POLL: Should women be allowed to serve in the US Special Forces? (SEAL, etc...)

No way in hell,

A males body is much more stronger and enduring and able to cope with physical problems that a womans is,

Not being sexist here on stating fact that to be a soldier you need to be strong and enduring and to be special forces you need to be THE BEST OF THE BEST,

And that includes how physically and mentally strong you are,

sonofsmeagle

as long as a women could pass a test showing them fit for duty, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to participate in the special forces. The way some people talk a bou the special forces you'd think you'd have to be some brutish giant of a man that could run marathons for days. The physical requirements aren't nearly as demanding as the mental ones.

I believe they should be able to join, after passing the test.

But in all honesty, there will be problems, such as men being atrracted to her, and thus risking themselves for her, not the mission. And some problems on the lower end...

If they can meet the physical demands required of the job, I say sure.

No, women are physically weaker (a fact, not sexism). Special Forces NEED to be EXTREMELY strong and most men that try to join, don't pass the tests. Add the problems of having relationships and you just ****** a mission. I'm fine with women inside Law Enforcement, though (except SWAT teams).

Lox_Cropek

[QUOTE="sonofsmeagle"]

No way in hell,

A males body is much more stronger and enduring and able to cope with physical problems that a womans is,

Not being sexist here on stating fact that to be a soldier you need to be strong and enduring and to be special forces you need to be THE BEST OF THE BEST,

And that includes how physically and mentally strong you are,

UniverseIX

as long as a women could pass a test showing them fit for duty, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to participate in the special forces. The way some people talk a bou the special forces you'd think you'd have to be some brutish giant of a man that could run marathons for days. The physical requirements aren't nearly as demanding as the mental ones.

[QUOTE="UniverseIX"]

[QUOTE="sonofsmeagle"]

No way in hell,

A males body is much more stronger and enduring and able to cope with physical problems that a womans is,

Not being sexist here on stating fact that to be a soldier you need to be strong and enduring and to be special forces you need to be THE BEST OF THE BEST,

And that includes how physically and mentally strong you are,

junglist101

as long as a women could pass a test showing them fit for duty, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to participate in the special forces. The way some people talk a bou the special forces you'd think you'd have to be some brutish giant of a man that could run marathons for days. The physical requirements aren't nearly as demanding as the mental ones.

The other argument that is being presented in opposistion against women on the battlefield is also ridiculous. Apperently, women are so alluring, and captivating when at war that men, of a professional military force, will do foolish things, and stick their necks on the line to save the women from danger. If this is the case, why aren't we creating a female only special forces to put their feminine allures to good use against the enemy. Since men can't resist the feminine appeal the enemy soldiers wouldnt' be able to kill them . See, that's a ridiculous point I made, but it's no more ridiculous than the assumption that women would only be a distraction to the male soldiers on our own side. We call it a professional army for a reason. If a soldier is acting impuslively against orders then they are not a well trained soldier.

[QUOTE="sonofsmeagle"]

No way in hell,

A males body is much more stronger and enduring and able to cope with physical problems that a womans is,

Not being sexist here on stating fact that to be a soldier you need to be strong and enduring and to be special forces you need to be THE BEST OF THE BEST,

And that includes how physically and mentally strong you are,

as long as a women could pass a test showing them fit for duty, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to participate in the special forces. The way some people talk a bou the special forces you'd think you'd have to be some brutish giant of a man that could run marathons for days. The physical requirements aren't nearly as demanding as the mental ones.

[QUOTE="UniverseIX"]

[QUOTE="sonofsmeagle"]

No way in hell,

A males body is much more stronger and enduring and able to cope with physical problems that a womans is,

Not being sexist here on stating fact that to be a soldier you need to be strong and enduring and to be special forces you need to be THE BEST OF THE BEST,

And that includes how physically and mentally strong you are,

sonofsmeagle

as long as a women could pass a test showing them fit for duty, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to participate in the special forces. The way some people talk a bou the special forces you'd think you'd have to be some brutish giant of a man that could run marathons for days. The physical requirements aren't nearly as demanding as the mental ones.

And it's not women who are larger than you that are stronger than you. There women smaller than you who are stronger than you. You must not have much expirence with a variety of athletes to know this.

If they can pass the test then they should be allowed in. even if no woman ever passes it they should still be given a chance to pass

[QUOTE="junglist101"]

[QUOTE="UniverseIX"] and what of women who are stronger, faster, and smarter than men? they do exist. There are women out there that would put you to shame in any number of physical activities. what reason would there be to say they shouldn't be allowed to be in the special forces?

as long as a women could pass a test showing them fit for duty, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to participate in the special forces. The way some people talk a bou the special forces you'd think you'd have to be some brutish giant of a man that could run marathons for days. The physical requirements aren't nearly as demanding as the mental ones.

UniverseIX

[QUOTE="sonofsmeagle"][QUOTE="UniverseIX"] and what of women who are stronger, faster, and smarter than men? they do exist. There are women out there that would put you to shame in any number of physical activities. what reason would there be to say they shouldn't be allowed to be in the special forces?

as long as a women could pass a test showing them fit for duty, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to participate in the special forces. The way some people talk a bou the special forces you'd think you'd have to be some brutish giant of a man that could run marathons for days. The physical requirements aren't nearly as demanding as the mental ones.

UniverseIX

goodnight people i'm off to bed my points still stand

[QUOTE="UniverseIX"]

[QUOTE="junglist101"]I can understand how you feel but I have a feeling you don't know much about the training for special forces. It is brutal and most men do not make it through. It requires a level of manliness that most men do not even possess, let alone women. The ebst of the best only make it and and when it comes to this the best of the best man>>>>best of the best woman. No sexism intended, just nature.

junglist101

I'm always up for women in uniform.

So,yes.

[QUOTE="UniverseIX"][QUOTE="sonofsmeagle"] Oh thats right your talking about these women athletes who could put me to shame? I'm sorry but how many times will one of these 6'1'' 200 pound women made of muscle pass you on the street? i could probably say never as its never happened to me or any1 i know, Sure some women could lift some heavy weights more than the average guy but compare her to a special forces soldier i dont think she could run nearly as far, sure there are some women who could run a marathon faster and more efficient than a special forces soldier but i sure as hell can tell you they wont make it carrying a full kit and exhausted from 24hrs of patrol, sure there are women out there that can be so smart they could finish a university maths textbook in less than a day when it could take a special forces soldier a week but could she carry 40 pounds or more on her back 50miles without rest then fire her gun to kill a man? Your talking about athletic women who train for years to be the best of the best in their sports competing against other women, but that is just one sport, The amount of crap the military would ahve to go through to let women into the special forces just for those rare women who are very strong, fast and enduring all put together and be able to do everything one of those special forces men could do, it just isnt worth it.sonofsmeagle

While we're at it. Why don't we start to assign everybody posistions in life based on their genetic markers. Apperently, you're convinced that people shouldn't be allowed to compeate and that biological facts about people is all that matters. People deserve the oppurtunity to prove themselves as individuals. We should not start reducing people to the point that we determine we they can or can't do before they've shown it to us themselves.

In a free land, if this be truly a freeland as people have said, people should be allowed to pursue their aspirations based on individual merrit. Not by lumping them all into the same group and dismissing them as inferior.

Yeah, women already do special forces in the Navy and they have no problem with it. They have to meet the same requirements as the males.

It's only a matter of time until they can be on the front lines.

I think if they're able to meet the physical and mental qualifications to serve in that capacity, then they ought to be able to do so.

If someone is capable I don't see why not. The problem comes when one places unqualified people in important positions for the sake of equality.

No way in hell,

A males body is much more stronger and enduring and able to cope with physical problems that a womans is,

Not being sexist here on stating fact that to be a soldier you need to be strong and enduring and to be special forces you need to be THE BEST OF THE BEST,

And that includes how physically and mentally strong you are,

sonofsmeagle

Not to mention that if they were captured, they could be raped in addition to being tortured and that mental strain could lead to them breaking easier. In addition to lacking the strength. Notice how the marines and army don't send women to the front lines.

i disagree

No. The demands on the body are so great only a tiny fraction of the armed forces could withstand it. 99% of men can't handle it as it is. Women would never pass the tests.

There has also never been an effective platoon of women soldiers fielded by any country ever. Just food for thought.

No. The demands on the body are so great only a tiny fraction of the armed forces could withstand it. 99% of men can't handle it as it is. Women would never pass the tests.

There has also never been an effective platoon of women soldiers fielded by any country ever. Just food for thought.

Wasdie

This males are stronger, however, as war progresses the need for actual people slows down.

I vote no, they couldn't handle it. The training breaks the best men. It's a highly exclusive VIP club.

i disagree

tenaka2

You disagree that they could get raped, possibly by every man there or are you disagreeing with someone else? Your post was directly below mine so I was curious.

No. Not even if they were, by some miracle, up so the same physical standards as men. There is a major psychology element here. Men have an inherent trait to be the protectors of women, and this can create problems in a firefight. For a man, watching a woman's legs get blown off has a completely different mental effect from watching a man's legs get blown off. If a woman is injured, men could be more likely to take care of the woman instead of focusing on the mission (I believe a study was done that showed this was true). And while this probably should not happen, some men may feel uncomfortable entrusting major combat roles to women. I don't believe a special forces unit that has both men and women will perform as they should, and sorry in advance if that sounds sexist.

And not to mention, if a woman is captured, there are a lot more "things" that can happen to her. If you have ever heard stories about how captured special forces men are treated, I'm sure you can imagine what would happen to women.

In my opinion, even if women performed as well as men in tests, I don't believe they could hold up under the actual conditions of special forces warfare.

Err, I guess so. Maybe not exactly in the front lines, though.

i hit no by accident but i meant yes :P

Hopefully we can agree on one thing: this is a decision that should be made by our military commanders, not Washington D.C. politicians who have never served in the military.

Alot less women are going to be able to do physically what men could do in these positions. If however a candidate passes the tests, she should be allowed.

Hopefully we can agree on one thing: this is a decision that should be made by our military commanders, not Washington D.C. politicians who have never served in the military.

whipassmt

Hopefully we can agree on one thing: this is a decision that should be made by our military commanders, not Washington D.C. politicians who have never served in the military.

whipassmt

.. We had minorities denied certain positions in the military due to prejudice historically by military men.. They are no infaliable..... When it comes down to it, if the woman candidate can pass the physical and mental requirements for it.. I don't see why not..

If they can physically handle the training/combat and can keep up with male special forces members then i dont see why not

[QUOTE="sonofsmeagle"]

Read my post above yours. Women should be all to compete on an individual basis to prove their capabilities. NOT written off as inferior because they are a women. A man is allowed to compete as an individual, why isn't a women? Lumping them all together in one pile is ridiculous and irrational.UniverseIX

While we're at it. Why don't we start to assign everybody posistions in life based on their genetic markers. Apperently, you're convinced that people shouldn't be allowed to compeate and that biological facts about people is all that matters. People deserve the oppurtunity to prove themselves as individuals. We should not start reducing people to the point that we determine we they can or can't do before they've shown it to us themselves.

In a free land, if this be truly a freeland as people have said, people should be allowed to pursue their aspirations based on individual merrit. Not by lumping them all into the same group and dismissing them as inferior.

Hopefully we can agree on one thing: this is a decision that should be made by our military commanders, not Washington D.C. politicians who have never served in the military.

whipassmt

[QUOTE="1nf4m0us"]

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]

If there was no military (in the world) there wouldn't be any defence nor would there be offence, we wouldn't need defence for the other nations wouldn't have military either. It's just an idea, it's not like it would actually work, the amount of sickly violent patriots is so big it would be impossible to do so.

parkurtommo

Not true. For that to work, there would need to be no aggression in human society. Take the Taliban for example. They arent military. They are a select group of extremist terrorists. Eliminate military forces, and they would have control over their respective regions, and would have the resources and ability to inflict more pain on others.

For your theory to work, there need to be no one fighting, and, no one who wants to fight. But for as long as there are people who would threaten our welfare, we need the military.

Exactly, that's why it's just a fantasy, it would never come true. But atleast in my view no one should JOIN the military, the military can exist, but they should be fine with the numbers they have. :P

That sounds fine and dandy now, but then you'll have that 18 year old kid who joined after high school still stuck in the military at 40 because nobody else can join and because of that he's stuck in there until he dies or is no longer physically able to serve. All while stuck a private the whole time because somebody has to be at the bottom. Even if the military doesn't get larger new people have to come in to replace the ones who retire, die or just finish their initial term.

The military is made to defend this country, not to appease the masses in equality. Why else can the military openly discriminate against you because of your age, sex, weight, medical condition, sexual origin (DADT is going away next month but it took an act of Congress), and intelligence? They want the best qualified people to serve, not people who are only there because they complained to the right Congressman to get in.

As for the question at hand, let's do the following scenario. We're going to say Congress voted to allow females to go into Special Operations tomorrow, the President signed the bill, and effective February 1st the military could no longer refuse to allow females to do Special Operations. We'll use the Army's Special Forces (better know as the Green Berets by civilians) as the example.

On February 1st, about 1,000 females who wanted to be Special Forces ran to their nearest Army recruiting station saying they want to be SF. During that first day, the first 200 of them were told right off the bat that they wasn't qualified for SF because they either had too many charges on their record or had bad credit (you need a Secret Clearance to do SF and bad credit or certain charges will stop you from getting the clearance).

Now, we're down to 800. Out of that 800 women 300 can't score high enough on the ASVAB because you need a high ASVAB score to qualify for a Special Forces contract. Those 300 either give up the military altogether (or have no choice but to give up if they scored too low to join at all), pick jobs that require lower scores, or study and try to test again.

Now, we're down to 500 who passed the ASVAB with scores high enough for SF. Out of that 500 about 50 fail the medical exam altogether and another 50 pass the regular medical exam but fail the Airborne physical. Out of the 50 who failed the Airborne physical they can either choose not to enlist or pick another job.

Now, we're down to 400 who are cleared for Basic Training and Infantry training. Out of that 400 women 50 fail basic training and another 100 fail Infantry training. That leaves 250 remaining to go to Airborne School. About 50 of that 250 either fail out or get hurt during training. When it's all said and done 200 are left standing to go to SF selection, the REAL challenge.

When they get to selection the Army decides that they have to pass the male standards, which means no more watered down female standards they had during basic and infantry training. The initial PT test eliminates over half of the remaining women who made it to selection. Now, you're down to 50 women and week one isn't even over yet. You lose another 30 by the end of the selection process.

Now, you have the last 20 females left out of the initial 1,000 who showed up at recruiting offices on February 1st. Out of that 20 who made it through selection we'll be generous and say five of them made it to the end of training and earned their Green Berets. That's five out of a thousand women. To be diverse, the Army decides to send each of them to a different SF group so all five active duty SF Groups have one female each.

As soon as she arrives they have to change a lot of things to accommodate her. With an all male unit they could share the same bathrooms and the same living quarters. Now, because of that one female, they now have to make a separate living space for her and a separate bathroom for her (or set up split bathroom times). Then, you're going to have to get the men to get over the protective instinct they may have for the female.

It's more trouble than the government wants to go through. That's why it's highly unlikely they'll allow it. There's much more to it than just saying "if she can do it we should let her!" I can probably go out right now and find a female triathlete who can pass the requirements with little problem. But that doesn't mean she'll want to do it. I know plenty of men who could easily meet SF physical standards who wouldn't even give the military the time of day.

Don't even get started on the reaction the public will have if any of those females are kidnapped or killed in combat. The politicians who voted to allow females into SF may suddenly find themselves not being reelected. Don't underestimate the public reaction to a female being hurt or killed in combat. Plenty of men have been captured in war but the public reaction to Jessica Lynch's capture dwarfed all of them and had people asking if we should even allow women in the military at all.

only if they can pass the same physical tests the men do. Sorry, but this isnt the regular army, where there is a job for every type of person...these are the Spec Ops, I imagine you would need to be one tough dude or dudette to be a good one, or one at all.

I'd be terrified if a woman could equal a man in Spec Ops training like that....

[QUOTE="TheShadowLord07"]

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"]

no, and neither should men

BiancaDK

shouldnt be replaced by anything/anyone

warfare is almost always fundamentally unethical, discussing what is ethically correct in an unethical setting is just absurd

I love psuedo-intellectuals. Quite pathetic individuals.

Nope, special forces should stay restricted to men due to the nature of their missions. I am fine with women who qualify for the job being allowed into most military positions ,but special forces simply isn't one of them.

Yes. If they meet the requirements then why not.