[Suits]

(08-20-2015 11:49 AM)mbare Wrote:  

This just in: http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/...uffera9312

"The Navy is planning to open its elite SEAL teams to women who can pass the grueling training regimen, the service's top officer said Tuesday in an exclusive interview.

Adm. Jon Greenert said he and the head of Naval Special Warfare Command, Rear Adm. Brian Losey, believe that if women can pass the legendary six-month Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training, they should be allowed to serve.

"Why shouldn't anybody who can meet these [standards] be accepted? And the answer is, there is no reason," Greenert said Tuesday in an exclusive interview with Navy Times and its sister publication Defense News. "So we're on a track to say, 'Hey look, anybody who can meet the gender non-specific standards, then you can become a SEAL.'"

I'm in favour of letting women enter the Navy SEALS. As soon as there are enough who fulfill the requirements to fill a SEAL team, we should start sending them on dangerous missions.

[Paracelsus]

John Reed updated his article on the two women who made it through Ranger School.

His main point was that these two women were a pilot and an MP.

His main question being, and a fucking good one at that: exactly what situation is envisaged where an aviator and a military cop are going to be called on to conduct infantry recon and/or combat patrols behind enemy lines, that being the main purpose/training exercise of Ranger School?

Maybe when Mexico finally decides to take more than an invisible hand in the US's elections and the South is called on to defend the union?

Maybe when the Japanese finally land on California and the assembled male legions of personnel are so decimated they have to start putting bullets in cunts' hands en masse, as with the Great Patriotic Slaughter in Russia of 1940-1944?

Or maybe, as is much more likely: for the field of administrative battle that is how promotions are carried out in the US Army -- where a ranger tab is an unofficial selection criterion for getting to a sufficiently high rank that (ironically) precludes you from any possibility of being in a frontline combat situation?

[Libertas]

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/.../32043219/

They've passed the deadline for allowing women into the SEALs.

I'm re-reading Lone Survivor right now (IMO required reading for American men looking to reclaim their masculinity) and have just passed the training portions.

The idea that women would be able to get through BUD/S, just based on what Luttrell wrote, is laughable to me. These guys are typically the equivalent of Division 1 college athletes and the attrition rate even among guys that are THAT fit is atrocious.

The beta-in-chief just went in person I believe to the Ranger school because the two women graduated. There is a real force at work and I believe the standards are going to be undermined, not to mention the brotherhood and unit cohesion. Anyone that has served is free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Part of me thinks it's all a good thing because the elite is now deliberately gutting their own power with this, but I'll bet they're undermining the military while they can just hire contractors if shit hits the fan, and the military would be powerless to stop their machinations. I almost feel like I'm wearing a tinfoil hat now but this is seriously stretching the line of credibility. No one can really be this incompetent.

[Paracelsus]

(08-23-2015 09:33 AM)Libertas Wrote:  

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/.../32043219/

They've passed the deadline for allowing women into the SEALs.

I'm re-reading Lone Survivor right now (IMO required reading for American men looking to reclaim their masculinity) and have just passed the training portions.

The idea that women would be able to get through BUD/S, just based on what Luttrell wrote, is laughable to me. These guys are typically the equivalent of Division 1 college athletes and the attrition rate even among guys that are THAT fit is atrocious.

The beta-in-chief just went in person I believe to the Ranger school because the two women graduated. There is a real force at work and I believe the standards are going to be undermined, not to mention the brotherhood and unit cohesion. Anyone that has served is free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Part of me thinks it's all a good thing because the elite is now deliberately gutting their own power with this, but I'll bet they're undermining the military while they can just hire contractors if shit hits the fan, and the military would be powerless to stop their machinations. I almost feel like I'm wearing a tinfoil hat now but this is seriously stretching the line of credibility. No one can really be this incompetent.

Believe it. The SEALS are the most PR-conscious unit on the face of the Earth. For quiet professionals they sure as fuck seem determined to make sure other people know what they're doing. This is not the work of Teh Elites, it's the work of politically-correct officers who share more in common with public servants than they do anyone who might have to go into combat. The high command of the US armed forces is that dumb. You only have to look at the type of people who get that high to prove it: Petraeus, McCrystal et. al. These are not real bright people, they're career bureaucrats.

[Remington]

If I was wounded in a fire fight, do you think 150lb woman would be able to throw my 250lb body over her shoulder? You better be Holley Mangold but skinny to be able to do that.

[Vanguard]

Delete

[Deepdiver]

(09-10-2015 05:31 PM)Vanguard Wrote:  

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/mi...autologin=

"All-male ground combat teams outperformed their mixed-gender counterparts in nearly every capacity during a recent infantry integration test, Marine Corps officials revealed Thursday."

Excerpts:

All branches of the military are facing a January 1, 2016, deadline to open all combat roles to women. The Marine Corps is using this experiment to decide whether to request exceptions to that mandate. The Corps’ summary of the experiment, posted online today by NPR, concludes that combat teams were less effective when they included women.

Overall, the report says, all-male teams and crews outperformed mixed-gender ones on 93 out of 134 tasks evaluated. All-male teams were universally faster “in each tactical movement.”

The report also says that female Marines had higher rates of injury throughout the experiment.

Such conclusions may be disheartening to proponents of gender integration in combat, and certainly put a damper on the news that the Army’s ranger school recently graduated its first female soldiers. The tests come with at least one important caveat: As the Marine Corps Times notes, many of of the male study participants had previously served in combat units, whereas female participants, by necessity, came directly from infantry schools or from noncombat jobs.

The Marine Corps summary report does not indicate or suggest that the Marines will be asking for an exception to the military’s integration mandate. However, it does quote this somber section of a 1992 government study on gender integration in the armed forces:
A military unit at maximum combat effectiveness is a military unit least likely to suffer casualties. Winning in war is often only a matter of inches, and unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy. Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong.

Amazing how militant Marxist Feminist Obamunists insist that arbitrary Politics can overcome 1,000,000 years of evolution... Snowflakes can try to fool themselves but they can never fool Mother nature who evolved men to hunt, build, and fight to kill and protect their clans and women who were evolved to birth and nurture the next generation of warriors and mothers. Any other thinking is evidence of domestic enemies of our country and constitution who intend for the USA to lose in combat and diplomacy as a powerful military supported by a powerful economy makes for a more powerful diplomacy.

A major reason why we need a realistic CiC who will rebuild a military to fight and win and not just provide socially engineered career advancement opportunities for trannies, gays and snowflakes.

[joseywales]

(09-10-2015 05:31 PM)Vanguard Wrote:  

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/mi...autologin=

"All-male ground combat teams outperformed their mixed-gender counterparts in nearly every capacity during a recent infantry integration test, Marine Corps officials revealed Thursday."

"On marksmanship, men who had not been through infantry school hit targets 44% of the time with M4 rifles, besting infantry-trained women, who hit targets 28% of the time."

[joseywales]

Dupe. delete

[cascadecombo]

Quote:

What the hell must be going through the brains of the government officials who sanction these "mixed-gender" (gag) disasters?

Could be a long intensive example of teaching people to be careful what they wish for, because they just may get it. At the expense of those they supposedly care for.

[LeeEnfield303]

(08-21-2015 01:51 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

His main point was that these two women were a pilot and an MP.

His main question being, and a fucking good one at that: exactly what situation is envisaged where an aviator and a military cop are going to be called on to conduct infantry recon and/or combat patrols behind enemy lines, that being the main purpose/training exercise of Ranger School?

The Ranger tab is more a required rite of passage for infantry-types, rather than indicating imminent assignment to an elite unit (an infantry leader who never went through Ranger school would be viewed askance by his unit and peers). An analogy is airborne training...many, many more soldiers go through jump school and get their 5-jump-chump wings than will ever serve in an airborne unit.

[Deepdiver]

OBTW - Take these negative females in combat results and multiply by at least 2 or more for the results in Special Forces SEALs, Green Beret, Recon, Rangers

[Deepdiver]

(08-20-2015 11:40 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 11:49 AM)mbare Wrote:  

This just in: http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/...uffera9312

"The Navy is planning to open its elite SEAL teams to women who can pass the grueling training regimen, the service's top officer said Tuesday in an exclusive interview.

Adm. Jon Greenert said he and the head of Naval Special Warfare Command, Rear Adm. Brian Losey, believe that if women can pass the legendary six-month Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training, they should be allowed to serve.

"Why shouldn't anybody who can meet these [standards] be accepted? And the answer is, there is no reason," Greenert said Tuesday in an exclusive interview with Navy Times and its sister publication Defense News. "So we're on a track to say, 'Hey look, anybody who can meet the gender non-specific standards, then you can become a SEAL.'"

I'm in favour of letting women enter the Navy SEALS. As soon as there are enough who fulfill the requirements to fill a SEAL team, we should start sending them on dangerous missions.

If any natural borne human female (Not a Trannie) can make it through BUD-SEAL Training then it is NOT tough enough.

[LeeEnfield303]

SJWs have a friend in Ash Carter:

   

[Tim in real life]

Seriously, one aspect people are overlooking about females in military is selling out their country and fellow troopers for tingles.

[Peregrine]

Here's an idea: any politician in favor of mixed gender units must either serve or volunteer a son/daughter to serve in a mixed gender unit.

Problem solved.

[Rush87]

Throughout history the infiltration of women into male dominated spheres have always spelled the end of that empire.

The United States are also following the exact same timeline. I've come to the conclusion that history will always repeat itself on a macro scale and we really can't stop it. The worst part of this is being red pill, knowing what's coming and preaching to the moronic masses who disregard any and all information you provide irrespective of how accurate it may be.

To see the level of feminist [And to a larger extent brain dead white knight] delusion you need only look to MMA. There is a large vocal majority who think Ronda Rousey can defeat male UFC fighters… These people actually exist.

This tells you all you need to know about delusions in the combat field. "Women are capable of anything a man can do"… Gun. Head. Pow…

It reminds me of that movie Idiocracy. If some day in the not too distance future they decided NFL teams needed a quota of women playing I would sit back, pull out a cigar and say…

…"You know what. I'm not surprised".

[blck]

(10-12-2015 02:10 AM)Rush87 Wrote:  

Throughout history the infiltration of women into male dominated spheres have always spelled the end of that empire.

The United States are also following the exact same timeline. I've come to the conclusion that history will always repeat itself on a macro scale and we really can't stop it. The worst part of this is being red pill, knowing what's coming and preaching to the moronic masses who disregard any and all information you provide irrespective of how accurate it may be.

To see the level of feminist [And to a larger extent brain dead white knight] delusion you need only look to MMA. There is a large vocal majority who think Ronda Rousey can defeat male UFC fighters… These people actually exist.

This tells you all you need to know about delusions in the combat field. "Women are capable of anything a man can do"… Gun. Head. Pow…

It reminds me of that movie Idiocracy. If some day in the not too distance future they decided NFL teams needed a quota of women playing I would sit back, pull out a cigar and say…

…"You know what. I'm not surprised".

Lack of threat increased life Comfort and technology, when women stopped to have to worry about dying in labor they started to think that they could do everything men do but a big great war would put fags, trans and feminists back in their place as quick as a lightening strike.

[Thoroughbred]

When I put my Tin Foil Hat on and start to assess how all the various fronts in the war on masculinity and culture link up into one big plan, this I see as the keystone in The Great Dismantling.

Once our elite special forces units, the world over, become compromised in any way, shape or form, we are legitimately cooked.

They are the big stick that speaks the universal language the dogs of the world understand unequivocally: Incoming.

[Suits]

(10-12-2015 01:09 AM)Peregrine Wrote:  

Here's an idea: any politician in favor of mixed gender units must either serve or volunteer a son/daughter to serve in a mixed gender unit.

Problem solved.

If they agreed to that, they wouldn't be politicians.

[flightofdeath]

There's too much truth and reality in this thread for the modern world to handle.

[Rush87]

(10-12-2015 04:35 AM)blck Wrote:  

Lack of threat increased life Comfort and technology, when women stopped to have to worry about dying in labor they started to think that they could do everything men do but a big great war would put fags, trans and feminists back in their place as quick as a lightening strike.

And that is exactly what will happen. It has happened at the end cycle of every empire in history. There will be a power shift. Priorities will change. Left wing issues will disappear. The economy will revert back to the family unit with gender roles and the cycle will start over.

The usurping power: Whether that be China or Russia will eventually go through the exact same life cycle as the current US [Albeit on a faster timeline due to technology].

There is a reason gender roles exist: When everyone plays to their strengths the team [economy] performs at it's optimum. The reason the economy is declining is because at every level people are playing out of position.

To use a sporting example: It would be like the New England Patriots or Real Madrid putting in some of the most talented females in key positions, coming last in the league and having the whole population stumped as to why they are going so fucking terribly…

Sometimes taking the red pill can be a huge curse. You see just how stupid society can be and yet to 99% of the population you're the moron.

[H1N1]

This is doing the rounds: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/34...d-biscuits

It's an indignant rant by a female army captain about having to make coffee for the CO, and the lack of Pink Wafer biscuits. At this point, it's hard to know whether to laugh or cry.

[TheFinalEpic]

T-Nation article on the matter today, I'm glad theres still some masculine men left.

Quote:

Logic, Not Social Politics
It's fashionable these days to appear concerned about what is currently interpreted as "inequality." Inequality can be accurately defined as any diversity in the outcomes of any human endeavor deemed to be the potential subject of an op-ed piece in the New York Times, the Washington Post, or Yahoo News.

As such, what I'm about to say will be ignored by these outlets, both because it appears to promote inequality (even though it does no such thing), and because it's based on a logical analysis that cannot actually be made the subject of opinion.

To wit: IF a particular occupation or physical activity has a quantifiable strength, endurance, or power component inherent in its successful or even satisfactory performance, THEN the physical requirements of that job or activity can be quantified. And IF the physical requirements of the job can be quantified, THEN the physical abilities of the potential holders of the job can be specified. So can their hiring criteria.

It's Biology, Whether You Like It Or Not
A recent article details the important difference between the physical performance potential of men and women, and explains its physiological basis. It has not been refuted.

Briefly, men and women display disparate levels of neuromuscular efficiency, based upon sexual differences in hormonal milieu, their divergent physical development under differing hormonal environments, and the very real limitations this physiological divergence imposes upon us. This is merely biology, and it's true whether we like it or not.

This last part is tough: we can't really do anything about the reality of this situation except to 1) deny that it exists, or 2) deny that it is important. Well, it exists, just as surely as there is men's and women's tennis, golf, basketball, soccer, and every other sport. And it most assuredly as hell is important, especially when the outcome of ignoring it becomes more important that merely winning or losing a game. Combat is the most important "sport" undertaken by human beings, and the same reasoning must apply, or losing becomes very costly.

Getting yourself and other people killed should also not be the unintended consequence of politically-motivated employment policy. Once again: IF the job has quantifiable physical requirements, THEN the job should have quantifiable hiring criteria based on objectively assessed levels of required physical performance.

Pull-Ups
Any time a job's physical testing parameters have been altered to determine anything other than the most successful objective physical performance of that job, the job's ultimate successful outcome has become secondary to the hiring agenda. Or the job wasn't really important anyway – the mere appearance of importance has become the primary concern, along with a couple of interesting agenda items.

"Equality," and yet at the same time "diversity" (the old Orwellian term "doublethink" applies here: Good news! Your salary has been increased from $4000 to $3500!) have become the primary concern within some military organizations. The most important thing in the world is diversity, even when some of those super-valuable differences mean an un-equal ability to perform.

Some examples are obvious. When compared to men in the same unit, women in infantry and special forces ground combat roles cannot physically perform to the same standard required by an objective assessment of the physical performance necessary for all members of the unit. This is especially true if the enemy is composed of male fighters who might be willing to take advantage of any opportunities handed to them.

There will be, of course, individual (and primarily hypothetical) women who can operate at the same physical capacity required of men in combat. But not many. Recent experience has demonstrated that lower performance levels and higher injury rates in integrated units are the normal outcome. This isn't surprising to even a partially objective observer.

Now, it may be determined that an all-female unit is a viable entity on the battlefield. That way, apples are being compared to apples. "Diversity" is promoted across the service, while at the same time eliminating the problems of sexual diversity within a unit, and equality is preserved. If we, as a society, are prepared to deal with the consequences of the potential defeat of an all-female unit under our flag and our command, fine. That's a separate question.

Conversely, we may determine that not all members of an integrated unit must be able to do all of the physical tasks the members of the unit might be called upon to perform under battlefield circumstances. For example, women never ever have to carry the machine gun. That's the rule, dammit, and it just doesn't matter what's actually necessary right now, because of diversity.

But if all members of a unit might realistically be subjected to the same equal physical conditions in a combat situation, then we can't be prepared to integrate people into that unit who don't meet the same objective physical performance standard. Doing so will get people killed who might otherwise not be dead.

Lower Physical Standards, More Body Bags
Thorny social interaction topics aside (assuming they can really be ignored – they can't, but that's a different essay), male/female integrated battlefield combat units are inherently less efficient in a hot combat situation. That might be fine for people sufficiently cynical to advance Human Resources objectives over battlefield outcomes. But that makes me uncomfortable. I hope it makes you uncomfortable too.

And the only way such a thing can be accomplished is to lower the physical testing standards for everybody, or lower the physical testing standards for women. This is profoundly irrational, if the job in question has objectively assessable physical requirements. Irrational, illogical, and dishonest.

IF physical standards are lowered so that more women can be included in ground combat infantry and special forces (and even law enforcement and as firefighters) THEN fools and knaves have been allowed to make the decisions.

Link here: https://www.t-nation.com/opinion/women-in-ground-combat

[Easy_C]

(08-23-2015 09:44 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Believe it. The SEALS are the most PR-conscious unit on the face of the Earth. For quiet professionals they sure as fuck seem determined to make sure other people know what they're doing. This is not the work of Teh Elites, it's the work of politically-correct officers who share more in common with public servants than they do anyone who might have to go into combat. The high command of the US armed forces is that dumb. You only have to look at the type of people who get that high to prove it: Petraeus, McCrystal et. al. These are not real bright people, they're career bureaucrats.

This. As much as SEALs talk about being "quiet professionals", the reality is that they've never seen a camera they could resist jumping in front of. Americans in general have a pathological addiction to fame and these guys are no different.


For how the military is actually run, read this article:

The 'U.S. military’s marathon, 30-year, single-elimination, suck-up tournament' or 'How America selects its generals'

Quote:

Then you go to your first assignment, typically platoon (about 40 people) leader in the Army and Marines—something similar in the Navy and Air Force. There, you will be rated by your superior and his superior. In the case of an entry-level lieutenant, that would typically be the company executive officer and company commander, who are generally captains.

Roughly speaking, they can say you’re the best lieutenant they’ve ever met or one of the top five best they’ve ever met or they can say you are less than that.

If they say you are less than that, you’re done, out of the generals tournament. It’s single elimination, remember?

“Surely you must be exaggerating,” you protest.

Nope. And don’t call me Shirley.

Think about it. There are not that many slots available for generals compared to slots for lieutenants. Some of those lieutenants are going to be rated the best the raters ever saw. In fact, the number who will get that rating, while quite small, will far exceed the number of lieutenants who can ultimately become generals. So the military’s attitude is why should we waste any more time on an officer who couldn’t make an excellent impression on his or her superiors when we have too many officers who could?

So to be a top general in the U.S. military, you must win the 30-year, marathon, single-elimination, suck-up tournament. To do that, you must read about 60 immediate superiors, figure out what they want you to say, do, and convey by body language, dress, and lifestyle, and feed back to each of them what they want so well that they each love you and rate you accordingly. As difficult as that sounds, I assure you that there are officers out there who are pulling it off and if you want to compete with them, you have to do the same.

If you make less than a super impression on even a single superior, your “competitiveness” for generalships is over.