Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Women in the special forces?
SgtQuiosegagne    8/10/2005 12:38:11 AM
Currently few armies allow women in special forces units. Some do allow them for intel for example, but what about jobs like assaults, sabotage, etc...? What's your opinion about it?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT
cwDeici       12/30/2008 2:39:48 AM

Of course this doesn't mean that women on average can't make equal operators or in some cases superior operators, but in the exception of such fields as mentioned earlier in this thread, they will continue to be a rarity if the same standards are applied... at least until culture and/or nature changes (genetic engineering?).


That said, I support women and their dreams and ambitions and abilities and wish them all success in their jobs.  



'On average' among those qualified and in certain fields (some equal, some better).
 
Quote    Reply

anonymous41629       2/15/2009 4:55:29 AM
I have a few points to make:
 
1. I acknowledge that Women who are physically fit for special forces would be extremely rare which almost makes this a none-issue, but banning women completely prevents these few exceptions from even attempting to realize their dream. as has been said before, If they can match the current standards set for men (and these standards should under no circumstances be relaxed for women) then they should be given the job.
 
I address the issues of menstruation and pregnancy as follows:
 
1. as far as pregnancy goes, birth control is mostly impractical, as I understand it the most long term birth control are shots given every three months. until birth control advances to offer longer coverage,  their could be a rule that any women serving in combat units would have to have their tubes tied or some other form of sterilization. This would even further reduce the number of women willing to work in special forces, but if they are willing and able let them.
 
 
2. on the subject of menstruation, as it has already been stated most female athletes stop menstruating when they reach a certain level of fitness, and if this did not happen I understand that a  hysterectomy will stop the menstrual cycle all together.
 
obviously these are expensive medical procedures and no-one should expect the government to pay for them, which would mean that any female applicant would have to fund these operations herself...now the pool for female soldiers in special forces is unimaginably small.
 
but however small a percentage, it is possible. it shouldn't take much to change a law, allow women in special forces- 
if:
1. they meet the EXACT SAME physical standards set for men applying for the same position
2. there is no threat of pregnancy or complications from the menstrual cycle.
 
 
you might get one woman in a hundred years, but keep the door open. If they can't do it then whats the harm in letting them try? they won't get in anyway.  
 
besides, by making this dream even a possible reality you might be surprised by the kind of women you would turn out.  take hitwoman the 15 year old girl who used to post on here...If she attempted to meet the requirements for special forces and failed she would still be a stronger, more capable and more respectable person then if she had never begun to train.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot       2/15/2009 11:04:57 AM
The 3 month contraceptive jab has the side effect of minimising or cancelling completely the menstrual cycle so that would kill 2 birds with 1 stone.
 
My partner has this injection hasn't had a period for 20 years. Theres never a wrong time of the month for me!!
 
Quote    Reply

brit cadet       2/22/2009 8:53:04 AM

the main reason women at least in the british army arent used in these kind of things is that if they are captuered or killed it destroys morale

 
Quote    Reply

BasinBictory       2/24/2009 2:30:04 AM
Which bring up what is perhaps the more important (but least politically correct) objection to females in the combat arms - that the male-female dynamic in any close-knit organization (and what is a SEAL team or SAS team nothing if not close-knit?) is very different from any male-male dynamic. If a female operator was captured, it could be very damaging to morale and perhaps spur reckless rescue attempts that wouldn't be considered if it were a man who was captured.
 
Quote    Reply

theBird       2/24/2009 10:18:40 AM
Well I think that in todays war the idea that Congress is going to "keep women out of combat" is pretty dated, and I'm not talking about "feminist theory" or any other BS like that, but rather the fact that today there are no combat troops vs combat support troops, rather there are troops that you send into combat because you want to and troops you send into combat because you have to. 
 
The one who is going to decide if women go into combat isn't going to be some politician in Washington or some Officer in the warzone, its going to be some S*it head with an AK or RPG, and that woman better be ready for combat or she's going to end up like Jessica Lynch. 
 
Quote    Reply

General.ly    Women in SFU's   6/20/2009 9:26:09 AM
From a woman's point of view, no, I don't think they should join with the men. It's not a question of strength...I can press more than a lot of men. I train fit men beyond their limits, when I'm nowhere near mine. Pain? I've given birth to three children and never shouted out once - not something a lot of men could do for sure! However, given the human being's predilection for procreation, or sex for sex's sake, then it's a no no. You couldn't have both sexes working in close confinement, in situations of extreme stress and not develop feelings towards each other and that could be the knell of death on OPS. It's a gamble that simply couldn't and shouldn't be taken. I'm all for women having equal rights...but I'm also all for common sense prevailing.
 
Quote    Reply

ericaspins    Special Ops - no women   6/30/2009 1:15:29 PM
Bluewings gave you a hint...but as usual men lack the necessary communication skills needed.
 
The reason women cannot be in SO is because they mensturate.  It is not a gender inequality it's biologicaly lethal for the entire SO group.  The woman/women give off a scent and it can give it away to the dogs, litteraly. 
 
It's not that we are not strong enough, that we cannot pass the pain test or any other test, it's that we are the producers of life and give off a scent that can give it away.
 
I'm sure there are ways around it (surgically) or perhaps a way around it eventually (not surgically) but until then we are not permitted in SO.
 
Not for nothing...never under estimate the power of a women
 
;)
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

loydma3       7/2/2009 12:56:23 PM

To say that females have a scent during their menstruation cycle is true. To say that scent can be tracked by dogs is true. However to ignore the fact that ANY human scent can?t be track is would be just as fallible and argument as the former statement.

 

Before this conversation could begin to gain a shred of credibility, many of you need to realize that you are answering two different questions. Many of you are answering whether women should be allowed in combat while other are talking about women in S/O. Guys, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but women are in combat. Her MOS might not indicate infantry or other combat arms, but from the military brass's perspective, MP's make just as good of shooters.

 

I am not a SF operator and frankly I have no desire to become one, but many of you need to at least educate yourselves as o what SF does vs. what it appears they do. SF does not hump around the world with 200lbs of gear no matter what the movies tell you they do, this is not Vietnam and certainly not WWII.

 

The lack of credible information in these arguments is astounding and honestly it?s quite embarrassing that people who are even on a site such a strategy page/servicemen/interested in the military would even make the types of assertions without at least fact checking them.

 

1. Pregnancy - This implies that all females interested in a SF career have no control over their sexual lives. There are plenty of options here that can be practiced by females. Abstinence, Contraception Intrauterine Device (IUD), and lastly abortion (taboo)

 

2. Menstruation - studies have shown that fewer than 17% body fat, women tend to cease their cycles.

 - I'd like to add a small caveat about the male hormonal cycle as well. Each man has a similar cycle to women regarding their hormones. It might not be macho but it exists.

 

3. Strength - The strongest women will never be as strong as the strongest man, that is a given. However there are plenty of females who have the strength to fulfill modern combat day roles as evident by the fact that they have done so and are continuing to do so as you read this reply. PFT's are horrible indicators of someone?s performance in combat. At OCS, there are Marine officer candidates who have 300 PFT scores but couldn?t outperform my lowly 275 in many real world applications.

 

Remember here, less than 1% of the US population is a SF member or operator. Many of you are comparing these potential women to your girlfriends, wife?s, best friends, college fuck buddies etc. When infect these potential women probably have more discipline than you, are faster than you, stronger than you, and more intelligent that you. These would not be the weak women our society likes to produce but something closer to the legend of the Amazons. In fact, I?m sure that my wife, who was an NCAA All American and All ACC performer in Track and field/4 time State champion in basketball, could outperform most males in this country in a scenario.


 
Quote    Reply

Parmenion    Damn Straight   7/2/2009 1:34:49 PM

To say that females have a scent during their menstruation cycle is true. To say that scent can be tracked by dogs is true. However to ignore the fact that ANY human scent can?t be track is would be just as fallible and argument as the former statement.


 


Before this conversation could begin to gain a shred of credibility, many of you need to realize that you are answering two different questions. Many of you are answering whether women should be allowed in combat while other are talking about women in S/O. Guys, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but women are in combat. Her MOS might not indicate infantry or other combat arms, but from the military brass's perspective, MP's make just as good of shooters.


 


I am not a SF operator and frankly I have no desire to become one, but many of you need to at least educate yourselves as o what SF does vs. what it appears they do. SF does not hump around the world with 200lbs of gear no matter what the movies tell you they do, this is not Vietnam and certainly not WWII.


 


The lack of credible information in these arguments is astounding and honestly it?s quite embarrassing that people who are even on a site such a strategy page/servicemen/interested in the military would even make the types of assertions without at least fact checking them.


 


1. Pregnancy - This implies that all females interested in a SF career have no control over their sexual lives. There are plenty of options here that can be practiced by females. Abstinence, Contraception Intrauterine Device (IUD), and lastly abortion (taboo)


 


2. Menstruation - studies have shown that fewer than 17% body fat, women tend to cease their cycles.


 - I'd like to add a small caveat about the male hormonal cycle as well. Each man has a similar cycle to women regarding their hormones. It might not be macho but it exists.


 


3. Strength - The strongest women will never be as strong as the strongest man, that is a given. However there are plenty of females who have the strength to fulfill modern combat day roles as evident by the fact that they have done so and are continuing to do so as you read this reply. PFT's are horrible indicators of someone?s performance in combat. At OCS, there are Marine officer candidates who have 300 PFT scores but couldn?t outperform my lowly 275 in many real world applications.


 


Remember here, less than 1% of the US population is a SF member or operator. Many of you are comparing these potential women to your girlfriends, wife?s, best friends, college fuck buddies etc. When infect these potential women probably have more discipline than you, are faster than you, stronger than you, and more intelligent that you. These would not be the weak women our society likes to produce but something closer to the legend of the Amazons. In fact, I?m sure that my wife, who was an NCAA All American and All ACC performer in Track and field/4 time State champion in basketball, could outperform most males in this country in a scenario.

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics