It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A female Navy Seal? not yet.

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:41 AM
reply to post by NoClue206

If they have passed the same training, the same testing, and the same selection process, they are no more likely to get anyone killed than any other Sf member.

What I think (my personal opinion) scares most people about this, is that every other military test makes provision for women. This could very well lead to deaths.

No where in the article was that mentioned. No posters for this have asked it to be changed. So I am assuming the testing and selection standards would remain the same.

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:45 AM

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Becoming

If all men are so capable to handle it, then why are so many males soldiers coming back with PTSD?

Being capable of passing selection tests, does not mean you automatically am capable of experiencing the real thing. But this is why SF have selection. They select individual who will be capable of doing their tasks on a very high and professional level. And they hardly ever fail because they know what to look for in a individual.
That is why they only select the best batch out of the batch that passes a SF course.

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 11:17 AM

what happens when the womans deployed to the middle of the jungle and starts her monthly cycle.

I don't know? What happens?

Seriously, are you 12?

In my opinion, if a woman can pass the same training as a man and has the same qualifications then there is absolutely no reason she should not be a Navy Seal.

As a woman, I would absolutely NOT want to be Navy Seal, or any type of combat role, but as a human being, and an equal beneficiary of human rights I absolutely DO WANT the choice.

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Merigold
I don't know? What happens?

You become traceable to every tracking animal in the area. Even more so if the enemy forces do not utilise female soldiers.

I am all for women getting SF training, but I am adament that the unit selection must be left to the commander on a mission by mission basis. If that selection process gets modified, SF will become targets.

If you are using SF against an enemy that utilises female soldiers, no real problem. Their animals will be accustomed to the smells (if you have planned accordingly).

If you are using SF against an enemy that is male only, any female (menstrating or not) will be a scent beacon for the animals.

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 11:55 AM
Wow.. I am guessing all the SOE and OSS Gals of WW2 where not up to the job either
pretty laughable excuses, *shakes head*..

Picking one (it is easy to find plenty of others) here is the George Cross citation for Violette Szabo it reads:

St. James's Palace, S.W.1. 17th December, 1946

The KING has been graciously pleased to award the GEORGE CROSS to: —
Violette, Madame SZABO (deceased), Women's Transport Service (First Aid Nursing Yeomanry).

Madame Szabo volunteered to undertake a particularly dangerous mission in France. She was parachuted into France in April, 1944, and undertook the task with enthusiasm. In her execution of the delicate researches entailed she showed great presence of mind and astuteness. She was twice arrested by the German security authorities but each time managed to get away. Eventually, however, with other members of her group, she was surrounded by the Gestapo in a house in the south west of France.

Resistance appeared hopeless but Madame Szabo, seizing a Sten-gun and as much ammunition as she could carry, barricaded herself in part of the house and, exchanging shot for shot with the enemy, killed or wounded several of them. By constant movement, she avoided being cornered and fought until she dropped exhausted.

She was arrested and had to undergo solitary confinement. She was then continuously and atrociously tortured but never by word or deed gave away any of her acquaintances or told the enemy anything of any value. She was ultimately executed. Madame Szabo gave a magnificent example of courage and steadfastness.

Women have time and again proven themselves and in my opinion should get an equal chance to join the Seals or other SF.

edit on 2/6/11 by thoughtsfull because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 01:27 PM

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by NoClue206

What I think (my personal opinion) scares most people about this, is that every other military test makes provision for women. This could very well lead to deaths.

It's my belief that this is where many people get confused when it comes to equal treatment. If anyone would go and look at the men and women olympic records for running and swimming, they'll be able to see that women can't compete with men. If they were to demand that they be placed in the same catagory as men, they'd never get a medal.

I'm not saying that women can't become operators. I'm saying that they can't be placed in the same training as men to become operators.

To everyone supporting the inclusion of women in the SEAL Team community I'll ask these questions: Why do you think that the physical requirements for women and men are different to join the military? Does anyone think that the families of female SF operators will accept the fact that their daughters was killed in 'Top Secret' operations?

SEAL requirements are set high to exclude women from joining the ranks. They are set high to weed out those who think they wanted to become a SEAL and to ensure that the teams will have to most highly motivated group of people to get any job done.

I haven't got anything about women joining the SEAL Teams. I just know it'll be a waste of time to experiment on such non-sense.

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 01:31 PM
reply to post by NoClue206

Dunno what military you are in. Probably US. But I can assure everyone that IS NOT how all military operate and probably speaks volumes for the type of low quality, unable to think out of the box muscleheads that roam around all over the world stirring up hate that your armed forces has come to represent.

Have a good day...

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 01:31 PM
reply to post by nixie_nox

Yes. A woman should be allowed to be a Marine.
Emphasis on "should".
If a male Marine is captured, then he is either tortured, or put in prison, or killed.
However, they can do millions times worse things to women.

Think about it.


posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 01:42 PM
If a woman can pass the same fitness tests and pass the Seals tests and training...go for it.

But right now...women are not held to the same fitness standards as men. Maybe if women would start demanding that they be tested the same as would help women get there.....

Air Force BMT test (men and women)

Navy fitness test (men and women)

Army fitness tests (men and women)

Marine fitness test (men and women)

I know at my fitness prime, I could not keep up with the boyz....

But as a woman, I do not believe that men and women are completely equal in everything. Sure, some women can kick ass....but put up against a man of equal training and skill level....Id like to see that

edit on June 2nd 2011 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 01:52 PM

Originally posted by gallopinghordes
reply to post by Becoming

Hate to tell you but when I was doing them we didn't get breaks. Oh yeah and I was four weeks out from having my daughter and had to do the full pt test. However a man who was "recovering" from a sprained ankle got a pass for the year. Don't presume to tell me what I did and didn't do, you weren't there were you? Women are much stronger then you seem to realize, stronger and tougher.

You really expect me to believe that?

You should have said that you was 3 months pregnant, that would've been more believable. I'm not going to tell you that you didn't do it. If thats the story that you have told for so many years that you have come to believe it, then who am I to crap in your cheerios.

8 months pregnant and doing a Pt test

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 02:53 PM
reply to post by Becoming

I took it to mean she had given birth 4 weeks earlier...though I can see how you could read it the way you did.

Personally I have no problem with women being in the SF, IF they can compete to the same standards over and over again as the men...if a man can't meet those standards he doesn't get in and neither should a woman. No difference in training standards at all.

Now I'm not saying that could never happen, but it would be extreemely unlikely and the costs (there's always costs whether theyre needed or not) simply wouldn't be worth it, unless it can be shown a good number of women would pass the standards.

Correct me if I am wrong but the British military is the same, different standards for women and women can not join the SAS.

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:03 PM

Originally posted by StevenDye
Correct me if I am wrong but the British military is the same, different standards for women and women can not join the SAS.

I am not sure about the SAS, however in Canada (JTF-2) both genders can apply.

I am not privy to wether or not both genders are used for the same applications though. As far as I have seen via TV and media, no photos of women in combat operations has occured...not that that means much

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:09 PM
reply to post by Becoming

Let me clarify that for you; obviously you didn't understand; otherwise I'm sure you wouldn't have been so rude as to insinuate I was lying, it was 4 weeks after I had my daughter. Understand now? Once again don't presume to tell me what I've done or not done.

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:12 PM
If (big if) women were held to the same set of standards that men are held to in the (mental, physical, emotional) battery of tests/exams/training, presuming the standards that are set are appropriate to the job (and not the gender) and those standards are met and/or exceeded then the women who do this, should be allowed to serve as any other who has earned their position.

*However, I recognize that the psychological impact of women serving with men in certain situations can have a significant impact and that has to be evaluated. Whether fair or not, the needs of the team do outweigh the needs of the one (in these situations) in my opinion.

In order for stereotypes (warranted or not) to change, women as a whole need to take responsibility for their own actions as well. Demanding to be treated with equal opportunity in the military, yet accepting the practice of dual training standards, does not help further this goal.

And on that note: who is promoting this agenda? Would be interesting to know the reasons for doing so and what they are getting from it. When it comes to these types of political/policy agendas, it's not for altruistic motives...

edit on 2-6-2011 by LadySkadi because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Redwookieaz
Seriously I am amazed at the attitudes of some of the guys here. You guys really believe that guys are better than women? I can't believe in this day and age that sexism is still so rampant.

I know that most men are stronger physically than most women, I'm not delusional, but if a woman can pass the same tests and meet the same requirements then why should they not be able to serve?

Btw, I have a friend who is a professional kickboxer. Some guy kept mouthing off to her about how he could beat her ass becuase she's a girl. Guess what, she gave him the beat down of a lifetime. It was hillarious.

You guys are seriously underestimating women.
edit on 2-6-2011 by Redwookieaz because: Grammar oops.

I dont believe that men are superior to woman, but in the case of NAVY SEAL's, woman physically can not stand up to the punishment.

Im not knocking woman, but the olympics prove it every 4 years

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:16 PM
If women were built to be in combat, they would be able to not be distracted by any cute, fuzzy, sweet thing that passes in front of them. They would be born with a desire all the time, like men have, to be tough, gross, and able to withstand certain pains easier. And women are too emotional when it comes to anything with high stress. Women cant cope with the stress of physical pain on top of making a hard decision between life and death.

Frankly, women shouldnt be in the army, they cause distractions.
Women shouldnt be bodybuilders, cause its just ugly and stupid.
Women aren't tough leaders when compared to a real manly leader.
And women werent made to be tough, they were made to be mothers, nurturers and comforters. They already have a set of pillows.........

I challenge any woman in the planet to get your best 'toughest' woman around, against the toughest man on the planet, and we will see who wins the battle. Fair fight, Best Man vs Best woman, hands down the woman wont stand a chance.

Maybe women should just stay out of the roles which are designed for men? And stick to the ones designed for women. Its not sexist, its just fact!

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:23 PM
I haven't even heard anyone mention the mental aspect of being part of a SP team. The team has to function without distractions and if you put a women into a group of alpha men, its a distraction. What if the men didn't want a women on the team even if they passed the same tests? Are you going to force them to accept a women and create division/resentment amoungst the team?

edit on 2-6-2011 by FreeSpeaker because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:33 PM
reply to post by StevenDye

Although the SAS do not recruit women, the SRR do.. and as far as I am aware (as the SRR is more secretive I could be talking out of my bum) their training is pretty gruelling, which I would expect from any SF force.. especially as the SRR relieve the other UKSF units of their surveillance roles..

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:36 PM
reply to post by JohnStrawManDoe

No that's just reality of war bud. Your post shows you no nothing about it, expect what you see on TV that is. That's any military at war not just the US.

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:54 PM
This is a very difficult subject to analyze. My sentiments reside somewhere along the line of LadySkadi's comment. I believe that if a woman can pass all of the same mental, physical, and emotional tests that the male participants can, then there should be nothing to prevent her from joining. My reservations reside with the fact that men and woman may be equal but NOT the same.

Men and women not only have different physical makeup (ie. men are generally physically stronger, women biologically tend to carry a higher body fat percentage for child bearing, etc.) but also different emotional makeup. I am a woman, so please do not think that I do not understand the issues of inequality that women have fought for. However, in my experience, women are generally more emotional than men. JUST my experience (you may not feel the same). I do not mean to say that women are inferior, but they are by nature generally softer hearted and nurturing, which are not qualities that I think are highlighted in the elite units of the armed forces. Men also generally allow things to roll of their back, while women hold grudges (just my opinion- I have no proof of these things). Historically, men have primarily filled the role of the warrior in society. Women have also contributed but to a lesser extent. The "woman" stereotypes that have been brought up to argue against their participation (which may have an intsy bit of truth behind them) combined with the historically accepted idea of what a warrior is, have added to the barriers for women.

FreeSpeaker also brings up a good point about how women present in the group would affect the pyche of the majority and ability to concentrate on their duties at hand.

All that being said, I have never had any interest in serving in the special forces in any capacity. If I did however, I would feel discriminated against if someone told me I could not.

That's a tough one!

edit on 2-6-2011 by TheAncientsKnew because: word choice change

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in