Standards lowered to produce first female Green Beret.....

Its a big deal.....that's why they are looking into it. All due to the one guy being the Right type of guy to get focus on the problem.

Not being trained appropriately leads to people getting injuries in this case more injuries and some that could probably be avoided.

 

One guy. His opinion. One guy

 

You already said that and it was answered. Right kind of guy too.

 

But just one guy. Not a big deal

 

Men should have to met the same physical capabilities as women measured by what women are better at too, don't you agree? Then we could have ZERO people in the military.

I can not think of one country that had women in combat roles that has lost a war. However, the list is nearly endless of countries who have lost wars that did not have women in the military. Name any major mission or battle that failed that included women in combat roles? Bet you can't. Thousands and thousands of defeats with only males in combat. So really this is about glorifying men who lose battles and wars. Better to lose with men than win with women. That is just how absurd this issue is.

I guess there are a lot of people who really do want the USA ultimately defeated in a war. Better a country defeated than question the absolute domination and superiority of men over women, huh? Really, before that is ever allowed to happen we all should die.

 

The sexism is SO intense within the military that women in combat roles in combat areas are literally kept off the books to avoid the controversy, while using the women because there are missions that could not even be undertaken without them. Although rare, there even are missions that could not possibly even be undertaken by a man due to the extreme sexism of some of our enemy that do not see women as potential threats or military adversaries.

There are many extra stupid men all tangled up in their own personal insecurities and desperate to make unjustified and unearned declarations of superiority over someone or anyone, so they pick women to declare themselves superior too, equating modern combat to arm wrestling and pack mule measurements.

 

Yeah we did that.....think of Officers being like women and telling men what to do all the time.

 

How did "men only in combat" work out in terms of winning the Vietnam war? Oh, that's right, we lost the Vietnam war, didn't we?

How many enemy totally controlled cities or towns did you go into with just one other military personnel for an LRRP missions? I know of a woman who has done so. How many enemy did you kill in a combat zone or to take out a high priority targets person? I know a woman who has killed hundreds on numerous combat missions in two different combat theaters.

Tell us all how MEN would do this mission? A woman in a hijab walks submissively behind her apparent husband thru the city to the target, weapons. The target is found, killed and the two just walk away. Women are very skilled at infiltration in many ways, and ways men can not do. Women can act the role of a refugee, where a fit young man would be inherently suspect. Such women need full combat training for eventualities, training you want banned to assure only men get the jobs. There are women who undertake missions more dangerous than any men do - or could do.

Tell us anything YOU did - other than carry a lot of weight on your back to your pack mule measurement - that was "superior." Tell us how, as a man, you won the Vietnam war in a way women could not have?

History is rather clear that it is MEN who lose battles and wars.

 

I do know quite a bit about women currently in combat roles in combat zones, but can't say much of it. In combat, women actually tend to be braver and more determined to kill the enemy regardless of personal risk. That was well learned in Russia about women in combat in WW2.
In the present, I know of instance as an example where a small group of US personnel only with small arms found themselves isolated, their transportation not working, and surprise under mortar and rifle fire, with an advancing enemy - a seemingly hopeless situation. As the men panicked, the sole woman of the unit took command although not the highest ranker. The woman - noting I am being abstract - essentially was the "sniper" (so to speak) of the unit. Included was her announcing no one will be surrendering and they will either all live or all die. Using an unusual delaying tactic I won't mention, they did get their transportation going. Then, to their horror, she announced they were going to turn around and come in behind them so she could kill them. Why?! "Because that's what I do. Turn around or I will see you up on cowardice before the enemy charges." And that was how it ended. She killed the attackers because that's her job - kill the enemy.
That is what was most learned about women in combat in Russia in WW2. Once they go into the killing mode, once they become under attack, they will not be deterred from killing the enemy. That was one of the criticisms of women's units in WW2, they would refuse to comply with orders to retreat - including inflicting overwhelmingly greater casualties against superior German forces with superior equipment, even when fighting to the last woman.
But for women at Stalingrad, Germany would have defeated Stalingrad and WW2 would have gone a very different direction. Overall, German soldiers became terrified of Russian women in combat, particularly Russian female snipers.
I would think otherwise many men would have figured that out about the nature of many women. Hell hath no fury like a woman.
In my opinion, only really insecure stupid men believe women are not capable of modern combat.

 

For men who calculate combat on past wars, why do they pick Vietnam? Since they can ONLY see combat only in terms of ancient warfare, why not the American Civil War, the Napoleoniac Wars, Zulu Wars, War of the Roses or the Crusades? At least try to pick a war fought only by men that was won, not a war we lost where we only had men in combat and the enemy (North Vietnam) has women in combat and they won as your life experiences example of the incapability of women in combat.

At least pick a war the men won and the side with women in combat lost to try to prove women are not combat capable, meaning not the Vietnam war.

Women were in combat roles for the North Vietnamese - and as we know despite our massively superior technology and weapons, North Vietnam won. The side with women in combat won. I can think of no example of any country with women in combat roles having lost a war despite the odds.

 

I have noticed when it comes to melee and there are multiple opponents, as in combat in a combat zone. It is very rare that a woman can walk away from that type of encounter. That's not to say that there isn't some woman somewhere they could have that ability but again it would be very rare.

Now women do make the best assassins.

History is full of men winning wars and battles. One only need to think of the Japanese Right off the top. Sun Tzu and all that. Even Tokugawa used women in war. That doesn't mean they get to be part of some elite force. Might be some sort of Special advisor

 

This is the logic: "Only people who meet standards designed around men are combat capable just because they aren't."

I keep waiting for the study providing that being hit by a bullet fired by a man is measurably more lethal than being hit by a bullet fired by a woman. Why don't any of you post something about that and explain how that works.

 

And that is why you don't want women combat trained, so they get injured, correct? ANY military personnel can find themselves in a combat situation. You apparently WANT women to be untrained to put them at the greatest risks, correct?

This topic is raised over and over and over on the forum, generally by someone who was in infantry and then believes wars are decided by infantry grunts who know more about war than anyone else, when infantry has been cannon folder for a couple of centuries.

Something no one mentions is that increasingly across the military nearly all personnel are receiving higher levels of combat training even if their position does not predictably involve future combat. This is for many reasons including no longer willing to rely on infantry and Marines for support under attack. Benghazi was the perfect example. So was Somolia. When the call came for help did help immediately come? Absolutely not. There was no "send everything we have now!" order. NO ONE was sent, not for hours if ever. The defense of a surprise attack on a base can NOT rely on infantry and the Marines. Military officers bureaucracy now intermixed with contractors, the "intelligence community," and civilian leadership is virtually incapable of doing anything spontaneously or reactive. The reality is the defense may rely on clerks, cooks, mechanics, computer geeks and nurses.

The question is NOT should women be qualified and trained for combat roles. Rather, it is why isn't EVERYONE in the military trained and qualified for combat roles - certainly anyone with any potential of being stationed outside the USA?

 

A woman (Jewish) assassinated Muhammad and his top general. Yes, women make excellent assassins.

I don't believe the measure is gender, but the role. If the job involved rapidly lifting and loading heavy shells or munitions, that is strong-back work. Thus, the measure is a strong back. Put strong backs into those roles. But that is more artillery or munitions loading, not really infantry. The problem is that "strong back" is not the core of military needs, even of the infantry.

What men who make the claim do is search for situations where strength most matters - usually claiming a woman could not carry a wounded man out of battle by herself. So we design our entire combat military around that? Really? Our entire combat military is designed singularly around the potential of there ONLY being TWO personnel at the scene and one of them wounded? A unit of ONLY 2? Has that situation even ever happened? We will or lose battles and wars based solely on that???

I've mentioned this before. I know a Marine EXTREMELY well who was a squad leader in the Helmand District of Afghanistan at the height of the conflict. Prior to this, he was INTENSELY opposed to women in combat roles. But after his experience he completely changed his view believing women should be in combat roles. The "strength" measure was all but worthless. Rather, it is courage, intelligence, capability to operate as a unit, marksmen skills and good instincts. As for LRRPs and all the weight they carried? He said as soon as they were out of sight they'd ditch much the weight the "pencil pushers" required them to take anyway. But what most changed his view was coming to interact with some women intensely into physical stuff like rock and mountain climbing. Its hard to feel superior when the person higher than you climbing a rock cliff is female, and then you learn she is a better shot - though you've been a hunter since a child, she's good with knives too, and how the hell did she get you on the ground when you were the one who was a high school wrestling champion? He said there were only two men in his squad that he wouldn't have preferred to have had her - plus having a woman in the squad would have worked well with some of the villagers in terms of PR and information gathering.

BUT yes, I know "she's the exception," right? Yet that is not the question. The question is "are women combat capable," not are women equal to men? In terms of physical strength, for height reasons Asians and Latinos probably tend to be inferior to whites and on average whites probably tend to be inferior to blacks for the same reason most NFL players are black. SO... should Asian men have to meet standards designed around black men?

Maybe all should meet the physical capabilities of indigenous Hawaiians and of Zulu ancestry? Those guys are huge. No, the question is whether or not someone can be trained to be combat capable. Not whether one demographic can carry more weight than another.

 

Increasingly, it is smarts - the intelligence - not the brawn that matters to the military. This includes in combat roles. Women now pursue education at twice the rate of men in the USA. Like it or not, expect more women in the military and in combat in the future due to women on average winning the acquired intelligence competition.

 

Rambling on... the psychologies of women tend to make them superior at defense, but not at offense. It is believed this is due to maternal and nesting instincts. The other troops become their family and the ground they are defending their nest. It was thought that is why in WW2 on occasion even if all the male Russian units did retreat as ordered, female units would refuse to, though this then left them overwhelmingly outnumbered and outgunned. Retreating in a major battle can require leaving wounded behind, and they wouldn't leave "family members" behind, plus they were in blind kill-fury over "family members" having been killed by the Germans. They were defending their family and their nest. There also may be a factor of a desire to prove they are as good as, if not superior, to men being in a society that men dominate women.

It is very difficult to overrun a defensive position IF the enemy truly is determined to fight to the very last person, willing to take any risk to somehow kill any of the attackers even if doing so is suicidal.

Curiously, in both Chinese history and Vietnam's history, it was their view of warfare for many centuries that women are well suited for defense, though generally were not employed for large scale raids or offense.

 

There are a lot of scenarios wherein physical strength comes into play while firing on the enemy. Suffice a lot of men can't do the same thing as Special Forces does. That's why they fail the course. Its the same thing for Rangers. Navy Seals. Theres something about jumping out of perfectly good working airplane that a lot men just can't deal with.

 

Which standards were lowered?

Here ( https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/op...go-soft-lower-standards-to-be-more-inclusive/ ) it talks about someone failing a test too many times in a row, but eventually passing and being 'qualified'. So, they met the physical requirements, but they didn't meet the bureaucratic requirements. I dont really see that as a huge problem...

I would like to know which requirements specifically were lowered before I pass judgement.

 

The thing goes no forever, basically a low ranker whining about officers, claiming they are unfair against some men while passing men and women not qualified - and overall that the officers are all rotten because they don't fail the right people to fail, don't pass people who fail that he things should have passed, that all officers and trainers are liars and they all in a conspiracy when they do fail someone and when they do pass someone. Essentially he is claiming that every officer, every trainer and everyone in military command are liars, cheats, and incompetent. He is not just whining about women, he is whining about everything. If someone he liked failed, the officer was lying. If someone is caught cheating that he likes, it is was all a setup and the person innocent. There is no whining he doesn't do.

If that person can be identified he should immediately be booted out. Obviously he has serious problems will ALL officers and all of military command. I seriously doubt low rankers whining about officers and military command is nothing new. Likely as old as their have been militaries.

 

Would anyone agree to THIS standard to qualify for special forces, Rangers, Green Beret or Navy Seal:

The requirement to lay motionless for 10 hours, while aiming a laser sight at a target 1000 yards off. If the person makes any noise, any seeable movement or the laser comes off the target for more than a second, they are booted out of the program.

Fair standard? Or is that an unfair standard to put on men?

How about the standard that food and water rations are based upon women's metabolism? Any man who can not fully function on the food and water demands of females is booted out. 100 are put on treadmills to fast walk continuously with no food and no water. They all having been on the same food and water rations for a week prior. Only the last 20 still walking are accepted, the rest are booted out.That'd be fair, wouldn't it? Afterall, in combat troops can find themselves without more supplies. Shouldn't those MOST capable of going the longest without food and water be who is selected?

Or out of 100, maybe it should be the 20 or 30 or 50 with the lowest center of gravity for balance. That'd be a female based standard men should have to EQUALLY meet, shouldn't they? Just because no man can do it, that's no excuse "to have an inferior" person just to bend the rules to let men in too, is it?

In the gripe piece, it is asserted that women should have to meet standards based upon men as an indisputable fact. Why? Why not assert that men should have to meet women's standards based upon women as indisputable fact?

 

And yet still no female linebackers in the NFL. Shouldn't we solve that sexism problem first before worrying about the Green Berets?

 

That's it, that's why we lost in Vietnam. Why the M.E. has been such a problem too. We didn't have enough linebackers! You figured it out! Inform the Pentagon to stop spending all that money on technical crap. Just build football fields on military bases and we would win any battle and war. 20 football fields, a lot of football uniforms and a lot of footballs, that's all we need.

Oh, and inform the military that it needs to be at least 90% black - and NO Latinos or Asians. You know, like NFL linebackers. That IS the way to win - copy the NFL! Afterall, warfare is just another form of football, isn't it, and only linebackers matter for that.

 

Based on previous posts of yours on this topic, you are absolutely irrational on this subject and cannot seem to view the issue clearly. I assume it was because of some girl. Suffice to say, out of the multiple readiness issues the military has right now, girls in special forces doesn't make the list, and that's no matter how long your list is. When every other military problem is solved, then we can worry about if we need girl green berets.

 

No physical training in the SFOC Between the months of June and Aug.

The culmination: It has just been announced that graduation for students will be held immediately after they graduate Robin Sage. Language phase is no longer a requirement for graduation. Aside from passing selection, there are LITERALLY no physical gates or standards required of students in order for them to graduate the Special Forces Qualification Course.

This is the state of the entire SFQC as it stands today. Students do not need to be able to pass a 2-mile run at an 80% standard. They do not need to pass a 5-mile run in under 40 minutes. They do not need to be able to pass a 12-mile ruck march in under 3 hours. They are not required to find ANY points during their land nav training and assessment. They do not need to be able to perform 8 pull-ups. They do not need to be able to perform 57 push-ups, or 66 sit-ups. They no longer need to be able to climb a 15 foot rope with weight on. Students are no longer administered any form of physical or administrative punishment. After passing a 19-ish day selection process, there are no physical barriers to earning the coveted Green Beret. These all were standards for EVERY Green Beret in modern history prior to this month. To say that standards have not been eliminated would be laughable, were it not so tragic.....snip~

 

What is irrational is your views on modern warfare. It seems very clear that you would rather battles and wars lost than have women in combat roles. Your view of the full spectrum of what "specials ops" means is naive and wrongly simplistic.

In a sense, women are the new n..ggers in the military. Just as there was ranting that blacks are inferior to whites in the military, the same is now how women in the military in combat roles are also often viewed and treated both within the military and civilian population. In fact, there are women in combat roles and in specials ops operations, who are killing the enemy and being wounded and killed. In return, men such as you sneer at them. Rather disgusting actually.

Fortunately, men with your view are being booted out of the military if they can't let it go and are just too male ego insecure to stay focused on a missions oriented military. More than one CO has been booted for piling on workloads to women and harassment trying to force them to quit or file a harassment complaint - with is the kiss of death to a career military future, false negative reports on women, and refusing to recognize proper authority women in the military have for their rank, status or role. The reason your side is losing is not because of PCism. It is because there women who are mission critical and many believe it is missions, not male egos, is what matters in the military. Because WINNING is the correct measure, your perspective is losing the keep women out agenda.

For every muscle head "linebacker" type that want to join the military, the military does not need 1 out of 5 of them. There is no shortage of weak brain, strong back men turning to the military as their only employment and career potential. Modern war is no longer fought and won by strong stupid men good with a sword or ax. The primary reason there will be increasing numbers of women in the military including in combat roles is because women are now more focused on education in general than are men.

While infantry and Marines at the low combat level are told they are the "tip of the spear" etc to recognize their role, they are no longer the primary killers of the enemy and, more importantly, not what the military has the greatest need for now. It truly is naive for anyone to believe the greatest problem our military faces is that people are coming out of basic training who can't do enough pullups - but that apparently is your opinion.