View Full Version : First All-Female Special Forces Unit: Norway’s Jegertroppen
At least that we know of. Rumors of all female units in US SOF have been around for years. Of course they gals from Norway are all blonds. :cool:
Are we to believe they passed identical training the male Norwegian SOF have?
Inside the World’s First All-Female Special Forces Unit: Norway’s Jegertroppen
ELVERUM, Norway — An explosion just a few feet away rocks the unmarked station wagon as it travels along a dirt road in the Norwegian woodland.
Immediately, two soldiers jump from their front seats and run for cover behind the carcass of an old, rusty tank. Firing their weapons at targets along the snow-covered hillside, they call for support from the rest of their unit.
This firefight is just a drill, but the soldiers taking part are battling to break down one of the final barriers to women serving in the armed forces. They are training to become part of Norway's Jegertroppen or "Hunter Troops" — the world's first all-female military special forces unit.
Cont:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/inside-world-s-first-all-female-special-forces-unit-norway-n746041
If they can meet the physical and military performance standards necessary to do the job, good for them. I suspect the US will be along soon.
My interest in the whole subject is how the military will deal with the obvious physical performance differences. Are they vast enough to impair the mission? Or do the current performance standards accurately reflect the needs of the mission? I'm certainly opposed to lowering the standards just to facilitate a co-ed force, but I don't know if the current performance standards are necessary.
If they can meet the physical and military performance standards necessary to do the job, good for them. I suspect the US will be along soon.
No doubt. Women can now apply to be SEALs. No takers so far apparently.
Dist. Expert 26
04-18-17, 10:27
The physical standards are in place for a reason, and it has nothing to do with the patriarchy.
Swimming miles in the open ocean just to get to an insertion point is no joke. The same applies for humping 100+ pounds through mountains. One weak link can and would compromise a mission and place everyone in the team at risk.
There's a reason standards have been going up rather than down, even for regular infantry.
The physical standards are in place for a reason, and it has nothing to do with the patriarchy.
Swimming miles in the open ocean just to get to an insertion point is no joke. The same applies for humping 100+ pounds through mountains. One weak link can and would compromise a mission and place everyone in the team at risk.
There's a reason standards have been going up rather than down, even for regular infantry.
Yeah, never having been there, I have no idea of the physical performance necessary to do that job. The danger is that people like me, NO experience, would be given credence and have input as to what the performance standards should be, and that those standards would then be "adjusted" in order to meet political goals, rather than military ones. Of course, there's the possibility that the current performance standards are excessively rigid, and kept so in order to meet political goals within the military. I don't know. But it seems that they should probably err on the side of caution and select for what "could" happen rather than what's "likely" to happen. I don't see any compelling reason why we need to go to great lengths just to get women into SOF roles. I've yet to see anything compelling that they can bring to the table that makes their presence in those units a necessary, or even a good idea.
Dist. Expert 26
04-18-17, 10:44
Yeah, never having been there, I have no idea of the physical performance necessary to do that job. The danger is that people like me, NO experience, would be given credence and have input as to what the performance standards should be, and that those standards would then be "adjusted" in order to meet political goals, rather than military ones. Of course, there's the possibility that the current performance standards are excessively rigid, and kept so in order to meet political goals within the military. I don't know. But it seems that they should probably err on the side of caution and select for what "could" happen rather than what's "likely" to happen. I don't see any compelling reason why we need to go to great lengths just to get women into SOF roles. I've yet to see anything compelling that they can bring to the table that makes their presence in those units a necessary, or even a good idea.
It sounds like we're on the same page.
I honestly don't understand the obsession with women being in combat arms. It's been a male profession since the beginning of time for good reason.
Yeah, never having been there, I have no idea of the physical performance necessary to do that job. The danger is that people like me, NO experience, would be given credence and have input as to what the performance standards should be, and that those standards would then be "adjusted" in order to meet political goals, rather than military ones. Of course, there's the possibility that the current performance standards are excessively rigid, and kept so in order to meet political goals within the military. I don't know. But it seems that they should probably err on the side of caution and select for what "could" happen rather than what's "likely" to happen. I don't see any compelling reason why we need to go to great lengths just to get women into SOF roles. I've yet to see anything compelling that they can bring to the table that makes their presence in those units a necessary, or even a good idea.
Member Arctic1 could tell us all about it if he's still posting here. That's his AO I recall.
It sounds like we're on the same page.
I honestly don't understand the obsession with women being in combat arms. It's been a male profession since the beginning of time for good reason.
Meh. I don't care about "traditional roles" and I don't care if or why women want to serve in them. If they can, they should be able to. The problem I have is that IMHO too many want those roles only to make a political point. Not because they love the military, not because of their warlike inclination, not because they want to serve their country at the tip of the arrow, but because it serves a set of political goals. That's bullshit.
Dist. Expert 26
04-18-17, 11:12
Meh. I don't care about "traditional roles" and I don't care if or why women want to serve in them. If they can, they should be able to. The problem I have is that IMHO too many want those roles only to make a political point. Not because they love the military, not because of their warlike inclination, not because they want to serve their country at the tip of the arrow, but because it serves a set of political goals. That's bullshit.
There are people who can explain it much more eloquently than myself, but the issue with women in combat arms isn't so much a question of physical ability as it is a disruption to what makes such units function; brotherhood.
The presence of women will absolutely create drama and animosity, thus reducing mission effectiveness. The brotherhood that makes combat units function as they should would be fractured. To think otherwise is a pure delusion.
There are people who can explain it much more eloquently than myself, but the issue with women in combat arms isn't so much a question of physical ability as it is a disruption to what makes such units function; brotherhood.
The presence of women will absolutely create drama and animosity, thus reducing mission effectiveness. The brotherhood that makes combat units function as they should would be fractured. To think otherwise is a pure delusion.
But these are all female units. How does that fit into above? Has to change the dynamic a bit.
Regard to this specific unit, I am volunteering to be OPFOR. I would let them tie me up, interrogate me, maybe smack me around a little....
Grand58742
04-18-17, 12:22
Regard to this specific unit, I am volunteering to be OPFOR. I would let them tie me up, interrogate me, maybe smack me around a little....
So, you're basically saying you want to marry one of them? Seems like all the tenants of a marriage are there: starting out as the OPFOR, getting interrogated, shackled to the old ball and chain, etc.
Why do they need an all female SF unit?
Thats weird. I dont live over there and dont care but still.
If they said "We're doing up a new SF outfit. Tryouts are tomorrow. Open to all." is one thing but "Women only" is weird
When the SHTF women can't even be effective policemen,how can they handle Special Ops.
Have y'all seen them? I could not care less if they are bungling idiots. 1) I don't live there, so not my circus, not my monkeys; 2) Have you seen them??
If they can meet the physical and military performance standards necessary to do the job, good for them. I suspect the US will be along soon.
My interest in the whole subject is how the military will deal with the obvious physical performance differences. Are they vast enough to impair the mission? Or do the current performance standards accurately reflect the needs of the mission? I'm certainly opposed to lowering the standards just to facilitate a co-ed force, but I don't know if the current performance standards are necessary.
Gotta disagree with you on that one. That is exactly how standards get lowered across the board. SOF qualification courses are notoriously rough for a reason: you want the guy who can go 50 miles with a 50lb ruck (or whatever the unit's requirements are), even though he may only actually ever do 30 miles. You want a 10 when an 8 might do. That is why they are who they are.
EDIT: I see in subsequent posts you are posing it more as a question and aren't necessarily making the case for it.
Grand58742
04-18-17, 13:23
Anyone consider how easy it might be to defeat this threat? All one has to do while they are assaulting is toss out chocolate and prepaid Old Navy gift cards and escape in the pandemonium.
Having said that to say this, it could be very dangerous. Pissed women + high explosives + deadly accuracy = wining combo.
"Hey ladies, those guys over there said you look fat in that body armor."
Sit back and in twenty minutes, you'd likely have enough scorched earth to rival the Firebombing of Tokyo.
Instead of chumping on the because "girls have cooties". Seriously, why do they need an All Female SF Unit?
What circumstances require just all women?
Instead of chumping on the because "girls have cooties". Seriously, why do they need an All Female SF Unit?
What circumstances require just all women?
Because then you'll have complaints that the men are either distracted or are risking their lives needlessly trying to "save" the women
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Gotta disagree with you on that one. That is exactly how standards get lowered across the board. SOF qualification courses are notoriously rough for a reason: you want the guy who can go 50 miles with a 50lb ruck (or whatever the unit's requirements are), even though he may only actually ever do 30 miles. You want a 10 when an 8 might do. That is why they are who they are.
This thread is about hot Swedish chicks. Anything aside from their hotness is superfluous. That said....I agree, generally.
This unit is a test unit, specifically trying to fill a need for women in cultures where women talk with women, and men can get in the way (i.e., the ME). Their training mirrors most of other SOF-type units, and its attrition rate is equally high. Who knows what the attrition rate would be if men went through the course as well? It wasn't designed to be a stand-alone unit but rather have women who were well trained who could be attached to other SOF units when missions dictated a need for their presence.
There are people who can explain it much more eloquently than myself, but the issue with women in combat arms isn't so much a question of physical ability as it is a disruption to what makes such units function; brotherhood.
The presence of women will absolutely create drama and animosity, thus reducing mission effectiveness. The brotherhood that makes combat units function as they should would be fractured. To think otherwise is a pure delusion.
Yes, we've certainly seen over and over, since about June 4, 1919, that women stepping out of what has been defined for them as their traditional roles has reliably and predictably been associated with drama and animosity.
Gotta disagree with you on that one.
You are disagreeing that I don't know if the current performance standards are necessary? I assure you, I don't have a clue. You're right...I'm not making a case for it.
Dist. Expert 26
04-18-17, 13:52
Yes, we've certainly seen over and over, since about June 4, 1919, that women stepping out of what has been defined for them as their traditional roles has reliably and predictably been associated with drama and animosity.
You mistake what I said as an insult to women, which it is not. My point is that when you put a bunch of young, physically fit, A-type personalities together they're going to have sex. Probably a lot. With sex comes feelings, and thus animosity and drama from both men and women.
You mistake what I said as an insult to women, which it is not. My point is that when you put a bunch of young, physically fit, A-type personalities together they're going to have sex. Probably a lot. With sex comes feelings, and thus animosity and drama from both men and women.
The problems with unit cohesion won't even get that far. The last unit I was in as a corpsman was the first mixed unit I was in; to that point, I had been in all-male units. In the platoons it was not uncommon to call someone a "stupid c***". In fact, we had some very unique names for people, many of which revolved around the female anatomy. When I got to my last unit, imagine my surprise when I called a boneheaded Marine a "stupid c****." You could hear a pin drop. It didn't even dawn on me women Marines were in the room. My LPO pulled me aside and gave me the "look, this isn't the infantry" lecture.
My long-winded point being, it will be very hard for a combat unit to have cohesion when every word you utter has to come with a counter thought: "can what I said be taken out of context? Will it get me in trouble? Will it be reported to the IG?" Trust simply is not there. I recall having to have Marines lift their balls so I could look for leaches and ticks. I cannot imagine having to ask a female Marine to spread 'em. I am so glad I am out now.
You mistake what I said as an insult to women, which it is not. My point is that when you put a bunch of young, physically fit, A-type personalities together they're going to have sex. Probably a lot. With sex comes feelings, and thus animosity and drama from both men and women.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that when it inevitably happens that women, or any other group whose societal role has been defined for them by others, step outside that defined role, there is strife and drama.
Dist. Expert 26
04-18-17, 14:38
No, I'm not. I'm saying that when it inevitably happens that women, or any other group whose societal role has been defined for them by others, step outside that defined role, there is strife and drama.
This isn't about the overreaching idea of people being upset over women being put into new roles. Yes, it exists, but that's not what I'm talking about.
The drama is on a much smaller, interpersonal level within the affected units.
You are disagreeing that I don't know if the current performance standards are necessary? I assure you, I don't have a clue. You're right...I'm not making a case for it.
Yeah, that's why I put the edit in. Can't figure out how to use the "strike" (as in line-through) feature on here.
This isn't about the overreaching idea of people being upset over women being put into new roles. Yes, it exists, but that's not what I'm talking about.
The drama is on a much smaller, interpersonal level within the affected units.
Honestly, while the drama llamas and love triangles would no doubt be an issue, IMHO the bigger issue is physical. Not as in male/female but as in strength with endurance. There are women marathon runners, and women power-lifters. However, a woman who can hump a 50lb ruck 20+ miles and keep up with her male counterparts on that mission (not just finish) are few and far between. Hell, even for the men it's few and far between, so for the female gender it's even fewer and farther between. The mission cannot be compromised because of a weak or slow link.
Do you seriously believe that?
Interesting?? Although I am absolutely appalled that I have this knowledge my daughters are in sync. I just assumed it was because of their close proximity. If so, would that be true of members of a highly specialized unit that live in close proximity?
I had a friend who was a postal carrier and got mauled - she was menstruating and the bites were in that area. She was fairly new to that route but knew off the dog and had not had any previous problems. Could something like this be an implication for deployment?
Just spitballing.
I really don't care - I think no one, male or female, should be assigned to, or remain in, a job they aren't physically able to do.
When the SHTF women can't even be effective policemen,how can they handle Special Ops.
I've worked with women who exemplify 'you can kill me, but you'll never beat me" and those who were tough as long as they had back up on scene - same thing with men.
The problem is, though, that physiology is a harsh mistress. IIRC males have about 21% more muscle mass due to testosterone, and about 16% more aerobic capacity. That is nature.
Grit can only go so far against strength, endurance and superior leverage due to limb size.
Which is one reason God gave us the ability to use tools. :D
I just watched the video again. That soldier firing in the close ups, she has some rounds down range - look at her eyes as she shoots.
Well I'll probably be the really odd man out and old fashioned, but it seems to me that it's bad enough that men, young men, have to go fight in bloody and horrible wars, but to send our women folk into these situations just seems barbaric and uncivilized.
You know what.....I'm okay with this. Everybody is equal now. There are more females in the world than men. Kicking women out of airplanes with M60s to go fight and die in a hellhole and having them pick up the tab is exactly what our foremothers burned bras and quit shaving for.
About damned time, I say.
Not sarcasm. I'm all for equality. Just dont ask me for help or money
Well I'll probably be the really odd man out and old fashioned, but it seems to me that it's bad enough that men, young men, have to go fight in bloody and horrible wars, but to send our women folk into these situations just seems barbaric and uncivilized.
Yeah. I mean, what business to they have wanting to fight for their country?
So far, this thread has had the predictable level of menstruation jokes etc. It's like a knee-jerk among the real he-man types. Who was the world leader who was afraid to have Hillary Clinton's finger on the nuclear button because she might be having her period? As if her ovaries have even been functioning for the last 20 years....if she still has her ovaries....
The IDF is again trying to push women in combat roles. But when you see them run the obstacle course you see what a joke it is. On womens side of the 2 meter wall they have a step to help them get over the wall.
Women don't belong in the combat arms of the military other than in support roles.
Women do have a place in very specific anti terror operations.
Here are links to the documentary that was aired on our main national TV channel:
Part 1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkhgC2CEmcA
Part 2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eN5N4AZxZs
Our Army SOF element identified a requirement for this capability, and developed a selection and training program to fill this capability.
I don't see a need to speculate further. They go through an adapted version of the Operator Training Course that the actual shooters go through.
If the male shooters in this unit are comfortable going on missions with the personnel from this unit, what is the issue?
Females supporting SOF is hardly groundbreaking, and has been done for ages.
I have served in units that had both male and female soldiers, I have commanded both and served alongside both (in training and combat), and at the end of the day a soldier's gender is not a critical factor - being able to perform the job is.
I don't think gender differentiated requirements are a good idea, I don't think female quotas are a good idea and I think too many people politicize the issue. It should be about the ability to perform, not what their reproductive organs look like.
I guess I'm going to join into the camp that asks who cares if they have innies or outies; so long as they can do the job and do so with minimal negative impact on the force as a whole.
Seems that Norway's solution to allowing women into SF role tries to minimize personal drama within the unit. Unless they are all dykes the whole who screws who this week and why are U ****ing her instead of me crap is minimized. Not eliminated, as these women will need to still operate along side make SF units running ops out of the same FOB's... Hopefully they can manage that interaction without decreasing performance. Only time will tell though.
If they can do the jobs and passed identical training regimens as the men then the weak link is still theoretically strong enough to do the job. No they won't have the same strength or stamina as the men, but then all men aren't equal either and there is ALWAYS a weak link. This is why you have standards. This is why those standards MUST be realistic and exceed known historic demands by a factor of safety. No matter how weak your weak link is: if they met a standard with a built in safety factor they should be able to complete the required mission.
Aside from the whole there are places where women can go unnoticed there is another reason to open up roles to more applicants. This is doubly true for a resource constrained nation like Norway. SF takes a special kind of person. These folks are hard to find say. When you eliminate 50% of your population simply cause they have vaginas you are severely hampering the pool of candidates. In a country with close to 400 million it's not as huge a deal to chip down to 200 mil. In a small country of say 5 mil people that's a HUGE hit.
If your national strategy needs a high op tempo for SF types such a small pool = a fatigue and eventual burn out rate that will exceed your ability to develop new talent.
All that matters for all candidates, male or female, is can they do the job and do so without negatively impacting unit function.
Dist. Expert 26
04-18-17, 17:34
Interesting?? Although I am absolutely appalled that I have this knowledge my daughters are in sync. I just assumed it was because of their close proximity. If so, would that be true of members of a highly specialized unit that live in close proximity?
I had a friend who was a postal carrier and got mauled - she was menstruating and the bites were in that area. She was fairly new to that route but knew off the dog and had not had any previous problems. Could something like this be an implication for deployment?
Just spitballing.
I really don't care - I think no one, male or female, should be assigned to, or remain in, a job they aren't physically able to do.
A couple years ago a female Captain tried IOC at Quantico. Apparently she stopped menstruating entirely along with several other serious issues. IOC isn't a joke, but it's not SOF selection either.
ramairthree
04-18-17, 18:11
But these are all female units. How does that fit into above? Has to change the dynamic a bit.
Good God man.
Have you ever talked to a woman beyond a direct exchange of cash for services?
But seriously,
Anyone in the know is very familiar with the drama a sprinkling of females has around all male units.
Ask some guys involved with the CSTs what a pit of drama and venom an all female unit is during training.
I guess I'm going to join into the camp that asks who cares if they have innies or outies; so long as they can do the job and do so with minimal negative impact on the force as a whole.
Seems that Norway's solution to allowing women into SF role tries to minimize personal drama within the unit. Unless they are all dykes the whole who screws who this week and why are U ****ing her instead of me crap is minimized. Not eliminated, as these women will need to still operate along side make SF units running ops out of the same FOB's... Hopefully they can manage that interaction without decreasing performance. Only time will tell though.
If they can do the jobs and passed identical training regimens as the men then the weak link is still theoretically strong enough to do the job. No they won't have the same strength or stamina as the men, but then all men aren't equal either and there is ALWAYS a weak link. This is why you have standards. This is why those standards MUST be realistic and exceed known historic demands by a factor of safety. No matter how weak your weak link is: if they met a standard with a built in safety factor they should be able to complete the required mission.
Aside from the whole there are places where women can go unnoticed there is another reason to open up roles to more applicants. This is doubly true for a resource constrained nation like Norway. SF takes a special kind of person. These folks are hard to find say. When you eliminate 50% of your population simply cause they have vaginas you are severely hampering the pool of candidates. In a country with close to 400 million it's not as huge a deal to chip down to 200 mil. In a small country of say 5 mil people that's a HUGE hit.
If your national strategy needs a high op tempo for SF types such a small pool = a fatigue and eventual burn out rate that will exceed your ability to develop new talent.
All that matters for all candidates, male or female, is can they do the job and do so without negatively impacting unit function.
Well put, that is what I was saying when the question was posed "Do the standards really need to be that high?" Yes, they need to be higher than what is actually expected, for that "factor of safety" you mention.
I will also note that Norway has these women SF in their own unit, not integrated with the male SF. There's obviously a reason for that. The ability to pull a well-trained (if not totally meeting the male standard) female for specific missions is no doubt an asset.
Substantive content and discussion on this topic is welcome and encouraged.
Cutisms, menstrual jokes, and misogynistic comments are not. Promise.
ramairthree
04-18-17, 18:46
I have had my say on this before.
I will not comment on the drama aspect beyond one thing.
I have been on every single FOB of a SOF task force in two theaters over several years.
All that had female roles their had a ton of drama and complications.
There are disproportionate amounts of drama and issue in all female envrironments compared to males.
On the physical,
I have been saying since the 1980s that I am sure there are some women that can meet the physical qualifications.
But,
You you'll be lucky to come up with 10% of women that meet the average/median performance of males the same age.
When selecting from groups of military males,
That weed out over half of those applicants,
You will find infinitesimal amounts of females on the same level.
Grab 1000 21 year old women at random. Grab 1000 21 year old men at random.
Run both groups through a basic obstacle course. Compare how many complete it.
Unlike male SOF, where the officer/enlisted quality density is equal,
The is a huge difference in quality density on the female side of the military. Officers will be singnificanly over represented.
Females will become inured during training pipelines at rates far in excess of males.
Less will recover than the males.
Much lower percentages of females in pre deployment train ups deploy than males. Even when taking pregnancy out of the head counts.
Fewer females complete deployments than males. Again, this is even after dropping the head count for pregnancy.
Long term physical requirements and attrition is harsher on females.
Groups of military men enter service with less psychological and mental health issues than the population they came from.
Mental and psychological issues are over represented in the female groups entering the military.
There are some very important military roles females can fill without significant issues.
And some roles for highly trained and selected females.
But, at the end of the day,
Reality is reality.
There is no significant pool of them to add more than a token contribution to Fore Recon, SEALS, Ranger Bn, SF, etc. and the results, headache, hassle, etc. lower, not elevate effectiveness.
This movement does nothing to increase effectiveness and provides no significant increase in the pool of personnel available.
It is done for different reasons.
Airborne School used to be a process to select some men tough enough to be paratroopers and train them to jump out of planes. It is now a course much easier than, say, basic/infantry OSUT designed to meet a qualification and five people a badge.
There is already talk of the selection and training pipelines "being harder than they need to be."
ramairthree
04-18-17, 18:50
Not so much a military thing as an actual physiologic response.
Civilian women running a lot, in very high stress positions, etc. who drop below certain percentages of body fat can do this.
As best I understand it, the USMC IOC is on par with US Army IOBC/Ranger School combination.
There is already talk of the selection and training pipelines "being harder than they need to be."
That is how, for political purposes, you rationalize the lowering of standards. It sickens me to think that combat readiness/effectiveness could be sacrificed at the alter of political correctness. And when the big Obama-influenced brass promised "By damned, there will NOT be different standards!" they didn't lie. They'll just quietly lower them for everyone.
That is how, for political purposes, you rationalize the lowering of standards. It sickens me to think that combat readiness/effectiveness could be sacrificed at the alter of political correctness. And when the big Obama-influenced brass promised "By damned, there will NOT be different standards!" they didn't lie. They'll just quietly lower them for everyone.
And there is absolutely NOTHING more efficient at killing the chance of success for such programs than this lowering of standards for PC reasons. Its already hard to integrate and accept women into these traditionally male roles, so lets double down and insure that even a potential Wonder Woman is looked down upon due to lower standards cause of women.
Its soo damned funny how we are retarded to the bone as a society. We dont have issues with people training harder than their competitions when it comes to sports. I used o drive my girls soccer teams pretty hard during training. Longer sprints, more reps, more technical wrk after sprints... than they would see in an average game and people thanked me for prepping their kids for a game. Yet, here where lives are on the line we want to drop standards. Retarded to the core.
Yeah. I mean, what business to they have wanting to fight for their country?
So far, this thread has had the predictable level of menstruation jokes etc. It's like a knee-jerk among the real he-man types. Who was the world leader who was afraid to have Hillary Clinton's finger on the nuclear button because she might be having her period? As if her ovaries have even been functioning for the last 20 years....if she still has her ovaries....
Well, it doesn't have anything to do with being a he-man or periods. It has to do with how we as a society and especially we men view our women. I view women as "the finer vessel", a wife and a mother, someone to nurture our children, and in my case to educate the little ones. Not just a penis-less equivalent to a man. By all means women....get out there and shoot people in the head and get good and bloody.......because serving our country in such a way is oh so glorious.
Moose-Knuckle
04-19-17, 03:07
You know what.....I'm okay with this. Everybody is equal now. There are more females in the world than men. Kicking women out of airplanes with M60s to go fight and die in a hellhole and having them pick up the tab is exactly what our foremothers burned bras and quit shaving for.
About damned time, I say.
Not sarcasm. I'm all for equality. Just dont ask me for help or money
There was a feminist protest the other week entitled "Make Your Own Damn Sandwich" where they had samitch fix'ns on tables for men to fix themselves a samitch.
That's cool, we need to have "Fix Your Own Damn Car" and "Kill Your Own Damn Spider" protests where these feminazis take on "traditional male" roles.
Every time I see a male LEO, FF, plumber, electrician, roofer, carpenter, et al. I can't help but to think how "sexist" the world truly is . . .
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2917/33749654090_bb3b1c7153_b.jpg
Do they same people who integrated sof units also what intergrated olympics?
Because if not they are hypocrites. Males are either more athletically incleined on average or they are not.
The title of this thread was an all female sof unit. I have much less issue with this. The integration is where I see the issue.
But what happens when this all female unit comes up against an enemy all male sof unit? What happens if they are captured by a male enemy fighters?
Why would you deploy an all female sof unit when you could deploy an all male sof unit that will be physically superior?
PC politics are really brainless so much of the time. If woman were as well or better suited to fighting then men they would already be doing it. It simply be the way it was done because it would make sense
I will also note that Norway has these women SF in their own unit, not integrated with the male SF. There's obviously a reason for that. The ability to pull a well-trained (if not totally meeting the male standard) female for specific missions is no doubt an asset.
This is a test unit, and the goal is to train the women to be able to integrate into other SOF units as needed, not field the entire unit as a single unit.
Why would you deploy an all female sof unit when you could deploy an all male sof unit that will be physically superior?
Not the expected mission of the unit.
Well, it doesn't have anything to do with being a he-man or periods. It has to do with how we as a society and especially we men view our women. I view women as "the finer vessel", a wife and a mother, someone to nurture our children, and in my case to educate the little ones. Not just a penis-less equivalent to a man. By all means women....get out there and shoot people in the head and get good and bloody.......because serving our country in such a way is oh so glorious.
Yeah, that's a concept that's (appropriately) going away. The paternalistic arrogance associated with that way of thinking just doesn't fly well in modern America.
Having said that...physiology is physiology. If advanced physical performance is required for the job then the same performance should be required of all applicants. I certainly don't grasp the concept of an all-female SOF, but I also don't grasp the practical sense of actually striving to get women integrated in combat forces. What do they bring to the effectiveness of the force? If they're warriors that got there because they beat out all the other competitors in selection, more power to 'em. If they had to adjust the standards to give them the opportunity to serve, then it's just political bullshit.
This is a test unit, and the goal is to train the women to be able to integrate into other SOF units as needed, not field the entire unit as a single unit.
Not the expected mission of the unit.
At least someone here knows how to read properly. Thank you.
ramairthree
04-19-17, 11:25
The unit does selection, training, etc together.
Which, I have noted, is a hotbed of drama and issues.
They are not meant to go out and do missions together.
Although the noted average decreased effectiveness of them as a unit comments/questions would be applicable if they did.
The unit does selection, training, etc together.
No, they do not. The female unit is a year long training program that only consists of the female soldiers that pass initial selection - with standards that must be met throughout the program or else they be kicked out - both physical and skills/knowledge. They also have final exams that they need to pass before their training is considered complete. Fail one of these final evaluations, and you do not graduate.
Which, I have noted, is a hotbed of drama and issues.
No
They are not meant to go out and do missions together.
Yes they are. Female members of this unit will be attached to SOF teams on mission where this is a mission requirement. Their training will mean that they can integrate better with the team than someone from a random FET/CST
Although the noted average decreased effectiveness of them as a unit comments/questions would be applicable if they did.
No, it will not. How do you know this? Do you know Norwegian military culture? Norwegian SOF culture. The Norwegian Army SOF unit identified this as a capability requirement. I think they know what they need, and how meet this requirement.
I have not seen the drama and decreased efficiency that you speak of, in units with mixed male/female soldiers.
There are very particular mission sets that members of this unit is trained for.
ramairthree
04-20-17, 00:44
JFC Artic,
Let me add more detail
The FEMALE unit does selection, training, etc together.
Which, I have noted, is a hotbed of drama and issues.
(In the US setting)
They, THE FEMALE UNIT, are not meant to go out and do missions together.
Although the noted average decreased effectiveness of them as a unit comments/questions would be applicable if they did.
(In the US setting)
The only relevance of this discussion to me is the media's wish to use it as an example for the US military.
The worldwide relevance of Norway's military is inconsequential.
The worldwide relevance of Norway's military is inconsequential.
You may think that, but we are a key player in NATO and our geographic location still holds strategic value.
I don't see the reason for that jab against us, seeing as we are on the same side.
Eurodriver
04-20-17, 08:43
I have had my say on this before.
I will not comment on the drama aspect beyond one thing.
I have been on every single FOB of a SOF task force in two theaters over several years.
All that had female roles their had a ton of drama and complications.
There are disproportionate amounts of drama and issue in all female envrironments compared to males.
On the physical,
I have been saying since the 1980s that I am sure there are some women that can meet the physical qualifications.
But,
You you'll be lucky to come up with 10% of women that meet the average/median performance of males the same age.
When selecting from groups of military males,
That weed out over half of those applicants,
You will find infinitesimal amounts of females on the same level.
Grab 1000 21 year old women at random. Grab 1000 21 year old men at random.
Run both groups through a basic obstacle course. Compare how many complete it.
Unlike male SOF, where the officer/enlisted quality density is equal,
The is a huge difference in quality density on the female side of the military. Officers will be singnificanly over represented.
Females will become inured during training pipelines at rates far in excess of males.
Less will recover than the males.
Much lower percentages of females in pre deployment train ups deploy than males. Even when taking pregnancy out of the head counts.
Fewer females complete deployments than males. Again, this is even after dropping the head count for pregnancy.
Long term physical requirements and attrition is harsher on females.
Groups of military men enter service with less psychological and mental health issues than the population they came from.
Mental and psychological issues are over represented in the female groups entering the military.
There are some very important military roles females can fill without significant issues.
And some roles for highly trained and selected females.
But, at the end of the day,
Reality is reality.
There is no significant pool of them to add more than a token contribution to Fore Recon, SEALS, Ranger Bn, SF, etc. and the results, headache, hassle, etc. lower, not elevate effectiveness.
This movement does nothing to increase effectiveness and provides no significant increase in the pool of personnel available.
It is done for different reasons.
Airborne School used to be a process to select some men tough enough to be paratroopers and train them to jump out of planes. It is now a course much easier than, say, basic/infantry OSUT designed to meet a qualification and five people a badge.
There is already talk of the selection and training pipelines "being harder than they need to be."
Hot damn!! I love your posts.
You didn't cite sources which would ordinarily be an issue, but all of these issues are well known albeit a bit hushed up about.
Eurodriver
04-20-17, 08:46
I have not seen the drama and decreased efficiency that you speak of, in units with mixed male/female soldiers.
There are very particular mission sets that members of this unit is trained for.
Arctic, you must understand that the typical Norwegian female is so many degrees of separation away from her entitled American counterpart the two cannot be compared.
I defer to your expertise in Norwegian women and defense, as should ramair as he is using American women as his yardstick.
Israel may not have as many issues, for example, with women in combat roles.
ramairthree
04-20-17, 09:20
You may think that, but we are a key player in NATO and our geographic location still holds strategic value.
I don't see the reason for that jab against us, seeing as we are on the same side.
Because, Artic,
This article is not getting substantial play, distribution, and coverage because you are good guys and important to NATO.
It is getting play because of excitement to how this is what we should be doing in America. Across the board. Not based on specific requirements and needs. And especially to SOF. SOF is evil, male, too white, not fair.
The hard truth is you guys could come up with a plan let half your military take the day off and trip on LSD, or give underage shield bearers to troopers for buggering, and it would not matter. Completely undermining the Norwegian military and shattering its combat effectiveness will not significantly impact how the world turns.
We come up with some bullshit, self imposed "requirement" such as needing women to search women, or have a real need such as intel operatives, but can't play it straight here.
Completely undermining the US military and shattering its combat effectiveness,
Especially in combat arms, and most especially in SOF,
Which is disproportionately utilized, and highly effective,
Does have significant consequences.
A truth is not a jab.
Location aside, your few dozens of tanks and twice as many aircraft manned by conscripts are a local speed bump, not a key player in worldwide significance projecting power and reacting within hours to locations and situations that are no fail with no geographic, environmental, distance, time, or tactical limitations.
You have never seen drama or decreased effectiveness in units all female, or mixed female/male environments.
Never?
Not once?
Cool story bro.
Search and peruse news stories regarding us.
Start with the basic training environment.
Dist. Expert 26
04-20-17, 09:35
Now that's what I call a truth bomb. Well said good sir.
Arctic, you must understand that the typical Norwegian female is so many degrees of separation away from her entitled American counterpart the two cannot be compared.
I defer to your expertise in Norwegian women and defense, as should ramair as he is using American women as his yardstick.
Israel may not have as many issues, for example, with women in combat roles.
If I understand, Norwegian mil has identified a need for female SOF and has worked to train up some women to fill that (perceived or legit) to fill that role. Apparently finding enough women able to get through the training imposed on them. I'm assuming this was not due to a simple requirement they must have X% of their SOF as women, and such.
In the US, when few to zero women are able to get through the training, we'll end up passing some idiotic rule that forces SOF to have X% of women in their ranks, forcing them to reduce to training recs, thus reducing their effectiveness as a fighting force and force multiplier they are. So far, at least from those I ave spoken to, SOF community has held firm there will be no changes, nor sex specific, training in SOF for those who would be in combat roles.
NSW is now open to women, but not a single taker so far. Smart women...
I wonder how long 'till some SJW type complains about that and demands NSW make their training "more female friendly" or some some BS.
Anecdotal experience, my mother's name was Inga and my great grandmother came over to the US from Norway and meaner tougher women you'll never meet. I got stories...
Because, Artic,
This article is not getting substantial play, distribution, and coverage because you are good guys and important to NATO.
It is getting play because of excitement to how this is what we should be doing in America. Across the board. Not based on specific requirements and needs. And especially to SOF. SOF is evil, male, too white, not fair.
The hard truth is you guys could come up with a plan let half your military take the day off and trip on LSD, or give underage shield bearers to troopers for buggering, and it would not matter. Completely undermining the Norwegian military and shattering its combat effectiveness will not significantly impact how the world turns.
We come up with some bullshit, self imposed "requirement" such as needing women to search women, or have a real need such as intel operatives, but can't play it straight here.
Completely undermining the US military and shattering its combat effectiveness,
Especially in combat arms, and most especially in SOF,
Which is disproportionately utilized, and highly effective,
Does have significant consequences.
A truth is not a jab.
Location aside, your few dozens of tanks and twice as many aircraft manned by conscripts are a local speed bump, not a key player in worldwide significance projecting power and reacting within hours to locations and situations that are no fail with no geographic, environmental, distance, time, or tactical limitations.
You have never seen drama or decreased effectiveness in units all female, or mixed female/male environments.
Never?
Not once?
Cool story bro.
Search and peruse news stories regarding us.
Start with the basic training environment.
I originally read the article, and a couple others regarding this specific unit, last summer and fall. The US women-in-SOF-in-the-US issue not withstanding, I did not see the articles in light of the issues in the US.
Regarding Norway's standing or contribution to NATO, they have been very (very) busy with regard to SIGINT and ELINT in the "war on terror" as well as Russia's military moves in the Baltic. While they do not project power or have the same boots on the ground as the US, it's disingenuous to downplay their role. In fact, many of US SOF missions have been generated from intel from Norway (and other NATO constituents).
There very specific missions and skill sets that women play in SOF missions, though I totally agree they have no place in the "pipeline" on as door-kickers on the teams/platoons.
I have also articulated my own views about women in SOF (totally against it), but this whole debate has been ridden harder than an alter boy in a Catholic church on this site, and I don't think anyone is changing minds.
Regarding Norway's standing or contribution to NATO, they have been very (very) busy with regard to SIGINT and ELINT in the "war on terror" as well as Russia's military moves in the Baltic. While they do not project power or have the same boots on the ground as the US, it's disingenuous to downplay their role. In fact, many of US SOF missions have been generated from intel from Norway (and other NATO constituents).
This.
Norway's population is 5,271,958. The size of their Armed Forces is 23,000. Full mobilization combat strength 83,000. (per Wiki)
United States population is 326,011, 078 (up from 326,011, 043 when I started ciphering :)) Our Armed Forces size was projected to be 1,281,900 in FY2017, with 801,200 in the Reserve Components. Total strength 2,083,100. (per Wiki)
Percentages of population in the armed forces: Norway - .0044; United States - .0040 (rounded)
Percentages of population mobilized: Norway - .016; United States - .0064
So while Norway's armed forces may be perceived as a speed bump to some, comparatively Norway has a slightly higher percentage of her citizens in the armed forces and is prepared to mobilize double the percentage of citizens as the United States.
I'm sure Norway would do okay against the Wisconsin, Minnesota, or Colorado army. :rolleyes: (those states are about the size of Norway population-wise)
As mentioned, the Scandinavian countries have a different gender bias than the United States has by-and-large. We have better things to argue abooot.
This.
Norway's population is 5,271,958. The size of their Armed Forces is 23,000. Full mobilization combat strength 83,000. (per Wiki)
United States population is 326,011, 078 (up from 326,011, 043 when I started ciphering :)) Our Armed Forces size was projected to be 1,281,900 in FY2017, with 801,200 in the Reserve Components. Total strength 2,083,100. (per Wiki)
Percentages of population in the armed forces: Norway - .0044; United States - .0040 (rounded)
Percentages of population mobilized: Norway - .016; United States - .0064
So while Norway's armed forces may be perceived as a speed bump to some, comparatively Norway has a slightly higher percentage of her citizens in the armed forces and is prepared to mobilize double the percentage of citizens as the United States.
I'm sure Norway would do okay against the Wisconsin, Minnesota, or Colorado army. :rolleyes: (those states are about the size of Norway population-wise)
As mentioned, the Scandinavian countries have a different gender bias than the United States has by-and-large. We have better things to argue abooot.
Wisconsin is nothing to joke about.............. ;)
Winger: C'mon, it's Czechoslovakia. We zip in, we pick 'em up, we zip right out again. We're not going to Moscow. It's Czechoslovakia. It's like we're going into Wisconsin.
Russell: Well, I got the shit kicked out of me in Wisconsin once. Forget it.
Just to clarify some things said in the post by ramairthree, as there are some assertions that are incorrect.
First, our armed forces is a mix of conscript and full time soldiers. Our aircraft are not flown by conscripts, but by Royal Norwegian Air Force Officers who attend flight training in the US after qualifying through initial training at our Air Force Academy. Several billets in the Army that require more extensive training, and where experience is needed to maintain continuity in both training and operational capabilities are filled by full time soldiers. This includes, but not limited to, main battle tank and combat vehicle crews (drivers, loaders, gunners and commanders).
Second, Norway is not a global military superpower, that is true. However, that is not a realistic ambition for a country with a population of 5+ million people. Two, maybe three nations worldwide have the power to project military force globally, so that is sort of a moot point. Our military strategy has focused on national defense until NATO aid arrives, and taking part in NATO and UN missions abroad.
Third, Norway projects force as part of NATO. Norway was one of the first members of NATO and has contributed and deployed forces to all major conflicts since NATO was stood up in 1949. Our Army SOF element deployed to Afghanistan in December of 2001, to support our US allies there. We have troops continuously deployed these days on NATO missions to Eastern Europe, as well as Afghanistan and as part of Operation Inherent Resolve.
Fourth, Norway is a vital NATO resource for Arctic Warfare, as evident by allied forces, to include US Soldiers, Marines and SOF, who come here yearly to train under these harsh conditions. Norway is also an important arena for large scale joint NATO training under Arctic conditions.
Norway is also a strategic location due to our proximity with Russia and the Northern Areas, which is a key area of interest for Russia as it pertains to resources. We have continuous intelligence gathering aimed at Russia. Allied Forces also have pre-staged equipment here, as part of contingency plans in case of an invasion.
Now, as far as the whole female issue goes, I thought I made it clear earlier.
-I am not for gender differentiated standards
-I am not for quotas/affirmative action
-This specific program works for what it was developed to do
-There has never been talk of an all female unit
-As long as the job gets done, I don't care about gender. There is a lot more to being a soldier than doing push ups or sit ups.
-I have served with women in combat arms roles, I have led them, and I have not seen the drama that is being presented here. That might be due to cultural differences. We also make acceptable behavior known from the get go, and we enforce these standards.
I have had the honor and pleasure of serving alongside US troops from both the GPF side of the house as well as SOF, in training and combat, and your view points are pretty far removed from my experiences with them.
Third, Norway projects force as part of NATO. Norway was one of the first members of NATO and has contributed and deployed forces to all major conflicts since NATO was stood up in 1949.
With a son who spends months at a time as a light infantry speed bump in the Baltics very close to large Russian military presence, I for one appreciate Norway's commitment and leadership. Particularly, the Telemark BN and similar units.
Likewise the Arctic training they provide. My son has not been, but many in his unit has.
I understand Ramair's comment about relevance... This news about Norway's approach is very much a political football now in the US.
Wisconsin is nothing to joke about.............. ;)
I know, I was periodically attached to the Wisconsin Army in the Sparta area.
Why do they need an all female SF unit?
Thats weird. I dont live over there and dont care but still.
If they said "We're doing up a new SF outfit. Tryouts are tomorrow. Open to all." is one thing but "Women only" is weird
Not weird at all. It's simple, people are people. Single sex groups, male or female tend to have better cohesion and performance than "coed" groups.
In this case, it's apparently just for training purposes but similar results are seen in single sex school classes vs coed classes.
Not weird at all. It's simple, people are people. Single sex groups, male or female tend to have better cohesion and performance than "coed" groups.
In this case, it's apparently just for training purposes but similar results are seen in single sex school classes vs coed classes.
Yes. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
My issue has never been "can they/can't they," but rather "should they/shouldn't they." No, they shouldn't.
ramairthree
04-21-17, 11:27
Artic,
I understand the butt hurt.
The point to be made is that watering down the capability of US direct action SOF has a very significant worldwide effect.
I had already said, location aside.
I don't think you fully grasp the ramifications that are in the US.
My point is that people want to use the example of small countries with compulsory service that do not project power like it is of any significant relevance to what we do.
It is not that we don't like your country and don't appreciate you.
But we are not comparing apples to apples.
And I am not a fan of softening a blow.
Again you assume.
There is no butthurt. You are factually incorrect in your assertions, and I corrected them.
I have not advocated that this approach would be a good fit for the US military or US SOF.
I am explaining that the program works as intended, to fill the capability that was identified.
I am also providing my experience from a force that is "co-ed". FWIW, I was not for mandatory female conscription, as I felt the previous model ensured that all females were actually motivated.
vicious_cb
04-21-17, 17:02
Did someone say ultra fit nordic women? They can assault my strong point anytime.
morbidbattlecry
04-22-17, 19:43
Did someone say ultra fit nordic women? They can assault my strong point anytime.
:cool:
Did someone say ultra fit nordic women? They can assault my strong point anytime.
Davidsdottir what?
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.