First female enrolled to BUDS

Now that's sarcasm!

 

Hmm, both you and Sean have kind of discounted your own ideas on this. Both of you brought up the fact that "some" men and "some" women have resisted the urge to be sexually attracted to those of the opposite sex that surrounds them. What about the percentage of individual members of those units that "do" find themselves attracted to other members? It only takes a couple of members going astray to set disarray in motion.
When we have specific units assembled to do specific military operations that require that unit be totally organized, well oiled, and well trained, how much distraction, or even possible distraction, is too much?

 

And once they're well-oiled, just what do you think is going to happen?

 

I, my friends, CAN perform brain surgery (or rocket surgery if needed). Now, the patient may not survive but I can do it and I have a valuable opinion on it. (Well, it may not be valuable but still....)

 

SEE Willis, THAT'S what I'm talking about!! See where her hands are?

 

The Spartans were definitely "well oiled" and it didn't seem to hinder their performance on the battlefield.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_militaries_of_ancient_Greece

 

Initially people (fighter pilots among them ) said women can't be good combat aviators. Eventually people were proven wrong about that and apparently women can make very effective combat aviators, even in high G fighter pilot roles. I am not saying that is going to be the same for SOC and in particular SEALs. One thing I know is that I don't like the double standards. Either you can do the work or you can't do the work.

If the standard is higher than it needs to be to do the job then lower the standard for everyone. If it isn't too high then don't lower it for anyone. If women are being allowed in some of these positions to bring a different skill set but fall a bit short of the earlier standards, then why couldn't a man that can't quiet achieve the earlier standards possibly do the same?

As to the group "cohesion" lots of things can break it down and make the mission fail outside of the "sexual attraction" you are talking about. A ton of testosterone fueled group think might not always be the best thing to get the mission accomplished. Other times it would be the best thing, but I doubt there will be a lack of that thinking even with a women or two in the group. But, as stated above, exact same standards for everyone. In these units you want the best of the best. Nothing else will do, so no lowering of standards. For those saying no women would want to go through what men go through at BUDs, personally I don't know why anyone would want to go through the crap they dish out at BUDs but I am very thankful for those that do go through it.

 

I'm with you on this. I have heard of rocking sex, and even experienced it once or twice, but if you put a sex rock in front of me, I will be baffled.

 

I can't help but notice they aren't around anymore.

 

LOL, haven't you guys ever heard of someone working like a "well oiled machine?" Not someone that's had real oil poured over their head.

 

Reread my posts, my analogy was about Nigel's closed mindedness, i.e. Opinions are worthless even if you have them.

 

You're right. You're the only survivor left from the days of Ancient Greece.

 

Honest question here about BUDs compared to other SF groups. Every bit of training I've ever seen has evolved around the team working together. As long as the woman can carry her weight and carry it well, would she be capable of adding to the team? Whereas, something like force recon, would require a lot more individual ability. That's an honest question, not a statement.

I'm of the group that says if they can meet the requirements, the same as men, then let them serve. However, don't dare lessen any requirement.

I have my own personal thoughts as a father of a very strong, athletic daughter. I'm also realistic. She's a baseball player, plays at a fairly high level. She's starting 14u. This past year was where the boys started becoming men, and they only gets stronger as she moves forward. I can see the differences, but her skill and abilities are keeping her solidly in the game, still, where tons of boys are falling behind and giving up in droves. Her arm is not strong and never will be. Her glove is solid, but bat is stellar. She not only hits for power, but hits for extremely high average. The last tournament she played in, she batted 1000, and typically bats 500-800 most weekends. There's something different about her that I see is different vs the boys. Her ability to track the ball and connect with precision is something most of the boys can't. Just gifted or is it possibly the way her brain is wired a little differently? My point being, maybe in such a group dynamic, where TEAM is everything, a highly skilled woman could be an asset for the things she can do differently. Things like multi-tasking and critical thinking, where women typically excel over men, could be leveraged. That being said, my daughter will never be as strong or as fast as an athletic man that puts in the same or more work than she does. We both know high school will most likely be the end of her game.

I guess the real question is have we really explored what a woman CAN do in these roles vs CAN'T do. I'm not trying to be a social justice warrior here at all. My honest leaning is that women shouldn't be in combat roles. I'm also open minded enough to truly explore the options. We get told all the time that girls aren't capable of hanging with the boys in baseball, especially after 12 when puberty kicks in. So far, she's doing it and doing it without any issues. Some coaches have been open minded enough to see what she can do vs can't.

 

A fart on thee.

 

No, your analogy was about Nigels contention that people that don't have the slightest comprehension about what they're talking about but think they do have somewhat questionable opinions. Such as, Nigel was saying that if you really don't have the experience, your opinion is fine - but effectively worthless. That people not having experience either being there - or at least being around a LOT - what serving in those units entails, then it's nothing but popping a fart in the wind. No data. Just imagination.

You said that this mindset would have resulted in us not getting to the moon. Entirely false. Not even close. The people and opinions involved in getting us there WERE the most experienced, the most educated, the most familiar with every single thing associated with the entire mission. If Kennedy would have said we're going to Mars in the same amount of time, they'd have told him to pound sand. They'd have said he didn't know what he was talking about. It just so happens that the best and brightest had the experience, knowledge, education, and skill to execute that mission - and they were given the resources to come up with the solutions that got it done.

What is going on here is exactly the opposite. People who have never served in those units, who have never completed the training, who are not depending on the results of those missions, who won't be there with those units when deployed, are pushing this - for absolutely no reason whatsoever other than gender equality. There is not a single grain of a single reason that any person on this planet can suggest that this would actually improve the lethality, effectiveness, efficiency and chance of success for such units. To the contrary, virtually massively overwhelmingly the people who DO have the experience have all been clear.

For those that think that people in those units are a bunch of knuckle dragging cavemen bent on "keeping women down", guess again. There really aren't a lot of places that I have any issue whatsoever with concerning women in military roles. And frankly, that seems to be pretty much the viewpoint of most of my colleagues. But we tend to think pretty simply. What gives us the best chance for success in a game where winning a losing is the difference between you or your team mate getting back home? The difference in the mission being completed or failed? There is simply no room for social experiments, social justice, or secondary considerations in there.

 

Clay, nice thoughts and well said, but here's some commentary.....

All - repeat ALL - the SOC related units (SEALS, SF, Rangers, Force Recon, Delta) are small unit. They are a combination of both independent decision making, individual contribution, and teamwork. And you actually have it a bit backward - the smaller the unit - the greater the dependency on individual ability. So, Force Recon being comprised of much larger units in general than SEAL, and remembering that BUDS is only the first step, there is a much greater dependency on individual capability with units such as SEALs and SF than there is on Rangers and Force Recon.

Second, I again have to ask the basic question - what advantage exactly does introducing females into this training and assignment to these units provide? And given that our society is certainly unwilling to see such changes COMPLETELY through and totally abandon any meaning to issues such as privacy and gender issues, it means that there are logistical and cultural issues that would result. So, assuming there is ANY advantage whatsoever concerning the lethality and effectiveness of the unit, does it cover the cost of change in terms of addressing the other issues? What if those teams your daughter was on were all willing to accept her - on the condition that she shared showers (at the same time) with them? That she lived with them 24x7? There is zero privacy in small unit SOC operations. Zero. And no room for it. It ain't like the movies. How are you going to feel if it's somebody you knows daughter that when captured is raped as a form of torture? And her team mates don't give up intel to stop the rape? Do you think it's more likely that team mates might just capitulate more quickly in such a scenario? How about what do you think the citizens of this country would feel if ISIS captured a female SF or SEAL, and broadcast it? These are all the kinds of things that nobody likes to talk about but the members of these units have to think about. Hell, we're still in a stage where women aren't required to register for the draft, but we're talking about them joining SEAL teams? Really? Don't give me the crap that anybody in the military can get captured. Nobody - and I mean NOBODY operates deep in hostile country with no support whatsoever in extremely small units like they do, making them the most likely candidates for death or capture in our entire country. Nobody.

There is no data whatsoever to suggest that these units lack in terms of problem solving, analytical skills, multi-tasking and critical thinking. There are many many times more applicants every year for consideration already than there are slots even for consideration. The best of the best get through. This ain't softball, baseball, or basketball. When you lose in these games the worst isn't that you die. The worst is that people depending on you die. Maybe a whole lot of people when the mission involves something like removing a serious threat that could impact thousands of not millions of other people. So once again, why exactly is this a good idea?

 

Also, one other question to ask yourself.

In every single class, there are TONS more applicants than get accepted into the class, and then attrition rates for SEALs, Rangers, SF ALL are at 50% or greater.

So every single slot that is reserved for a female means that there is a FULLY qualified male who doesn't get considered.

So again, the question is what exact advantage does this provide for the lethality, effectiveness, and mission capability of our Special Operations units?

 

Saying that women cannot do some things as well as men overall is not insulting women.
It's just recognizing some of the realities of life.

 

I have no military experience; but have two friends that are seals.

One is a team leader. His thoughts were "no way", for most of the reasons listed here.

He said people who haven`t served on the teams and realize whats required should either join up or keep their opinions to themselves.

Interesting people for sure.