women in special operations?
But is it really a good idea? Think about the number of sexual abuse that happens in those situations
First of all, anyone who is willing to sexually abuse someone else should not be in the army, period. If having mixed units means that there are better checks to make sure that the people enlisting are mentally healthy and not prone to these kinds of things, then all the better for everyone. Over here, anyone enlisting undergo a psychological examination, because they want to avoid the kind of people who might cause trouble or who are prone to bad behavior. Also, I've not heard about the army suddenly having issues with sexual abuse around these parts.
Also, if there's a man who could pick up my wounded body with all my equipment and get to cover faster than a women then of course I wouldn't want that kind of risk put on my squad.
Now you're assuming that the women who enlist are following a different standard than the men in terms of physical fitness.
Comment has been collapsed.
But they are, at least in the US
And is it not here that the main problem is located? Why should you have them follow different standards? You need to be in good physical conditions if you're going to have a fighting roll in the army, thus both genders should be held to the same high standards.
They will be able to lift each other and do things a whole lot easier due to their weight compared to each other.
This sounds more like an argument to divide units by body size rather than gender.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know how I feel about the military, but generally, if someone can pass the tests/training, of course, why not?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yep I agree.
Historically women are just as fierce as men and in some occasions even more so. They fought on battlefields alongside men so I see no problem for them to be involved in special operations.
I remember reading something from Roman author/historian/officer Pliny the elder who mentioned that groups of ancient Greek female warriors would tear apart the limbs of a man with their bare hands. True or not, quite a grim picture to envision.
That video though was just for fun : )
Comment has been collapsed.
Seeing how OP posts and replies here, I'm glad I blacklisted him yesterday.
That's all I had to say, I'll show my way out, now.
Comment has been collapsed.
Honestly it's so simple, if the person is fit for the job, then they should be accepted. Gender shouldn't play a role the moment the person proves he's a professional.
Then again, at the end of the day employer should be able to decide what fits and what doesn't, a woman might be fully capable of beating 2 of their finest soldiers at once, but the fact that she's a woman might cause problems that are irrelevant to her, but rather to the environment she's supposed to be in, which is a ship that is sailing the sea for weeks or more at a time with a lot of guys that don't see women for long periods. Having women on board of a ship could potentially turn it into a schoolyard, with boys trying to impress girls and wanting to bang them rather than being busy doing their work and being fully obedient soldiers that they're supposed to be, not to mention all the drama that comes with this kind of behavior. It's inevitable that this kind of stuff will happen and I assume that this is the thought process behind not accepting females into the force, rather than bashing them for being girly and weak.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well people said the same thing about mixed-sex schools. In my (extremely backwards) country there are still male-only and female-only schools for precisely that reason, and because people think it'll allow students to focus more on their work and achieve better results... Well let me tell you, from my experience people graduating from those schools aren't exactly the smartest =)
Nature made men and women to live together. Artificially segregating them is what causes problems. A man doesn't stop functioning when he sees someone of the opposite sex(neither do women), that would be... quite detrimental to our evolution and survival chances. But when you make sexuality into such a taboo and keep men and women separated for most of their lives, THAT's when you get adults who are supposedly conscious enough to make decisions about where and how to risk their lives but not smart enough to understand they shouldn't have sex in the middle of the battlefield or something.
Comment has been collapsed.
NYPD SWAT has allowed females to be on the SWAT since years ago, but no females have passed their training. I wonder why these females passed the Rangers training, which are supposed to be more difficult than just SWAT training?
Physically, I see no problem in admitting females in special operations team. If they pass the test, it's good, as long as the test is the same with the tests given to the males. Also, special operations is not only about strength, it's also about agility, perception, and intelligence. Yes, carrying your weapon and kits require strength, but finding the best position to ambush does not requires strength. Doing emergency surgery, calling air strikes, dead reckoning navigation, interacting with locals, etc. are things that are done by special forces that does not require strength. If we are talking about women's period, I think steps has been taken to suppress the side effects.
What could be the problem is that males tend to have preferred treatment to women. Men will take less risks when there is women involved. It is "inherent" instinct in men to protect women. It's not men being sexist, it's the nature of men. When a ship sunk, there is always "Women and children first.", not "Weaker person first". This could be a problem in special forces. Special forces is all about taking risks and win, this could be trouble. Yes, the females may have better aim and ability than the males, but the instinct of males to protect the females (this is like the instinct of mothers to protect their children) could skew things out.
Also, what is bad is public perception. The image of dead Rangers (they are not tortured) paraded in Mogadishu sped up the withdrawal of the US forces. It also broke the morale of our special forces for years. What will happen if a female Ranger is paraded dead and naked in the street? Or raped? The effect will be much much bigger. Maybe this also will prompt more commanders to be more careful with female soldiers. Not because they are unable to complete the tasks, it's because the risks involved is deemed too great.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why are you talking about rape? And who are you saying is justifying rape?
You've looked at a very long post, and completely disregarded any points or opinions, and instead focused (and edited) one single passage to escalate the issue into something that is not being discussed. That's a method of shutting people down and trying to stifle opinions.
Comment has been collapsed.
I do not care enough to argue the other points because they've been argued to death already and I'm tired of feeling like a broken record. That particular point was the one I found offensive enough to warrant a response and so I responded only to that which I really cared about. Sue me.
Comment has been collapsed.
Somebody says "it's in a man's nature to protect women and children" and you get offended? What the hell is wrong with you?
Comment has been collapsed.
1)That's not all they said. It's as if I said I was offended that someone said "Black people are backwards" and you said "So someone saying 'black people' offends you?". What he said is, "It's a man's nature to protect women and children. Therefore if a woman has always dreamed of being in the military, has trained hard all her life and is perfectly fit for it, she should abandon that dream to protect men from having to protect her."
2)Actually, that statement is offensive in itself as well, all traditional gender role justifications are - because that is what leads to 1)
3)You know what else is offensive? Swearing. I thought we could have a nice adult conversation but you sound like a 10 year old right now who is incapable of presenting arguments but has to resort to strawmen and ad hominem. Feel free to reply to this and have the last word, I am not replying to your messages anymore.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't get it. I say that men's instinct is to protect women. I don't see "men protecting women" became "men raping women"?
Raping is a crime, plain and simple. It can't be justified, it can't be made right.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course it can't be justified or made right. But do you think that stops people from trying? Perhaps in your country. Not in my heavily islamized, incredibly backwards one though. Most people would pin at least half the blame on the victim.
Here's how the discussion usually goes: "Should women wear Hijabs? Of course they should! If men see them as attractive, it is their instinct to want to have sex with them and they won't be able to stop themselves."
Where are the similarities? In both cases, you want WOMEN to take responsibility for and suffer because of MEN's instincts. In my country they prevent them from dressing how they want to not offend men's sensibilities. You on the other hand propose to prevent them from possibly reaching their dream job because of men's sensibilities. Same reasoning, different justifications.
And the funny thing is I have the same newsflash for both of you: There exists such a thing as willpower. We are not animals incapable of acting in a way that runs contrary to our instincts. Heck, if you knew anything about the military or psychology in general, you'd know that the very reason they train so intensively is to suppress their natural "fight or flight" instincts and replace them with their training-induced discipline. If we can make a man not run away in shock when a freaking bomb explodes a few feet from him, we can make him not overly protective of women. But of course, why try that when you can have women take all the burden? Who cares if some might actually really want to enter the navy SEALs?
Comment has been collapsed.
The vast difference between the Hijab trouble and men protective instinct is that one is shrouded in negativity, and the other is quite positive. One can't deny how mothers will protect their children. It's instinct. Or how fathers will protect their families. While we may easily say that lust should be suppressed, it is far harder to suppress protective feelings toward your family. From childhood, if you are the eldest brother, you are told to protect your sisters. Even if you are adult, you, as a male, is "slated" to be the breadwinner for your family. Is that a bad thing? No.
Lust is very different with "protecting the women". "Fight and flight" instinct could be suppressed by confidence in yourself, confidence in your teammates, confidence in your supporting units such as artillery and air strikes, confidence in your weapon system and defense system, etc. It could also be suppressed by honor, patriotism, esprit de corps, and many other things. How can someone suppress their feeling to "protect the women"? While we may agree that men's instinct to protect the women is detrimental to their possible career in military, I don't see them victimized in any other ways. Women are priorities in emergencies.
Then, the question returns. If we wanted to suppress the "protect the women" feeling in all males, how do we suppress them?
Lust is a carnal and sinful desire. Protecting the women, fighting in the army, is "honorable" tradition.
While it is already hard enough to make something "wrong" in the society become "right", it is even harder to make something that is "right" in the "society" became "wrong".
Concerning hijab, if you take a peek at my Steam profile you would know that I came from a Muslim country. Discussing hijab is borderline discussing "tough" topic in Muslim history. It may stem from Arabic culture. Or else.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your post makes it clear we see the world in two very different ways.
Your idea of an ideal world is a traditional place where men work and win money and women stay at home and raise the kids.
My idea of an ideal world is a place where whoever wants to, may work, whoever wants to, may win money and whoever wants to may stay at home and raise the kids. I think that when two people get married it should be up to both of them to decide who does what in a way that will leave both satisfied rather than adhering to centuries old social conventions.
I respect your opinion(kinda) but seeing the basic differences in our ways of thinking I am afraid this argument will go nowhere. So, have a good day sir.
Comment has been collapsed.
If a woman is phisically fit to be in that specific branch of the military/police/whatever,then why not?But it has been proven that an all-female platoon has worse results than an all men.Also there is a reason why men do waaay better than women in the army.That's beacuse upper body strenght cannot be trained or taught,and women lack that when compared to men.
Anyway,let's assume that girls are allowed to be in the Navy Seals..how many would actually get in?Probably 1 in a 1000 or even 100.000.
https://youtu.be/lxpC_MQjzx4?t=4m33s
In this video,a guy that was a cadet in the marine corps explains how he never saw a woman finish the march with her gear on.Other guys would carry their helmet/weapon/backpack.
If a woman can meet the standards fine,but still she will have disadvantages when it comes to other men that meet the standards.All in all,a male is more biologically fit to be a soldier so there is no reason to replace him with a female.
Comment has been collapsed.
I mean if they pass then sure go ahead.
I hate to be sexist but unfortunately many aren't going to pass due to simple biology, differences in height, strength, treatment as a POW, etc.
Then again, many men can't pass due to physical reasons as well...
Comment has been collapsed.
Fine.
Being politically correct is worse than being sexist, so I'll say that biology does play a role and cannot be ignored.
Comment has been collapsed.
But if they pass, why is your biological qualifier necessary?
Comment has been collapsed.
I said many will not pass due to biological reasons - many won't be able to pass because of height issues, strength issues, etc, which are intrinsic to being female. Shortly speaking, it will be much more difficult for a female to match the same physical requirements as a male. I'm not saying it's impossible, but there are reasons why world records for men's and women's sports are separated.
There will be some that will pass, that's not an issue. Also, see the video right above mine.
Comment has been collapsed.
So the results will speak for themselves, fantastic. Should be the end of the story, right? However, you still elect to preempt this with a dismissive qualifier. Do you realize that this undermines female participation and reinforces sexist stereotypes?
I mean if they pass then sure go ahead.
This was your original statement and is completely fine on its own. Why is the followup needed?
Comment has been collapsed.
Making a list, checking it twice, gonna find out who's naughty or nice.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd say no to women in the army. Men should not be allowed as well. Nobody should, except robots. Shooting laser beams from their eyes. While riding robot dragons. Robot dragons should have laser beams as well, of course. THAT would be awesome!! :D
Comment has been collapsed.
387 Comments - Last post 5 minutes ago by despiesi96
455 Comments - Last post 6 minutes ago by Foxbond
59 Comments - Last post 27 minutes ago by Loipurz
49 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Chris76de
1,528 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by LinustheBold
39 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by klingki
1,846 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by MeguminShiro
209 Comments - Last post 1 minute ago by RiseV7
24 Comments - Last post 1 minute ago by freshduke
130 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by cheeki7
829 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by MyrXIII
61 Comments - Last post 30 minutes ago by Willans
103 Comments - Last post 41 minutes ago by MilkItHard
72 Comments - Last post 50 minutes ago by meneldur
There's this thing going all over the news for a while now that if women pass the rangers training, they will get a chance to accept females in the Navy seals s.o, I don't think that would be the right move for the elite special operations, what are your opinions?
Comment has been collapsed.