There are persistent differences that have existed for the last few decades at the top levels of athletic endeavor simply due to physiological differences between men and women. The Seals BUDS training as it stands today requires upper body strength and cardio capacity in one package that it’s going to be very difficult to find in men and almost impossible to find in women.
I am not arguing that there are no women at all that can do it. There may be a few but it will be an infinitesimal handful at best if the current standards stay the same. The point I am trying to make is that unless these standards change the notion that women in any numbers are going to be able to complete the full current BUDS training is fantasy. There is no amount of training and preparation that is going to make even the fittest women able to handle the extreme upper body strength requirements and still be able to run marathon distances in one package.
There are some things you can over come with training, but this is a wall that’s going to be almost impossible to scale. In the end if they want women in any numbers beyond single digits they will have to change the SEAL BUDS standards or (and this would make more sense) have different standards for an elite female squad.
And once you do find the very small sample of women who are fit enough to potentially apply to BUDS, how many of them will actually want to be SEALs? Maybe none…and of the few that do, at least 75% will wash out. Which may leave you with a number of successful applicants <1.
*Nobody *has disputed that only a few women could do it, or stated that standards should be lowered for women. But you three, and Klaatu and others, want to bar women from even trying.
Another factor…the publicity surrounding the first female accepted to BUDS might also be enough to keep anyone from applying in the first place.
And THEN if there’s an applicant, she’s 75% likely to wash out, which would potentially bring about more press and exposure than actually passing.
So go ahead and open it up, I say…but until we have 1) an applicant 2) meet the initial standards and 3) pass the course, this is all academic.
My conclusion is that there is likely to never be a female SEAL.
Adding another thought…if a woman is that dedicated to serving her country in a manner similar to a SEAL, maybe a better course would be to explore a service that eliminated the direct action factor and was exclusively covert and tradecraft operations. Get in shape, get an advanced degree, and apply for the CIA.
Since his point is that nothing is lost by allowing women to take the test and there’s everything to gain by a woman passing said test, insisting that no woman could pass the test is, frankly, irrelevant.
If you assume that the person’s goal is to simply serve their country in a manner tha involves a great element of personal risk, as is customary for both SEALS and CIA operatives, then the most reasonable path to choose is that in which one is most likely to succeed.
If her goal, however, is simply to be a SEAL for the sake of being a SEAL…well, then there you go. Decision made.
I don’t recall having said that in any way, shape or form in this discussion re not allowing them to go for it at all. My point has been that if this quest is pursued with the current standards in place the number of actual women that will graduate the course will be utterly miniscule to the point of meaninglessness if the real world goal is to integrate women in any kind of useful numbers into elite squads.
Within the context of this thread, it is a strawman to say that the goal is to integrate women into elite squads. The goal is that there should not be artificial barriers to that integration. I may have not read the thread too well so could you point me to the posters who said that integration of women should trump fitness requirements?
You know, the long history of discrimination against Others is always rooted in the fear that the bigot is ordinary, replaceable, and superior to no one. Some of us need to feel somehow better than some inferior other in order to maintain a modicum of self-esteem.
Case in point: If American men let the Irish come over, they’ll take jobs and charm their women. If women go to work, they will gain financial independence or meet another man on the job and leave their boring easy-chair riding entitled husbands. If we liberate the bigger, stronger negroes, they will take our jobs and lure our wives away with their muscles and such. If we let women become Navy SEALs, Klaatu might be prevented from becoming a SEAL, and a strong, independent, fiercely competitive female SEAL might move in next door and seduce Klaatu’s wife with her swaggering prowess.
If I were married to Klaatu or SenorBeef, I know I’d wander off with a female SEAL at first wink, so maybe their respective prejudices are grounded in personal truths.
I have not read this entire thread since so much of it was the taunting nonsense at the beginning by the OP and responses to it. Picking up just the points of the discussion as it relates to women completing the course requirements for elite military units I am assuming as a point of simple common sense that there is a desire by the top brass to integrate women successfully into ground combat operations. As part of this female entry into elite special forces units would also be a goal. That’s what this whole discussion revolves around.
I’m not clear on your notion of artificial barriers. The participation of women in BUDS team training in my examples has zero “artificial barriers”. Women are assumed to be competing head to head with men for spots on the team.
My point is that if you intend to have women compete for SEAL positions head to head it is extremely unlikely there will be anything close to a militarily useful number who can meet the standards. There has to be a common sense adjustment made to accommodate women if you intend on having them participate in Special Forces.
Really? Most of us are assuming as a point of common sense that discrimination on the basis of gender is a bad thing, and that the top brass sees it that way too. So why don’t you?
Pick one: Women [are / are not] permitted to apply to become SEAL’s.
They’re hypothetical. Women are *not *permitted to participate - and for a reason that is, yes, artificial.
Dude, you are entirely missing the point. There is probably no “militarily useful” number of women for a SEAL unit. The point is not that they will be let in because they are useful. It’s that they’ll be let in because they are qualified, and there’s no reason not to.