SAS hell week

So why are we going back to 'Ah, but can women be in the special forces?

Because some people literally cant, and never will, get their heads around the idea of equality. They cannot bring themselves to say its possible, and that it would be absolutely fine!

We're going round in circles.

To recap (from my perspective) - we've discounted the 'women are physically incapable' argument by pointing to all kinds of strong women who out-compete men.

Then we moved on to the 'men will want to protect women and this will put everyone in danger' argument. And we discounted that on two grounds: firstly, that it's disadvantaging women because of male reactions that can be controlled; secondly, that women are already there in front line positions in fact, even though this is not officially recognised and this has not caused chaos. Interestingly, the view from dadwashere on the last page seemed to be that this objection didn't apply so much to special ops as to regular infantry.

So why are we going back to 'Ah, but can women be in the special forces?'

lurky a bomb disposal expert has a different skill set than infantry. You can't so easily compare the two.

With regards to responses to my post, I should have been clearer. My brother has noticed that when training at high intensity like they do women tend to have more injuries abd this is why they struggle to maintain their fitness. My brother has had some horrible injuries such as falling 30ft and breaking vertebrae. He literally bounced and the damage was limited. He got up and carried on. Any normal person would have been lying there passed out. These people who pass selection are really exceptional.

Careers in the Marines extend beyond 5 years so to say you are only in for 5 is not accurate at all. I know for the SAS certain people I know through my brother have been there far longer than 5 years. They do rotations with other units to give themselves a break and also help train up the units they are assigned to.

Also, my brothers opinion is that the army are not ready to deal with the fallout of a female under their command being raped as a PoW. My brother also made an interesting point that until fairly recently they were trained to treat women and children differently. This was done to minimize civilian casualties. He said that training had changed but what he has seen in the front line it is women and children who are in very vunerable positions and I know when he was in Afghanistan it was this aspect that really affected him. He ended up going back to old training manuals to get his guys up to speed on how to manage this aspect.

I would love to see women have the opportunity to be on the front line and equal to the men that are already there. It will happen and the army are slowly getting there. It doesn't help that right now the army are reducing headcount dramatically and they don't have enough jobs for those who are there let alone those who want to join.

this is all bollocks because women are actually there already. Everyone seems to agree on this, and no-one seems to think that this represents some kind of a crisis.

Yes it may be happening in the 'regular amy' etc but it it happening in the special forces, which is what the OP was about.

this is all bollocks because women are actually there already. Everyone seems to agree on this, and no-one seems to think that this represents some kind of a crisis.

This^^ exactly! Women are already right there on the frontline alongside those men who are supposed to have been rendered incapable due to proximity to a vagina is it happening?

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

But it's a (wrong) negative image that plagues women in the forces today because a lot of the senior officers that are making decisions are from the generation that had this image & don't seem to realise it has changed.

And of a course there were never any men who bloody useless were there? The difference being they were simply bloody useless and were never taken as an identifier for all men in the way a bloody useless woman would be taken as an identifier for all women.

So women are disadvantaged because of perceptions about male reactions.

Having served in the Army & working with women doing the same role as myself. There were women who could do the same things as most men, but there were also some who were bloody useless & would play on it "pleeeese help me, I can't do it" and that unfortunately tarred all women with the same brush for some people.

Who are the ones that stick in the mind? It's always the moaning, useless people - the ones that just get on & do it are forgettable....

x-post with lurky

See - I think this is the REAL issue, something cultural in the military about the way men behave differently around women, and the naturalisation of this as in some way inevitable. So women are disadvantaged because of perceptions about male reactions.

Basically, as far as I can see, it comes down to some testicles of objectivity shite about men 'inevitably' being protective of women rather than this being a reaction that is every bit as subject to discipline as any other (e.g the urge to run away from an aggressor). I don't buy it at all. I see women paramedics, firefighters, police officers all bringing their own excellences to those jobs, and I'm damned if I can see any rationale for special pleading for the military.

Plus, if madwoman and playswell are right (and I have no reason to think they are not)- this is all bollocks because women are actually there already. Everyone seems to agree on this, and no-one seems to think that this represents some kind of a crisis.

I don't buy the "feel too protective" argument. Isn't military training all about getting rid of people's natural reaction to things, to the point where they automatically respond in the "correct" way they have been trained to, regardless of how highly stressful the situation is?

I recently interviewed a bomb disposal expert, who said that they train to the point where muscle memory takes over in a situation in which a person would normally panic. They're trained for risk assessment to happen almost subconsciously. If training can achieve that, it can surely override the instinct to offer to carry a woman's bag for her while you all run away very fast, or whatever. And if you're trained to help your colleagues when they're in difficulty, you'll do so regardless of whether they have penises or not.

My view is "let them in & see what happens".

If they can do it and want to - let them, it's the only way to find out if there are more overheads, injuries & whether the return on investment is worth it...

^Broight this up with a friend who is a Marine.
He said that women shouldn't be allowed in as the men would feel too protective of them, and that making sure the women were ok would distract everyone.^

That’s what would happen. You could argue its sexist/unreasonable that male troops respond in that way but no army is going to compromise its ability to fight knowing thats exactly whats going to happen, in the field, with a mixed gender front line close quarter crew of grunts under fire.

The Israelis have probably tried hardest of all to make the dynamic work. For a time they had the idea of appointing women as tank commanders, because a commander is isolated from the 'protection' effect and is a priority asset anyway, regardless of gender. But they dropped the proposal recently, not sure why. There are two mostly (perhaps fully) female combat units that patrol Israeli boarders, but only borders with neighbours they are at long term peace with. I know that the US marines formed and tested mixed gender units against regular all male units and accessed the results but came up with a shortfall in comparative effectiveness of 20%-40%, though how that was arrived at or if it was 'fair', I have no idea.

I think, overall, women can choose roles in the military that will endanger their lives just as much as any man, pilot or sailor for example, but if its some form of 'female shoulder to male shoulder' close quarters troop combat equality that is sought, I just don’t think its ever going to happen, short of guerilla warfare situations or special ops.

She won carrying 20kg, but she admitted (on Woman's Hour) that had the weight been 40kg she wouldn't have won.

But we're talking about winning here. She could still have done it with 40kg, just not better and faster than the male contestants.

I thought it was already pretty well established that women perform better than men (or at the very least, comparable to) in extreme endurance events - for example the Spine of Wales 48hr marathon?

I think sI.

Not sure how it compares when carrying the extra equipment though. This is the one part of the programme that the winner really struggled with.

I thought it was already pretty well established that women perform better than men (or at the very least, comparable to) in extreme endurance events - for example the Spine of Wales 48hr marathon?

Wait, but haven't all these "super fit" special forces women lost their periods anyway?

Well, contraceptive implants and IUDs exist.

want2b i wonder if its down to the capture of female troops . I assume captured male troops are raped but they can't get pregnant. I can't bear to think about how it would unfold.

Blah! That should be "Because it can happen regardless of gender" not but.

I believe very firmly that the barrier is in the culture of the military and not in the capabilities of women.

Definitely. Just look at what Want2beSupermum's brother said, and this is something I've heard from other men in the military, that women could be raped when tortured, ummm, hate to break it to them, but men are raped as prisoners as well. The fear of rape can't be an excuse, but it can happen regardless of gender.

My point is that women CAN do it physically. I realise that the tasks in the TV show are 'easier' than those on the training programme - but I am pointing to real life instances in which women have done really, really well at tasks that far exceed those required for the special forces training, e.g. mountain running. Therefore, let us dismiss the argument that they are not 'physically' capable.

As you say, women are ALREADY doing everything required unofficially. It's just that they're not getting the recognition that it is possible for someone with a vagina to show a combination of mental and physical resilience and leadership capabilities. I find that utterly depressing, and I believe very firmly that the barrier is in the culture of the military and not in the capabilities of women.

I doubt that all those currently in the special forces could do that.

It's a bit different being out in the field for weeks at a time with all the gear, but no, they probably couldn't do it.

But then they'll probably never be required to climb 64 peaks in 24 hours - clever people would get a chopper in.....

But that's not what it's about. Physical fitness is a part of it, but there's a lot more involved, that's why the TV program was a very specific, inaccurate snapshot of what is required - any of the women currently serving in the military could tell you that though as they already know, because a lot of them are already doing most of it unofficially.

In special forces, as shown in SAS week, it is much about psychological ability as fitness.

If women can pass, as Miller did then they should be allowed to.

The programme 'tests' however weren't actually anywhere near as hard as 'the real tests' as they kept pointing out in the commentary.

It is absolute bollocks that women aren't fit enough to be in the special forces.

I used to be an OK fell runner/mountain marathoner (DH was an extremely good fell runner). We would regularly race against guys from the special forces in the Lakes, Scotland etc and the fell runners - male and female- were fitter, better able to cope, and better map readers over difficult terrain. And I am talking about races where everyone had to carry their own tent, sleeping back and food for 2 days over an ultra-course.

When I was off the course, I used to regularly get men patronising me, because I am 5 foot 4 and at the time I weighed about 100lbs. (Ah, those were the days!) I looked tiny and weak and people would assume I needed a hand with carrying something like a water cooler bottle. But I could beat the hell out of all of them up a hill carrying twice the weight.

Women are more than capable of running the Bob Graham - Nicky Spinks climbed 64 of the highest Lake peaks in under 24 hours. I doubt that all those currently in the special forces could do that.