US commandos say no to women in special operations jobs

[webfact]

US commandos say no to women in special operations jobs
By LOLITA C. BALDOR

WASHINGTON (AP) — The men in the U.S. military's most dangerous jobs care little about political correctness or gender equality. And they have a message for their political leadership.

When they are fighting in the shadows or bleeding on the battlefield, women have no place on their teams.

In blunt and, at times, profanity-laced answers to a voluntary survey conducted by the Rand Corp., more than 7,600 of America's special operations forces spoke with nearly one voice. Allowing women to serve in Navy SEAL, Army Delta or other commando units could hurt their effectiveness and lower the standards, and it may drive men away from the dangerous posts.

An overwhelming majority of those who agreed to respond to the RAND survey said they believe women don't have the physical strength or mental toughness to do the grueling jobs.


Some of the broader conclusions of the survey, taken from May through July 2014, were disclosed by The Associated Press earlier this year, but the detailed results and comments written by respondents had not been released.

The Pentagon released the summer survey and other documents when Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced last week that he was opening all combat jobs to women. That decision was based on recommendations by the military service secretaries and the leaders of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Special Operations Command. Only the Marine Corps asked to exempt women from certain infantry and frontline positions, but Carter denied that request.

Half the men who got the 46-question survey responded to it, and Rand did not identify any of them. In some cases people who feel most strongly about an issue are more inclined to answer surveys.

Some 85 percent of the respondents said they oppose opening the special operations jobs to women, and 70 percent oppose having women in their individual units. More than 80 percent said women aren't strong enough and can't handle the demands of the job. And 64 percent said they aren't mentally tough enough.

"I weigh 225 pounds, and 280 pounds in full kit, as did most of the members of my ODA (a 12-man Army Green Beret unit)," one respondent said. "I expect every person on my team to be able to drag any member of my team out of a firefight. A 130 pound female could not do it, I don't care how much time she spends in the gym. Do we expect wounded men to bleed out because a female soldier could not drag him to cover?"

Another said politicians don't win the covert wars.

"Gender equality is not an option when the bullets are flying," he said. "Most males in the area of the world I work in would rather back hand a female than listen to her speak. There is a reason we send men to do these jobs."

Some saw it as inevitable.

"This integration will happen eventually and we might as well embrace it while we have current solid leadership and incoming solid leadership at the top to facilitate the transition," one said.

The deep challenges the survey revealed with integrating women into tight-knit commando teams are not lost on the Pentagon. Gen. Joseph Votel, head of U.S. Special Operations Command, posted a memo and video online last week after Carter's announcement, explaining the decision and vowing that the qualifying standards for special operations jobs will remain the same.

He noted that women have already moved into some special operations jobs, including as helicopter pilots and crew, members of cultural support teams in Afghanistan and in civil affairs and information operations.

And he added, "If candidates meet time-tested and scientifically validated standards, and if they have proven that they have the physical, intellectual, professional, and character attributes that are so critical to special operations - they will be welcomed into the special operations forces ranks."

The bulk of those who responded to the survey were young, white married men. They worry that having women in their small teams could fuel jealousy at home or create problems with sexual harassment or illicit affairs. And they rely on and trust their teams and units as family.

Ninety-eight percent agreed that their unit is united in trying to accomplish its missions. But when asked whether men and women in a unit would be united to accomplish a mission only 48 percent said yes. Nearly 33 percent said no, and almost 20 percent were undecided.

And nearly 60 percent said they expected that women assigned to their unit would be "treated unfairly" at least some of the time.

Some, however, said they might be willing for women to serve in some, more peripheral special operations jobs. Several suggested that women could be used as attachments or additions to some units, just not as actual members, such as the cultural support jobs they fill now.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-12-11

[Ulysses G.]

Women should not be in combat and they should not be in special forces. Period.

[ilostmypassword]

Women should not be in combat and they should not be in special forces. Period.

Tell that to the Kurds.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-are-afraid-of-girls-kurdish-female-fighters-believe-they-have-an-unexpected-advantage-fighting-a6766776.html

[ezzra]

Women should not be in combat and they should not be in special forces. Period.

Why not? as long as they allowed to take with them their make up kits and intimate body hygiene items

they will be good and any tough navy seal or airborne special forces....

[BuaBS]

And it's good for moral of the enemy , when they catch 'em.

[Thorgal]

[Thorgal]

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1449795854.602046.jpg

[Lantern]

Sheila's in special forces are a recipe for disaster.

[h90]

Women should not be in combat and they should not be in special forces. Period.

If they are as good or better as males in the job?

[Usernames]

Obviously, the military will launch an investigation into who disagreed with their gender policy, root out these men, and replace them with women. That'll show'em who's boss.

[Just1Voice]

Women should not be in combat and they should not be in special forces. Period.

If they are as good or better as males in the job?

Have you ever had any experience with Special Ops units? If you had, you would realize how ignorant your comment is.

[Kasset Tak]

One problem is the psychic of us men! In research by the Israeli army some 30-40 years ago they found that men would prioritize the mission over a wounded male comrade but with a female comrade wounded we would prioritize the woman's wounds first. In a critical mission that might be the difference of 1 dead soldier and 1,000 dead civilians!

[Ulysses G.]

Women should not be in combat and they should not be in special forces. Period.

If they are as good or better as males in the job?

They aren't. They don't have the upper body strength.

[1duckyboy]

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1449795854.602046.jpg

Women carrying women, guess that works in an all female unit. What about a male team member that weighs twice as much? Look at the size of the guy in the background.

Edited December 11, 2015 by 1duckyboy

[Enoon]

One problem is the psychic of us men! In research by the Israeli army some 30-40 years ago they found that men would prioritize the mission over a wounded male comrade but with a female comrade wounded we would prioritize the woman's wounds first. In a critical mission that might be the difference of 1 dead soldier and 1,000 dead civilians!

Good argument for women only units.

[Enoon]

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1449795854.602046.jpg

Women carrying women, guess that works in an all female unit. What about a male team member that weighs twice as much? Look at the size of the guy in the background.

Presumably, for the same reason, an injured female team member would be much easier for a male to transport.

Would not that weight difference be of use when agility and lightness of foot is important?

[nottocus]

Imagine that...on some mission to rescue hostages from ISIS and GI Jane wants to take a break to put on her make up.

Edited December 11, 2015 by nottocus

[JHolmesJr]

I think Ronda Rousey would make a fine commando….just don't kick her in the face.

[Harsh Jones]

Women should not be in combat and they should not be in special forces. Period.

Tell that to the Kurds.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-are-afraid-of-girls-kurdish-female-fighters-believe-they-have-an-unexpected-advantage-fighting-a6766776.html

And you know why that is ? Due to situation, they have to fight. It has nothing to do with western femmi girl power.

In the west, we have a higher standard of living, so we can afford to allocate resources properly. Men do the fighting.

[Harsh Jones]

Women should not be in combat and they should not be in special forces. Period.

If they are as good or better as males in the job?

No. Because there is no way they can be as good as men at these specific tasks. Men have evolved to specialize at this stuff.

What if the requirements have to be watered down to accommodate the women ?

[Usernames]

Women should not be in combat and they should not be in special forces. Period.

If they are as good or better as males in the job?

No. Because there is no way they can be as good as men at these specific tasks. Men have evolved to specialize at this stuff.

What if the requirements have to be watered down to accommodate the women ?

And they will be. They always are.

[Chicog]

Women should not be in combat and they should not be in special forces. Period.

Tell that to the Kurds.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-are-afraid-of-girls-kurdish-female-fighters-believe-they-have-an-unexpected-advantage-fighting-a6766776.html

And the Israelis.

Sexist dinosaurs, they're so insecure aren't they?

[wabothai]

I remember when playing coed soccer in calif. to tackle a woman was an automatic yellow card.

[williamgeorgeallen]

Women should not be in combat and they should not be in special forces. Period.

If they are as good or better as males in the job?

No. Because there is no way they can be as good as men at these specific tasks. Men have evolved to specialize at this stuff.

What if the requirements have to be watered down to accommodate the women ?

they opened up infantry roles to woman in new Zealand. woman could not pass minimum basic fitness standards. some pathetic feminist idiot lowered the minimum fitness requirements. less pressups, no chin ups, slower run times. end result woman trying to do a mans job and failing. west needs more mothers not more soldiers.

[slipperylobster]

I have served with a very few women...and they were always treated differently. One allegation of sexual harassment up the chain of command, and it's back to a cushy deskjob while awaiting a congressional investigation. I was told to leave them alone (the ones were in the process of a Congrint) and basically could not force them to do anything at all. The officers in the unit would only wince and tell me to forget any sort of disciplinary action. They were free to say what they wanted and do what they wanted. Plain facts, that I do not believe will change. We had to put up tents for them, (none of them were swinging mallets or sand bagging). When they were assigned, they were counted as personnel...but would never be sent on advance party...or rear party (set up/set down camp)..so my male servicemen pulled extra duties. Many just gave up and got pregnant...therefore excusing themselves from deployment.

Physical standards are different. Very few of them could complete a long run..in full gear. Less pullups...less running (as a whole). Yes there were some female Tarzans...that could do better...but that was few.

Besides all this.....the senior ranks were secretly courting the few cute ones. Lots of winks and plenty of hormones floating around.

Finally...what is happening to Chivalry? Do you want to hold a dying 18 year old girl in your arms, after she took a hit for you?

Edited December 11, 2015 by slipperylobster

[h90]

Women should not be in combat and they should not be in special forces. Period.

If they are as good or better as males in the job?

They aren't. They don't have the upper body strength.

Than problem solved

But if one comes who can....same requirements for men and women is the only thing I ask for

[h90]

Women should not be in combat and they should not be in special forces. Period.

If they are as good or better as males in the job?

No. Because there is no way they can be as good as men at these specific tasks. Men have evolved to specialize at this stuff.

What if the requirements have to be watered down to accommodate the women ?

I just read that it also includes "Psychological Warfare" I know a lot women who are naturals in that

[h90]

I have served with a very few women...and they were always treated differently. One allegation of sexual harassment up the chain of command, and it's back to a cushy deskjob while awaiting a congressional investigation. I was told to leave them alone (the ones were in the process of a Congrint) and basically could not force them to do anything at all. The officers in the unit would only wince and tell me to forget any sort of disciplinary action. They were free to say what they wanted and do what they wanted. Plain facts, that I do not believe will change. We had to put up tents for them, (none of them were swinging mallets or sand bagging). When they were assigned, they were counted as personnel...but would never be sent on advance party...or rear party (set up/set down camp)..so my male servicemen pulled extra duties. Many just gave up and got pregnant...therefore excusing themselves from deployment.

Physical standards are different. Very few of them could complete a long run..in full gear. Less pullups...less running (as a whole). Yes there were some female Tarzans...that could do better...but that was few.

Besides all this.....the senior ranks were secretly courting the few cute ones. Lots of winks and plenty of hormones floating around.

Finally...what is happening to Chivalry? Do you want to hold a dying 18 year old girl in your arms, after she took a hit for you?

I saw it when they needed female officers....they pushed them up the ranks.....already the male material was so that I hope my country never needs to protect against anyone stronger than the Vatican, but the women were beyond anything that you could describe. And there were clear orders that a specific amount must pass and must be in some ranks and positions. As there weren't many.....

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.

[arjunadawn]

Since the Obama administration has moved forward with another plank of social engineering and is inflicting women upon our special forces unit, most studies have concluded something very similar regarding special forces that the Supreme Court has noted about the military in general: The military is such a unique institution, empowered with a mission like no other. Therefore, the courts ruled, the military should retain most prerogatives to establish rules singular to themselves without undue circumspection. This has been the steadfast rationale behind the military remaining an institution virtually untouched by progressive experiments. However, since the days of Rep. Pat Schroder, the military has also been the darling child-target of the left. Why? Because, if you can penetrate that hide and force changes you basically foment your experiment in the last bastion of traditional America. The military has consistently not echoed social populism, notwithstanding integration.

Commanders evaluations have recently noted that forcing women into Special Forces roles would seriously compromise the mission. IMO, in a tactical error, they conceded the battle for the larger army yet tried to retain the line at special forces teams. Clearly women would make us less effective; its physics and biology. Even were people to concede some women are better than our worst special forces men this is not a phenomena upon which you build a war fighting policy.

An SF A Team member notes something curious in the OP. He says his rucksack is 55 pounds. I have only ever know a Special Forces rucksack to weigh 55 pounds when in training. On training road-marches they may vary from 35-50lbs but on an operational mission a rucksack that weighs 55lbs is unheard of. In 10th Special Forces cold weather teams rucksacks often came at or over 100 lbs. Better equipment may have reduced that load but not much. Just a point. Women in combat is bad for all the reasons we think it is. It is only good for one thing, socially manipulating a pre existing environment to inflict progressive good upon the majority. Women in combat or particularly special operations decreases combat effectiveness and only achieves further evidence that destroying the national fabric as the real goal, not equality. Was equality really the goal there would have at least been lip service paid to the many women who do not want this good inflicted on them.