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.

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

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

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

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.....

her normal Sapper pay, not "here"

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

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.

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.

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.

But Buffy's point is precisely that most people DIDN'T think that 'every person has a reasonable chance' of doing the things on that list - because half the population (those in possession of a vagina) were excluded for a very long time! It's a very, very, modern mindset that thinks anyone can be a doctor or a graduate. Two hundred years ago, the idea that women had enough intellect simply to be able to vote was viewed by the majority as a completely laughable position.

The boundaries of what women are seen as 'capable of' have altered radically just in the last 100 years or so - that there is a significant cultural element to these expectations, and that they are historically variable rather than some kind of 'set in stone for all time' truth.

I take the point about elitism, but not everyone can be a Nobel prize-winning scientist or the foremost writer of their generation, yet we all know and agree that all of those things can be done by women. Why not sf too? A persistent theme of this thread from people like yourself has been that the ideal individual is rounded - they're not just strong or able to run for a long time, but psychologically resilient, and tactical and strategic thinkers. Since we've established (repeatedly) that this isn't about elite peak athletic performance alone and that there is no need for sf to produce world class marathon times (for example), there is little reason to think that women couldn't pass the selection and be effective members of sf teams in future.

As fitfatty demonstrated pages ago (effectively ending this argument in one blow, if you ask me) - in the States, a couple of women have already passed the very tough selection for the Army Rangers: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33977096

I do think women should be allowed into infantry type roles in the army but I do think womens lower ceiling for strength would hold them back.

Yes I know there are other factors to being a good SF but if your body isn't up to it no amount of mental strength or good soldiering will get you through.

In 100 years from now, the arguments as to why women can't be elite soldiers will probably appear as ridiculous and prejudiced as those about bicycle riding.

Maybe, as stated many times in this thread - my view is that the process should be open to all.

It's the only way....

Out of interest, are there any stats to say how many of the women serving in the British Army would be applying?

Lots of views on here, not many from those it actually applies to though....

As fitfatty demonstrated pages ago (effectively ending this argument in one blow, if you ask me) - in the States, a couple of women have already passed the very tough selection for the Army Rangers

Hardly ending the argument in "one blow" - as I pointed out, the US Rangers are at a fitness level commensurate with the British Army (and all the women therein) - they wouldn't be classed as "Elite" over here.....

metapost

I'm waiting for the inevitable use of the phrases 'real world' and 'human nature' in response to that Opposite Land point. And perhaps a reiteration of the strength point. Because that's all people ever have against that point, and I must've heard it a dozen times if I've heard it once.

I think the point about adulation of sf is a very strong one.

Whatever testicles of objectivity are Buffy, you are quite possibly right. Altho I wouldn't say I said anyone was incompetent. Some people just aren't suited to particular roles, nothing wrong with that.

The way things are going with technology, I could see a time soon where soldiers aren't carrying as much weight or moving on foot such distances.

I agree Buffy but I was talking particularly about "moving heavy objects". From what I've read SF soldiers have to carry large amounts of equipment of large distances. Of course can be just as good at the other things ( if not better IMO)

I'm not really arguing against it, just saying that I believe the number of women able to pass selection for these type of forces would be low compared to the small number of men who are able.

Yep - and I think those structures are probably more about homosociality than they are even about physical strength in reality.

I present Exhibit A, from the 2010 Review into the Exclusion of Women from Ground Close-Combat roles. It begins with a series of gender assumptions that are frankly ludicrous (women 'less aggressive' than men, really? they haven't met some of my fierce friends), it moves on to acknowledge that the real reason for discrimination is that 'cohesion' might be threatened with women present. I really have to wonder how far we are from a 'the ladies might distract them with their boobies' argument here.

Annex D

"The Secretary of State is satisfied that as some women will certainly be able to meet the standard required of personnel performing in close combat roles, the evidence of women’s lower physical capacity should not, in itself be a reason to maintain the restrictions. Nor are the identified psychological differences between men and women, or the gap in the capacity for aggression, compelling evidence that women would perform less well in close combat.

The key issue is the potential impact of gender mixing in the small teams essential to success in the close combat environment. The small size of the basic unit in ground combat, coupled with the unrelenting mental and physical pressure extending over days or weeks, sets them apart from other military roles. Even small failures in a high intensity close combat environment can lead to loss of life or the failure of the team to meet its objectives. None of the work that either has been, or could be, done can illuminate the key question of the impact of gender mixing on the combat team in close
combat conditions.

Given the lack of direct evidence, from either field exercises or from the experience of other countries, the Secretary of State concluded that military judgement must form the basis of any decision. The military viewpoint was that under the conditions of a high intensity close-quarter battle, group cohesion becomes of much greater significance to team performance and, in such an environment, the consequences of failure can have far-reaching and grave consequences. To admit women would, therefore, involve a risk
with no gains in terms of combat effectiveness to offset it. "