Posted on Dec 10, 2015
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL
9
9
0
70d4d192
In a recent Armytimes Article.

WASHINGTON — The men in the U.S. military's most dangerous jobs care little about political correctness or gender equality. And they have a message for their political leadership.

When they are fighting in the shadows or bleeding on the battlefield, women have no place on their teams.

In blunt and, at times, profanity-laced answers to a voluntary survey conducted by the Rand Corp., more than 7,600 of America's special operations forces spoke with nearly one voice. Allowing women to serve in Navy SEAL, Army Delta or other commando units could hurt their effectiveness and lower the standards, and it may drive men away from the dangerous posts.

An overwhelming majority of those who agreed to respond to the RAND survey said they believe women don't have the physical strength or mental toughness to do the grueling jobs.

Some of the broader conclusions of the survey, taken from May through July 2014, were disclosed by The Associated Press earlier this year, but the detailed results and comments written by respondents had not been released.

The Pentagon released the summer survey and other documents when Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced last week that he was opening all combat jobs to women. That decision was based on recommendations by the military service secretaries and the leaders of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Special Operations Command. Only the Marine Corps asked to exempt women from certain infantry and frontline positions, but Carter denied that request.

Half the men who got the 46-question survey responded to it, and Rand did not identify any of them. In some cases people who feel most strongly about an issue are more inclined to answer surveys.

Some 85 percent of the respondents said they oppose opening the special operations jobs to women, and 70 percent oppose having women in their individual units. More than 80 percent said women aren't strong enough and can't handle the demands of the job. And 64 percent said they aren't mentally tough enough.
"I weigh 225 pounds, and 280 pounds in full kit, as did most of the members of my ODA (a 12-man Army Green Beret unit)," one respondent said. "I expect every person on my team to be able to drag any member of my team out of a firefight. A 130 pound female could not do it, I don't care how much time she spends in the gym. Do we expect wounded men to bleed out because a female soldier could not drag him to cover?"

Another said politicians don't win the covert wars.

"Gender equality is not an option when the bullets are flying," he said. "Most males in the area of the world I work in would rather back hand a female than listen to her speak. There is a reason we send men to do these jobs."

Some saw it as inevitable.

"This integration will happen eventually and we might as well embrace it while we have current solid leadership and incoming solid leadership at the top to facilitate the transition," one said.

The deep challenges the survey revealed with integrating women into tight-knit commando teams are not lost on the Pentagon. Gen. Joseph Votel, head of U.S. Special Operations Command, posted a memo and video online last week after Carter's announcement, explaining the decision and vowing that the qualifying standards for special operations jobs will remain the same.

He noted that women have already moved into some special operations jobs, including as helicopter pilots and crew, members of cultural support teams in Afghanistan and in civil affairs and information operations.

And he added, "If candidates meet time-tested and scientifically validated standards, and if they have proven that they have the physical, intellectual, professional, and character attributes that are so critical to special operations - they will be welcomed into the special operations forces ranks."
The bulk of those who responded to the survey were young, white married men. They worry that having women in their small teams could fuel jealousy at home or create problems with sexual harassment or illicit affairs. And they rely on and trust their teams and units as family.

Ninety-eight percent agreed that their unit is united in trying to accomplish its missions. But when asked whether men and women in a unit would be united to accomplish a mission only 48 percent said yes. Nearly 33 percent said no, and almost 20 percent were undecided.

And nearly 60 percent said they expected that women assigned to their unit would be "treated unfairly" at least some of the time.

Some, however, said they might be willing for women to serve in some, more peripheral special operations jobs. Several suggested that women could be used as attachments or additions to some units, just not as actual members, such as the cultural support jobs they fill now.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2015/12/10/us-commandos-say-no-women-special-operations-jobs/77112648/
Posted in these groups: Images Women in the MilitaryAir combat art 0134 Combat
Edited 9 y ago
Avatar feed
Responses: 23
CSM Michael J. Uhlig
6
6
0
Our military is a standards based organization, it is more important than ever to enforce standards! I don't care what color your hair is and I can give a shit if you paint your toenails, standards are standards and we cannot allow our willingness to appease the politically correct desires of career politicians (IN and out of uniform) to put our people at risk! At this point of denying the playing field, we are pissing up a rope, just enforce standards and the best qualified will be the ones that make the cut.
(6)
Comment
(0)
SGT Tom McWilliams
SGT Tom McWilliams
5 y
Keep the standards where they are? Are you kidding me? The fn standards will be the other shoe! You know it. Everyone knows it.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SGM Mikel Dawson
6
6
0
Edited 9 y ago
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL I'm not Spec Ops, nor have I ever been in that position. How dare I state whom should be in that position? I think the "Operators" have a better clue of who should be there and who shouldn't. It's like women in combat: Yes women have been in combat situations, but there is a big difference between being in a position where your job is to seek out the enemy and terminate them at close quarters and what women have already done.

Those who state being Politically correct doesn't belong here, is on the money.
(6)
Comment
(0)
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL
9 y
SGM Mikel Dawson thanks for breaking it down, yes the operator view is lethal and its a hard knock sell. This has me split 50/50. Women can do the job, however the cost and risk is far greater at the operator level.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SGM Mikel Dawson
SGM Mikel Dawson
9 y
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL - And the operator's level is where the rubber meets the road! I think some people need to start looking at reality instead of in the clouds. Yes, women have places and women do great jobs, but I still think there is a limit.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
CSM Charles Hayden
6
6
0
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL Females as force multipliers-yes, they have excellent records for engaging and defusing situations.

Not as 'Operators' however, "Operators" do not defuse situations! They terminate the crisis, what/whomever that might be!
(6)
Comment
(0)
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL
9 y
CSM Charles Hayden I understand your point, as operators/situations on the front line it will be a challenge. I know it will be unique, but women must/accept the challenge to prove the conformation bias as a myth.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close