Pentagon to open SEALs, Army Rangers to women

[Survivalcookie]

ICP: 1
Kidd: 0

I know does not make sense...but is very true.

 

[the1kidd03]

I love your dream, but it's not reality, or at least was not reality in the military I remember from the 80s and 90s. Maybe they've gotten better since I've been gone.

Elaborate?

 

[Kutnupe14]

My husband had 1 female officer on his ship during Dessert Storm...they made the accommodations. But you are right...woman ending up pregnant Is a common thing, Want to leave your deployment get pregnant..There were many woman when they first started putting woman on ships that came home with $1000's of extra dollars and they were not poker winnings.

Your self-defeatist attitude is troubling. You're right, women such as you will never be SEALs... Because you're unqualified before you even try. Thankfully, you are not the spokesperson for all women.

Based on your own words, I can't see why a woman should ever be allowed to make a rational decision, based on their inability to contain their "emotions."

Hell, they should stay at home, make babies, and keep their guns in a cute lil box under the bed.

 

[the1kidd03]

Your self-defeatist attitude is troubling. You're right, women such as you will never be SEALs... Because you're unqualified before you even try. Thankfully, you are not the spokesperson for all women.

Based on your own words, I can't see why a woman should ever be allowed to make a rational decision, based on their inability to contain their "emotions."

Hell, they should stay at home, make babies, and keep their guns in a cute lil box under the bed.

That treatment/stereotype also plays a significant role in molding women's psychological abilities/perspectives.

However, it simply proves the point that they are inherently emotional thinkers. Of course, this is to varying degrees and no two people are exactly alike. Regardless, a direct combat situation is not the best place for someone of that psychological make-up.

 

[Survivalcookie]

Your self-defeatist attitude is troubling. You're right, women such as you will never be SEALs... Because you're unqualified before you even try. Thankfully, you are not the spokesperson for all women.

Based on your own words, I can't see why a woman should ever be allowed to make a rational decision, based on their inability to contain their "emotions."

Hell, they should stay at home, make babies, and keep their guns in a cute lil box under the bed.

Yes, myself and 99.99 percent of woman would be disqualified before we even start. I would think you are a single man based on your uneducated perception of women. Have you never been around a woman with PMS or going through menopause???? Women are strong and women are emotional...put the 2 together and you have one mean animal....but we do not have the physical strength of man due to the way we are made. At least I am smart enough to know my limitations. I have no desire to be a man, I know what I can and cannot do, that is one reason I have a husband...there are things I can do that he cannot. Maybe there are more reason for mating than just having babies.

 

[churchmouse]

Your self-defeatist attitude is troubling. You're right, women such as you will never be SEALs... Because you're unqualified before you even try. Thankfully, you are not the spokesperson for all women.

Based on your own words, I can't see why a woman should ever be allowed to make a rational decision, based on their inability to contain their "emotions."

Hell, they should stay at home, make babies, and keep their guns in a cute lil box under the bed.

Here we go again........................

Cookie, as I know you I can honestly say I understand.

Beyond that............been married 3 times, 6 kids and all the trimmings and woman are still a complete mystery to most of us men....carry on.

 

[iChokePeople]

Personally, and I'm not a psychologist, psychiatrist, homeopathic healer, or anything else, I don't worry as much about the head side as some of you. That's too complex for me. What I'm talking about, for example, is whether a Ranger platoon/company/gaggle can jump out of a perfectly good aircraft, gather up a full combat load, and get to the fight in the prescribed amount of time -- currently (er... maybe not, maybe I should say 20 years or so ago) the standard was 12 miles in 3 hours. Full. Combat. Load. Ready to fight. No questions, no excuses, no extra points for social experimentation or gender-specific external validation. For that particular box to be checked, each member must be able to carry all of his/her own gear, plus a more-or-less equal portion of the crew-served gear. An 81mm mortar weighs about 90 pounds, plus 15/round, whether the people carrying it are male or female, 180lbs or 110 lbs. Keep that standard in place, as-is, with no allowance for gender or bodyweight, as a gatekeeper to Ranger School.

Here's the rub: Not many women will make it. The number will not be satisfactory and will be interpreted as being unfair to women, so the Army will change it just a little, with an allowance for gender or for bodyweight or for age. They'll change it until they get what those at the top consider to be an acceptable number of women in Ranger School (or a low enough number of washouts...) The goals will be met, women will prove that they can meet the standard and get into Ranger School. Similar allowances will be made for any other criteria that are particularly problematic. If that happens, you'll have Ranger platoons that are no longer capable of jumping out of an airplane, gathering up their junk, and being 12 miles away, ready to fight, in 3 hours. If your real mission is social experimentation, not a problem, but historically, that's not how we use Rangers. We use them as raid troops. Shock troops. They move quickly, attack violently, take down airfields (etc), hold them briefly until conventional forces get there, and load up on another aircraft. Will they still be able to do that to the standards they do today?

I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE that anyone who can meet the standards should be allowed in. Really, I do. I just know from personal experience that the Army doesn't really work that way, or hasn't to this point.

 

[Meezer]

Your self-defeatist attitude is troubling. You're right, women such as you will never be SEALs... Because you're unqualified before you even try. Thankfully, you are not the spokesperson for all women.

.

Speaking of spokesperson for all women I give you:

USMC Captain Katie Petronio who states the following: [FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

As a combat-experienced Marine officer, and a female, I am here to tell you that we are not all created equal, and attempting to place females in the infantry will not improve the Marine Corps as the Nation’s force-in-readiness or improve our national security.


- See more at: Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal | Marine Corps Gazette

 

[churchmouse]

Speaking of spokesperson for all women I give you:

USMC Captain Katie Petronio who states the following: [FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

As a combat-experienced Marine officer, and a female, I am here to tell you that we are not all created equal, and attempting to place females in the infantry will not improve the Marine Corps as the Nation’s force-in-readiness or improve our national security.


- See more at: Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal | Marine Corps Gazette

No, it will ruin it. But, it will advance some political feel good agenda launched by some munchers on the hill in a back office secret meeting with no minutes recorded.

 

[Classic]

Yes, myself and 99.99 percent of woman would be disqualified before we even start. I would think you are a single man based on your uneducated perception of women. Have you never been around a woman with PMS or going through menopause???? Women are strong and women are emotional...put the 2 together and you have one mean animal....but we do not have the physical strength of man due to the way we are made. At least I am smart enough to know my limitations. I have no desire to be a man, I know what I can and cannot do, that is one reason I have a husband...there are things I can do that he cannot. Maybe there are more reason for mating than just having babies.

I agree with you and admire you for being self aware. Please don't let those who seek only to annoy, annoy. Not that you would, I am sure after reading many of your posts that you are strong.

I have a wife and 2 daughters and all of them have qualities of intelligence, innovation and nurturing I will never be able to match and they still come to me for opening the pickle jar, doing the heavy wood cutting, snake and spider killing. Thank God.

 

[dross]

If women can meet the same standards, they should be allowed in.

I predict that if the standards are not lowered, NO woman will ever make it in the SEALs or Delta, or in Special Forces. MAYBE there will be a woman or two over many years who can make it through Ranger training, but I doubt it.

Even in Army Airborne School (Jump School for you legs) when I went in '83, we had about 15 women in a class of 400 or so. Only 1 graduated and she was pampered and helped and babied along by the cadre, and strictly speaking, she didn't make the last run. And Jump School ain't hard by elite standards. And that was with reduced standards for females. Many women make it legitimately today, I'm given to understand, but when you're talking SEALs or Delta, you're talking world class athletes.

Will a woman ever play in linebacker or QB in the NFL? Will a woman ever play in the NBA? Will the number 1 woman tennis player ever beat the number 500 man? These are similar questions, and the answer is a resounding no.

Men and women are different. Let the women try out - by the same standards as the men. Unfortunately, the military is more likely to lower the standards and declare success.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I know what I can and cannot do, that is one reason I have a husband.

I hope none of my sisters ever use this reasoning for getting married. It explains a lot about your stance. Shame, but it's your life and "your" reasonings are always valid, just don't expect to place them on other women.

 

[Denny347]

Maybe someone else said they had a 100 pound wife or something...I believe there is a weight limit in the military. Also most of these programs say gain some weight before you start because you will lose 20-30 pounds during the training. I think you are missing the whole point here....the government will dumb down the program so woman can participate...there for making the special forces not so special.

That is a problem IF they do that. I agree 100%

 

[Kutnupe14]

That is a problem IF they do that. I agree 100%

As do I, but the govt has specifically stated that they won't.

 

[IndyDave1776]

As do I, but the govt has specifically stated that they won't.

That's nice, but it will be the first time in the history of gender integration in the military that they didn't if they do in fact make good on that assurance.

I, for one, won't believe it until after I see it happen.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

As do I, but the govt has specifically stated that they won't.

And the govt would never lie to you either .

I subscribe to Black Hawk's theory on this matter .

I'm saying the Queen Berets are coming , in one form or another .

 

[churchmouse]

As do I, but the govt has specifically stated that they won't.

You can believe this if you really really want to but come on.
Standards have been lowered in every area that the gov. gets involved in to level the playing field. It is the "ONLY" way it can and will happen. You have to know that somewhere deep down.

If not you are poking the poop pile.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

I guess I will have to side with the minority report here.

I believe that as long as ANY person can pass equal training and testing they should be afforded the privilage to serve their nation.

In the 1960s women were tested against men in NASA, and the women scored equal to or better than some of the men who later became astronauts. There are many arguments about why NASA never bothered to release some of these test results at the time, but I believe a great loss may have been suffered by this nation by limiting the prospective candidate pool until Sally Ride.

The concern of lowering standards is a valid one and I would be strongly opposed to this. However, should standards remain the same then I see no problem with women serving in any and all fields of military service.

I for one fully support the removal of unnecessary barriers to service in our armed forces. Let me be clear on my use of the word "unnecessary." I mean that a test for qualification that has no significant corrolation with job performance. For example, the NYFD used to disqualify women candidates by requiring them to carry a 250# person, arguing that "firemen need to be able to carry a heavy person to safety." Sounds reasonable, right? EXCEPT that the NYFD couldn't come up with a single case of anyone being carried to safety by a male fireman - because victims who cannot walk are dragged from a building.

I believe in putting tests and requirements in that are necessary to job performance and ANYONE who can meet those requirements should be acceptable for hiring.

But I guess that is just the liberal in me...

Regards,

Doug

 

[Trigger Time]

And if she was enlisted, she could have pulled pull that off as well. I was only trying to convey the idea that a PT entrance test set up for men CAN be met by some women without lowering the standards. Good God. Sorry I interjected.

My money would be against it just based on that training sof has, but I see what you were trying to say about her and sounds like she is bad ass and will make a great SWATT officer. I highly doubt your SWATT training is a walk in the park and I understood you weren't comparing it to something else.

 

[Trigger Time]

Also for all the people who think its just about the physical it's not. To try and explain it terms people with no military background or even those that do have a basic military background. Imagine going for your m.d. Or law degree and then being deprived of food shelter and sleep while having the **** smoked out of you and making judgement calls with lives In the balance while also supporting your fellow classmates so they don't fail.
It's still not all the training they will get one assigned to a ranger or seal unit. Like was mentioned before, not all who attend the school will be assigned to a ranger battalion (tabbed & scrolled). Some will take what they learned in the school (tabbed) and take it back to their regular units to be leaders and teachers. The ones who stay in batt are the best of the best and learning never ends but they are part of something very special and historic and a family that's close for life.
I think it's good that women have great qualities as women and men have qualities that make men men. The two are made different for a reason because in life they compliment each other. But I think women are not as well designed to handle mental and physical stresses combined as men. So it's much more than just about how many sit-ups they can do or how far you can run. The standards of just what an average soldier must hump on a march is higher in real life than what the manual says and now put them in a special operations unit and it goes up even more. Most women are just not built big enough structurally to maintain these standards. It's a physical improbability based on design. Not impossible but improbable. I think women who try it at not only going to dor but they are going to get hurt badly which in the end cost the tax payors money.
If they make it through with the same standards then give it to them, but still do you let them into a battalion? Or just let them go back to their unit. I still say NO women in battalion in that capacity. Nor SEAL units.

Also let the guys who have to get shot at next to them decide whether to have them there. And make it anonymous voting. Because we all know how they make you answer the way they want you to answer in the military. You don't get a true opinion, it's made for you.