it or keep up but a 120 pound woman in great shape will not be able to carry the same load as a 180 pound male in alright shape.[/quote][/quote]
Well them doing the exact same job is a concern isn’t it? Are you trying to biologically equate men and women?

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
It might be a problem if they were lowering the standards just to accommodate women, but its pretty clear they aren’t.

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
I’m sure they’ll have to pass the same training that the men do.

So… good luck I guess.[/quote]

HAHAHAH, no they wont. [/quote]

“Further, the strenuous physical standards required for entry into special-forces jobs and combat-infantry assignments will not be lowered for anyone, they say.”[/quote]

You need to better discern when someone is feeding you a line of bullshit. If they lower the standards for men then women will be able to meet the same requirements as men. Which is essentially what this article implies.

The plan, expected to be announced today, calls for women and men to meet the same physical and mental standards to qualify for certain infantry, armor, commando and other front-line positions across the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.

This could involve a review and change of existing standards.
[/quote][/quote]
It’s clear yet, and it’s not unheard of. This is simply another concern. Hopefully you’re right and the standards are not lowered for anyone.

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Most of the justifications for women not being in combat situations are some of the most straw-grabbing and dumb shit I’ve ever read. All the dudes in the infantry that I’ve talked, that actually were in combat, that were there with woman in afghanistan (and to that point, this whinging is fucking moot, women have and are in combat situations regardless whether some old fashioned dudes dont want to let them serve in infantry units or not), didn’t have a single bad thing to say about them. And no they didn’t give them preferential treatment just because they had a vagina, people arent fucking stupid, a wounded person is a wounded person.
[/quote]
Well maybe you should get them to post their experiences here, because the combat veterans in the thread so far disagree.

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
And seriously? You’re worried about soldiers fucking eachother? For a bunch of dudes who waxed poetic about how much they loved 300 and how much it tickled your “real men” fancy, did you all forget spartans were notorious bum buddies? They gave each other the pound town every night, it hardly affected their capabilities as a fighting force now did it?

I just got stationed in Ft. Hood last year and it was my first time seeing a female PL in a combat engineer company. I was used to being in a sapper company where that isn’t allowed. She is bi-sexual and is a West-Point graduate so I thought she would be pretty professional. Boy was I wrong. She constantly would be flirty and joking around with soldiers. Hang out with them on her off time and just various things an officer isn’t supposed to do with lower enlisted. One being having sex with my friend which is a big no no. It didn’t turn into anything more then sex as he called it quits. If it would of been her way I don’t know what would have happened.

[quote]T11 wrote:
There are just too many issues that is why it should never happen. Women don’t belong in the jobs(not saying that they can’t) but it will do more harm then good. I have seen 3 cases of sexual assault not one of them being real. All being the woman trying to get back at the man for cheating, they broke up or her trying to cover her own ass. One got pregnant by another man down range, husband thought it was his, after she figured out it wasn’t she cried rape and we have him trying to kill the other soldier on our little JCOP which it nearly happened. [/quote][/quote]
Yes that is a concern too. 300 was a weird fictional movie, and the Spartans have been gone for hundreds of years. It is a real life concern in the modern world (which is what is relevant).

[quote]T11 wrote:
People who make it to SF are exceptional. So are olympic athletes, but I don’t see any of you dudes outworking female olympians just because they have a vagina now are you? Honestly why would you fucking care that the opportunity is being given to women to try for SF selection?[/quote]
Lol.

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
TBH normally its pretty rare empathize with feminists or the majority of their viewpoints, but a lot of the commentary in this thread suggests you think women are inferior people, thats kind of fucking weird tbh.The commentary isn’t that different from when white dudes were lamenting the dismissal of segregation in the army I bet. “darkies? In MY army? The negro man is inherently less intelligent, they will be a liability in any combat situation”

If the woman can do the exact same job to the exact same standard - then who gives a flying fuck?

It might be a problem if they were lowering the standards just to accommodate women, but its pretty clear they aren’t.

Most of the justifications for women not being in combat situations are some of the most straw-grabbing and dumb shit I’ve ever read. All the dudes in the infantry that I’ve talked, that actually were in combat, that were there with woman in afghanistan (and to that point, this whinging is fucking moot, women have and are in combat situations regardless whether some old fashioned dudes dont want to let them serve in infantry units or not), didn’t have a single bad thing to say about them. And no they didn’t give them preferential treatment just because they had a vagina, people arent fucking stupid, a wounded person is a wounded person.

And seriously? You’re worried about soldiers fucking eachother? For a bunch of dudes who waxed poetic about how much they loved 300 and how much it tickled your “real men” fancy, did you all forget spartans were notorious bum buddies? They gave each other the pound town every night, it hardly affected their capabilities as a fighting force now did it?

People who make it to SF are exceptional. So are olympic athletes, but I don’t see any of you dudes outworking female olympians just because they have a vagina now are you? Honestly why would you fucking care that the opportunity is being given to women to try for SF selection?[/quote]

Think about a unit like SF, Special Forces Assessment and Selection was watered down to accommodate men that couldn’t pass. The length of it’s shortened and a ruck march was eliminated. What’s going to happen when there’s pressure to have more women in such a unit but they can’t meet the physical standards? It’ll be watered down.

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
TBH normally its pretty rare empathize with feminists or the majority of their viewpoints, but a lot of the commentary in this thread suggests you think women are inferior people, thats kind of fucking weird tbh.The commentary isn’t that different from when white dudes were lamenting the dismissal of segregation in the army I bet. “darkies? In MY army? The negro man is inherently less intelligent, they will be a liability in any combat situation”
[/quote]

I figured a response like yours was coming. I for one am not saying women are inferior. However, there are certain things men are better at. This is one of those things. Men are stronger, faster, etc… I’m not being a dick, it’s biology.

It’s always the same BS response. You just think women are inferior. It’s called science…

Your racisim claim is pretty laughable and not woth addressing further.

They can’t.

They will.

Women until recently have only serviced in secondary roles that may or may not involve them in combat. That is much different than their sole job being combat.

What does this rambling non-sense have to do with anything?

[quote]
People who make it to SF are exceptional. So are olympic athletes, but I don’t see any of you dudes outworking female olympians just because they have a vagina now are you? Honestly why would you fucking care that the opportunity is being given to women to try for SF selection?[/quote]

Get the fuck out of here dude, SF is not the Olympics.

I care, personally, because I am 100% sure standards will be lowered/women will be pushed through to make some politician look good, which will lead to unnecessary deaths. Unit cohesion will be affected, rape case will go up (most of them BS), and a myriad of other problems will occur.

Spend sometime in the military and then tell me I’m wrong.