[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Conservative Women have more Test than Liberal Males.[/quote]
That would explain Ann Coulter’s penis, then.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Better to just make it men only and I don’t give a fuck if that’s sexist or not.
[/quote]
I don’t understand how America doesn’t have an equivalent to Canada’s BFOR process. The BFOR (Bona Fide Occupational Requirements) process determines legitimate minimum requirements for a physical job, and if those happen to favour one sex over the other it’s too bad so sad.
Under a BFOR process, the Marine Corps would easily find legally justifiable physical fitness requirements that <1% of women would be able to pass.
There is a BFOR determined fitness requirement for both wildland and municipal firefighting and feminists can’t touch them because due process was followed. No woman failing the fitness test has any right to sue for discrimination, no right to any human rights tribunal or any other process, because all fitness tests have already been proven to the courts as valid.
More detail here: http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/employment/employer_info/employment_contract/bfor.asp
In the land of weed, hippies, and gay marriage, we’ve found a legitimate way to keep women from getting jobs they can’t handle, while taking away their right to sue, and without pissing off all the nation’s feminists. The US military should take note.
The problem with allowing women into the special forces is the decision is not based upon common sense. Whenever any major change to special forces is considered there should be one overriding consideration that trumps all other considerations. That consideration should simply be, will this change make for a more effective war fighting unit. From everything I have read that is not the reason why this change is being proposed.
The reason why it is being pushed is because lack of combat experience was hindering the career advancement opportunities of women officers. So this is purely a political consideration that is being pushed by politicians who really don’t give a damn about the military.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. The only time women should be used by special forces is when it makes sense because there is a specific task that a man just cannot do as well.
It doesn’t matter how physically capable or how much steroids they feed her, a woman in a special forces unit will always be the weak link that brings down the overall effectiveness of the unit. It’s a simple fact of biology.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]sjoconn wrote:
I can tell you that when the command decides numbers need to be met, the military will lower the standar until the numbers are met. [/quote]
I disagree with this point. They alter some standards like PFT’s but everyone still has to go through all of the schools and those are not dependent upon standards.
Let’s take Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course (IOC) as an example. The women who attended only had to pass the female PFT but they still had to pass the IOC course which none have
That school is not dependent upon the PFT or a number of “tests”. Any woman intending to be a SEAL, Ranger, or SF operator would have to go through the exact same school as the men would.
james
[/quote]
We have had different experiences
I just remembered a program based on the SAS. “SAS, are you tough enough?”
It wasn’t a true test of the SAS requirements but it was enough to knock out the majority of people who took it up. All but one of the women lasted and she didn’t make the last hurdles.
[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
I don’t understand how America doesn’t have an equivalent to Canada’s BFOR process. The BFOR (Bona Fide Occupational Requirements) process determines legitimate minimum requirements for a physical job, and if those happen to favour one sex over the other it’s too bad so sad.
[/quote]
This. If a woman is tough enough to do the job, let her do it. Yes, this obviously means very few of them will pass the tests, but that’s life. Give the tough ones a chance.
[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Better to just make it men only and I don’t give a fuck if that’s sexist or not.
[/quote]
I don’t understand how America doesn’t have an equivalent to Canada’s BFOR process. The BFOR (Bona Fide Occupational Requirements) process determines legitimate minimum requirements for a physical job, and if those happen to favour one sex over the other it’s too bad so sad.
Under a BFOR process, the Marine Corps would easily find legally justifiable physical fitness requirements that <1% of women would be able to pass.
There is a BFOR determined fitness requirement for both wildland and municipal firefighting and feminists can’t touch them because due process was followed. No woman failing the fitness test has any right to sue for discrimination, no right to any human rights tribunal or any other process, because all fitness tests have already been proven to the courts as valid.
More detail here: http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/employment/employer_info/employment_contract/bfor.asp
In the land of weed, hippies, and gay marriage, we’ve found a legitimate way to keep women from getting jobs they can’t handle, while taking away their right to sue, and without pissing off all the nation’s feminists. The US military should take note.[/quote]
Because in America it’s not about completing the mission, it’s about PR & elections.
[quote]nighthawkz wrote:
[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
I don’t understand how America doesn’t have an equivalent to Canada’s BFOR process. The BFOR (Bona Fide Occupational Requirements) process determines legitimate minimum requirements for a physical job, and if those happen to favour one sex over the other it’s too bad so sad.
[/quote]
This. If a woman is tough enough to do the job, let her do it. Yes, this obviously means very few of them will pass the tests, but that’s life. Give the tough ones a chance.
[/quote]
The only problem with this is that pressure from certain people (Congress being the most influential) will result in pushing women through just to say we have women in SOF.
I’m telling you, imo it will happen.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]sjoconn wrote:
I can tell you that when the command decides numbers need to be met, the military will lower the standar until the numbers are met. [/quote]
I disagree with this point. They alter some standards like PFT’s but everyone still has to go through all of the schools and those are not dependent upon standards.
Let’s take Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course (IOC) as an example. The women who attended only had to pass the female PFT but they still had to pass the IOC course which none have
That school is not dependent upon the PFT or a number of “tests”. Any woman intending to be a SEAL, Ranger, or SF operator would have to go through the exact same school as the men would.
james
[/quote]
That might be the case now, but pressure will mount on the USMC to pass a female infrantry officer and the USMC will yield. So will every other branch. Generals take orders just like us Enlisted guys.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
…and he’s all of 21 years old and from Australia so for sure we know he has everything figured out about integrating women into the United States military special forces.[/quote]
Oh wow he’s not American, that makes his Jessica Lynch comments even worse…I guess at 11 he was following U.S. foreign affairs very very closely.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Because in America it’s not about completing the mission, it’s about PR & elections.[/quote]
Sad but true.
[quote]nighthawkz wrote:
[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
I don’t understand how America doesn’t have an equivalent to Canada’s BFOR process. The BFOR (Bona Fide Occupational Requirements) process determines legitimate minimum requirements for a physical job, and if those happen to favour one sex over the other it’s too bad so sad.
[/quote]
This. If a woman is tough enough to do the job, let her do it. Yes, this obviously means very few of them will pass the tests, but that’s life. Give the tough ones a chance.
[/quote]
And then, take the qualified women who can’t pass the physical demands and put them in a position to utilize their strengths and capacities she does have.
A 300lbs guy that runs a 5.8 40 yard dash will make a shitty running back, but that same dude might make a badass lineman… You know what I mean?
“PC” is fucking this up. Reality and common sense would be so much more simple and effective. Some ego’s might get bruised, but really, people need to get over themselves.
Our standing military needs to be tighter, smaller and tougher with a stronger(Large) reserve. I have no issue with women on the front line or in special forces. But in no way should the standard be lowered to meet some social agenda.
I have personaly trained a couple women to pass the test for the Canadian military, and have seen the book and requirements. I’m sure this is quite diffewrent from elite forces, but for the general army they have a different test than the men. They lowered the required push ups , situps, and the weight, on the dead weight drag, and carry. I’m not sure how I feel about letting them in the elite forces, but I’m sure there are jobs within the elite forces that women could do as well or better than a man.
From the point of a sniper or tactical layout, women might be better. There is the call for alot of hand to hand combat with these forces, this is where I would have concerns. If I was on say a 4 man team that included a women, and we got into a tight spot, where there was hand to hand combat 4 on 4, I would have concerns for the whole team. Smarter people than me have already made the decision on this, so I imagine they have adressed these concerns.
We’ll have to wait and see if a women actually makes it through the training, if so I wish them luck.
[quote]sjoconn wrote:
We have had different experiences[/quote]
We very well might have as my experiences are pretty dated. I was enlisted in the Army and was only around men from basic training, through MOS school, through my unit. I was a Marine Officer and was only around women really in The Basic School (TBS). Maybe they will lower the standards for the schools but I’m not totally convinced that the Marine Corps would do that and I’m not sure that women would want that to happen.
But there’s definitely some combat roles that women could do that aren’t as physical like being a tanker or operating an Amtrak.
james
[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
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]
Brother, it might be true as of now - but as some posters suspect, as soon as the results the ones pushing this aren’t realized, there will be immense pressure to water things down in training.
20 years combined military, PD, and gov’t “other” … And I’ve seen it before… The trainers that give a fuck will resist to the best of their abilities, but over time the pressure rolling downhill will win out. Threats of budget cutbacks, transfers for those who won’t play along, or even disciplinary action will break the most hardcore opponents of loosening the requirements. Those that fight the good fight will be marginalized to the point they are either useless to the mission, or cut off from it entirely. There are always some willing to “go along to get along” to secure their position and even move up… Probably rarer in the spec ops community, but remember the 10% rule. Guys worked their asses off to get there, and while they most likely wont go out quietly, they don’t want to flush their careers down the shitter either.
Finally, I can only imagine the book instructors are gonna have to keep on female applicants. I’m sure the process for letting them go at any stage of the process will be scrutinized from numerous angles. Every “i” better be dotted and every “t” crossed, or the instructors asses will be the ones in the wringer
Won’t happen over night, but this little social experiment is not gonna end well
^ You are also going to see qualified candidates get bumped to make room for x % of female candidates per class/series. So the most qualified won’t get a shot because of some PR stunt.
This is going to sound sexist but the problem will not be so much 1 woman it will be 3 or 4 working together hahahahahahah that can always be comical
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^ You are also going to see qualified candidates get bumped to make room for x % of female candidates per class/series. So the most qualified won’t get a shot because of some PR stunt. [/quote]
Good point … ABSOLUTELY that will happen
I just don’t understand why some people in society feel that acknowledging that there are biological differences between men and women is in some way offensive and should be avoided at all costs. Males and females in every society on earth and in most species on earth, play complementary roles which usually are determined by their biologically determined characteristics.
For example, female lions do most of the hunting for the pride because the male’s large and very distinctive mane makes it much harder for them to sneak up in tall grasses on prey whereas the females don’t have this problem. The male lion’s main role is to protect the pride from predators and other male lions since their increased size and strength better suits them to this purpose than the females. Is either of these roles less important than the other? Would the pride as a unit work better without this biologically determined division of labour?
Obviously, the answer is no. In many ways, most of our jobs in modern society have become less physical and, therefore, the necessity for size and strength has diminished on a day to day basis. However, the military and especially the special forces is still one of those areas where peak physicality is of prime importance. Denying the existence of genetically predetermined attributes is nonsensical and, I think, one of the reasons why feminism alienates many women.
It’s hard for any logical person, male or female, to get behind an ideology that thinks if they scream loud enough and long enough, they can shout down any opposition no matter how reasonable.