Saturday, July 30, 2011

Another apologist post on female SOF.

Kit-Up has an article about the politically correct head Admiral Olson saying that he'd like to see female SEALs.
“I don’t think the idea is to select G.I. Jane and put her through SEAL training, but there are a number of things that a man and a woman can do together that two guys can’t,” the Admiral told Forum attendees. “…it’s much more important what they’re made of and whether or not they have the courage and the intellectual agility…”
You may remember Kit Up! discussed something along these lines a couple of months back. CSTs and the FETs that preceded them have received a lot of attention and have been successful. They’re not a new idea, as the Marines of the Lioness Program can attest.
Let us try to preempt some of the inevitable outcry. No one is saying females must equal male counterparts in every way, and this is an important distinction: the use of females in SOF capacity is, frankly, a force multiplier.
Wow.

Really?

Say it out loud and tell all the guys who washed out of SEAL training that a female that couldn't meet the standards deserves to be on the teams while they went through pure dee hell and aren't qualified because they don't have breasts and ovaries.

This kind of thinking makes me sick.

Force multiplier my ass.

The whole outfit over at Military.com must be smoking industrial strength crack.

Politically correct bastards!

PS.

You can tell what this is really about.  Its about a push to open up the Infantry to females.  If they're in SEALs then you can bet they'll be pushing them to be in Rifle companies.  We're facing bad times.  Standards will suffer and if you can't admit that then you're not being honest.

28 comments:

  1. While I would say that females can be useful on the battlefield in many respects (perhaps a few SOF areas included - they're generally better shots than men from what i've heard) I totally agree that they should not be allowed in on lower standards. I've seen it first hand in training, where they don't have to run as fast or be able to lift as much weight, but when it comes down to it have to do the exact same job with the same kit in the field. It just makes them ill equipped to handle it which is what the training is supposed to be for.

    Let them into any role they like as long as they can hack it in the exact same way a male could.

    ReplyDelete
  2. thats not how its gonna work.

    the standards will be different and grunts will get killed.

    and who told you that women are better shots? are you smoking crack? first they have a trouble with the recoil from even the pathetic 5.56 round. lord save them if they move in bloc up to 6.5 or 6.8...second they're hands are too small to control a full size pistol.

    where did you get the better shot mess from? its a chore to get them qualified...much less make them proficient marksmen.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "there are a number of things that a man and a woman can do together that two guys can’t"

    Makin' babies is about it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The better shot stuff comes from the all female sniper units in WWII. IIRC they found that the flatter female pelvis is a more stable firing platform when laying prone.

    Another thing to consider SOF teams are required to occasionally operate covertly in inhabited areas (think Delta in Blackhawk Down) having a female in the unit does one major thing, it makes them NOT look like a military unit especially in regions where women are not considered army material (like the ME or South America).

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. utter nonsense TLAM Strike on the female snipers. as a matter of fact the only force that used females in that role on a continuous basis was the Russians. and they only had a few high ranking (kill wise) females...other nations might have dabbled (thinking maybe the Poles) but i'm not sure. the pelvis is not where the stability is built for a prone shot anyway.

    SOF teams operating covertly (thinking BlackHawk Down scenario) better have people that are ethnically similar....they better be fluent in the language spoken and they better be as malnourished as the inhabitants.

    you're thinking more CIA than special ops.

    its a bad idea and anyone who is pushing it is just being politically correct.

    i thought better of you than this.

    ReplyDelete
  7. and your last statement is silly.

    i don't give a flying fuck if a guy has tghe space to gestate a fetus...we don't have the plumbing....to imply that it can be done is

    FUCKED UP>

    ReplyDelete
  8. Blame Iraq and Afghanistan. Now the Feminists (and their politically correct male lackeys) are using the blurring of combat lines in those wars to once again push for equal representation throughout the military (but of course not requirements).

    "There are many good arguments for why women should be allowed to serve in combat — it treats men and women unequally, it excludes women from advancing in their chosen field and it ignores the reality that women can be as effective in combat situations as men"

    Banning Women in Combat: A False Sense of Security
    http://www.genderacrossborders.com/2011/06/23/banning-women-in-combat-a-false-sense-of-security/

    You can eventually use this argument (and the fact that we already have two sets of physical requirements for men and women in the military- Shhhh)to call for women in special forces.

    ReplyDelete
  9. yeah but its a false argument and we all know it.

    once we're involved in full scale combat instead of counter insurgency then you'll see all of these myths fall away.

    but to see the head of Navy SEALs put forward this kinda tripe leads me to one conclusion.

    we haven't seen such poor leadership from the General Officers ranks since before world war 2.

    these guys have no backbone and will bow to whatever wind blows. they're politicians not warriors and the troops know it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Why are we talking about men having babies?:/

    ReplyDelete
  12. I DON'T KNOW BUT ITS CREEPING ME THE FUCK OUT!~

    damn TLAM!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Blame sferrin I was just pointing out a flaw in what he said. LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'm so confused...I thought this post was about the motivations behind senior leadership pushing for females in SOF units, but judging from the comments it's actually about why a man can't have a baby. For all those confused please review your 6th grade biology course.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @TLAM Strike: Actually I'm correct. Strand a man and woman on a tropical island and they can have a kid. Strand two men on a tropical island and their will be no kids.

    ReplyDelete
  18. sferrin, true two men on a deserted island cant have a baby but i am sure they could make fabulous curtains for their tents they make :)

    ReplyDelete
  19. cancel that gay shit. find another blog for that. seriously. carry your ass.

    ReplyDelete
  20. carry your ass? never heard that expression before.

    ReplyDelete
  21. it means go somewhere else. i know your politics and don't care for them....problem is this. don't shove your point of view in my face.

    you don't like my outlook or my blog then go somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  22. well it was meant more as a joke than promoting homosexuality, but i guess not taken that way.

    ReplyDelete
  23. no it was meant to promote homosexuality. not here though. not on my blog cowboy.

    like i said. i don't know you but i'm really tired of this deviant ass talk being bandied about like its normal.

    its not, i can't stand the crap and i highly recommend you go hang out on blogs that promote that kind of thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  24. actually i am more libertarian, i dont promote one lifestyle over the other, just to each their own, i just like to be a smartass.

    ReplyDelete
  25. no you're not Joe. you're a progressive and you know it. why you're denying now is anyone's guess but that's not the point.

    the point is this. conservatives realize that not everyone thinks the way that we do but liberals not only assume that their position is correct but they also want to force that thinking onto others...additionally you all fail to realize that what you like is what everyone should like.

    here's a news flash pal. we don't.

    but back to the issue at hand. drop the gay bullshit ----there are plenty of websites that agree with you. but this is NOT one of them.

    and if you were being a smartass then you should know when the joke stopped being funny. and it stopped being funny a fucking long time ago.

    just get the fuck off my blog.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Here in Sweden there's been several attempts by females to make it into the 'lesser' sof, like the Rangers. Non have passed the training.
    Here the military are very anxious to get more females into the armed forces and have lowered the entry barriers considerably. In fact, no female has been denied. But, as has been reported by the papers, quite large numbers of females quit during basic training. Either they can't meet the standards or they quit because it's too much work.
    Interesting thing is, the standards now are much lower now than when we had conscription (all male) and I made my military service.

    ReplyDelete
  27. thanks for commenting and getting us back on topic.

    have you noticed that in the discussion of females in special ops its never with the idea that they can meet standards but with a nod toward diversity? a different point of view? and the fact that they're female?

    this will probably happen. the liberals have a foot hold in what has been a normally conservative military and suprisingly its with the Generals and Admirals. the troops will fight it but will lose.

    i just find it interesting that China uses women only in intelligence gathering...not special ops, direct action missions.

    ReplyDelete
  28. did admiral olson actually say females would have different standards to get in, or are you just inferring that?

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.