Women Joining the Ranks of Specials Ops

Off Topic
61

[quote]T11 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Still lmao at Women not in SF = militray segregation.

Also still LMFAO at Women Olympian = Women SF…[/quote]

Now that is hilarious too me. People who haven’t served truly don’t understand. Being in a combat mos I have a much closer understanding then just a regular Joe. Also I have been on a mission to support German Special Forces so I have a firm grasp on what Special Forces does. [/quote]

Sarcasm No man my brothers friends cousin has worked with women in combat and they are just as capable as the men sarcasm

Female Olympic Athlete: Every aspect of their diet, training, recovery, & drug use is monitored to perfection.

Combat: Not so much…

62

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]T11 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Still lmao at Women not in SF = militray segregation.

Also still LMFAO at Women Olympian = Women SF…[/quote]

Now that is hilarious too me. People who haven’t served truly don’t understand. Being in a combat mos I have a much closer understanding then just a regular Joe. Also I have been on a mission to support German Special Forces so I have a firm grasp on what Special Forces does. [/quote]

Sarcasm No man my brothers friends cousin has worked with women in combat and they are just as capable as the men sarcasm

Female Olympic Athlete: Every aspect of their diet, training, recovery, & drug use is monitored to perfection.

Combat: Not so much…[/quote]

I thought MRE’s were laced with Steroids?

63

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]T11 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Still lmao at Women not in SF = militray segregation.

Also still LMFAO at Women Olympian = Women SF…[/quote]

Now that is hilarious too me. People who haven’t served truly don’t understand. Being in a combat mos I have a much closer understanding then just a regular Joe. Also I have been on a mission to support German Special Forces so I have a firm grasp on what Special Forces does. [/quote]

Sarcasm No man my brothers friends cousin has worked with women in combat and they are just as capable as the men sarcasm

Female Olympic Athlete: Every aspect of their diet, training, recovery, & drug use is monitored to perfection.

Combat: Not so much…[/quote]

I thought MRE’s were laced with Steroids?[/quote]

There are and they are used try to stop my dick from getting hard but that isn’t going to stop me :)!

64

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]T11 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Still lmao at Women not in SF = militray segregation.

Also still LMFAO at Women Olympian = Women SF…[/quote]

Now that is hilarious too me. People who haven’t served truly don’t understand. Being in a combat mos I have a much closer understanding then just a regular Joe. Also I have been on a mission to support German Special Forces so I have a firm grasp on what Special Forces does. [/quote]

Sarcasm No man my brothers friends cousin has worked with women in combat and they are just as capable as the men sarcasm

Female Olympic Athlete: Every aspect of their diet, training, recovery, & drug use is monitored to perfection.

Combat: Not so much…[/quote]

I thought MRE’s were laced with Steroids?[/quote]

Steroids, how dare we gain an advantage over our enemies. You must be on drugs…

65

AussieDavo

I know I rambled on a bit so maybe the point of my original post was lost. I was trying to say that there probably is a very small number of females out there that could hack the demands of SF, however, these would be extreme outliers IMHO. With that being said, I agree with you that they should be able to attempt to make the SF just as any man would be allowed to.

The great fear is that in all likelihood, the standards would be lowered to accomodate women to allow more of them in. I agree that this has not happened yet but, there are many, many instances of this happening in our Western societies. For example, one of the girls in my highschool class really wanted to be a firefighter and when she did the entrance tests, she passed the physical requirements for females but not for males (specifically she could not do the loaded carry of a 200 lb dummy the required distance).

To her credit, even though she passed by the female standards, she did not enter the service because she felt if she couldn’t do the same job as her male counterparts then she didn’t belong. I have a daughter who is my entire world and to think that she would be excluded from something simply because of her gender infuriates me. I don’t think that anybody is really saying that that should be the case here though.

Please don’t insinuate that I’m sexist. Nothing in my original post indicated that. Your response in that manner was very reactionary and unappreciated

66

How fucked up do feminists have to be in order to see to it that they want women on the frontline fighting in conditions that will not, and never have favoured them.

I can just imagine a platoon of female US marines vs a platoon of Russian spec ops, you would not like to see the results my dear feminists.

Are these women really so self-destructive of their own nature? They have already consigned a large number of women to childless and lover-less lives. Now they want to ensure more are raped and killed on the frontline.

lol

67

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
I know this is called an ad hominem and its used when dudes don’t have an argument.[/quote]

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
But GJ on reinforcing the notion you’re dumber than dry dog shit.
[/quote]

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
You dudes are pretty misguided[/quote]

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
you are just looking for an opportunity to bitch about feminization of society or some dumb shit[/quote]

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
I guaran-fucking-tee there are a bunch of female olympians who could smash you in just about any athletic endeavor you choose[/quote]

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
After all those chicks are stronger, faster and probably smarter than you.
[/quote]

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Yeah people fuck, people fuck a lot.[/quote]

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
How the fuck would unit cohesion be affected[/quote]

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Yeah people fuck, people fuck a lot.[/quote]

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
How the fuck would unit cohesion be affected[/quote]

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Yeah people fuck, people fuck a lot.[/quote]

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
How the fuck would unit cohesion be affected[/quote]

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Yeah people fuck, people fuck a lot.[/quote]

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
How the fuck would unit cohesion be affected[/quote]

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Yeah people fuck, people fuck a lot.[/quote]

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
How the fuck would unit cohesion be affected[/quote]

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Yeah people fuck, people fuck a lot.[/quote]

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
How the fuck would unit cohesion be affected[/quote]

68

[quote]theBeth wrote:

[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]

That’s a good point.

69

Well done Beans.

70

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]theBeth wrote:

[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]

That’s a good point.[/quote]

I’m not sure that’s the exacty reason the USMC doesn’t allow female snipers, but it’s certainly a concern.

71

A few points:

SOF is the umbrella term in the U.S. military for ALL Special Operations: Rangers, SEALs, TACp’s, CCT’s, Para-rescue, MARSOC, SF, etc.

SF only refers to Army Special Forces, no matter what Fox or CNN may imply.

And SF ODA (Operational Detachment Alpha) has the primary mission of conducting Unconventional Warfare (UW). This goes for all SF teams no matter what specialty that individual team may have (Special Recon, HALO, Direct Action, Etc). This UW mission means that the team needs to be able to train, advise, organize, equip, and lead a guerrilla force of up to a battalion size. This involves a basic understanding of the culture where these teams will be deployed and operate. Let’s even looking at the physical aspect of operating for prolong periods of time in a denied, austere environment. Do you honestly feel that a female is capable of gaining the respect, training, advising, and leading a guerrilla force in most third world nations (where SF operates) when most of these cultures put women in subservient position? It honestly has nothing to do with what our culture believes women can do or what women can actually do. It is all about the cultures we operate in.

As far as the other SOF jobs I can only speculate as I do not have first hand knowledge. I can tell you that when the command decides numbers need to be met, the military will lower the standar until the numbers are met.

72

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

THIS!!

Also thanks for the clarification on acronyms.

73

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

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

THIS!!

Also thanks for the clarification on acronyms. [/quote]

No worries.We live in a world of acronyms and it is easy to get them jumbled. But clarity helps to define the argument.

74

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Well done Beans. [/quote]

I second that.

75

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:

[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]

You were 11 years old when Jessica Lynch was captured, what do you know?[/quote]

I know this is called an ad hominem and its used when dudes don’t have an argument.

You weren’t even a fucking sperm when WW2 was on, does that mean you can’t comment on WW2? We record history for a reason. But GJ on reinforcing the notion you’re dumber than dry dog shit.
[/quote]

Considering your entire first two posts were rife with oblique and not so oblique ad hominems, you can shut the fuck up and quit being a fucking prick. If you don’t have the ability to maintain civility then shut the fuck up. If you want to be civil, post your opinion in a civil manner.

You’re talking shit on people who are currently in service, currently see this every day, and currently have far more educated opinions than yourself. The fact that you can’t even see the serious potential problems with SF unit cohesion and the chain of command is the first indication you need to get some real humility when talking to people who live that shit from the inside.

Nobody here thinks women are inferior creatures. They do realize the very real problems differing biology and hormone profiles play in combat specific roles. Sex just as sex is not a problem–but you didn’t bother to read the actual post you derided with criticism, because that wasn’t the fucking problem. The problem is women getting hurt or malicious or feeling like they want their way and turning a perfectly consensual “sex is sex” relationship into “he raped me!” of “I was sexually assaulted”. That is a huge fucking problem. It both marginalizes REAL cases of rape and assault that should be taken seriously and prosecuted to the best possible extent AND it kills unit cohesion by introducing drama and conflict of interest. This has been the experience of a number of people quite close to me currently overseas.

Now imagine shit blew up in a small unit in the middle of nowhere with no back-up, no official presence, and no contingency. You put the entire fucking unit at risk of dying.

78

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

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

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

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

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

james

79

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

james
[/quote]

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

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

80

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

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

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

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

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

[/quote]

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

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