I can’t believe the thread is still going either. There’s a consensus and everything, which appears to be the exact same consensus reached back on page 2: let them try, just don’t change the standards. I think the people still arguing against this are projecting some sort of “gotcha”.
Tell me something, Elvis. Are you stupid, or just a liar?
I’m not confused at all. It’s ironic. You say I’m confused. You say I’m frightened. Someone else said I was a brick wall. But the reality, as this post demonstrates, is that it’s people like you who are demonstrating a clear lack of logic, an unwillingness to try to comprehend the other side, and unwillingness to even address the arguments of the other side.
You think my whole argument hinges on something that I not only did not say, but have repeatedly indicated is not my position. That either makes you an idiot - I’ve made myself very, very clear - or a liar - you’re not interested in actually arguing my position, you’re only interested in misrepresenting it.
This whole “frightened” and “threatened” bullshit is also laughable. I probably couldn’t run a mile. There are women in the world that would best me in every type of athletic competition you could imagine. The idea that this is somehow personal to me is retarded. I have no problem admitting that there are women who are in massively better physical shape than me. So it’s pretty ridiculous that I’m somehow threatened by proxy about something I don’t actually hold to be a value.
That’s just retarded dimestore psychology, ad hominems, and straw men, which is all you’ve got.
I think some of 'em are arguing (or attempting to argue, or just assuming that it’s “obvious” so they don’t have to go into detail) that once women are allowed to try, the standards WILL inevitably be lowered, by court order or higher-ups who don’t want to look sexist or what have you.
That is a valid concern, actually. If they want to push a woman through as some sort of PR stunt, they might tweak the standards. You mock this as being obvious, but it’s been done for military physical requirements across the board. Women have entirely different requirements than men do even for the most rudimentary military roles.
And then it’s serious business. Special ops isn’t a rainbow coalition to show how far we’ve come as a society, it’s a collection of killers at the very end of human endurance and ability, who rely on being the best to survive and protect national interests. Lowering the standards for PR stunts could get people killed, and compromise national security. This isn’t a kiddie game.
That’s an if, though. If a woman legitimately passes BUD/S and does all the things the men can do, then fine, let her serve.
On that basis, we shouldn’t have special forces at all in case somebody uses them for a crazy PR stunt and gets people killed.
That doesn’t follow. I’m saying that lowering the standards for the units, making them less effective, has the consequence of increasing the likelihood of casualties, failing missions of interest to national security, and otherwise fucking up. This is something that’s easy to prevent - just don’t lower the combat effectiveness of the units to make a (false) political point.
Right, but that’s not what is being proposed. That’s a possible outcome of what is being proposed, somewhere down a slippery slope.
There seems to be a majority opinion on this board that if the standards stay as they are for SEAL training, the woman graduate will be an exotic species. I agree that they should be allowed to sign up like anyone else to see if they can make the cut. My question is: how long should we keep the program open for women if it’s blatantly obvious that they can’t cut it?
shrug As long as we have the program. What’s the harm in keeping it open to women even if none of them qualify?
The money spent on training time from what I’ve heard. How much will the military be spending on a recruit that may or may not fail?
The same amount they spend on male recruits who fail, presumably.
This is my point. How much should we spend on separate facilities and products for women who want to try out for this position when there is a blatant washout rate?
Oh, ffs. The facilities already exist. Who do you think keeps the admin shop running? Or maintains training records? Or feeds them? Do you think they’re trained in a fucking vacuum? If its in the field, then trust me, women know how to urinate and defecate without benefit of a pristine powder room just fine.
I know none of you bothered to watch what BUD/S is, but the dynamic of a single female recruit would be interesting. There are a lot of team-based exercises where there’s an enormous amount of pressure for everyone to hold up their end of the workload. If one soldier fails or falls behind, his team is punished. A woman who was unable to take up her share of the group strength exercises would quickly inspire the resentment of the people who were stuck with her, and would be picked out by the instructor for extra work and punishment. Even within the context of BUD/S itself, it would be difficult for the team with the woman recruit to stay competitive against other teams and, if they were consistently applying their training philosophy, would be singled out for an even harder workload. This could also effect the washout rate of the men who are assigned to her team, if they have to make up the slack and also get an extra workload/punishment on top of that.
It would likely not be practical to have an entire team/crew of women, since I doubt there would be that many recruits, and they reshuffle the teams as people drop out.
Something for those of you to consider who don’t care to understand the challenges involved. If you did things like consider, that is.
Survival of the fittest. Madame can be said for the woeful man who is the weakest link. Next!
Madame=ipad for the same.
You didn’t answer my question. I’m aware that the facilities exist. What I’m asking is how long should we continue a program where a women’s washout rate for SEALS training is not economically viable?
You’ve been spit-flying rabidly defending your baseless position and you don’t even hold physical fitness as a value? Then shut the fuck up you useless couch surfing blowhard and enjoy the sound of your arteries hardening as you pound one out while watching the next Miss Universe teeter down the runway on her platforms to reassure you in a stuttering little girl voice that she’s too delicate and pretty to defend your right to virtually shout down the Pentagon. Because we don’t want you to bust a forehead vein worrying that tough, capable, highly dedicated women will soon be defending your right to be a totally outdated and obsolete ass.
You didn’t answer my question. Did you serve?
And to answer your question, how about longer than not at all? “Continue” doesn’t mean what you think it does.
Haha. I’m the one who has no personal stake in this, and yet you call me spit-flying rabidly defending while making a post that’s so over the top as to be utterly ridiculous.
All of you have gone way over the top to attack me, and fair enough, this is the pit, but the irony is that you all accuse me of doing things I’m not actually doing, and these things that you accuse me of are what you are actually doing. Drewtoo said I was like talking to a brick wall, and yet it was his/her posts in this thread that displayed that tendency to a much greater degree. You’re calling me spit-flying rabid, and yet you are so unable to actually argue like a reasonable person that you can only launch into personal attack diatribes like this.
The lack of self awareness of you guys is utterly astounding, yet consistent with the sort of arguments you’re making in this thread.
What does my level of fitness have to do with anything? If I were in top shape, then women can’t be SEALs, but if I’m in bad shape, they can? That’s my whole point. I have no personal stake in this. It’s irrelevant. I’d be saying the same thing if I were in great shape. Or if I were a cripple. Or a woman. Or anything. My level of physical fitness has nothing to do whatsoever with whether women are physiologically capable of handling training like BUD/S.
Please, continue to make a fool of yourself.