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.

It wasn't until 1960 that women were allowed to run further than 200 metres in the Olympic games.

Apparently in 1928 6 women collapsed after running 800 metres in the Olympics (probably because they lacked basic training and fitness and had no opportunity to train properly) so alarm bells rang along the lines of "their wombs will drop out and they won't be able to breed". So women were banned from anything longer than 200 metres until 1960.

OK, we are not talking carrying massive weights while fighting here, but when you think that was only just over 50 years ago it is amazing how far women have come in that relatively short time - marathons, triathlons, ironman, fell running, mountaineering, sailing solo round the globe through the southern ocean, etc.

There may be only a small proportion of female soldiers who could achieve SAS standard but you get the feeling that the military, now being on very rocky ground claiming weakness, physical inability etc. to preclude women have fallen back on "and anyway they'll be the boobs of distraction to the men".

I am always amused how in the past e.g. Victorian times, men saw women as dainty, feeble, swooning creatures but not, apparently, too dainty, feeble or swooning to be impregnated many times over and made to undergo one of the most painful, dangerous and potentially deadly acts of all - giving birth.

as I've said previously on here I do think women should be able to apply. The standards are very high for any special forces units and the marines.

What shocks me is a notion that advances will mean less is carried or the army will use more efficient forms of transport to move bodies and equipment. These units go behind enemy lines. You can't just drive up there. Also the upper body strength of the marines is insane. My brother climbed up the side of a cargo ship carrying his own body weight in equipment. Most men, let alone women couldn't do that! Oh and he climbed up the cargo ship while directing his men ahead and behind him using hand signals so most of the time he was holding on with one hand and his feet. I think very few people have a real understanding of the skill set of elite soilders.

I assumed Mide was not talking about transport but about the huge levels of investment pouring into energy-harvesting suits, technological sensory aids, biometric monitoring, cyborg-style equipment etc. from military funding bodies and corporations (e.g. the TALOS programme). Which may well be game-changing in terms of the physical parameters of both male and female bodies, and hopefully also perceptions of gendered capacity.

(It's worth noting the link between military funding bodies and the robotics and drone industry also at this point! One wonders if, as Buffy has been arguing, the whole hand-to-hand assumptions on which warfare is modelled are being rewritten).

That sort of thing is a long long way off! You should see their accomodation and food. If they wanted to help improve the armed forces I'd start there. My brother is an officer and his quarters on UK bases are terrible. I only hope non officer quarters are of the same standard because if a step below I'm sure animals have better conditions. Oh and equipment is still an issue. My brother has had to get involved with getting right sized boots more than once.

huge levels of investment pouring into energy-harvesting suits, technological sensory aids, biometric monitoring, cyborg-style equipment etc. from military funding bodies and corporations (e.g. the TALOS programme). Which may well be game-changing in terms of the physical parameters of both male and female bodies, and hopefully also perceptions of gendered capacity.

You'd think so wouldn't you. These advances have been bandied around for decades. But it always seems to end up with people, weapons & a shit load of equipment!

The UK military at the moment is based around the situations they've been accustomed to in Afghanistan & Iraq where we have the technological advantage & thus don't have to carry loads of gear with them (although step ladders seem to be popular).

In a European type theatre (think Ukraine etc.) we wouldn't necessarily be able to drive/fly around with the impunity we have been - which takes it all back to carrying the kit, ammo, food, ammo, water, ammo and more ammo.

Small males can do it so no reason why females couldn't, long term effects will occur for both sexes - knees, hips, pelvises, backs, same as they are for both sexes already.

Only one way to find out, the dinosaurs in the MOD need to stop overthinking it & just let it happen....

Oh, I realise the suits are a way off (right now the prototypes are too heavy even for most blokes) - my point, though, is that we may well be entering an era where the physical limitations of the human body start to become less significant, undoing all kinds of basic assumptions we have about power and strength and gender as essential facets of being. Not just in combat, but more generally.

(It's already happening in many ordinary ways that we scarcely notice because they have become part of everyday life, from the fact that I use my camera as a pair of binoculars sometimes because it has better 'sight' than I do unaided, through to paralympic sports - it's always interesting to see the debate when those with 'disabilities' are faster and stronger as a result of their equipment than those athletes that don't have it!).

(Thinking a bit here of Ender's Game, which looks prescient in a world of drones - where the best warriors are children, because they have a ruthlessness in their logic, and a simplicity of thought, that makes them supreme at computer-game-like warfare).

Orson Scott Card is a lunatic, though.

I remember reading "International Defence Review" back in 1988 & the yanks were trialling powered suits back then - I honestly don't reckon it's as easy as they think!

Don't they use Xbox controllers to fly the drones, based on the fact that most people are pretty good at using them?

Orson Scott Card is indeed a lunatic though!!