Women in Special Ops units - SEALS, Rangers, etc.

[nehalem256]

And yet I never thought that what happened was good, yet you replied to it as if I had. You're wrong.

You're irrelevant. I'm talking about what should happen. You're stuck on what has happened in similar situations... which is entirely irrelevant to what should happen.

What do you think should happen? Is it at all different from what I described? Answer the question(s) directly.

Sorry for thinking that military should make decisions based on what happens in reality instead of zsdersw fantasyland.

The reality is that the same liberal-feminists advocating for allowing women in SpecOps units will throw a fit if the "right" amount of women do not make it. This is what they do and why units such as the Marine Corps has lower standards for women.

So how about this. How about we have equal standards for women as men in the units they are currently serving in. And THEN we can talk about allowing women into elite units.

 

[chucky2]

Look, no one is seriously talking about "affirmative action" for the military... just removing bans that the requirements for the job make unnecessary. snip

It doesn't matter what you want, it matters what will happen. The pie in the sky theoretical world matters zero when the Reality results will be reduced standards and/or trainers forced to look the other way so some politically pushed and acceptable numbers of females are allowed to make it through. When that happens, not if, we will now have less than male capable females on these teams. We will now have to begin making this and that exception for these females while they're on those teams. Worse, these females will be deployed with these teams. When the single guy who hasn't been laid in 6 months is pressed up against the attractive physically fit female for 14 hours in a hidy hole, what do you think eventually will be the result?

Saying, Oh, well, he needs to learn to control his urges is beyond F'ing idiotic. What he needs is to not have a female needlessly there to satisfy whiners who want all in the world to be equal and fair, just because they want it to be equal and fair. He needs to have his mind 110% on the mission and nothing else. There are already enough distractions (fatigue, stress, problems at home, boredom, etc) that are acting on these guys, we don't need to add needless sexual distraction to the mix as well. We should be trying to remove stressors, not add them - needlessly.

You are trying to solve a problem (SO need of females) that doesn't exist. If it did, the military would already be making whatever exceptions they need to make to get the females they so desperately need in there. Why haven't they?

Chuck

P.S. I'm actually for females going through their own SO training, and having a small cadre of whatever branch SO that are female. I think it could be an advantage having an operator that could be used and who is a female, where you know you could trust her abilities on this likely to not need brute strength op, and where having a female would actually be advantageous for the mission. But as a general rule? To solve the PC concerns of whiners? Whhyy???

 

[Geosurface]

I'm talking about what should happen. You're stuck on what has happened

I want us to increase welfare benefits. Because what I think should happen as a result, is for people to use it as a leg up and get their life back on track.

I don't want to hear how welfare has killed any desire to better one's own situation in a lot of people in the past, and has contributed to the downfall of families in certain communities.

I'm not hung up on what DOES happen, I want to focus on what SHOULD happen.

I want you to give that hobo a dollar. I think what should happen is that he'll save it, and eventually have enough from generous people to go buy a suit at Good Will and go for a job interview.

I don't want to hear that you've seen that same hobo and a lot of others take those dollars and only save them enough to get a bottle of whiskey...

I'm not hung up on what DOES happen, I want to focus on what SHOULD happen.

I want my wish to come true when I throw this penny into that fountain. I don't want to hear that you've done it hundreds of times and your wishes never came true.

I'm not hung up on what DOES happen, I want to focus on what SHOULD happen.

 

[Mandres]

Look, no one is seriously talking about "affirmative action" for the military... just removing bans that the requirements for the job make unnecessary.

Are lots of women going to qualify for combat positions or get into these special-ops units? No, but again that's not the point.

The point is that the limits on who can serve in what capacity should be about physical/psychological fitness and ability (as well as skills aptitude), not gender or sexual orientation.

Do we need an official ban on women in combat roles? No, the physiological differences between men and women will tell us that most will not meet the requirements.

Do we need an official ban on women in special ops units? No, the physiological differences between men and women will tell us that most will not meet the requirements.

And again... I and most others are against changing standards/requirements to make any group more likely to pass.

If you don't change the standards, blanket bans on women or gays or whatever else are totally unnecessary, and that is the point.

What the fuck is so goddamn difficult for you idiots to understand about that? 🙄

I agree with you as a matter of principle, but there are a whole lot of logistical problems that come along with lifting that ban. Eventually, a woman will make it through the program and then all of a sudden you have to figure out a whole slew of issues from the decency of mixed-sex showering and defecating to the availability of female-specific medical/personal supplies and hundreds of other problems that have to be solved at great expense.

If the armed forces feel that that expense is not offset by a particular benefit then I have no problem trusting their judgment on the matter.

 

[Atreus21]

Why is anything and everything having to do with equality among various groups of people reduced/diminished to the notion of "PC" these days? That term used to principally refer to the policing of language, i.e. "African American" vs. "black." Now it seems that every time someone advocates equal opportunities for different classes of people they're being "PC." Even if the term has been broadened through usage, it remains a pejorative and is not really useful in a discussion related to this kind of topic. It strikes me as an intellectually dishonest attempt to trivialize an issue which is more weighty than mere semantics.

The topic of this thread is women serving in special forces/combat. Not whether we should change "serviceman" to "serviceperson" or some such thing.

Regarding the issue itself, I see some reasonable arguments on both sides. Haven't really made up my mind.

Somehow "PC" has been adapted to describe situations in which reality is expected to conform to ideals, and if it doesn't, we'll try to force it. Women and men aren't equal physically or psychologically, but they should be (according to the ideal). Blacks and whites aren't equally represented in all professions, but they should be (according to the ideal).

If employers aren't hiring enough blacks or some other minority because not enough fit the requirements, then we'll force the employers to meet a quota.

I suppose that's an example of the way I use the term "politically correct."

 

[Zebo]

Let them in won't matter if standards dont change and arnt watered down putting squads at risk - no women could make it through. Lara croft is nice and all but its just a movie. These guys could kill her in less than a 30 seconds with bare hands.

 

[momeNt]

Why do our soldiers have sexual organs anyways? Have they been proven to increase combat effectiveness?

 

[Elfear]

Having spoken with a few field-grade officers who have served in the sandbox a few times, their experience is that mixing men and women in a combat situation generally leads to problems.

Amy the cute E-3 hooks up with Dave while they're stationed over in Afghanistan. After a while Amy gets bored with Dave and decides to hook up with Ben who also happens to be Dave's senior NCO. One day Dave finds himself in a firefight hunkered down in a foxhole right next to Ben and not he's trying really hard not to think about him sleeping with Amy who, by the way, he's still in love with. Oh, and Ben is married or he will be until his wife finds out he couldn't keep it in his pants.

The officers I spoke with said that is not an uncommon scenario. Females in the units raise the drama to a whole new level and can take its toll on unit cohesion. Do soldiers need to have discipline? Absolutely. But as others have pointed out, why throw more distractions into a situation like that.

Don't get me wrong either about the competency of some of our female soldiers. I've had a chance to work with quite a few and there are some very dedicated and competent woman out there. But mixing men and women in combat units, especially Special Forces, will have a net negative effect IMO.

 

[nehalem256]

Why do our soldiers have sexual organs anyways? Have they been proven to increase combat effectiveness?

Clearly eunuchs is the way to go.

Perhaps we can just take unwanted(and poor) children and have them be raised by the state as eunuch soldiers?

 

[klinc]

We make laws to give special protection to woman yet we throw them into war and the situations where there is threats of violence against them.

 

[Ackmed]

Women generally should not be allowed in combat areas for several reasons. And certainly not in tight knit groups such as seals, spec ops, marsoc etc.

 

[zsdersw]

I want us to increase welfare benefits. Because what I think should happen as a result, is for people to use it as a leg up and get their life back on track.

I don't want to hear how welfare has killed any desire to better one's own situation in a lot of people in the past, and has contributed to the downfall of families in certain communities.

I'm not hung up on what DOES happen, I want to focus on what SHOULD happen.

I want you to give that hobo a dollar. I think what should happen is that he'll save it, and eventually have enough from generous people to go buy a suit at Good Will and go for a job interview.

I don't want to hear that you've seen that same hobo and a lot of others take those dollars and only save them enough to get a bottle of whiskey...

I'm not hung up on what DOES happen, I want to focus on what SHOULD happen.

I want my wish to come true when I throw this penny into that fountain. I don't want to hear that you've done it hundreds of times and your wishes never came true.

I'm not hung up on what DOES happen, I want to focus on what SHOULD happen.

What has happened is a softening of requirements. That should be undone.

If or when that happens, official bans on women serving in combat roles and special ops would become unnecessary and, as such, should be eliminated.

 

[zsdersw]

It doesn't matter what you want, it matters what will happen. The pie in the sky theoretical world matters zero when the Reality results will be reduced standards and/or trainers forced to look the other way so some politically pushed and acceptable numbers of females are allowed to make it through. When that happens, not if, we will now have less than male capable females on these teams. We will now have to begin making this and that exception for these females while they're on those teams. Worse, these females will be deployed with these teams. When the single guy who hasn't been laid in 6 months is pressed up against the attractive physically fit female for 14 hours in a hidy hole, what do you think eventually will be the result?

Yes, because chatting on a forum like this matters... and what should only be discussed is what has happened, not what would be better. 🙄

Saying, Oh, well, he needs to learn to control his urges is beyond F'ing idiotic. What he needs is to not have a female needlessly there to satisfy whiners who want all in the world to be equal and fair, just because they want it to be equal and fair. He needs to have his mind 110% on the mission and nothing else. There are already enough distractions (fatigue, stress, problems at home, boredom, etc) that are acting on these guys, we don't need to add needless sexual distraction to the mix as well. We should be trying to remove stressors, not add them - needlessly.

You are trying to solve a problem (SO need of females) that doesn't exist. If it did, the military would already be making whatever exceptions they need to make to get the females they so desperately need in there. Why haven't they?

Chuck

P.S. I'm actually for females going through their own SO training, and having a small cadre of whatever branch SO that are female. I think it could be an advantage having an operator that could be used and who is a female, where you know you could trust her abilities on this likely to not need brute strength op, and where having a female would actually be advantageous for the mission. But as a general rule? To solve the PC concerns of whiners? Whhyy???

You don't have to agree with me that male soldiers who are in control enough to not create drama serving in combat with women is better than coddling them by officially banning women from combat, but it ultimately doesn't matter. I'm not going to change what I believe to be right because of what you or anyone else thinks. You can be as wrong as you want.. I'll still think of you as wrong and nothing will change that.

 

[zsdersw]

I agree with you as a matter of principle, but there are a whole lot of logistical problems that come along with lifting that ban. Eventually, a woman will make it through the program and then all of a sudden you have to figure out a whole slew of issues from the decency of mixed-sex showering and defecating to the availability of female-specific medical/personal supplies and hundreds of other problems that have to be solved at great expense.

If the armed forces feel that that expense is not offset by a particular benefit then I have no problem trusting their judgment on the matter.

Logistical problems will always exist... and like all problems, they must either be solved or minimized to the point of insignificance.

 

[Nebor]

Having spoken with a few field-grade officers who have served in the sandbox a few times, their experience is that mixing men and women in a combat situation generally leads to problems.

Amy the cute E-3 hooks up with Dave while they're stationed over in Afghanistan. After a while Amy gets bored with Dave and decides to hook up with Ben who also happens to be Dave's senior NCO. One day Dave finds himself in a firefight hunkered down in a foxhole right next to Ben and not he's trying really hard not to think about him sleeping with Amy who, by the way, he's still in love with. Oh, and Ben is married or he will be until his wife finds out he couldn't keep it in his pants.

The officers I spoke with said that is not an uncommon scenario. Females in the units raise the drama to a whole new level and can take its toll on unit cohesion. Do soldiers need to have discipline? Absolutely. But as others have pointed out, why throw more distractions into a situation like that.

Don't get me wrong either about the competency of some of our female soldiers. I've had a chance to work with quite a few and there are some very dedicated and competent woman out there. But mixing men and women in combat units, especially Special Forces, will have a net negative effect IMO.

This. Except Amy would be the most chaste chick in Afghanistan if she were only hooking up with 2 dudes. In reality, over the course of her deployment, she's going to hook up with 10 dudes, of varying ranks. And if any of them give her any problems, she's going to file sexual harassment\assault charges and trigger an investigation, which just detracts from everything else we're trying to do over there. The net result is that she's more trouble in the combat zone than she's worth.

Putting her in a small team environment will just amplify the above problem.

 

[zsdersw]

Sorry for thinking that military should make decisions based on what happens in reality instead of zsdersw fantasyland.

Thinking that the standards shouldn't be lowered.. that they should be restored to what they were.. is not "fantasyland".

The reality is that the same liberal-feminists advocating for allowing women in SpecOps units will throw a fit if the "right" amount of women do not make it. This is what they do and why units such as the Marine Corps has lower standards for women.

They can throw a fit all they want, doesn't mean they should be listened to and we should do what they say.

So how about this. How about we have equal standards for women as men in the units they are currently serving in. And THEN we can talk about allowing women into elite units.

That is what I've been saying should happen.

 

[OutHouse]

Having spoken with a few field-grade officers who have served in the sandbox a few times, their experience is that mixing men and women in a combat situation generally leads to problems.

Amy the cute E-3 hooks up with Dave while they're stationed over in Afghanistan. After a while Amy gets bored with Dave and decides to hook up with Ben who also happens to be Dave's senior NCO. One day Dave finds himself in a firefight hunkered down in a foxhole right next to Ben and not he's trying really hard not to think about him sleeping with Amy who, by the way, he's still in love with. Oh, and Ben is married or he will be until his wife finds out he couldn't keep it in his pants.

The officers I spoke with said that is not an uncommon scenario. Females in the units raise the drama to a whole new level and can take its toll on unit cohesion. Do soldiers need to have discipline? Absolutely. But as others have pointed out, why throw more distractions into a situation like that.

Don't get me wrong either about the competency of some of our female soldiers. I've had a chance to work with quite a few and there are some very dedicated and competent woman out there. But mixing men and women in combat units, especially Special Forces, will have a net negative effect IMO.

your post is 100% spot on.

 

[OutHouse]

When I was in the Navy the amount of women deliberately getting pregnant to avoid deployment was well... the majority of them, I believe. It was a LOT.

I believe it, I saw it during Desert Shield/Storm

 

[nehalem256]

Thinking that the standards shouldn't be lowered.. that they should be restored to what they were.. is not "fantasyland".

Standards have been lowered. Thinking they will be restored anytime soon is fantasyland.

They can throw a fit all they want, doesn't mean they should be listened to and we should do what they say.

We already have.

That is what I've been saying should happen.

And it also won't be happening anytime soon.

 

[leper84]

Do we need an official ban on women in combat roles? No, the physiological differences between men and women will tell us that most will not meet the requirements.

Do we need an official ban on women in special ops units? No, the physiological differences between men and women will tell us that most will not meet the requirements.

Women are completely, absolutely, in every single way imaginable INFERIOR to men in combat roles.

The top 1% of women match your average man in the military.

Women do not have the instinct or mentality to serve in any ground combat role.

Logic may be frightening, but because women are NOT up to standard for the job, there NEEDS TO BE AN OUTRIGHT BAN. Why the hell do you think they have physical fitness and gt test standards for Rangers and SF? Those standards are an outright ban on fatasses and dumbasses. Why do you think Airborne, Air Assault, Rangers, SF, and more all have instant mental and physical disqualifiers? It is an outright ban on damaged soldiers.

Woman, all of them, every single one are not up to standard for these jobs. They are disqualified. There needs to be an outright, official ban.

 

[Geosurface]

There needs to be an outright, official ban.

You are correct Sir!

 

[piasabird]

Pink Army Jeeps would be nice.

 

[zsdersw]

Standards have been lowered. Thinking they will be restored anytime soon is fantasyland.

I never said they will be restored soon, I said they should be.

We already have.

So? That doesn't mean we always will or that nothing will ever change for the better. It may not change in your lifetime, but why should everyone else have such a short-sighted view of the future simply because you're old and bitter?

And it also won't be happening anytime soon.

Again, so?

You like to reply because you like to reply, not because you have anything to add.

 

[zsdersw]

Logic may be frightening, but because women are NOT up to standard for the job, there NEEDS TO BE AN OUTRIGHT BAN.

I agree, logic can be frightening to people like you who don't have a clue what it is.

Here's some actual logic:

Standards that are raised back to pre-PC era levels and are strictly enforced make outright bans unnecessary because the standards disqualify people who aren't able to do the task.

 

[nehalem256]

So? That doesn't mean we always will or that nothing will ever change for the better. It may not change in your lifetime, but why should everyone else have such a short-sighted view of the future simply because you're old and bitter?

How old do you think I am?