Females in the Special Operations community?

[Shipwreck]

The first 2 females completed Ranger school recently, which now brings up the question of "Should they be allowed to try out for other SPECOPS units like SEALs, DELTA, Green Berets etc?" What is everyone's take on this? Personally, I don't believe it is worth the time, money or effort for a social experiment. The % of male dropouts is astonishing in something like the SEALs, the female drop rate would most likely be absolutely atrocious. And yes, there might be 1 or 2 that can do it, but that doesn't mean open the flood gates and let them all try. I cannot, for the life of me, see a 150lb female carrying a 250+ lb guy (not including all his pack and gear) through a battlefield in an emergent situation. So what's everyone else's take on it?

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='Shipwreck' timestamp='1440178260' post='12183686']
The first 2 females completed Ranger school recently, which now brings up the question of "Should they be allowed to try out for other SPECOPS units like SEALs, DELTA, Green Berets etc?" What is everyone's take on this? Personally, I don't believe it is worth the time, money or effort for a social experiment. The % of male dropouts is astonishing in something like the SEALs, the female drop rate would most likely be absolutely atrocious. And yes, there might be 1 or 2 that can do it, but that doesn't mean open the flood gates and let them all try. I cannot, for the life of me, see a 150lb female carrying a 250+ lb guy (not including all his pack and gear) through a battlefield in an emergent situation. So what's everyone else's take on it?
[/quote]


[indent=1]"During the last day of the Mountain Phase, Hagner said he had been carrying the squad automatic weapon for three days. Exhausted, he asked his teammates if they would help him out and take over the load for a while.[/indent]

[indent=1][color=#333333]"Everyone said 'no,'" Hagner said. "But [Griest] took it from me. She, just as broken and tired, took it from me, almost with excitement. I thought she was crazy for that, but I guess she was just motivated."[/color][/indent]

[indent=1][color=#333333]Haver was the same way, said 2nd Lt. Michael Janowski, an infantry officer and Haver's Ranger buddy.[/color][/indent]
[indent=1][color=#333333][color=#333333][color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif]Janowski said he also struggled with extra weight during the Mountain Phase, and Haver "was the only one who volunteered" to help, he said.[/color][/color][/font][/color][/indent]
[indent=1][color=#333333][color=#333333][color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif][color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif]"I probably wouldn't be sitting here right now if not for Shaye," he said."[/color][/color][/font][/color][/font][/color][/indent]

[indent=1][color=#333333][color=#333333][color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif][color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif][color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif][url="http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2015/08/20/first-female-ranger-grads-share-credit-classmates/32079657/"]http://www.armytimes...mates/32079657/[/url][/color][/color][/font][/color][/font][/color][/font][/color][/indent]

[indent=1][color=#333333][color=#333333][color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif][color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif][color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif][color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif]Now, I don't know much about it, but the article has some details on standards etc. My take is that it should just be the best man/woman for the job. While the physical is key, there may be roles in certain special operations teams (maybe ones we don't even know about) with specific objectives where the best technical ability, language skills, or just certain other key attributes required for success are possessed by a particular person who is a woman. What if a woman is a prodigy at flying some new drone/equipment that is operated in the field? Or has the best ability to train/influence a native rebel force? Just a few thoughts, I assume there are circumstance where there is a high degree of specialization within a team where, especially in the most high stakes mission, you need the best in a particular task, man or woman.[/color][/color][/font][/color][/font][/color][/font][/color][/font][/color][/indent]

[Shipwreck]

[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1440183955' post='12184324']
[quote name='Shipwreck' timestamp='1440178260' post='12183686']
The first 2 females completed Ranger school recently, which now brings up the question of "Should they be allowed to try out for other SPECOPS units like SEALs, DELTA, Green Berets etc?" What is everyone's take on this? Personally, I don't believe it is worth the time, money or effort for a social experiment. The % of male dropouts is astonishing in something like the SEALs, the female drop rate would most likely be absolutely atrocious. And yes, there might be 1 or 2 that can do it, but that doesn't mean open the flood gates and let them all try. I cannot, for the life of me, see a 150lb female carrying a 250+ lb guy (not including all his pack and gear) through a battlefield in an emergent situation. So what's everyone else's take on it?
[/quote]



[indent=1]"During the last day of the Mountain Phase, Hagner said he had been carrying the squad automatic weapon for three days. Exhausted, he asked his teammates if they would help him out and take over the load for a while.[/indent]

[indent=1][color=#333333]"Everyone said 'no,'" Hagner said. "But [Griest] took it from me. She, just as broken and tired, took it from me, almost with excitement. I thought she was crazy for that, but I guess she was just motivated."[/color][/indent]

[indent=1][color=#333333]Haver was the same way, said 2nd Lt. Michael Janowski, an infantry officer and Haver's Ranger buddy.[/color][/indent]
[indent=1][color=#333333][color=#333333][color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif]Janowski said he also struggled with extra weight during the Mountain Phase, and Haver "was the only one who volunteered" to help, he said.[/color][/color][/font][/color][/indent]
[indent=1][color=#333333][color=#333333][color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif][color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif]"I probably wouldn't be sitting here right now if not for Shaye," he said."[/color][/color][/font][/color][/font][/color][/indent]

[indent=1][color=#333333][color=#333333][color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif][color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif][color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif][url="http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2015/08/20/first-female-ranger-grads-share-credit-classmates/32079657/"]http://www.armytimes...mates/32079657/[/url][/color][/color][/font][/color][/font][/color][/font][/color][/indent]

[indent=1][color=#333333][color=#333333][color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif][color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif][color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif][color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif]Now, I don't know much about it, but the article has some details on standards etc. My take is that it should just be the best man/woman for the job. While the physical is key, there may be roles in certain special operations teams (maybe ones we don't even know about) with specific objectives where the best technical ability, language skills, or just certain other key attributes required for success are possessed by a particular person who is a woman. What if a woman is a prodigy at flying some new drone/equipment that is operated in the field? Or has the best ability to train/influence a native rebel force? Just a few thoughts, I assume there are circumstance where there is a high degree of specialization within a team where, especially in the most high stakes mission, you need the best in a particular task, man or woman.[/color][/color][/font][/color][/font][/color][/font][/color][/font][/color][/indent]
[/quote]

I understand completely what you are saying, unfortunately, most (if not all) of the SOCOM units operate the same, and none of them really fall into the category of what you explain. I am not saying that there aren't some bad a$$ females out there, because I know there are. But the time and money that would be wasted to attempt to find them does not outweigh the benefits of having them. The attrition rate for SEALs is sometimes over 80%, and these guys are the most legit operators out there. It costs the Navy (taxpayer) a lot of money to ship these guys out to BUD/S in San Diego, house them, feed them and replace where they came from in the fleet. If a BUD/S candidate rolls back to another class, that's more money, and that's just to get through BUD/S.

Once you are out in the field, each SEAL Team is broken up into different units and even more so into different fire teams consisting of 4-8 sometimes 12 people. If a single person gets injured, the Navy has to allocate someone else to fill that spot, or the team goes without. These operators spend weeks out in the field, so hygiene isn't exactly a concern to them. How would females fare in a place like the middle of the jungle and suddenly her period starts? Or what if she gets pregnant and has to miss a deployment? Sexual harassment charges against other Team members? The list is somewhat lengthy and while none of them are 100% concrete in terms of "why they shouldn't be allowed", it brings into question weather or not the risks outweigh the rewards.

I guess overall I am just seeing it as people trying to reinvent the wheel. There was absolutely nothing wrong with our SpecOps units before, so why try and change them? because of 'equality'?

[ZAP]

As long as the physical standards are met I see no reason why a female couldn't do it. I have seen women give birth to a child without blinking and men complain for days about stubbing their toe.

It's all relative.

[Hit em good]

I agree with OP's assessment.

[teeitlow]

No.

[MrTmag]

Why not? That's such a redundant question. If you have the qualifications amd strength to do it I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be allowed.

[pbfoot]

Assuming they meet the same standard, there is absolutely no reason why not. Saying otherwise is literally the definition of sexism.

[chrisgilly09]

"No" vote

[RookieBlue7]

A buddy that was a Ranger (he served 3 tours in Iraq) commented on this recently...ill just copy and paste his thoughts, it's much easier...

[quote]I read some of that today. However, if the standards were lowered, and the Graders themselves are not speaking out publicly, then the "world" is doomed as we see it and nothing will ever change. They have no room to gripe if standards were lowered and they just watched it happen without raising hell and going to the media.

Many of the women failed, and the pics I've seen of those two women... They seem to have the "stare" and are droning to the max feeling like s***. Both look like they may whip somebody's a**. Lol. There are women that run 100 mile + races. Not too hard to believe there are a few that can grunt out s*** like that.

However, I will also state that an argument for wether or not they should be in combat is a whole other can of worms

I look at it like my mind is on mission and surroundings, I am isolated. I can tell you first hand, a female attached to the unit breaks concentration and half the guys are thinking of a way to make it with her. 2 reasons, scarcity of females and miserable circumstances cause people to look for any happiness. Instead of eyes on horizon it's eyes on day dream

Lol that goes for most. EOD and everyone else can get bent. Combat Medics and Combat Engineers have my respect, we made the same steps
[/quote]

That's excerpts from one conversation, each paragraph being a response to different parts of the conversation he was having on FB about it...

[toddnt]

People confuse Ranger School with The Ranger Regiment(see avatar), which I served combat with... I guarantee you the Peer evaluation system was altered. I got peered outta ranger school because someone accused me of being a chow thief, total bs.. Your squad decides who get kicked out, one person must get kicked out after each phase of the school.

[GHIN n Juice]

From what I understand the women who just passed the ranger school did not have separate goals from the men. They had to meet the same requirements and they did.

And the money/effort argument doesn't seem to hold much water. It's not like the men are flying through these courses and not dropping out. Guys have been tapping out for decades.

If you want the best you gotta find them no matter what their sex, race, creed etc.

[lumberman2462]

A platoon or squad of all female Delta or Seal's could be handy to have around. Especially in many of the missions that special operators are conducting worldwide in what are not considered active combat. Intel gathering, monitoring suspected terrorists in an urban setting.

I say give em a shot at training and then see anyone makes it.

[Wross]

Women. They're women. They are female Rangers, but they're not females. Dogs are males and females. Humans are men and women.

I think it would be easier to integrate SOCOM units than line infantry units. They're typically more mature and professional. That's a perfect place for the exceptional women to go. Wash out rates are a bogus argument. That's what pre-Ranger, et al are for. With line units, it's more a problem of the men being 18-24 year old balls of hormones than it is about women being less capable.

[mwink822]

I'm going to go with no at the moment only because as is right now, the two that made it through Ranger school can't deploy to the Regiment. I see no reason to train anyone to fight as part of an elite unit if other policy prevents them from deploying with their peers in combat. If they were permitted to deploy to forward operating areas, it's a tougher question.

[Sheggy173]

No

And its not because I'm a woman hater. War is a dirty business and quite frankly the political correctness that has been pushed upon us has cost/will cost more lives. We're not sitting in an office somewhere worrying about when the starbucks is going to arrive, we're out shooting douchenuggets in the face that mean to do this country and her citizens harm. No offense against women but the battlefield is no place for them, a select few might be able to pull their weight, I get that, but their mere presence is a distraction.

[MrSurly]

[quote name='Wross' timestamp='1440670089' post='12216940']
Women. They're women. They are female Rangers, but they're not females. Dogs are males and females. Humans are men and women.

I think it would be easier to integrate SOCOM units than line infantry units. They're typically more mature and professional. That's a perfect place for the exceptional women to go. Wash out rates are a bogus argument. That's what pre-Ranger, et al are for. With line units, it's more a problem of the men being 18-24 year old balls of hormones than it is about women being less capable.
[/quote]

That doesn't even make sense. Male/female are the scientific designation in regards to the 'sex' of a creature. Furthermore, they are not Rangers yet. Ranger School does not make a Ranger. Just as passing BUD/S does not make you a SEAL.

[needfasp3ed]

Blind to race/gender/etc., if the person meets all requirements I'm fine with it. That said, the percentage of women passing will be miniscule.

[highergr0und]

I often see the "can't carry a 200 lb guy with gear to safety" argument. What percentage of guys graduating could do this?

I don't think they'll see a battlefield with a rangers regiment, but it's mainly because the men are totally unable to get past themselves to allow it. Now they might have a future in CIA mission work. Easier to sneak a woman into certain situations.

[Wross]

[quote name='MrSurly' timestamp='1440797745' post='12226470']
[quote name='Wross' timestamp='1440670089' post='12216940']
Women. They're women. They are female Rangers, but they're not females. Dogs are males and females. Humans are men and women.

I think it would be easier to integrate SOCOM units than line infantry units. They're typically more mature and professional. That's a perfect place for the exceptional women to go. Wash out rates are a bogus argument. That's what pre-Ranger, et al are for. With line units, it's more a problem of the men being 18-24 year old balls of hormones than it is about women being less capable.
[/quote]

That doesn't even make sense. Male/female are the scientific designation in regards to the 'sex' of a creature. Furthermore, they are not Rangers yet. Ranger School does not make a Ranger. Just as passing BUD/S does not make you a SEAL.
[/quote]
It's an adjective, not a noun, outside of hyper-clinical research papers and dehumanizing cop talk. And I know how Ranger School works. People with tabs can still be called Rangers, even if they're not in the 75th. Source: my left shoulder.

[Vintage1976]

First I'm not military, second Thank You to all here who are and were.

One of the things I have very much learned to appreciate about women is their communal nature. Any instinctive human trait can and probably should be harnessed for use in whatever way possible as far as I can see, generally speaking.

Maybe the future of women in special forces is deep cover/intelligence, maybe it's segregated in the field? But, I can see why it makes sense for now, for men and women to have to deal with distraction in training rather than going to the expense of segregating training. Seems like just another opportunity to weed out those who cannot properly focus?

[toddnt]

The tab means ranger qualified only, the Regiment is a totally different animal! From my four years in the 75th, I couldn't see a woman there and it would be a distraction.... The 'smoke session' cherries got and the razzin and dirty jokes would have to stop because of the EEO codes would turn things on heels!

[quote name='Wross' timestamp='1440808427' post='12227314']
[quote name='MrSurly' timestamp='1440797745' post='12226470']
[quote name='Wross' timestamp='1440670089' post='12216940']
Women. They're women. They are female Rangers, but they're not females. Dogs are males and females. Humans are men and women.

I think it would be easier to integrate SOCOM units than line infantry units. They're typically more mature and professional. That's a perfect place for the exceptional women to go. Wash out rates are a bogus argument. That's what pre-Ranger, et al are for. With line units, it's more a problem of the men being 18-24 year old balls of hormones than it is about women being less capable.
[/quote]

That doesn't even make sense. Male/female are the scientific designation in regards to the 'sex' of a creature. Furthermore, they are not Rangers yet. Ranger School does not make a Ranger. Just as passing BUD/S does not make you a SEAL.
[/quote]
It's an adjective, not a noun, outside of hyper-clinical research papers and dehumanizing cop talk. And I know how Ranger School works. People with tabs can still be called Rangers, even if they're not in the 75th. Source: my left shoulder.
[/quote]

[Wriggles]

I was in the US Army over 40 years ago, drafted. I was fortunate, never went to Vietnam, or out of the USA. I recall being encouraged to sign up for airborne training, which I declined, along with at two invitations for OCS. The OCS invitations were given to me as an incentive to reenlist. I didn't wish to be a career soldier, I just wanted to be a civilian.

I did my duty, discharged honorably. I know some guys are ideal candidates for the military, and even combat. That's their choice. I respect the ladies for their Ranger status. But it really perplexes me why a lady would want to be a Ranger, or any type of combatant. I recall, as a boy, that ladies were given combat assignments (out of necessity?) in the Russian armed services. I also recall from elementary school lessons, that in Russia, both fathers and mothers were required to work, while children were put in state run day cares.

We school age children (1960's) were taught that all that was part of the Communist doctrine. Now, it looks like all this "Communist" doctrine has been adopted in the US.

All this "modern" thought, Good or bad, I don't know. I'll just congratulate the ladies for their achievement, and leave it at that.

[mccalljv]

[quote name='Shipwreck' timestamp='1440191494' post='12185068']
[quote name='bscinstnct' timestamp='1440183955' post='12184324']
[quote name='Shipwreck' timestamp='1440178260' post='12183686']
The first 2 females completed Ranger school recently, which now brings up the question of "Should they be allowed to try out for other SPECOPS units like SEALs, DELTA, Green Berets etc?" What is everyone's take on this? Personally, I don't believe it is worth the time, money or effort for a social experiment. The % of male dropouts is astonishing in something like the SEALs, the female drop rate would most likely be absolutely atrocious. And yes, there might be 1 or 2 that can do it, but that doesn't mean open the flood gates and let them all try. I cannot, for the life of me, see a 150lb female carrying a 250+ lb guy (not including all his pack and gear) through a battlefield in an emergent situation. So what's everyone else's take on it?
[/quote]



[indent=1]"During the last day of the Mountain Phase, Hagner said he had been carrying the squad automatic weapon for three days. Exhausted, he asked his teammates if they would help him out and take over the load for a while.[/indent]

[indent=1][color=#333333]"Everyone said 'no,'" Hagner said. "But [Griest] took it from me. She, just as broken and tired, took it from me, almost with excitement. I thought she was crazy for that, but I guess she was just motivated."[/color][/indent]

[indent=1][color=#333333]Haver was the same way, said 2nd Lt. Michael Janowski, an infantry officer and Haver's Ranger buddy.[/color][/indent]
[indent=1][color=#333333]Janowski said he also struggled with extra weight during the Mountain Phase, and Haver "was the only one who volunteered" to help, he said.[/color][/indent]
[indent=1][color=#333333]"I probably wouldn't be sitting here right now if not for Shaye," he said."[/color][/indent]

[indent=1][color=#333333][url="http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2015/08/20/first-female-ranger-grads-share-credit-classmates/32079657/"]http://www.armytimes...mates/32079657/[/url][/color][/indent]

[indent=1][color=#333333]Now, I don't know much about it, but the article has some details on standards etc. My take is that it should just be the best man/woman for the job. While the physical is key, there may be roles in certain special operations teams (maybe ones we don't even know about) with specific objectives where the best technical ability, language skills, or just certain other key attributes required for success are possessed by a particular person who is a woman. What if a woman is a prodigy at flying some new drone/equipment that is operated in the field? Or has the best ability to train/influence a native rebel force? Just a few thoughts, I assume there are circumstance where there is a high degree of specialization within a team where, especially in the most high stakes mission, you need the best in a particular task, man or woman.[/color][/indent]
[/quote]

I understand completely what you are saying, unfortunately, most (if not all) of the SOCOM units operate the same, and none of them really fall into the category of what you explain. I am not saying that there aren't some bad a$$ females out there, because I know there are. But the time and money that would be wasted to attempt to find them does not outweigh the benefits of having them. The attrition rate for SEALs is sometimes over 80%, and these guys are the most legit operators out there. It costs the Navy (taxpayer) a lot of money to ship these guys out to BUD/S in San Diego, house them, feed them and replace where they came from in the fleet. If a BUD/S candidate rolls back to another class, that's more money, and that's just to get through BUD/S.

Once you are out in the field, each SEAL Team is broken up into different units and even more so into different fire teams consisting of 4-8 sometimes 12 people. If a single person gets injured, the Navy has to allocate someone else to fill that spot, or the team goes without. These operators spend weeks out in the field, so hygiene isn't exactly a concern to them. How would females fare in a place like the middle of the jungle and suddenly her period starts? Or what if she gets pregnant and has to miss a deployment? Sexual harassment charges against other Team members? The list is somewhat lengthy and while none of them are 100% concrete in terms of "why they shouldn't be allowed", it brings into question weather or not the risks outweigh the rewards.

I guess overall I am just seeing it as people trying to reinvent the wheel. There was absolutely nothing wrong with our SpecOps units before, so why try and change them? because of 'equality'?
[/quote]

So were you in the teams? Oh no what about her period??? They made it through boot camp, the academy, OCS, ect, I don't think a jungle is going to pose a problem... It's really simple, treat them the same. And quite frankly it's their problem and they'll handle it or they'll ring the bell. It would cost no more to let women who pass the initial screening to go to BUDS. No one tries to find a SEAL, they find the TEAMS, as in volunteer. Many of the arguments you make about money are the same regardless of male or female. Those two rangers have my utmost respect, they knew exactly what they were getting into the second time around (like many men) and choose to do it again periods and all.

If you have ever worked with any of the Teams or SPECWAR at all you would know that most are not the stereotypes you see in the movies. The majority operators are barely pushing 200lbs. It's not all about how strong your are, more about attitude, heart and perseverance!

In addition the days of a "front line" are long gone, women are already in the battlefield even though not technically in a combat role. USS Cole comes to mind and the two stories below are just a couple of examples.

http://thefallen.militarytimes.com/navy-hospital-corpsman-2nd-class-jaime-s-jaenke/1861359

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/30/AR2008043003415.html

[driverwedge]

I know it's off topic here, but for those who serve/served THANK YOU!!!

[Ruddy]

Everyone in the military knows there are separate scoring standards for males vs females. The female standards are lower. Females are required to do fewer pushups, fewer situps and run slower than their male counterparts to achieve the same score. Therefore, it is meaningless to insist that "as long as they meet the same standards" is the criteria, because they do not.

[mumbles236]

Having spent most of my career so far working in the special operations community, I have seen plenty of women working there in support roles. I have seen some that are absolutely incredible at their jobs and are there to do work and accomplish the mission, and after they prove themselves they are generally given the respect they've earned. I've worked with a couple women that I would rather have with me on deployment than most guys cause their just that good.
On the flip side, there have been plenty of women that didn't need to be out there and spent more time trying to flirt with the guys than anything else. While its not necessarily right, for the most part whenever a new woman gets to the unit or joins them on deployment it is assumed she falls into the second category until she proves otherwise. Unless its someone the guys know personally and have worked with before they usually do not want them on deployment with them because its assumed they will end up being a distraction or a problem.
One of the other biggest reasons I've heard from some of the guys on why they don't want women coming in as operators is due to the fact that the kind of men who go into that line of work are generally the kind of guys who have spent their whole life believing it is their duty to protect women from harm. It's thought that plugging a woman into a fireteam could cause the other members to take unnecessary risks or put themselves into further harm due to their subconscious need to keep the woman safe.
One of the strategies that was used to get around this in Afghanistan was the use of Female Engagement Teams(FETs). Teams of all women who could go in and talk to the local women and accomplish missions or get intel that a team of men wouldn't be able to due to cultural restrictions.
I think at this point it is a given that women will be becoming more and more involved in SOF operations, at this point its just a question of how to best use them.

[ping rat]

There is a vast difference between meeting the requirements in training and meeting the requirements in combat. These little pc exercises are going to result in the unnecessary death of soldiers. Having a female on a special ops team makes about as much sense as females on a defensive line in the NFL.

[Outlier]

Blind to race/gender/etc., if the person meets all requirements I'm fine with it. That said, the percentage of women passing will be miniscule.

 

Might not the percentage of those trying and passing be similar to the men?