SAS hell week

I'm going to have to say though Buffy, none of those are really in the same league being discussed are they?

Pretty much every person has a reasonable chance of doing anything on that list.

Very few people pass SAS Selection.

Selection should be open

I'm a firm believer that there should be no discrimination of opportunity; if a woman can pass selection, she has the abilities required to do the job.

As one poster said earlier, something along the lines of, "I could run up a mountain faster than the SF guys ... I'm 5'4" and weigh 100lbs" - that's all very well, but as stated speed is not the only required factor; from the wiki entry of a famous SAS mission: "The total weight of each member's kit was estimated at 95 kg (209 lb) by Mitchell[2]:66 and 120 kg (260 lb) by Ryan.[1]:29" Are you going to be able to TAB while carrying more than double your own bodyweight? There's more to the job than running up a mountain.

The 'protection' argument is bullshit

I've not served, but from friends who have and do serve the overriding attitude seems to be about protecting the soldier next to you because you want them to protect you. They're your mates and quite literally your lifeline - you don't want anything to happen to them, as much as you don't want to get shot yourself. There is no reason that should change if one (or more) of the unit is a woman. It all comes down to training and the trust within the unit.

Lol that's quite funny, Iknow. I was looking at it from a completely different angle, but yes. the insistence on comparing like with like in the equal pay audit would mean that only female REME would be compared with male REME etc etc, so essentially the like with like would erase notional difference. Just not if you are comparing a female from a regt with higher base pay to a male from a regt with lower base pay who end up working side by side with equivalent X factor or whatever they are calling it now.

The equal pay audit stats are interesting, but don't give enough info to actually be able to work out what is really going on. In some instances, women work out as a higher annual wage than their male counterparts by rank, but this is explained by 'time in rank'. To me that suggests women don't get promoted as quickly so spend longer at each level, but then this could be due to mat leave etc. there just isn't quite enough evidence for anything to work out what is really going on. And don't start me on the Continuous Attitudes Survey. A lot of these things are designed carefully to show exactly what they want them to show. Lies, damned lies and statistics.

I don't have any knowledge in psychological stuff so this talk of unit cohesion and whatever is way over my head, but looking at this purely from the angle of competency, if you can make it through selection then you should get in. Yes there are women who aren't competent enough to fight on the front line but there are also many man who aren't competent enough to do it, that's why the selection course should be used, to figure out who can cope and who can't

her normal Sapper pay, not "here"

As the women aren't allowed to be in the same unit, doing the same job, they will obviously be on a different pay scale.

That's going to be an interesting one, in other Arms - Signals, REME etc. the women are on the same pay. So in theory, if a female Sapper does selection and passes she'd get the SF bonus on top of here normal Sapper pay - same as a male would.

It'd only be different if she joined from the infantry - but she's pretty much guaranteed to be on more pay in the first place if she's not infantry or armour as they're pretty much bottom of the pay scale.....

Just didn't fancy the interrogation round then.
I get that.
Is this thing on iplayer?

I think Murphy probably didn't want to be broadcast nekkid on TV

She had on other tasks. (They stripped the underwear not naked)

absolutely no requirement to come up with special recruiting material. No-one is suggesting a targeted quota system for the sake of it. As Iknow said.

Payscales is interesting. As the women aren't allowed to be in the same unit, doing the same job, they will obviously be on a different pay scale. The reality of them standing side by side is an administrative irrelevance. No woman wanting to do her job without incurring the wrath of her (almost but not quite) peers is going to stick her head above the parapet. That's the job of the chain of command. I hope they figure out a way to pay the women equally. None of this shit comes up in the equal pay review, which is all nicey nicey backslapping aren't we doing well? It wouldn't, because women aren't administratively allowed to do the same job, ergo can't be paid the same.

I'm old enough to remember when they announced women could now fly fast jets. and old enough to remember that the military didn't really bother with the whole Equal Pay Act thing, (and heaven forbid ignoring ECHR rulings about pg)

I think Murphy probably didn't want to be broadcast nekkid on TV, no political statement about the suitability of women for combat roles or sf implied.

Interrogation isn't really a picnic for either sex, pants or no. There are equally unpleasant things that can be done to dudes, and this 'we must protect the wimmins and not let them do the job in case they get raped at some point because everyone ignores the Geneva Convention these days' argument is a bit shit really. Particularly when the said women are actively wanting to step up and help prevent large scale atrocities like, erm, rape of civilian women and children. You can't do it because it might be dangerous? That's the argument? It might be more dangerous for women? The men might put themselves in danger trying to look after you? Good grief, it's all a bit circular. Are we genuinely saying that men would rather keep torture all to themselves to prove that they are better able to handle it than women are? 'Worse for women'? Because vaginas? I mean, it's perilously close to 'what about the menz?' but I'm sitting on my hands here...

I have no actual stats for the numbers of sf personnel subjected to interrogation that violates the Geneva Convention, (I have a couple of ideas as to how I might get them, but my clearance has lapsed so it might be a bit underhand lol) but it isn't actually a routine part of the working week. Whatever you saw on telly.

But yes, of course. combat roles first. There are women working quietly behind all sorts of lines in various Int roles anyway (despite the vaginas). This thread was started about the SAS program, hence the discussions around selection, but throughout there have been frequent references to the fact that women are daily performing front line combat roles in everything but name.

I watched the series and enjoyed it for what it was, a TV entertainment show. Miller who won was great.
But the last episode did show some of the possible reasons about why women wouldn't be in the SAS, but didn't really dwell on it. In SAS training they undergo their interrogation training naked.
In the show ???murphy, the second to last woman to leave was ok striping to her underwear stood in the parade ground with all the other recruits in the wind/rain etc. But as soon as the interrogation but started and she was asked to remover her clothes, she asked to be removed from the competition, and it was a competition. Yes miller completed it wearing bra/underwear but she knew it was a games how where she would keep those articles of clothing and nothing would happen. Women might be physically able to be in the SAS but the whole real possibility of kidnap/interrogation of being in a special force is worse for women.
Front line rules for women would need to change before special forces.

The extra cost comes with the communication of the initative. If you want to really reach out and get numbers up you need to communicate this to all women. That means a team needs to be assembled and literature written up and approved.

Disagree here, the process for joining SF is already out there. The "team" is already assembled for assessing candidates, the criteria are already there....

The whole point of this is that it wouldn't be any different to the existing process.

A quick communication to all units to pass down that women can now apply is all it'd take. That'd go on Orders & everyone would know - it'd take one line of text.

The extra cost comes with the communication of the initative. If you want to really reach out and get numbers up you need to communicate this to all women. That means a team needs to be assembled and literature written up and approved.

A cheaper way to do just make the change and get on with it.

The one thing that shocked my brother was that the females attached to his unit were working side by side but on a lower pay scale because of their unit. When he challenged this with a female (who he thought would be sympathetic) she actually attacked him for being a trouble maker.

The whole interaction became more than it should have been. It is this culture that has really questioned my brothers desire to stay in the armed forces. The male officers he subsequently raised it with, as they are his direct superiors, nodded in agreement, thanked him for raising it and said they would investigate. They came back and said pay was reviewed and they found discrepancies.

What would be the financial costs, in your estimation, supermum? Women wouldn't be increasing the numbers, just applying and being taken on to existing intakes if they made it through to selection. There would be no additional infrastructure required, bar stapling a 'women' notice to a door, and hanging a double sided sign on the showers, and arranging a rota. It seems to work on every op tour I've been on. Of course the political cost could be exponential.

Tbh, it isn't the SAS in particular. It's the 'combat roles' thing. I'm not picky about sf.

And I get it, I really do. The narrative is extremely powerful. It's moving from the age of chivalry, the 'women and children first' for the lifeboats, to women being treated as equals. Heroes/ Warriors have been definitively gendered since fecking Homer. It's something of a step change. I've watched dudes struggle to work out whether they should be escorting me to dinner and pulling my chair out for me, as drilled into them during their customs etiquette and social responsibilities lectures, or whether that is null and void if I outrank them. It's a conundrum.

The stats thing is mildly interesting. If anyone cares, I was assaulted once in 16 years by a military colleague. And not seriously. But I've lost count of the number of times that I have been treated differently in the military solely because of my gender. I'm not pissed about the assault, but I am utterly pissed that by virtue of being a woman, not through lack of ability, strength, speed or anything else tangible, I have doors closed to me, am treated differently, and am expected to believe this is fair and equitable.

It's 2015.

Some of the arguments against allowing women into combat roles are reminiscent of Joseph Heller's Great Loyalty Oath Crusade, honestly.

Want2b what efforts are you talking about?

Most people have just said exactly the same as you ie women should be allowed to take the same test as the men and if they pass and pass the training etc then they can do it, same as the men.

So efforts to accelerate the process are going to cost money which the military doesn't have. I'd just women to be able to apply, try out and be allowed in if they meet the criteria already set. Over time numbers will increase.

Agrees with everything scallops just said.

The idea is, that if women meet the same criteria as men, they should be allowed to join.

The answer is No because.... Well nothing really except male pride and a desire to prop up a not-true-to-life narrative about the men who are part of this elite.

Dear goddesses. The hoops people will jump through to 'reason' that women aren't capable when you only have to look through the annals of history to understand how women have always been able to work hard and match men. I'm not talking about within 10% of elite male athletes type matching. I mean about doing the hard grind day after day after day.

And as for the rape argument. Women are always in danger of being raped. Why should being in the army be any different. I wonder if women are more in danger from their own troops than enemy troops. As a proportional likelihood, given that we like our irrelevant stats on this thread. Or even from their partners at home?

And from those figures we may work out what the actual likelihood of men being 'protective' of women would be. Because from where a lot of women stand men aren't protective about women in RL, in their workplaces, in their homes, on the streets. It's a rare event when men are protective, not the norm. So why is that going to change exactly if they enter elite forces?

None of the sf types I know are anywhere close to being the fastest or strongest in the world at any particular event. Jus' sayin'.

This is spot on, the lads I worked with looked just like the "average" squaddy - the main difference was between the ears. Where I know I'd just go "fuck it" and stop, they'd keep going.

That's why I think it'd be interesting to let women apply, it's only male pride that's stopping it - no matter what the protestations about health & injury are.

Lets all find out once & for all!!

Why would you think we were advocating for a pass on the 20mile run? I know plenty of women that would piss all over it. Home in time in time for tea and medals.

You have to meet the standard. If you meet the standard (the standard not being 'the fastest', you meet the standard. Rather you would have to have an ideological reason why women should not be able to undertake selection.

It works both ways. Why have a gendered policy at all, if no woman was ever going to meet the criteria?

Politics and public opinion. Women aren't supposed to kill. Splashing dead mothers and orphaned children over the tabloids is bad for PR.

Oh, and women aren't good enough. Because we won't let them prove otherwise. And we say so.

There were loads of useless men, didn't say there weren't.

Just to clarify: my comment wasn't aimed at you IKnow. It was a general sarcastic comment about no matter how useless a man might be, all other men won't be judged by that. One useless woman and all women are judged by that.

Sarcasm obviously doesn't come over well on t'internet

None of the sf types I know are anywhere close to being the fastest or strongest in the world at any particular event. Jus' sayin'. They are fit as fuck, and have endurance to die for (and take on ultras or swimming the channel for a bit of fun or after a Saturday night in the bar) but wouldn't be classed as elite athletes in any shape or form. They meet the standards. Whether women can out-compete men or not is not really relevant to a discussion involving selection (although I can see how we ended up down that particular rabbit hole with the game show thang). They don't have to beat anyone. They just have to meet the standard. And those arguing the 10% thing? They aren't the fastest or the strongest 10% in any sort of deadlift or distance category. They are the ones that last the (5 month) metaphorical distance. The psychologically strongest 10% who have the fitness and endurance to back that that up.

Oh, and whoever it was who said that accepting women who made the cut would mean standards would slide later - shame, shame.

The skill sets thing is interesting though. I ran a mixed team for a while (when I say mixed, I mean one woman and the rest men). I had No End of whining from the guys about how x shouldn't be on the team because she was physically smaller and weaker, blah blah whiny blah. Utterly endless. But if x took any leave, the whole team fell apart, as she had very specific skill sets that none of them had (and the specialist certs that allowed her to carry out specific tasks). None of them could do what she could do, and as a team, they were much much weaker, and in some instances unable to complete the task without her. Did they like it when I pointed that out? Hell no. And as a point of fact, whilst there is no doubt that in a weights contest she would have been the 'weakest', she was unequivocally able to carry out the physical aspects of the job, all day and all night.

Would she have passed selection? I doubt it, but I know a good few women who probably could. Some of them related to current sf personnel, which always makes for interesting discussions.

The injuries thing is interesting. I'd suggest to super mum's bro that women have been conditioned to believe they are weaker and can't carry on if they get an injury, although in point of fact women have a much higher pain tolerance than men. I know when I bust my elbow falling off a sodding cliff that I went back up twice to try again, and it was the guys that wouldn't let me go for the third time. Your bro has no personal limitation on perseverance, and all of this stuff is anecdotal. The sheer number of men dropping out of even basic training with injuries (LMF) will tell you that.

women have already been proven capable of performing in Special Operations roles during the Second World War, where they participated in combat and sabotage missions in hostile territory.

Women were valuable members of "The Det" in Northern Ireland in the 70's, 80's & 90's performing a covert infiltration role - their contributions were invaluable and a lot of the work they did could not have been done by male operatives.

With regards to Israeli soldiers, it's not quite as it seems - Washington Post Article.

I don't think the UK should be creating battalions of female soldiers to guard "friendly borders", to me that's worse that the status in the British Army at present...

The skill sets are different, but they are all required. They aren't going to give someone a free pass on the 20 mile run with a rucksack because they did really well on the strategy and planning bit.

As someone said upthread, women already work with the SAS in roles that require a special skillset, presumably because they recognise the value they bring to the role, while also recognising they aren't in a position to pass the full selection.

I can understand the technical conservatism of the armed forces when it comes to altering the gender balance, but I think efforts should be made to accelerate the process.

Taking the lead on gender integration at a special forces level would place us alongside Israel at the cutting edge of exploiting a previously untapped resource of person power and perspective. This could prove crucial; Most of our most likely threats in the immediate future are more socially conservative than us and will be slow to access the same resources. Maximising our military capabilities through socio-cultural advancement is as essential as technical advancement and could provide unexpected benefits. Already there is evidence that Islamist forces actively fear female soldiers among Kurdish units; Psychological warfare is about maximising every advantage.

Perhaps more importantly would be the feedback into civil society; the separation between traditional concepts of womanhood and militarism could be smashed, enhancing cohesion of public support for military action and destroying the last bastions of gender essentialism. It would be hard to claim that men are more naturally violent after a multigender combat squad carves a bloody swath through a hostile base.

In any case, while it is obvious that standards of physical ability must be maintained, women have already been proven capable of performing in Special Operations roles during the Second World War, where they participated in combat and sabotage missions in hostile territory. I believe it's just a matter of time before such actions will become necessary again, and making steps in that direction before pressed by desperation could pay dividends for our national survival.