The Marine Corps has 5 women starting in July:
The article indicates that 4 have tried the course so far:
the_diego asked about climbing a cargo net with gear. I was benching around 250 when I climbed the nets with a pack and rifle - and it was a BITCH. I hated that damned thing. The “confidence” course with the walls and the rope climb were also a menace to me (I was made confident that this sucked).
Yeah, right. Next you’ll be telling me women routinely deal with blood every month.
Being grossed out by stuff has very little to do with someone’s ability to be a soldier. I’ve never had kids, but I’ve handled and cared for many many animals, and you ain’t SEEN gross until you’ve seen some of the stuff that comes along with critter care. I deal with excrement on a daily basis. I’ve expressed & washed softball sized abscesses, given shots, treated all sorts of wounds, been shat on, pissed on, had anal glands sprayed on me, been up to me shoulder in the buttend of cows and horses, been elbow-deep in a horse’s sheath for cleaning, cleaned up all sorts of foul vomited matter, attended necropsies and the deaths that preceded them. I like snakes and rats and spiders and most things that crawl, climb, slither or fly.
Squeamish I ain’t.
What I can’t stomach is killing for the sake of killing - aka war. To quote Bruce Cockburn:
I’d make a truly awful soldier - the whole concept makes me shudder.
I posted this link before but here it is again.
BUDS training youtube video part 1
I don’t think some responders in this thread have even the vaguest notion of what the BUDS course requires. It’s not a Tough Mudder contest.
These men are not muscle monsters, they can’t be and have the triathalon level endurance required, having said this the course also requires very high levels of upper body strength *relative to your body weight *and massive cardio endurance. This particular physical combination is rare in men and rare to the point of statistical insignificance in women.
I would encourage viewing the video just to get a flavor of what we are talking about. Test after test demands insane upper body strength and endurance. Beyond all this the body and joints and bones also have to deal with the unrelenting stress of this gauntlet.
There needs to be some way elite female forces can be brought onboard in the armed forces (assuming they are allowed entry) but expecting women hurdle this particular physical bar is going to be IMO an exercise in frustration.
View the video(s) all the way though (there are 6) or skip around and then think rationally if that is going to be a useful way to integrate women into the special forces. I think there have to be better ways.
I’m not sure if this is a whoosh or not. But on the chance that you’re serious, why do you feel that a woman who wants to join the SEALS is apparently abnormal but a man who wants to join is not? And why should women be prohibited from doing something because it damages the fragile egos of some men?
If women try and they fail, then I have no problem with that. What I object to is women being denied the opportunity to try.
It’s becoming abundantly clear that what I am taking away from this thread is that women can’t be Navy SEALS, and not because they aren’t strong enough, fast enough or whatever…it’s because they’re bitches.
If common sense and rational consideration of the physiological differences between men and women at the extreme high ends of the bell curve in fitness indicates that “trying” is going to wind up as a frustrating and pointless exercise with a very low probability of success, wouldn’t a different and more constructive way to achieve female participation in special forces be a better route?
This thread is hilarious. Never seen so much impotent rage in one spot in my life, I guess because the Pentegon failed to ask a fistful of paunchy web nerds how they felt about the decision to open more jobs to women. Truly competent, able-bodied men would not feel threatened by the Pentegon’s decision to allow women to try for the toughest jobs, but I guess it sucks so much to be obsolete that you fellas will lash out at anyone you perceive to be weaker than you. What I’m really worried about is not can female SEALs meet the performance requirements of the job, but which of these knuckle-dragging, Cheeto-chomping, ball-scratching whiners is going to take over the recliner now that Archie Bunker is dead?
Yet the toughest, hardest, most seasoned enlisted females are less bitchy than these bitter, ineffective armchair Rambos.
Don’t worry your pretty little head about such things astro. We got this.
What the *hell *makes you think that’s the goal here? :rolleyes:
Are you simply unable to grasp the concept behind removing artificial and discriminatory institutional barriers?
Substantiate your dime store psychology. When in this thread have I played up my own prowess or bragged in any way? I would have the exact same opinion if I were a woman. My own personal machismo has been neither offered as part of my argument nor is it a relevant part of my argument. Nor, for that matter, am I in any way anti-feminist. I have not even suggested that women shouldn’t be allowed to compete.
I’m only here to fight the ridiculous notion that somehow equality and feminism means assuming that females are capable of anything men are, even if we’re talking about matters of physical strength at the top end of the bell curve.
Let me make this even simpler. Let’s say, pulling numbers out of my ass, the highest bench press by a man ever was 1000 pounds and the highest ever for a female was 600 pounds. The average for high end male competitor is 950 and female is 550.
If I were assembling a team of the world’s best bench pressers, I would only be looking for men. Someone might say “that’s sexist! That’s an artificial barrier! You have to give women a chance!”
And I would respond “Fine, but just based on the physiology of the whole thing, it’s pretty obvious that women aren’t going to be able to keep up with men at the high end”
Would you be calling me a knuckle dragging sexist for that? Would you be claiming that I was only saying that because I wanted to pretend I could bench press a lot but really I couldn’t?
You are fighting against a simple truth. Men are physiologically different from women. Only in retarded liberal douchebag land is this something we go through mental contortions to pretend isn’t true. Since you can’t respond on substance, you respond with personal attacks. Accusations of sexism and straw men arguments about the supposed machismo claims of the other posters that were never made and never even implied.
You’re right, this thread is hilarious. You’re all retards who are trying way too hard to distract yourselves from acknowledging the obvious.
No, once you say you’re fine with giving women that chance, I’d give you a pass on the rest.
God … you are trying so very, very hard. It’s actually quite charming.
You need to put down your Wonder Woman comic book and think about how to best achieve female participation in special forces. Men and women going head to head in BUDS is not likely to get you from point A to point B unless you change the envelope of physical expectations. If that’s not changed almost no women will graduate. That’s not a successful outcome. Either the parameters have to be changed or a separate track within the program has to be established.
Because violence comes more naturally to men. Of course, they still need to be trained to overcome the inherent reluctance to kill people. But no man volunteers for that if he’s never harnessed his aggression and physicality before. The captain of the chess team doesn’t wake up one day and decide to be a SEAL. So yes, I do consider it normal for a man to choose a violent and physical profession, so long as it’s done within a proper context. And yes, I would consider it abnormal for a woman to decide that she wants to be a trained killer. Because that’s what SEALs are, ultimately. They wouldn’t invest in the training of a female SEAL just to have her traipse around Helmand province chatting up the villagers.
I didn’t say that, I said I was ambivalent. But I also don’t consider this general notion of equality that some of you are espousing to be a very convincing reason by itself to allow it. It shouldn’t be allowed just so we can check off another hurdle cleared for Womankind.
If there were anyone, in this thread or anywhere out in the real world, claiming that, then you might have a point. As it is, you’re outraged at your own strawman.
Yes. You would be excluding the possibility that a woman could meet the standard because “women” on average cannot. And only because of that. You would, in fact, be discriminating against the top women on the sole basis that they’re women.
No, only in your febrile imagination where you think you’re being told that. Unfortunately you are only insulating yourself in a blanket of ignorance and fantasy.
Okay, who here, or elsewhere, is stating that as a goal?
Other than you.
Why? Since when was that the question here? Or is this part of some stereotype of what “liberals” want and believe?
This is not remotely a fair representation of my arguments in this thread.
I have very explicitly been talking about the top end of the bell curve in this thread. I have very explicitly said I’m not talking about averages. Remember my examples about how the top woman Tennis player would lose to the 500th ranked man? And Tennis is a hell of a lot more equal in terms of gender than being a special operator.
The reality is that in terms of physical strength combined with endurance, the top end of the bell curve for men is in a far different place than it is for women. We’re not talking about having 3 women in the top 20, or something. We’re talking about having no women in the top thousands and thousands at least.
If this thread isn’t about RAH RAH GRRL POWER THEY CAN DO ANYTHING MEN CAN DO, then it’s about the ignorance people have about what it takes to become a SEAL.
Watch that video linked a few posts ago.
I’m saying that this decision isn’t up for popular vote, and that experts more qualified and knowledgable than both of you made the decision that the inclusion of women in those formerly closed ranks is a benefit, not a risk. Since you realize that your impotent internet posturing will change nothing, what do you hope to gain by swaggering about and claiming male superiority? Other than ensuring that women will likely return your vote of non-confidence?
Mothers of all species have a reputation for ferocity which eclipses males. Perhaps we’re not guilty as often of blind, unprovoked violence as men, but that’s a feature not a bug.