Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

SAS hell week

135 replies

80schild · 05/10/2015 17:01

I am wondering why there is not a thread about this programme in feminism. I am sure you have all heard of the SAS and the fact that women aren't allowed in because they are not considered strong enough.

So I have been following this programme, with particular reference to one woman. She entered to prove that women could compete with men (surely something that feminism would be proud of) - well guess what, she won, against 25 blokes and 3 other women.

Surely, this is a feminist issue - that a woman should at least be able to try for the SAS on a level playing field (i.e., no adjustments made for sex), if she wants to.

OP posts:
PlaysWellWithOthers · 05/10/2015 18:17

There was a thread about it.... iirc, we were told not to be quite so silly, and that ladies couldn't possibly do it... I think I hid it in the end, as I can't find it now.

YouBastardSockBalls · 05/10/2015 18:21

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.

I then hid the subject from my mind.

SurlyCue · 05/10/2015 18:24

the men would feel too protective of them, and that making sure the women were ok would distract everyone

They could try seeing the women as people rather than a gender. That might help Hmm

Marshy · 05/10/2015 18:36

Did that happen in the programme? No, thought not....

SurlyCue · 05/10/2015 18:38

Did what happen in the programme?

Marshy · 05/10/2015 18:49

Men being protective of the women.

DiscoGoGo · 05/10/2015 19:33

There have been a couple of threads on this.

I think most women agreed that if women can meet the criteria then they should be allowed to join.
It was accepted that fewer women than men will meet it due to size differences.
There was some conversation around whether the tests should be updated, as they were all based around a man of a certain height etc when actually being small and nippy but still hard as nails would be valuable in some circs.
There was discussion about the marching stride distance and how the protective gear is designed for men so breasts get in the way
And some talk about menstruation

But overall the basic answer was yes if women can do it then of course they should be able to do it

I don't buy this protectiveness stuff, men aren't particularly protective of women any more than men if they aren't family (and presumably are more protective of male family!)

Anyway if you do a search you might find it Smile

DiscoGoGo · 05/10/2015 19:34

I think a lot of the push back on this is to do with gender roles and a feeling of a fundamental challenge to the core of masculinity if a woman can do this stuff

grimbletart · 05/10/2015 19:55

Yes, men are so protective of women aren't they? Is that why it is usually men who subject women to DV rather the other women and men who rape women. Really protective that.

DiscoGoGo · 05/10/2015 19:58

I know it's nonsense isn't it.

Haven't there been loads of disaster type scenarios where the fit young men were all shoving the women children elderly etc out of the way to get out first? Which is standard self defence, so you know that's how it goes, but the reaction to that, and this army thing. It's like the narrative "men are brave and strong and protective" is so strong as to over-write what actually happens!

I mean, some people are brave and strong and protective, sure. And some aren't. And that's life. But the narrative is wrong isn't it.

madwomanbackintheattic · 05/10/2015 20:14

I've no idea which programme you are talking about but there have always been women who have carried out sf roles. The specific determination against women in certain regiments or jobs has all sorts of political and cultural rationale (most of which is bollocks, and I in no way agree, but the existence of the excuses aren't exactly a new thing.)
I speak as someone who tried to get into the Marines at 18. Grin and who experienced a good many years of being a female in the military trying to push gender boundaries.
Things are changing slowly. When I applied to join the mountain rescue team I was told no, men only. Because the wives wouldn't like it. (Seriously.. A few years later they were forced to accept women.) I was turned down for a promotion because the other person in the running had a wife and child to support and therefore needed it more than me. Repeated accusations in timed runs that I must be cheating as I couldn't beat the men. Lunch where entertainment was belly dancers and I was repeatedly told to join in. Assaulted in a work bar. Dinners where I had to leave the dining room on cue for the men to light up cigars and drink port in peace. Told I had to run the babysitting service for senior officers. Ach, it's endless. But having had to sign a contract that stipulated if I got pregnant or married I would have to leave, it's not like it was a surprise to me.

Someone linky the program?

partialderivative · 05/10/2015 20:17

Wasn't SAS Hell week just a reality telly programme?

Doesn't the real training take 30+ weeks? (from Wiki)

Give the various roles SAS officers maybe have to undertake, it would make a heck of a of sense to have more than a few females in their ranks. (Maybe they already do)

As usual, I am typing with no authority at all.

partialderivative · 05/10/2015 20:22

Good grief, ignore anything I typed, madwoman obviously knows far more than I ever will ever know (no irony or sarcasm)

madwomanbackintheattic · 05/10/2015 20:33

Lol, partial. Yeah I just looked it up. It's just a reality tv programme, they aren't recruits at all. I was wondering if I had woken up in some parallel universe and they were really were trialling women recruits officially and I had somehow missed it. No, it's an endurance testing reality show, where they apparently have training and testing from sf troops around the globe including torture sessions, which is nice.

I was beginning to sweat a bit at just how out of touch I really was...

So I will slink orf back under my rock.

It looks like a jolly jape though. And fair play to the woman (women?) who got through it, although I rather suspect that the recruiting for the programme would have selected the biggest male egos they could find, in order to make good tv. (This is a total guess based on how reality TV works - the men would have been egotistical twats, all mouth and skimpy trousers, all gym bunnies, and the women would be nails and have something to prove. I'd love to be proved wrong!) And you don't look for ego in that game really. which is lucky lol, because none of them were trying to actually join...

madwomanbackintheattic · 05/10/2015 20:40

I suppose the woman winning against 25 blokes should have been my first clue it wasn't real lol. Not that it would have been impossible, just that it wouldn't have been allowed to happen. Grin Did I say that out loud? Oopsie.

caroldecker · 05/10/2015 21:01

Women can't join the SAS as they are currently not allowed in frontline combat roles.

PlaysWellWithOthers · 05/10/2015 21:34

Sorry, actually going to point and laugh at anyone who can say that women aren't in frontline combat roles with a straight face.

scallopsrgreat · 05/10/2015 21:37

I think the question is why not, carol decker.

There was a thread a few months ago about women in the infantry which basically went along the lines of how DiscoGoGo described.

"Not that it would have been impossible, just that it wouldn't have been allowed to happen." That's how I view it (and wish I'd had that articulation on that infantry thread!). There seems to be this mystical almost superhuman quality given to these roles (especially the infantry) when talked about in the context of women entering these echelons. Yet fairly average men seem to be able to do the roles. Fit strong men. But just men.

scallopsrgreat · 05/10/2015 21:38

Well that's also a good point Plays! We must be imagining all those women killed in the line of duty all over the world.

madwomanbackintheattic · 05/10/2015 21:43

Technically they aren't 'combat' troops though. The women on the frontline are all medics, eng, int, everything else, in exactly the same place, wearing exactly the same gear (sometimes carrying more - medics for example) subject to the same dangers, but technically not combat troops. Very definitely front line, though. That technicality is the sticking point.

Original poster
80schild · 05/10/2015 22:24

The title itself points to the fact it is a (rubbishy) reality programme - it has just really made me think about what a load of rubbish it all is about the arguments for not allowing women. Men protecting women is definitely the biggest load of bollocks - in the real world it is each for his own.

OP posts:
grimbletart · 05/10/2015 22:35

I thought the Govt was changing the rules next year to allow women in combat roles? Anyone else think that?

PlaysWellWithOthers · 05/10/2015 22:43

Yep grimble...

I'm also really quite aware of what roles women have been playing, in the front lines, for many, many years now. They might not wear the 'combat' badge, but they still get killed and maimed in exactly the same ways as the men who do have that badge. So, still going to laugh at people who say it. Not so sure my friend who lost limbs will though... will ask her when she gets away from this run at Headley.

I'm sorry if that sounds snarky to you, Mad, it's not meant to be, it just pisses me off that women I know have been serving in every role imaginable, embedded with every regt/corps/service you could name, and there is still the misconception that they aren't in combat roles. It's one of the greatest lies told about female service personnel, it pisses the serving women I know off a fair bit too.

madwomanbackintheattic · 05/10/2015 23:20

Ah, grimble, they are 'possibly' going to consider allowing women into combat roles. Sadly I don't think I know anyone who thinks it will happen, but the tide has slowly been changing for thirty years, so who knows. They have allowed women to fly fighters (with the acceptance that killing people at a distance is allowable, just not up close and personal).

It's not a misconception is it, plays? It's semantics. Everyone is well aware that women are embedded. We are saying the same thing. The women are right on the frontline in exactly the same position as the guys. The technicality is that they are not allowed to apply for the jobs, role, and regiments that the guys are. When I use the word 'technicality' it doesn't mean I approve of that fact, just that, well, it is unfortunately still a fact. Despite the fact that to all intents and purposes, they are doing the blooming job alongside the guys (and getting blown up for it).

When I say 'women aren't in combat roles' I mean by name. I don't mean they aren't physically there on the frontline getting killed and maimed. That's what makes the 'no women in combat roles' political bollocksery so stupid.

scallopsrgreat · 06/10/2015 00:08

This is UK troops as well. There are plenty of other armies who are OK about having women as well as men in combat roles.