• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

Mister Apoc
Member
(12-04-2017, 02:49 AM)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...male-recruits/

this story has been quite controversial from what I have seen on twitter feeds.

What are your thoughts about this
Mr_Black
Banned
(12-04-2017, 02:51 AM)
Push them to the breaking point every soldier has one. They all need to be broken and rebuilt in the SAS.

Just don't kill people by over training
Euphor!a
Banned
(12-04-2017, 02:52 AM)
Seems like a bad idea given how risky their jobs are.
Mister Apoc
Member
(12-04-2017, 02:53 AM)
I mean isn't there too much of a bias/reliance on physical training in modern combat training which seems kind of unneeded now

Women, from what i have heard, are arguably greater marksmen then men and plus women are smaller targets

in fact in theory an all female special forces squad would out compete an all male squad

physical strength isn't really a positive trait in combat anymore like it was in the old days
Atrus
Member
(12-04-2017, 03:13 AM)
Seems a bit silly if the standards aren't universally lowered. What if a male fails the male standards but still exceeds the female standards by far? Will he be pushed to the side just to get female representation?

Furthermore, isn't the idea of standards to establish tresholds of ability? Doesn't lowering standards lower ability and thereby put the other more capable members in danger?

In the end it boils down to not my country, not my life (as I'm not reliant on or serve with the UK armed forces), and therefore not my problem.

Let's see how this plays out shall we?
Atrus
Member
(12-04-2017, 03:15 AM)

Originally Posted by Mister Apoc


in fact in theory an all female special forces squad would out compete an all male squad

physical strength isn't really a positive trait in combat anymore like it was in the old days

There is no theory where this is true. Physical strength helps greatly in most situations.
LeFlamaBlanca
Junior Member
(12-04-2017, 03:17 AM)
It's only controversial because it includes women.
ssolitare
Member
(12-04-2017, 03:21 AM)

Originally Posted by Atrus

There is no theory where this is true. Physical strength helps greatly in most situations.

Sure, but it's not the only thing.

It says in the article..."It is felt that the marching tests are unfairly discriminating against women who may have the attributes needed to succeed as SAS soldiers."

The military will figure it out.
finowns
Member
(12-04-2017, 03:28 AM)
finowns's Avatar

Originally Posted by LeFlamaBlanca

It's only controversial because it includes women.

If youíre in the desert or jungle you better be able to keep up. Physical endurance matters.
Hoya Destroyer
Member
(12-04-2017, 04:57 AM)
Hoya Destroyer's Avatar
Whatever happens, I hope no one gets killed in the real world because of it.
Beerman462
Banned
(12-04-2017, 05:22 AM)
As long as the powers that be feel the standards still match up to real world situations it's fine.

Originally Posted by finowns

If you’re in the desert or jungle you better be able to keep up. Physical endurance matters.

Women are certainly capable, but I think maybe at times standards are artificially lowered for them.

For instance in the Airforce the maximum allowed run time for Women <30years old is 16:22, which is the same as Men 50-59 years of age.

Meanwhile

COURTNEY DAUWALTER DESTROYS THE MOAB 240

She finished in 58 hours, 10 hours ahead of second place.

Obviously she's not your standard athlete.
finowns
Member
(12-04-2017, 05:57 AM)
finowns's Avatar

Originally Posted by Beerman462

As long as the powers that be feel the standards still match up to real world situations it's fine.



Women are certainly capable, but I think maybe at times standards are artificially lowered for them.

For instance in the Airforce the maximum allowed run time for Women <30years old is 16:22, which is the same as Men 50-59 years of age.

Meanwhile

COURTNEY DAUWALTER DESTROYS THE MOAB 240

She finished in 58 hours, 10 hours ahead of second place.

Obviously she's not your standard athlete.

Of course women can be exceptional athletes. That wasn't the point I was making.
nekkid
It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
(12-04-2017, 07:19 AM)
nekkid's Avatar
The job is the same, therefore the requirements should be the same.

This is too dangerous a place to be fulfilling quotas or avoiding media controversy.
Mr_Black
Banned
(12-04-2017, 07:51 AM)
I'm not a military analyst.

But this idea that you need to be able to run massive distances is weird.

I thought standard mission MO would be:

Operate drone for intel and targets.

Blow up targets with drone.

If you need boots then you airdrop them in for surgical fights.

I'm not entirely sure what 2017 modern warfare looks like on the ground. Feels like information is more sparse than it was during Iraq days.

Everything gets classified to avoid a conversation.
Euphor!a
Banned
(12-04-2017, 08:09 AM)

Originally Posted by Mr_Black

I'm not a military analyst.

But this idea that you need to be able to run massive distances is weird.

I thought standard mission MO would be:

Operate drone for intel and targets.

Blow up targets with drone.

If you need boots then you airdrop them in for surgical fights.

I'm not entirely sure what 2017 modern warfare looks like on the ground. Feels like information is more sparse than it was during Iraq days.

Everything gets classified to avoid a conversation.

They aren't training you under the assumption everything is going to go great. They are training you under the assumption shit has gone horribly wrong and you may need to do things a normal person would not be physically capable of doing in order to survive.
Mr_Black
Banned
(12-04-2017, 08:16 AM)

Originally Posted by Euphor!a

They aren't training you under the assumption everything is going to go great. They are training you under the assumption shit has gone horribly wrong and you may need to do things a normal person would not be physically capable of doing in order to survive.

And that would be run for a very long time or lift something really heavy?

I get survival training.

I just don't see those outcomes in modern warfare.

Aren't all sas actively pinned and tracked when they go on mission?

That's why the death rate is so low, for the troops they get a chopper flying in to the rescue.

I think something similar happened with those green berets recently. In terms of protocol analysis.
Euphor!a
Banned
(12-04-2017, 08:23 AM)

Originally Posted by Mr_Black

And that would be run for a very long time or lift something really heavy?

I get survival training.

I just don't see those outcomes in modern warfare.

Aren't all sas actively pinned and tracked when they go on mission?

That's why the death rate is so low, for the troops they get a chopper flying in to the rescue.

I think something similar happened with those green berets recently. In terms of protocol analysis.

Okay, and what if the helicopter gets shot down or malfunctions before getting to them and it is either run or die? Again, they are not training these people under the assumption everything is going to go as planned all the time. Sometimes shit goes wrong, that is the entire point of units like this. They are the most qualified units, so they go on the riskiest missions specifically because they have this kind of training that would normally seem unnecessary.
nekkid
It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
(12-04-2017, 08:26 AM)
nekkid's Avatar

Originally Posted by Mr_Black

And that would be run for a very long time or lift something really heavy?

I get survival training.

I just don't see those outcomes in modern warfare.

Aren't all sas actively pinned and tracked when they go on mission?

That's why the death rate is so low, for the troops they get a chopper flying in to the rescue.

I think something similar happened with those green berets recently. In terms of protocol analysis.

You canít imagine a situation where the combat is too hot for your pick-up and you have to run a long distance out?

Besides, itís less about running those distances and more about how running those distances in training means youíre completely uncompromised during lower exertion scenarios.
Rocket Number 22
Member
(12-04-2017, 08:32 AM)
Rocket Number 22's Avatar
This was one of the first things in my head

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogadishu_Mile

or

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bravo_...scape_to_Syria
MilkyJoe
Member
(12-04-2017, 08:41 AM)
MilkyJoe's Avatar

Originally Posted by Mr_Black

I'm not a military analyst.

But this idea that you need to be able to run massive distances is weird.

I thought standard mission MO would be:

Operate drone for intel and targets.

Blow up targets with drone.

If you need boots then you airdrop them in for surgical fights.

I'm not entirely sure what 2017 modern warfare looks like on the ground. Feels like information is more sparse than it was during Iraq days.

Everything gets classified to avoid a conversation.

Read Bravo Two Zero. You need to be able to run.
cormack12
Member
(12-04-2017, 08:41 AM)
cormack12's Avatar
This is the selection process from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...rces_Selection

I think really the article title is unfairly worded - 'easier' is an inflammatory term. I would say 'adapted' based on the physiology of the applicant. As a base example, should a woman be forced to carry the same load when they need less rations than men for example? Of course if they are signals, then they will need to carry the radio equipment and batteries that go along with that role.

Also we'd need to understand how the original timings were arrived at. Are they an arbitrary number, based on a male dominated general army in order to push a male soldier. Physically women are smaller than men generally and less muscular. There are also so many other factors that come into play - what does it matter if a man outpaces a woman in the hills of Wales. What if the male soldier is wounded and slowed by 60% whereas the woman is in full load carrying health. Also in units you can only go as slow as the slowest man anyway so anyone suffering from exposure or hypothermia will undoubtedly slow you down, or needing to hoist/carry someone. Then you have to take into account any military installations to avoid, routes that are closed, checkpointed etc.

They're not going to send a helicopter into hostile territory for most cases. You'll be told to get to point A by a certain time. The windows are often tight and are usually a distance away. I can see why as a metric, it would be useful to know how far a soldier can travel in a given time as an average/expectation.

No matter how fast you are, you're not going to outrun a bullet at the end of the day. As long as women can carry the equipment, their rations and can meet an equivalent weighted time for their gender I don't see the issue. It's not going to be 'easy' as the article purports. It will be a scaled difficulty and we're probably talking a few minutes:



So between the ages of 20-40, there's like a difference of approx. 4 minutes? This is obviously athlete versus athlete, but I'm sure the data would extrapolate down to genders both pushed physically to their limits in the same scenario.

For discussion, this article says:

The final 40-mile march is named Endurance with good reason.

It must be completed within 20 hours without stopping while carrying a 60lb rucksack, a rifle and full water bottle.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/41...s-the-SAS-test

llien
Member
(12-04-2017, 09:18 AM)
llien's Avatar

Originally Posted by Mister Apoc

Women, from what i have heard, are arguably greater marksmen then men and plus women are smaller targets

in fact in theory an all female special forces squad would out compete an all male squaddays

Could you provide more details on such theory?

From quick googling, at biathlon (skiing + shooting) men are faster, women shoot better.
At "shoot only" competition, i don't see much of a difference (slight edge to men points/shots) (it should be noted, that men normally shoot more, e.g. 60 shots vs 40 shots for women)
If one gender is hands down better at something, you'd see it dominating top scores, which is not the case.

During WWII, USSR, short of... everything, had many female snipers, some pilots, nearly all medics were women.


Originally Posted by cormack12

As a base example, should a woman be forced to carry the same load when they need less rations than men for example?

Some of the tests are about being able to carry your wounded comrade. Which might lead to "we are doomed" situations, apparently.

So, if one would ask "Is John less likely to survive with Jane", answer is "yes".

One could argue that women only squad would not have such problems.

Originally Posted by cormack12

No matter how fast you are, you're not going to outrun a bullet at the end of the day.

That's not an honest comment.
cormack12
Member
(12-04-2017, 10:05 AM)
cormack12's Avatar

Originally Posted by llien

Some of the tests are about being able to carry your wounded comrade. Which might lead to "we are doomed" situations, apparently.

So, if one would ask "Is John less likely to survive with Jane", answer is "yes".

One could argue that women only squad would not have such problems.


That's not an honest comment.

But you're making an assumption that Jane would be physically weaker than every male soldier who could potentially end up with John? You're also making an assumption that John would be so heavy as to prove difficult to carry for a woman. Also being able to help a soldier who is injured is not only something that is specific to an SAS unit. It is also apparent in medic corps and general infantry.

The last commwnt was tongue in cheek. I do find the endurance more relevant than the speed though.
RSP
Member
(12-04-2017, 10:13 AM)
RSP's Avatar

Originally Posted by Mister Apoc

in fact in theory an all female special forces squad would out compete an all male squad

Does not compute.
Alx
Member
(12-04-2017, 10:17 AM)
Alx's Avatar

Originally Posted by cormack12

But you're making an assumption that Jane would be physically weaker than every male soldier who could potentially end up with John?

If Jane passed the tests with a score that is under the threshold used for men, then yes by that measurement she's weaker than all the men that got through.

In the end it's all about skill versus equality. If the endurance requirements are reduced because they're considered unnecessary or not important, then fine (but they should be reduce for everybody then). But otherwise it means judging people on gender before skill.
llien
Member
(12-04-2017, 10:44 AM)
llien's Avatar

Originally Posted by cormack12

But you're making an assumption that Jane would be physically weaker than every male soldier who could potentially end up with John?

But that's a given. Jane is weaker than John, because Jane needed physical strength barrier being lowered.

That is the Jane in our context. Jane that can pass existing test, would not have such problems and would not need lowering standards either.

And if you are asking my opinion on whether any man is stronger than all women, of course not. While on average men are about 50% stronger (upper body), differences between actual individuals can easily be hundreds and thousand of %, comfortably covering that gap.


Originally Posted by cormack12

You're also making an assumption that John would be so heavy as to prove difficult to carry for a woman.

Basically women + lighter men squads are also not having "can't carry comrade" problem, if I got you right.
Well, yes.


Originally Posted by cormack12

I do find the endurance more relevant than the speed though.

Running 20km+ is all about endurance, look at a typical marathon athlete



I would likely beat him at 100m sprint.
cormack12
Member
(12-04-2017, 11:07 AM)
cormack12's Avatar

Originally Posted by llien

But that's a given. Jane is weaker than John, because Jane needed physical strength barrier being lowered.

It's not about 'need', women have passed selection for the SAS. Just because that's the test mark doesn't mean Jane can't lift more. It's just that's what is being measured as a threshold to pass/fail. It's being adapted to make it a fair reflection. At the moment the test exists purely to separate the male candidates. From those who are capable. It's been specifically engineered using data and test cases all on males. It's unreasonable to expect pound for pound the same physical performance across genders. Women who excel should have a similar selection process that is based off their data and physiology.

However, I acknowledge that this may cause a dilution of squad strength or speed naturally. But as has been alluded to, all female squads address that issue if it's considered a massive one. Personally if I had to choose between a great female mechanic and an average male one I know which I'd pick.

It's a difficult topic to properly discuss. I don't know if they ever got passed but the British Army also spoke of adjusting the time limit for women and making their pack 5lb lighter. But women in front line roles is relatively new. It's really cascading an updated policy through different units in that case.

I think to eliminate someone from a squad who might be a great medic, signaller or marksman (irony), due to the fact they're a bit weaker or completed the distance run under duress a bit slower is short sighted.

They're are so many variables at play here.
AlteredForms
Member
(12-04-2017, 12:25 PM)
AlteredForms's Avatar
I was under the impression the SAS was a male-only regiment.
cormack12
Member
(12-04-2017, 12:31 PM)
cormack12's Avatar

Originally Posted by AlteredForms

I was under the impression the SAS was a male-only regiment.

Women trained with them and even passed the selection test but weren't allowed to serve. Im not sure if any have been officially accepted since the front line rules were relaxed.
Dee Dah Dave
Member
(12-04-2017, 01:08 PM)
Dee Dah Dave's Avatar
Absolute bullshit. The Army should be the best it can be, especially the elite forces.

If a woman can meet the standard of the male soldier then cool, let them in. Otherwise quit trying to meet PC brigade quotas under the guise of 'equality', when it's anything but. If you are having to lower standards to let women in that isn't equality.

One of the regular things an SAS soldier has to do is trek for miles with half a house on his back. There's no way a woman could do that. Or very few of them anyway.

There are plenty of jobs in the Army which dont require full on physical endurance. But the idea is that if a time of need comes, everyone can put their pencils down, pick up a gun and perform just the same.
AlteredForms
Member
(12-04-2017, 01:12 PM)
AlteredForms's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dee Dah Dave

Absolute bullshit. The Army should be the best it can be, especially the elite forces.

If a woman can meet the standard of the male soldier then cool, let them in. Otherwise quit trying to meet PC brigade quotas under the guise of 'equality', when it's anything but. If you are having to lower standards to let women in that isn't equality.

One of the regular things an SAS soldier has to do is trek for miles with half a house on his back. There's no way a woman could do that. Or very few of them anyway.

There are plenty of jobs in the Army which dont require full on physical endurance. But the idea is that if a time of need comes, everyone can put their pencils down, pick up a gun and perform just the same.

I have no problem with this.
MisterFalcon
Member
(12-04-2017, 01:22 PM)
MisterFalcon's Avatar

Originally Posted by cormack12

Women trained with them and even passed the selection test but weren't allowed to serve. Im not sure if any have been officially accepted since the front line rules were relaxed.

From what I can find there was an adapted selection process for women that several passed but it never got all the way up to deployment. There probably have been women on clandestine SAS missions where they would blend in better. After all, everyone knows there are no women in the SAS.
MajinSweet4
Member
(12-04-2017, 07:09 PM)

Originally Posted by cormack12

It's not about 'need', women have passed selection for the SAS. Just because that's the test mark doesn't mean Jane can't lift more. It's just that's what is being measured as a threshold to pass/fail. It's being adapted to make it a fair reflection. At the moment the test exists purely to separate the male candidates. From those who are capable. It's been specifically engineered using data and test cases all on males. It's unreasonable to expect pound for pound the same physical performance across genders. Women who excel should have a similar selection process that is based off their data and physiology.

However, I acknowledge that this may cause a dilution of squad strength or speed naturally. But as has been alluded to, all female squads address that issue if it's considered a massive one. Personally if I had to choose between a great female mechanic and an average male one I know which I'd pick.

It's a difficult topic to properly discuss. I don't know if they ever got passed but the British Army also spoke of adjusting the time limit for women and making their pack 5lb lighter. But women in front line roles is relatively new. It's really cascading an updated policy through different units in that case.

I think to eliminate someone from a squad who might be a great medic, signaller or marksman (irony), due to the fact they're a bit weaker or completed the distance run under duress a bit slower is short sighted.

They're are so many variables at play here.

Wait, what? None of this makes any sense. "Women who excel should have a similar selection process that is based off their data and physiology." The whole point of these tests is that they are not based in way to make them "fair". They are specifically designed to weed out 99.9% of people so only the absolute most freakish people get through. Lowering the standards for the sake of accessibility literally defeats the whole point of it. I mean, we're talking about the most elite kind of soldier here. Why take someone who might be a great medic, but not great at other things when the people you are looking for are people that are great at everything. Someone who is mostly a great medic will fit in other places in the military, not the SAS.
Woo-Fu
incest on the subway
(12-05-2017, 04:56 AM)
Woo-Fu's Avatar
If the goal is to have more women qualify then lower the standards. The real question is if that should be a goal for a typical special forces unit in the first place. My opinion is that it shouldn't be.

The goal should be the highest standards possible that still provide enough candidates to fill the units.
cormack12
Member
(12-05-2017, 10:38 AM)
cormack12's Avatar

Originally Posted by MajinSweet4


/snip for brevity


The selection process at the moment is based entirely off male physical performance - agreed? Due to historically being male dominated? Males typically have more muscle mass and are physically (pound for pound) stronger.

So the tests that have been in use for years need to be adapted. Military policy is changing specifically regarding women in front line roles.

The tests now need to reflect that change in policy. Therefore they should be measured 'relatively'. What you're saying is that only males can ever be 'elite' in that they will outperform women at all times in peak condition (bearing in mind outliers).

You also have to bear in mind that policy is probably changing because of the data and statistics around how modern warfare is now fought.

A woman will still need to be in the same physical shape as a male, relative to their gender. Besides, the endurance march is just one small part of the entire selection process. The wipe rate is extremely high.

It's the rhetoric about being 'easier' that is skewing perception here. Did the woman who ran the world record marathon find it 'easier' than the person who ran the male marathon record? Because that's what the question ultimately boils down too.

There will be changes to the selection of women but it is not about lowering standards ó it's about levelling the playing field.

Dunki
Member
(12-05-2017, 10:50 AM)

Originally Posted by cormack12

The selection process at the moment is based entirely off male physical performance - agreed? Due to historically being male dominated? Males typically have more muscle mass and are physically (pound for pound) stronger.

So the tests that have been in use for years need to be adapted. Military policy is changing specifically regarding women in front line roles.

The tests now need to reflect that change in policy. Therefore they should be measured 'relatively'. What you're saying is that only males can ever be 'elite' in that they will outperform women at all times in peak condition (bearing in mind outliers).

You also have to bear in mind that policy is probably changing because of the data and statistics around how modern warfare is now fought.

A woman will still need to be in the same physical shape as a male, relative to their gender. Besides, the endurance march is just one small part of the entire selection process. The wipe rate is extremely high.

It's the rhetoric about being 'easier' that is skewing perception here. Did the woman who ran the world record marathon find it 'easier' than the person who ran the male marathon record? Because that's what the question ultimately boils down too.

The questions I would have are:

A: Would this also count for men because if its lowered for everyone fine.

B. Even if it was lowered for everyone I still can not projekt the outcome. I mean these standards where for one reason only. To survive in very extrem situations. Would lowering this bar also means we raise the chance of dead soliders in the field?
llien
Member
(12-05-2017, 10:56 AM)
llien's Avatar

Originally Posted by cormack12

The selection process at the moment is based entirely off male physical performance - agreed?

Indirectly. As in "looking at average and best performers stats,what could we realistically ask and still be able to recruit enough candidates". Agreed?


Originally Posted by cormack12

Due to historically being male dominated?

SAS is one of the shittiest jobs on the planet. You are not paid that much. You are likely to die doing harder than usual life-risky task. Why is there a push for "more diversity" in this area?


Originally Posted by cormack12

It's the rhetoric about being 'easier' that is skewing perception here. Did the woman who ran the world record marathon find it 'easier' than the person who ran the male marathon record? Because that's what the question ultimately boils down too.

So, to put your "unskewed" perception into perspective:
I'm much stronger than my (male) neighbor.
I can carry two 30kg (66lb) bags with no sign of strain.
He would struggle with 15kg ones.
In this situation with your non-skewed percpetion you'd conclude that carrying 15kg bags is not easier than carrying 30kg ones.
Alx
Member
(12-05-2017, 11:19 AM)
Alx's Avatar
Yeah such selection test isn't about being easy or hard. It's about defining a minimum of expected performances. If you can reach that level you're fit to enter the corp, if not then you're not. It's only fair to apply the same rule to everybody, since you're filtering people out based on their abilities and nothing else.
For the record, gender discrimination is criticized because it's been observed that at equal skills, men are often preferred to women, or paid more. Equality of gender representation/remuneration isn't the goal, it's an indicator of (un)biased behaviour. But in cases where performance is correlated to gender (ie physical performance), it's logical to observe a skewness in favor of males.
BLAUcopter
Member
(12-05-2017, 11:34 AM)
BLAUcopter's Avatar
I hope there's no actual veterans reading some of these posts Jesus Christ.
cormack12
Member
(12-05-2017, 11:53 AM)
cormack12's Avatar

Originally Posted by llien

Indirectly. As in "looking at average and best performers stats,what could we realistically ask and still be able to recruit enough candidates". Agreed?



SAS is one of the shittiest jobs on the planet. You are not paid that much. You are likely to die doing harder than usual life-risky task. Why is there a push for "more diversity" in this area?



So, to put your "unskewed" perception into perspective:
I'm much stronger than my (male) neighbor.
I can carry two 30kg (66lb) bags with no sign of strain.
He would struggle with 15kg ones.
In this situation with your non-skewed percpetion you'd conclude that carrying 15kg bags is not easier than carrying 30kg ones.


I'm on mobile so can't quote/reply as well as I'd like sorry.

@above
1. No, the conditions would remain for men because It's a relative change. Let's put it another way, the entry standard for women's 200m in 2016 was 11.32 and men's was 10.16. Therefore is it reasonable to change the women's entry standard time to 10.16 as Well?
2. That remains to be seen. Any change will see fluctuation in data, it's usually how that data is analysed that is the key or if more data is captured since the change. You could look at examples from Israel I guess or other countries to gauge the impact.

@below
I don't understand. I mean I agree, my point was just that because of the military policy it would be male based data.

Because endurance training is one of only a tiny portion of what makes up a skillset. You have to measure what skilksets you lose based on the threshold you're cutting people off at. If a woman can perform physically at the same level as a man relative to her physiological limitations and is an excellent signaller then she should have the opportunity to serve surely?

You're using absolute weights though and a pretty disingenuous argument. Let me put it another way. An 85kg male can do 10 pullups. A 60kg female can do 12 pullups. How do you differentiate relative strength and endurance between the two? However, taking the comment at face value I would expect the female to be able to carry the weight of necessary equipment. It can be argued that fewer rations, smaller clothes, smaller sleeping bag and smaller boots could make up 5lb worth of kit difference. The weight limitation being lifted is only a 'maybe' according to the article anyway, it is the time requirement that looks more likely to be altered.

Also (speculation) I'm guessing that the aim is to have soldiers in the field for less time or that is the trend we're heading towards. In that case packs would naturally be lighter as you're in the field less.


Edit: let's say women had always been allowed to serve in front line position and specialist units. Do you think the current selection rules would have the same thresholds?

By the way I think the governments dismantling of the British Navy and Air Force is much more important than a few women potentially getting in the SAS.
Alx
Member
(12-05-2017, 12:09 PM)
Alx's Avatar

Originally Posted by cormack12

Let's put it another way, the entry standard for women's 200m in 2016 was 11.32 and men's was 10.16. Therefore is it reasonable to change the women's entry standard time to 10.16 as Well?

Sport doesn't have the same motivation as recruitment. It's meant to make sure that everyone can practice a sport, hence why categories are created. Same reason there are weight categories in boxing.
But if you're trying to pick the fastest runners or the strongest boxers for a matter of life and death, you don't care about appealing to everybody, you'll just pick the best.

Originally Posted by cormack12

Also (speculation) I'm guessing that the aim is to have soldiers in the field for less time or that is the trend we're heading towards. In that case packs would naturally be lighter as you're in the field less.

In that case you can lower the threshold for everybody, assuming that it is unnecessarily high for the new field requirements. Same if you don't want to sacrifice other skills by being too strict on the strength test : if lower performances are acceptable, then they're acceptable for all candidates, men and women alike.
cormack12
Member
(12-05-2017, 12:36 PM)
cormack12's Avatar

Originally Posted by Alx

Sport doesn't have the same motivation than recruitment. It's meant to make sure that everyone can practice a sport, hence why categories are created. Same reason there are weight categories in boxing.
But if you're trying to pick the fastest runners or the strongest boxers for a matter of life and death, you don't care about appealing to everybody, you'll just pick the best.



In that case you can lower the threshold for everybody, assuming that it is unnecessarily high for the new field requirements. Same if you don't want to sacrifice other skills by being too strict on the strength test : if lower performances are acceptable, then they're acceptable for all candidates, men and women alike.

Weight categories in boxing exist for fairness. Which is what this is about. You couldn't put a 9 stone fighter against a 15 stone fighter.

The second point it depends. This debate is skewing towards physical strength which is only a subpoint. The main point is time. Most of the time the actual field pack will be heavier than 45lbs or 50lbs or whatever the threshold is. The exact focus is the 'time' spent carrying the backpack and the limit on that time.

Here's some info from the Norway process:

To qualify for the Jegertroppen, applicants have to run about four miles carrying 60 pounds of military gear in under 52 minutes. Thatís just three minutes less than their male counterparts who have to do the same thing in under 49 minutes.

ďWe're carrying the same weight in the backpack as the boys," said Tonje, who did not provide her full name due to the unit's rules. "We do the same tasks."

Those tasks at Terningmoen Camp, about 100 miles north of Oslo, include parachuting out of military aircraft, skiing in the Arctic tundra, navigating the wilderness and fighting in urban terrain.

She added that the weapon, backpack and other gear she carries on long marches, weighs over 100 pounds.

"Iím the smallest, so I carry as much weight as I myself weigh," she said.

Anyway I'm sort of in thus thread a lot. I don't believe it's a big deal to adjust the time for women. Some people do.
Alx
Member
(12-05-2017, 12:49 PM)
Alx's Avatar

Originally Posted by cormack12

Weight categories in boxing exist for fairness. Which is what this is about. You couldn't put a 9 stone fighter against a 15 stone fighter.

Exactly. And if you need to build up the best team of boxers possible, it's only natural you'd end up with a majority of heavy weights. Maybe it doesn't feel "fair" to lightweights who would want to go too, but it's much safer in case the opposing team has heavyweights too (and if they want to win more than to be "fair", they will). Although if a lightweight can prove he can hold his own against the best heavyweights, of course he's in.
llien
Member
(12-05-2017, 01:30 PM)
llien's Avatar

Originally Posted by cormack12

1. No, the conditions would remain for men because It's a relative change. Let's put it another way, the entry standard for women's 200m in 2016 was 11.32 and men's was 10.16. Therefore is it reasonable to change the women's entry standard time to 10.16 as Well?

You are missing very important point here, 200m is not a mixed gender event. When competitions are mixed (e.g. shooting) requirement to qualify is the same for both genders.


Originally Posted by cormack12

2. That remains to be seen. Any change will see fluctuation in data, it's usually how that data is analysed that is the key or if more data is captured since the change. You could look at examples from Israel I guess or other countries to gauge the impact.

You mentioned IDF, where women have light combat and support roles. (I actually have a number of friends with first hand experience in IDF and could ask them, if we have things to ask :))
Others use the same standards are men. (e.g. pilots)


Originally Posted by cormack12

You're using absolute weights though and a pretty disingenuous argument. Let me put it another way. An 85kg male can do 10 pullups. A 60kg female can do 12 pullups. How do you differentiate relative strength and endurance between the two?

I actually weight less than my neighbor. I was merely pointing out, something being harder for particular person, doesn't mean it isn't easier to do.
In your quoted example female doing 12 pull ups has clear advantage, it would allow her, for instance, climb somewhere where men would not.


Originally Posted by cormack12

However, taking the comment at face value I would expect the female to be able to carry the weight of necessary equipment. It can be argued that fewer rations, smaller clothes, smaller sleeping bag and smaller boots could make up 5lb worth of kit difference.

This is a fair statement I fully agree with, having smaller weight because soldier is expected to carry less as she needs less is perfectly fine. (assuming it is the case, I don't know if food rations vary in reality) .

I think weight differences are taken into account to a point, e.g. heavy gunmen carry more (at least in some armies) and that's the reason they tend to be bigger than the rest.

Originally Posted by cormack12

Let's say women had always been allowed to serve in front line position and specialist units. Do you think the current selection rules would have the same thresholds?

WWiI anyone? Countless female snipers on USSR side. A number of pilots too. But how many among them storm troopers? None.

I think we ran out of arguments and got to essentially expressing opinions.

Easing (that's what it actually is) standards to get more women into SAS is very likely to weaken (elite) squads.
If so, I see dire ethical issues with "should I send John with Jane, even though it reduces his chances to survive" and "should I send Jane at all, as she's not as fit".
It defeats the very idea of "elite unit".

I hear you on "but women failing to pass standards set for men doesn't necessarily mean they are less fit", but am skeptical about the chances of it, and for a reason.



On of the reason Norway has created women only squad was dealing with nuanced situations with Muslim population:

The Jegertroppen, as it is known in Norwegian, was set up in 2014. Military commanders here say that the war in Afghanistan proved an "operational need" existed for highly-trained female soldiers who could gather intelligence and interact with women and children during deployments in conservative societies.


I'm not sure you've answered (sorry if I missed it): why push women into shitty jobs like these? How could someone see risking your life at work for modest salary as an advantage?
InterMusketeer
Member
(12-05-2017, 01:53 PM)
InterMusketeer's Avatar
Seems rather weird. Either you can perform the tasks or you can't. Men and women would be performing the exact same tasks so there's the exact same requirements as well.

Lowering it just for women is like saying they're incapable of doing what men are capable of. They're literally worse at their job. They're B-rank soldiers. Why would you want that in the elite unit?
CampbellzSoup
Member
(12-05-2017, 02:42 PM)
CampbellzSoup's Avatar
Whereís all that gender is binary shit ? Either you can do it or not:
cormack12
Member
(12-05-2017, 06:23 PM)
cormack12's Avatar

Originally Posted by Alx

Exactly. And if you need to build up the best team of boxers possible, it's only natural you'd end up with a majority of heavy weights. .

Again, that's not unreasonable. But when you then say you need to pick from the full roster of boxers someone who can hit hard but also do x, y and z that's when you need to make your compromises.


Originally Posted by llien

You are missing very important point here, 200m is not a mixed gender event. When competitions are mixed (e.g. shooting) requirement to qualify is the same for both genders.

Exactly because it wouldn't be 'fair', but we did mention all-female squads above as a possibility. But to put it into context let's say you created a new mixed Olympic event - 4 x 400m relay. 2 men and 2 women. Would you make the qualifying time the men's from previous years or the women's. Or would you create a new average between them?


Originally Posted by llien

One of the reason Norway has created women only squad was dealing with nuanced situations with Muslim population:

I'm not sure you've answered (sorry if I missed it): why push women into shitty jobs like these? How could someone see risking your life at work for modest salary as an advantage?

Yes, so Norway is a good example. Their specialist units actually required women for intel gathering and to be a bridge between these women. So ultimately it proves that women are actually needed in some cases and locales.

However, I think you're right - we've both exhausted our arguments. I think we're both coming at it from different angles. Yours seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong), that certain roles/units are prestigious and devastatingly effective because they rely on that raw aggression and strength. Inviting women who are genetically pound for pound smaller and weaker will have a detrimental effect to that squad's capabilities.

I think that's a fair point. I won't even debate it too much because it has merit. I might not agree but I can easily respect the point of view that says women are not physically capable to perform such a demanding role.

I'm approaching the argument from the point of view that military policy has been updated to include women on the front lines. There is no point ratifying a policy that then sets a test which is beyond the scope of the women who wish to serve (relative to their gender). Therefore the test should be adapted. For me the test is an arbitrary way to weed out candidates with weak endurance and/or mental strength. Most of these women (like those in Norway) will, on most ops carry a bergen and rifle etc. that will weigh in excess of the 55lb they are forced to run with for selection.

I don't think it's about pushing women into these jobs. Selection is a voluntary process I think? You opt-in for selection and try to move units. If you fail you get RTU. So it's more a case of women wanting to be part of the elite units. I'm not saying we should push all women into the SAS :). They might pass this policy and only get two female applicants for selection. They might get none. For several years, but the extension of the offer should be there in my opinion.
Dunki
Member
(12-05-2017, 07:19 PM)

Originally Posted by cormack12




Exactly because it wouldn't be 'fair', but we did mention all-female squads above as a possibility. But to put it into context let's say you created a new mixed Olympic event - 4 x 400m relay. 2 men and 2 women. Would you make the qualifying time the men's from previous years or the women's. Or would you create a new average between them?
.

So a Team out of 2 men and 2 women? Its pretty easy. I would compare the times from events which featured this relay and than I would probably not take an average since its Olympics. So I would go for the top 10% time and set it as qualifying time.

They qualify as Team and not as individuals.
Mister Apoc
Member
(12-06-2017, 12:27 AM)
physical strength is really useless in modern combat now


the reason why the vast majority of warriors in history were men was because that was a time that strength was needed

not anymore
finowns
Member
(12-06-2017, 12:53 AM)
finowns's Avatar

Originally Posted by Mister Apoc

physical strength is really useless in modern combat now


the reason why the vast majority of warriors in history were men was because that was a time that strength was needed

not anymore

Do you have some knowledge of 'modern combat' or are you just making stuff up?

Thread Tools