Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
August 28, 2014, 06:37:07 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Hagel Plan Allows Women Into Navy SEALs  (Read 1011 times)
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41290


« on: June 18, 2013, 02:48:36 PM »

I have no problem with this if they can meet the same standards as men. 

Hagel Plan Allows Women Into Navy SEALs
Tuesday, 18 Jun 2013

Military leaders are ready to begin tearing down the remaining walls that have prevented women from holding thousands of combat and special operations jobs near the front lines.

Under details of the plans obtained by The Associated Press, women could start training as Army Rangers by mid-2015 and as Navy SEALs a year later.

The military services have mapped out a schedule that also will include reviewing and possibly changing the physical and mental standards that men and women will have to meet in order to qualify for certain infantry, armor, commando and other front-line positions across the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Under the plans to be introduced Tuesday, there would be one common standard for men and women for each job.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel reviewed the plans and has ordered the services to move ahead.

The move follows revelations of a startling number of sexual assaults in the armed forces. Earlier this year, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said the sexual assaults might be linked to the longstanding ban on women serving in combat because the disparity between the roles of men and women creates separate classes of personnel — male "warriors" versus the rest of the force.

While the sexual assault problem is more complicated than that, he said, the disparity has created a psychology that lends itself to disrespect for women.

Under the schedules military leaders delivered to Hagel, the Army will develop standards by July 2015 to allow women to train and potentially serve as Rangers, and qualified women could begin training as Navy SEALs by March 2016 if senior leaders agree. Military leaders have suggested bringing senior women from the officer and enlisted ranks into special forces units first to ensure that younger, lower-ranking women have a support system to help them get through the transition.

The Navy intends to open up its Riverine force and begin training women next month, with the goal of assigning women to the units by October. While not part of the special operations forces, the coastal Riverine squadrons do close combat and security operations in small boats. The Navy plans to have studies finished by July 2014 on allowing women to serve as SEALs, and has set October 2015 as the date when women could begin Navy boot camp with the expressed intention of becoming SEALs eventually.

U.S. Special Operations Command is coordinating the matter of what commando jobs could be opened to women, what exceptions might be requested and when the transition would take place.

The proposals leave the door open for continued exclusion of women from some jobs if research and testing find that women could not be successful in sufficient numbers. But the services would have to defend such decisions to top Pentagon leaders.

Army officials plan to complete gender-neutral standards for the Ranger course by July 2015. Army Rangers are one of the service's special operations units, but many soldiers who go through Ranger training and wear the coveted tab on their shoulders never actually serve in the 75th Ranger Regiment. To be considered a true Ranger, soldiers must serve in the regiment.

In January, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Dempsey signed an order that wiped away generations of limits on where and how women could fight for their country. At the time, they asked the services to develop plans to set the change in motion.

The decision reflects a reality driven home by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where battle lines were blurred and women were propelled into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers who were sometimes attached, but not formally assigned, to battalions. So even though a woman could not serve officially as a battalion infantryman going out on patrol, she could fly a helicopter supporting the unit or be part of a team supplying medical aid if troops were injured.

Of the more than 6,700 U.S. service members who have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, about 150 have been women.

The order Panetta and Dempsey signed prohibits physical standards from being lowered simply to allow women to qualify for jobs closer to the battlefront. But the services are methodically reviewing and revising the standards for many jobs, including strength and stamina, in order to set minimum requirements for troops to meet regardless of their sex.

The military services are also working to determine the cost of opening certain jobs to women, particularly aboard a variety of Navy ships, including certain submarines, frigates, mine warfare and other smaller warships. Dozens of ships do not have adequate berthing or facilities for women to meet privacy needs, and would require design and construction changes.

Under a 1994 Pentagon policy, women were prohibited from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level. A brigade is roughly 3,500 troops split into several battalions of about 800 soldiers each. Historically, brigades were based further from the front lines, and they often included top command and support staff.

Last year the military opened up about 14,500 combat positions to women, most of them in the Army, by allowing them to serve in many jobs at the battalion level. The January order lifted the last barrier to women serving in combat, but allows the services to argue to keep some jobs closed.

The bulk of the nearly 240,000 jobs currently closed to women are in the Army, including those in infantry, armor, combat engineer and artillery units that are often close to the battlefront. Similar jobs in the Marine Corps are also closed.

Army officials have laid out a rolling schedule of dates in 2015 to develop gender-neutral standards for specific jobs, beginning with July for engineers, followed by field artillery in March and the infantry and armor jobs no later than September.

Women make up about 14 percent of the 1.4 million active U.S. military personnel. More than 280,000 women have been sent to Iraq, Afghanistan or neighboring nations in support of the wars.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Seals-rangers-women-hagel/2013/06/18/id/510470
Report to moderator   Logged
Kilo Medic
Getbig II
**
Gender: Male
Posts: 252


« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2013, 03:22:37 PM »

I personally am good with the idea that some women want to put their life on the line, and are willing to die in combat.  But my concern is that this push is for that sake of equality, over ensuring combat effectiveness.  Keep the physical standards the same, let them test, and let's bury them with the same respect our men are.  
Report to moderator   Logged
Roger Bacon
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21036


Roger Bacon tries to be witty and fails


« Reply #2 on: June 18, 2013, 03:24:20 PM »

I have no problem with this if they can meet the same standards as men. 

They can't meet the same standards, are you kidding? Huh
Report to moderator   Logged

Roger Bacon
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21036


Roger Bacon tries to be witty and fails


« Reply #3 on: June 18, 2013, 03:26:17 PM »

my concern is that this push is for that sake of equality, over ensuring combat effectiveness.


That's what all this kind of garbage is about.  People aren't equal and no amount of bullshit like this will make them equal.
Report to moderator   Logged

Kilo Medic
Getbig II
**
Gender: Male
Posts: 252


« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2013, 03:27:34 PM »


That's what all this kind of garbage is about.  People aren't equal and no amount of bullshit like this will make them equal.

No argument from me on that!
Report to moderator   Logged
_bruce_
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16116


Anus Rising


« Reply #5 on: June 18, 2013, 03:30:32 PM »

Hope they're equally eager to die.
Report to moderator   Logged

[
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41290


« Reply #6 on: June 18, 2013, 03:31:39 PM »

They can't meet the same standards, are you kidding? Huh

Most of them cannot.  But I don't have a problem with them competing.  Nothing wrong with giving them an opportunity.  If they cannot meet the standard, they don't get in.  

Only thing I don't want them to do is lower standards to allow them in.  
Report to moderator   Logged
_bruce_
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16116


Anus Rising


« Reply #7 on: June 18, 2013, 03:38:07 PM »

Most of them cannot.  But I don't have a problem with them competing.  Nothing wrong with giving them an opportunity.  If they cannot meet the standard, they don't get in.  

Only thing I don't want them to do is lower standards to allow them in.  

Most likely the outcome and overall quality will suffer.
Report to moderator   Logged

[
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41290


« Reply #8 on: June 18, 2013, 03:42:53 PM »

I personally am good with the idea that some women want to put their life on the line, and are willing to die in combat.  But my concern is that this push is for that sake of equality, over ensuring combat effectiveness.  Keep the physical standards the same, let them test, and let's bury them with the same respect our men are.  

I agree.
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41290


« Reply #9 on: June 18, 2013, 03:43:29 PM »

Most likely the outcome and overall quality will suffer.

We shall see.  I hope that doesn't happen. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Cholo4Life
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2125

Team Myostatin Deficient


« Reply #10 on: June 18, 2013, 03:51:19 PM »

Just as they did with the service academies, they will lower the physical requirements for women and then say they meet the "standard." The shameful part is that they have it rigged so a woman can actually do less (pullups for example) and get a higher overall score than a male (they shut you down once you hit your gender's target for the particular event, so a female who does 7 pullups will get a perfect score in that event but a male who only does 17 - the male target is 18 - will not).

Let's hope any future conflicts can be fought with drones.
Report to moderator   Logged
Skeletor
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 4083


You boob!


« Reply #11 on: June 18, 2013, 04:32:03 PM »

I think this might be a slippery slope. Even after women are allowed to try, many "pc"  advocates will start saying "why aren't there any women still " or "why only 3 women in the SEALS" and push for changing standards or find another way to shoehorn them for "equality". It is doubtful they can withstand the exact same standards (and treatment) but let them have a go on absolutely equal terms and let them see what happens.
Unit/team coherency would be another issue that should be taken into account.
Report to moderator   Logged
Shockwave
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19543


Decepticons! Scramble!


« Reply #12 on: June 18, 2013, 04:52:08 PM »

I think this might be a slippery slope. Even after women are allowed to try, many "pc"  advocates will start saying "why aren't there any women still " or "why only 3 women in the SEALS" and push for changing standards or find another way to shoehorn them for "equality". It is doubtful they can withstand the exact same standards (and treatment) but let them have a go on absolutely equal terms and let them see what happens.
Unit/team coherency would be another issue that should be taken into account.
Agreed. Terrible.
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 82675


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 18, 2013, 04:54:18 PM »

keep the standards the same.

cause seriously, any human that gets themselves into that good of shape, then is willing to put their life at risk for the USA>....

Let em!
Report to moderator   Logged

doison
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3015


Rum Ham


« Reply #14 on: June 18, 2013, 07:31:34 PM »

They should be allowed push ups from the knees and an extra chocolate serving in the chow hall.  Otherwise, they need to pass the same shit
Report to moderator   Logged

Purge_WTF
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5501


Constitution Party forever.


« Reply #15 on: June 19, 2013, 07:35:18 AM »

I personally am good with the idea that some women want to put their life on the line, and are willing to die in combat.  But my concern is that this push is for that sake of equality, over ensuring combat effectiveness.  Keep the physical standards the same, let them test, and let's bury them with the same respect our men are.  

My sentiments precisely.

Hopefully the ladies prove to be productive in the field and not phonies like Jessica Lynch.
Report to moderator   Logged

Psalm 23.
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3854


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


« Reply #16 on: June 19, 2013, 12:39:58 PM »

They can't meet the same standards, are you kidding? Huh

That's a ridiculously overbroad statement to make. Are you seriously asserting that no woman can or ever will be able to meet the standards set for SEALs?
Report to moderator   Logged
Donny
Competitors II
Getbig V
******
Gender: Male
Posts: 8492



WWW
« Reply #17 on: June 19, 2013, 12:52:51 PM »

well i remember in 1991 they first brought women into mens Jobs in the British Army. around 1985/86 they brought some on our Gun positions and they soon learned itīs too hard. They were shit and could not carry a fucking 155 Shell. Later they had them as Radio Ops in the Royal Signals. I was in an Armoured Regt and they could not track Bash (Splitting a track and joining it). I remember being out in the Field and it was a cold winter...split track..so we had to tell the woman to just fuck off and make us a warm meal because she was useless Roll Eyes Another woman was the Camp Slut who got pregnant...who was the Father?? know one knew. I later re-traded to Lineman and they were not allowed to do this because it was laying miles of cables,joining cables and Lifting heavy drums of cables. Canīt see them being a US Navy Seal Huh
Report to moderator   Logged
chadstallion
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2396



« Reply #18 on: June 19, 2013, 02:13:53 PM »

They can't meet the same standards, are you kidding? Huh
if they can't they won't get in.
simple.
don't sweat it.
Report to moderator   Logged

Archer77
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 11315

Team Shizzo


« Reply #19 on: June 19, 2013, 02:33:36 PM »

Let them try but do not change the requirements.  Problem solved.
Report to moderator   Logged

A
_bruce_
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16116


Anus Rising


« Reply #20 on: June 19, 2013, 04:22:52 PM »

The requirements will be changed - that's the sole reason for such a shady move ala more women in everything.
Report to moderator   Logged

[
Donny
Competitors II
Getbig V
******
Gender: Male
Posts: 8492



WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 19, 2013, 04:31:33 PM »

The requirements will be changed - that's the sole reason for such a shady move ala more women in everything.

I think they will Change things but they will never go and do what an SAS/SBS/NAVY SEAL does. They will never make them operational like the above. The reason is Logical. The Fitness requirements for women are lower than men in any Military,the British Army included. NOT being against women but you have to be fucking realistic here.
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41290


« Reply #22 on: June 19, 2013, 04:35:12 PM »

The requirements will be changed - that's the sole reason for such a shady move ala more women in everything.


Definitely a concern.  The article hints that might happen:  "The order Panetta and Dempsey signed prohibits physical standards from being lowered simply to allow women to qualify for jobs closer to the battlefront. But the services are methodically reviewing and revising the standards for many jobs, including strength and stamina, in order to set minimum requirements for troops to meet regardless of their sex."

Report to moderator   Logged
Donny
Competitors II
Getbig V
******
Gender: Male
Posts: 8492



WWW
« Reply #23 on: June 19, 2013, 04:41:30 PM »

Definitely a concern.  The article hints that might happen:  "The order Panetta and Dempsey signed prohibits physical standards from being lowered simply to allow women to qualify for jobs closer to the battlefront. But the services are methodically reviewing and revising the standards for many jobs, including strength and stamina, in order to set minimum requirements for troops to meet regardless of their sex."


so what they are saying is Young men are getting softer. I could believe this ..in my day you got a slap if you fucked up. Now the court of Human rights prevail... good and bad i suppose. I remember seeing beatings going on. Not Bullying but if you fucked up you got a Punch or two  Grin.
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41290


« Reply #24 on: June 19, 2013, 05:16:57 PM »

so what they are saying is Young men are getting softer. I could believe this ..in my day you got a slap if you fucked up. Now the court of Human rights prevail... good and bad i suppose. I remember seeing beatings going on. Not Bullying but if you fucked up you got a Punch or two  Grin.

Dude.  I hear they have "stress cards" in boot camp/basic training these days, where a recruit can basically force their drill sergeant/instructor to call off the dogs if they're too stressed.   Roll Eyes  So yeah, young men are getting softer. 

The more I think about this, the more I think it's likely they eventually lower the standards.  Most of the men cannot meet standards for SEAL, special forces, etc. training.  I think there might be, if any, a handful of women who could possibly meet the current standards.  When the women continually fail to meet the standards, they might just lower them.   Undecided

That is sort of what happened with the Army recently.  They spent millions trying to revamp their physical fitness test, which would have (among other things) replaced push-ups with pull-ups.  They scrapped it in part because they couldn't find enough women who can do pull-ups. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!