Navy SEALs will open to women

[BillB]

"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.

Adm. Jon Greenert, chief of naval operations, 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."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /31948789/

You can bet that plenty of women will "pass the legendary six-month Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training", because the standards will be lowered.
I've seen this kind of crap happen repeatedly in industry over the past 30 or 40 years.
The Navy may begin with good intentions (I doubt it), but when there aren't enough women passing word will go out to 'find a way to get them through'.

[Red Oak]

Remember Women can do anything Men can, as long as you adjust the standards and don't make them uncomfortable

[GRANDPA]

Remember Women can do anything Men can

Except write their name in the snow or dirt.

[millergrovesue]

Remember Women can do anything Men can, as long as you adjust the standards and don't make them uncomfortable

Do these look like women who need standards adjusted???? Nope! Congratulations to them.

[BillB]

Remember Women can do anything Men can, as long as you adjust the standards and don't make them uncomfortable

Do these look like women who need standards adjusted???? Nope! Congratulations to them.

You're closer to the truth than you realize.
That's about what will happen when a woman volunteers.
'You look good. You're now a SEAL'

[millergrovesue]

Huh? Women go through the exact same training so if they make it they make it.............just like the men.

[BigTex]

No, it's not.

The Navy started changing the physical fitness standards to accommodate women over 20 years ago.

[BillB]

No, it's not.

The Navy started changing the physical fitness standards to accommodate women over 20 years ago.

I didn't know that.
I knew if they hadn't already lowered the standards they would. It never fails.

[millergrovesue]

No, it's not.

The Navy started changing the physical fitness standards to accommodate women over 20 years ago.

They didn't change standards for women only, did they? Then my statement stands.

[BigTex]

Women had to do fewer chin-ups, fewer situps, and had longer to finish the 1.5 mile run.

[ralph]

men MAY end up dropping out or retiring out of these special forces or not trying to get in thus weakening the 'special forces' . Same thing for the entire military that now allows transgender , homosexuals and other sissieness . Time will tell I suppose . TRUMP says that he will rebuild the military so wonder what he would do .

[ralph]

I wonder if the male team mates are obligated / required to slow down when they are 'runnin for their lives' in a battle . Maybe a woman 'seel' can command her team mates with a command of 'hey , wait up' !! Just wondrin !!

[BillB]

I wonder if the male team mates are obligated to slow down when they are 'runnin for their lives' in a battle . Maybe a woman 'seel' can command her team mates with a command of 'hey , wait up' !! Just wondrin !!

It won't be long before they will start accepting one-legged or one-armed cripples into special units.
The idiocy never ends.

[ralph]

yep , really pretty funny Billb !! I'll say it again , I'm glad that I'm all growed up !!

[Red Oak]

I was DXed from an ROTC Scholarship at 19, due to a back injury and resulting spinal fusion; I didn't "like it", but it was the correct thing to do. I would have been a potential burden.

The Military should not be a "Diversity Workshop", IMO.

[ann jusko]

The standards were very quietly changed. There is outrage, but not openly. I have an e-mail from someone who just retired and he can speak freely now. In fact, I posted it on my status.

[millergrovesue]

I read the presence of woman wasn't the only reason for changes. Changes were, logically, about the difference in the way battle is conducted and differences in weapons. Well, I hope so. Don't think our military should be fighting just as they did when they used swords.

[BillB]

I read the presence of woman wasn't the only reason for changes. Changes were, logically, about the difference in the way battle is conducted and differences in weapons. Well, I hope so. Don't think our military should be fighting just as they did when they used swords.

That's interesting.
Reference?

[millergrovesue]

Can't find the page I was looking at yesterday but here are a couple of others that reference same or similar.
As he and Mr. Van Camp started developing what became a 434-page manual, they began by considering what combat soldiers do and came up with a checklist of things like throwing grenades and dodging gunfire.

Then they matched those needs with exercises. Some of those are already in use by the Army, but others are new and still others are drawn from century-old routines. There are drills that mimic climbing, that teach soldiers how to roll and that require swift lateral movements. Some are done in body armor.

The old style of physical training, he said, was less relevant to soldiers’ tasks, which entail lots of jumping, crouching and climbing. “What we did in the morning had nothing to do with what we did the rest of the day,” Mr. Palkoska said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/us/31 ... .html?_r=0


http://www.military.com/military-fitnes ... st-changes