SAS could change selection test to make it easier for female recruits

Craterloads · 4 Dec 2017 at 09:16

So whats peoples thoughts on

The SAS is considering adapting its gruelling selection test to give women a better chance of succeeding, according to reports. The elite special forces unit is thought to be looking at plans to make one of its trademark recruitment exercises easier for female candidates to complete

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/03/sas-could-change-selection-make-easier-female-recruits/

I assume these tests are in place to ensure minimum level resulting in everyone selected or within the special forces being overall safer. Doesn't this just essentially equal letting not fit enough men to join resulting in it becoming potentially more dangerous for everyone else?

Nasher · 4 Dec 2017 at 09:20

It is a bit silly appeasing the P.C crowd for something like this, the enemy isn't going to go easy on them because they are a women. The standard is the standard because they need to stay ahead of other special forces.

Rifte · 4 Dec 2017 at 09:21

Ridiculous in my opinion.

We should not be loosening the requirements at all based upon meeting an equal opportunities criteria. Pretty much every person of whatever shape, size, sex or gender has the opportunity to contribute in the military and that is great, but certain roles cannot be marginalized to appease a statistic. This is one of them.

Kronos · 4 Dec 2017 at 09:22

If if American garbage TV is anything to go by, absolutely stunning women are already the best ever special forces personnel in the history of their Armed forces so I am sure that we in this country have loads of similar women folk just ready and waiting to join the SAS doubt you would need to make selection easier though as I am sure the Americans don't.

Vonhelmet · 4 Dec 2017 at 09:28

One can only assume that the higher ups know what they need from their recruits and know how to test accordingly.

Ayahuasca · 4 Dec 2017 at 09:28

Nice, maybe a rename of the force to SASSY?

Nasher · 4 Dec 2017 at 09:29

Rifte said:
We should not be loosening the requirements at all based upon meeting an equal opportunities criteria. .

Unfortunately, this is happening all over now. People are being recruited to fill a quota, rather than on merit. Which is often annoying for the rest of the staff who sometimes have to carry them :/

Rifte · 4 Dec 2017 at 09:32

Ayahuasca said:
Nice, maybe a rename of the force to SASSY?

I see what you did there

Nasher said:
Unfortunately, this is happening all over now. People are being recruited to fill a quota, rather than on merit. Which is often annoying for the rest of the staff who sometimes have to carry them :/

Yes its become a 'thing' at the moment.

robgmun · 4 Dec 2017 at 09:35

Vonhelmet said:
One can only assume that the higher ups know what they need from their recruits and know how to test accordingly.

Thanks...i needed a good laugh in the morning

Hiijinx · 4 Dec 2017 at 09:35

It is understood plans to change the recruitment process to make it fairer for women hoping to join are only being considered and will only involve the initial stages.

Seems the only change would be a lighter backback and more time to complete the hill march which seems fair enough to me.
It can't all be about brute strength (or our entire army would look like Conan the Destroyer

).

You wouldn't expect Woody Allen to be able to lift as much as Arnold would you? Doesn't necessarily make him the better soldier though.

Sexes aside, women bring a great deal to the table and think the top guys realise this, from planning, agility and being able to defuse soon-to-be hostile situations - the same way as Police officers often send them in when dealing with an angry drunk dude.

I might even go out on a limb and say women have much better willpower and mental strength to deal with such a strict training regime.

And during firefights, women are just as capable with firing a rifle.

Its not all about strength.

Nasher · 4 Dec 2017 at 09:39

They don't send the SAS in when they want to defuse a hostile situation peacefully. They send them in because nothing else has worked

Glanza · 4 Dec 2017 at 09:44

Wouldn't it make more sense to allow women to apply but they have the same test? All I can think of is anyone who manages to pass this new test will be looked down upon by others for getting in the 'easier' option. Yes it will still be hard to pass but it's not the same.

Did the show with ex SAS people on Channel 4 to see if you could pass recruitment never have any females on there?

Rifte · 4 Dec 2017 at 09:44

I was always the impression that the SAS was supposed to be the best of the best of the best.

If a woman is capable of meeting the current requirements, then so be it. I have seen a number of SAS officers interviewed that are not built like Schwarzenegger, so its not necessary to bench press 200kgs or squat 300kgs.

However it shouldn't be watered down in any respect unless they genuinely believe that it isn't going to negatively impact the strength of their operation.

Nasher · 4 Dec 2017 at 09:45

They can already apply, but I don't think any have passed selection. Same with the marines afaik. It's exactly the same test for men and women, but it's designed to be extremely hard for men at the peak of fitness.

Ayahuasca · 4 Dec 2017 at 09:51

I have no doubt some women are strong enough mentally to pass selection but the physical requirements are there for good reason, although saying that you have women like this: https://gearjunkie.com/courtney-dauwalter-moab-200-winner whilst she's not carrying any weight she still absolutely annihilated men in the race in a feat that I'd say is more physically challenging than anything in SAS selection. She even chose to deprive herself of sleep whilst still well ahead of the competition.

Angilion · 4 Dec 2017 at 09:54

It's very fashionable to discriminate against men nowadays, so it's unlikely that the SAS will be able to continue their current policy of sexual equality and will have to introduce sexism like this.

And yes, it is sexism. That should be obvious - it's applying different standards for the same position solely on the basis of sex. Pretending that it's not sexism is just a blatant lie.

Hiijinx said:
Seems the only change would be a lighter backback and more time to complete the hill march which seems fair enough to me.
It can't all be about brute strength (or our entire army would look like Conan the Destroyer ).

You wouldn't expect Woody Allen to be able to lift as much as Arnold would you? Doesn't necessarily make him the better soldier though.

If the current standards require more strength and fitness than is required for the actual work, then lower those standards. Pretending that sexist double-standards are about standards being too high is just a lie. You're advocating sexism - have some integrity and stand behind your position rather than pretending it's something else.

Sexes aside, women bring a great deal to the table and think the top guys realise this, from planning, agility and being able to defuse soon-to-be hostile situations - the same way as Police officers often send them in when dealing with an angry drunk dude.

I might even go out on a limb and say women have much better willpower and mental strength to deal with such a strict training regime.

And during firefights, women are just as capable with firing a rifle.

Its not all about strength.

And nobody is saying it is. So you're combining sexist double-standards, lying, sexist stereotyping and strawmen. That's not a good thing.

The only point you make that's not just sexism or deception to misrepresent sexism is the "angry drunk dude" one, but that's irrelevant. While it's true that general trends in sexism mean that an "angry drunk dude" is likely to be less hostile to a female police officer than to a male police officer, that's not a situation the SAS deal with at all often, there are other situations in which general trends in sexism would make a woman less effective than a man and neither of those things justifies sexist double-standards. That's a really feeble excuse for pretending that sexism isn't sexism.

dowie · 4 Dec 2017 at 09:56

So if a bloke declares himself to be trans or non-binary does he get an easier shot at it too?

Anyway I suspect that it is just a rumour at best at the moment.

Nasher · 4 Dec 2017 at 09:57

Ayahuasca said:
I have no doubt some women are strong enough mentally to pass selection but the physical requirements are there for good reason, although saying that you have women like this: https://gearjunkie.com/courtney-dauwalter-moab-200-winner whilst she's not carrying any weight she still absolutely annihilated men in the race in a feat that I'd say is more physically challenging than anything in SAS selection. She even chose to deprive herself of sleep whilst still well ahead of the competition.

It's not just running/hiking challenges though. They need to be able to be proficient in things like un-armed combat as well. Is it a good idea to put a women up against an enemy who could literally be twice their weight?

Ayahuasca · 4 Dec 2017 at 09:58

Nasher said:
It's not just running/hiking challenges though. They need to be able to be proficient in things like un-armed combat as well. Is it a good idea to put a women up against an enemy who could literally be twice their weight?

Which is why I stated in the same post that the physical requirements are there for a reason.

Tunney · 4 Dec 2017 at 09:59

The elite special forces unit is thought to be looking at plans to make one of its trademark recruitment exercises easier for female candidates to complete.

Isn’t that newspaper-speak for “here’s something that’s definitely not happening but we thought we’d report on it anyway to wind people up”?