Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

BBC sexism?

66 replies

fluffywhitekittens · 31/01/2015 21:41

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11379420/BBC-sexism-I-was-rejected-for-a-reality-show-because-Im-a-woman.html

The Feminist haters are out in force in the comments section...

I'm fairly certain that the BBC site initially made no reference to Men only but has amended the page so now states that they're looking for tough men.

OP posts:
PuffinsAreFictitious · 22/02/2015 15:50

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

wyomingisnotacountry · 22/02/2015 17:22

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!

PuffinsAreFictitious · 22/02/2015 17:36

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

How's the Katie Hopkins worship going for you?

PuffinsAreFictitious · 22/02/2015 17:36

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

AKnickerfulOfMenace · 23/02/2015 06:44

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

VeryVeryDarkGrey · 23/02/2015 07:14

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

ChunkyPickle · 23/02/2015 07:24

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!

TheCowThatLaughs · 23/02/2015 08:05

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??

ChunkyPickle · 23/02/2015 09:52

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.

TheCowThatLaughs · 23/02/2015 10:35

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

ChunkyPickle · 23/02/2015 11:38

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!

TheCowThatLaughs · 23/02/2015 12:03

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 Smile

Dotheyfloat · 23/02/2015 12:44

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.

TheCowThatLaughs · 23/02/2015 12:48

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?

ChunkyPickle · 23/02/2015 13:43

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

PuffinsAreFictitious · 23/02/2015 14:04

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 · 23/02/2015 15:01

ChunkyPickle
"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!"

TheCowThatLaughs
"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?"

Don't try and generalize the issue. I'm not opposed to women a TV reality show. I simply think in this particular case, for reasons that have already been discussed (and not seriously challenged) I think it's a waste of time if the objective of the show is to keep it 'real as possible'.

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

ChunkyPickle · 23/02/2015 15:13

Goodness, that'll teach me for trying to bring some other interest and levity into a serious discussion on why an entertainment program has to exclude women!

Because of course mountains and deserts never have any slippery mud on them, these people haven't been carrying heavy loads this way for hundreds of years collectively and 10s of years individually, of course rucksacks is the only way to carry heavy loads.

Your point about production staff filtering applications is silly - it's not like they're not already filtering 100s of non-starters, so again, why not give an appropriately trained woman a go, why on earth exclude someone purely on their genitals!

TheCowThatLaughs · 23/02/2015 15:34

Ok so if a woman was on the programme and didn't complete the march, what skin is it off your nose, DoThey?
And it was only fairly recently that women were believed to be unable to do the marathon, and were prevented from entering! Can you believe it?!

Blistory · 23/02/2015 15:37

I understand that the BBC is only replicating an existing selection programme but is it really beyond the intellect of them and the British military forces to realise that a level playing field would be appropriate ?

Expecting women to carry a man's rucksack, a rifle designed by men, equipment designed by men, wearing boots, helmets etc designed by men is not equality. But no, we expect women to fit into a box designed for men and call that equality. Equality in strength requires proportionality not identical measures.

Expecting women to carry 40lbs on kit on a 40mile march might be more equal than expecting them to carry 70lbs or so. And if you design the equipment correctly, they can carry the same items, they would just tend to be smaller.

Forcing women to compete on level terms with men in these situations is not providing anything other than lip service to the idea of equality.

AKnickerfulOfMenace · 23/02/2015 16:03

Puffins has family with relevant experience, Dothey. If you'd stop sneering for a moment, you might've realised that.

CBA engaging with you further. You're hardly here for constructive discussion, are you?

Dotheyfloat · 23/02/2015 18:20

The show's stated objective is to keep it 'as real as possible'. This, as I've already said, is the BBC's mistake; in reality SAS-type selection processes exclude women because they will fail. Civilian political correctness and SAS training do not mix; it's sexist, ageist, disabilist and anti-obese. That's not due to some Grand Patriarchal Conspiracy, it's just brutal physical reality.

ChunkyPickle
"Goodness, that'll teach me for trying to bring some other interest and levity into a serious discussion on why an entertainment program has to exclude women!

Because of course mountains and deserts never have any slippery mud on them, these people haven't been carrying heavy loads this way for hundreds of years collectively and 10s of years individually, of course rucksacks is the only way to carry heavy loads."

I think you need to read your link more carefully.

It suggests possible improvements to peoples' gait based on the walking posture of civilian African women who have been carrying loads on their heads since childhood, not that British soldiers in a combat zone should specifically carry heavy bergens on their head.

ChunkyPickle
"Your point about production staff filtering applications is silly - it's not like they're not already filtering 100s of non-starters, so again, why not give an appropriately trained woman a go, why on earth exclude someone purely on their genitals!"

See my opening paragraph.

AKnickerfulOfMenace
"Puffins has family with relevant experience, Dothey. If you'd stop sneering for a moment, you might've realised that."

Thankyou. I can read. She said they've encouraged her to "have a go". I said same thing. I think you'll find that's rather different from 'you stand a good chance of passing the selection test'.

Blistory

"I understand that the BBC is only replicating an existing selection programme but is it really beyond the intellect of them and the British military forces to realise that a level playing field would be appropriate ?

Expecting women to carry a man's rucksack, a rifle designed by men, equipment designed by men, wearing boots, helmets etc designed by men is not equality. But no, we expect women to fit into a box designed for men and call that equality. Equality in strength requires proportionality not identical measures.

Expecting women to carry 40lbs on kit on a 40mile march might be more equal than expecting them to carry 70lbs or so. And if you design the equipment correctly, they can carry the same items, they would just tend to be smaller.

Forcing women to compete on level terms with men in these situations is not providing anything other than lip service to the idea of equality."

Right. The SAS haven't figured out that you could nearly halve their kit weight with no loss of operational capability in the field, despite decades of practical experience to draw from? Hmmm... I suspect they carry all that kit around because it makes them effective killers, not because they want to keep women out of their little camping club.

TheCowThatLaughs
"Ok so if a woman was on the programme and didn't complete the march, what skin is it off your nose, DoThey?
And it was only fairly recently that women were believed to be unable to do the marathon, and were prevented from entering! Can you believe it?!"

I have no problem with equal numbers of men and women going through the same training processes. As long as, if the type of allowances Blistory has suggested are implemented, no one claims it has anything to do with the reality of SAS-type training, as this show is attempting to do.

Blistory · 23/02/2015 18:36

I suspect the SAS haven't attempted to figure it out. It's entirely possible to design combat weapons that suit the anatomy of a woman without losing firepower. It's entirely possible to make helmets smaller and consequently more lightweight without compromising on protection. Same with body armour etc etc. Take the weight of sexism off women's shoulders and you may well be surprised by the outcome.

Brutal physical reality - your words - are just a refusal to consider solutions.

Dotheyfloat · 23/02/2015 19:16

Blistory
"I suspect the SAS haven't attempted to figure it out. It's entirely possible to design combat weapons that suit the anatomy of a woman without losing firepower. It's entirely possible to make helmets smaller and consequently more lightweight without compromising on protection. Same with body armour etc etc. Take the weight of sexism off women's shoulders and you may well be surprised by the outcome."

You've designed and tested these things, have you? In any case what you've suggested doesn't explains how you'd reduce the mass of a bergen by nearly 50% without loss of essential kit/impairment of combat effectiveness.

Blistory
"Brutal physical reality - your words - are just a refusal to consider solutions."

Problems require solutions. What significant problem(s) or improvements, would the presence of women in SAS combat roles solve or make, exactly?

TheCowThatLaughs · 23/02/2015 19:31

I can't work out why you're not gagging to see a woman humiliated by trying to do the course and failing? Unless you're worried that she might have a chance? Hmm

Swipe left for the next trending thread