It's rarely the women that want it different, just like Muslims wanting us to change Christmas to Winterfest, it's middle aged idiots trying to be PC without any clue of what people actually want or care about.
SAS could change selection test to make it easier for female recruits
- Thread starter Craterloads
- Start date
It's rarely the women that want it different, just like Muslims wanting us to change Christmas to Winterfest, it's middle aged idiots trying to be PC without any clue of what people actually want or care about.
But that doesn't really make much sense, your selection process is inherently flawed - why arbitrarily exclude some men that would have otherwise have passed if they happened to be female? It costs a lot of time and effort to find the sort of people who are suitable for these sorts of units so culling people arbitrarily would be incredibly wasteful - they're either reaching the required standard or they're not. The army as a whole tends to run courses on a "train in" basis... they don't actively want people to fail but with a course than involves some selectivity and is highly demanding there will inevitably be plenty of failures... the course ought to be tailored to the role not tailored to pass some some arbitrary % of each gender.
1) The vast majority of young, fit, male soldiers can't pass sas selection as it stands... The attrition rate is horrendous
2) being an infantry soldier of any kind is still a very physical exercise. You need to be able to carry a weapon, ammunition and all the other supplies and equipment a modern soldier requires whilst crossing rough terrain and whilst remaining capable of moving into a firefight at quick notice. Fancy hand to hand combat doesn't have that much do with being an infantry soldier and the physical requirements to be one.
3)if a physical standard is deemed necessary for a role then it should equally apply to all applicants regardless of their personal circumstances
(based on my three years in an infantry battalion I would never have passed sas selection)
2) being an infantry soldier of any kind is still a very physical exercise. You need to be able to carry a weapon, ammunition and all the other supplies and equipment a modern soldier requires whilst crossing rough terrain and whilst remaining capable of moving into a firefight at quick notice. Fancy hand to hand combat doesn't have that much do with being an infantry soldier and the physical requirements to be one.
3)if a physical standard is deemed necessary for a role then it should equally apply to all applicants regardless of their personal circumstances
(based on my three years in an infantry battalion I would never have passed sas selection)
Women are great at a lot of roles in the military, special forces isn't one of them. This is the kind of stuff that 210lb super athletic men find physically tough. When you talk about going out on 36 hour patrols with 9 stone worth of water, ammo, grenades and equipment in 35c+ heat, women can't do that. Their bodies aren't built for it. These guys do that for 6 months in a row. This wouldn't even be a debate to anyone who's served a tour in a special forces team.
Why don't we let Women play top level Rugby with Men? Why aren't there any Women in the NFL? It's the same reason there aren't women in the SAS
Why don't we let Women play top level Rugby with Men? Why aren't there any Women in the NFL? It's the same reason there aren't women in the SAS
Not entirely true. There have been some women in special forces units who earned the place fairly, i.e. without sexism. The level of strength required for modern special forces is high, but not impossibly so for every woman. I know a woman who can lift a big man from the ground and carry him off. 60Kg of stuff would not be an insurmountable weight for them to carry for extended periods. It's far from a common level of strength for a woman, but it is attainable for at least some women. Besides, 60Kg is an excessive load and should be reduced. It is carried. But it shouldn't be. It's not optimal efficiency.
My answer is the same as it always it - set the required standards for a position based solely on the requirements of that position. Nothing else. No discrimination on the basis of sex, "race", hair colour or any other irrelevant stuff some mean and silly people(*) think matters so much that it's a person's identity and should determine how they are treated.
* A childish insult for people who are being childish.
Or would it be an easier fight?
Wow that was brutal.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,228
- Location
- Southampton
while there is a fitness element
the majority of SF selection is just being bloody minded and determined enough not to quit or give up when they push you beyond your limits
the ones ive seen are not super muscle men, more like a marathon runner
its the telegraph though so its a load of ****
the majority of SF selection is just being bloody minded and determined enough not to quit or give up when they push you beyond your limits
the ones ive seen are not super muscle men, more like a marathon runner
its the telegraph though so its a load of ****
I think that would depend on the individual and on their culture.
An extreme example comes to mind - the siege of Tortega during the Reconquista. The city had been pretty much stripped of men who could fight, since they were fighting elsewhere. A general on the other side found out about that and unsurprisingly saw it as a perfect opportunity to capture the city. So he brought his army up, laid siege to the city and no doubt expected a quick surrender. Some of the women in the city decided they were not going to live under Islamic rule, got organised enough to have an accepted leader, gathered some like-minded women around the city, armed up with whatever weapons they could get and use...and sallied forth to attack the besieging army. Obviously they had no chance in a pitched battle, since they had no combat training or experience and were very heavily outnumbered, but they won total victory with the besieging army being routed. The reason was surprise and culture. The medieval Muslims in the besieging army did not fight women in battle. That was not a thing that happened and neither their culture nor their religion allowed it, so when the men near the sally port were suddenly faced with an attack by armed women obviously intent on fighting to the death they blanked. They had no orders for this, no framework at all for it other than it being wrong, very wrong. Fight? Not allowed. Die passively? Obviously not. So they ran away. The more disciplined soldiers retreated in good order, but they all left and the siege was broken.
The women were knighted by the local Duke when he returned with the army, which caused some dispute over the correct form of address. The language was strongly gendered and the correct form of address for a knight was masculine. Using that could be taken as implying these women were unwomanly, which would be an insult. Using anything else could be taken as implying that these people weren't really knights, which would be an insult. Correct forms of address were a very big deal in those days.
It's more than that. Even basic British army training is designed to take people to their physical limits, they basically stress test people to see if they will pass out or other previously unknown medical conditions surface. Similar to how pilots go through g-force training. Special forces take it a few notches higher, beyond what most people are capable of.
Having done some things where I've seen the elite fall by the wayside... what the hell are you talking about.
And a pointless contribution to this thread.
I'm really not sure... he lost me when he started arguing that special forces specialise in unarmed/close quarters combat etc..
the idea of PTIs testing people until they pass out or in an attempt to trigger undiagnosed medical conditions is also rather bizarre... I'm pretty sure that sort of idea wouldn't feature very well in any risk assessment
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,341
wut?
read the previous posts
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,341
so my impression is correct that you're considering that finding out recuits have an undiagnosed medical condition during the selection/training phase then sending them home is a bad idea?
I think it is rather bizarre, as I've already stated and which you've presumably already read? Of course it is a bad idea - I'm not sure why that even needs to be asked? But more to the point it isn't something that happens.