The only people who seem bothered about this are the usual OCUK men's rights brigade.
SAS could change selection test to make it easier for female recruits
- Thread starter Craterloads
- Start date
The only people who seem bothered about this are the usual OCUK men's rights brigade.
Which is good, some women will be capable if passing the test as it Stan. To me though it makes no sense to make it easier, things in the field don't become any easier just because you're a woman.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
I don't see anything wrong with saying we'll limit our selection pool to the top 1% of each sex and then ensure the selection criteria is adapted to actually mean the top 1% are eligible. It's obvious that the current selection criteria excludes the top 1% of women.
The superior training of the SAS can easily make up for any minor deficit in physical attributes of the top 1% of women versus the top 1% of men.
Just a non-story that seems to have triggered the anti-sjw types.
The superior training of the SAS can easily make up for any minor deficit in physical attributes of the top 1% of women versus the top 1% of men.
Just a non-story that seems to have triggered the anti-sjw types.
Given that basically none of us would stand the slightest chance of passing the SAS tests anyway, and would likely get thoroughly outclassed by any woman who would, lowered standards or not, I think it's a bit rich for us to be whinging about this.
Then it's not equal and you're refusing some people based upon their gender. The very definition of gender discrimination. It should be the top 1% of applicants.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 2,332
The problem with the military is that even regular soldier just won't die. They get wounded and require very expensive hospitalisation and prosthetic limbs.
SAS are the cream of the crop, toughest of the toughest and they definitely don't die easy.
So the point is that soldiers aren't meant to survive, they're meant to die. It's much cheaper if they do that. So we cut back on training, recruitment standards, we reduce full time soldier numbers and prefer part time troops who are much more likely to die on the battlefield which is much more preferable for our government.
Sure I'm just being snarky but there's something to it. I often sit on community forums for the fire brigade, basically they want to assess public opinion before they go ahead and make the drastic cuts to the service that government demands.
Obviously the public is protective over the fire brigade and as such are unwilling to agree to redundancies. In my district all fire fighter are full time professional but in other areas they have volunteers and part timers.
I asked the question about this and about safety. Basically the chances of a volunteer or part-time fire fighter of being injured or killed on the job is significantly higher than that of a full time professional. They simply don't have the facilities or the training for the situations that occur.
It's exactly the same in the military. These part time troops and reduced standards are going to lead to an increase in body bags
SAS are the cream of the crop, toughest of the toughest and they definitely don't die easy.
So the point is that soldiers aren't meant to survive, they're meant to die. It's much cheaper if they do that. So we cut back on training, recruitment standards, we reduce full time soldier numbers and prefer part time troops who are much more likely to die on the battlefield which is much more preferable for our government.
Sure I'm just being snarky but there's something to it. I often sit on community forums for the fire brigade, basically they want to assess public opinion before they go ahead and make the drastic cuts to the service that government demands.
Obviously the public is protective over the fire brigade and as such are unwilling to agree to redundancies. In my district all fire fighter are full time professional but in other areas they have volunteers and part timers.
I asked the question about this and about safety. Basically the chances of a volunteer or part-time fire fighter of being injured or killed on the job is significantly higher than that of a full time professional. They simply don't have the facilities or the training for the situations that occur.
It's exactly the same in the military. These part time troops and reduced standards are going to lead to an increase in body bags
It might well have been, but I think some women could pass the real thing. It's not something only the strongest men in the world can pass, so there would be some women who could pass it. Fewer women than men, but not none.
The only thing women should be bringing to the table is my dinner! Right lads? [/sexistbore]
The fact that you don't see anything wrong with treating people differently solely because of their sex, requiring different standards for the same position solely on the basis of sex and then pretending that those different standards are the same standard shows that you're very sexist indeed.
In this case, the sexism you like so much would literally get people killed. How many avoidable deaths do you think is an acceptable price for the sexism you're so fond of? A ballpark figure will do.
Sexism is only a non-story to sexist people. Like SJWs, for example, who are as sexist as it gets.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,240
- Location
- Woking
I don't think you're correct. We have different standards in sports because we acknowledge as a species that women are less suitable for some physical functions than men, as men are less suitable or utterly unsuitable for some than women.
When you're asking a physical task of someone, why would you not factor this in? They could be put at serious risk if you ignore it.
Because the enemy they're facing and the environment arent exactly going to factor it in are they?
"Right guys, the SAS might send women against us now, so, let's locate our camps and convoys in slightly easier to access places and make sure if you capture them that you don't rough them up as much".
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 May 2007
- Posts
- 3,221
Need to understand why, what are the potential gains ?
I did pass selection in the early 80s and it's designed the way it is for very good reasons. I want to know that anyone I served with has passed the same selection I did. It breeds esprit de corps and puts everyone on an equal footing. To change it would create a 2 tier force and would inevitably affect camaraderie and morale. If a woman is good enough to pass selection as it stands then I'd be happy to serve with her just as I did with the female peshmerga units.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,345
because unlike any other workplace, the sas can't exactly make the work environment suitable to everyone. they do these tests because it's what might well be expected for them to have to do if something goes wrong during a mission.
it might sound stupid but the ability to walk a long distance quickly with a heavy backpack can be the difference between going home to your family and getting you and your freinds tortured then killed.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 13,471
- Location
- London
No surprises there, it seems that articles like this are written for them to justify their whining
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,240
- Location
- Woking
Honestly, I don't really understand what you're saying. The SAS do more than fight hand to hand...
But most balancing of the sexes occurs on the basis that men's and women's intelligence is equal. There are many jobs that are still virtually exclusively male or female, and although slowly moving towards being more mixed, are still largely single sex.
I agree with the latter half of what you're saying, and that's presumably why they'd tailor the testing to only be the strongest women, surely?
Talk about missing the point. Hence why I talked about location and Adolf talked about endurance. The strongest women are still weaker than the strongest men. The whole point is they're looking at dropping the requirements for women making them inferior to the requirements for men. Inferior requirements means inferior recruits.
I can understand the general concern.
The sas sbs srs and all the other special forces are incredible human beings trained and pushed sometimes to the point of death molding them into killing machines and thats for a purpose to be the strongest and most badass when facing likewise opposing forces. If we let slip the requirements for this for male or female then it degrades the forces and lowers the standard. If women cant get in then they cant get in, yes very few encounters involve hand to hand but they arnt prepared for the ideal situations they are prepared and trained for worse case scenarios and outside of the very elite and the movies, most if not all women, arnt as strong or physically capable in these situations as men, lowering the bar to make the numbers fit should never be the solution in this enviroment.
Throw yourself in this situation, the most horrible of horrible happens your away abroad and get kidnapped, the specials are sent in to get you out. Your life in their hands, would you want a male team made of the best of the best or a female team who are the best of the females but whos training and requirements arnt quite as high as the men?
Sexist or not i'd want big guys with big ass guns who have had the toughest and hardest training and havnt got in to make the numbers up. For those few women who can pass the bar then let em get stuck in, but if I had my life in the hands of other people I want to know there are no shortcuts male or female
EDIT: 1 More concern, will they be recruiting fewer and possibly better or stronger men due to having to get more women in? This isnt about just having additional personel here and if this means leaving your star strikers on the bench in favour of getting your b-team some game time then weve got even bigger issues
The sas sbs srs and all the other special forces are incredible human beings trained and pushed sometimes to the point of death molding them into killing machines and thats for a purpose to be the strongest and most badass when facing likewise opposing forces. If we let slip the requirements for this for male or female then it degrades the forces and lowers the standard. If women cant get in then they cant get in, yes very few encounters involve hand to hand but they arnt prepared for the ideal situations they are prepared and trained for worse case scenarios and outside of the very elite and the movies, most if not all women, arnt as strong or physically capable in these situations as men, lowering the bar to make the numbers fit should never be the solution in this enviroment.
Throw yourself in this situation, the most horrible of horrible happens your away abroad and get kidnapped, the specials are sent in to get you out. Your life in their hands, would you want a male team made of the best of the best or a female team who are the best of the females but whos training and requirements arnt quite as high as the men?
Sexist or not i'd want big guys with big ass guns who have had the toughest and hardest training and havnt got in to make the numbers up. For those few women who can pass the bar then let em get stuck in, but if I had my life in the hands of other people I want to know there are no shortcuts male or female
EDIT: 1 More concern, will they be recruiting fewer and possibly better or stronger men due to having to get more women in? This isnt about just having additional personel here and if this means leaving your star strikers on the bench in favour of getting your b-team some game time then weve got even bigger issues
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,240
- Location
- Woking
Then it depends on exactly what scenario you're putting them into, surely. I would imagine that the requirement for men, at least in part, are so high to ensure that they get only the best. Endurance isn't necessarily reflected by how strong you are, either, and I guess that endurance is a strong criteria.
Honestly, I just don't think that you need to be super strong to be in the SAS. It just helps them select men.