Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Commandos and Special Operations Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What is your opinion in women getting into special ops?
Delta_Xana    12/5/2006 3:56:17 PM
At the moment, practically every country in the world except for New Zealand and Canada(??) exempts females from direct combat and furthermore special ops what is your opinion of this? should "she" be allowed to prove herself or should combat live up to its steriotype as being all-male Rambo guys?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
GOP       12/15/2006 12:11:14 AM

Ugh.  Apparently you guys are having a hard time taking this one seriously. 



This is just another one of those useless threads that we get countless times...there are many obvious reasons why women can't go into SOF. We've answered the question, so yeah, now it's on to the jokes. Anytime you se alot of jokes in a thread, then you know the thread is retarded...mathematically it would look like this:
 
Thread (T) + Lots of Jokes (LJ) = Retarded Thread (RT)...or...
 
T + LJ = RT
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

smitty237       12/15/2006 2:37:56 AM




Ugh.  Apparently you guys are having a hard time taking this one seriously. 





This is just another one of those useless threads that we get countless times...there are many obvious reasons why women can't go into SOF. We've answered the question, so yeah, now it's on to the jokes. Anytime you se alot of jokes in a thread, then you know the thread is retarded...mathematically it would look like this:

 

Thread (T) + Lots of Jokes (LJ) = Retarded Thread (RT)...or...

 

T + LJ = RT

 

 


Give me a break, GOP.  If you've looked at some of the other threads you'll find out that Delta_Xana is a lot like you, in that she is a teenager interested in military service.  The debate of whether or not women should be serving in combat is one that is worth studying.  I would agree that women should not be allowed to serve in combat as a matter of policy, but the fact of the matter remains that women have been fighting and dying in active combat in Iraq and Afghanistan while the rest of us have been debating the subject in the safety of our homes.  During my law enforcement career I have met a few women that would give a lot of men a run for their money.  Physiological factors are a huge factor in this debate, however, and those factors should be discussed from the standpoint of how they would affect a unit's combat effectiveness.  A women SF trooper may hang in there physically and mentally with the guys, but if she develops an infection from inadequate hygiene and becomes a casualty or gives away the unit's position, then that is a problem.  Sophomoric humor about how gross that is does not contribute to the debate in any way.  Women can be very effective operators in certain missions.  I know a female police officer that used to work narcotics.  Her cover is that she was a stripper, and she looked the part.  She was able to infiltrate certain drug houses that would have been off limits to male narcotics officers.  Women have served as police officers for several decades, and there are many women serving on police SWAT units.  This demonstrates that women can serve effectively in direct action (DA) missions.  I seriously doubt that we will see many female SEALs or Rangers in the near future, but the debate will continue nonetheless.  If you feel such a debate is "retarded" then do us all a favor and not contribute. 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       12/15/2006 3:24:04 AM


The debate of whether or not women should be serving in combat is one that is worth studying.  I would agree that women should not be allowed to serve in combat as a matter of policy, but the fact of the matter remains that women have been fighting and dying in active combat in Iraq and Afghanistan while the rest of us have been debating the subject in the safety of our homes.
well, the UK had women attached to special forces teams during "the troubles"  they were basically undercover operators but fully combat exposed and had to qualify against the boys.  admittedly there were only a few though. they were considered hard cases - certainly not cosmetic fluff just to meet PC expectations.
- unfortunately I can't remember the name of the actual unit that they were attached to.

 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       12/15/2006 7:05:36 AM



Give me a break, GOP.  If you've looked at some of the other threads you'll find out that Delta_Xana is a lot like you, in that she is a teenager interested in military service. 


Just out of curiosity, but what makes you think Delta_Xana is a she?

 
Quote    Reply

mustavaris       12/15/2006 11:04:26 AM
Hmm... If you look at the traditional cultures you will find out that hygiene is a relative thing and shouldnt be such an obstacle. In any case I do not see any problems with the idea if and only if  women fulfill exactly the same requirements that men have to. If they are better than some men it ain´t  a big deal, but one shouldnt give them any xtra chances because of their gender. If someone is good or better at some job, why not let him/her in...?
 
Quote    Reply

GOP       12/15/2006 11:25:56 AM








Ugh.  Apparently you guys are having a hard time taking this one seriously. 








This is just another one of those useless threads that we get countless times...there are many obvious reasons why women can't go into SOF. We've answered the question, so yeah, now it's on to the jokes. Anytime you se alot of jokes in a thread, then you know the thread is retarded...mathematically it would look like this:



 



Thread (T) + Lots of Jokes (LJ) = Retarded Thread (RT)...or...



 



T + LJ = RT



 



 




Give me a break, GOP.  If you've looked at some of the other threads you'll find out that Delta_Xana is a lot like you, in that she is a teenager interested in military service.  The debate of whether or not women should be serving in combat is one that is worth studying.  I would agree that women should not be allowed to serve in combat as a matter of policy, but the fact of the matter remains that women have been fighting and dying in active combat in Iraq and Afghanistan while the rest of us have been debating the subject in the safety of our homes.  During my law enforcement career I have met a few women that would give a lot of men a run for their money.  Physiological factors are a huge factor in this debate, however, and those factors should be discussed from the standpoint of how they would affect a unit's combat effectiveness.  A women SF trooper may hang in there physically and mentally with the guys, but if she develops an infection from inadequate hygiene and becomes a casualty or gives away the unit's position, then that is a problem.  Sophomoric humor about how gross that is does not contribute to the debate in any way.  Women can be very effective operators in certain missions.  I know a female police officer that used to work narcotics.  Her cover is that she was a stripper, and she looked the part.  She was able to infiltrate certain drug houses that would have been off limits to male narcotics officers.  Women have served as police officers for several decades, and there are many women serving on police SWAT units.  This demonstrates that women can serve effectively in direct action (DA) missions.  I seriously doubt that we will see many female SEALs or Rangers in the near future, but the debate will continue nonetheless.  If you feel such a debate is "retarded" then do us all a favor and not contribute. 


The "debate" has been solved long ago. It is obvious that Women simply aren't cut out for *MOST* Special Operations work...not only the fitness aspect, but also the whole hygiene issue. Police officers do not go on long RECCE missions that lasts up to 2-3 weeks. The debate shouldn't be a debate. It should be an open and closed discussion. Again, let's look at the obvious facts:
1) Physical Fitness! There is so much more to SOF selection courses than simple physical fitness tests. I would guess that a few women could score high enough on their branche's PFT to qualify for their SOF selection course, but how are they going to make it when they have to do 500 pushups, 600 situps, 100 pullups, 1,000 flutter kicks, then run 4 miles, then do IBS surf passage, then have to knock out more pushups for being punished for whatever they did wrong, then have to do a obstacle, etc. Women simply aren't made for that kind of workload...there are some very fit women, but let's get real here. If a woman can make it through BUD/S, Ranger school, SFAS, BRC, PJ/CCT school, Delta selection, whatever, then more power to them...but let's look at why they won't be good special operations canidates...
 
2) Hygiene! This has already been addressed...and I don't really like this topic (by the way, I wasn't using sophmoric humor, I just don't really like to read about "spongy bark", that's why I said it creeps me out). Long Range RECCE require
 
Quote    Reply

Delta_Xana       12/21/2006 2:54:35 PM
Just out of curiosity, but what makes you think Delta_Xana is a she?
----
I'm not a "she" at all,
 
btw

 
Quote    Reply

KlausJ       12/25/2006 9:47:48 AM
The two Danish SOF units (army and navy) has been open for female applicants for some years now (2-3 I belive). Until this day none have graduated and I haven't even heard of anyone applying.
I cannot answer for all SOF units; but those that I know of -  if you are a Rambo type you won't get very far in the selection process.
Personaly I have no problems with female SOF. I belive that any person with the right qualities should be chosen, whatever gender, religion, etc they have.

 
Quote    Reply

CharlesDarby       8/8/2010 9:02:23 PM
Women are already in Special Operations.
 
Military Police of course.
 
Quote    Reply

CharlesDarby       8/8/2010 9:07:22 PM













Ugh.  Apparently you guys are having a hard time taking this one seriously. 











This is just another one of those useless threads that we get countless times...there are many obvious reasons why women can't go into SOF. We've answered the question, so yeah, now it's on to the jokes. Anytime you se alot of jokes in a thread, then you know the thread is retarded...mathematically it would look like this:





 





Thread (T) + Lots of Jokes (LJ) = Retarded Thread (RT)...or...





 





T + LJ = RT





 





 






Give me a break, GOP.  If you've looked at some of the other threads you'll find out that Delta_Xana is a lot like you, in that she is a teenager interested in military service.  The debate of whether or not women should be serving in combat is one that is worth studying.  I would agree that women should not be allowed to serve in combat as a matter of policy, but the fact of the matter remains that women have been fighting and dying in active combat in Iraq and Afghanistan while the rest of us have been debating the subject in the safety of our homes.  During my law enforcement career I have met a few women that would give a lot of men a run for their money.  Physiological factors are a huge factor in this debate, however, and those factors should be discussed from the standpoint of how they would affect a unit's combat effectiveness.  A women SF trooper may hang in there physically and mentally with the guys, but if she develops an infection from inadequate hygiene and becomes a casualty or gives away the unit's position, then that is a problem.  Sophomoric humor about how gross that is does not contribute to the debate in any way.  Women can be very effective operators in certain missions.  I know a female police officer that used to work narcotics.  Her cover is that she was a stripper, and she looked the part.  She was able to infiltrate certain drug houses that would have been off limits to male narcotics officers.  Women have served as police officers for several decades, and there are many women serving on police SWAT units.  This demonstrates that women can serve effectively in direct action (DA) missions.  I seriously doubt that we will see many female SEALs or Rangers in the near future, but the debate will continue nonetheless.  If you feel such a debate is "retarded" then do us all a favor and not contribute. 



The "debate" has been solved long ago. It is obvious that Women simply aren't cut out for *MOST* Special Operations work...not only the fitness aspect, but also the whole hygiene issue. Police officers do not go on long RECCE missions that lasts up to 2-3 weeks. The debate shouldn't be a debate. It should be an open and closed discussion. Again, let's look at the obvious facts:

1) Physical Fitness! There is so much more to SOF selection courses than simple physical fitness tests. I would guess that a few women could score high enough on their branche's PFT to qualify for their SOF selection course, but how are they going to make it when they have to do 500 pushups, 600 situps, 100 pullups, 1,000 flutter kicks, then run 4 miles, then do IBS surf passage, then have to knock out more pushups for being punished for whatever they did wrong, then have to do a obstacle, et
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics