Post: #1

Pentagon faces hurdle to women in Special Ops: 'uninformed' men by Lolita C. Baldor

Quote:WASHINGTON — The men in the America's Special Operations Forces will not get a veto on women joining their ranks, but they do get an opinion, and a recent survey suggests that they are “uninformed,” a Pentagon summary of the survey says.

Given that the men in these SOF roles have the most direct knowledge of what it takes to succeed in these roles, it's kind of ironic to characterize their opinions as "uninformed" just because it goes against feminist dogma.

Quote:As the Pentagon opens new positions to women – including combat posts and Special Operations Forces – it is taking steps to smooth the process as much as possible. The Special Operations Command survey was used to gauge apprehensions that troops might have in the hopes of finding ways overcome them.

“It was not a referendum by any stretch of the imagination,” says Kenneth McGraw, a spokesman for United States Special Operations Command, based in Tampa, Fla.

But the concerns voiced in the survey completed by about 9,000 members of Special Operations Command who are in positions currently open only to men speak to the challenges ahead for the Pentagon.

Though the survey itself was not obtained by the Monitor, a summary of it was, and it repeatedly stresses the need for the Pentagon to educate men in Special Operations about the crucial role women can – and have – played in their field.

The need to "educate" men about women... Makes you wonder if BUD/S "Indoctrination" would become a double-entendre were we to open up the SEAL teams to womyn.

Quote:The summary has echoes of the debate surrounding the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," which allowed gay troops to serve openly. A similar survey about that change in policy in 2010 showed similar concerns. But they have largely proved unfounded. The summary of the current survey, which was completed in March, hopes for the same outcome.

The point of the survey was “to examine the socio-cultural barriers to integration, and potential solution(s) to overcome those barriers,” it says.

One of the most commonly cited reasons against putting women in combat roles is the potential for them to be sexually assaulted if they are captured. But the summary notes that “this issue is not exclusive to women” – it is a problem for many captives, regardless of sex.

The entire conversation about women joining Special Forces is fraught with such misunderstandings, the survey found. Indeed, the Pentagon's failure to make a robust case for women in Special Operations Forces has led to “major misconceptions regarding the performance of females in mixed-gender teams,” the summary says.

The fact is, “women have served in SOF units ... for a long time,” the document notes, pointing to Air Force Special Operations aviation units and, more recently, Army Special Operations aviation fields.

“Women are important to our mission,” since they can interact with locals in places where other Special Operations Forces are currently prevented from going, it says. “The additional way of interacting and problem solving will make our SOF forces more effective overall.”

What is changing is that women, who previously have been appended to Special Operations Forces in non-combat roles, will now be able to become full special operators themselves. The Pentagon officially opened combat positions to women in 2013, though the decision has not yet taken effect. The services have until January integrate those posts or to come back with a reason why women cannot serve in these jobs.

Rest assured, "because they can't meet the requirements" will not be seen as a valid reason.

Quote:There are many women interested in serving in Special Operations Forces, the summary suggests. “Our components have routinely received inquiries from women who want to attempt to qualify for ground combat specialities within SOF units,” it says. “Many of them are already serving in SOF formations.”

The Pentagon does not “yet know how many” women are actually interested in these jobs, the document says. But there is no need for a “critical mass” of women before the Special Operations units can be opened, since the policy shift prohibits the establishment of quotas or ceilings.

A recent survey by the Defense Advisory Council on Women in the Services found that 22 percent of women currently in the military are “moderately or very interested” in transferring to combat jobs.

In the Marine Corps, the figure is higher, at roughly 40 percent, according to an April 2014 Marine Corps briefing.

“That’s a lot of women,” says retired Col. Ellen Haring, senior fellow at Women in International Security, an advocacy group in Washington.

Since 9/11, women serving overseas who have found themselves in combat situations have been awarded more than 9,000 combat action badges, which are awarded to soldiers “actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy and performing satisfactorily,” according to Army regulations.

Pentagon documents stress that standards will not be lowered to accommodate women.

If Women Can’t Meet Military Standard, Pentagon Will Ask ‘Does It Really Have to Be That High?’:

Importantly, though, if we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn't make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high? With the direct combat exclusion provision in place, we never had to have that conversation. -Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Quote:This year, a dozen women have qualified to take part in the elite Army Ranger School, which is set to begin its first-ever coed class on April 20. Even if they pass, women will not be allowed to serve as Rangers until the policy changes take effect next January. But they will be allowed to wear their Ranger tabs on their uniforms.

The prospect of women special operators in the not-too-distant future remains a unsettling proposition for some of the men in the March survey. It highlighted concerns that women in the ranks would affect unit cohesion, and that in the rush to bring women aboard “leadership will capitulate to political pressure, allowing erosion of training standards,” the summary notes.

These are many of the same concerns that troops expressed in the face of the lifting of don't ask, don't tell. A survey released in November 2010 found that 30 percent of troops, including 43 percent of Marines, believed there would be negative effects.

But those concerns have turned out to be overblown.

The lifting of the ban on women in combat could open 237,000 new combat positions to women. Of these, roughly 26,500 are Special Operations Forces jobs. Given the length of training and selection programs, it would be 2017 before women are deployed in currently-closed Special Operations Forces.

“However,” the summary says, already “there are SOF females forward in hazardous locations today.”

Post: #2

Bring it on. It's high time that the USA military suffered some crushing defeats.

Post: #3

They'll get their own special pink bell to ring which will also snap a selfie (downward angled).

Post: #4

Quote:Pentagon documents stress that standards will not be lowered to accommodate women.

Which means they won't lower the existing (male) standards but create a new class of standards just for women that is significantly lower.

Post: #5

Wow America's enemies will be terrified!

Post: #6

So pathetic, but expected.

What will happen is that the capable men will simply gravitate to each other and try to form their own units by one way or another.

They'll do all the work, while the media will laud the women.

Post: #7

Would capture as POW's.

Post: #8

Ah - let them - who the fuck cares anymore.

But unfortunately it will be the men who will be dying. Experiences from the Israeli forces confirm that mixed-gender units have 400-500% higher casualties as men do crazy shit to protect their female colleagues.

One female officer there argued that you either eliminate male nature of over-protecting women, but then get a breed of ice-cold psychopathic killers or you accept the fact that those mixed combat troops will be more often cannon fodder than the purely male ones.

In either case you don't care about the men, but that is nothing new. Dogma is more important.

The only positions I want to see women in the military is as nurses, caring professions and professional army whores - that's something that the US forces should have started a long time ago - female RnR brigade:



Find some sex-crazed girls, pay them 20-30k/month and let platoons run train on them. Change the girls more often. That way you eliminate any rape cases and improve morale, but I guess that would be too misogynistic despite those girls making 180k in 6 months and fucking plenty of masculine well-trained men.

I am just looking out for the ladies.

Post: #9

The sheer number of times feminists flip-flop between "Females are stronger and smarter than men and the patriarchy is just oppressing them" and "Men need to protect and nurture women in order to have a great society, because we are weaker the you." is astonishing. This is going to end well for our future military.

The point of when this is irreversible is eventually when an Army unit composed of 51% females win a battle. It doesn't even have to be a decisive or "against all odds" battle. Kind of like Mussolini Italy stomping Ethiopia with tanks and poison gas type battle. Then feminists will spin the narrative to say, " See? When there are more women than men in this unit, therefore we won. It's always been the patriarchy suppressing women from their full combat potential."

Their strategy will be to create the feminist version of the Tuskegee Airmen. The only difference is that the African American unit were genuinely heroic and not victim-baiting. After WWII, the US military integrated the Asian and African American soldiers. The feminist strategy will be to recreate their own Tits McGee Airheads to desegregate the military. Every feminist strategy in the past 50 years was a carbon copy of the Civil Rights movement. Notice how in federal laws, the order is "shall not be discriminated based on RACE... GENDER... " and not the other way around. Soon, it will be "... race, gender, immigration status, sexual orientation, species sexual orientation, cisgender, etc." All these SJW clientele will line up and insert their victimhood into our legislation one by one until they are fully immune to all responsibility.

@ Zelcorpion: I would accept them in the Pleasure Brigade.

Post: #10

(04-08-2015 03:07 PM)Pontifex Maximus Wrote:  The sheer number of times feminists flip-flop between "Females are stronger and smarter than men and the patriarchy is just oppressing them" and "Men need to protect and nurture women in order to have a great society, because we are weaker the you." is astonishing. This is going to end well for our future military.

Yup that just about says it.

What I think about this military integration idea:

Post: #11

So I guess we won't see a pip about young able-bodied women being drafted?

There is a problem with that. Men for the most part are disposable in war. It only takes a few to impregnate the majority of women but if you were to remove just as many women from the fertility pool you're going to see a serious impact on the ability to recover from the losses incurred.

If we had like-for-like casualties of female and male soldiers like WW1/WW2 there would have been serious social problems later on.

Can a country like the USA and its NATO allies continue a war with hundreds of dead women being paraded?

Post: #12

(04-08-2015 06:16 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  Can a country like the USA and its NATO allies continue a war with hundreds of dead women being paraded?

Once they start seeing female POW's being beheaded by ISIS or some terror organization you'll see blowback.

Once they start seeing female KIA's or WIA's (no not Archie) on national TV or some website like LiveLeak.com you'll see blowback.

They're all strong, empowered, independent, women to the fems. That is UNTIL you start seeing what you sowed all over the battlefield, internet and media.

NOONE wants to see women dead on the battlefield or dead in general, dead men and male KIA's are the norm and accepted.

The women who truly want to want to be in specialty/combat roles are just the pawns of the SJW's and Obama's government.

This isn't some GI Jane shit and women in SF and Combat Roles WON'T end up like Jessica Lynch style.

It'll be FUBAR.

Post: #13

Simple solution: make completing the surveys mandatory and time consuming, and keep making soldiers fill them out until they respond in an 'informed' manner.

"What will happen is that the capable men will simply gravitate to each other and try to form their own units by one way or another."

Actually, the opposite will happen. All female units will be visibly inferior in combat to all male units, so there will be no sex segregation in a given unit, so that this sex discrepancy won't appear. If the Pentagon is calling expert responses 'uninformed,' they'll surely have no problem conspiring to supress evidence of male combat prowess. They've already shown they have no appetite for an objective comparison.

Post: #14

"to examine the socio-cultural barriers to integration, and potential solution(s) to overcome those barriers"

one day i want to take a sjw/pc speech course so i too can use a seemingly large vocabulary to say very little.

Post: #15

This is a ridiculous proposal. You already have proof that women can't hack it in serious military or paramilitary roles: the female Secret Service agent who was overpowered by a male intruder to the White House. She presumably was given all the training and education required to protect a President, down to presumably unarmed combat training and weapons training and indoctrination into a no-shit willingness to jump in front of a bullet for the dude who talks to teleprompters ... and an untrained nutcase with no weapons or martial arts training still knocked her flat and went on his way. That was the acid test for women in real-world, priority-one physical confrontation roles, and women failed it badly.

If they can't fucking protect the President, why are they going to be any different in frontline combat with a full pack and ammo to carry?

Post: #16

(04-08-2015 02:38 PM)SteveMcMahon Wrote:  

Would capture as POW's.

I bet anything that middle girl can barely hold that gun up, and she complained about it a lot during the photo shoot

Post: #17

(04-08-2015 06:29 PM)DannyAlberta Wrote:  one day i want to take a sjw/pc speech course so i too can use a seemingly large vocabulary to say very little.

The basic problem with a post-industrial, though-economy society is that we have an over-educated middle class with no useful work skills in either the lower or higher IQ spectrum, so there's a whole industry designed around keeping them off the dole queue as 'trainers', 'educators', 'consultants' and 'middle managers' who 'effect timely resolutions' instead of 'work'. The commonality is always an unnecessarily-complication of functionality, and they're well-paid to do this.

They're some crossover, but, generally, if they're male, they're cynically-rorting the system for their own financial benefit. If they're female, they're desperately-clinging to procedure and regulation in the hope that no-one notices that they're unnecessary and incompetent. This fear of discovery or money-grabbing nature tends to make them professional insignificant problem-noticers that [/I]only they[/I] have the solution too, (since no-one else noticed the problem as it wasn't a problem).

My town's Public Hospital has being undergoing an redevelopment over the last year. I was talking to one of the higher ups yesterday and they mentioned they're putting up the new signage today.

The Hospital is no longer called '[Town Name] Hospital". Its title is now fourteen resume-padding words long, so as to suggest the Hospital's Function in the Community, that one would assume 'Hospital' already-suggested, but I'm now unsure if 'Hospital' is even one of them.

I asked how many outside consultants it took to come up with the name. Answer: "$430,000 worth."

There's a hell of a lot of dead weight in the middle classes. There's a reason why a certain type of woman always votes for more government.

Post: #18

(04-08-2015 02:38 PM)SteveMcMahon Wrote:  

Would capture as POW's.

Asian in the middle

Post: #19

(04-08-2015 03:05 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Ah - let them - who the fuck cares anymore.

But unfortunately it will be the men who will be dying. Experiences from the Israeli forces confirm that mixed-gender units have 400-500% higher casualties as men do crazy shit to protect their female colleagues.

I would love to see your source for this. It's not that I don't believe it's true, but I need the documention on it.

Post: #20

(04-08-2015 07:39 PM)aphelion Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 03:05 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Ah - let them - who the fuck cares anymore.

But unfortunately it will be the men who will be dying. Experiences from the Israeli forces confirm that mixed-gender units have 400-500% higher casualties as men do crazy shit to protect their female colleagues.

I would love to see your source for this. It's not that I don't believe it's true, but I need the documention on it.

I tried to find it now - it was just a letter by an Isreali female officer - she put in her full rank and name in it, but I looked for other reports and they are fucking rare and I guess unwanted. She talked about internal statistics that are well-known among the brass. And it only concerned units which were sent into dangerous missions or got under heavy fire.

The information is indeed hard to come by for very good reasons. She actually put the blame squarely on a quite natural behavior patterns. When bullets start flying and women get wounded, then men do their utmost to protect their female comrades - sometimes they abandoned their mission just to protect one wounded woman. That's why they have such high casualty rates.

This is unrelated, but only the usual physical and mental discrepancy between men and women:
http://www.heretical.com/miscella/frcombat.html

The IDF has the best data on it, but you can bet your ass off, that they won't release jack shit. And whistleblowers don't get far in our world.

I am not making up the article, but I cannot vouch for accuracy. It sounds logical, but who knows - might be only 300% higher mortality. I for one know fully well that I would behave differently in combat when one of us is a woman (well - some exceptions for whom I would not lift a finger, but generally I would naturally treat them differently - Hollywood propaganda of hardass female warriors is just that - fairytales).

Post: #21

(04-08-2015 02:21 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  So pathetic, but expected.

What will happen is that the capable men will simply gravitate to each other and try to form their own units by one way or another.

I was thinking that an unintended consequence of all this will be even more reliance on private military contractors as men start to see them as an alternative to escape these sorts of PC social engineering experiments.

Post: #22

(04-08-2015 08:11 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 07:39 PM)aphelion Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 03:05 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Ah - let them - who the fuck cares anymore.

But unfortunately it will be the men who will be dying. Experiences from the Israeli forces confirm that mixed-gender units have 400-500% higher casualties as men do crazy shit to protect their female colleagues.

I would love to see your source for this. It's not that I don't believe it's true, but I need the documention on it.

I tried to find it now - it was just a letter by an Isreali female officer - she put in her full rank and name in it, but I looked for other reports and they are fucking rare and I guess unwanted. She talked about internal statistics that are well-known among the brass. And it only concerned units which were sent into dangerous missions or got under heavy fire.

The information is indeed hard to come by for very good reasons. She actually put the blame squarely on a quite natural behavior patterns. When bullets start flying and women get wounded, then men do their utmost to protect their female comrades - sometimes they abandoned their mission just to protect one wounded woman. That's why they have such high casualty rates.

This is unrelated, but only the usual physical and mental discrepancy between men and women:
http://www.heretical.com/miscella/frcombat.html

The IDF has the best data on it, but you can bet your ass off, that they won't release jack shit. And whistleblowers don't get far in our world.

I am not making up the article, but I cannot vouch for accuracy. It sounds logical, but who knows - might be only 300% higher mortality. I for one know fully well that I would behave differently in combat when one of us is a woman (well - some exceptions for whom I would not lift a finger, but generally I would naturally treat them differently - Hollywood propaganda of hardass female warriors is just that - fairytales).

Might be worth having a browse over this long-ish review of the situation from the Australian Army, which was looking at integration of units: http://www.army.gov.au/~/media/Files/Our...vation.pdf

It's shot through with feminist horseshit, but the author at least seems to have some of the correct chops: former British regular, moved to Commando with the Australian Army and worked in special forces. When you start reading between the lines, he seems to be saying fundamentally that:

(1) Debates about "inclusiveness" on gender in combat arms or special forces arms should be sidestepped by the Australian army adopting a no-exceptions physical performance test:

Quote:Many of the difficulties experienced by other militaries in their efforts to integrate women flow from gender differences in physical performance, use of different standards (such as the US ‘equality of effort’ metric) and consequent actual or perceived dilution of capability.2 The initial failure of Canada’s 1989 integration of women in the infantry had its roots in male resentment of females who fell short of established performance standards but were retained to meet politically mandated quotas.3 To avoid this, the government has directed that objective physical performance standards be applied in Australia.4

You can almost sense a certain tongue-in-cheek when he points out that basically it's only the real outliers of women -- the Briennes of Tarth, as it were -- who are going to qualify for full combat arms.

(2) However: leaving gender performance aside, he doesn't think it's wise to go with integration because to do so would be fucking with long-established and refined standards of unit cohesion in the military. Summarising it, there are a number of reasons male military units band together and fight effectively as a team, and most of them are intertwined with evolutionary and biological imperatives:

Quote:Most, but not all, earlier studies of female integration in training and barracks settings suggested either a possible or actual negative impact on cohesion.14 The 2010 British review of female employment policy took a precautionary stance and recommended against further integration of women because of ‘potential risks associated with maintaining cohesion in small mixed-gender tactical teams engaged in highly-dangerous close-combat operations.’15 That decision was based
on inconclusive results from a specially commissioned major study that included the combat troops integration experiences of other nations and the first analysis of the impact of mixed gender on small team cohesion in actual combat. 16

Quote:Male and female combat veterans who were surveyed perceived risks to cohesion through damage to trust and confidence from factors including the disruptive impact of relationships, male competition for female attention and female flirting or ‘wiles’, especially in barracks.18. The British study also showed that soldiers anticipated that mixing genders would have disruptive effects during combat, including inducing male protective behaviour, although this perception was not necessarily supported by any analysis of combat incidents. Substantiated problems were confined to individual women’s performance in combat and social factors prior to combat. Objective standards will address the former, so the most plausible risks to capability arise from the intersection of social behaviours and cohesion.

There's also references to the relevant studies. Basically, objective performance standards kick out all but the most butch women -- but basically nobody quite knows how to properly make unit cohesion stick when you mix cocks and cunts. This is, however, arguably just as bad, because unit cohesion has a massive effect on morale -- which leads to serious drops in combat performance. And in active, military duty, performance and results are what matter, not how the operation looks ... or so I'd like to believe.

Post: #23

But...but... every Special Ops unit on TV and in the movies I've seen has very capable arse-kicking sexy women who often outperform all men in the unit except maybe the alpha leader that they sleep with???

Post: #24

I have made comments on this subject before in similar threads. As a combat veteran and a guy that went into the military back in 1999 I observed firsthand political correctness totally transform the military. As I said previously the military will be forced to lower standards or manipulate standards until women will serve in every capacity even if it destroys our military. The above post demonstrates that the once immune Special Operations community will suffer the same fate of the regular military. Military members currently spend an unbelievable amount of time in sexual harassment and sensitivity briefings while other nations train their military members for war. At this point the U.S. relies on combined arms warfare (basically coordination) and our technology to win. I don't see the situation getting any better soon.

Post: #25

(04-08-2015 11:05 PM)StrikeBack Wrote:  But...but... every Special Ops unit on TV and in the movies I've seen has very capable arse-kicking sexy women who often outperform all men in the unit except maybe the alpha leader that they sleep with???

This is why I gave up watching the 'Strike Back',



and 'Banshee', (with a bonus 'Faggot gay shaming straight men to lecture them about homophobia).



They never miss a chance to lecture men.