Men are men, whatever their race. There’s no compelling reason to segregate them or limit their role.
Women are allowed in the military because they bring the same value that male recruits bring to nearly every role. And as I argued, it’s conceivable to me that they could add value in certain combat roles, and the military would be justified in allowing them to try.
The special forces exist purely for their tactical capabilities. They exist to do things like scale the cliff at Pointe du Hoc under fire to assault a German gun position. It’s the rare man who is capable of doing that, and the woman who can do that is so rare she may as well be a unicorn. Given the accommodations that the military must make for the women who serve, they need to be able to make a more credible contribution to the special forces than providing the rare service member to justify making them eligible to serve. The US special forces, as currently constituted, suffer from no shortfall in capability that I’m aware of that could possibly be helped by allowing women to serve, so the only real justification is some general notion of equality that I and others believe is outweighed by several other factors relevant to the mission of the special forces.
I am saying that if we apply a consistent set of standards, special forces will be overwhelmingly male.
“Individuals who have the abilities to join special forces” are going to be rare among men, and very nearly non-existent among women. And that nothing should be done to address the imbalance.
I think the point of contention is if these tests are gender biased for the sake of gender bias. In modern warfare, might we not have evolved into fighting where physical strength can be compensated by other skills? I don’t have answers, but it seems like some of the other posters here think they do.
Or women for that matter. Cheryl Miller (Reggie Miller’s sister) was drafted by a men’s league out of college.
It’s not equality she (and others) are calling for. It’s equality of opportunity. Analogously any kid can try out for the basketball team but not every kid can make the basketball team. To say that these kids can try out and other kids can’t try out isn’t equality of opportunity.
I have met a few SEALs (the real ones) and a few special forces types. Typically, while they are in great shape, they aren’t towers of strength that even some prison types I have seen. The truth is that the biggest quality that makes someone able to be a SEAL is mental toughness. Some have it, some don’t and I see no reason to think that there aren’t women out there every bit as mentally tough as men. There is no reason to eliminate the opportunity for anyone to try out for any career field in the military. I worked with a female partner in the Air Force and with the exception of a couple of buttholes who gave me crap about it, she was as good or better than anyone.
I suspect those expounding the most volume on the topic are the least experienced to dispense it here. There is nothing like Joe been watching TV to expound on what soldiers can or cannot do be they women or men.
The end result is the same and the arguments are the same. Good intentions don’t make up for bad results.
Explicitly allowing any sort of inequality based on a notion of ‘effectiveness’ or even assuming it’s a real concern in our military fundamentally determines such natural inequality is real and that our society is deluding itself into believing it is not. That’s contrary to the very basis of the idea of our nation.
You can say that now with the hindsight of history.
That’s NOT what was said before about racial segregation or homosexuals. People claimed there were compelling reasons for these things. Again, it’s only with the benefit of hindsight we know they were full of it.
Come to think of it, allowing homosexuals to serve openly or women to be in combat roles is still somewhat controversial to some people, as is obviously even allowing them to try to serve in special forces roles.
So, now, before we have that hindsight, you want to put women in the same bucket and claim it’s not the same thing. Well, congratulations to your very traditional way of thinking. History has shown it to be wanting.
You have no idea how strong those men were, and while raw strength is one factor, muscular and cardiovascular endurance are even more important.
I got to know two members of Marine Force Recon fairly well, one was my Drill Instructor and the other my Company First Sergeant. Both of those men, if you saw them wearing casual clothes and especially long sleeves, you would probably describe as skinny, possibly scrawny. They were in extremely, and I mean extremely, good shape. Sure, they look average but they’re far from it. So, just because the guys you saw didn’t look all that imposing, rest assured they were one-in-a-million physical specimens.
I think the probably is actually the opposite…too many people in this thread with no knowledge of the military think that that yeah, being a SEAL is hard, but it’s mostly mental. Sure it is, but too many in this thread fail to understand HOW physically hard it is.
So as I’ve said, let women apply. I hope everyone feels better after a string of women fail the application or process under a media spotlight.
A bit of a side question. Is there any pre-vetting process for special forces schools? Like if someone–man or woman–shows up and while they may be fit enough for regular army they are clearly not going to cut it in Ranger School, is there a pre-screening process so a lot of time isn’t wasted on them?
Yes, for some anyway. For Marine Recon/Force Recon/Scout-sniper, you have to pass an “indoc”, which is a day or two of physical and mental tests before you’re accepted to attend school*. Other brancehs/forces may vary.
Raw strength however, is not the key. Endurance is. I honestly can’t say whether there are women out there that CAN do it. I will say that as long as the standards aren’t altered, there is no reason that they shouldn’t have the same opportunity. So what if lots of women fail out? Lots of men fail out too.
It wouldn’t make an iota of difference one way or another. If you’ll notice, much of the outrage isn’t directed at the military, it’s directed at people who post on this board. So… righteously indignant people are righteously indignant is basically what it boils down to.
I am enjoying your little anecdotes of “insider” military tidbits though.
I agree. I wouldn’t want to have the standards changed just so women could get in. And I also wouldn’t want to have the standards set so they deliberately exclude women either. The tests should be gender neutral and designed to test whether an applicant has the abilities needed for the job.
I agree that the results of such gender neutral testing in this particular case would probably result in an overwhelmingly male membership. But that’s no reason to deny membership to any women who would qualify.
What complete bullshit. There are three THOUSAND SEALs - the entire US population, including men, women and children is estimated at about 300 million. By your calculations that would mean there could only be 300 SEALs. Out of the entire Navy they are 1 in 100, and out of those who actually apply to be SEALs they are one in four. Yes they are in very good shape but they aren’t supernatural.
Special Operations chief Admiral Bill McRaven says:
I guess a few of the posters here are more of the age demographic that former SEAL commander Larry Bailey fits into, at 73.
I brought it up because the poster I quote was stating, quite explicitly, that equality was the most important thing - I disagree with that. And you seem to be parroting that idea. We’re not talking about a debate team where if we lose we can say say, ‘Oh well, we gave it the ol’ college try’. Real lives and real liberties are at stake and we need to present the best fighting forces we can. In this unique instance, equality should not be the over-riding issue. Important consideration, yes, most important? No.
For the record, I support women in the SEALS program. I am not on the side being argued that we shouldn’t let them try. Nor do I think that allowing female SEAL members is a bad thing. I don’t disagree with her general stance on women in the forces but on this one point miss elizabeth is way off the mark, imho.
I’m neither a woman nor remotely interested in joining the military, let alone the SEALs. But I’d much rather live in a country in which young women have the same opportunities available tot hem as young men, at least in theory, even if in practice they’re very very unlikely to qualify for this particular opportunity. So yes, I will feel better after a string of failures.
The real question is, if/when SEAL application is open to women, and the first 10 or 20 in a row fail, as they likely will; will some jack-ass bust out with “see, I told you it was a mistake to let them apply”. When in fact, the real issue will be that the first 10 or 20 will fail, and THE WORLD WILL NOT END JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE ALLOWED TO TRY. If anything, at that point, we should give a “see, I told you so” to the jackasses.
I can’t believe you idiots are still barking up the sexist angle.
Yes, I see what you’re getting at.
“Once upon a time, blacks were treated as second class citizens, and they were even segregated within the military. But over time people came to understand that there were no real differences between the races and equality prevailed. We were wrong to exclude people based on racial biases because there is no practical differences between the races”
And you want to turn this into “Just like with racial segregation, women are excluded from certain roles in society, and anyone who propagates this paradigm is just like the racists, you’re on the wrong side of history, and one day everyone is going to realize that men and women are exactly the same and there’s no reason to discriminate. Even if you’re creating a team of the world’s greatest bodybuilders by mass, women deserve to be right there, because anyone who thinks women can’t do anything that men can do, even if it relates to the very nature of their physiology, is a sexist who’s really a weak little man threatened by change”
The reality is that racial discrimination and sexual discrimination in fields in which sexual dimorphism is a limiting factor are entirely different things. For fucks sake, this is so simple to understand that anyone who seriously refuses to believe it is in such a fucking retarded equality fairy land that there’s no way to get through.
I mean, for fucks sake, let’s say there was some sort of vehicle that could only be piloted by someone with three arms, and there was a third gender of people who had three arms. If someone said “maybe we could rig something up that could be used with 2 arms, but as it stands, people with two arms just can’t do it - they don’t have the right physiology” you’d be screaming that we’re all just three armed bigots that are threatened by change.
The point of this thread is confusing and frightening to you, yes, we all know. But your position that there can never ever be even a single woman who is capable of meeting SEAL standards, so none should not be allowed to try, because if they are allowed to try, etc. is circular - it assumes the conclusion. That’s what we call a logical fallacy, on our good days that is. The fact that you’re clinging to it despite careful explanations is what is inspiring speculation as to your motives.
Wow, I can’t believe this argument is still going on. I have no doubt that very few women will make it (heck, very few men make it through selection), especially if someone tries to join to “make a point”. Anyone that tries out for Special Forces better want it, for themselves, not for headlines.
It all boils down to, few men make it through selection, even fewer women will make it, but there will be women that make it and they should have the opportunity to try.
Very few women have made it here, but it’s happened, and it will happen again.
