- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Navy officer applies to become the first ever woman to join the elite SEALs
Posted on 7/23/17 at 3:37 pm to DavidTheGnome
Posted on 7/23/17 at 3:37 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
So long as absolutely no bar is lowered, every standard kept, I see zero problem with this.
That because you haven't thought the math through.
The reason for not admitting women is SIMPLE.
Women are FAR, repeat, FAR less likely to be successful.
For example. Even if you assume that the army would continue to get the results it got when they carefully selected women for ranger school, you have a significant problem.
Females were STILL about 1/6th as likely to graduate as men.
That means that for every 60 rangers you get when you train men, you get 10 out of the females.
Now. I suppose if the army had unlimited training resources, that wouldn't be a big deal. But, yeah. It's dumb.
I mean hell. You'd almoat certainly get a better pass rate taking the first 100 men that aren't accepted as the first hundred women that ARE!
The ONLY justification for this stupidity is emotions.
I mean. It's like people don't realize that the point of these schools is to produce rangers and seals.
This post was edited on 7/23/17 at 3:38 pm
0
Posted on 7/23/17 at 3:37 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
What would her being a woman have anything to do with dynamics a pond deployment stress?
Sexual tensions, Relationships, drama, fights. You see it on ships, in the marines, in the army, in the Air Force. Deployments turn into a high school movie.
Just imagine a Co-ed college football team, chemistry wise.
This post was edited on 7/23/17 at 3:39 pm
Posted on 7/23/17 at 3:38 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:Is this a serious question?
What would her being a woman have anything to do with dynamics or deployment stress?
Posted on 7/23/17 at 3:44 pm to Tiguar
I just posted women in superb physical shape. But even if a woman was in superb physical shape, is currently AD and let's say a Navy Diver or EOD already, and could physically carry a man...
This factor is the undoing of it all.
This factor is the undoing of it all.
quote:
There are studies with data showing mixed units cause unit cohesion to deteriorate.
Posted on 7/23/17 at 4:13 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
At last count, three women have graduated from Ranger school.
We all know they were pushed through after the first few kept failing
Posted on 7/23/17 at 4:15 pm to cajunangelle
quote:
Could these women, if, let's say they are Navy Divers, or EOD make it through?
Probably not because it's not just physical
Training for these jobs is a complete mind frick
Posted on 7/23/17 at 4:16 pm to cajunangelle
quote:if the left is great at one thing it is their ability to force the conversation on to the turf they want the conversation to take place. They want the conversation to sound a lot like the conversation that would have taken place when talking about blacks integrating. And stupidly their opponents fall for
There are studies with data showing mixed units cause unit cohesion to deteriorate.
The left does this in situations where there is a complete loser argument they would rather avoid. In this case that loser argument is the one I articulated a few posts up.
They want to portray letting women have a shot as being about the women but these courses don't take place because we need male Rangers or male seals. They take place because we need Rangers and seals
And of course the military has only so much time to find the number of Rangers and seals they need and only a certain amount of resources with which to do it
That's why irrespective of sex they don't let everybody try. They don't want to spend a thousand training slots to get a hundred people if they can spend 200 training slots to get the 100 people
The reality is that even select females are successful at these types of courses at a lower rate then average males of the same age much less select males
One of the great delusions feminists have gotten even some conservatives to believe is that physically the Sexes are slightly close. They are not. And every single bit of data available tells you that
Posted on 7/23/17 at 4:18 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:what's funny is that even assuming those girls were successful on their own merits that little exercise proved beyond all Reasonable Doubt the stupidity of having females take up Ranger slots.
We all know they were pushed through after the first few kept failing
The fricking thing is being hailed as a success when it was actually a blinding failure.
If the Army kept repeating that process going forward they would eventually be short dozens of Rangers in the field because they wasted slots on women where men would have passed
Posted on 7/23/17 at 4:23 pm to ShortyRob
Yea those female LTs are never going to be infrantry officers or a ranger battalion
Posted on 7/23/17 at 4:24 pm to StraightCashHomey21
Ih yes they will, Big Army will make sure of it.
I always see, "If they can meet the standards, why shouldn't they be allowed to serve in those roles?" How come the question isn't "Even if they can meet the standards, why SHOULD they be allowed in those roles?"
I always see, "If they can meet the standards, why shouldn't they be allowed to serve in those roles?" How come the question isn't "Even if they can meet the standards, why SHOULD they be allowed in those roles?"
This post was edited on 7/23/17 at 4:26 pm
Posted on 7/23/17 at 4:29 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
always see, "If they can meet the standards, why shouldn't they be allowed to serve in those roles?" How come the question isn't "Even if they can meet the standards, why SHOULD they be allowed in those roles?"
I submit to you that if I gave one their supporters the right to grab the 500 best female prospects they can find in the army and then I took 500 male prospects of the same age Who currently scored 200 or lower on their APFT and we had a month until Ranger school my 500 would have a better pass rate than the female 500. At the very least it would be close
Posted on 7/23/17 at 4:57 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Have you ever served or is this just your hypothesis.
I haven't served, but I am a male with common sense and life experiences that lead me to believe this is a ridiculous pursuit. The military has conducted studies to similar results.
quote:
What would her being a woman have anything to do with dynamics or deployment stress? If she can do the job, she can do the job.
The fact that it isn't an iron man competition held in a vacuum of sexual tension, normal bodily functions and the female cycle. These females, even if they could pass (they can't) buds and make it on a team would be forced to serve in close quarters overseas with a small unit of males, trust and have those males trust them with their life. If you can't see the countless issues with that then you are purposely being obtuse or blinded by some sjw bias.
Posted on 7/23/17 at 5:01 pm to blueboy
quote:
I haven't read every post, but I haven't seen that sentiment.
I suggest reading every post.
Posted on 7/23/17 at 5:04 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
They don't.
Your opinion, which appears to matter about as much as mine.
quote:
When young men and women are put together in close quarters and forced to live and work together there will be unneeded sexual tension and drama. There's simply zero way to avoid that. It's an unnecessary distraction that has zero upside. We gain absolutely nothing by having women in the military. It's not a knock on women, it's just that they bring nothing to the table that a man doesn't. It'd be one thing if women actually made the military stronger BECAUSE of their gender. But they don't, in fact, they make it weaker.
Sounds like your problem, not theirs. Women are being given this opportunity, whether you guys like it or not. Time to suck it up, or move on.
Posted on 7/23/17 at 5:32 pm to Argonaut
quote:
Sounds like your problem, not theirs
It's a seal problem, one they don't want to deal with so you can have the warm and fuzzies.
It's not about male vs female, it's about male and female. DA combat units are more effective when separated, and mixing only brings issues not improvements.
It may happen, but it will not improve the teams by any measure whether you like it or not. Suck it up and move on
This post was edited on 7/23/17 at 5:36 pm
Posted on 7/23/17 at 5:34 pm to Lsuchs
quote:
It's a seal problem
This might be a shock to you, but they're already working with women. They'll figure it out the same as everyone else.
Posted on 7/23/17 at 5:41 pm to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
Yeah, I was talking to this Marine who was in Afghanistan in 2005 or '06. He said every WM on their outpost (I am not sure of the size) got pregnant. Every one. They were not trying get out of duty. The pressure on them is just too great.
It's pretty simple.
Women and men do together what women and men together do.
Women want cock.
Men want pussy.
Therefore, mixed sex combat units are completely unacceptable.
Posted on 7/23/17 at 5:42 pm to Argonaut
quote:
This might be a shock to you, but they're already working with women
I assure you nothing you can tell me about the teams will shock me. An interchangeable female intel officer attached to the same oversees command that they come across from time to time is not anywhere close the same thing.
Seal teams are interchangeable to these intel personnel as well. "Working with" and being one are two different things. Operators and support personnel frick, they have drama, then move on. They have separate missions for the same goal. You don't want that on the same mission.
quote:
They'll figure it out the same as everyone else.
They've already had it figured out. This is a PC stunt that jeopardizes that.
People like you that have nothing to do with it and will completely forget about it once it done are all for it because it sounds good. Or it sounds logical related to your personal experience in a different field. The people that have lived and breathed this, whose lives will be impacted daily by this, are strongly against it. They are as good as it gets for what they are tasked to do, maybe you should let them keep doing it.
This post was edited on 7/23/17 at 6:05 pm
Posted on 7/23/17 at 5:45 pm to Argonaut
quote:
Sounds like your problem, not theirs.
Oh trust me when I say that it's every bit the women's problem as it is the men's.
You can't ignore or suppress human nature and biology enough to formulate a stable, disciplined, competent and professional combat unit. It's just not done.
Posted on 7/23/17 at 5:55 pm to Lsuchs
quote:
I assure you nothing you can tell me about the teams will shock me.
Right, because you worked with SEALs, or failed BUD/S, or saw your brother graduate at Coronado. I can't remember which story was yours.
quote:
They've already had it figured out.
Good. Then there should be no issues moving forward.
Page 7 of 38
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News