SEAL's to admit women to BUDs

**Scrubber3** · 07-24-17, 15:04

Originally Posted by kwelz

Kind of how I feel about it.

The requirements should never be lowered. But if a woman can hack it then I say let them do it. Yeah this means that for every 100 guys there may be 1 woman, Oh well. Equality means everyone gets a chance. Not that everyone gets the same result.

This right here^^

100% agree

**Pilot1** · 07-24-17, 15:21

I feel much safer now.

**FromMyColdDeadHand** · 07-24-17, 15:36

There has to be a good joke about seals balancing balls on their nose in all of this.

**kwelz** · 07-24-17, 15:37

Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHand

There has to be a good joke about seals balancing balls on their nose in all of this.

You sir win the internet for the day.

**SteyrAUG** · 07-24-17, 15:42

Originally Posted by SHIVAN

As long as the times, reps, and tests are all the exact same, and not modified for gender, let them all try.

That's where I'm at. If Bruce Jenner wants to join the Navy and try out for BUDS then sure, assuming he passes the psych eval. Anyone who wants to join our military should be extended a liberal benefit of the doubt. Anyone who further wants to engage in combat in defense of this nation should be given every reasonable opportunity to do so. Anyone who can satisfactorily do that and wants to attempt to join an elite division should be allowed to try.

Those with a sincere desire have better motivations than a lot of others. But standards should be maintained. If we do end up with legit female SEALS I wouldn't want them killed because they had to deploy with Richard Simmons anymore than I would want any other member of the military killed because they had to deploy with a GI Jane wannabe.

And if you insist on separate standards, then you need to establish segregated groups that reflect those standards like "All Female" teams.

**yoni** · 07-24-17, 15:51

Israel is either ahead or behind of the USA in allowing women into infantry units. It has been a joke and a failure with steps located in front of walls on the obstacle course.

We get suckered into having to accept in principle that women as long as they meet standards should be allowed to try. The women then fail.

Then standards are lowered or a double standard is set up.

I favor women in some roles in the covert far on terrorism. But not for special ops on a battlefield or in the infantry.

They just can't hack it long term.

But they got me beat all to hell, when it comes to having a baby. Having to go through delivering a baby is beyond my ability for a lot of reasons. But since I don't feel the need to push an agenda, I am not crying about how unfair G-D made it.

**Dist. Expert 26** · 07-24-17, 16:27

Civilians always seem to miss the point that assessment and selection for whichever organization is still nowhere near as difficult as real world operations. Sure, swimming in 50° water sucks. Not sleeping sucks. Being run into the ground sucks.

Add in the factor of 75+ lbs of equipment and zero option for failure and it doesn't just suck anymore. It's real. You die and your team dies.

If a woman manages to pass, it will be by the bare minimum standard. If that's what we want at the very tip of the spear, so be it. Otherwise the Commander in Chief and SECDEF need to stop the stupidity.

**ABNAK** · 07-24-17, 18:43

You have to carefully pay attention to how the standards may be changed to accommodate a political desire. If it happens it usually tries to avoid the stigma of two sets of different standards. Instead it is spun this way: "We are looking at what the requirements are for XXX group/team. We have questioned whether, in today's environment, is it really necessary to be able to hump/swim XXX distance? We have determined that it isn't". Then the standards don't get "lowered" per se, they are merely changed to reflect "modern military requirements" or some other bullshit.

The first I heard of this take on things was a couple of years ago when it was being mulled over how would women make it through SFAS. I recall reading that some high-ranking shithead said something to the effect of "We are reviewing the requirements of the Q-Course and one of those items is the necessity to roadmarch 20+ miles [the final obstacle to overcome during Selection] with such a heavy load in today's combat environment".

I politely disagree with the poster above me in this sense: I believe that the requirements involved in the entry training of our tip-of-the-spear types is often pushed beyond what will ever actually be required on the battlefield. This is to ensure that if you can make it through this you will succeed at whatever you will encounter 90% of the time in real-world missions.