The U.S. did this back in 2015. As long as standards aren’t lowered, not really an issue in my opinion. Give the opportunity but challenge equally. To date, only a very small handful of women have made it through U.S. special forces training.
149
[deleted]5 days ago
+132
[removed]
132
Jazzlike-Equipment455 days ago
+99
As long as they can meet the standard idk why people have a problem with it.
99
Hogglespock5 days ago
+89
Reaction of public if captured. As the male Spec ops say - “At least we can’t get pregnant”
89
No-Cap20665 days ago
+19
It’s not only meeting the standard, but it’s maintaining after they get to their unit, that’s where the hard part comes in. There are some women who can keep up, but a vast majority can’t. And this is in a regular Army unit in my example/experience, not special forces.
19
Flexuasive5 days ago
+56
Well, then a vast majority of women won't get in, and those who qualify will. The issue solves itself.
56
Jive-Turkeys5 days ago
+19
How long before someone complains that the standards aren't realistic? Lol
19
fools_errand495 days ago
+20
This. It's already happened before leading to standards being changed to accomodate people who would otherwise have been drummed out under the previous standard.
20
No-Cap20665 days ago
-3
I understand that, but passing the standards in a training environment are different than passing/exceeding and maintaining them in an operational unit. It only gets harder after the training is done.
-3
Flexuasive5 days ago
+14
Well, then those who do not maintain will not continue their service. I am certain a subset of special forces can figure that much out, in order to save some very valuable lives.
14
EpicChungusGamers4 days ago
+6
> those who do not maintain will not continue their service
Sending people through expensive, specialized pipelines for them to fail out when they get to their unit is not a smart idea, fiscally or organizationally.
6
No-Cap20665 days ago
-16
Better to just not deal with it in the first place imo. It’s a just a distraction and extra bs to worry about.
-16
SpaceC0wboyX4 days ago
+12
I can honestly say I’m of the vast majority of men who couldn’t meet special forces standards. And since there are some men who could make it but the vast majority can’t, men shouldn’t be allowed in special forces.
It’s literally top tier military. How are you gonna exclude an entire gender because “most of them couldn’t do it.” Yeah no shit that’s why it’s special forces and not enlisting in the army.
12
No-Cap20664 days ago
-11
I’m in that category as well. But the truth of the matter is most women can’t even make it in a normal unit in a combat role.
-11
ohdogwhatdone5 days ago
+45
Should be like this everywhere. German men now need to tell the government when they want to leave the country for longer than 3 months. What kind of sexist bs is that?
45
[deleted]5 days ago
+1
[deleted]
1
Secure_Activity49445 days ago
-2
This is where we are.
We are OK with drafts.
Insane.
-2
LankyTumbleweeds5 days ago
-7
I never understand why many people don’t gravitate towards the fact that no one should be forced into the military, but instead that everyone should, when talking about equality on this issue. Makes me sad.
-7
nvidiastock5 days ago
+13
Because if you have equal rights in a society you should also have equal responsibility.
13
Secure_Activity49445 days ago
-3
Responsibility to the game of the 1%?
Okay, drone.
-3
nvidiastock5 days ago
+4
If men have it, women should have it as well, yes. Equality.
4
Secure_Activity49445 days ago
OR
we dont listen to the greedy basterds on top.
What about that, lol
0
RMAPOS4 days ago
YEA. Let's just live in a world with no selfish evil people who would completely c*** over any country with an army the size of a charity organization. Fantastic idea. While we switch dimensions, can we pick one where there is no cancer, either? Would be dope.
It's really worrying that people who are so offensively detached from reality get to vote.
0
Secure_Activity49445 days ago
-1
I mean, it must be nice to have soo much responsibility, right? One Job isnt enough? Get a second one!
What, medicine gets more and more expensive? Just be healthy!
Huh, you cant aford living? Enlisten now and take others houses
Ooohh... rah?
-1
LankyTumbleweeds5 days ago
-6
We don’t disagree on that, probably just that it’s a good idea to have mandatory conscription for everyone. You would have the same outcome if you removed it.
-6
jmacintosh2505 days ago
+2
The draft is one of those things you never want to use, but keep in place because you are worried you need it.
If your foe has a draft and you don’t, that puts you at a disadvantage. And while people should generally be free not to be drafted: if your foe has it and occupies you, they have no reason not to draft you and force you to help. See Russia with Ukraine.
2
LankyTumbleweeds5 days ago
-4
Let’s fundamentally disagree on that, but I understand what you’re saying on a case to case basis. But if we want to move towards a society where we bomb and threaten eachother less in general, I don’t think expanding the manpower pool of government elites is the right way.
-4
RMAPOS4 days ago
+1
So it's 2022 and you live in Ukraine. Putin announces his 3-day special military operation against your country. Everyone knows that being usurped by Russia will mean suffering but naturally nobody is keen on being the one having to spend the next few years in a soggy trench with a good chance of dying at any moment or worse - getting horribly tortured.
In your brilliant "nobody should be forced into the military" world, how do you reckon this scenario will play out? And please take it further, don't stop after your country has been plundered, raped and robbed of it's cultural identity. In a world where all civilized nations have decided that it is inhumane to forcibly enlist people, what mid to long term consequences would a single bad actor like the US, Russia and other fan favourites have if they met little to no resistance?
Bad agents are a fact of life, nobody wanting to be the sucker sitting in a trench is a fact of life as well. How do you deal with that reality in your "nobody should be made to defend their country" world? Are you hoping for others to courageously pick up your slack for you? Or are you just magically wishing all the imperialist assholes of this world away? (If you have that power, why not just do it right now?) Or do you have an actable plan to forever remove people with such ambitions from office, solving territorial wars forever? Please speak the suspense is killing me.
What makes me really sad is that women always pull this "what if we just had no problems" bullshit when it's about them picking up the responsibilities that come with privilege. After all the c*** you've thrown at men for having the "easy" life you're shockingly reluctant to take on men's responsibilities.
Reality check: We *have* problems, we *need* to deal with them and it's complete hypocritical bullshit that when the "women can do everything men can" crowd gets called to do their f****** part, there's suddenly a million vital fundamental differences in men and women that makes them perfectly deserve the same pay on a construction site yet somehow entirely unfit to keep up with men in the military.
How f****** convenient.
1
LankyTumbleweeds4 days ago
If that’s not an AI rant, you perhaps need to breath. I’m not a woman and a voluntary conscript of my own nation.
Not having forced conscription is not the same as not having a military. Expand your horizon. Your entire rant is build on this singular strawman.
0
RMAPOS4 days ago
+1
My entire rant is based on the assumption that a country without conscription will have a smaller army than a country with conscription. It's completely delusional to think a country with purely voluntary service could stand against what Russia is doing to Ukraine right now. But you probably know better than Zelensky who is currently facing that reality and struggling to not get overwhelmed *in spite* of forced conscription. Like what, you would have ended that conflict years ago with less manpower and before losses surpassed the amount of volunteers? Or better yet, all the conscripts trying to flee the country would be so inspired by being allowed to leave that they'd change their mind about it?
Listen I'm not saying it's a great state of affairs or that I wouldn't wish for a world where not even voluntary soldiers were required. I do see the cruelty in forcing someone trying to escape to fight for their life. But if we don't stand up to imperialists we'll have to serve them and a small-mid sized country's army of voluntaries will never be enough to defend against a heavily militarized fascist nation that has no quarrels sending innocents into the meat grinder. Goddamn man you serve, are probably well aware of what's going on in the world war-wise yet somehow still believe that imperialistic nuclear nations like the US or Russia could be fended off with the amount of people naturally hyped to die for their country? We have a real life example happening right now. Ukraine would be toast without forced conscription. Yet you just sit there and claim that the current world order would not be at peril if we weakened our defensive manpower like that? Welcome to fascist earth. Only took a few months to overtake it all after these idiots decided it would be inhumane to make people earn their freedom. Make it make sense.
Also your head smoking when you read more than a paragraph is no indication of how well regulated I am. It reeks of a passive aggressive attempt to deligitimize my points by calling my well being into question.
1
LankyTumbleweeds4 days ago
I don’t question your well being, I question your arguments because you can’t phrase them in a coherent and concise way. I genuinely though it was AI.
I don’t question the necessity of a draft entirely, on a case by case basis, as written elsewhere. That’s why your rants seem a bit unnecessary.
0
RMAPOS4 days ago
+1
Do you understand the absurdity of trash talking my post based on the fact that I am not aware of the contents of all your posts you made in the thread?
And considering that my writing skills have throughout my life been very well received by my profs, teachers, peers and employers I feel like maybe there is a possibility that it is your reading skills that are lacking if you find my arguments confusing.
Either way this conversation is going nowhere so excuse me for dipping out.
1
BrainboxExpander5 days ago
-27
Fake news. It was only during times of military conflict, which if conscription is needed, mames sense.
-27
hahaz135 days ago
+38
If a country is in such a dire situation to require conscription, it shouldn’t matter what sex you are, everyone should be eligible.
38
distortedsymbol5 days ago
-8
there's another layer to it. such as the case of ukraine where women aren't drafted but instead sent away to safety. if half of your men die in war you can repopulate, if half your women die you may never recover.
-8
BialyKrytyk5 days ago
+23
It will be an interesting time for the news to watch the Ukrainian government put orders for everyone to return to the country, and impose a minimum number of kids per woman. Wait, I don't think that's actually going to happen, it would infringe on their bodily autonomy, unlike a bullet going through your head in a trench, which is deemed perfectly fine.
23
distortedsymbol5 days ago
-6
nobody said that's what's going to happen, the simple fact is if a woman chooses to have children she carry the baby herself whereas a man can't do that. in a population there will always be people who either don't want to or can't have children and that's completely normal.
that said stuff like that did very much happen post wwii in the eastern bloc, and we all learned that forcing people to have children is a bad idea.
-6
hahaz135 days ago
+8
No one is arguing for women to be conscripted to carry children. It's to frame the concept that male only conscription is flawed and sexist.
Both are in the defense of a nation when things are dire. So if this is all in the name of the greater good, how is it that men are being forced to do so, but women are given a choice?
8
yonce_3335 days ago
+8
This is an example of sexism; women in Ukraine should also defend their homeland—just not directly as frontline combat troops—and should also have restrictions on leaving the country
8
[deleted]5 days ago
-4
[removed]
-4
hahaz135 days ago
+7
So by that logic, once the conflict is over, are all women of childbearing age going to be considered eligible for conscription for “repopulation”?
7
FishermanStriking4725 days ago
-3
No because that isn’t what conscription is, nor has been required in the past post other conscriptions.
-3
hahaz135 days ago
+3
That's not the question I asked at all.
Why is one half of the equation given no choice in their bodily autonomy, yet the other is?
3
[deleted]5 days ago
-2
[removed]
-2
hahaz135 days ago
+5
Both ideas of conscription are in the concept of 'greater good for the nation'. So they are in a similar vein.
Your examples aren't segmented by sex, and are irrelevant to this.
5
eipotttatsch5 days ago
+6
They "forgot" the part about military conflict with the new law. After a small shitstorm the ministry of defense promised to fix it.
6
Ok-Pomegranate8585 days ago
-15
Physical strength.. are they going to hoist a wounded comrade over one shoulder while fighting off the enemy with the other hand till they both reach the extract point? You already know that war isn't fair...
-15
Cultural-Capital-9425 days ago
+77
But that's easy to test. They can ask everyone to carry 120kg to simulate more difficult conditions or while shooting targets.
Maybe no woman will succeed? That's fine, but once there is an objective measure, it is not a discrimination.
77
Ok-Pomegranate8585 days ago
+16
Fair.
16
AdSevere12745 days ago
-4
Anybody lifting 120kg or 260 pounds for more than 5 minutes.. would be needing an ambulance following them. Too high of expectation for mere humans.
-4
Cultural-Capital-9425 days ago
+8
It really matters if it's a buffed 120kg man or a 60kg person.
In any case, I believe it's easy to set the weight and time so that it shows whatever they require.
8
AdSevere12745 days ago
-11
Well men are not 60kg.. Maybe 80 kg, Firemen do it in groups because it is physically demanding and it can cause injuries... Silly expectation dreamed up by people sitting on sidelines. Now you are asking to set a weight. So there is no such a requirement. You just dreamed of it to exclude women in your mind...
-11
seecat465 days ago
+37
If they can pass the physical test as well as any man then they can do the job.
37
No-Cap20665 days ago
+15
And also maintain all the other requirements throughout their time in those units. It’s not just passing one PT test lol.
15
AssassinAragorn4 days ago
+5
That should be true of everyone regardless of gender
5
No-Cap20664 days ago
+2
It is
2
Ok-Pomegranate8585 days ago
+1
Correct!
1
AdSevere12745 days ago
-2
Do they test the men with 120 kg/ 260 pound man.. That is a giant person. Too heavy to lift for anyone other than a weight lifter
-2
wobernein5 days ago
+6
Counterpoint. If they get injured, it’s much easier to carry them to safety.
6
Ok-Pomegranate8585 days ago
Not by another girl .
0
wobernein4 days ago
+2
I was in the army. Have you ever tried to lift someone and carry them off? Have you seen the fat fucks they let in? Or better yet, have seen the super jacked dudes that are built like Dwayne Johnson? Can’t carry either of those dudes out by myself.
2
Ok-Pomegranate8584 days ago
+1
Remember , we're taking about special forces and not regular army
1
sharkattackmiami4 days ago
+2
No, a girl would likely be easier for another girl to lift as well...
2
Educational-Art-85155 days ago
+4
Presumably they won't be lowering standards for women that apply for front line combat roles.
No man or woman is going to be "hoisting a wounded comrade over one shoulder while fighting the enemy" either. It's not call of duty / battlefield, lol.
4
snarky_answer5 days ago
+17
You don’t think someone would ever have to do a firemans carry while in combat. You’d be incredibly wrong.
17
No-Cap20665 days ago
+6
You never know, SF and tier 1 units get into some pretty hairy shit.
6
Ok-Pomegranate8585 days ago
+7
Well, special forces are special
7
Tyhgujgt5 days ago
+2
Most men soldiers are not going to do this either
2
Ok-Pomegranate8584 days ago
+2
Its certainly true. Not everyone makes the cut for special forces after all
2
Traditional_Tea_18794 days ago
+1
During the 7th Oct attack some were doing exactly that.
Some of the officers in command of several bases were women that managed to fight off the hamas attack in the area ( as in - physically engaged , rescue and save wounded soldiers etc) . Unfortunately, not all survived the battle.
1
Tak_Kovacs1234 days ago
+28
I think women should definitely have the opportunity but the testing standards should all be the same. Especially physical requirements since I can imagine some of the more "elite" forces are really physically challenging.
28
TheTelegraph5 days ago
+58
The Israel Defense Forces has been told it must allow women to apply for all combat roles, including service in the special forces.
Israel’s high court of justice ruled in favour of a group of female soldiers who petitioned the court in 2020, asking to be allowed to join various front-line units.
The IDF has seen a significant increase in the number of women serving in what are broadly defined as combat roles, particularly since the Oct 7 attacks, including in armoured and artillery units.
An all-female tank crew successfully fought Hamas terrorists for 17 hours on the day of the attacks, a feat which has been credited with changing perceptions in Israel.
Women aircrew have also taken part in the country’s recent assault on Iran.
However, female soldiers face barriers to joining so-called “spearhead” units, including elite infantry and commando units, as well as the special forces.
**Read more:** [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/04/14/idf-must-allow-women-to-serve-in-special-forces-court-rules/?WT.mc\_id=tmgoff\_listnook\_in-special-forces-court-rules/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/04/14/idf-must-allow-women-to-serve-in-special-forces-court-rules/?WT.mc_id=tmgoff_listnook_in-special-forces-court-rules/)
58
Old_news1234565 days ago
+30
It's going to be interesting to see this in real life.
They have very religious men that won't even sit next to a woman on a plane.
Definitely a win for women's rights but it won't be easy to implement.
Edit- I see a lot of comment about how a very religious men don't join the IDF. True, some of the very orthodox won't and it's an issue of contention the army is trying to change. There is also plenty of very religious men who still join and will create issues for women.
30
Fats_Tetromino5 days ago
+72
Those extremely religious men somehow get a free pass from the draft. They'll probably be giddy that they have yet another bunch of secular people to use as human shields
72
DaEccentric5 days ago
+23
At this point I'm not sure what they'd hate more between being drafted or women that aren't housewives.
The mind of religious nutcases is truly an enigma.
23
3kidsonetrenchcoat4 days ago
+10
Housewives? What are you talking about? Their wives all have to work because all the men do is study Torah all day. They even get daycare subsidies for it.
10
GodzillaInBunnyShoes4 days ago
+6
The Supreme Court of Israel has also revoked the draft exemption for Orthodox Jew. Currently the only minority exemption form the draft is for ~20% Israelis citizens that are of Muslim/Christian origin.
6
Fats_Tetromino4 days ago
+2
Nice! When did that happen?
2
GodzillaInBunnyShoes4 days ago
+1
[June 2024](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-supreme-court-rules-religious-seminary-students-must-be-drafted-military-2024-06-25/). I'm not sure how well the implementation of the ruling is going though.
1
Imjustmisunderstood4 days ago
+10
It’s ironic because those very religious men don’t even join the army.
10
Ok-Pomegranate8585 days ago
+16
>
An all-female tank crew successfully fought Hamas terrorists for 17 hours on the day of the attacks, a feat which has been credited with changing perceptions in Israel.
I do remember this. Real lionesses them... but a motor driven vehicle is a great equalizer... when it comes down to raw physical strength, do you expect Hamas and Hezbollah to give them an exception? Don't get me wrong... its vital that women play their part in the survival of the nation... but be careful not to weaken the overall strength of certain highly specialized roles by reducing the requirements ... if a woman wants to join she will have to past the SAME courses like any other male. No exceptions
16
Fats_Tetromino5 days ago
+65
There are physical fitness requirements. If you can pass them then it doesn't matter what's between your legs.
65
Ok-Pomegranate8585 days ago
+8
No arguments there
8
Golda_M5 days ago
+8
Caracals, not lionesses. Different cat.
8
Ok-Pomegranate8585 days ago
+1
Eh? Not familiar with that animal
1
ScumBunnyEx5 days ago
+10
Bigass desert cat, local to Israel among other regions.
More importantly it's the name of the battalion the female tank crew belonged to.
It's a battalion that's unique in the IDF in that a large percentage of its members are female soldiers serving on combat roles.
10
Ok-Pomegranate8585 days ago
+2
Wow. Thanks.
2
[deleted]5 days ago
-5
[deleted]
-5
AHungryGorilla5 days ago
+8
There is always going to be a minimum physical strength requirement for front line fighters. If you aren't strong enough to, while in full 30+ kg. kit(lower end for gear weight) quickly drag your wounded buddy who is also in full kit to cover, you don't belong in combat.
I saw footage of of a literal knife fight to the death between a Russian and Ukrainian soldier not too long ago. The standards are set for a reason. They matter.
8
Ok-Pomegranate8585 days ago
+1
Pal, I am not blind to modern trends in warfare. But its not drone drivers we're talking about to be fair
1
ColdStorageParticle5 days ago
-40
easy to fight unarmed kids with stones in a tank very Brave!
-40
Ok-Pomegranate8585 days ago
+13
Really now.... if you want to rewrite history, that's your own failing...
13
yuvattar5 days ago
+27
Oooh can't wait to read the comments on this one! Should be a nice, warm dumpsterfire.
27
wouldeye5 days ago
+87
Half 👏 of 👏 all 👏 war 👏 criminals 👏 should 👏 be 👏 women 👏
87
[deleted]4 days ago
-7
[removed]
-7
CocaColaNepoBaby4 days ago
+3
Ah yes defending Israel from those vicious Palestinian toddlers.
3
KLei20204 days ago
One day, those girl Palestinian babies will grow up to wear beautiful suicide vests
0
[deleted]5 days ago
-29
[removed]
-29
-drunk_russian-5 days ago
-1
Wouldn't a moral army have more war criminals by virtue of not covering up for them? Truly a philosoraptor question.
-1
itspronouncedbolonya4 days ago
That depends on what the conpetition is like
0
thechromatick4 days ago
+3
Would you like to know more?
3
B9F2FF5 days ago
+6
Women can also get into NFL, NBA and mens football but there hasnt been single one admitted because at that level, which is what special force is to a regular reserves, they cannot get in on merit.
6
xnmyl5 days ago
+14
Women have made it in the US special forces on merit. Are you suggesting Israeli women are less capable, or were you simply unaware that was the case?
14
B9F2FF4 days ago
-2
Where are women in US special forces in combat roles (speaking of Navy Seals or Delta)?
Pretty sure there are none, however if they can pass why not?
-2
No-Guess-46445 days ago
-1
Equal opportunity to commit war crimes.
-1
LukeDies3 days ago
+1
They need some photogenic women
1
[deleted]5 days ago
-25
[removed]
-25
juliusxyk4 days ago
+4
"Every terrorist is either a woman or a child and other conflicts had a civilian casualty rate of 0, killing children is also suddenly fine when palestinians do it look how smart i am"
4
GoWest12235 days ago
-39
I guess everyone gets to kill and torture! Have fun ladies.
-39
loneranger05 days ago
-27
Equal opportunity terrorism.
-27
bruzly5 days ago
-8
Progressive feminists when jewish women get equal opportunities in te army: "baby killers"
-8
SowingSalt4 days ago
-1
I guess no more cross dressing for IDF special forces.
-1
fools_errand495 days ago
-25
Dumb move. Basically every study by every military in the world shows that women are less capable in combat roles than men. There's strong reason to categorically exclude them from any and all combat roles.
-25
HarrierJint5 days ago
+20
>Dumb move. Basically every study by every military in the world shows that women are less capable in combat roles than men. There's strong reason to categorically exclude them from any and all combat roles.
If they don't make the grade they won't pass. I've not seen anything that says they are changing the tests, just that woman can now take them.
So your point doesn't really make much sense.
20
Consistent_Horse65295 days ago
+11
>Basically every study by every military in the world…
Oh, so I’m sure you could link a bunch of them here then right?
11
fools_errand495 days ago
-9
Australia did a whole shit ton of them. You could start there if you want.
-9
Consistent_Horse65295 days ago
+9
Then cite them? It’s not my job to prove your argument for you lmao.
9
fools_errand495 days ago
-1
https://www.cmrlink.org/data/Sites/85/CMRDocuments/InterimCMRSpecialReport-PartII_122015.pdf
This is from the US Marines. Every study of this kind conducted across the western world shows similar results.
-1
Araminal5 days ago
+4
Looking at the https://www.cmrlink.org/ website reveals a lot of bias.
4
fools_errand495 days ago
+6
It's a marine corps study. The only bias is towards combat fitness.
6
No-Cap20665 days ago
+3
It was ass in the Army too man. All of them were hurt and got pulled off the line.
3
fools_errand495 days ago
+3
Yup. I've never seen a study which actually indicates women are up to the task physically, and that's before we even dive into the psychological and interpersonal issues with mixed sex combat units. Women in combat is a bad idea period.
3
GoWest12235 days ago
-4
But they can kill kids running from them just as well.
-4
fools_errand495 days ago
-2
Actually they can't.
-2
vector_search_blue4 days ago
-5
It's crazy to me that so many people on listnook question this. Have they never played coed sports in HS? Or compared men's olympic scores to women's?
The median female grip strength is approximately 64% of the median male. The gap is even wider for elite athletes.
-5
fools_errand494 days ago
It kind of proves my general thesis that people think the military exists to be an employment program which must provide equity to any would be service member rather than it being viewed as a national defense utility.
0
Dragonfantasy24 days ago
+5
Have fun getting people to actually join if it *isn’t* an advancement opportunity. “Come join the military and stall your life for years, maybe die, and get disrespected by the government!” isn’t a great sales pitch.
5
loki20024 days ago
+2
Name something special forces do that women can't.
2
fools_errand494 days ago
+2
There's a whole study I linked.
https://www.cmrlink.org/data/Sites/85/CMRDocuments/InterimCMRSpecialReport-PartII_122015.pdf
There it is for you to read.
2
loki20024 days ago
+2
I don't see anywhere in that study where it specifically cites a job that special forces do that a woman cannot do. It is focusing on readiness training standards.
2
fools_errand494 days ago
+1
I'm glad you're such a super genius that you, in the space of a minute, read the sum totality of an almost fourty page document establishing the arguments against allowing women into combat positions. Perhaps this will be news to you but special forces are combat roles, so the entirety of the evidence against women being in combat roles is evidence against women performing special forces roles.
1
loki20024 days ago
+2
So, you cannot cite a job that special forces does that a woman cannot do? Good to know.
2
fools_errand494 days ago
+1
I did. Combat.
1
loki20024 days ago
+1
Women have been participating in combat roles since 2016 to no ill effect in the U.S. as well as many other militaries worldwide. Also, "combat" isn't a specific job; there are many duties involved in a combat setting. We're also talking special forces which won't be regular front line combat. So again, name a job specific to special forces that women cannot do. Because so far you have yet to name one and your alleged supporting citation does not name one either.
1
troller2275 days ago
-19
the biggest hurdle for women is the standards for special forces selection. They rarely get through it, so they create their own selection process where they don't have to conpete with male candidates but instead with slandered standards. What can special forces command do with those who passed this slandered standards? non combt roles.
-19
maxofJupiter15 days ago
+17
Is that even happening in Israel? Israel has a long history of women in combat roles
17
ZBlackmore5 days ago
+7
Can you cite this?
7
loki20024 days ago
+1
What job do special forces do that a woman cannot even if she is not able to meet the same fitness standard as her make counterparts?
140 Comments