Amazon.com Widgets

Should women be allowed on military Special Forces teams?

  • Yes - If women can have babies, then women can fight in combat.

    Imagine a woman is with her husband and they are about to have their first child. Just as the baby's head begins to show, the man becomes so disgusted by the bodily fluids that are encompassing the baby's body, that he passes out. Now the doctors have two patients.
    For thousands of years, women have had to be the ones to bear the children and raise the children while taking care of the household. Women have worked in the fields toiling days under the hot sun.
    Today with the advent of technology work for women is not as hard in a first world country. Therefore, I think that women from across the globe, should be allowed to serve in military Special Forces. If anything, their strong backs, assertive mindsets, and camaraderie will be an asset to the armed forces. Women are strong. And they deserve to be esteemed as such.

  • Yes, everyone has special skills that shouldn't be ignored

    The ownership of a vagina does not mean that a person is less capable of any particular job. Each person has special skills that could be used for the good of the country, and could be a great asset to Special Forces military teams. Of course women should be allowed on the teams. The teams would be smart not to ignore special skills.

  • YES

    Women already serve in plenty of other functions in the military, so I don't see what the big deal is here. I'm sure that there a minority of women that can pass the physical requirements, but there are going to be women that can. Why should they be denied the opportunity, and why should our soldiers be denied a valuable team member, simply because of what's between their legs?

  • It's not about sex

    Everyone's argument is that if you put a male and female in afghanistan together, the girl will come home pregnant soon. I know units of males and females who have fought together for a year, and not one of them came home pregnant. My argument is that both male and females are not sex driven. And if one of them is and that's the only thing they think about, then they are not fit to be in the special forces. Women give birth, we can be strong, we can be aggressive, and a lot of people have lived through more than that. And the whole stipulation that it is a man's duty to protect females, well, they signed up for this and they know the risks, so don't take it easy on us just because we have a vagina and not a penis

  • Women should be allowed on military special forces teams

    Women should be allowed to be on special forces teams because they can do the same things as men. People have the ability to do anything they et their mind to and if a women feels they can physically sustain the demand of the military, she should be allowed to join .

  • Yes they should

    Although women are thought as weaker then men, many have the mental capacity and strength to overcome some men. There have been two females who have been able to test out this situation. Capt. Kristen Griest and 1st Lt. Shaye Haver have shown that women are the possible future for military operations and have the mental capacity to pass through the rigorous training of the US Army Rangers.

  • Yes they should

    Although women are thought as weaker then men, many have the mental capacity and strength to overcome some men. There have been two females who have been able to test out this situation. Capt. Kristen Griest and 1st Lt. Shaye Haver have shown that women are the possible future for military operations and have the mental capacity to pass through the rigorous training of the US Army Rangers.

  • Yes they should

    Although women are thought as weaker then men, many have the mental capacity and strength to overcome some men. There have been two females who have been able to test out this situation. Capt. Kristen Griest and 1st Lt. Shaye Haver have shown that women are the possible future for military operations and have the mental capacity to pass through the rigorous training of the US Army Rangers.

  • Of course they should!

    15% of women in active duty military is better than 0%. Most say women would cause a distraction but according to Second Lieutenant Michael Janowski from Army Ranger School they are far from it and they actually help. It doesn't matter what gender they are, as long as they help protect out country in some way.

  • No they just cant

    I think woman would be a great weapon in the arsenal that America has but with sexual tensions and privacy it just can't happen perfectly.We will need separate living spaces and a lot of other stuff.And what happens when two soilders have a bond or relationship for each other it might comprises the mission and cause something bad to happen to verybody in the squad or unit.

  • Women should not be allowed on special forces because it compromises mission integrity.

    Just because a woman might be strong enough to make it through special forces training doesn't mean she won't detract from team morale or mission accomplishment.
    What happens when even the slightest action she does warrants a response different from the officer in charge than if any of the men had done the same action? The men think there's a double standard or favoritism; this disrupts the sense of camaraderie absolutely imperative to a functioning team. If the officer in charge gives her stricter standards to prevent the idea she gets off easy, the woman complains it's not fair she gets treated differently.
    Equal treatment from leadership aside, what about how the team treats her? Even if you take the most level-headed and non-discriminating group of men into combat and stuck a woman in the mix, the men always modify their behavior to protect the woman. This disruption happens on a subconscious level; no training can overcome an instinct that has been deeply ingrained into the human species. These subtle changes in subconscious behavior create pronounced changes in conscious behavior; it's the difference between a successful mission and a failed mission.
    Third, it doesn't matter how strong a woman makes herself because genetics are not favorable enough to make women equivalent to men. The bone structure and density of the female form is not designed to bear the same load as is the structure for men. Muscle density and construction are also different. Women have been physically and psychologically designed for childbearing/care, nurturing, and maintaining the family. Men are designed for hunting, protecting, dominating, and fighting. To shape a woman into an unnatural form places undue stress on the system (stress in addition to the enormous amount of physical and mental stress inherently present within special forces teams). Don't forget about the monthly menstrual cycle. Tampons, pads, birth control, etc. are all luxuries not affordable on special forces missions. To fix that, should there be a mandatory hysterectomy? Endometrial ablation? Forcing them to stay on hormone injections and placing them on mandatory leave for six months or so until their periods stop?
    Fourth, what happens when a mission goes horribly awry and members are caught by enemy forces? There are cultures that not only will _not _ give a captured female an "easier" captivity experience, but will also make the experience extremely more heinous. All of the immeasurable pain and misery US military suffer through torture would be placed on the female as well, but then add being raped and sodomized countless times. Why on earth would any officer in charge say that's a risk they'd be willing to put onto their personnel?
    Despite any physical or mental capabilities a woman might have that could allow her to perform on a similar level as that of a man, the "social benefit" of allowing women on special forces teams is not outweighed by the inherent dangers and risks thereof. This issue is simply not limited to physical or mental competency.

  • there are very good reasons.

    Besides the major physical differences, like a lighter bone structure, there a many pregnancies over seas. The military has to pay to ship women home, and replace them. Women have lighter bone structures that make them more prone to stress fractures, and when were talking about carrying a 100lb backpack, thats a lot. Men are just naturally more built for war. Also, many women I have met say it's their right to fight if they want. When you join the military, u have virtually no rights. Some women also talk about how 150 women have come back from Iraq and Afghanistan in boxes. Not to minimize what they did, but around 6000 men have come back in boxes. these arguments make me think women don't know what their even talking about. On pregnancies, if a man gets a women pregnant, he can still fight, the women can't. So there are biological differences here.

  • They are not physically or mentally capable to endure what goes on

    My opinion comes from the perspective of a 65-year old woman. The answer is, unfortunately, no. Women should not become Navy Seals. With that said, I agree completely with the first part of Ray's assessment and disagree with the second. Dear men, choosing to go into harm's way is an individual's choice - male or female. You do not get to take that choice away based on your built-in need to protect women. Women who serve accept the risks. You diminish them if you try to take that choice away solely based on gender. Women have served, been injured and died in Iraq and Afghanistan during the last 13 years. You dishonor their service and dedication if you think they must be protected. Yes, it's anatural instinct. Just as it is a natural instinct to protect one's children. Yet, women have been sending off they sons - and now daughters - to war since before America was founded. Yes, at some time a woman will be captured, torturedand slain. And I will mourn the loss of yet another Warrior - regardless of the shape of the body inside that uniform. Women die in childbirth - yet we continue to bear children. Women are incorporated in every segment of American society, and sometimes we die after walking into the door of our workplace. How many women died on 9/11? No, we should not be Navy SEALs. We simply are not physically built for the rigors of it. Nonetheless, we already are partners withyou men in service to our country...It is our choice, and you have died and bled in order that we have that choice.

  • They are not physically or mentally capable to endure what goes on

    My opinion comes from the perspective of a 65-year old woman. The answer is, unfortunately, no. Women should not become Navy Seals. With that said, I agree completely with the first part of Ray's assessment and disagree with the second. Dear men, choosing to go into harm's way is an individual's choice - male or female. You do not get to take that choice away based on your built-in need to protect women. Women who serve accept the risks. You diminish them if you try to take that choice away solely based on gender. Women have served, been injured and died in Iraq and Afghanistan during the last 13 years. You dishonor their service and dedication if you think they must be protected. Yes, it's anatural instinct. Just as it is a natural instinct to protect one's children. Yet, women have been sending off they sons - and now daughters - to war since before America was founded. Yes, at some time a woman will be captured, torturedand slain. And I will mourn the loss of yet another Warrior - regardless of the shape of the body inside that uniform. Women die in childbirth - yet we continue to bear children. Women are incorporated in every segment of American society, and sometimes we die after walking into the door of our workplace. How many women died on 9/11? No, we should not be Navy SEALs. We simply are not physically built for the rigors of it. Nonetheless, we already are partners withyou men in service to our country...It is our choice, and you have died and bled in order that we have that choice.

  • They are not physically or mentally capable to endure what goes on

    My opinion comes from the perspective of a 65-year old woman. The answer is, unfortunately, no. Women should not become Navy Seals. With that said, I agree completely with the first part of Ray's assessment and disagree with the second. Dear men, choosing to go into harm's way is an individual's choice - male or female. You do not get to take that choice away based on your built-in need to protect women. Women who serve accept the risks. You diminish them if you try to take that choice away solely based on gender. Women have served, been injured and died in Iraq and Afghanistan during the last 13 years. You dishonor their service and dedication if you think they must be protected. Yes, it's anatural instinct. Just as it is a natural instinct to protect one's children. Yet, women have been sending off they sons - and now daughters - to war since before America was founded. Yes, at some time a woman will be captured, torturedand slain. And I will mourn the loss of yet another Warrior - regardless of the shape of the body inside that uniform. Women die in childbirth - yet we continue to bear children. Women are incorporated in every segment of American society, and sometimes we die after walking into the door of our workplace. How many women died on 9/11? No, we should not be Navy SEALs. We simply are not physically built for the rigors of it. Nonetheless, we already are partners withyou men in service to our country...It is our choice, and you have died and bled in order that we have that choice.

  • Former SpecOps Checking In

    Anything pertaining to the mission: if it doesn't increase our lethality or survivability then it doesn't belong in the conversation. Women behind enemy lines do neither. Please leave SOF out of your social engineering games. You will get great men killed, the same great men that you need to protect your precious women, Starbucks and Kardashians.

  • Men and women are not equal, and gender is not a social construct.

    Men are physically stronger than women. Not just a little bit either. Regardless of what we might see in the moves, a women would get murdered if a man chose to unload on her. Most men are taught not to hurt women. So women don't really understand how much stronger men are.

    Men work better together. Yes I have heard just the opposite from liberals mostly. It is bullshit. Take a group of men and throw them on a desert island. In the beginning they will fight. Then they will choose the alpha male, and he will be the leader. Everyone will fall in line after that. Women in the same situation will talk shit and back stab endlessly. Two men that hate each other can still work together. I've never seen two women that hate each other do the same.

    If you put men and women together they will have sex. It doesn't matter how ugly they are, or how funky they smell. Put a man and woman together and send them to Afghanistan or Iraq and the US military will be sending a pregnant woman home early. Also...All the men will fight each other for the woman's affection. It's just how it is and it's nothing but trouble. That alone is enough reason not to allow women in special forces.

    Men are not just stronger than women. Men are much more aggressive. This is because of testosterone. Talk to someone who has taken steroids. They all say that the increase in testosterone not only makes them stronger. It makes them more focused and aggressive. Women don't have the same level of aggression.

    Lastly...If a woman can pass special forces training, then the training is not difficult enough.

  • Men and women fundamentally different

    War (murder, killing and assassination) should be left to men. I do not know why a woman would willingly be happy to join operations where operatives kill outside of the Geneva convention. That was just opinion. The fact is men are physically superior to women when it comes to military offensives. Having a baby may be painful but it is not the same as having the strength to carry a fully grown man off a battlefield when his life depends on it. The men who have served in SF have been through so much war and death that their mind frames and attitudes will not allow anything that they consider as soft to corrupt their hard view of the world. SF operators probably hold sexist, misogynist, and racist views but what else do you expect, sensitive killers. Women are fundamentally different from men so there will be issues of sexual attraction and distraction as well as peacocking, which could be extremely dangerous. If they are to let women try out for SF then the success rate needs to be available, I just do not believe that it will be possible and changing things will result in the dismantling of the highly respected US Special Forces.

  • Men and women fundamentally different

    War (murder, killing and assassination) should be left to men. I do not know why a woman would willingly be happy to join operations where operatives kill outside of the Geneva convention. That was just opinion. The fact is men are physically superior to women when it comes to military offensives. Having a baby may be painful but it is not the same as having the strength to carry a fully grown man off a battlefield when his life depends on it. The men who have served in SF have been through so much war and death that their mind frames and attitudes will not allow anything that they consider as soft to corrupt their hard view of the world. SF operators probably hold sexist, misogynist, and racist views but what else do you expect, sensitive killers. Women are fundamentally different from men so there will be issues of sexual attraction and distraction as well as peacocking, which could be extremely dangerous. If they are to let women try out for SF then the success rate needs to be available, I just do not believe that it will be possible and changing things will result in the dismantling of the highly respected US Special Forces.

  • Men and Women too fundamentally different

    War (murder, killing and assassination) should be left to men. I do not know why a woman would willingly be happy to join operations where operatives kill outside of the Geneva convention. That was just opinion. The fact is men are physically superior to women when it comes to military offensives. Having a baby may be painful but it is not the same as having the strength to carry a fully grown man off a battlefield when his life depends on it. The men who have served in SF have been through so much war and death that their mind frames and attitudes will not allow anything that they consider as soft to corrupt their hard view of the world. SF operators probably hold sexist, misogynist, and racist views but what else do you expect, sensitive killers. Women are fundamentally different from men so there will be issues of sexual attraction and distraction as well as peacocking, which could be extremely dangerous. If they are to let women try out for SF then the success rate needs to be available, I just do not believe that it will be possible and changing things will result in the dismantling of the highly respected US Special Forces.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.