First the Rangers, now the SEAL’s. Seams the SEAL aspect has not been getting the attention the Rangers did. Considering the drop out rate of BUDs by extremely competitive men in top condition that don’t make it (approx 80%), the chances of a woman making it without any changes in standards, is damn close to zero in my non mil civi estimation. There’s ongoing controversy as to whether the two ladies that made it through Ranger school did so without any assistance their male counterparts didn’t receive:
First woman enlists to become a Navy SEAL
A woman will train with other potential officers this summer in hopes of becoming the first female Navy SEAL.
The candidate, a midshipman, and another woman have enlisted as the first female candidates seeking to join the Navy’s special operations teams.
The latter is training for the Special Warfare Combatant-Craft Crewman program, or SWCC.
These women have already made history, but they still face a long road ahead of training and tests before they officially make the cut.
Women weren’t allowed to serve in combat roles, including special operation forces such as the SEALs and SWCC, until January 2016. But there were no female applicants in the 18 months since that historic change until now.
I’m still not convinced that’s case that happened with the Rangers. Why don’t we start with sports at least? If there was ever a good place to try some social experimentation, allow women into the NFL combines and see if a single one survives. Have games between M/F pro sports teams in football, soccer, basketball. At least they are not getting anyone killed in the process. I believe on average 2-3 guys per year die in BUDs, but have to check that one. What happens when some woman dies at BUDs? People will freak the fu^$ out and demand a lowering of standards will follow.
It can’t be done with the times the same, the times, reps, and situations were designed with elite men in mind. Elite men, in any athletic pursuit, dwarf elite women. Sure, elite women sometimes can dwarf above average men, but that’s not really what is running through BUD/S – or is it?
I suppose an elite woman could meet the male standard, but I doubt it – at least not while passing an HGH/Hormone drug screen.
Sure, with all those assumptions. Some of us just wonder if it will all be exactly the same.
Even more un-PC question: assuming there is some incredibly capable woman who can make it through BUDs at the unchanged standards, how will her body hold up to years of the physical challenges SEALs undergo? All I read is that women’s bodies, due to differences in bone density and muscle mass, suffer far more chronic injury from infantry tasks than men’s bodies due. In the civilian world I’ve never heard of a women having a long career in something requiring lots of strength and some physical abuse, like firefighting or bricklaying. Not even someone who had such a career and is physically crippled, just literally have not heard of a woman having a long career in something like that, or even something not as hard on your body, like carpentry. Is it smart to put someone in a position where they are guaranteed to suffer permanent injury to a greater degree than a man would?
Two women officers were slated to attend the Army’s Special Forces Q-Course this past Spring. Wonder if they made it, or was it quietly swept under the rug?
The requirements should never be lowered. But if a woman can hack it then I say let them do it. Yeah this means that for every 100 guys there may be 1 woman, Oh well. Equality means everyone gets a chance. Not that everyone gets the same result.
That’s where I’m at. If Bruce Jenner wants to join the Navy and try out for BUDS then sure, assuming he passes the psych eval. Anyone who wants to join our military should be extended a liberal benefit of the doubt. Anyone who further wants to engage in combat in defense of this nation should be given every reasonable opportunity to do so. Anyone who can satisfactorily do that and wants to attempt to join an elite division should be allowed to try.
Those with a sincere desire have better motivations than a lot of others. But standards should be maintained. If we do end up with legit female SEALS I wouldn’t want them killed because they had to deploy with Richard Simmons anymore than I would want any other member of the military killed because they had to deploy with a GI Jane wannabe.
And if you insist on separate standards, then you need to establish segregated groups that reflect those standards like “All Female” teams.
Israel is either ahead or behind of the USA in allowing women into infantry units. It has been a joke and a failure with steps located in front of walls on the obstacle course.
We get suckered into having to accept in principle that women as long as they meet standards should be allowed to try. The women then fail.
Then standards are lowered or a double standard is set up.
I favor women in some roles in the covert far on terrorism. But not for special ops on a battlefield or in the infantry.
They just can’t hack it long term.
But they got me beat all to hell, when it comes to having a baby. Having to go through delivering a baby is beyond my ability for a lot of reasons. But since I don’t feel the need to push an agenda, I am not crying about how unfair G-D made it.
Civilians always seem to miss the point that assessment and selection for whichever organization is still nowhere near as difficult as real world operations. Sure, swimming in 50° water sucks. Not sleeping sucks. Being run into the ground sucks.
Add in the factor of 75+ lbs of equipment and zero option for failure and it doesn’t just suck anymore. It’s real. You die and your team dies.
If a woman manages to pass, it will be by the bare minimum standard. If that’s what we want at the very tip of the spear, so be it. Otherwise the Commander in Chief and SECDEF need to stop the stupidity.
You have to carefully pay attention to how the standards may be changed to accommodate a political desire. If it happens it usually tries to avoid the stigma of two sets of different standards. Instead it is spun this way: “We are looking at what the requirements are for XXX group/team. We have questioned whether, in today’s environment, is it really necessary to be able to hump/swim XXX distance? We have determined that it isn’t”. Then the standards don’t get “lowered” per se, they are merely changed to reflect “modern military requirements” or some other bullshit.
The first I heard of this take on things was a couple of years ago when it was being mulled over how would women make it through SFAS. I recall reading that some high-ranking shithead said something to the effect of “We are reviewing the requirements of the Q-Course and one of those items is the necessity to roadmarch 20+ miles [the final obstacle to overcome during Selection] with such a heavy load in today’s combat environment”.
I politely disagree with the poster above me in this sense: I believe that the requirements involved in the entry training of our tip-of-the-spear types is often pushed beyond what will ever actually be required on the battlefield. This is to ensure that if you can make it through this you will succeed at whatever you will encounter 90% of the time in real-world missions.
