OAFNation had made a post regarding it. The intent of my post was not to be accusatory, I was more inquiring if any others had heard the same. I agree, hearsay is a non-factor, so I apologize.
Women in Combat Arms/ SOF Discussion
- Thread starter AWP
- Start date
OAFNation had made a post regarding it. The intent of my post was not to be accusatory, I was more inquiring if any others had heard the same. I agree, hearsay is a non-factor, so I apologize.
All kidding aside, I do see a place for women in the UW & FID Mission of SF. If they can hold the standards and pull their own weight. There were quite a few women who served honorably in the OSS during WW2, and although I'm absolutely against women in the light Infantry, those lines have already been crossed for better or worse. So more power to them...
I really hate how interesting it is to the western world that a female attempts something in SOF. Most data suggest that the wide majority of candidates underperform compared to their male counterparts, if they even qualify. That suggestion is not misogynistic - it is the required blatant level of honesty if we expect to approach this topic with any sort of logic.
Proponents of this nonsense pretend the most elite units the United States military suddenly should be entitled to everyone; all people should be able to apply under the required standard, however, the standard shouldn't be considered questionable if candidates are passing. This PC bullshit needs to stop.
The title may as well read
"weak af candidate is selected to move on to the harder part"
Good luck in the Q.
Proponents of this nonsense pretend the most elite units the United States military suddenly should be entitled to everyone; all people should be able to apply under the required standard, however, the standard shouldn't be considered questionable if candidates are passing. This PC bullshit needs to stop.
The title may as well read
"weak af candidate is selected to move on to the harder part"
Good luck in the Q.
Wake me up when she gets her green hat.
I don't have a subscription with the WSJ so I can't read it, but I know the author from some things I've seen her write or people respond to.
Is it the normal "standards will be lowered, rapes will increase, and America will never win again!" stuff she usually writes?
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,944
Not everyone keeps an unnecessarily expensive subscription to WSJ.
Here is a PDF of the article I’ve created for the forum.
Thanks for that.
For an article ostensibly about fitness standards, there was a lot more talk about fraternization than fitness.
I can't speak for other branches, but I'm interested in how the gender neutral standards for the army will work. I ran through it with my brother over Christmas using the proposed standards, and it's an asskicker; especially those hand-release push-ups.
If the (current) standards are applied based on assigned unit it could work, but I think it'd be better just to choose either the significant/strenuous category and just make it on grading metric across the force.
Not rape, eros and higher medical costs. Otherwise pretty much hit it on the head.
Eh...no...I ain't goin there.
Last edited:
"Mr. Mattis had previously addressed the incompatibility of eros and military discipline. New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand challenged him about these politically incorrect views ...."
I know I'm not qualified to leave an opinion on this specific topic, and in no way I'm trying to, or patronizing, also sorry for commenting but I have to say this; People, especialy politicians, who can't prove a service record, lack any qualification to have an opinion on a topic, should never allow themselves the right to challenge the views of individuals who are more than qualified in their field and can testify via their own experience or other accounts, and base facts. Your politicians should not dip their noses into military affairs and tell them how to run things. That is highly inapropriate.
Dealing with and trying to eliminate sexual and other type of inapropriate harassment ( though I completly oppose any one-sided stance on any of that ) os a noble cause. But for the love of god, stop trying to tell ppl who know better, how to run shit and question them on facts.
I know that much of current political decision making isn't evidence / fact based and why it is so, but that's very irritating when rationale needs to stand above emotions in areas that require it, and when it in no way interferes with ethics. There is nothing unethical or "politicaly incorrect" in pointing out something that simply is, the way it is. Being in denial and trying to push through some redundant agenda isn't a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place.
Everyone on every side says facts don't care about your feelings. Everyone has some facts and we use our rationale and rhetoric to sharpen the facts we want to win the day. You have said nothing new in your critique of policy making. The hard "fact" here is there are smart, capable people on both sides making arguments.
I know, just felt I had to get it off my chest and I wanted to be brutaly honest about this, because it is a legit issue.
I don't doubt that for a minute and I'm also not suggesting to exclude everyone who isn't an expert from a discussion, so long as their contribution brings qualification and value to the table, and I just don't see any value in the continuous denial of hard facts and willfull ignorance.
Sorry for the off-topic. Won't further derail.
A perspective on the topic, from the only woman ( retired ) thus far who has made the cut in the Geo sof - sf respectively, apparently.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/58426150@N04/45847616475/in/dateposted/
According to wiki, in Georgia, you need to have served at least 2 years in the army, passed 2 Ranger courses and the airborne school to be allowed to apply for special forces selection.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/58426150@N04/45847616475/in/dateposted/
According to wiki, in Georgia, you need to have served at least 2 years in the army, passed 2 Ranger courses and the airborne school to be allowed to apply for special forces selection.
RASP II, not RASP I.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2019
- Messages
- 24
from my understanding 1 female has recently been selected at SFAS ( albeit amidst much controversy and criticism from others in her class)
Similar threads
