Maybe in some imaginary world of justice and harmony, where all men understand that they shouldn’t commit violence against women, and everyone observes a general notion of equality in all things, then those would be trivial concerns that we could safely overlook. But we don’t live in that world. Is it worth performing some social engineering on the special forces, with all the headaches that entails, just to provide an opportunity to a miniscule number of extreme outliers? I think not.
Yes, everyone here is aware that you are an asshole. You can stop posting about it now.
That’s easy for you to say, you mouthy sow, because you wouldn’t be the naive young woman subjecting herself to misery so that some strident internet femtroll can pat herself on the back for being sooooooooo progressive and standing up for equality, with absolutely no regard for the FUCKING REALITY that the SEALs have no actual need for the service of women. I truly do not understand why you’re so insistent that women be permitted to serve in roles which they’re ill suited for and not needed.
If she could somehow make it through selection and all the bullshit will surely entail, AND through training, then maybe. That’s a lot of ifs, though.
Ranger training is not analogous to seal training. Ranger training is more or less advanced infantry/combat training.
Special forces, specifically Delta Force, is the Army “version” of Seal.
You seem confused. Again skimming not reading is problematic.
Here is what you said
There are multiple and very different arguments going on in these last few pages. Modalize’s argument is basically the position of one person out of this scrum. Practically every other person in this thread making arguments has no issue with women competing, their points are basically arguments about practicality and outcomes.
I’m not sure billfish678 is even serious with his early BS or it’s just chain yanking trollery, but he’s not making any arguments and has not been present in the in the last few pages.
You painted the whole thread as driven a pack of rabid mysigonists attacking women. That was incorrect as I pointed out. Modalize’s position is only a part of this thread.
You’re welcome.
You’re a douche.
Yes it is in certain matters of national security. I don’t doubt that permitting women to compete on a level playing field will be highly unfair to America’s fat guys with weird inferiority complexes.
Look. If a guy strikes up a conversation with a woman on the street in Afghanistan, it’s considered highly offensive. This isn’t rocket science. Now it’s possible that the Navy wants their Seals to work in highly specialized contexts. That’s fine, though I sort of doubt this is actually the case. Regardless most special ops work requires gathering intelligence from the locals and any unit that lacks females will have its effectiveness compromised.
Similarly in any culture: barring one gender or the other will hurt your information gathering efforts.
Bizarre if true.
Oh this argument is very old: check out Plato’s Republic, Book 5. Socrates noted that as a matter of logic, if you want to choose somebody for a job, you don’t worry about the average qualities of the group that they are in. Men are on average taller than women, but there are some women who are taller than some men. He then extended the concept to -wait for it- military service, a thought experiment which all agreed was hilarious.
[QUOTE=Plato]
But then, I said, as we have determined to speak our minds, we must not fear the jests of the wits which will be directed against this sort of innovation; how they will talk of women’s attainments both in music and gymnastic, and above all about their wearing armour and riding upon horseback!
[/QUOTE]
Also, imagine a woman practicing gymnastics: I bet she’d be pretty ugly, ya? Still, if there’s a woman who is proficient at fighting (Sparta!), have at it.
Hey, it was 2400 years ago.
Yes here is what I said (bolding and size increases mine):
You’re welcome. Stupid.
The OP comes off as an intoxicated ignorant asshole. That said, here’s a thread from Jan 2013, talking about allowing women to serve in the infantry. It’s bringing up a lot of the same points you all are, but in more detail. In particular, I thought Bear Nenno’s and Poysyn’s contributions were informative and applicable to this discussion, given he’s actually in a combat arms branch of the U.S. Army and she, IIRC, was (is?) an officer in the Canadian Army. FWIW, to paraphrase some of things Bear posted, he was in favor of integrating women within the infantry starting with smaller units. The SEAL Teams would seem to qualify.
The purpose of the military is not equality. It’s purpose is to kill people and break things, preferably as cheaply as possible. If integrating women will be more costly and troublesome than it’s worth; if the Navy will have to set up separate accommodations for women and go through the gender separation rigamarole detailed by Bear and by Alessan, then the value that a few women provide to the unit may not be enough to permit them to try out.
I personally think the odds of the physical training norms being left alone, if that means that no woman would qualify, is quite a bit less than the norms being changed to allow a few women to pass BUD/S. That would be bad. I also think that you don’t get to flag rank in the military by publicly expressing politically incorrect opinions.
Continue with the Two Minutes Hate.
Fuck, but you’re thick.
Let me put it like this, I’m sure the women who qualify for SEAL training, and the women who manage to pass, no matter how few, appreciate your patronizing concern. As do the Navy commanders who support this idea.
But they’ve got this. You can stop worrying now.
Also, anyone trying out for the SEALs probably doesn’t fit your description of a “naive young woman”. Which a moments thought would make clear, if you weren’t dumber than a box of hair.
They wouldn’t be subjecting themselves to anything, if someone wants to be in the SF, they had better want it pretty badly.
I have a question, if some of you are so incredibly sure that no woman will make it through the selection process, then what difference does it make to you if they open selection to women? If you are correct, then nothing changes…
BTW - before I get accused of not coming back with a cite, I am waiting for a response from some operators within the units in question. I will report back, once I have a cite.
And yes, Gray Ghost I am an officer in the Canadian Armed Forces.
My guess is it’s what miss elizabeth said in a previous post - some men have their personal identity tied up in the image of male superiority exemplified by other men. Their thinking is something like “I have a penis. An elite Navy SEAL warrior has a penis. Therefore, the elite Navy SEAL warrior and myself have something in common. I am like an elite Navy SEAL warrior.” If a woman qualifies as a SEAL, it destroys the illusion.
I said I would report back, and I have - yes - she was “fucking awesome”. Their words, not mine. Same standard. There has only been the one so far.
On another board I frequent, we have a poster called dead horse and another called youth in Asia. This thread could use either or both of them.
What’s that I just heard?
I think it was your argument exploding in your face 
Right now, there’s a controversy in the US about how the military handles sexual assault, and how to address the problem. People are outraged not simply because it’s wrong to sexually assault women, but because it’s a labor issue. Women are recruited to serve in the armed forces because their contributions are valued. Their service is an asset to the military and the country, and the military has a duty and responsibility to protect its assets. There’s a fool-proof way of ensuring that female service members don’t get sexually assaulted, and that’s to bar all women from service. But that’s obviously not even a consideration, because their service is desired and valued, so it’s unreasonable for the military to fail to address the problem adequately.
Now if their contribution to certain branches of the US special forces would be negligible at best, and would introduce the types of problems seen in other parts of the military, then what’s the point? Why stir things up just to stir things up?
Just so you know, I wasn’t trying to imply that you were vacuously claiming something that obviously couldn’t be true when I asked for a cite. Whatever you find out, I’d be interested to learn.
Well, there you go.
*I personally think the odds of the physical training norms being left alone, if that means that no woman would qualify, is quite a bit less than the norms being changed to allow a few women to pass BUD/S. That would be bad.
This is the crux of the issue.
How much can/should they change the standards in order to make women competitive. If the answer is, None at all, then we’re dealing with a hypothetical question.
I can’t comment on how the US handles sexual assault in their military, but I an say that within my own experience, my military handled it very well, better than it would have gone on civvie-street. YMMV naturally.
MOIDALIZE - I appreciate that, I just wanted you to know I wasn’t ignoring your request for proof. I’ve been a member here far too long to try and get away with that kind of BS. 
The problem is that’s a human thing, not a guy thing.