[jimmydean]

Women breaking barriers in Navy, not SEALs yet

"As a philosophical thing, there shouldn't be anything that's closed off as a career," said Navy Secretary Ray Mabus.

While I agree with this philosophy, with an 80%+ failure rate in BUDs of MEN who are at the highest level and STILL not able to finish, do any monkeys think there are more than a handful of women that would even make it through BUDs if given the chance?

So I'm not saying there are no women in the world that would make it, I have a hard time thinking of any that don't already have jobs. Not saying there aren't any Pat Tillman type women out there, but I certainly don't know many.

I do know one butch chick who is a fireman in Portland (her partner works for Portland PD) and I think she would be able to do the physical requirements to qualify, but I don't see her making it through hell week.

So my take is this. Is it worth it to open it up to anyone even though the likelihood of a woman even getting to hell week is slim to none?

On a similar note, someone asked the K9 cops why there aren't any female police dogs. The answer was "If you find a female dog with the physical and mental capacity of K9 work, you breed the life out of her rather than risk her being lost in the line of duty." Sexist? Maybe, but it also makes sense.

 

[Pesqueeb]

Any time you begin a statement with "I'm not______, but_______", you might be.


/troll.

 

[sunny]

^^ what??

It's a legitimate question. We the taxpayers pay for all the funding that goes into training the military. How many hours are needlessly spent opening doors for people who realistically should not be there in the first place?

 

[jimmydean]

Any time you begin a statement with "I'm not______, but_______", you might be.


/troll.

I'm not saying a womans place is in the kitchen. But when the Navy says it spends TOO MUCH MONEY to train folks who fail during BUDs (so much so they now have a BUDs prep course), wouldn't opening it up to a group who is physically less capable on average BY NATURE just seem like an awful investment in time/money just to say it's open?

I'm not saying women shouldn't be encouraged to strive for equality, I just think there are better areas of focus than SF type gigs.

Wouldn't Army Rangers be a better place to start? Or do they just figure the Navy is the first to consider the gheys, why not the ladies?

I know more than one Army Ranger that failed BUDs. Maybe start letting women go through Ranger school first?

 

[-BB-]

Open it up to them... keep standards the same. I know that MYSELF, I would not be able to make it through, but if some woman can, go for it.

 

[jimmydean]

Open it up to them... keep standards the same. I know that MYSELF, I would not be able to make it through, but if some woman can, go for it.

At what tax payer cost, though? Again, the Navy has instituted a BUDs prep to cut down on the number of washouts that can pass the test to get them there, but can't come even close to the day to day rigors of BUDs.

Again, I'm not saying that there are women who can't. I just think it's a potentioal PR move that could end up costing a ton of money and could actually produce nothing.

<edit> ALL branches of the military have Male vs Female PFT requirements. If the Navy said women are allowed to try out for SEALs but must meet the Male requirements for testing, then you've just opened an even BIGGER can of worms.

So what is a better idea?

A) Open up SF branches to female recruits that must now meet male PT requirements.

B) Lower SF PT requirements so women are treated fairly but now you may have a physically weaker SF force because of it.

 

[sunny]

... it's a potential PR move that could end up costing a ton of money and could actually produce nothing.

This.

We are losing sight of the mission in favor of being inclusive. The mission is to train individuals for guerrilla/counter-guerrilla war operations. Many women are great leaders, many women are clear-headed in crisis, but very few people, let alone women, have the brute physical strength to endure and complete the training required of the elite forces.

If women want to serve in the SF, the requirements should not be compromised. It's not a male requirement or a female requirement. It's SF requirement. I don't care who you are, I'm not keen on paying for your remedial physical training so you can be the weakest link in the chain.

 

[jimmydean]

This.

We are losing sight of the mission in favor of being inclusive. The mission is to train individuals for guerrilla/counter-guerrilla war operations. Many women are great leaders, many women are clear-headed in crisis, but very few people, let alone women, have the brute physical strength to endure and complete the training required of the elite forces.

If women want to serve in the SF, the requirements should not be compromised. It's not a male requirement or a female requirement. It's SF requirement. I don't care who you are, I'm not keen on paying for your remedial physical training so you can be the weakest link in the chain.

Damn I would rep you twice if I could.

That goes with my initial point. If 80% or higher of MALE recruits fail and you need to pass crazy PT requirements to even be considered, that what would be an acceptable washout rate for females?

Would someone get pissed if 5 women made it to BUDs and none passed?

 

[stevew]

it's all fun and games until a bitch dies.









troll poast!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[stevew]

Any time you begin a statement with "I'm not______, but_______", you might be.


/troll.

troll post.

 

[stevew]

they should recruit at crossfit gyms.

 

[sunny]

Ahahaha!! Just noticed the tag.
Sorry. That was last month.

 

[c101aviojet]

I agree that you should let anyone in, regardless if it's a man, a woman, a gay, or a potty trained chimp, as long as the requirements are met. If the drawbacks are people quitting early, maybe they could ask for a small admission fee and/or some free work before letting people inside.

The problem comes when a smartass decides that "equality" means a certain collective must be (overnight) made up of 50% women and 50% men, and to do so, they either fire (more or less) valid people, and/or create lower standards.

Equality means same for all; when you give a different treatment to some, then there's a discrimination. It's obvious that very specific jobs will suit a narrow group of people, and it's plain stupid to force things otherwise.

If my house is burning, I don't care who rescues me as long as I'm taken safely to the outside. In others words, I wouldn't like to be left behind because that person is less capable than his/her mates by purely political reasons.

 

[$tinkle]

i have found that women do, in fact, make good seals

 

[jimmydean]

I agree that you should let anyone in, regardless if it's a man, a woman, a gay, or a potty trained chimp, as long as the requirements are met. If the drawbacks are people quitting early, maybe they could ask for a small admission fee and/or some free work before letting people inside.

So 6 years of military service isn't enough? I would say 99% of the folks who fall out of BUDs will fulfill their military commitment. The issue is it costs a lot of money to put people through BUDs and if 80% of those in training fail at some point, then a majority of that training may never get used by that person.

It's not like any jackass can just walk in and say they want to be sent to BUDs. You have to go through a ton of crap before they even give you a second look, then you need to meet the PT requirements. Hell, even in my best shape, I don't think I could do either the run or swim in boots and jeans, let alone back to back.

 

[stevew]

i have found that women do, in fact, make good seals

are you implying they are easily trained?

 

[ohio]

Women breaking barriers in Navy, not SEALs yet

While I agree with this philosophy, with an 80%+ failure rate in BUDs of MEN who are at the highest level and STILL not able to finish, do any monkeys think there are more than a handful of women that would even make it through BUDs if given the chance?

I do know one butch chick who is a fireman in Portland (her partner works for Portland PD) and I think she would be able to do the physical requirements to qualify, but I don't see her making it through hell week.

I don't see why you assume that women who make it through all the same pre-qualifications as men would have a higher failure rate over a sufficient sample size. Same process, same standards to get there what's the problem? Even assuming a higher failure rate, where is all of this additional wasted investment you speak of? It's not like those women are cremated after all that work - they are still soldiers and probably much better ones for it.

Funny coincidence is that the woman that immediately comes to mind for me is a friend who was captain of a hotshots crew (wildfire fighter) in Oregon. She used to put the men to shame physically - humping a full pack and gear faster and further, AND doing her saw work faster. She only weighed about 130 all muscled up during wild fire season.

 

[jimmydean]

I don't see why you assume that women who make it through all the same pre-qualifications as men would have a higher failure rate over a sufficient sample size. Same process, same standards to get there what's the problem? Even assuming a higher failure rate, where is all of this additional wasted investment you speak of?

What is the benefit other than to say "Now open to women"? I would say that if they were able to meet the same qualifications then it's less of an issue, but in no other space is there an exception. There are military standards for men/women. Women are not expected to do as well physically as men, that's why there are women standards.

Not to say that there aren't women that can't make those standards, but at what cost and for what benefit?

It's more of a question of should, rather than can.

<edit> I wasn't implying that women would drop out at a higher (or even lower) rate than men. I was just implying that the pool to draw from is much smaller and is there any benefit to attracting that small a pool in the first place?

 

[johnbryanpeters]

...is there any benefit to attracting that small a pool in the first place?

Yeah. The capability of the force is undercut by arbitrarily screening by sex. Sorry if that's vague, but sometimes it's necessary to break out of codified systems to gain insight and improve performance.

There really ought to be one test of physical fitness. Male, female, no diff. If fewer females qualify, it's a fact. Might change over time or might not.

Ranger as pre-qualification? Fine.

Cost-effectiveness? If the washout rate is really high, the screening process is fvcked up and should be fixed. Sounds as though they just might be over-weighting physical toughness and under-weighting mental toughness, but I can't comment, I probably couldn't qualify on either ground.

 

[jimmydean]

I guess it's no different that my feeling of women in the Infantry. It doesn't require special skills and abilities beyond the basics for grunt level infantry, but is that really a place women NEED to be?

There is a certain level of infantry that are needed because there are few other places those individuals would be beneficial. I know these guys, I have worked and trained with them. But these are men of average (or above) strength and conditioning, but below average intelligence. They want a job, but may not be qualified to do much other than to follow orders.

Can a woman do the same job? Certainly. But should they and is there a benefit of having a woman do it over a guy? Or does it matter?

Maybe I am sexist. Who knew?

 

[johnbryanpeters]

Speaking strictly for myself, I would much prefer to face a traditional infantry attack than one by a force of highly trained and motivated women, even if they were dullards. My nuts would fall off simply from terror.

 

[jimmydean]

Yeah. The capability of the force is undercut by arbitrarily screening by sex. Sorry if that's vague, but sometimes it's necessary to break out of codified systems to gain insight and improve performance.

There really ought to be one test of physical fitness. Male, female, no diff. If fewer females qualify, it's a fact. Might change over time or might not.

Ranger as pre-qualification? Fine.

Cost-effectiveness? If the washout rate is really high, the screening process is fvcked up and should be fixed. Sounds as though they just might be over-weighting physical toughness and under-weighting mental toughness, but I can't comment, I probably couldn't qualify on either ground.

I think in the case of SF, screening by sex just eliminates a level of BS. If you open it up to "all sexes" they you have to screen all sexes, right?

As stated earlier, the washout rate is being addressed by offering up the pre-course.

The issue with something like BUDs is you can have someone who seems like a shoe in yet they crumble in hell week, or some even sooner. Again, I know guys who ARE Rangers who either failed at BUDs, or just felt they couldn't do it based on what they know.

So how could you change the screening process to help the washout rate? The idea of what a person goes through at BUDs is only a fraction of what they might face should they even get to a team.

Remember, not everyone who passes BUD/s makes it to a team, either.

 

[manimal]

If my house is burning, I don't care who rescues me as long as I'm taken safely to the outside. In others words, I wouldn't like to be left behind because that person is less capable than his/her mates by purely political reasons.

in that case...it's a good thing the supreme court decided in favor of merit over diversity:

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-11-25/justice/new.haven.firefighters_1_white-firefighters-promotion-exams-supreme-court?_s=PM:CRIME

The firefighters were among the New Haven 20 -- one Hispanic and 19 white firefighters -- who fought the city after it threw out the results of a 2003 firefighter promotion exam that left too few minorities qualified for promotions.

When the results came back, however, city lawyers expressed concern about the results because none of the black firefighters and only one Latino who took the exam scored high enough to be promoted.

The city said that under a federal civil rights law known as Title VII, employers must ban actions such as promotion tests that would have a "disparate impact" on a protected class, such as a specified race or gender. The group of firefighters, claiming they were wronged by the city's action, then sued, calling themselves the "New Haven 20."

meet the standard, get the job. seems pretty simple to me.

as far as lady seals.......
it works in the future [but not so well in reality...combat unit cohesion is a strange animal]

 

[jimmydean]

Damn, I forgot about the fireman fiasco. I agree that the standard should be the standard and if you pass or exceed the standard, then you should be considered regardless of race/sex/religion if those things don't impede your ability to do the job (ie you can kill other people without the fear of teh jeebus).

 

[MikeD]

The point is not physical capacity. Although on average men out-perform women physically, averages mean ****. It's about who can do the job on an individual level. Otherwise we could say "asians are on average smaller than blacks; we shouldn't bother letting asians in." Not to equate race and sex, as one is a cosmetic difference and another is far more fundamental and cuts across race.

That said, we've been through this long and painful talk before, but any ground combat unit needs to be single-gender. That means, for what it's worth, in the sake of efficiency and realism, all-male.

There is a big difference between a unit that fights in reaction, out of necessity to survive (military police, rear-echelon units, etc etc.), and those whose job it is to locate, close with, and destroy the enemy. Current combat conditions blur the lines (and add infrastructure that's not always there in combat...) which leads people on the outside to mistakenly think that there's no difference. Women can and have done absolutely heroic things in combat, but that doesn't mean it's a wise idea to mix genders in a line unit.

If you can find enough women to make an effective SEAL team or infantry battalion, I guess you can go for it, but you're then in danger of going way too far in the name of "inclusiveness" rather than mission accomplishment in having to maintain a separate-but-equal status. Seems like it might be a real administrative/organizational pain in the ass.

Or not; like I've said, if they can field all-female combat units effectively and cost-efficiently, go for it...



(Although, to be fair, pregnancy and non-deployability is another massive and thorny concern...line unit or not.)

 

[Silver]

Look, if a woman wants to kill in the name of God and country, who am I to say she's not as morally bankrupt as a man who is as bloodthirsty.

Either way, we put bullets into Afghans, Iraqis, Panamanians, Grendans, and Vietnamese, amirite?

 

[gonefirefightin]

I am going to pretend I never saw this thread

 

[daisycutter]

standards for women and men in the ARMY age 17-21.

men min 42

women min 19


Women in the US Navy Seal. Thats funny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Physical_Fitness_Test

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Look, if a woman wants to kill in the name of God and country, who am I to say she's not as morally bankrupt as a man who is as bloodthirsty.

Either way, we put bullets into Afghans, Iraqis, Panamanians, Grendans, and Vietnamese, amirite?

 

[DaveW]

standards for women and men in the ARMY age 17-21.

men min 42

women min 19


Women in the US Navy Seal. Thats funny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Physical_Fitness_Test

Blimey I'm surprised the the pass mark is set so low!..... For both men and women.
I'm in exceptionally poor fitness these days due to a heart condition (beta blockers really slow you down), and even I could blitz that test.
The only one I'd have trouble with would be the rangers 5 mile in 40min.

 

[MMike]

Would any of these female SEALS wear sexy evening gowns at exclusive parties, and dance suggestive tangos with world leaders to extract secrets from him?

 

[jimmydean]

Blimey I'm surprised the the pass mark is set so low!..... For both men and women.
I'm in exceptionally poor fitness these days due to a heart condition (beta blockers really slow you down), and even I could blitz that test.
The only one I'd have trouble with would be the rangers 5 mile in 40min.

Sad to say I never maxed. The run was never my friend and I could never seem to max push ups. The closest I got was 71 push-ups in about 90 seconds, then I was spent.

My friend Joe has been on the extended scale since he joined, but I think he barely topped 300 last time, so he's starting to show his age. He has also been trying to get to ranger school for the last 4 years, but they won't send him because hi branched MI. He made Cpt, so I think he will cross branch to Infantry so they will send him.


Hey GFF, isn't there a beard requirement for SF anyway?

 

[rockofullr]

I am going to pretend I never saw this thread

Ok don't worry, we will all pretend we didn't see you here.

 

[MikeD]

(beta blockers really slow you down),

Name for your new 7% beer: Beta Blocker

 

[stevew]

Hey GFF, isn't there a beard requirement for SF anyway?

would not shaving their cooter fulfill this requirement?

 

[jimmydean]

would not shaving their cooter fulfill this requirement?

Better than the alternative (insert bush photo of Demi Moore here), I guess.

 

[DaveW]

Name for your new 7% beer: Beta Blocker

lol Nice.... I'll run up some labels in the weekend!