Ok I imagine these guys have to carry a massive amount of gear and weaponry every mission they go on. Could a woman of Demi Moore's short thin physique ever be able to build enough muscle in order to keep up with her male counterparts in real life?
shareThe musculature of women is quite different. My wife is thin, but I have no doubt she could haul that equipment and then some. I can't speak for Demi Moore, but she looks quite fit in the movie.
I don't need you to tell me how good my coffee is. .
No. No chance in hell. Men are bigger, stronger, and faster, and women's bodies require double the amount of essential body fats as men. The male body requires a minimum 3-5% essential body fats, the female body requires at least 8-12%. Those are biological realities, unvarnished by political correctness. This fantasy that women can serve in the same physical capacities as men is just that - a fantasy.
To put things in perspective and underline the physical disparity between the sexes, the fastest woman in human history was Florence Griffith-Joyner, who holds the women's world record in the 100 meter dash at 10.49. That's not enough to put her anywhere near the fastest 100 times run by boys. Not juniors, much less men, but simply boys, the fastest of whom have run the 100 in between 10.23 and 10.27 seconds, a full .20+ seconds faster than the fastest woman in human history, which is light years in track & field. To sum it up, the fastest woman ever would not even be among the fastest boys. (Meanwhile, the fastest men's 100 times are almost a full second ahead of the fastest women's.)
The disparity is even more pronounced with regard to strength. The world record for the bench press (unequipped) is 715 pounds by Scott Mendelson at a body weight of 315. The women's world record for the bench press (unequipped) is 391 by Roberta Collins at a body weight of 353. What's more, only 8 women in history have done a 300+ unequipped bench press, while you can go to your local gym at pretty much anytime of day and find an average Joe doing a 300+ bench.
Navy SEALs have to carry between 80-120 pounds of gear while patrolling the most taxing terrains imaginable and are required to be in peak male physical condition in all phases - strength, speed, agility, endurance, swimming, etc. These guys are the absolute fittest of the fit of the male population. The idea that a woman is physically capable of meeting the requirements to be a Navy SEAL is as absurd and biologically impossible as her playing middle linebacker for the Chicago Bears.
[deleted]
Who cares about world records etc. only a very very small percentage of the entire population are capable of world record feats. It makes no difference what sex a person is if they are able to perform the required functions of a job then there is NO reason for that person not to be considered for that job.
shareI knew a few women in the Navy that were strong enough. I have no idea if they would be mentally tough enough to pass BUDS. But I would have to say, after serving for 23 years, there would be very few women that could pass the training. As for serving in a position where dismemberment or death is almost a certainty: you have to ask Congress and the American People if they are ready to send women into full combat.
They do it in Israel...not sure we'll ever be ready for that.
Real question is: are most men? Because all the couch potatoes, heroes in their heads that they are, who complain about the movie being unbelievable probably couldn't. So my point is: gender is irrelevant. Some men can. Why wouldn't some women be able to?
For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco
I believe that yes a very fit woman is probably strong enough to CARRY full gear. Now, how fast will she be able to move is another matter.
shareThe problem is people keep using the terms men and women as well as comparing the sexes.. They should be thinking in terms of "person" and if any person proves capable enough to do a job then it makes no difference what sex they are.
shareI am smaller than she is and I can throw 115 pounds of girl over my head single-handedly in cheerleading, and then hold her there with a smile on my face. It's not just muscle that counts, it's adrenaline and determination. Size doesn't matter either; my brother is as thin as can be, but he's solid muscle and he can lift twice as much at the gym as some of the guys on steroids that look like Jonny Bravo. I believe if you are determined enough, you can accomplish anything.
I'll treat you the same way you treat me... you're call. :)
Re: Are women strong enough to carry the gear and weapons required of a seal
Real question is, would a women be strong enough to carry a navy seal, or a VIP, on her shoulder/back if he was injured and unable to walk, to an extraction point, all special forces boot camp practice carrying their fellow soldier in the field, but then again you don't really that many female EMT.
I weigh about 110 pounds and in cheerleading I could throw girls that are bigger than me over my head without any help. And we usually would practice for at least two hours so yeah, next question. :)
I'll treat you the same way you treat me... your call. :)
You are being helped by the girl you were lifting. I can guarantee if they were not jumping up off the ground and using momentum you would not be able to lift them over your head.
Lifting a cooperative person is not the same as dead lifting a limp body or carrying a pack laden with gear for 24 hours.
Actually they weren't. For one stunt she went from standing while we held her up, down into the splits, and I had to catch all her weight, well the other girls still held her feet, and then I had to throw her back up to standing. In another one, she was horizontal, the rest of the girls held her feet while I held her back, and I had to throw her into standing. Not to mention I carry a bookbag that people twice my size find heavy every single day. I think it was like 30 to 40 pounds; not 100 but still, my back is solid muscle.
I'll treat you the same way you treat me... your call. :)
Please go take a video of you picking up a woman lying limp on the ground and prove it.
The stunt you described sounds like a split catch-- which uses momentum.
I talked to a non-military EMT during career day. She was a tiny thing. 5'1". Part of her job was to extract injured people from crawl spaces that the rest of the team might get stuck in. She has hauled out people tipping the scales at 300.
shareMost women can't do physically what an average man can, and what the few best strong women can do, men athlete can do better.
Exept in a PC world, there are no interest to put a woman in en elite troop. Period.
And in Isreal, women units are NOT in front line troops or direct firefight. They know better.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/25/womens-combat-roles-in-israel-defense-forces-exagg/?page=all
a) Yes, and other men can lift more than other men. Shall we bar those men? No. We give them a test and if them meet the requirements, they are in. Why shouldn't we do the same for women?
b) I never mentioned Isaeli troops, but since you bring it up, those women (and men, both units mentioned are co-ed) have been declared qualified for combat. That means potentially they can and will be sent into heavy combat. The rest of the article is politics.
My question after reading it is are there no all male units in Israel who have only seen similar levels of combat? Because this article is more U.S. representative saying we will do better when we integrate and one Israeli guy saying we are boned if we let woman enter any higher in our armed forces. I mean, we aren't told if the tank training vote failed by a wide or narrow margin. The people who decide things like this may be way more divided on the issue then you are presenting.
Women infantry are prone to sustain pyshical injury faster than male infantry will.
To be blunt, men last longer under the conditions soldiers experience then women can.
If you want a type of infantry that is weaker than modern infantry, cannot last as long as modern infantry, and prone to injury faster than modern infantry by all means send women in, and if you want to reduce the overall performance of your modern infantry unit, mix women into it.
females have no place being in combat positions, especially any form of special operations.
they're not up to the task biologically, and are just a burden to comrades.
Exactly, yet people are too busy aruging about how strong a woman can be and they miss the point of what the actual job discription is and what would be expected of the woman in actual field operations.
All thanks to PC rubbish contining to trash our society.
You are basing these arguments on what factual data? I'm not denying that more men are qualified for field work than women, but you completely ignoring both historical and present day examples of women working in the field.
Women work in the military police, bomb defusal, and transportation units. All dangerous as hell jobs. Then you have other dangerous field work like being an astronaut or a member of SWAT. Or other jobs with a high death toll like coal miners or loggers.
You also have historical figures like Milunka Savic who fought multiple times on the front lines.
So I ask again, what is so incomprehensible about the idea that women should be allowed the same opportunities as men to take those tests and that a percentage of those women could qualify for things like infantry?
You don't understand the role of infantry and think that jobs such as a SWAT Field Officer are comparable examples because they are dangerous. It has no relevance.
Israel have tried to intergrate women into their infantry and armor units for decades, the problem is women sustain injury faster than men.
Milunka Savic was a soldier and this still has no relevance because you don't understand the issue. Women infantry are prone to injury faster than men, the female body cannot endure the amount of wear and tear that men can during their daily-weekly activities when on the field.
Women infantry can fight, patrol, scale the mountain side if you ordered it. But don't expect these women to do that on a day to day basis because their bodies will break under that kind of strain, that is a fact.
This is why the Military use female infantry in defensive roles, where they are not required to strain themselves doing what field infantry do, and that is where your example of SWAT Field Officer has some relevance.
So please educate yourself on what is actually required by field infantry, the role they perform and the jobs they peform and then question why any Military would want a weaker type of combat infantry that cannot last the distance their readliy available male units can.
Female athletes like martial artists and boxers, death march survivors, and extreme survivalists are examples of women enduring brutal conditions.
As for more exact examples, it's hard to do that when no one has actually put them in such positions. Then again, you could once say the same about female pilots.
Again, I'm not talking about ALL women. I'm talking out the ones who do qualify for infantry. If they fail to pass, so be it. Otherwise, let them in.
I have read up on what infantry needs to do.
The main sticking points seem to be weight of gear, distance traveled, lack of access to resources, and (from some really condescending pricks) potentially not being able to shower for over a month.
I've heard the phrase less strength and stamina than men over and over. The trouble is that statement is vague as hell. The top male athlete in a field will be stronger than his female counterpart (with some exceptions), but that female counterpart will still be stronger in that field than nearly everyone else in the world.
What we have is an observation, not a definitive yes or no to answer our hypothesis.
What evidence do we have that they can't perform the task? As you have pointed out I have yet to make any direct comparisons. Unless you have evidence from the co-ed Israeli units or something else, their bodies breaking under the strain is not a fact.
No one is interested in getting anyone killed. The women who are actually trying to be infantry or tank crew want to take the test and if they pass have it not based on any special treatment.
So let them take the test and if they fail, they fail. If they pass though, the idea should be considered.
I have read up on what infantry needs to do.
The main sticking points seem to be weight of gear, distance traveled, lack of access to resources, and (from some really condescending pricks) potentially not being able to shower for over a month.
The women who are actually trying to be infantry or tank crew want to take the test and if they pass have it not based on any special treatment.
Can you haul those 115 pounds for HOURS at a time on your back??
shareAnd it's people who think questions like that actually make a point of some kind, that get us in this mess in the first place.
Because X can/can't haul Y amount of pounds, it impacts _____ how?
May as well ask if he can fly to moon, it bares the same amount of relevance.