PDA

View Full Version : USAF Opens Spec Ops to Women



Matt
06-19-2013, 01:38 PM
By Jan. 1, 2016, the Air Force will open seven remaining career fields that are currently unavailable to women. The career fields are: 13CX (special tactics officer), 13DX (combat rescue officer), 15WXC (special operations weather officer), 1C2X (combat control team), 1C4X (tactical air control party), 1T2X (pararescue) and 1W0X2 (special operations weather enlisted). More details on the announcement are available here: http://1.usa.gov/16gyDUm (http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2F1.usa.gov%2F16gyDUm&h=uAQEJSsS4&s=1)
. cc: Department of Defense (DOD) (https://www.facebook.com/DeptofDefense?directed_target_id=0)

This is a very bad idea. I'm all for gender equality but the quality of our special forces should not be sacrificed for pop culture. I am only for this if there is no drop in standards. The Spec Ops already have a 90% drop out rate on average. Any women who joins should be able to keep up with the men who make it, with no favoritism, and no hand me outs. Most of the USAF community is now blasting the USAF Facebook over this but we all know they couldn't give two shits what any of us think.

The XL
06-19-2013, 01:42 PM
I think any women who can pass the physical and mental tests should be allowed to join.

However, I do not believe the standards should be dropped to allow more women to qualify.

Guest
06-19-2013, 01:55 PM
I think any women who can pass the physical and mental tests should be allowed to join.

However, I do not believe the standards should be dropped to allow more women to qualify.

^^This. If not it will get people killed.

Gemini
06-19-2013, 02:08 PM
This is...a bad plan.

Standards will be dropped, people will die.

Let war be the province of men. Those of the fairer sex shouldn't have to be bothered with such pursuits until critical utility necessitates it.

Albert Reincarnated
06-19-2013, 02:44 PM
Few women will qualify. Those who do run the risk of being isolated in a Band of Brothers. In order to survive the women who become Special Operators will have to become men...figuratively speaking.

Sinestro/Green Arrow
06-19-2013, 03:16 PM
I'll be called sexist, but I don't care: I don't like the idea of women fighting in war.

Matt
06-19-2013, 03:40 PM
Few women will qualify. Those who do run the risk of being isolated in a Band of Brothers. In order to survive the women who become Special Operators will have to become men...figuratively speaking.

Very few men qualify. The career fields have a 90% drop out rate (unfortunately they all get sent to medical and we have to deal with their macho asses but I digress...). I don't see how many if any women are going to be able to keep up. I don't think I could do some of the stuff they do. You know in SERE training they make you raise a baby rabbit...for 12 weeks....and do everything with it.....and then your final test is to be in an survival environment with no food where you have to kill and eat your rabbit. I could not do it. Thank God I am in the medical corps.

The XL
06-20-2013, 06:27 PM
Very few men qualify. The career fields have a 90% drop out rate (unfortunately they all get sent to medical and we have to deal with their macho asses but I digress...). I don't see how many if any women are going to be able to keep up. I don't think I could do some of the stuff they do. You know in SERE training they make you raise a baby rabbit...for 12 weeks....and do everything with it.....and then your final test is to be in an survival environment with no food where you have to kill and eat your rabbit. I could not do it. Thank God I am in the medical corps.

I can see why some of these guys go batshit crazy. What a ruthless thing to force someone to do.

These guys are guinea pigs and nothing more.

Matt
06-20-2013, 06:44 PM
I can see why some of these guys go batshit crazy. What a ruthless thing to force someone to do.

These guys are guinea pigs and nothing more.

No, they're the result of very stringent and regimented training that makes them effective to the job that they will be doing. The special forces goes out on missions the US public (or most the military) will never ever even know about. These guys are the badasses of the military. If you can't make that training...and they get you go ahead anyway...you will crack. You will either get yourself or someone dead. So don't diss the training.

The XL
06-22-2013, 01:45 PM
No, they're the result of very stringent and regimented training that makes them effective to the job that they will be doing. The special forces goes out on missions the US public (or most the military) will never ever even know about. These guys are the badasses of the military. If you can't make that training...and they get you go ahead anyway...you will crack. You will either get yourself or someone dead. So don't diss the training.

That's nice and all, but they're still guinea pigs.

Matt
06-22-2013, 06:08 PM
That's nice and all, but they're still guinea pigs.

Explain.

Pooltablerepairman
10-28-2013, 09:19 AM
Very few men qualify. The career fields have a 90% drop out rate (unfortunately they all get sent to medical and we have to deal with their macho asses but I digress...). I don't see how many if any women are going to be able to keep up. I don't think I could do some of the stuff they do. You know in SERE training they make you raise a baby rabbit...for 12 weeks....and do everything with it.....and then your final test is to be in an survival environment with no food where you have to kill and eat your rabbit. I could not do it. Thank God I am in the medical corps.

Who told you that nonsense?

Matt
10-28-2013, 09:20 AM
Who told you that nonsense?

The SERE's...and it's common knowledge...a lot of people go to SERE school you know...

I don't understand why we just resuscitated a thread that has been dead since last JUNE :lame:

Pooltablerepairman
10-28-2013, 09:32 AM
The SERE's...and it's common knowledge...a lot of people go to SERE school you know...

Yeah, a lot of people do. I happen to be one of them. I attended the Air Force Course at Fairchild, the Navy Course at Brunswick and the Services' most respected and absolute best course, the Army's Level C (High Risk) Course at Camp Mackall.

You may be asked to kill a rabbit or chicken, but you are most definitely NOT given a rabbit to raise for 12 weeks before killing it.


I don't understand why we just resuscitated a thread that has been dead since last JUNE :lame:

It could be because I just found it and chose to post on it.

Max Rockatansky
10-28-2013, 09:50 AM
I think any women who can pass the physical and mental tests should be allowed to join.

However, I do not believe the standards should be dropped to allow more women to qualify.

Agreed which was a mistake done in the past and resulted in people getting killed such as Navy Lieutenant K. Hultgreen when she crashed her F-14 due to pilot error following an engine failure.

http://www.cmrlink.org/articles/print/34453?author=0&image=0&domain=0

That said, qualified women can be a strong asset to any military operation including SpecOps. They can get into places men cannot. They have skill sets men lack.

Max Rockatansky
10-28-2013, 09:53 AM
Very few men qualify. The career fields have a 90% drop out rate (unfortunately they all get sent to medical and we have to deal with their macho asses but I digress...). I don't see how many if any women are going to be able to keep up. I don't think I could do some of the stuff they do. You know in SERE training they make you raise a baby rabbit...for 12 weeks....and do everything with it.....and then your final test is to be in an survival environment with no food where you have to kill and eat your rabbit. I could not do it. Thank God I am in the medical corps.

SERE school doesn't last 12 weeks. It only lasted a week when I was in and I seriously doubt it's been turned into 3 months.

I do recall seeing an awesome video on how to kill and skin a rabbit. Some of my classmates were city-folk so the only meat they've ever had came with a plastic wrapper. The Captain in the video is seen stroking a "white bunny rabbit" and talking about surviving in the wild, then he quickly picks up a Ka-Bar and uses the butt of it to smash the rabbit's skull with a few blows. Half the class, including me, busted out laughing while sat shocked with wide-open mouths.

Pooltablerepairman
10-28-2013, 10:09 AM
Agreed which was a mistake done in the past and resulted in people getting killed such as Navy Lieutenant K. Hultgreen when she crashed her F-14 due to pilot error following an engine failure.

http://www.cmrlink.org/articles/print/34453?author=0&image=0&domain=0

That said, qualified women can be a strong asset to any military operation including SpecOps. They can get into places men cannot. They have skill sets men lack.

You have a valid point, but it really is kind of a mixed bag. Women, because of their physiology, are able to withstand higher G forces than men, and tend to have faster reaction times than men. This would seem to make them better suited for roles such as fighter pilots for example. However, that same physiology means they are going to lack the physical strength and endurance of men, something that is critical to Special Operations Forces.

Your point about women being able to get into places men cannot is a good one, but I can see that as being more useful to the intelligence services than to the Special Operations Command. I could easily see women working alongside Operators on certain specific types of missions, but not as an integral part of an Alpha Detachment.

Some years ago, under pressure from the Department of Defense, the Army admitted a woman to The SFQC. She did fine academically, but her body did not take long to break down under the physical stresses of the training. Department of the Army, under direction from DoD told the Phase 1 Committee that she WOULD graduate, whereupon to a man, the cadre walked into the puzzle palace and requested reassignment.

The concern you have about lowering requirements, specifically the physical requirements, is a valid one. We have already seen it happen and it would no doubt happen again. Of course, it has also happened with male soldiers. DA once implemented a program they called Ranger 2000, the goal of which was to graduate 2000 Rangers a year from the Ranger Course. In order to do that, standards for completion had to be lowered.

It did not last long.

Gemini
10-28-2013, 06:31 PM
I think some people have seen GI Jane too much, while remembering the warm, fuzzy, triumphant feminist parts and forgetting the important parts too.

Max Rockatansky
10-28-2013, 06:57 PM
I think some people have seen GI Jane too much, while remembering the warm, fuzzy, triumphant feminist parts and forgetting the important parts too.


I've never seen "GI Jane" but have trained plenty of women in the military. Same goes for different races and cultures. To me, it's all about performance and results. Either the student successfully completes the task or they don't. It is that simple.

Sinestro/Green Arrow
10-28-2013, 06:59 PM
Call me a misogynist or whatever, but I maintain my position on this. I don't want women in the military. For me, it has nothing to do with qualifications or capability, and has everything to do with preservation of women.

So shoot me.

Gemini
10-28-2013, 07:04 PM
I've never seen "GI Jane" but have trained plenty of women in the military. Same goes for different races and cultures. To me, it's all about performance and results. Either the student successfully completes the task or they don't. It is that simple.

Women in military = bad results.

Should be a no brainer then.

Max Rockatansky
10-28-2013, 07:05 PM
Women in military = bad results.

Disagreed.

Gemini
10-28-2013, 07:06 PM
Disagreed.

Suits me.

Max Rockatansky
10-28-2013, 07:08 PM
Call me a misogynist or whatever, but I maintain my position on this. I don't want women in the military. For me, it has nothing to do with qualifications or capability, and has everything to do with preservation of women.

So shoot me.

Some people are racists, some are misogynists. I'm more curious about why people want to control others based on gender, race, nationality, whatever.

My theory is that it is cultural, not genetic. Men and women are different because of genetics, but subjugating one over the other is cultural.

Gemini
10-28-2013, 07:13 PM
Some people are racists, some are misogynists. I'm more curious about why people want to control others based on gender, race, nationality, whatever.

My theory is that it is cultural, not genetic. Men and women are different because of genetics, but subjugating one over the other is cultural.

What about preserving the lives of women is subjugating again?

It has been proven time and time again they do not make a man's equivalent in combat. Even in the modern era of rifles. Whether it be physical weakness, bone density, or mental fortitude. The cannot consistently compete with men. Ever.

And we want to let females into the special forces? Brilliant...

If they could, we'd have a co-ed NFL. But as it stands we don't - and for good reason. Women are the prize of war, not the weapon to fight it. They create the soldiers, not fight them. A woman's nature is divine as it is, no sense in diluting it or cheapening it by acting contradictory to it.

Sinestro/Green Arrow
10-28-2013, 07:18 PM
Some people are racists, some are misogynists. I'm more curious about why people want to control others based on gender, race, nationality, whatever.

My theory is that it is cultural, not genetic. Men and women are different because of genetics, but subjugating one over the other is cultural.

I don't want to control them. I won't prohibit them from joining the military. I will, however, strongly advise against it.

Max Rockatansky
10-28-2013, 07:24 PM
I don't want to control them. I won't prohibit them from joining the military. I will, however, strongly advise against it.

Why?

Max Rockatansky
10-28-2013, 07:25 PM
What about preserving the lives of women is subjugating again?

Why is preserving the lives of women more important than preserving the lives of men?

Sinestro/Green Arrow
10-28-2013, 07:28 PM
Why?

I think it's a bad idea.

Why do I think it's a bad idea?

Because I was raised to protect women from unnecessary harm. There's no need for women to join the military. Thus, unnecessary harm.

Gemini
10-28-2013, 07:31 PM
Why is preserving the lives of women more important than preserving the lives of men?

From a darwinian point of view, men are simply more expendable. But both are equally valuable when war is not being waged.

And from a practicality standpoint, men are just better at is in every way.

Max Rockatansky
10-28-2013, 07:47 PM
From a darwinian point of view, men are simply more expendable. But both are equally valuable when war is not being waged.

And from a practicality standpoint, men are just better at is in every way.

When it was just clubs and fighting over waterholes, you are correct. Sadly for knuckle-draggers, times have changed in the last few thousand years. When it only takes 1-3 pounds to pull a trigger, the odds are changed when it comes to brute force meeting brute force.

Anyone who is advocating that a woman has the same upper body strength as a man is an idiot. Likewise, anyone who is advocating that only upper body strength is a requirement to be in Special Operations is lacking both vision and intelligence.

Max Rockatansky
10-28-2013, 07:48 PM
I think it's a bad idea.

Why do I think it's a bad idea?

Because I was raised to protect women from unnecessary harm. There's no need for women to join the military. Thus, unnecessary harm.

So what makes you any different from those who think blacks are savages and gays are deviants? That's how they were raised, so it must be okay. Do you agree? If not, why?

Gemini
10-28-2013, 07:51 PM
When it was just clubs and fighting over waterholes, you are correct. Sadly for knuckle-draggers, times have changed in the last few thousand years. When it only takes 1-3 pounds to pull a trigger, the odds are changed when it comes to brute force meeting brute force.

Anyone who is advocating that a woman has the same upper body strength as a man is an idiot. Likewise, anyone who is advocating that only upper body strength is a requirement to be in Special Operations is lacking both vision and intelligence.

Not the only reasons, but certainly compelling ones that should not be overlooked.

Sinestro/Green Arrow
10-28-2013, 07:57 PM
So what makes you any different from those who think blacks are savages and gays are deviants? That's how they were raised, so it must be okay. Do you agree? If not, why?

No, I do not agree at all, and quite frankly I find your argument absurd.

Max Rockatansky
10-28-2013, 08:04 PM
Not the only reasons, but certainly compelling ones that should not be overlooked.

As a Marine, you know that people should be chosen for missions based on ability, not political correctness. It's not rocket science to see that the short, skinny guy is a scout or goes point while the big, heavy guy carries the M-60.

Why the prejudice against a Marine who has a skill useful to the mission simply because that Marine is female?

Max Rockatansky
10-28-2013, 08:05 PM
No, I do not agree at all, and quite frankly I find your argument absurd.

If you were able to verbalize why you think my argument was absurd, then I'd have a reason to debate the issue with you. Since you do not, I guess we're done here.

Sinestro/Green Arrow
10-28-2013, 08:07 PM
If you were able to verbalize why you think my argument was absurd, then I'd have a reason to debate the issue with you. Since you do not, I guess we're done here.

What would be the point? It's a strawman, and a ridiculous one at that. It's also a false equivalency. Until you can display how racism and homophobia are at all comparative to protecting women from harm, you have no point for me to debate.

Gemini
10-28-2013, 08:12 PM
As a Marine, you know that people should be chosen for missions based on ability, not political correctness. It's not rocket science to see that the short, skinny guy is a scout or goes point while the big, heavy guy carries the M-60.

Correct. But everybody should be able to hump the M-60 if needed. Or the TOW missiles...etc. Women simply can't do it reliably. Kind of a bummer on a battlefield wouldn't you say?



Why the prejudice against a Marine who has a skill useful to the mission simply because that Marine is female?

Because her presence compromises the mission at hand due to her affect on the males around her. Her presence is a distraction ranging to sexual attraction to wondering if she will be able to do her part. This anxiety on the male's part is not something he should have to worry about. They have enough of this already with the males present.

This might not be of concern to you, but most the military life is not actually on the battlefield, and women's presence is systematically destroying it with unnecessary complications because of the social dynamic they bring to the table. They are the most effective form of morale destruction. They weaken a war fighting machine.

If women really want to serve their country and help the military, tell them to have strong sons, raise them properly, and don't discourage them from military service.

But at this point, I can't see why anybody would want their sons or their daughters going into the service.

Max Rockatansky
10-28-2013, 08:17 PM
What would be the point? It's a strawman, and a ridiculous one at that. It's also a false equivalency. Until you can display how racism and homophobia are at all comparative to protecting women from harm, you have no point for me to debate.

Wow. You threw a lot of buzzwords out there without saying anything. You accused me of making a straw man argument, making a false equivalency and both false racial and homophobic arguments.

What you failed to do is explain why you think women can't serve in the military, including Special Operations. Yeah, yeah, we know women don't have the same physical strength as men, but that isn't always a necessity to a mission.

Question, Sinestro, were you ever in the military and, if so, for how long? Shouldn't those with experience in the matter be the ones making the decisions?

thedarkdaimon
10-28-2013, 08:20 PM
I have always believed that each person be judged on his or her own merit and not any preconceived notions about one's gender, race, sexual preference, religion or politics. Are men stronger on average than women? Of course, but that doesn't mean that a woman can't be. I agree with XL, as long as someone can pass the requirements and tests, there is no reason they shouldn't be allowed. The idea that women are the "fairer" sex and thus should be kept out of combat is so outdated it is silly.

Gemini
10-28-2013, 08:22 PM
Shouldn't those with experience in the matter be the ones making the decisions?

Than why is congress involved at all? Or the president for that matter?

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2013/09/Veterans-and-Congress_2.png
Source (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/04/members-of-congress-have-little-direct-military-experience/).

Sinestro/Green Arrow
10-28-2013, 08:22 PM
Wow. You threw a lot of buzzwords out there without saying anything. You accused me of making a straw man argument, making a false equivalency and both false racial and homophobic arguments.

No, wrong. I explained the false equivalency and strawman. It was your argument that my views are somehow comparable to those of a racist or a homophobe.


What you failed to do is explain why you think women can't serve in the military, including Special Operations. Yeah, yeah, we know women don't have the same physical strength as men, but that isn't always a necessity to a mission.

I never said they couldn't. I said they shouldn't.


Question, @Sinestro (http://thepoliticsforums.com/member.php?u=94), were you ever in the military and, if so, for how long? Shouldn't those with experience in the matter be the ones making the decisions?

No, I've never been in the military, and no, I don't agree. I have a right to my opinion on the matter, and to see my opinion through.

Gemini
10-28-2013, 08:24 PM
I have always believed that each person be judged on his or her own merit and not any preconceived notions about one's gender, race, sexual preference, religion or politics. Are men stronger on average than women? Of course, but that doesn't mean that a woman can't be. I agree with XL, as long as someone can pass the requirements and tests, there is no reason they shouldn't be allowed. The idea that women are the "fairer" sex and thus should be kept out of combat is so outdated it is silly.

Call it outdated, call it silly, but it is damn practical.

Max Rockatansky
10-28-2013, 08:27 PM
Than why is congress involved at all? Or the president for that matter?

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2013/09/Veterans-and-Congress_2.png
Source (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/04/members-of-congress-have-little-direct-military-experience/).

My idea of reinstituting the draft was resoundingly blasted. Everyone hated it, both Left and Right alike.

Max Rockatansky
10-28-2013, 08:29 PM
No, wrong. I explained the false equivalency and strawman. It was your argument that my views are somehow comparable to those of a racist or a homophobe.

Aren't they? Why are your prejudices superior to those of others?

Sinestro/Green Arrow
10-28-2013, 08:34 PM
Aren't they? Why are your prejudices superior to those of others?

Explain how it's a prejudice to want to protect women.

Gemini
10-28-2013, 08:37 PM
My idea of reinstituting the draft was resoundingly blasted. Everyone hated it, both Left and Right alike.

Probably because it is a bad idea. If you have to force someone at gun point to fight in a war, it is a war you probably shouldn't be fighting in.

thedarkdaimon
10-28-2013, 08:37 PM
Call it outdated, call it silly, but it is damn practical.

How is it practical? With a 90% dropout rate shouldn't we try to get as many qualified applicants as possible?

Gemini
10-28-2013, 08:44 PM
How is it practical? With a 90% dropout rate shouldn't we try to get as many qualified applicants as possible?

Economically it would not be practical. For special forces, it is extremely high for the males alone, now you want to weed out a bunch of females who will certainly have a higher attrition rate? House them in a separate barracks too?

All this stuff has a price tag on it.

Prices aside. It take more time to get a woman capable than it does a man. And even so, say you do get a woman who can do the job good enough, her ability to do the physical aspects of the job will always be second rate to the men she serves along side.

Every way you slice it, it is a bad idea with bad results.

Perianne
10-28-2013, 08:53 PM
Yes, I consider myself tough, but only against another woman. Doesn't nature teach us that God did not make women to fight? I have yet to see a woman who does not cry at times. We are soft, we are little, we are weak. Asking women to be manly enough to fight seems no different than asking men to be feminine. It goes against nature.

The XL
10-28-2013, 09:00 PM
Everyone is worried about the physical conditioning, strength, and whatnot of these women, but it's not like every dude is a beast either. I've trained martial arts with ex military, and frankly, a lot of them aren't all that, by any standard. A lot of it seems to be bodyweight stuff and mental toughness. I'm sure their are a decent amount of women who could qualify.

Sinestro/Green Arrow
10-28-2013, 09:03 PM
Everyone is worried about the physical conditioning, strength, and whatnot of these women, but it's not like every dude is a beast either. I've trained martial arts with ex military, and frankly, a lot of them aren't all that, by any standard. A lot of it seems to be bodyweight stuff and mental toughness. I'm sure their are a decent amount of women who could qualify.

I just don't think it's a good idea to put women in a position where they will be caused unnecessary harm. If they want to enlist, I won't stop them, but I'll advise against it.

Of course, I also advise men against enlisting, so, there's that.

Gemini
10-28-2013, 09:05 PM
Everyone is worried about the physical conditioning, strength, and whatnot of these women, but it's not like every dude is a beast either. I've trained martial arts with ex military, and frankly, a lot of them aren't all that, by any standard.

Ex-military is way different than active special forces.

If you can easily own an active duty recon marine, I'd give you mad props. The average grunt is still not a walk in the park on active duty in the marines anyways. Out of service though? Anybody's guess.



A lot of it seems to be bodyweight stuff and mental toughness. I'm sure their are a decent amount of women who could qualify.

You're talking about a fraction of a fraction here. Tiny odds with current standards.

The XL
10-28-2013, 09:07 PM
I just don't think it's a good idea to put women in a position where they will be caused unnecessary harm. If they want to enlist, I won't stop them, but I'll advise against it.

Of course, I also advise men against enlisting, so, there's that.

So why single out women in the argument?

thedarkdaimon
10-28-2013, 09:07 PM
Economically it would not be practical. For special forces, it is extremely high for the males alone, now you want to weed out a bunch of females who will certainly have a higher attrition rate? House them in a separate barracks too?

All this stuff has a price tag on it.

Prices aside. It take more time to get a woman capable than it does a man. And even so, say you do get a woman who can do the job good enough, her ability to do the physical aspects of the job will always be second rate to the men she serves along side.

Every way you slice it, it is a bad idea with bad results.

Now see, you are judging a woman because she is a woman, not because what she can do. If a woman can do everything a man can, shouldn't she be allowed all the opportunities a man has?

Now I don't know how candidates are chosen to try out for the special forces, but I have a feeling that it is not open to everyone in the first place. I've also never understood why there has to be separate barracks. What? Adult men and women have never seen the opposite sex naked?

The XL
10-28-2013, 09:10 PM
Ex-military is way different than active special forces.

If you can easily own an active duty recon marine, I'd give you mad props. The average grunt is still not a walk in the park on active duty in the marines anyways. Out of service though? Anybody's guess.



You're talking about a fraction of a fraction here. Tiny odds with current standards.

I used to train with an ex marine. He was a decent boxer, and competed on the amateur circuit, but his grappling and overall strength was meh. He was about 190 lbs, so about the same size as me. I've trained with other ex military and their skill levels varied, but their were ones that were pretty unimpressive. Which lead me to the conclusion that it's mostly mental toughness mixed in with some machismo and brainwashing. Dudes are tough, but they all aren't professional or even amateur caliber athletes.

But I see a lot of these military cats walking around at 160lbs and under. I mean, it's easy to smoke the physical fitness tests if you're in decent shape and small. Bodyweight stuff is easier the lighter you are.

Gemini
10-28-2013, 09:13 PM
Now see, you are judging a woman because she is a woman, not because what she can do. If a woman can do everything a man can, shouldn't she be allowed all the opportunities a man has?

If a women could do everything men could - reliably, I might* entertain the idea. But as it stands, the bulk of them simply cannot do it. And those that are in the service cause all manner of havoc by just being in garrison.

*tiny chance in hell.



Now I don't know how candidates are chosen to try out for the special forces, but I have a feeling that it is not open to everyone in the first place. I've also never understood why there has to be separate barracks. What? Adult men and women have never seen the opposite sex naked?

Too much fail to address.

Simply put, do not mix business with pleasure. It is a well known fact that the best and brightest do not enter the military often. The geniuses the military has, it got by sheer dumb luck.

Sinestro/Green Arrow
10-28-2013, 09:14 PM
So why single out women in the argument?

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the topic is about women in the military.

The XL
10-28-2013, 09:16 PM
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the topic is about women in the military.

Right, but the way you were putting it, it seemed like you were specifically against women only in the military.

Gemini
10-28-2013, 09:23 PM
I used to train with an ex marine. He was a decent boxer, and competed on the amateur circuit, but his grappling and overall strength was meh. He was about 190 lbs, so about the same size as me. I've trained with other ex military and their skill levels varied, but their were ones that were pretty unimpressive. Which lead me to the conclusion that it's mostly mental toughness mixed in with some machismo and brainwashing. Dudes are tough, but they all aren't professional or even amateur caliber athletes.

Important parts bolded. And yes, there are varying grades of marine. Keep in mind, you're a fitness freak. You are an aberration to the civilian population. So to compare ex-military to you is some what of an outlier at best.

But yes, mental toughness has a lot to do with it. Most people with a pulse can get through boot camp and MOS schooling physically, mentally is another story.



But I see a lot of these military cats walking around at 160lbs and under. I mean, it's easy to smoke the physical fitness tests if you're in decent shape and small. Bodyweight stuff is easier the lighter you are.

Indeed, physical tests are not that bad. Fleet life is different though, as is the mission at hand. And regardless of your maxed out physical scores, that 70 pound TOW missile will never get any lighter until fired. And the .50 cal machine gun will never lose weight. Guys in great shape hate humping a piece of the .50 cal. The idea of some woman packing a piece of it would be a site of pure laughter. Heaven forbid it be up or down a hill.

Standard load out for me in Iraq was roughly 90 ish pounds, between armor, weapons, and miscellaneous gear. That was only the day pack too. Main ruck was back at the house.

I was a convoy driver in Iraq.

The rucks the spec ops guys are packing on long range patrols? Wouldn't know, never had to pack one. But I doubt it is light.

Sinestro/Green Arrow
10-28-2013, 09:23 PM
Right, but the way you were putting it, it seemed like you were specifically against women only in the military.

That is not the case.

thedarkdaimon
10-28-2013, 09:24 PM
Yes, I consider myself tough, but only against another woman. Doesn't nature teach us that God did not make women to fight? I have yet to see a woman who does not cry at times. We are soft, we are little, we are weak. Asking women to be manly enough to fight seems no different than asking men to be feminine. It goes against nature.

Why do you limit yourself like that? I've never known a HUMAN who does not cry at times. A man who was small and weak would never be allowed use that as an excuse, why would a woman? Also, no one is asking a woman to be "manly" enough to fight. They are just allowing those who are, the opportunity to if they want.

The XL
10-28-2013, 09:34 PM
Important parts bolded. And yes, there are varying grades of marine. Keep in mind, you're a fitness freak. You are an aberration to the civilian population. So to compare ex-military to you is some what of an outlier at best.

But yes, mental toughness has a lot to do with it. Most people with a pulse can get through boot camp and MOS schooling physically, mentally is another story.



Indeed, physical tests are not that bad. Fleet life is different though, as is the mission at hand. And regardless of your maxed out physical scores, that 70 pound TOW missile will never get any lighter until fired. And the .50 cal machine gun will never lose weight. Guys in great shape hate humping a piece of the .50 cal. The idea of some woman packing a piece of it would be a site of pure laughter. Heaven forbid it be up or down a hill.

Standard load out for me in Iraq was roughly 90 ish pounds, between armor, weapons, and miscellaneous gear. That was only the day pack too. Main ruck was back at the house.

I was a convoy driver in Iraq.

The rucks the spec ops guys are packing on long range patrols? Wouldn't know, never had to pack one. But I doubt it is light.

Well, to be fair, it's not like the dude was at home eating potato chips, he was training with the aspirations of becoming a professional boxer, so he was still in peak shape.

Gemini
10-28-2013, 09:37 PM
Well, to be fair, it's not like the dude was at home eating potato chips, he was training with the aspirations of becoming a professional boxer, so he was still in peak shape.

The conditioning for boxing, and special forces I am willing to bet are a little different.

He may not have been a slouch, but was he special forces material?

To think about it another way, why don't we have co-ed boxing leagues? We all know the answer.

Perianne
10-28-2013, 09:39 PM
Why do you limit yourself like that? I've never known a HUMAN who does not cry at times. A man who was small and weak would never be allowed use that as an excuse, why would a woman? Also, no one is asking a woman to be "manly" enough to fight. They are just allowing those who are, the opportunity to if they want.

I am not limiting myself. I know what I am capable of and fighting men is not in there.

How about this: why don't women play football against men?

The XL
10-28-2013, 09:41 PM
The conditioning for boxing, and special forces I am willing to bet are a little different.

He may not have been a slouch, but was he special forces material?

To think about it another way, why don't we have co-ed boxing leagues? We all know the answer.

I know he was a marine. I don't know anything further. As far as conditioning goes, I'm not sure. I can't really say because I've never been in the military, I can only judge his capabilities as they were when I training with him.

It's not quite the same. Their are weight classes in boxing, none in the military. I'm sure Joe would mess up an equally trained 140 lbs marine, but that's not stopping him from qualifying.

Gemini
10-28-2013, 09:44 PM
I know he was a marine. I don't know anything further. As far as conditioning goes, I'm not sure. I can't really say because I've never been in the military, I can only judge his capabilities as they were when I training with him.

It's not quite the same. Their are weight classes in boxing, none in the military. I'm sure Joe would mess up an equally trained 140 lbs marine, but that's not stopping him from qualifying.

Pound for pound, a man will almost always annihilate a woman in single combat.

But that is not the only basis for my preferring them to be excluded from the military. There super power of crushing morale is renowned. Their ability to conjure up exponential amounts of drama is unsurpassed. And the sexual harassment lawsuits? Egads...

If you want to destroy the military, put more women into it.

The XL
10-28-2013, 09:45 PM
Pound for pound, a man will almost always annihilate a woman in single combat.

But that is not the only basis for my preferring them to be excluded from the military. There super power of crushing morale is renowned. Their ability to conjure up exponential amounts of drama is unsurpassed. And the sexual harassment lawsuits? Egads...

If you want to destroy the military, put more women into it.

Aren't sub 160 lbs males kinda holding it back too? Wouldn't they be better of with 180lbs+ males only?

Sinestro/Green Arrow
10-28-2013, 09:47 PM
I am not limiting myself. I know what I am capable of and fighting men is not in there.

How about this: why don't women play football against men?

Because it would be a sad day for mankind if we lost women's football.

http://www.weirdhut.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Womens-American-football-ass.jpg

Gemini
10-28-2013, 10:44 PM
Aren't sub 160 lbs males kinda holding it back too? Wouldn't they be better of with 180lbs+ males only?

Clever.

They have already put in the physical standards needed. Yes, they do hold them back, but also in ways the small wiry guys are better for certain things.

But even then, they don't slow the service down enough to warrant excluding people based on size - within reason. I know of no midget in the service. Nor giant.

Pooltablerepairman
10-28-2013, 11:38 PM
Clever.

They have already put in the physical standards needed. Yes, they do hold them back, but also in ways the small wiry guys are better for certain things.

But even then, they don't slow the service down enough to warrant excluding people based on size - within reason. I know of no midget in the service. Nor giant.

It is all a head game. It is not about the guy who can press 300 pounds. It is about the guy who will keep pushing until he either presses the 300 or his heart blows out of his chest.

Max Rockatansky
10-29-2013, 04:53 AM
Because it would be a sad day for mankind if we lost women's football.

http://www.weirdhut.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Womens-American-football-ass.jpg

Agreed.

http://static.onemansblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Lingerie-Football-League-144.jpg

Max Rockatansky
10-29-2013, 04:56 AM
What would be the point? It's a strawman, and a ridiculous one at that. It's also a false equivalency. Until you can display how racism and homophobia are at all comparative to protecting women from harm, you have no point for me to debate.

Because, like racism and homophobia, you are discriminating based solely upon a genetic characteristic unrelated to their ability to perform the task at hand.

If a woman can make the cut both physically and mentally, why shouldn't she be allowed to do the job?

Secondly, why do women need protection more than our male military personnel?

Max Rockatansky
10-29-2013, 05:08 AM
Yes, I consider myself tough, but only against another woman. Doesn't nature teach us that God did not make women to fight? I have yet to see a woman who does not cry at times. We are soft, we are little, we are weak. Asking women to be manly enough to fight seems no different than asking men to be feminine. It goes against nature.

Women can be just as vicious as men. They can certainly be physical and be equal mentally. The ones I work with are usually very good and often more attentive to their tasks than men. There are not very many of them, say 1 in 10 or 15 compared to men, so it may be "number two always tries harder".

As Poolie just mentioned, a lot is about attitude. I'd rather have someone who could only perform at an average level, but gives 100% all the time, than someone who is either physically a superman or a genius, but only gives 80%....IF they feel like it.

Gemini
10-29-2013, 08:04 AM
If a woman can make the cut both physically and mentally, why shouldn't she be allowed to do the job?

Because there are more implications to adding them to the service than just warfighting. As mentioned before, most of the time the average serviceman is not on a battlefield. Women in garrison are a force of destruction.



Secondly, why do women need protection more than our male military personnel?

They are more fragile as a general rule. Their ability to fight is sorely limited to that of a man. And the manual labor that is often a battlefield requirement, she is also sorely limited to that of her male counterpart.

Have a grievance about it? Take it up with biology.

Max Rockatansky
10-29-2013, 08:10 AM
Because there are more implications to adding them to the service than just warfighting. As mentioned before, most of the time the average serviceman is not on a battlefield. Women in garrison are a force of destruction.



They are more fragile as a general rule. Their ability to fight is sorely limited to that of a man. And the manual labor that is often a battlefield requirement, she is also sorely limited to that of her male counterpart.

Have a grievance about it? Take it up with biology.

Obviously a 110 lb woman isn't the best choice to hump a SAW, but not all missions require humping a SAW or a 90 lb rucksack. We're not talking about lowering the standards for political correctness, but to allow qualified women to participate in special operations. That's not necessarily on the battlefield. As I posted previously, women can get into places men cannot. A woman can infiltrate places normally denied to men. A woman, in some circumstances, would be less suspicious than a man.

Gemini
10-29-2013, 08:25 AM
Obviously a 110 lb woman isn't the best choice to hump a SAW, but not all missions require humping a SAW or a 90 lb rucksack.

There are times when you don't get to have the best pick of personnel to do the job. If the job requires manual labor or physical strength it is only made worse by having a female in the group who lacks the amount of muscle needed to get the job done.

We can all account of humps that had some guy fall out and his gear had to get split up and hauled for him.



We're not talking about lowering the standards for political correctness, but to allow qualified women to participate in special operations.

Standards will be lowered. Wait and see. Soon our special forces will be special ed forces.


That's not necessarily on the battlefield.

I've addressed this, plenty of times.



As I posted previously, women can get into places men cannot. A woman can infiltrate places normally denied to men. A woman, in some circumstances, would be less suspicious than a man.

Perhaps in the CIA or as an operative not in the military itself, sure. But in a military setting? This argument falls flat on its face. I would say the opposite is true due to physical capacity.

Max Rockatansky
10-29-2013, 08:52 AM
There are times when you don't get to have the best pick of personnel to do the job. If the job requires manual labor or physical strength it is only made worse by having a female in the group who lacks the amount of muscle needed to get the job done.

No one is saying putting females into this situation nor any situation where they'd or any other weak person would be a hindrance.


Perhaps in the CIA or as an operative not in the military itself, sure. But in a military setting? This argument falls flat on its face. I would say the opposite is true due to physical capacity.

Good point about the CIA. Special Operations covers a lot of territory including military intelligence. It's these areas or technical fields where woman can excell. Let's not forget we'r talking about Air Force Special Ops, not Recon Marines. I know the Marine Corps is the center of the Universe as far as the military goes, but other services exist too and not all of their missions are the same as Uncle Sam's Misguided Children.

http://www.airforce.com/contact-us/faq/special-operations/#what-special-operations

What are Air Force Special Operations?

Special Operations, better known in the Air Force as Special Tactics, are broken up into two specific specialties. Combat Control (CCT) and Pararescue (PJ). CCT's are combat ready FAA certified air traffic controllers and PJ's are combat ready rescue & recovery specialists certified as EMT's to the paramedic level.
Members of these two career fields are trained in parachuting, scuba diving, repelling, skiing, motorcycling, survival skills and much much more…

Gemini
10-29-2013, 10:56 AM
It is all a head game. It is not about the guy who can press 300 pounds. It is about the guy who will keep pushing until he either presses the 300 or his heart blows out of his chest.

Tell that to the ones the vikings dominated. Size has a lot to do with the capacity to wage war.

The XL
10-29-2013, 11:09 AM
It is all a head game. It is not about the guy who can press 300 pounds. It is about the guy who will keep pushing until he either presses the 300 or his heart blows out of his chest.

If you're heart is gonna pop from 300, you really need to lower the weight.

Pooltablerepairman
10-29-2013, 11:25 AM
If you're heart is gonna pop from 300, you really need to lower the weight.

That really is not the point.

Sinestro/Green Arrow
10-29-2013, 04:00 PM
Because, like racism and homophobia, you are discriminating based solely upon a genetic characteristic unrelated to their ability to perform the task at hand.

If a woman can make the cut both physically and mentally, why shouldn't she be allowed to do the job?

Secondly, why do women need protection more than our male military personnel?

I'm not discriminating against anybody because I'm not enforcing my view on anyone. Saying, "I don't think you should do that," is not discrimination.

Dan40
10-29-2013, 04:26 PM
A surprising percentage of Special Ops male personnel are small of stature. Large muscled gorillas like me find the going rough in the field compared to the smaller guys. Lactic acid buildup.

Max Rockatansky
10-29-2013, 05:20 PM
I'm not discriminating against anybody because I'm not enforcing my view on anyone. Saying, "I don't think you should do that," is not discrimination.

And if enough people say "I don't think Jews should be able to drink from the same water fountain as Christians", voilą, it becomes law.

The bottom line is that you are seeking to deny American citizens the right to serve their country simply because they are female. If they aren't qualified, I'm good with that, but just because they are female, black, Jewish or any other arbitrary reason isn't good enough a reason to discriminate IMO.

Gemini
10-29-2013, 08:03 PM
A surprising percentage of Special Ops male personnel are small of stature. Large muscled gorillas like me find the going rough in the field compared to the smaller guys.

Correct. But those smaller guys are nothing to fool around with. Stronger than they look and being able to do seemingly inhuman feats of endurance.


Lactic acid buildup.

Incorrect. Well, sort of. You're on the right path, but there is much more physiology that goes into it than that.

Dan40
10-29-2013, 08:23 PM
Correct. But those smaller guys are nothing to fool around with. Stronger than they look and being able to do seemingly inhuman feats of endurance.



Incorrect. Well, sort of. You're on the right path, but there is much more physiology that goes into it than that.

I in no way inferred they were anything to fool with. Fighting with a good small man is excellent practice. Improves speed and stamina because they are all about speed and stamina.

And don't tell me about lactic acid buildup. Its MY muscles that are on fire with an Atomic hot flame!!!:)

Gemini
10-29-2013, 08:27 PM
I in no way inferred they were anything to fool with. Fighting with a good small man is excellent practice. Improves speed and stamina because they are all about speed and stamina.

Fact.



And don't tell me about lactic acid buildup. Its MY muscles that are on fire with an Atomic hot flame!!!:)

Blarg. It has everything to do with the individual's physiology. Lactic acid does build up, but there is not data that I am aware of that correlates size of muscle tissues to time recovering from it or preventing it. There is gobs of data correlating physical training and conditioning to it though.

Pooltablerepairman
10-29-2013, 08:42 PM
A surprising percentage of Special Ops male personnel are small of stature.

In what service?

Army Special Forces members are generally older, taller, heavier, with a leaner body mass than the average soldier. They also tend to be more aerobically fit than the average soldier.

Gemini
10-29-2013, 09:03 PM
Some common sense in the matter-


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjwtdhpcUzw

Gemini
10-29-2013, 10:30 PM
Differences in resilience and pain threshold-

Female-


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkYdt-7MOUs

Male-


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_Eeonp5uJI

Notice the differences.

Not cherry picked, they were just the first couple I noticed. There was another male but he only had one eye sprayed so I used this one instead.

...and obviously, not everybody is cut out for it as well-


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmJuMStuhC4

Perianne
10-29-2013, 10:44 PM
Differences in resilience and pain threshold-

Female-


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkYdt-7MOUs


Whoever that female was that recording the other female... she needs her mouth washed out with soap.

Gemini
10-29-2013, 10:47 PM
Whoever that female was that recording the other female... she needs her mouth washed out with soap.

Believe me, that is nothing. Not saying it is good material out of any person's mouth. But I have heard infinitely worse.

Perianne
10-29-2013, 10:48 PM
Believe me, that is nothing. Not saying it is good material out of any person's mouth. But I have heard infinitely worse.

From females? If my daughter talked like that I would be very ashamed.

Perianne
10-29-2013, 10:50 PM
Believe me, that is nothing. Not saying it is good material out of any person's mouth. But I have heard infinitely worse.

And I hope officers don't talk like that. I have seen things on TV that if someone talked to me like that I would slap his face.

Gemini
10-29-2013, 10:53 PM
From females? If my daughter talked like that I would be very ashamed.

Both.


And I hope officers don't talk like that. I have seen things on TV that if someone talked to me like that I would slap his face.

Depends on who is watching really.

Sinestro/Green Arrow
10-30-2013, 12:59 AM
And if enough people say "I don't think Jews should be able to drink from the same water fountain as Christians", voilą, it becomes law.

The bottom line is that you are seeking to deny American citizens the right to serve their country simply because they are female. If they aren't qualified, I'm good with that, but just because they are female, black, Jewish or any other arbitrary reason isn't good enough a reason to discriminate IMO.

You seem determined to rail against a strawman.

The XL
10-30-2013, 01:12 AM
Some common sense in the matter-


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjwtdhpcUzw

I don't think anyone ever made the argument that women are physically superior to men.

Max Rockatansky
10-30-2013, 05:11 AM
You seem determined to rail against a strawman.

Dude, you can call it a straw man argument as many times as you like, but it will remain untrue since you actually made the statement not once but a few times:


I think it's a bad idea.

Why do I think it's a bad idea?

Because I was raised to protect women from unnecessary harm. There's no need for women to join the military. Thus, unnecessary harm.

Max Rockatansky
10-30-2013, 05:14 AM
...and obviously, not everybody is cut out for it as well-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmJuMStuhC4

Agreed. My point is that anyone who is cut out for it should be allowed to join the team regardless of gender, religion or other non-pertinent reasons.

Sinestro/Green Arrow
10-30-2013, 01:21 PM
Dude, you can call it a straw man argument as many times as you like, but it will remain untrue since you actually made the statement not once but a few times:

Nowhere in that quote or any quote since, have I advocated forcing women out of the military or preventing them from joining. I've even said repeatedly that I won't do that.

Dan40
10-30-2013, 03:54 PM
Nowhere in that quote or any quote since, have I advocated forcing women out of the military or preventing them from joining. I've even said repeatedly that I won't do that.

Let them join, but keep them in "their place!" Nothing prejudicial about that. Protect the poor dears as they are incapable of protecting themselves.

Perianne
10-30-2013, 03:55 PM
I could shoot bullets but someone would have to carry the heavy stuff. I could probably get someone to do that.

Dan40
10-30-2013, 04:29 PM
Because it would be a sad day for mankind if we lost women's football.

http://www.weirdhut.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Womens-American-football-ass.jpg

Now THAT'S Fantasy Football!