No women in SpecOps , period . And no , I am not going to explain myself . Cheers .

why not... if they can do the job to the standard required then they should be allowed in. not sure if SAS has any in it on operational duty but MI5 and MI6 do and I would class them as spec ops.

"why not... if they can do the job to the standard required then they should be allowed in." Just one thought.. One job of US SF has is to train troops in other other nations. Not all of them are exactly up to the some of the "Western" views of "equality". I would imagine, that a woman attempting to teach men about combat in some of these nations would be counter productive to say the least..

I would imagine, that a woman attempting to teach men about combat in some of these nations would be counter productive to say the least.. their tough luck... but it might serve to show them things in a new light when they get their backsides kicked by a girl.... :-)

If you run a kithcen women can run spec-ops, Pakistan has spec-ops women, KGB used to have women snipers etc.

paul you are just digging the hole deeper. machismo in the 3rd world would call for god alone knows what in the manner of retaliation for the loss of face involved in getting thrashed by a member of the fair sex. it would just have to be written off as a bad idea. besides how many women manage to pass the honest to god standards for infantrymen much less special forces in truth? our experience with the canadian army was that the only way to bring the number of women passing the course was to gut the standards quite badly.

Sgt - does this relate in any way to my suggestion that women are the "Achilles heel" of Islam (feminism will rock their tiny mysoginist world)? Sgt suggested that banning women from SF was equivalent to discrimination under Islam, which is quite a stretch! Dont think many women worry too much about joining SF - not a benchmark of their worth; or many men for that matter! Of course, no sensible SF "bans" women and there are many serving women soldiers in SF, the highest proportion being in UK SF, both SAS and SRR. If women can do the job they should get the job - black, brown, or with reproductive organs on the inside, it makes no difference. If a training job needs Hispanics (or darker) then US SOCOM can put such a team together; UK SF can do the same. And for those many jobs which do not require a specific ethnic or gender type, why not have women in the team? Especially if they can do a job better than other team members. It is known that women have passed and entered the US Green Berets (I heard there have been more than one in Delta) and passed the UK All Arms Commando Course and the SAS Selection Course. The new UK Special Reconaissance Regiment (SRR) was formed around the old 12 Int Coy, the deep cover unit used to penetrate terrorist cells in many countries, most recently in Northern Ireland and Bosnia. At least 1/4 of SRR are women who undergo a gruelling selection and combat training to assess their physical and mental toughness and the ability to withstand the intense isolation of a deep cover operative. These individuals and teams have frequently been confronted with violence and had to shoot their way out. One woman operative disguised herself as an aid worker,another as a journalist and got themselves inside the Serbian "refugee" camp at Srebrenica - lucky not to have got out before the extermination began. Of course the Brits have a lot of experience with this, what with Northern Ireland and Cyprus and Palestine, etc...and of course the women of the Special Operations Executive who parachuted into occupied France in WW2 to start sabotage and organize the resistance. Odd Sgt Q doesnt remember this. Given the war on terror, woemn may just have a larger role to play precisely because the mysoginists dont believe they matter...

Nope. Women shouldn't even be in direct contact with the enemy, much less behind enemy lines performing raids, etc. No offense to any Women, but what woman could make it through SEAL training or even worse, Delta selection/training? Most, if not all, women lack the upper-body strength to pass the training that most SOF go through.

if they can reach the same standards as men, i have no problem with it. there has to be a fair balance. it would be a big mistake, IMO, to apply PC to indiscriminately allow women in to a profession or to give them responsibility that is beyond their means. when my house is on fire and a firefighter comes up to carry me and my kids out of the top story window of my house, i want that firefighter to be the one who scored the highest on the entrance exams; the one who can bench 200kg; the one who can sprint 100m carrying 80kg on his back. i don't want some spindly 40kg token cadet who got the job because of her gender and in the name of PC. however, if a woman can pass the tests and can assume the responsibilities, i can see no reason for not allowing her to do the job. some of the female boxers i have seen may just be able to kick my ass! maybe in a few years, women in the SF and other professions will be common. as worcester seems to be suggesting, many of the constraints holding women back are purely psychological... and cultural. if you speak to women about this, it is very clear they realize they are psychologically held back and are fighting to believe that they can fulfill these roles. we should help them however we can... according to 'the reality principle', i.e. their actual abilities, of course.

"Of course the Brits have a lot of experience with this, what with Northern Ireland and Cyprus and Palestine, etc...and of course the women of the Special Operations Executive who parachuted into occupied France in WW2 to start sabotage and organize the resistance. Odd Sgt Q doesnt remember this." - Worcester First of all from what did you say: "Odd Sgt Q doesnt remember this."...? Where did I said that please...? I don't know where you're getting your information from but during WWII that's in 1942 that Churchill himself authorized women agents to be sent in France to help the resistance. They never was supposed to fight "directly" the Nazis, their main job was "command", courriers, intel. But as some would say they wasn't "kicking doors and blowing things up". The ONLY reason Churchill sent women is that men was much more suspecious to the Gestapo than women. This was not because "women were best". Then I'll tell you as an ex-military why I'd not want women in my unit. First of all I don't have any single anger against women, I hate macho attitude. This said from facts Special Forces require improved physical resistance, regarding this field it has been proven that most men have the upper hand. Then women faster than a man. Another point, women are often (not always) too much emotionnally involved and more likely to hesitate to push a trigger. An example: more women than men will hesitate to shoot a kid aiming at them. Personnally I wouldn't hesistate, it's just a job even tho I might regret it. Then, they have their "monthly stuffs" if you see what I mean, which can make them feel sick -> less efficient and unleashing body odors easily detected by dog patrols (when walking around in Africa about 120°F for three days it'll smell kinda funny). Then another reason: when women are in special forces they're bound to have more feelings with their team mates (works both ways) which can endanger a mission (also sexual attraction due to hotness or long missions for example...). Army isn't a singles' meeting community. Then another point: if a woman caught, they can't resist physical pain as men can and can be traumatized by a gang rape from the enemy for example... Another points: pregnancy. If a woman is pregnant this is no good for the army, a SF member costs a lot and have to pay for itself. Being in the airborne, I can ensure you we're not jumping with 12Kg of equipement but more likely 50Kg (over 110 lbs). Some units even travel with a 60Kg package (over 132lbs) like the 13eme RDP (13rd Airborne Dragons Regiment) for a "few miles" (I'm sure some guys ex-French militaries can tell you about our "healthy walks"). I remember from the 1er RPIMa heavy loads as well in the same range. Can you, honestly, imagine a woman, carrying a 30Kg bagpack and holding a 4Kg (over 8.8lbs) assault rifle (not talking anout the AN-F1 MG about 22lbs) plus a 1Kg (2.2lbs) handgun and this travelling for a "few" miles again? From a civilian point of view these "details" can appear minor but trust me I talk from experience, not "supposing". But I'm fully aware they can reveal to be very helpful to infiltrate a network or a country without being suspected. My question was concerning "action" forces. Because in the 1er RPIMa we had several women, the 1er RPIMa is considered as special forces, there was women in offices and this kind of stuffs. Does it make them special forces? I doubt. Special Forces is a qualification. And in most (not to say ALL) armies even basic test requirements are lowered for women. If a women would have liked to join my regiment I'd want here to do EXACTLY the same thing as the others. And on this point I doubt of it. But of course if you have any links I'd be more than interested to take a look at them. Don't even mention Israël's forces they're just funny to see, they need 4 women soldiers to move out of a house one 176lbs man... Or even the one or two women in a corps here only because some politicians wanted them to be here to gain women's votes. These women most of time stay back and come once everything's over to kick the guy already handcuffed or beaten. Btw I've seen a funny documentary about police forces few weeks ago, women were just funny, she wasn't able (although showing off in fron of the camera) to get a car jacker out of the car, she had to call her partner who got him off alone. So I say yes for women but not for what I meant.