SAS hell week

I remember reading "International Defence Review" back in 1988 & the yanks were trialling powered suits back then - I honestly don't reckon it's as easy as they think!

Don't they use Xbox controllers to fly the drones, based on the fact that most people are pretty good at using them?

Orson Scott Card is indeed a lunatic though!!

(Thinking a bit here of Ender's Game, which looks prescient in a world of drones - where the best warriors are children, because they have a ruthlessness in their logic, and a simplicity of thought, that makes them supreme at computer-game-like warfare).

Orson Scott Card is a lunatic, though.

Oh, I realise the suits are a way off (right now the prototypes are too heavy even for most blokes) - my point, though, is that we may well be entering an era where the physical limitations of the human body start to become less significant, undoing all kinds of basic assumptions we have about power and strength and gender as essential facets of being. Not just in combat, but more generally.

(It's already happening in many ordinary ways that we scarcely notice because they have become part of everyday life, from the fact that I use my camera as a pair of binoculars sometimes because it has better 'sight' than I do unaided, through to paralympic sports - it's always interesting to see the debate when those with 'disabilities' are faster and stronger as a result of their equipment than those athletes that don't have it!).

huge levels of investment pouring into energy-harvesting suits, technological sensory aids, biometric monitoring, cyborg-style equipment etc. from military funding bodies and corporations (e.g. the TALOS programme). Which may well be game-changing in terms of the physical parameters of both male and female bodies, and hopefully also perceptions of gendered capacity.

You'd think so wouldn't you. These advances have been bandied around for decades. But it always seems to end up with people, weapons & a shit load of equipment!

The UK military at the moment is based around the situations they've been accustomed to in Afghanistan & Iraq where we have the technological advantage & thus don't have to carry loads of gear with them (although step ladders seem to be popular).

In a European type theatre (think Ukraine etc.) we wouldn't necessarily be able to drive/fly around with the impunity we have been - which takes it all back to carrying the kit, ammo, food, ammo, water, ammo and more ammo.

Small males can do it so no reason why females couldn't, long term effects will occur for both sexes - knees, hips, pelvises, backs, same as they are for both sexes already.

Only one way to find out, the dinosaurs in the MOD need to stop overthinking it & just let it happen....

That sort of thing is a long long way off! You should see their accomodation and food. If they wanted to help improve the armed forces I'd start there. My brother is an officer and his quarters on UK bases are terrible. I only hope non officer quarters are of the same standard because if a step below I'm sure animals have better conditions. Oh and equipment is still an issue. My brother has had to get involved with getting right sized boots more than once.

(It's worth noting the link between military funding bodies and the robotics and drone industry also at this point! One wonders if, as Buffy has been arguing, the whole hand-to-hand assumptions on which warfare is modelled are being rewritten).

I assumed Mide was not talking about transport but about the huge levels of investment pouring into energy-harvesting suits, technological sensory aids, biometric monitoring, cyborg-style equipment etc. from military funding bodies and corporations (e.g. the TALOS programme). Which may well be game-changing in terms of the physical parameters of both male and female bodies, and hopefully also perceptions of gendered capacity.

as I've said previously on here I do think women should be able to apply. The standards are very high for any special forces units and the marines.

What shocks me is a notion that advances will mean less is carried or the army will use more efficient forms of transport to move bodies and equipment. These units go behind enemy lines. You can't just drive up there. Also the upper body strength of the marines is insane. My brother climbed up the side of a cargo ship carrying his own body weight in equipment. Most men, let alone women couldn't do that! Oh and he climbed up the cargo ship while directing his men ahead and behind him using hand signals so most of the time he was holding on with one hand and his feet. I think very few people have a real understanding of the skill set of elite soilders.

It wasn't until 1960 that women were allowed to run further than 200 metres in the Olympic games.

Apparently in 1928 6 women collapsed after running 800 metres in the Olympics (probably because they lacked basic training and fitness and had no opportunity to train properly) so alarm bells rang along the lines of "their wombs will drop out and they won't be able to breed". So women were banned from anything longer than 200 metres until 1960.

OK, we are not talking carrying massive weights while fighting here, but when you think that was only just over 50 years ago it is amazing how far women have come in that relatively short time - marathons, triathlons, ironman, fell running, mountaineering, sailing solo round the globe through the southern ocean, etc.

There may be only a small proportion of female soldiers who could achieve SAS standard but you get the feeling that the military, now being on very rocky ground claiming weakness, physical inability etc. to preclude women have fallen back on "and anyway they'll be the boobs of distraction to the men".

I am always amused how in the past e.g. Victorian times, men saw women as dainty, feeble, swooning creatures but not, apparently, too dainty, feeble or swooning to be impregnated many times over and made to undergo one of the most painful, dangerous and potentially deadly acts of all - giving birth.

Yep - and I think those structures are probably more about homosociality than they are even about physical strength in reality.

I present Exhibit A, from the 2010 Review into the Exclusion of Women from Ground Close-Combat roles. It begins with a series of gender assumptions that are frankly ludicrous (women 'less aggressive' than men, really? they haven't met some of my fierce friends), it moves on to acknowledge that the real reason for discrimination is that 'cohesion' might be threatened with women present. I really have to wonder how far we are from a 'the ladies might distract them with their boobies' argument here.

Annex D

"The Secretary of State is satisfied that as some women will certainly be able to meet the standard required of personnel performing in close combat roles, the evidence of women’s lower physical capacity should not, in itself be a reason to maintain the restrictions. Nor are the identified psychological differences between men and women, or the gap in the capacity for aggression, compelling evidence that women would perform less well in close combat.

The key issue is the potential impact of gender mixing in the small teams essential to success in the close combat environment. The small size of the basic unit in ground combat, coupled with the unrelenting mental and physical pressure extending over days or weeks, sets them apart from other military roles. Even small failures in a high intensity close combat environment can lead to loss of life or the failure of the team to meet its objectives. None of the work that either has been, or could be, done can illuminate the key question of the impact of gender mixing on the combat team in close
combat conditions.

Given the lack of direct evidence, from either field exercises or from the experience of other countries, the Secretary of State concluded that military judgement must form the basis of any decision. The military viewpoint was that under the conditions of a high intensity close-quarter battle, group cohesion becomes of much greater significance to team performance and, in such an environment, the consequences of failure can have far-reaching and grave consequences. To admit women would, therefore, involve a risk
with no gains in terms of combat effectiveness to offset it. "

I agree Buffy but I was talking particularly about "moving heavy objects". From what I've read SF soldiers have to carry large amounts of equipment of large distances. Of course can be just as good at the other things ( if not better IMO)

I'm not really arguing against it, just saying that I believe the number of women able to pass selection for these type of forces would be low compared to the small number of men who are able.

Whatever testicles of objectivity are Buffy, you are quite possibly right. Altho I wouldn't say I said anyone was incompetent. Some people just aren't suited to particular roles, nothing wrong with that.

The way things are going with technology, I could see a time soon where soldiers aren't carrying as much weight or moving on foot such distances.

metapost

I'm waiting for the inevitable use of the phrases 'real world' and 'human nature' in response to that Opposite Land point. And perhaps a reiteration of the strength point. Because that's all people ever have against that point, and I must've heard it a dozen times if I've heard it once.

I think the point about adulation of sf is a very strong one.

As fitfatty demonstrated pages ago (effectively ending this argument in one blow, if you ask me) - in the States, a couple of women have already passed the very tough selection for the Army Rangers

Hardly ending the argument in "one blow" - as I pointed out, the US Rangers are at a fitness level commensurate with the British Army (and all the women therein) - they wouldn't be classed as "Elite" over here.....

In 100 years from now, the arguments as to why women can't be elite soldiers will probably appear as ridiculous and prejudiced as those about bicycle riding.

Maybe, as stated many times in this thread - my view is that the process should be open to all.

It's the only way....

Out of interest, are there any stats to say how many of the women serving in the British Army would be applying?

Lots of views on here, not many from those it actually applies to though....

I do think women should be allowed into infantry type roles in the army but I do think womens lower ceiling for strength would hold them back.

Yes I know there are other factors to being a good SF but if your body isn't up to it no amount of mental strength or good soldiering will get you through.

But Buffy's point is precisely that most people DIDN'T think that 'every person has a reasonable chance' of doing the things on that list - because half the population (those in possession of a vagina) were excluded for a very long time! It's a very, very, modern mindset that thinks anyone can be a doctor or a graduate. Two hundred years ago, the idea that women had enough intellect simply to be able to vote was viewed by the majority as a completely laughable position.

The boundaries of what women are seen as 'capable of' have altered radically just in the last 100 years or so - that there is a significant cultural element to these expectations, and that they are historically variable rather than some kind of 'set in stone for all time' truth.

I take the point about elitism, but not everyone can be a Nobel prize-winning scientist or the foremost writer of their generation, yet we all know and agree that all of those things can be done by women. Why not sf too? A persistent theme of this thread from people like yourself has been that the ideal individual is rounded - they're not just strong or able to run for a long time, but psychologically resilient, and tactical and strategic thinkers. Since we've established (repeatedly) that this isn't about elite peak athletic performance alone and that there is no need for sf to produce world class marathon times (for example), there is little reason to think that women couldn't pass the selection and be effective members of sf teams in future.

As fitfatty demonstrated pages ago (effectively ending this argument in one blow, if you ask me) - in the States, a couple of women have already passed the very tough selection for the Army Rangers: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33977096