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

[adolf hamster]

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?

it's not about intelligence, if it were then the test would reflect that. it's about making sure that the people you're relying on to be top tier military bad-asses can meet the extreme physical endurance that will save their lives in the field.

in general day to day the sas doesn't need the extremes they test to operate, but the test isn't about the day to day the test is about trying to simulate the very worst situations you could find yourself in in a warzone so that if it happens you'll be ready.

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.

the problem with the military is you don't always get to choose the scenario you're putting people into, after all if you could choose the scenario then they'd choose the "sit back and press the magic kill all the enemy button" option

 

[Dis86]

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.

It's not just physical strength. It's stamina. Speed. Will power. Determination. Sure women can have all of the same mental attributes as men but when it comes to physical men will always have the edge. Someone in their infinite wisdom earlier talked Bout taking the top 1% of men and the top 1% of women. Well what if the top 5% of men are more physically able than the top 1% of women? Do we leave 4% that are better suited at home just because they have a ****? Its stupidity. The solution if you want to put an arbitrary mumber on it is the top 1% of people. They should all do the same tests to the same standards.

Or are we going to start lowering grade boundaries for male students now where women historically do better in tests?

 

[Deleted member 66701]

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.

Who said it needed to be equal? Everyone being equal sounds a bit SJW'ish if you ask me.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

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.

What?

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.

I think you're being a bit over-dramatic I think. I'm quite confident the SAS can adjust their own standards (and particularly operational conditions) in a way that wont significantly impact the risk their soldiers (male or female) face.

No surprises there, it seems that articles like this are written for them to justify their whining

Quite. They are the new SJW's of our time.

 

[adolf hamster]

I think you're being a bit over-dramatic I think. I'm quite confident the SAS can adjust their own standards (and particularly operational conditions) in a way that wont significantly impact the risk their soldiers (male or female) face.

there is a branch of the sas that has lower entry requirements- it's called the regular army

as for adjusting operating conditions- they can't, they try, but they can't, that's what happens in warzones

 

[Deleted member 66701]

there is a branch of the sas that has lower entry requirements- it's called the regular army

Have you ever stopped to think that the SAS recruitment team might have realised they are missing out on extremely capable soldiers solely because the physical bars is set too high? In todays combat zones, I'm sure they'd be willing to trade a little strength in return for a little more intelligence. There are also other skills that female soldiers possess that male soldiers typical don't. Is it beyond your comprehension that the SAS might have realised that having a team that possesses these skills and attributes is overall stronger, even though a few individuals might be weaker in a few areas?

I'll just go back to a point I made previously - I'm sure the SAS know what they are doing, unless people are suggesting that the current males in charge are incompetent? In which case, it probably is a good idea to get more females recruited!

as for adjusting operating conditions- they can't, they try, but they can't, that's what happens in warzones

They can and they do. They identify the team or individual with the most appropriate skill set and then task them with an objective.

 

[Hades]

In reality this potential change won't affect who is ultimately successful. It just allows weaker people to pass the first test. It's likely that they won't get past the subsequent tests.

But as a genaral principle If I were in a situation where I needed rescuing then I would prefer the absolute elite come to my rescue, regardless of gender. I wouldn't want someone who was almost as good rescuing me instead. I certainly wouldn't want someone chosen because of their gender. I just want the top 1% (or whatever the figure is) to come to my aid. Lowering the bar to allow weaker peoole to pass (such as someone suggested the top 1% of men and 1% of women) is just a recipe to acieve equality of outcome by reducing overall quality. I believe the applications for the SAS/SBS are over subscribed so I see no reason to reduce that bar.

I do think that in times of war, if a future draft is enabled, that we should draft both men and women to be on the front line. Equality of opportunity after all.

 

[lemonkettaz]

It doesn't need to be changed, Azi Ahmed has already smashed selection

 

[adolf hamster]

Have you ever stopped to think that the SAS recruitment team might have realised they are missing out on extremely capable soldiers solely because the physical bars is set too high? In todays combat zones, I'm sure they'd be willing to trade a little strength in return for a little more intelligence. There are also other skills that female soldiers possess that male soldiers typical don't. Is it beyond your comprehension that the SAS might have realised that having a team that possesses these skills and attributes is overall stronger, even though a few individuals might be weaker in a few areas?

so you're justifying a double standard with sexism? good start.

if they feel that adding some intelligence at the cost of the extreme physical endurance is an acceptable trade off then that's fine, just change the test for everyone that way they get the best of both worlds in terms of getting what they need from both sexes.

I'll just go back to a point I made previously - I'm sure the SAS know what they are doing, unless people are suggesting that the current males in charge are incompetent? In which case, it probably is a good idea to get more females recruited!

They can and they do. They identify the team or individual with the most appropriate skill set and then task them with an objective.

the problem you have here is you're looking at the idealised scenario, whereas i'm looking at the "oh bugger we're 100 miles in hostile enemy territory, the evac chopper isn't coming and we've got an entire army out there trying to kill us, 2 of the guys have been shot and need carried but we still need to carry our weapons, ammuniton, food, radio gear etc because we don't know how long we're gonna be stranded and oh **** i see them coming over the hill we've got to move fast" scenario.

it's rare, but it happens, that's why the selection requirements are what they are.

 

[Hades]

so you're justifying a double standard with sexism? good start.

if they feel that adding some intelligence at the cost of the extreme physical endurance is an acceptable trade off then that's fine, just change the test for everyone that way they get the best of both worlds in terms of getting what they need from both sexes.



the problem you have here is you're looking at the idealised scenario, whereas i'm looking at the "oh bugger we're 100 miles in hostile enemy territory, the evac chopper isn't coming and we've got an entire army out there trying to kill us, 2 of the guys have been shot and need carried but we still need to carry our weapons, ammuniton, food, radio gear etc because we don't know how long we're gonna be stranded and oh **** i see them coming over the hill we've got to move fast" scenario.

it's rare, but it happens, that's why the selection requirements are what they are.

Yep. Bravo Two Zero.

 

[ianh]

Current military policy already discriminates against men regarding fitness where, in the RAF for example, the "bleep test" (multi-stage fitness test) requirements for an 18 year old woman are as low as a 40 year old mans because "men and women are different physically so, for the same fitness level, a woman doesn't need to run as far" etc.

In about 2000 the RAF trialled an "Operational" test at RAF Cosford along side the traditional "running" test which included things you have to do on Ops like lift heavy boxes of ammo to the back of a 4 ton truck, leopard crawl under netting, filled some sandbags and build pass them through a shoulder height hole (building Sangars etc) and, while the male pass rate stayed fairly similar between the two tests, the female pass rate of the new Operational test was extremely low due to the very physical requirements compared to the more normal "running" fitness test. After a short trial it was scrubbed because it was "unfair", despite these tasks being things people (male and female) might be asked to carry out during their work on Ops.

In my own opinion I never had an issue with women in the military when everyone had to do the same thing and I think it's a massive disservice to those still serving that "positive sexual discrimination" is allowed to create friction between work colleagues.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

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.

Testing females in physical fitness tests has always been easier across the board in every other public service. The police as an example. If you are a man you need to be able to run faster than a woman to pass the test. So a guy who ran faster than a female that passed the running test could still fail to get in just because he is a man.

So if the tests aren't equal then women aren't really equal to men then are they? Otherwise the tests would be equal.

Being in the SAS is a physical role. You would want the physically fittest people doing it. So making it easier for females makes zero sense.

 

[Nasher]

I was agreeing O_o

The police is a bit different. Someone reasonably fit is probably going to be good enough to do the job. It's not like they are going to be in a warzone for weeks on end. But the tests should be totally equal for men and women still. I don't see why the guys should be scored on a different level for the exact same job just because they are naturally stronger.

 

[Angilion]

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.

War isn't a sport. It's not a situation where the goal is to have physically roughly evenly matched opponents who compete in a game of skill for a prize. It doesn't involve real world situations such as having to carry equipment or to reach a point as quickly as possible or to carry a wounded person or all sorts of other things a soldier might well be required to do. Sports are games where the rules can be made different for people based on whatever criteria the people making the rules choose. The real world isn't. Your comparison is weird.

Sports that are segregated by sex involve people competing against other people of the same sex. Do you think that women in the military should only be allowed to fight other women? How would you enforce that? Also, how would you make distances shorter in the real world for women only and/or time pass at a different rate for women than for men so that women have more time to get somewhere and how would you create a partial anti-gravity device that only works for women so they could carry the same necessary equipment and have it weigh less than it does for men?

If you ignore the fact that the real world is the same regardless of a person's sex, you are putting people at serious risk in a war. The women you think shouldn't need to be up to the job. The men on the same mission who won't have the support of other people who are up to the job. Whoever else suffers as a result of a mission failing because some of the people sent on it weren't up to the job.

There is no rational reason for sexist double-standards in the military or any other aspect of the real world. For games, yes. For reality, no. Rules of games can be changed. Reality can't. x Kg of equipment is x Kg of equipment regardless of the sex of the person carrying it. A position x metres away is x metres away regardless of the sex of the person who has to get there. Something that will happen in x period of time will happen in x period of time regardless of the sex of anyone.

Would you be willing to go to someone and tell them that their lover/relative/etc died because the soldiers who could have prevented their death took too long to get there because they were travelling at the reduced standard for women?

I'll ask you the same question I asked someone else - how many people dying preventable deaths do you think is an acceptable number of deaths to pay for the sexist double-standards you advocate?

It's not a rhetorical question because it would cause preventable deaths. I really do want an answer.

 

[AHarvey]

Have you ever stopped to think that the SAS recruitment team might have realised they are missing out on extremely capable soldiers solely because the physical bars is set too high? In todays combat zones, I'm sure they'd be willing to trade a little strength in return for a little more intelligence. There are also other skills that female soldiers possess that male soldiers typical don't. Is it beyond your comprehension that the SAS might have realised that having a team that possesses these skills and attributes is overall stronger, even though a few individuals might be weaker in a few areas?

I'll just go back to a point I made previously - I'm sure the SAS know what they are doing, unless people are suggesting that the current males in charge are incompetent? In which case, it probably is a good idea to get more females recruited!

Everyone that applies and enters the testing for the SAS is an extremely capable soldier, that doesn't mean they all get in.

As you stating that women are more intelligent than men?

Think of it this way, you are in the SAS, you've got to get a load of heavy gear from A to B on foot for a stealth incursion into an enemy base for a hostage rescue. 4 male soldiers split the weight evenly, having similar fitness so can plan their timings and know they can drag each other out if needed.

Now, imagine that with 3 male and 1 female. The men have to take more weight because the female can't take as much. They struggle to plan timings better because of her slower speed requirement. If somethings happens, can she drag one of them out if needed?

I'm all for women serving, but in some cases they are just a hinderance. Same in the police force, I recently saw 2 female officers, the tallest was 5' 6" trying to take down some 6ft gym nut. It didn't go well for them until the bouncers and other male officers got involved. It was like that scene at the beginning of the newest Star Trek film where Kirk gets attacked by those little creatures.

As for the SAS knowing what they are doing, do we really think it's coming from them or is this outside pressure?

 

[Freddyp]

I just spoke with my daughter who I believe is one of the women who has the potential to pass selection under the current criteria. She is horrified by the thought that she would be given a different criteria to her male counterparts. She wants to be measured equally, regardless of gender so she would be able to look her male colleagues in the eye and say I passed the same selection as you did so ' **** you ' I'm as good as you are.

 

[Nasher]

Now, imagine that with 3 male and 1 female. The men have to take more weight because the female can't take as much. They struggle to plan timings better because of her slower speed requirement. If somethings happens, can she drag one of them out if needed?

That is one thing that is a bit worrying. From what I'm told, one of the requirements for a medic is to be able to carry an injured buddy to safety over their shoulder. But they made the test easier for women because they can't carry a 6ft+ soldier who is built like a tank (nor could the average male tbh). So you can see where "diversity" and reality are starting to clash and potentially life threatening.

 

[Freddyp]

To give you an idea of her capabilities she did the fan dance with me at 16 yrs old carrying 40kg of weight in well under 4 hrs. She can also deadlift 160kgs in the gym and has more endurance capacity and mental resilience than pretty much any woman I know. Women can do this stuff but just like the men there aren't many of them.

 

[Angilion]

What?

It's not a difficult concept:

You advocate discriminating against people solely because of their sex.

I think that's sexist. I wish that it was obvious that discriminating against people solely because of their sex is sexist, but feminists have had a lot of success in corrupting the very idea of sexual equality into sexist hypocrisy.

I think you're being a bit over-dramatic I think.

You think that sexism is equality. Your track record is not good.

Sexist double-standards are never a good idea, but they're a particularly bad idea in the military and most of all in special forces. They tend to work in smaller groups, so division caused by some of them being discriminated against solely because of their sex and the knowledge that more qualified people were denied the place in favour of less qualified people with a more privileged biological group identity will be a bigger problem, as will some of the people in the group being less capable. They're also more likely to be in situations where the difference between a higher standard and a lower standard is a life or death difference.

Here's one example scenario:

Some people have some captives. An SAS team is sent in to rescue them. At some point, they're detected by the people holding the captives. Maybe a mistake, maybe bad luck, maybe something that couldn't be avoided because entry had to be forced. Doesn't matter how it happened - the group holding the captives now know they're under attack. Obvously, it would take the SAS longer to reach the captives at the special women-only reduced travel speed you advocate than it would to reach them at the real SAS travel speed. Enough extra time for the group holding the captives to shoot them, or at least some of them.

The SAS do hostage rescue. Groups holding hostages do sometimes kill them. More time is more time. So no, I am not being over-dramatic. The sexism you want will result in preventable deaths. I'd like to know how many deaths you think is an acceptable price to pay for the sexism you like.

Quite. They are the new SJW's of our time.

Except that we're advocating equality and SJWs are advocating biological group identity and irrational prejudice and discrimination. So just like them except for being fundamentally the opposite.

 

[Angilion]

Have you ever stopped to think that the SAS recruitment team might have realised they are missing out on extremely capable soldiers solely because the physical bars is set too high?

If you believed that, you would be advocating for the physical bars to be reduced.

You're not doing that. You're advocating for sexism. You're just pretending that you're no, either because you're dishonest or because you think that the deception serves your purpose.

In todays combat zones, I'm sure they'd be willing to trade a little strength in return for a little more intelligence. There are also other skills that female soldiers possess that male soldiers typical don't.

And now you're "justifying" your sexism with your sexism. That type of circular "reasoning" is typical of people with irrational prejudices.

If you really don't see your sexism, try using the same words and same thoughts aimed at a different aspect of biology. Replace "women" with "white people" and "men" with "black people". The stereotypes used to pretend that irrational prejudice is rational are basically the same - [men|black people] are stronger and [women|white people] are more intelligent and have other skills too.

Is it beyond your comprehension that the SAS might have realised that having a team that possesses these skills and attributes is overall stronger, even though a few individuals might be weaker in a few areas?

Is it beyond your comprehension that (a) using sexism to "justify" sexism is wrong, (b) balancing a team to possess an optimal mix of skills and attributes isn't the same as simply discriminating against people solely because of their sex and (c) sexism is wrong?