SAS hell week

[80schild]

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.

And given the SAS's published pass rate is 10%, a cohort who can't get into the top 10% aren't going to cut it.

But why should that mean they shouldnt have equal chance to try?

I'm pretty sure no one things the organisers hand out places at the Dog and Duck on a saturday night

i was addressing the notion that it was "just" men these women couldnt even beat.

What you say about injuries would tie in with what my brother has observed in the armed forces. They are very short on numbers and injuries are a huge burden for them.

But why should that mean they shouldnt have equal chance to try?
And get an merit certificate on the way out?

This isn't a assessment day to join the grad scheme at John Lewis. It is a 5 month intensive training programme, which is so difficult that people have died doing it.

It does precisely zero to further equality to have an intake that isn't going to pass, and isn't going to be able to work alongside the men when they do.
I can't follow your logic that women need to 'have a go' unless it is in order to tick some sort of equality box. It makes no sense

I can't follow your logic that women need to 'have a go' unless it is in order to tick some sort of equality box

Well thats because that isnt my logic

sparechange - can't you see what's wrong with your 10% figure, though? I don't mean in terms of anything political, feminist, or ideological - I mean in terms of basic statistics. You are not making the a sound comparison!

You are assuming that the sub 10% performance gap between men and women at an elite athletic level equates to a 10% performance gap between ALL men and women - including and especially those undergoing selection for the SAS. That's not a sound comparison, because the level at which those elite athletes are working is far, far higher than the level the top 10% of SAS recruits need to meet. So you cannot assume in the slightest that the elite 'gap' will translate across to more ordinary levels of performance.

The point being, as I said earlier, that good strength, stamina and fitness are just one of the things special forces need to demonstrate. It's worth pointing out again that this thread was kicked off by a WOMAN winning a 'hell week' event. We can argue til the cows come home about whether the selection events were as tough as those for special forces (and I don't think they probably were) but she still beat all the men so she was by definition in the top 10% of her field!!

We can argue til the cows come home about whether the selection events were as tough as those for special forces (and I don't think they probably were)

They weren't even in the same ball park

Actually I think the skill set for a special forces person is harder than an elite athlete. For the SAS you have to be excellent at multiple disciplines while an elite athlete is only good at one. You can be the fastest runner in the world but you are not going to make the cut for the SAS if you can lead your team while running with 80lbs on your back and in your arms.

Yeah, because Jessica Ennis = just good at one thing.

I take the point, though, that the skills sets are DIFFERENT. That has, in fact, been what every single one of my posts has been saying for the last two pages.

Shove, I'm not trying to present a rigorous statistical analysis so much as give a few examples of what happens when men and women, who are all committed athletes, compete against each other in sports that require full-body fitness and a degree of tactical ability and tonnes of mental fortitude, in order to give a more realistic counterpoint to the idea that a woman winning a game show should automatically change the recruiting rules for the special forces.

An awful lot of people on this thread seem to think that because it has 'SAS' in the title, it is somehow representative of SAS training. Me and others have pointed out that it really isn't.

Shove tried to claim "we've discounted the 'women are physically incapable' argument by pointing to all kinds of strong women who out-compete men", which is just simply not true. I can't find a single example of this happening in endurance sport. And I've picked out a few examples from sports I know well to show why that isn't true.

If you want to find some examples that support this, I'm all ears, but beyond ideology, I haven't seen any compelling reasons that SAS selection should be opened up to women because they would have a good shot of passing the selection in its current form.

I'm sure a sports scientists or similar could give a better analysis, but if sports results across the board show a 10% or more difference between what men and women can achieve physically, and only the top 10% of those applying to do the (physical) training will get accepted, what is the case to allow those who can't pass the opportunity to try it?

I suggest you go back and read that last post I wrote again, because it addresses exactly what you have re-raised.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

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.

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!!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.