BBC sexism?

Dotheyfloat

Thanks for, yet again proving your worth. There's no whining, that poster had started a few really nasty threads elsewhere which have been deleted. And in those threads they showed that they really hate women. Sorry you're wrong.

And I have no need to prove someone with such an obvious vested interest wrong. However, if I wanted to know what the fitness tests are, I have only to ask members of my family. And all of them, with actual experience of these tests, reckon that this woman should have a go if she thinks she can, they'll be watching with interest.

DoTheyFloat - I think it probably takes more resources to filter every application for insufficient penis than it does to let one through. Plus, you know, women are more than 50% of the population, I don't think it's unfair to have a little resource spent on us occasionally!

Regarding testosterone, I think that when you're already at

DoTheyFloat, can I ask, out of interest, why you are so strongly opposed to some women taking part in a reality tv programme, if it's not just because you don't like women? In a nutshell, why do you even give a shit?

PuffinsAreFictitious
"Yup, you really don't like women at all. "

No. Wyoming is just being realistic. I suspect you realize this which is why you're whining rather than explaining why his argument is flawed.

ChunkyPickle
"But if there's a woman who can do it, why not let her? Why exclude her solely because she's a woman?

So less than 1% of men can do it, so there might be only one woman in the UK that could do it, let her. Let her decide, just like the men can, don't dismiss her out of hand because she happens to have a vagina!"

Presumably they don't have the resources to pander to the demands of a ridiculously small minority, whilst trying to keep it as 'real as possible'.

ChunkyPickle
"Women fight, women run, yes, on average we're smaller, we haven't the advantage of years of testosterone to give our muscles the explosive power men have, but neither do the majority of men."

That sentence makes no sense.

wyomingisnotacountry
''The final 40-mile march is named Endurance with good reason.

It must be completed within 20 hours without stopping while carrying a 60lb rucksack, a rifle and full water bottle.

At the end candidates should still be able to run four miles in 30 minutes.''

So that's 75lbs or so total."

ChunkyPickle
So that 40 mile march, with 60lb of weight will actually be done more efficiently by a lighter person than a heavier person. Now I'm not saying that that person is an 8.5 stone woman, but it's certainly not easier for the 16 stone bloke either.

You're taking your argument to the extremes because that's the only place it works. True, a bodybuilder would be lucky to last much past a week into an SAS-type selection test. But that's why members of the SAS are, on average, physically average in relation to the wider population in terms of body mass.

BTW, only 60llbs? It appears that you've forgotten to bring your rifle and water. Oops.

Very interesting though. Perhaps the (presumably not weighing very much) Kenyan women could apply to the programme and put the cat among the pigeons with the big strong muscly men. I'd definitely watch that

Never is is it.

However, it turns out I was missing an important part of the efficiency thing, which is it only works when you carry the weight on your head!

www.nytimes.com/2002/03/12/science/improving-the-way-humans-walk-the-walk.html

Perhaps the SAS are missing a trick, and should be switching from rucksacks!

So seemingly not quite as simple as "me Tarzan you Jane"

I had a quick read around, and apparently women have an advantage for marathons because of low body weight - except that when you get to the super-long stuff, you find that the weight difference between men and women is very small - ie. lighter men do the long distance stuff.

This tallies with something I read a while ago, that lighter people use less energy carrying weight - I can't remember why, it was examining sherpas and other mountain folk I seem to remember who wander up and down carrying enormous weights, but can't afford to waste energy doing it.

So that 40 mile march, with 60lb of weight will actually be done more efficiently by a lighter person than a heavier person. Now I'm not saying that that person is an 8.5 stone woman, but it's certainly not easier for the 16 stone bloke either.

ive been reading about ultramarathoning recently and they are quite often won by women outright. As the distance increases, the differences between the sexes diminishes.
And I find it hard to believe that there are amateur men who beat womens' Olympic gold times. In which events, specifically?
I also think I might have read something about marathon runners being faster than adults in adolescence, but then people get slower until their late 20s but then their marathon times start to get better again??

But if there's a woman who can do it, why not let her? Why exclude her solely because she's a woman?

So less than 1% of men can do it, so there might be only one woman in the UK that could do it, let her. Let her decide, just like the men can, don't dismiss her out of hand because she happens to have a vagina!

Women fight, women run, yes, on average we're smaller, we haven't the advantage of years of testosterone to give our muscles the explosive power men have, but neither do the majority of men. Let the few elite women make their own choices please!

Whether she makes it through or not she should have an equal chance to apply.

I think it's very unlikely the bbc would film unscripted hand to hand combat whatever the sexes involved.

Oh, and not passive aggressive. More bored with idiots.

Yup, you really don't like women at all.

How's the Katie Hopkins worship going for you?

Well they said they wanted to get as close to reality as possible. That includes hand to hand combat on top of making a woman run for 40 miles carrying more than half her body weight, which is ludicrous. Either way, she would never get on the show the same way a woman would never get anywhere close to the top male runners or weightlifters. And maybe BBC are also worried about her suing them for treating her like men, as seen here www.bbc.com/news/uk-25078544. Allowing her to take part in the preliminaries would be a mere PR exercise.

Thanks for the passive aggressive inside joke welcome!

Oh, are they featuring hand to hand combat then? From the BBC blurb it seemed that it was the physical stuff, and not the less well known bits. Do you have a reference at all?

Btw, always lovely to welcome a new poster to MN

I mean what would be the point of it? To see her beaten by miles? Humiliated? Physically hurt by men twice her size? And this isn't even going into women being far more exposed to injury than men because of lower bone density, weaker tendons, ligaments and so on.. I remember the outrage about the trans fighter who was beating up women, this would be 10 times more unfair.

The SF selection process is incredibly tough, only 10% or less make it and that's from men who are already far tougher than your average Joe on the street. This is part of the SAS trial :

''The final 40-mile march is named Endurance with good reason.

It must be completed within 20 hours without stopping while carrying a 60lb rucksack, a rifle and full water bottle.

At the end candidates should still be able to run four miles in 30 minutes.''

So that's 75lbs or so total. For 40 miles. Then the 4 mile run. And what if they do hand to hand combat as well? Who wants to see a 6'2'' 230lbs guy put a choke hold on a woman? He could snap her neck without even trying . No way. This whole thing is lose/lose for BBC. It's like putting a woman in the 100m or the weightlifting final, she'd finish miles behind the last man. We have gender segregated sports for a reason. Check even junior male sports record and they will far better than adult women's. Or your local amateur athletics club, there are men doing it as a hobby who would've won gold in the women's competitions at the last olympics.

Good afternoon, AKOM.

Hello again Dothey

I think you're trying make some kind of point, but I'm not sure what it is.

I'm not going to nitpick over what the BBC may-or-may-not do, as I said, the whole 'real as possible' concept should be avoided.

And I don't. What would I know though?

"But just after completing her form, Sophie was contacted by a spokesperson from ‘Team World’s Toughest Army’ who informed her that ‘in keeping with the selection criteria of the special forces’ the application process was open only to men. "

Presumably they were modelling the show on an SAS or Delta Force type selection process, i.e. ones that have a 90%+ fail rate for soldiers who are already mentally and physically combat-ready. The chances of a fit male civilian applicant passing those sort of selection processes are probably significantly less than 1%. The rate for women would of course be lower still, primarily due to the physical demands. A truly 'real as possible' TV format would result in most, perhaps all, of the applicants keeling over in the first week.

I'm not going to nitpick over what the BBC may-or-may-not do, as I said, the whole 'real as possible' concept should be avoided.

So, DTF, do you think they'll be using a majority or just a selection of the selection criteria for SF? Which SF do you think they'll be choosing from? In what way will they be watering down the ones they leave in, do you think?

With regards to program concepts the BBC shouldn't touch SF 'real as possible' selection processes with a barge pole. If they water them down to the point where women can reasonably compete it'll be a joke, if they don't water down the selection process there will be cries of 'unfair male bias' when all the women get knocked out in the early stages and/or stand zero of making it through.

Serve them right for not having the backbone to say 'men only'.