Syndicate
Special Thanks To...
The following organizations were early supporters of Mensactivism.org, and we thank them for their support. If you'd like to trade links with us, see our Mensactivism.org supporters page.
"Lara Croft, the Navy SEAL? Maybe someday"
Submitted by Broadsword on Fri, 2011-05-27 23:35
Article here. Excerpt:
All is not fair in war. The justifications used to keep women out of combat and special ops units are the same paternalistic, discriminatory excuses used in favor of upholding racial segregation in the military and, more recently, the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding gays and lesbians. In short, they have little to do with individual capability and reveal far more about ingrained ideas and misconceptions regarding psychology, sexuality and physiology.
...
Lastly, and perhaps most convincingly, there are the physical requirements. Special ops forces such as those in the SEAL program have to pass a screening test and then go through the notoriously difficult, six-month-long BUD/S (which stands for Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL) training that has a staggeringly high attrition rate even among males. (About 80 percent of applicants drop out before training is completed.) But standards of physical fitness in women are rising rapidly. Joseph Collins, a former Army colonel and professor of national security strategy at the National War College, says that while teaching at West Point, although he and his fellow instructors could identify differences between men and women on physical tests, they were surprised by how quickly female athletic performance increased over time.
“Men do sort of have an absolute advantage over women in, say, upper-body strength, but the extent to which that really makes sense as an issue, I don’t know,” he says. “My sense is that there are some women who would love to challenge the forces and see if they could get through. And I know some who are so fit that they probably could.”
“The physical requirements are extreme,” concedes Lory Manning, a retired Navy captain and the director of the Women in the Military project of the Women’s Research and Education Institute. “But I know some women who could probably meet them, some very strong and fit women. Remember, we used to think women couldn’t go into space.”
Manning and Collins make a point of emphasizing that, if and when women are allowed to undergo BUD/S training, they’ll have to be held to the same physical standards as their male counterparts. Otherwise, Manning says dryly, “it would just be the ladies’ auxiliary.”
- Log in to post comments
Comments
women in the military
Women in the military.
I have two ways of thinking on this. One has to do with having the best and most efficient military possible to defend the citizens of our nation. The next is about equality, and if women can pass the same requirements, then they should be allowed in combat positions (maybe required) as some MRA have pointed out they would like to see women in dangerous positions and share in the fatality rate.
I tend to lean towards having the best and most efficient military which, in my opinion, would mean very few positions for women to serve. I don't believe women make as good as soldiers as men. I also believe they are a distraction.
If you put it to the "island test", say you are a bunch of people living on a small desert island, and you knew enemies were coming to the island to capture people into slavery. Would you send all the women (or at least demand half of your soldiers be female) to fight them off, or would you think you had a better chance if all the men fought off the intruders? The safety of all your people including yourself depends on how strong (mentally and physically) your soldiers are. .
The role of the military should be national defense. I don't see any reason to have a sub-par military just for the sake of equality. Having females in high combat positions would only weaken our military, and would be a threat to everyone's safety. (In my opinion).
BTW I am so proud of our Navy Seals who went in and got Osama Bin Ladin (I doubt a team of women could have orchestrated that)
from the article: "they
from the article: "they [prejudices against women as Navy Seals] have little to do with individual capability and reveal far more about ingrained ideas and misconceptions regarding psychology, sexuality and physiology."
I disagree. There is NO mis-conception about female psychology, sexuality and physiology. Some people like this women choose to ignore it or they beleive if they cover it up really really good, maybe no one will notice the differenece. But it has been proven- women get pregnant and when not pregnant, they menstuate. They also create a sexual situation between male soldiers, have weaker bone structure, less mucsle tissue, etc. These are extra burdens that can only weaken a military team.
Women who promote "equaility" can take shots and pills to mask female biology (ie get rid of menstuation and pregnancy - the burden would be on the military to provide these meds), and dress as nonsexual and act as masculine as they can - but no matter how elaborate their costume is - they are still female!
A small percentage
I suspect a small percentage of women might be able to meet some physical requirements, but it's not worth the effort to find them, especially since the military has to make huge efforts to accomodate physical differences. In addition, women use sex and the threat of accusing an officer of rape to manipulate officers. They also get intentionally pregnant to avoid combat, then abort the child once it's served its purpose.
Given the chocies we have--all men, mixed, or all women--the best choice is all male. There's only one argument that I find somewhat convincing: equality of rights should equal equality of sacrifice. If women want all the rights, they should make the sacrifices. An all-female military could eventually create equality in numbers of deaths. Problem is, I think the military would not function well enough to serves its purpose.
Finally, we would have to get over women being the "protected sex." Men could get over that, but women won't. There are too many advantages for them in that role--"women and children first" for one. Women claim being raped in war is a bad thing--which it is. But it's still better than being dead or left a quadraplegic.
It is time
Women at times make better warriors than men at least as good. Most people don't know this but between 15 to 20% of most Native American tribes warriors were female and well documented. Most of their stories are suppressed because most of our Calvary and soldiers didn't want the world to know they were beaten by women.
Two in particular, Lozan and Tahdahtse, were Apaches. Lozan, Vittorio's sister was known for her acts of bravery, she lead a band of warriors and stole the Calvary's horse and shoes and made them walk back to the fort in embarrassment. Tahdahtse walked one night for over 80 miles to warn Geronimo of troops coming.
When they surrendered, the warriors said the women warriors died. Lozan died while in Florida and Tahdahtse became a farmer in Oklahoma.
The most fiercest fighters were women who had no children.
Perhaps men should learn to control their testosterone and the last I heard they were still feeding out military men salt peter.
Soldiers after victorious have been known to rape women, perhaps women in our service might curtail some of that.
@ bobwoolsey
How can it be both "well documented" and "suppressed"?
I have no problem believing women can serve important military positions, but I think it is most likely support positions or positions that do not require them to be "one of the guys". The examples you gave were females who acted independently. They were important deeds, but they were not leadership positions or positions that required them to work as a unit with men (like today's close combat or special operations units). I point this out because I believe females mixed with men are a distraction for the comradery of the unit and although a female may be able to hold her own for a given period, I don't believe a female could sustain it over a long period.
Quote: > "The most fiercest fighters were women who had no children"
I have a hard time believing this.
Quotes: > "Perhaps men should learn to control their testosterone and the last I heard they were still feeding out military men salt peter."
> "Soldiers after victorious have been known to rape women, perhaps women in our service might curtail some of that."
High testosterone levels can contribute to violent acts committed by men. But lets not forget testosterone is also responsible for many more positive acts. If it was not for testosterone, most men would not even join the military and serve and protect all of us. It is unfortunate about the violent acts, but violent men victimise other men as well. The military should do more to curtail this. All this considerred, I believe we are safer with testosterone filled men then without.
And are you serious about believing that the military feeds them saltpeter (a libido inhibitor)?
BTW, bobwoolsey, is this by chance you: http://womenareourfuture.wordpress.com/about/
Women's wars
Sir, you obviously respect women's ability to fight and kill. Does that mean you recognise women's ability to assault and abuse? You extol the potential in women to fight wars. Does that mean you don't think a world run by women would be a pacifist's paradise?
I suppose I'm calling you a feminist. If you are, does that mean you care more about women's rights, or about equality?