Recent SFAS

[chdoro89]

A female was just selected in the most recent SFAS class. Thoughts?

[Team Sergeant]

Home run for the social justice warriors.

And thank you Special Forces officers that lowered the standards until a female could pass.

(A small bird already told me that she was dropped by the cadre and pushed through by an "officer". My guess is that she's an officer herself?)

But seriously who cares..............

[tom kelly]

WHY HAVE THEM when The PC, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION MOB, lowers them so that there is "more diversity" in the military.!! MY PREDICTION; This new candidate will not be accepted by the rank and file SF community. REMEMBER Kate Wilder ????? Where is she now.???? Who gives a s_ _ t... TO BE A LEADER YOU MUST HAVE RESPECT... and RESPECT is not handed out; IT HAS TO BE EARNED. Enough of my personal thoughts on gender equality...tom kelly

[Pete]

A female was just selected in the most recent SFAS class. Thoughts?

My thoughts are just why you popped up with no thoughts of your own. From your profile you don't have a dog in the fight. From your posts you claim to be a Rep63.

[chdoro89]

Personally I don’t think it’s going to work out for her, it’s going to be an uphill battle and very few will accept her. Not to mention the natural stressors associated with the job.

[Pete]

Personally I don’t think it’s going to work out for her, it’s going to be an uphill battle and very few will accept her. Not to mention the natural stressors associated with the job.

And you base your opinion off what experience on a team? Have you graduated the Q Course and been assigned to one?

If you have you may want to update your profile.

[DavyJonesLockr]

Do you think that has anything to do with the rumors of the selection and Q course being condensed?

[Team Sergeant]

Do you think that has anything to do with the rumors of the selection and Q course being condensed?

No, it does have everything to do with lowering the standards until a female could pass.

Remember SFAS was started because so many soldiers failed the SFQC, Phase One used to be extremely "brutal". 65lb ruck + weapon, + LBE and run for 10-20 miles........... Few "men" could do it. And it's gone. Standards lowered.

Now, females can pass SFAS. And the new SFQC is a cake walk. But that's ok, A-Teams are used to having non-combatants as attachments..........

Just wait until wonder-woman goes hands on with another SF soldier........ or an enemy soldier.......

[Box]

all are equal

all must be same same

[glebo]

No, it does have everything to do with lowering the standards until a female could pass.

Remember SFAS was started because so many soldiers failed the SFQC, Phase One used to be extremely "brutal". 65lb ruck + weapon, + LBE and run for 10-20 miles........... Few "men" could do it. And it's gone. Standards lowered.

Now, females can pass SFAS. And the new SFQC is a cake walk. But that's ok, A-Teams are used to having non-combatants as attachments..........

Just wait until wonder-woman goes hands on with another SF soldier........ or an enemy soldier.......

Can't wait for the 1st TM party with wives and whomever. (Been discussed before)

[tom kelly]

WAIT, until COMBAT comes to The FEBA and wonder woman starts saying and doing Stupid Shit.....The Cover-Up begins...

[Team Sergeant]

The time of "alpha males" is over.

It is time for the Beta males and Alpha Females to dominate this nation.

Get used to it.

I'll be fishing.

[bandycpa]

all are equal

all must be same same

This honestly could work, but only if the standard is the actual standard required to complete the job and not just to allow people to pass. I mean this for all walks of life too. I earned my CPA not because someone thought I should get it, or because I came from a rural area, or because of any other perceive disadvantage I had that entitled me to get my designation. I earned it because I met a standard that our industry said I needed to meet to properly serve in my profession.

We have changed the perspective of the standard to mean what a person needs to pass a course, obtain a position, etc. The standard is what is needed for a job to get done, not to allow someone to claim a certification.

So, change the perspective on what the standard means, and suddenly gender doesn't matter anymore. You either meet the standard or you don't.

[Team Sergeant]

This honestly could work, but only if the standard is the actual standard required to complete the job and not just to allow people to pass. I mean this for all walks of life too. I earned my CPA not because someone thought I should get it, or because I came from a rural area, or because of any other perceive disadvantage I had that entitled me to get my designation. I earned it because I met a standard that our industry said I needed to meet to properly serve in my profession.

We have changed the perspective of the standard to mean what a person needs to pass a course, obtain a position, etc. The standard is what is needed for a job to get done, not to allow someone to claim a certification.

So, change the perspective on what the standard means, and suddenly gender doesn't matter anymore. You either meet the standard or you don't.


WOW I had no idea that earning a CPA degree took such brutal physical effort!

Well done! Good to know that the CPA certification is still held to the highest standards!

Here's your participation award.

I for one am glad to hear that lowering the standards until all can pass is "ok" with the general public. Thanks, you've renewed my faith in the American sheeple.

TS

[tom kelly]

WILL THIS HELP IN CATCHING FISH.??? DO THE FISH KNOW ABOUT LOWER STANDARDS, CATCH MORE FISH WITHOUT A ROD, A REEL, LINE & FLY...BECAUSE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION YOU JUST NEED TO BE NEAR FISH & WANT TO CATCH THEM... However, IF YOU COME UP EMPTY... COMPLAIN ABOUT WHITE PRIVILEDGE, RACISM, MYSOGONMY, AND ANY OTHER ASSHAT EXCUSE THAT THE PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL SOCIALIST LEFT APPROVES. AT THE END OF YOUR FAILURE TO CATCH FISH...TAKE YOUR ACCESS CARD TO A SUPERMARKET & PURCHASE FISH WITH MY TAX $$$$.

[Joker]

This honestly could work, but only if the standard is the actual standard required to complete the job and not just to allow people to pass. I mean this for all walks of life too. I earned my CPA not because someone thought I should get it, or because I came from a rural area, or because of any other perceive disadvantage I had that entitled me to get my designation. I earned it because I met a standard that our industry said I needed to meet to properly serve in my profession.

We have changed the perspective of the standard to mean what a person needs to pass a course, obtain a position, etc. The standard is what is needed for a job to get done, not to allow someone to claim a certification.

So, change the perspective on what the standard means, and suddenly gender doesn't matter anymore. You either meet the standard or you don't.

Per Bing;
The number of CPA in the US in 2006 stands at 646,520, versus 639,628 in 2003.

So how many SF troops are there? Hint much less than that (less than 1% of that).

[bandycpa]

Per Bing;


So how many SF troops are there? Hint much less than that (less than 1% of that).

That's true, and that's my point. Even in my profession which has over 100 times as many people in it than yours does, there is still a standard that must be met and upheld for me to be able to make it my profession. And everyone that wants to be in my profession has to meet or exceed that standard.

I'm saying that the standard itself, if it is properly crafted and kept, will ensure that only qualified people make it into the profession...regardless of gender or anything else.

[Box]

I think we should just change the way we think about CPA standards so that as long as someone meets standards, they get to be a CPA...
even if they are serving a sentence for any criminal offense; including incarceration, probation (supervised or unsupervised), parole, or conditionally suspended sentence, felony convictions relating to tax fraud, and other forms of financial misdeeds should ALL be overlooked as long as the applicant meets the standard...

Because when standards are properly crafted and kept, it ensures that only qualified people make it into the profession...regardless of gender or anything else.

Because it's all about the standard right?

[bandycpa]

I think we should just change the way we think about CPA standards so that as long as someone meets standards, they get to be a CPA...
even if they are serving a sentence for any criminal offense; including incarceration, probation (supervised or unsupervised), parole, or conditionally suspended sentence, felony convictions relating to tax fraud, and other forms of financial misdeeds should ALL be overlooked as long as the applicant meets the standard...

Because when standards are properly crafted and kept, it ensures that only qualified people make it into the profession...regardless of gender or anything else.

Because it's all about the standard right?

Exactly. They can't be a CPA because that doesn't meet the standard (whether set by the Board of Accountancy or the Internal Revenue Service in the case of tax fraud). For example, if you are a felon, you can't be a CPA. So yes, as long as the standard is properly crafted, it doesn't matter who it is. If they don't meet the standard, they can't be in the profession.

[twistedsquid]

Standards are minimums. Certain environments don't accept minimums.

[bandycpa]

Standards are minimums. Certain environments don't accept minimums.

Then whatever that environment would accept should become their standard.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable. If I came off that way, I apologize. This is your house, and I'm not about to track my muddy boots into it. I just want to respectfully add to the conversation from a civilian point of view.

What tires me out about our society is that we have dimmed the standards to fit people rather than only take people that fit the standard. It's as if society has a need to prove that so-and-so is the first (insert name of new identity here) to do something. In my view, if you truly accomplish something based on meeting the requirements to do so (and those requirements haven't been watered down to meet you), then you are simply the next person to attain that achievement.

As an example, President Obama was seen to be the first black President of the United States. I could argue he was the 44th white President because his mother is white. But in the end, he was simply the next person to inhabit that office. When seen from this viewpoint, his race doesn't matter. All that matters is that he won the election...just like everybody else.

I really believe that a lot of our division in our country comes about because people want to hold on to the feeling of oppression because of social distinction. My stepson told me yesterday that you can't have equality while still yearning for entitlement. I tucked that one away in the old brain-housing, as it spoke volumes of why race, gender, class distinctions matter so much to some people. Take away the distinction, and you take away the entitlement.

[twistedsquid]

bandycpa...It's not my house. I am a guest and observer.

[Pete]

Highway Patrol, Fire Fighters and many other professions had height and physical requirements that were lowered because they were found to discriminate against women.

My wife tried out for an airport position in the 70s. One of the requirements was to drag a sandman a required distance and move him to the other side of a barrier. She's a pretty tough chick but couldn't do it so she wasn't hired. The reasoning was that if an emergency happened the employee would need to be able to move someone out of danger.

That is no longer required - so either they found a machine that will do that or they lowered the standards for women. Well , maybe they don't care anymore about moving people out of the way of danger.

[Mustang Man]

What about how easy Airborne school is? I remeber watching documentaries from the 90's that included a 5 mile run. I was prepared for that when I got there, but we were never tested on a 5 mile run.

[sfshooter]

In regards to women in SF, outsiders don't understand that SF has to make rapport and interact with different cultures. So many of SF missions interact with the local populace of nations governed by little brown guys. Those countries don't hold women in high esteem and respect. Throw a female into a meeting with a sheik of some said country and your team will not ever earn the respect or willing help from said sheik. It is just that simple. Women don't have a place on an A team just for that reason alone.

[TrapperFrank]

My thoughts? We is fucked, the beginning of the end is here.

[Box]

Exactly. They can't be a CPA because that doesn't meet the standard (whether set by the Board of Accountancy or the Internal Revenue Service in the case of tax fraud). For example, if you are a felon, you can't be a CPA. So yes, as long as the standard is properly crafted, it doesn't matter who it is. If they don't meet the standard, they can't be in the profession.


Felony conviction isnt a standard it is a disqualifier.
Just like "female" was a disqualifier
until the standards were changed
because "female" BEFORE training is no different than FELONY before training
So....
felons should be allowed to be CPAs according to your suggestion that we just need to change "the perspective of the standard to mean what a person needs to pass a course, obtain a position, etc. The standard is what is needed for a job to get done, not to allow someone to claim a certification."

Those are your words - not mine.
The standard is what is needed for a job to get done, not to allow someone to claim a certification

So - when a CPS shows up and tries to explain to a bunch of SF guys what "standards" are you should quickly recognize that I have zero knowledge about CPA standards
...but when I replace "female" with "felon" and apply it to YOUR business - it suddenly sounds stupid to you doesn't it...

so - why can't we simply change the perspective of CPA standards to allow former felons into your office?
...does it fuck up the dynamic?
...does it create some sort of rift?
...how can a felon that otherwise meets ALL performance standards be disqualified JUST because of "what they are"

And don't say they CHOSE to be a felon - it is 2018 - you can CHOOSE to be a man now if you want
...because some group of people in DC "changed the perspective"


I'll tell you what -
I apologize for trying to dabble in the "standards" that your career field uses to put professionals into the workspace.

I'll stay in my lane since I know NOTHING about CPA standards.

...but please, continue to explain to us how CPA standards are the same but different from being on a Special Forces Operational Detachment - Alpha


Again, I apologize for insulting the way your industry crafts their profiessional standards

[Joker]

Felony conviction isnt a standard it is a disqualifier.

...but please, continue to explain to us how CPA standards are the same but different from being on a Special Forces Operational Detachment - Alpha

Again, I apologize for insulting the way your industry crafts their profiessional standards

I just want to see the 5'3" female 105 lb CPA with personal protection gear, 125 lb ruck, primary and secondary weapons carry a 180 lb screaming wounded man.

[rsdengler]

I just want to see the 5'3" female 105 lb CPA with personal protection gear, 125 lb ruck, primary and secondary weapons carry a 180 lb screaming wounded man.

Well I'm 5'7, about 130 lbs (Not a CPA, ha), and I definitely would have a hard time carrying a 180 lb wounded man w/all of that on me. Truthfully, I could not do it, and that makes me somewhat ineffective. Not saying I wouldn't give it my all, but it would be difficult. Lowering standards to allow women (or anyone else) into the "Pipeline" is just plain wrong. If you cannot go through the training as is, then you have no right to be there, simple as that. If you want equality in life, then you have to abide by the rules to play the game. That means not cutting corners; that's a dangerous scenario...:munchin

[Box]

I could not do it, and that makes me somewhat ineffective. Not saying I wouldn't give it my all...

That is all that matters - you tried
As long as you are given the same opportunities as everyone else and perceptions of self worth are validated then everything will be ok.

Its the patriarchy at fault here - if men didn't weigh 180 pounds before adding equipment, they wouldn't be so hard to carry.

Don't be negative and think that you cant do it or that you are ineffective - be positive and dont give up and we will craft the standards so you can meet them.
If you can't carry the guy - you should be asking why all the lazy men on your team are making YOU carry him all by yourself.


Silly cultural nuances - when will 'the right' stop acting like neanderthals

[Razor]

Highway Patrol, Fire Fighters and many other professions had height and physical requirements that were lowered because they were found to discriminate against women.

You mean like female MPs in the Old Guard shorter than 6' allowed to be Tomb Guards? :rolleyes:

[rsdengler]

That is all that matters - you tried
As long as you are given the same opportunities as everyone else and perceptions of self worth are validated then everything will be ok.

Its the patriarchy at fault here - if men didn't weigh 180 pounds before adding equipment, they wouldn't be so hard to carry.

Don't be negative and think that you cant do it or that you are ineffective - be positive and dont give up and we will craft the standards so you can meet them.
If you can't carry the guy - you should be asking why all the lazy men on your team are making YOU carry him all by yourself.


Silly cultural nuances - when will 'the right' stop acting like neanderthals

Ha, maybe "Ineffective" (hell, lord knows I have been this recently in my life) is not the right word; I am thinking more like "burden or strain". If I tried and failed, than at least I gave it my best shot. But it's more important that you try your best at the "highest" standards, not the watered down version. That's like putting you in a boxing ring with Big Bubba who was paid to throw the fight. :o

[The Reaper]

Equal opportunity does not guarantee equal outcomes, nor should it.

TR

[bandycpa]

Again, I apologize for insulting the way your industry crafts their professional standards

And I apologize for insulting yours.

[tom kelly]

This was invented by the ultra-liberal left to make the inferior "feel Good" about their shortcomings. The asshat Hollyweird mob always knew in their own mind they were better than everyone else, that is why they award each other with an Oscar... The mutual admiration society. This gives them the supposed right to dictate what is right course for everyone else. The officer corps in the military has come around to this mindset for Political Correctness and self-advancement. CONSISTENT LEADERSHIP is MAINTAINING THE STANDARDS...No matter how difficult or who it washes out. tom kelly

[PSM]

The mutual admiration society.

tom kelly

That's a song that haunts my nightmares to this day! :eek:

[bailaviborita]

Standards are only part of the issue. The main part is the subjective and tacit nature of an ODA. How one fits on a team or not. In SF the ODA is all that matters. Everyone else is just in support. We used to say- change whatever you want, just don’t change the ODA. Today it seems to be a debate between the 85% who think this is changing the ODA and the 15% who don’t- or, who think that this is inevitable, or inevitable progress, or men just need to change because the “patriarchy” is evil...

Anyone thinking this is about equality, however, hasn’t been reading the guidance.

[Team Sergeant]

Anyone thinking this is about equality, however, hasn’t been reading the guidance.

OK, please splain to me how this is not about SJW's, and equality?

We could go back to the Olympics and discuss why men and women do not compete against each other.

And yeah, once the "standards" were "directed/ordered" to be lowered this, in fact, was "inevitable".

But hey, I'm all for a kinder, gentler Special Forces and hugs and kisses. :munchin

"How the fuck did the demolitions sergeant become pregnant????"

"Sir, it was a long deployment."

[Box]

I dont think this is about equality as defined in most dictionaries - I think it is about the SJW-bully-pulpit trying to force people into the predetermined parameters of "correct thinking"

women are the weaker sex is just plain "wrongthink" if you are in a conversation with a liberal.
It just aint so - Florence-Griffith-Joyner can run the 100 meter dash in 10.5
Who in the SF Regiment can run the 100 in 10.5 ?
Settled - women CAN run faster

Of course - ANY man that runs a 10.40 and BEATS her will still never compete inside of an Olympic Stadium with that time - considering that the last time a man held the world record with a 10.40 was waaaay back in the late 1920's

So by current standards, a woman that runs a 10.50 in the 100 is world Record holding olympic champion.
While a man that runs the 100 in 10.4 is called a spectator - since a man that CANNOT break the 10 second barrier is not a competitive olympic sprinter

And so it is with almost every test of human strength - some women are stronger than some men - but it seems that even the strongest women are never quite as strong as the strongest men
So it would seem equality is a SUBjective pursuit and not an OBjective pursuit.

Warfare is NOT a subjective pursuit -
BANG - you are dead

Liberal minded equality logic DOES not pass any sane litmus test - never did and never will
I guess snowball and Napoleon were right - some animals really are more equal than others.

[rsdengler]

I dont think this is about equality as defined in most dictionaries - I think it is about the SJW-bully-pulpit trying to force people into the predetermined parameters of "correct thinking"

women are the weaker sex is just plain "wrongthink" if you are in a conversation with a liberal. It just aint so - Florence-Griffith-Joyner can run the 100 meter dash in 10.5 Who in the SF Regiment can run the 100 in 10.5 ?
Settled - women CAN run faster


And so it is with almost every test of human strength - some women are stronger than some men - but it seems that even the strongest women are never quite as strong as the strongest men

So it would seem equality is a SUBjective pursuit and not an OBjective pursuit.

Warfare is NOT a subjective pursuit -
BANG - you are dead

Liberal minded equality logic DOES not pass any sane litmus test - never did and never will
I guess snowball and Napoleon were right - some animals really are more equal than others.

LOL...I thought Flo-Jo was under some kind of investigation at one point for performance enhancing drugs? Must of been a "speed enhancer"...HA....so yeah, she could run faster than most men, with help from her little friend....Liberal minds can go F themselves. We are not the same period, so that should be straight forward; but not with Libtards. Hey, why can't they get that thru their heads? I don't want to be like a man; because I am a freaking woman, just pull up my skirt and believe me, there is no fake "hole". So stop dictating unreasonable equality by lowering the standards because some twat wants to play with the "big boys" and yell " I am Woman, Hear Me Roar"....:p

And yes, "some women are stronger than some men"...case in point: the little, geeky chubby guy who sits across from my cubicle in his khaki pants & penny loafers who plays Poki Man. Mr. Chubby blows his nose every 5 minutes, and sneezes every 15 minutes. So yeah, I could take him down in a second, but so could my cat...LOL:D

Sorry.....It's one of those days.......

[Combat Diver]

When is the NFL going to open up to women?

CD

[glebo]

When is the NFL going to open up to women?

CD

Haa, the NFL is not a "social experiment" like our Armed Services to suite a political agenda...:mad:

[bailaviborita]

TM SGT- sorry, didn't word my post very well. What I meant to say is that the guidance from above hasn't been "treat everyone equally"- it has been "make this work" and "we will be successful". Which, to me, isn't the same as "treat everyone equally." And doesn't match our actions- which is to treat women differently.

So, for instance, women in combat arms schools and units are reported by-name with all kinds of details on why they fail to higher. Schools are being changed to make them "gender neutral"- but that means, by default, we are changing because there's something different here (belying the bumper sticker that "we are all equal"). Assignments are being especially managed for women- sending them to certain units at certain percentages, and certain posts only "to build critical mass". I could go on- but we aren't just treating everyone the same and only allowing equality of opportunity.

In my humble opinion the SEALS and MARSOC have done the best in just allowing equality of opportunity. The Army- and us being a part of the Army- is all about "making this successful". Which means we are aiming for equality of outcome. There are many advocates who think if we "changed the military's macho male culture" we'd have 50% women in combat arms. I think they are aiming for that 50%. They are DEFINITELY aiming at changing the traditional male culture...



OK, please splain to me how this is not about SJW's, and equality?

We could go back to the Olympics and discuss why men and women do not compete against each other.

And yeah, once the "standards" were "directed/ordered" to be lowered this, in fact, was "inevitable".

But hey, I'm all for a kinder, gentler Special Forces and hugs and kisses. :munchin

"How the fuck did the demolitions sergeant become pregnant????"

"Sir, it was a long deployment."

[bailaviborita]

This article openly advocates for changing the culture...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/22/opinion/let-women-be-warriors.html

Sweden, which sent troops to support the American-led war in Afghanistan, first integrated women into combat jobs in 1989 and began a gender-neutral draft last year. Swedish recruit training barracks look close to a “Starship Troopers” ideal of coed rooms and showers. One room housed 10 men and four women, all in bunk beds, and the recruits viewed this integration as crucial to unit strength. One night I accompanied a female corporal down a barracks hallway where a junior soldier stood without shirt or pants, one hand in his underwear, talking on a cellphone. We shrugged.

Two Norwegian researchers, Nina Hellum and Ulla-Britt Lilleaas, have found that having male and female troops live together has a “degenderizing” effect that makes soldiers act more like siblings, reducing harassment.

The question, then, is not whether women can be effective combat troops but whether a hypermasculine military culture can adjust. The potential benefits of having women in combat units argue for making that happen.

Women, for instance, led teams that interviewed and searched civilian women in Afghanistan, providing crucial information to infantry units while also engaging in combat alongside them. A 2015 Marine Corps study found that coed groups were better at problem-solving. And while I was a platoon commander in Iraq and California, Marines came to my office to discuss their breakups and divorces. Perhaps these guarded young men seemed comfortable revealing their heartbreak because I’m an older sister of three brothers.

[JJ_BPK]

When is the NFL going to open up to women?

CD


Son, I say Son, You got all it backwards..

Trending: Transgender boy wins Texas girls wrestling championship for the second year in a row (https://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-transgender-wrestler-texas-20180226-story.html)


I'm putting a team together for that longjerry football league. ;)

Tryouts start in the spring :lifter

[tom kelly]

The old fashion way..... SEXUAL INTERCOURSE.... without protection.

[Team Sergeant]

So I'm guessing beating each other to a pulp for PT is about to be ended also?

LOLZ, barry soetoro and his ilk are laughing their beta male asses off right now.

[abc_123]

When is the NFL going to open up to women?

CD


I'd just settle for a nice public discussion/debate about why there are not women on the West Point football team.

[PSM]

I'd just settle for a nice public discussion/debate about why there are not women on the West Point football team.


Because they want to beat Navy. I think that they are about to. :lifter

[Team Sergeant]

I've now been told by quite a few sources this female failed, repeatedly. Her "passing" SFAS was in fact "ordered".


Soon this dishonest, lying SF soldier's deed will go viral and his name will be posted along with the names of all the Special Forces soldiers that ordered this female "passed".

Again, she failed the standards, but was ordered "passed".

More to come.

[Box]

I'm not shocked...

In fact, I am completely underwhelmed by such a possibility.
Not because she is a woman either - but because people are 'ordered passed' all the time out of convenience.
Part of the scandal around "the letter" that circulated last year was because some students sucked SO bad that they were passed anyway.


At the root - none of this is a "female" problem.
The problem is not even a leadership 'failure' since "failing" is the result of an honest try that came up short.
The problem here is nothing less than a leadership "refusal" to remain loyal to standards.


but hey - everyone paid their membership fee so everyone gets a trophy
Not to mention the fact that - if such an accusation of an order to pass without regard to standards - there is really only one person in that unit with such power and it sure as hell isn't an E7 lane walker

[frostfire]

The problem is not even a leadership 'failure' since "failing" is the result of an honest try that came up short.
The problem here is nothing less than a leadership "refusal" to remain loyal to standards.


It is fatalistic terrifying when you cut to the chase :(

All fun and games until we go against a formidable enemy. After the catastrophic, embarrassing defeat, the congressional search for scapegoat begins...

[Box]

Scapegoats aren't all that hard to find.
There are giant scapegoat farms all over the world - most of them owned or subsidized by the US government.

The government funded scapegoat-ranches are part of a program that is G14 classified - so secret that not even Alex Jones has been able to break the story.

If this female soldier does poorly...
If this female soldier fails at a task...
If this female soldier quits...
If this female soldier does not fast track through the promotion system...
...it will be from a leadership failure

THAT is why we maintain those G14 classified scapegoat ranches - sometimes we just need to blame things on "leadership" instead of holding individuals accountable - its always easier to drag the old "leadership-scapegoat" out of the barn for a public slaughter.

Scapegoat is the only meat approved by the vegans that run this nation...

[Hacksaw]

After a very long break from service I decided to join a ARNG leg infantry unit located about 5 minutes from my home. Having to go through MEPS at 50 was a pain in the ass but my ex can no longer get my retirement and I felt I could give back to Group by mentoring young grunts and seeing who should try out or not. My LT passed SFAS and starts the Q this Spring and I have 3 guys going from the Scouts in January.
With that said, three things will happen if/when this chick gets her tab;

1. I will send her mine because I'll never fucking wear it again
2. I will advise Joe's to go to MARSOC
3. I will begin prepping my 17 y/o son to either go to MARSOC or CCT/Para rescue.

I'm sure I sound like a dick but this women passing Selection is a set up. I finished SFAS with a broken foot and wrist, both occurred on day one of team week in 1990. There is no fucking way she made it through SFAS as it was, some scumbag senior officer and CSM's changed standards, events, or lower requirements and this is the end result. I'd say shame on them for this but I imagine shame is something incomprehensible to them.

So to her I say good luck, you have damaged a Regiment founded out of conflict by men that you will never work with for they will go to units that have not sold their souls, not yet at least.

To the guys responsible for this, I work very hard not to damage my Karma by trying not to wish you a painful and well deserved death with eternity spent in hell, however, I am finding that very difficult.

[rsdengler]

I'm sure I sound like a dick but this women passing Selection is a set up. I finished SFAS with a broken foot and wrist, both occurred on day one of team week in 1990. There is no fucking way she made it through SFAS as it was, some scumbag senior officer and CSM's changed standards, events, or lower requirements and this is the end result. I'd say shame on them for this but I imagine shame is something incomprehensible to them.

So to her I say good luck, you have damaged a Regiment founded out of conflict by men that you will never work with for they will go to units that have not sold their souls, not yet at least.

To the guys responsible for this, I work very hard not to damage my Karma by trying not to wish you a painful and well deserved death with eternity spent in hell, however, I am finding that very difficult.

Oh, so correct when you say it was a "setup" when they passed her. I agree, standards are standards and to lower them just to "pass" this female is dead wrong. Sorry, but if you cannot cut it, then bye...bye....if you tried and failed at the highest standards; then at least you gave it your all. If someone set the bar low and you failed; well you freaking failed which shows you could never cut it at the top level. It's a shame when higher ups decide to lower the level of excellence just because it's "political"; and yes I say political because that's exactly what this is. “Oh, let’s pass a woman because it’s politically correct”….Total BS….

There is a reason why only a selected few make it, and that's why the standards were so high. You want the best, and you want to make sure at this level you challenge that individual to be at the top of their game. After all, it’s other people's lives you’re gambling with every time you go out on a mission; and you want the most experienced and skilled people when you are out there. You need to be of top caliber, because it’s all about cohesiveness in a team that makes you better prepared, and saves lives. That goes for anything in life; set the bar high, which will encourage people to reach their upmost potential. Hey, we have failed in society now-a-days just because we became too soft; just like play-doh…..it’s a damn shame…..:munchin

[WarriorDiplomat]

I've now been told by quite a few sources this female failed, repeatedly. Her "passing" SFAS was in fact "ordered".


Soon this dishonest, lying SF soldier's deed will go viral and his name will be posted along with the names of all the Special Forces soldiers that ordered this female "passed".

Again, she failed the standards, but was ordered "passed".

More to come.

I agree the leadership needs to be wiped out at this point fuck them....BHO, Ash Carter are gone and Clinton wasn't elected so who are they playing too? no one they are Social Justice warrior only but military warriors not in a million years.....they aren't concerned with winning anything or preparation to fight an enemy.....everyone knows my opinion I have been saying for a long time that the grooming process to get SF to this point was a long time in the making....it is historically documented

1) complain about recruiting numbers
2) study why (they already know)
3) blame a social issue
4) sale the social issue as shrinking our talent pool
4) reduce or just eliminate a current standard
5) repeat

how many cycles of this do we need to go through? depends on turnover IMO 2-3 cycles this new standard is normalized to the new GB's they know no different the previous generations think it hasn't changed.....the few that do are the true believers and speak out wrecking their career prospects.

This female has not passed selection this is fairly well known and if she passes the Q-course it is a matter of when the command will never let her fail I would bet my entire retirement on that.....their deceit is transparent and trust is gone and so are the warriors.

These sycophants in the SF community can keep focusing on SJW success and ignore the sedition within our community working in TS-SCI positions and worry about their careers until their blue in the face....SF isn't very elite anymore and hasn't been for a few years they don't want the best they want to be promoted.

[Mustang Man]

1) complain about recruiting numbers
2) study why (they already know)
3) blame a social issue
4) sale the social issue as shrinking our talent pool
4) reduce or just eliminate a current standard
5) repeat

Yup, and the sad thing is you can extend this cycle to universities and a number of private and public sector employers... Like you mentioned, this has all been deliberate.

[Mills]

I agree the leadership needs to be wiped out at this point fuck them....BHO, Ash Carter are gone and Clinton wasn't elected so who are they playing too? no one they are Social Justice warrior only but military warriors not in a million years.....they aren't concerned with winning anything or preparation to fight an enemy.....everyone knows my opinion I have been saying for a long time that the grooming process to get SF to this point was a long time in the making....it is historically documented

1) complain about recruiting numbers
2) study why (they already know)
3) blame a social issue
4) sale the social issue as shrinking our talent pool
4) reduce or just eliminate a current standard
5) repeat

how many cycles of this do we need to go through? depends on turnover IMO 2-3 cycles this new standard is normalized to the new GB's they know no different the previous generations think it hasn't changed.....the few that do are the true believers and speak out wrecking their career prospects.

This female has not passed selection this is fairly well known and if she passes the Q-course it is a matter of when the command will never let her fail I would bet my entire retirement on that.....their deceit is transparent and trust is gone and so are the warriors.

These sycophants in the SF community can keep focusing on SJW success and ignore the sedition within our community working in TS-SCI positions and worry about their careers until their blue in the face....SF isn't very elite anymore and hasn't been for a few years they don't want the best they want to be promoted.

No end in sight. there are in fact students who have been through particular phases in the course up to and including 4 times.

How is that value-added? Especially as a senior Sergeant First class, what do you bring to the table? Besides knowing intricacies of each committee within the Special Forces qualification course better than the Cadre...

[Mills]

After a very long break from service I decided to join a ARNG leg infantry unit located about 5 minutes from my home. Having to go through MEPS at 50 was a pain in the ass but my ex can no longer get my retirement and I felt I could give back to Group by mentoring young grunts and seeing who should try out or not. My LT passed SFAS and starts the Q this Spring and I have 3 guys going from the Scouts in January.
With that said, three things will happen if/when this chick gets her tab;

1. I will send her mine because I'll never fucking wear it again
2. I will advise Joe's to go to MARSOC
3. I will begin prepping my 17 y/o son to either go to MARSOC or CCT/Para rescue.

I'm sure I sound like a dick but this women passing Selection is a set up. I finished SFAS with a broken foot and wrist, both occurred on day one of team week in 1990. There is no fucking way she made it through SFAS as it was, some scumbag senior officer and CSM's changed standards, events, or lower requirements and this is the end result. I'd say shame on them for this but I imagine shame is something incomprehensible to them.

So to her I say good luck, you have damaged a Regiment founded out of conflict by men that you will never work with for they will go to units that have not sold their souls, not yet at least.

To the guys responsible for this, I work very hard not to damage my Karma by trying not to wish you a painful and well deserved death with eternity spent in hell, however, I am finding that very difficult.

You don't have to lower the standards when you flat out change them...

[Box]

Lowered or changed standards are just part of the human condition - what is at issue here is the accusation of outright ignoring the standards...

[John_Chrichton]

Well, we all knew this was going to happen for years. I guess the SWCS night letters didn’t help.

[tom kelly]

The first was Kate Wilder awarded Special Forces status via a court settlement that stipulated she never serves 1 day in Special Forces... Where is Kate Wilder today?????? WHO CARES...... Does anyone know the name & rank of the XX candidate? It might be of interest to the other soldiers in that assessment and selection class #?. This information is NOT classified because of a class # and photo are published in "The Drop" magazine when they graduate. tom kelly

[Little Fish]

Respectfully
Women can and do lots of things but combat?. No.
Unless we have evolved and I have been left behind I cant see why standards should be changed for the most elite icombat force.
It makes no sense.
As a woman I hunt, surf, hike etc but add combat to the mix and my stomach curls up .
Watching my husband get ready to jump all I could think was ...be safe, thank God I"m a female and I'll be here whenever you get back.
Maybe warfare is changing but there must always be a space for the SF or our SAS