NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, here's the situation.

I have a friend. This friend wants to be in the Special Forces when they grow up. They would be willing to working to get all the qualifications necessary to be in the Special Forces. However, there's one little problem.

This person is female.

In case you didn't know, the Special Forces doesn't allow females into their little group.

So here's my question to the military people on NSG...

Why in hell's name doesn't the Special Forces allow women? I mean, we've let women into almost every single other part of the military, so why not the Special Forces? I mean, sure, Special Forces is harder work than regular military, but it's nothing that women can't accomplish as well as men. It's just discrimination as far as I can tell...

So really, what is the policy that says women can't be in Special Forces?

And what is the reasoning behind that policy?

Ok, here's the situation.

I have a friend. This friend wants to be in the Special Forces when they grow up. They would be willing to working to get all the qualifications necessary to be in the Special Forces. However, there's one little problem.

This person is female.

In case you didn't know, the Special Forces doesn't allow females into their little group.

So here's my question to the military people on NSG...

Why in hell's name doesn't the Special Forces allow women? I mean, we've let women into almost every single other part of the military, so why not the Special Forces? I mean, sure, Special Forces is harder work than regular military, but it's nothing that women can't accomplish as well as men. It's just discrimination as far as I can tell...

So really, what is the policy that says women can't be in Special Forces?

And what is the reasoning behind that policy?

Okay, the thing is, American Special Forces are allowing women into some branches of the service.

Others, i.e. Army Rangers, Delta Force, etc. work behind enemy lines. As such, with our current enemies, then the women are more than likely going to be raped if they are captured, and as such, will be killed for being raped.

The US DOD is not willing to let this happen to our citizens, and thus will not allow women to join the Special Forces.

The inherent conservatism of the military. They don't like the status quo to change, and they like to keep their momentum, without changing it.

Others, i.e. Army Rangers, Delta Force, etc. work behind enemy lines. As such, with our current enemies, then the women are more than likely going to be raped if they are captured, and as such, will be killed for being raped.
What, so you think that men aren't gonna get raped when captured in these ugly asymetric combat situations?

http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/myths.html

Good website, that. Personally, I think women should be allowed to serve wherever they want, as long as two things are taken care of:
1) They should be able to pass the tough physical tests. There should only be one standard, not a second one especially for women.
2) If they want to serve in a submarine for example, they should not be able to insist on any more privacy than anyone else is getting. They'll just have to deal with the fact that one shares a bunk, and there isn't enough room for seperate accomodation.

In short, no special treatment for anybody.

The reason there's two sets of physical standards for men and women in the armed forces is the same reason there's different standards for age. Women - just like those E-7s pushing 40 - will be more prone to injury if they try to meet the same standards. We do not require superior athletes in our military, only healthy soldiers.
HOWEVER, our Special Forces DO require a Hell of a lot more out of a person than the regular military. Enough that they have an extremely high washout rate and very low life expectancy. Don't think it's a matter of people simply not having the guts and giving up - the gutsiest people will still washout when their body gives up before they do. And because women inclined to join the Special Forces tend to be extremely gutsy, the injury rate among women who washout will be close to 100%, with a washout rate above 95%. The 5% that make it through the training will live only half as long as their male counterparts.
In the end, it's just not economical to allow women into the Special Forces.

Before I open my mouth here and before I am construed as a Machoist spitting off garbage let me make a little bit of my backround clear. First I was raised by strong Women, who were despite all the bullshit, successful. My Grandmother raised 9 kids (2 grand children) but still managed to own and operate 2 Businesses. She came up through the depression without a father etc etc her whole life Chips were stacked against her. She is in my opinion far stronger in alot of ways than I will ever be. Having gotten that out there without writing a book, I grew up boxing and through my time have come to known some pretty tough girls (manly types) through that. My point is, I know Women are strong but theres quite a few significant problems in their becoming SF.

1. Women in my experience (and its vast TRUST ME) cant "hump".. That is they cant carry heavy loads over long distances. Which is understandable, considering that the average infantry load is 80-100 pounds of gear. Whats the avg athletic females weight? I know I weigh around 310 with all my gear on. That often doesnt include the extra stuff that an Rifleman is expected to carry in addition. Mortar Rounds, The Tube and base plate, Extra ammo for the 240Gulf or SAW the weapons themselves can add an easy 40 to 50 pounds..So you expect a 130 pound female to carry 140 pounds of gear 15+ miles a day for months on end? Seriously? (we are weighed when we get on certain aircraft just in case your wondering how I know how much I weigh with gear) I know half the women here are going "Bullshit", but first you have no experience with it, and second you have to understand that youre not just walking with that weight. (Running, Kicking down doors, Laying down, Getting up 100's of times each) If you only saw how many W.M's (Walking Mattresses, Women Marines) are broke just from MCT (Marine Combat Training) which is SO much bullshit that heads should role for trying to pass it off as combat training. Just to give you an Idea of how hard humping is on the body - When I first joined the Corps I had high arches, mysteriously today I am almost flat foot. (It doesnt hurt just slowly happened)

2. Yeast infections, Urinary Tract Infections and a myriad of other weird stuff you all catch. (Shuttering)

3. It costs thousands of dollars to train us. I had to go through BRC, SERE, Jump School, Dive School, Scout Sniper Basic Course, A.S.C. If a female gets pregnant shes non-deployable, shes basicaly useless to us for over a year. Its fine if shes admin and she sits most of the day anyway but honestly what the hell am I to do with a pregnant Recon Marine? Seriously WTF?!?

to be continued.......

Before I open my mouth here and before I am construed as a Machoist spitting off garbage let me make a little bit of my backround clear. First I was raised by strong Women, who were despite all the bullshit, successful. My Grandmother raised 9 kids (2 grand children) but still managed to own and operate 2 Businesses. She came up through the depression without a father etc etc her whole life Chips were stacked against her. She is in my opinion far stronger in alot of ways than I will ever be. Having gotten that out there without writing a book, I grew up boxing and through my time have come to known some pretty tough girls (manly types) through that. My point is, I know Women are strong but theres quite a few significant problems in their becoming SF.

1. Women in my experience (and its vast TRUST ME) cant "hump".. That is they cant carry heavy loads over long distances. Which is understandable, considering that the average infantry load is 80-100 pounds of gear. Whats the avg athletic females weight? I know I weigh around 310 with all my gear on. That often doesnt include the extra stuff that an Rifleman is expected to carry in addition. Mortar Rounds, The Tube and base plate, Extra ammo for the 240Gulf or SAW the weapons themselves can add an easy 40 to 50 pounds..So you expect a 130 pound female to carry 140 pounds of gear 15+ miles a day for months on end? Seriously? (we are weighed when we get on certain aircraft just in case your wondering how I know how much I weigh with gear) I know half the women here are going "Bullshit", but first you have no experience with it, and second you have to understand that youre not just walking with that weight. (Running, Kicking down doors, Laying down, Getting up 100's of times each) If you only saw how many W.M's (Walking Mattresses, Women Marines) are broke just from MCT (Marine Combat Training) which is SO much bullshit that heads should role for trying to pass it off as combat training. Just to give you an Idea of how hard humping is on the body - When I first joined the Corps I had high arches, mysteriously today I am almost flat foot. (It doesnt hurt just slowly happened)

2. Yeast infections, Urinary Tract Infections and a myriad of other weird stuff you all catch. (Shuttering)

3. It costs thousands of dollars to train us. I had to go through BRC, SERE, Jump School, Dive School, Scout Sniper Basic Course, A.S.C. If a female gets pregnant shes non-deployable, shes basicaly useless to us for over a year. Its fine if shes admin and she sits most of the day anyway but honestly what the hell am I to do with a pregnant Recon Marine? Seriously WTF?!?

to be continued.......

Okay, the thing is, American Special Forces are allowing women into some branches of the service.

Others, i.e. Army Rangers, Delta Force, etc. work behind enemy lines. As such, with our current enemies, then the women are more than likely going to be raped if they are captured, and as such, will be killed for being raped.

The US DOD is not willing to let this happen to our citizens, and thus will not allow women to join the Special Forces.

You do not know what you are talking about. You are not in the military, have never been in the military and have no clue. :rolleyes: Oh, I can tell that from your very first sentance.

In the Australian Army, women aren't allowed in general infantry either. Basically the rationale behind it is that women aren't as well equiped naturally for long periods of time out in the bush. Specifically, they mean menstruation is a pain in the arse. That being said, this excuse is merely a cop out for the fact that the people in charge don't want women breaking traditional roles, and the anti-authoritarianism it implies. Further, another unspoken reason is that they don't want to tempt 'the boys' into fraternisation (the flaws are obvious in this arguement).

That being said, most women don't actually want to go into infantry or the special forces as it is, though this may be in part due to the fact that it isn't allowed, peer pressure, and disencouragement by society.

Personally I think the above reasons are BS, even considering the menstruation thing (whats the difference between a guy with a bleeding foot and a woman with a bleeding uterus).

(whats the difference between a guy with a bleeding foot and a woman with a bleeding uterus).

Location, location, and location. :D

Okay, the thing is, American Special Forces are allowing women into some branches of the service.

Others, i.e. Army Rangers, Delta Force, etc. work behind enemy lines. As such, with our current enemies, then the women are more than likely going to be raped if they are captured, and as such, will be killed for being raped.

The US DOD is not willing to let this happen to our citizens, and thus will not allow women to join the Special Forces.

Even if the women are willing to take that risk?

If we don't want our soldiers to be raped, why do we allow them to be killed? I don't see how they can let our soldiers decide to take the chance of being killed why they won't let women decide to take the chance of being raped in order to defend our country. Hell, they ARE letting them take that chance by just letting them be in the military. Ugh... I hate the militaries "policies".

Equality my ass.

Even if the women are willing to take that risk?

If we don't want our soldiers to be raped, why do we allow them to be killed? I don't see how they can let our soldiers decide to take the chance of being killed why they won't let women decide to take the chance of being raped in order to defend our country. Hell, they ARE letting them take that chance by just letting them be in the military. Ugh... I hate the militaries "policies".

Equality my ass.

Do you know what you are talking about? I don't have a clue about what you just said and I spent 26 years in the military. But, I'm old so that might have something to do with it. :rolleyes:

I always thought of it as one woman with five guys in a trench for a few years
Kind of like what the lonely soldiers in Vietnam did…

Also there is lots of crap about men being distracted and doing stupid stuff to save the women (gentlemen basically) though there should at least be one infantry battalion (to my best recollection) that is women only at least I think the U.K one still exists

It has nothing to so with discrimination, it has everything to do with the males, when In combat when the female soldier is in distress ie, wounded, captured, pinned down, most men will typically feel the need to protect her, and help her before anything and in turn create confusion and disunity in a combat situation.

I'm not military, and won't claim/pretend to be.

One very probably element is that, in the event of capture, the female prisoner from the team will be used as a bargaining tool in interrogation and the male prisoners are much more likely to crack due to her gender.

"Tell me, American scum, what your mission objectives are, or I'll mangle this wretch's face!"

PC or not, men tend to (try) be more protective of women.

The intelligence angle on this is a consideration some of you have yet to take.

Expanding on my previous post, even without the event of capture, those over-protective impulses by men towards women would be extra mental baggage when there are plenty of factors to consider already. The perceived performance of the entire unit is possibly compromised.

Team Leader: "Blue Charlie-4, roger that...we can make it atop G113 before 13:00..."

*looks at resting team, notices the inexperienced female member*

"...erm, disregard last. Make that 15:00."

The team leader is putting on a big safety factor, which may have further ramifications.

Operations Centre
"Blue-Charlie-4 won't make it in time to the rendevous...we better hold off the other elements."

Ok, here's the situation.

I have a friend. This friend wants to be in the Special Forces when they grow up. They would be willing to working to get all the qualifications necessary to be in the Special Forces. However, there's one little problem.

This person is female.

In case you didn't know, the Special Forces doesn't allow females into their little group.

So here's my question to the military people on NSG...

Why in hell's name doesn't the Special Forces allow women? I mean, we've let women into almost every single other part of the military, so why not the Special Forces? I mean, sure, Special Forces is harder work than regular military, but it's nothing that women can't accomplish as well as men. It's just discrimination as far as I can tell...

So really, what is the policy that says women can't be in Special Forces?

And what is the reasoning behind that policy?

First off, it's Congress that bars women. Secondly, it's not just the Special Forces. Women are not allowed to join any combat arm.

The rational is two fold. 1) Women in general are unable to meet the physical demands. 2) Mixed gender units have cohesion problems. One might find both of these to be questionable.

Anyway, here's what the Selected Findings of the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces has to say in particular regards to womwn.

http://www.cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp?docID=233

GROUND COMBAT - SPECIAL FORCES

The Commission recommended that women be excluded from direct land combat units and positions, and that the existing service policies concerning direct land combat exclusions be codified. In a separate action, the Commission also recommended that Special Operations Forces remain closed to women, and that the DoD Risk Rule be retained.

Commissioners signing the Alternative Views section recommended that the Risk Rule be maintained for all the services, including the Navy, and that Army exclusion policies should continue to apply to multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) and field artillery units.

1. All branches of the Armed Forces play an important role in determining the outcome of ground combat, but the ground combat soldier faces unique challenges and demands normally not imposed on the soldier in combat support and combat service support roles.

■ As defined by Title 10 U.S. Code Sec. 3062, the "Army shall be organized, trained and equipped primarily for prompt and sustained combat incident to operations on land."

■ The Commission heard considerable testimony that despite technological advances, ground combat is no more refined, no less barbaric and no less physically demanding than it has been throughout history. (Testimony of LTG Binford Peay, Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, 6 April. See Alt. Views, p. 62)

■ Combat veterans testified that the responsibility to actually engage the enemy in a life-and-death struggle is considerably different than the experience of being fired upon or in danger. (Testimony of Sgt. Maj. Harold Overstreet, USMC, 26 June. See Alt. Views, p. 62)

■ A number of Army and Marine Desert Storm combat veterans said women should not be assigned to ground combat because the physiological requirements over time are extreme, and the group is only as good as its weakest member.

■ VIII Airborne Corps infantry soldiers demonstrated the necessity of evacuating one another with a single-man "fireman's carry" if a fully-loaded fellow soldier is wounded while under fire. They said that other soldiers are needed to provide protective cover. (Fort Bragg Trip Report, 16 June)

2. The ground combatant relies heavily on his physical strength and stamina to survive, fight, and win. The Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony about the physical differences between men and women that can be summarized as follows:

■ Women are shorter, have less muscle mass and weigh less than men, placing them at a distinct disadvantage when performing tasks requiring a high level of muscular strength and aerobic capacity, like ground combat. Female dynamic upper torso muscular strength is approximately 50-60 percent that of males. (CF 2.1.1, 2.1.2)

■ Female aerobic capacity is approximately 70-75 percent that of males. In terms of military significance, at the same marching velocity and carrying the same load, the average woman works at a higher percentage of her aerobic capacity. This means that women cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue. (CF 2.1.3)

■ In a 1988 study of Army recruits, woman were found to be more vulnerable to exercise-induced injuries than men, with 2.13 times greater risk for lower extremity injuries, and 4.71 times greater risk for stress fractures. Men sustained 99 days of limited duty due to injury, while women incurred 481 days of limited duty. (CF 2.1.5)

■ The experience of other countries shows little evidence that women are suited for ground combat. For example, of 103 women recruited for infantry training after Canada repealed its combat rules in 1989, only one woman succeeded in meeting the physical requirements necessary to complete the training. (CF 2.5.4B, 1.79; International Trip Report, 16-25 September)

3. In a test of ROTC cadets using the standard Army physical fitness test, it was found that the upper quintile of women achieved scores equivalent of the bottom quintile of men. (Testimony of Lt. Col. William J. Gregor, USA Ret., Military Science Chair, University of Michigan; CF 1.39a)

■ Only 3.4% achieved a score equal to the male mean score. On the push-up test, only 7 percent of women could meet a score that was exceeded by 78 percent of the men. (CF 1.39c,d)

■ Few women can meet the male mean standard. Men below the standard can improve their scores, whereas the women who have met the standard have already achieved a maximum level beyond which they cannot improve. (CF 1.39f)

■ Age also makes a difference: A 20 to 30 year old woman has about the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year old man. Because women begin losing bone mass at an earlier age than men, and are more susceptible to orthopedic injuries, those initially selected for the combat arms would probably not survive to career-end. (CF 1.39h)

4. In the likely situation that women were unable to carry their full load without male assistance, unit morale and cohesion would suffer. (Testimony of Staff Sgt. Barry Bell, USMC 7 August. See Alt. Views, p. 64)

■ Direct combat units have few, if any, personal comforts comparable to those available in support units. Lack of privacy in combat units could result in morale and cohesion problems when normal and widely accepted standards of personal modesty must routinely be sacrificed in wartime or peacetime training environments. (Numerous witnesses)

■ Research shows that units lacking discipline and cohesion are more likely to suffer excess casualties and perhaps even defeat. (Testimony of Dr. William Darryl Henderson, 26 June)

5. Because of close quarters and related factors, the effect of inappropriate sexual relationships would be more serious in combat units.

■ Even if some women are strong enough to handle the physical demands of combat, the introduction of factors such as sexual entanglements and jealousies--even if the women don't invite such attention-- would make the forward commander's job more difficult. (Testimony of RADM Raymond C. Smith, Jr. USN, Commander, Naval Special Warfare Command, 27 August)

■ As one soldier put it, "This is not Olympic diving. We do not get extra credit for adding an extra degree of difficulty." (Testimony of Lt Col Stephen Smith, 7 August)

■ Sixty-four percent of military respondents who served in mixed gender units during Desert Shield/Storm indicated that there were incidents of sexual activity between men and women in their units. (CF 1. 69c, Roper Military Poll, Q. 27)

■ Sixty-one percent of military respondents who served in Desert Shield/Storm indicated that there were incidents of sexual activity between men and women in their own unit and members of other units. (CF 169d Roper Military Poll, Q. 29)

6. A number of public and military surveys have found strong evidence that deployment of mothers in land combat units, implying a national acceptance of deliberate violence and brutality against women, is contrary to American cultural values, particularly when their is no military necessity to use women--much less mothers-in direct combat units. (CF 3.22, 3.23, 3.24, 3.25, 10. See Alt. Views, pp. 59-61)

■ As with combat aviation, the risk of capture is a serious cultural and military issue. David Horowitz testified that future American presidents "will be under pressure to win a war in four days or lose the war at home." (Testimony, 6 August. See Alt. Views, pp. 59-60)

7. Indications are that deployability would be a major problem if women are subjected to ground combat.

■ According to a 1992 GAO study, in some Army units 18 to 20 percent of female soldiers were non-deployable during Desert Shield/Storm. (CF 16)

■ Pre-screening of reservists to avoid calling up those who could not deploy helped to minimize and mask the potential for non-deployability problems. (CF 17)

■ Pregnant soldiers may separate voluntarily or be separated involuntarily whenever a pregnancy or parenthood interferes with military responsibilities. Pregnant soldiers are ineligible for deployment overseas. (CF 2.3.1, 2.3. ]A, 2.3.1 B)

■ In comparison with previous years, the Army reported significant increases in the numbers of voluntary and involuntary discharges during FY 90-91 (Desert Shield/Storm) for reasons of parenthood or pregnancy. (CF 1, 6)

■ Because discharged soldiers are not counted among those called up for deployment, losses in the ranks do not show up in non-deployability figures, which were approximately 3 times as great for Army women (9.0) as for men (2.7) during Desert Shield/Storm. (Army Non-Deployability Briefing, Col. Terry Hulin, USA)

■ Fifty-six percent of those who were deployed in Desert Shield/Desert Storm with mixed gender units reported that women in their unit became pregnant just prior to, or while deployed in the Gulf. Forty-one percent reported no women became pregnant. (CF 1.69b)

■ Absences due to pregnancy would have a more negative effect on deployed combat units, particularly if the women are in leadership positions.

8. Several witnesses before the Commission testified that because armor, field artillery, multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) and combat engineer units are deployed and coordinated in close proximity to the infantry and other direct combat forces, it would be unwise to include women in those units unless all land forces were open to them. (Testimony of Officers and Enlisted in Field Artillery, 28 August)

■ MAJ Ann F. Jameson, USA, who has been assigned to Pershing and Lance field artillery units, testified that she supports the current exclusion policy for MLRS units: "We have a system with the combat arms that is currently working, with male soldiers only in direct combat .... I personally don't feel that for the few that can and have proven themselves and that want to, the very few that want to, that we need to accommodate in the combat arms those few females and completely change our way of operation." (28 August)

■ The overwhelming consensus of officers and enlisted men and women serving in field artillery units was that if the Commission advised against the use of women in ground combat, it should also recommend that the current exclusion governing MLRS units be continued. SFC Janice F. Murrell, USA, said that she didn't believe women belong in MLRS units, "...due to the fact that it is direct combat, as far as I am concerned, and I don't believe a large majority of the women want to be in those type of jobs."

9. Commanders of Special Operations Forces testified that because of unparalleled physical demands and forced intimacy, even in training, women would degrade the readiness, cohesion and effectiveness of their units. (Special Operations Forces Panel, 27 August)

10. Even though the Risk Rule is an imperfect standard, it served reasonably well during Desert Shield/Storm in reflecting the intent of Congress that women not be involved in close combat. In the view of some witnesses, the Risk Rule should be more strictly enforced, not less so. (Testimony of SFC Everett L. Baumgaertel, USA, Platoon Sergeant 6/27 Field Artillery (MLRS) 28 August)

11. The placement of women in land combat units would undermine the principle on which women's exemption from Selective Service registration is based.

■ In Rostker v. Goldberg, the Supreme Court determined that the purpose of the draft was to induct combat soldiers. Because women could not serve in those units, the government could exempt them from registering from the draft. (CF 4.3)

■ Subjecting women to any kind of combat, particularly on land, invites predictable legal challenges with unforeseen and perhaps irreversible legal consequences. (CF 4.7, 4.8 4.9)

12. In the Commission's Roper poll of the military subgroup comprised of combat specialties from all services, 67% believe women should not be assigned to ground combat. (CF 3.29)

■ The Marines are most strongly opposed to assigning women in ground combat (75 %); in the Army, 56 % were opposed. (CF 3.17, Roper Question 16)

■ According to the Commission's survey of all known retired Flag Officers, 76 percent (attack helicopters) to 90 percent (infantry) opposed the assignment of women to the different ground combat specialties.

■ Within the two Services with ground combat specialties, the figures were higher: between 74 percent and 92 percent of Army Generals surveyed opposed such assignments as did 90 percent to 99 percent of Marine Generals. (Appendix D)



Okay, the thing is, American Special Forces are allowing women into some branches of the service.

Others, i.e. Army Rangers, Delta Force, etc. work behind enemy lines. As such, with our current enemies, then the women are more than likely going to be raped if they are captured, and as such, will be killed for being raped.

The US DOD is not willing to let this happen to our citizens, and thus will not allow women to join the Special Forces.



You do not know what you are talking about. You are not in the military, have never been in the military and have no clue. :rolleyes: Oh, I can tell that from your very first sentance.

You don't have to have served to be able to tell that. ;)

My point is, I know Women are strong but theres quite a few significant problems in their becoming SF...
The Red Army deployed hundreds of specially trained female snipers in WWII, apart from the women regiments they had anyways.

You don't think those women carried stuff and just generally coped with a physically demanding environment?

PC or not, men tend to (try) be more protective of women.
Except of course if they are women on the enemy side.

Let's not pretend that men are the great protectors, okay? For millennia the worst position in war has always been to be a civilian woman facing a bunch of enemy males. If it hadn't been for those protective males, there wouldn't be a need for protection in the first place.

That's an interesting point to bring up. I do realize that I'd treat the women differently if I were to serve, so that would bring up problems.

Not sure if that warrants barring them from the army entirely, but still.

That's an interesting point to bring up. I do realize that I'd treat the women differently if I were to serve, so that would bring up problems.

Not sure if that warrants barring them from the army entirely, but still.
It would, if anything, be a sign of your lacking in professionalism. If you're a Special Forces Operator, and you think you need to be especially nice to female comrades even at the expense of the mission, you're doing something wrong.

To take the example of the "inexperienced and exhausted female soldier"...what if it was a male? Would you expect the commander to make exceptions then? Why not? Professionalism, perhaps?

It would, if anything, be a sign of your lacking in professionalism. If you're a Special Forces Operator, and you think you need to be especially nice to female comrades even at the expense of the mission, you're doing something wrong.

To take the example of the "inexperienced and exhausted female soldier"...what if it was a male? Would you expect the commander to make exceptions then? Why not? Professionalism, perhaps?

I agree. It'd be an incredibly unprofessional thing to do, but I'd act that way regardless. It's just how I am. Yeah, I give women a double-standard. I know I shouldn't but I do.

A lot of the given reasons so far are related to what the average woman can or cannot do. Who gives a damn what most women can or cannot do. The military has strict fitness assessments, if a woman can pass them what is the sense in telling her she is not allowed to join because of the average resluts of other individuals who share her gender.

Further, if men have an attitude towards women in their unit, then it is their problem, not the woman's. Such nonsense needs to be drilled out of them in the process of training and conditioning for battle. They already do this for the other men (with strategic deindividualisation).

I agree. It'd be an incredibly unprofessional thing to do, but I'd act that way regardless. It's just how I am. Yeah, I give women a double-standard. I know I shouldn't but I do.
Well, that's okay. But then, you're not in the special forces either.

What you can rightly accept as being the way you are would not be acceptable if you were trained and employed to deal with these high-pressure combat situations.

Well, that's okay. But then, you're not in the special forces either.

What you can rightly accept as being the way you are would not be acceptable if you were trained and employed to deal with these high-pressure combat situations.

Again, I agree completely. I'm not in the special forces - I don't have that kind of training. I just know that at the moment, untrained as I may be, I would be biased towards protecting the women of the unit, as stupid and disorderly (not to mention dangerous) as it may be.

It would, if anything, be a sign of your lacking in professionalism. If you're a Special Forces Operator, and you think you need to be especially nice to female comrades even at the expense of the mission, you're doing something wrong.

To take the example of the "inexperienced and exhausted female soldier"...what if it was a male? Would you expect the commander to make exceptions then? Why not? Professionalism, perhaps?

Also note that for the special forces especially, and general infantry also, the troops are deliberately taught to deindividualise themselves and each other. They are expected to sot thinking of themselves as humans, people, with genders histories and lives, and start thinking of themselves as soldiers, with ranks and weapons. It would just be important to emphasise this in the inclusion of women. The women would be expected to perform their duties just like the men, and the men would be expected to expect them to do so. Any deviance from this would surely be met with disciplinary action.

Also note that for the special forces especially, and general infantry also, the troops are deliberately taught to deindividualise themselves and each other. They are expected to sot thinking of themselves as humans, people, with genders histories and lives, and start thinking of themselves as soldiers, with ranks and weapons. It would just be important to emphasise this in the inclusion of women. The women would be expected to perform their duties just like the men, and the men would be expected to expect them to do so. Any deviance from this would surely be met with disciplinary action.

I'd think some kind of uniform which hid the curves of a body and masked the face would solve this problem.

I'd think some kind of uniform which hid the curves of a body and masked the face would solve this problem.

Ah yes, but as we have learned from every scifi movie in history, as well as most spy-flicks, uniforms which obscure the face (despite the intimidating and deindividualising effect they provide) will only backfire on you when a small group of rebels want to infiltrate your base. :p

However, I agree, women who want to enter ground force units should have to wear the same unflattering uniforms and conform to the same guidelines of grooming (short back and sides).

Actually, fuck it, I go back on that. Uniforms which hide the face are way too cool to throw away the greatest pretext for getting them ever. It will bring us one step closer to futureland. Plus, the main character from super metroid was a woman with a helmet on.

The Red Army deployed hundreds of specially trained female snipers in WWII, apart from the women regiments they had anyways.

Hundreds out of 29.5 million. Those are very small numbers. 1 million women (about 3% of the total) served in the Red Army in WWII, overwhelmingly in support or aerial combat roles.

You don't think those women carried stuff and just generally coped with a physically demanding environment?

The army has determined that this is so.

To repost the germane parts of the Selected Findings of the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces I posted above, bolding the most important bits:

2. The ground combatant relies heavily on his physical strength and stamina to survive, fight, and win. The Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony about the physical differences between men and women that can be summarized as follows:

■ Women are shorter, have less muscle mass and weigh less than men, placing them at a distinct disadvantage when performing tasks requiring a high level of muscular strength and aerobic capacity, like ground combat. Female dynamic upper torso muscular strength is approximately 50-60 percent that of males. (CF 2.1.1, 2.1.2)

■ Female aerobic capacity is approximately 70-75 percent that of males. In terms of military significance, at the same marching velocity and carrying the same load, the average woman works at a higher percentage of her aerobic capacity. This means that women cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue. (CF 2.1.3)

■ In a 1988 study of Army recruits, woman were found to be more vulnerable to exercise-induced injuries than men, with 2.13 times greater risk for lower extremity injuries, and 4.71 times greater risk for stress fractures. Men sustained 99 days of limited duty due to injury, while women incurred 481 days of limited duty. (CF 2.1.5)

■ The experience of other countries shows little evidence that women are suited for ground combat. For example, of 103 women recruited for infantry training after Canada repealed its combat rules in 1989, only one woman succeeded in meeting the physical requirements necessary to complete the training. (CF 2.5.4B, 1.79; International Trip Report, 16-25 September)

3. In a test of ROTC cadets using the standard Army physical fitness test, it was found that the upper quintile of women achieved scores equivalent of the bottom quintile of men. (Testimony of Lt. Col. William J. Gregor, USA Ret., Military Science Chair, University of Michigan; CF 1.39a)

■ Only 3.4% achieved a score equal to the male mean score. On the push-up test, only 7 percent of women could meet a score that was exceeded by 78 percent of the men. (CF 1.39c,d)

■ Few women can meet the male mean standard. Men below the standard can improve their scores, whereas the women who have met the standard have already achieved a maximum level beyond which they cannot improve. (CF 1.39f)

■ Age also makes a difference: A 20 to 30 year old woman has about the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year old man. Because women begin losing bone mass at an earlier age than men, and are more susceptible to orthopedic injuries, those initially selected for the combat arms would probably not survive to career-end. (CF 1.39h)
http://www.cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp?docID=233

A lot of the given reasons so far are related to what the average woman can or cannot do. Who gives a damn what most women can or cannot do. The military has strict fitness assessments, if a woman can pass them what is the sense in telling her she is not allowed to join because of the average resluts of other individuals who share her gender.

The problem with the military's fitness standards is that there are separate lower standards for women.

Here's how the standards work:

Soldiers are required to take a physical fitness test at least twice per year. There are three events which are measured: push-ups, sit-ups, and a timed two-mile run. Soldiers are required to score a minimum of 60 points on each event (50 points per event in order to graduate Army Basic Training). The Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) scores are also used in the Army Enlisted Promotion System.

The test is administered in accordance with the procedures detailed in Chapter 14 of Army Field Manual 21-20, Physical Fitness Training.

Soldiers who fail any portion of the APFT must re-take the entire APFT within three months (unless they have an approved medical profile). Soldiers who fail the APFT are flagged in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-2, Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions.

Individuals who are flagged for APFT failure are not eligibile for promotion, reenlistment or enlistment extension.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/a/afpt.htm

And here are the standards for men: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/l/blfitmale17to21.htm
and for women: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/l/blfitfem17to21.htm

Note that a perfect score of 100 is 71 push ups, 78 sit ups, and 2 miles in 13:00 for men, while women get away with 42, 78, and 15:36.

A minimum passing score of 60 is 42, 53, and 15:54 for men, and 19, 53, and 18:54 for women.

Note that the minimum passing score for a man is almost identical to the perfect score for women.


In regards to all of that, for land combat arms, there ought not be a gender double standard. However, if women can pass the male APFT, I think they ought to be given a chance in the land combat arms. It is possible that a different set of standard tests could be applied, but the current one seems to work well enough.

For naval and aerial combat arms, women should be accepted.

Further, if men have an attitude towards women in their unit, then it is their problem, not the woman's. Such nonsense needs to be drilled out of them in the process of training and conditioning for battle. They already do this for the other men (with strategic deindividualisation).

I'm going to agree, given that women are set the same physical fitness standards for men. The main reasonable complaint regarding unit cohesion is that the men can't trust the women due to the lower physical fitness standards. If a gender neutral set of standards are applied, this problem should go away. The other issues regarding women in land combat arms are showing to either be untrue or are dissappearing as more women serve in the military.

Hundreds out of 29.5 million. Those are very small numbers. 1 million women (about 3% of the total) served in the Red Army in WWII, overwhelmingly in support or aerial combat roles.
But not entirely.

No one is suggesting that women should make up half of combat forces. But it should be obvious that if little Ms Pavlichenko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko) can do it, then other women can too. As I said before, the standards should be equally high for everyone, but to just flat-out refuse women entry has no basis.

No one is suggesting that women should make up half of combat forces. But it should be obvious that if little Ms Pavlichenko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko) can do it, then other women can too.

*Reads article*

Now thats what I call a womynnn!!

I see it that way for a few legit reasons:

A) Women aren't built as physically strong as men. It's simply a biological fact that only the feminist crowd is willing to argue. Yeah, a woman can bulk up to the strength of a man, but the endurance that men have isn't matched by women on the overall. A big part of the reason is physical.

B) The behind enemy lines bit. If they're captured, as aforementioned, they're likely to be raped and generally treated worse.

C) They provoke the chivalry factor, if you will, in most men and might encourage a man to go out of his way to help her from harm's way as opposed to helping a fellow man. Most of us are kind of programmed that way.

I see it that way for a few legit reasons...
All three have been adressed already. The only one that could carry some merit is the first, and that doesn't merit an exclusion on principle.

To those who quote statistics about women:

That would be a good counterargument if the OP wanted the special forces to accept as many women as men, or some other stupid quotas. But since /s/he doesn't do that the thread is only about those women who are just as strong and tough as the males in the special forces, who have just as much stamina as the men, and who are willing to accept the increased risks that they face as women in special forces. Why are they not accepted?

I was in the Marines, and I've heard ever bullshit reason for keeping women out of the military there is, and I will repeat - they are all so much BULLSHIT.

A woman my mass, height and level of fitness can do everything I can. I will likely be a shade stronger; she will likely have a shade better reflexes. It balances out.

What should your friend do? Choose a branch, do her basic training, then bust her tits off to show how good she is. Push her way into places the moron brass and more moron politicos think she can't, and fucking well DEMAND a place on a special forces team.

Should she have to do this? In a perfect world, no. But we don't live in a perfect world, and if your friend pushes hard enough, the next woman to come along maybe doesn't have to be superhuman - just the same ultra-competent level the male speccies do.

Best yet, put her in the Marines and get her into Force Recon. Semper Fi, Ma'am!

But not entirely.

No one is suggesting that women should make up half of combat forces. But it should be obvious that if little Ms Pavlichenko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko) can do it, then other women can too. As I said before, the standards should be equally high for everyone, but to just flat-out refuse women entry has no basis.



I see it that way for a few legit reasons:

A) Women aren't built as physically strong as men. It's simply a biological fact that only the feminist crowd is willing to argue. Yeah, a woman can bulk up to the strength of a man, but the endurance that men have isn't matched by women on the overall. A big part of the reason is physical.

B) The behind enemy lines bit. If they're captured, as aforementioned, they're likely to be raped and generally treated worse.

C) They provoke the chivalry factor, if you will, in most men and might encourage a man to go out of his way to help her from harm's way as opposed to helping a fellow man. Most of us are kind of programmed that way.

A can be dealt with - apply the same physical standards, accept those who pass. B is mythical. C is being overcome.

All three have been adressed already. The only one that could carry some merit is the first, and that doesn't merit an exclusion on principle.

Exactly so.

To those who quote statistics about women:

That would be a good counterargument if the OP wanted the special forces to accept as many women as men, or some other stupid quotas. But since /s/he doesn't do that the thread is only about those women who are just as strong and tough as the males in the special forces, who have just as much stamina as the men, and who are willing to accept the increased risks that they face as women in special forces. Why are they not accepted?

I seem to be the only one providing any statistical evidence. And I'll have you note that at every turn I have found the excusion of women able to pass a unified minimum standard to be unacceptable. However the women who can pass the stanadrds are very few.

I was in the Marines, and I've heard ever bullshit reason for keeping women out of the military there is, and I will repeat - they are all so much BULLSHIT.

A woman my mass, height and level of fitness can do everything I can. I will likely be a shade stronger; she will likely have a shade better reflexes. It balances out.

What should your friend do? Choose a branch, do her basic training, then bust her tits off to show how good she is. Push her way into places the moron brass and more moron politicos think she can't, and fucking well DEMAND a place on a special forces team.

Should she have to do this? In a perfect world, no. But we don't live in a perfect world, and if your friend pushes hard enough, the next woman to come along maybe doesn't have to be superhuman - just the same ultra-competent level the male speccies do.

Best yet, put her in the Marines and get her into Force Recon. Semper Fi, Ma'am!

I agree. Hence the suggestion that a different set of tests could be applied.

Honestly the current APFT tests of push ups, sit ups and a 2 mile run on the track aren't the best test - regardless of gender.

A) Women aren't built as physically strong as men. It's simply a biological fact that only the feminist crowd is willing to argue. Yeah, a woman can bulk up to the strength of a man, but the endurance that men have isn't matched by women on the overall. A big part of the reason is physical.

As others have said, judge by the statistics of an individual, not a gender. A few men will fail the fitness tests. A few women will suceed. Test both, and the pool of eligable recruits swells visibly.

B) The behind enemy lines bit. If they're captured, as aforementioned, they're likely to be raped and generally treated worse.

Okay... I know the current foes of the US and the UK aren't a very civilised bunch, but what you're saying can be looked at as "male soldiers almost always abuse female soldiers in their custody". So much for a base urge to protect.

But the fact that B) and C) are mutually contradictory is besides the point. War is hell. People die. A lot. People get horrifically mangled. A lot. People get sexually abused. A lot. If a soldier accepts the first two points when signing on, why not the third?

C) They provoke the chivalry factor, if you will, in most men and might encourage a man to go out of his way to help her from harm's way as opposed to helping a fellow man. Most of us are kind of programmed that way.

Thought experiment:

Private Jim Miller is your best friend. You grew up together, were educated together, enlisted together. He's a rifleman.

Private Joe Baker is, to you, everything wrong with the world. You hate him more than you do the enemy. He's the fire-team SAW guy.

The enemy tried to get the jump on you, but your platoon commander was too smart for him and has flank guards well posted to cover any attack routes. Unfortunately, something is interfering with radio contact and the enemy are advancing in your area. The squad is sending a runner back to HQ, but you need to hold the enemy off for him. To do this, you desperately need the suppressive capability of the SAW.

Two enemy soldiers have taken aim, one at Jim and one at Joe. You, the fire-team designated marksman, are the only one in a position to save one of them. One. You've only got the one gun. Who do you help?

If you answered "Jim", the company and the civilian refugees it was escorting out of the warzone are slaughtered and mutilated.

Now, do that again, but with differant characters. Private Jane Miller is a girl. Private Joe Baker is a guy. You don't hate him, he can even occupy the same slot as Jim, but he's a guy. Who do you save?

If you answered "Jane", well...