English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I would like to know how this isnt against the law. It IS discrimination even though its by the government and military. If a woman could get through the training then why can they join? I would like to know about the training and the job. Thanks!!

2007-01-22 10:48:03 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

18 answers

i did read some of the other responses.. but ive talked about this with a few other people and one of them said guys wouldnt be able to function the same if it were an all male group vs having one or two women in it.. [that was from a civilians perspective].. a soldier i asked said that it was about physical strength.. if you are on the front lines and someone gets hurt and needs to be carried off a woman is less likely to be able to carry off some guy twice her size.. or even carrying the equipment that needs to be brought out.. its not like they just go out with a gun and nothing else.. they have to carry loads of amo and the protective gear etc etc

2007-01-22 11:10:28 · answer #1 · answered by t 2 · 0 0

Simply because men naturally develop stronger muscles than women and are generally physically more adept. Also special forces have a large risk of bring captured and the experience would be particularly horrible for a women for obvious reasons. But don't worry you can still join. There are hundreds of jobs available for women in the army, navy and air force so you can still "make something of yourself".

2016-05-23 22:57:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

same reason they can't fight on front lines and the same reason they can't be in submarines. they just... can't. the military is pretty much the only big thing left standing strong that strictly restricts women on what jobs they can and cannot have. will it ever change? i think so. any time soon? nope. that's just the way it is. also, for every woman accepted, they could probably find a man stronger and physically more capable. why not just spend the $$ on them instead. as for wanting to learn more about training, it depends on what special ops your talking about. ranger, seal, eop, etc. but, yah. but if you think of it, to make up for not being able to join special ops, they have a chance in advancing ranks faster or becoming an officer, expecially if you're a minorty. sorry if it really bothers you that much, but the military pretty much has it's own separate set of laws. and that's just one of them. but it would be nice to see a woman make one of those teams...

2007-01-22 10:56:07 · answer #3 · answered by LuvingMBLAQ 3 · 0 0

Most women don't have the physical capability to make it through the rigors of Special Ops. Those who do aren't allowed because a law in the 90's was made prohibiting women to be in ANY combat job. Plain and simple.

2007-01-22 11:37:41 · answer #4 · answered by shishka 2 · 0 0

I definitely find that strange all right. I would think that a land that supposedly stands for universal equality would have done away with that sort of archaic thinking. But then again, the military is and probably always will be a male-dominated environment.

In the Canadian Forces, women are allowed in both the Special Forces and the Combat Arms trades no problem, and the only place they are not employed are on the subs because of a lack of separate facilities for female personnel.

Women are expected to perform as well as the men in all trades, and in general they do. Those who don't don't remain in a "0" trade for long, trust me on this one.

And our standards for the special forces are universal. No dropping them for female personnel all right. We have women in JTF2 who could carry a 220 pound monster of a man and his gear, as well as their own without even batting an eyelash. Just like we have women in the infantry and the engineers who schlep around well over 100 pounds of gear for days on end. Women are as capable as men in all aspects of military life, and sometimes even more capable.

2007-01-22 11:33:24 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

women are not allowed combat arms period

this has been made law by congress so it is not discrimination. that and the fact of it is the combat arms jobs SF, Infantry, Tankers, and artyillery are physically demanding, and mentally draining. congress doesnt veiw this as an ideal place for a women there also looking at the politcal aspect. also with combat arms people are harder on you, the then im rest of the military (all POGs) get over on this fact there not hard on there soldiers. theres alot of yelling and PT involved in combat arms. ivwhen you **** up they let you know LOUDLY. ive seen people get introuble for yelling at female soldiers when the screwed the pooch around us and they were chewed out by that soldiers officer. its the fact that there are double standards in the military, you got the combat arms (including the cream of the crop Infantry) then you got all the POGs (MPs, Finance, PAC clerks, Medics, etc...)

another fascit is to look at the hygene aspect women CANNOT allowed to be with out a showers for 4 days (i think it might be a little longer) do to hygene issues. theres also some crazy rules for going to the field (trainging or deployment) in this.

2007-01-22 11:06:15 · answer #6 · answered by trionspectre666 2 · 0 1

Special Forces operations often require activities for which women are not well suited. Besides, a man can smell a woman, especially at her 'time of the month' from long way off. Special Forces teams would be detected and killed quickly with that sort of liability among them.

If Special Forces are compelled to allow women, despite the increased hazards, that would be a demonstration of stupid politicians putting 'political correctness' ahead of wisdom.

2007-01-22 10:51:44 · answer #7 · answered by speakeasy 6 · 4 1

I'm kind of in the same boat as you. I have no problem with women serving, being at West Point in everything I know lots of women who outdo me! The problem is relationships on the front line. For example a man might give his own life out of instinct to save a women in combat out of instinct.

2007-01-22 10:52:39 · answer #8 · answered by hobbitgonewild 3 · 0 1

In the most non-sexist way to answer this possible. Put yourself in the situation of being being enemy lines in Iraq with gun fire, explosions, and your men falling around you. A man is not only physically stronger, however emotionally to carry and command their troops. In times of combat a man is someone more suited for the situation than a woman.

2007-01-22 10:52:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

I would venture to guess that there is not a women on this earth that could make it thru the rigors of any one of the special forces programs. Females just are not built to do these type of things. One of the basic requirements is to carry your buddy out if he is injured and I doubt to many women can put a 200lb man over their shoulders and get them out of there. That is just a fraction of what they must do!

2007-01-22 10:52:55 · answer #10 · answered by tbird 3 · 2 3

fedest.com, questions and answers