SAS eases entry tests for women
I think that the lowering of entry standards pales into insignificance when you consider the hurdles that have to be crossed before anyone is even considered for selection. Unlike the SAS(R), you cannot walk in off the street and try to join the regular SAS. Although selection is open to all arms of the services, the vast majority come from an airborne or commando background. This means that the majority of candidates, male or female, must pass P Company or equivalent and also have considerable, relevant experience of serving in those branches. I'm pretty sure that, despite several attempts, no female has passed P Company and that no female has even attempted the 38 week RM course.
I also believe that there are 5, much fitter than most males, females who have passed the 10 week AACC and earned their "green lid". The majority passed as equals but at least 1 was given concessions that would not have been given to a male candidate.
We have physical gender differences, it doesn't make one superior to the other, just different. I have mentioned the sporting analogy before, we still have gender separation in the vast majority of sports, not because we want to, but to allow everyone a chance to compete and succeed on level terms,
I also believe that there are 5, much fitter than most males, females who have passed the 10 week AACC and earned their "green lid". The majority passed as equals but at least 1 was given concessions that would not have been given to a male candidate.
We have physical gender differences, it doesn't make one superior to the other, just different. I have mentioned the sporting analogy before, we still have gender separation in the vast majority of sports, not because we want to, but to allow everyone a chance to compete and succeed on level terms,
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I am with Brat. Yes of course WC we see only what the producers want us to see and only observe one participant for a few minutes rather than weeks at a time. However having been an 'assessor' for many years I have found snap judgements are frequently correct.
I could give examples but I won't. In the TV programme that woman was clearly a cut above all the men. That is the point, not that she should have been recruited or would have passed, but she was way better than average.
While Miss PN1 enjoyed her time in, no way could she yomp with a 10kg pack. Miss PN2 did her back in and could hardly handle her L85A2.
I could give examples but I won't. In the TV programme that woman was clearly a cut above all the men. That is the point, not that she should have been recruited or would have passed, but she was way better than average.
While Miss PN1 enjoyed her time in, no way could she yomp with a 10kg pack. Miss PN2 did her back in and could hardly handle her L85A2.
Agreed, however not sure that the "Muppets", E4, Int etc were classified as SF ?
Sorry but if they want to be equal let them be equal to the standard now and not a reduced standard that others will want to follow because the women get it why dont we.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Gsa, my SiL, after one appointment at a London address, was presented with a montage of flashes and badges. I only recognised two of them and had heard of a third, there were quite a few more.
Perhaps the answer is, rather than trying to 'adjust' or otherwise dilute the training standards for the existing SAS/SBS, you just create a new unit under the same SF umbrella for women.
That way, you avoid the problems of trying to make selection equal and in the longer term increase your numbers of SF operatives (you can then cherry-pick from the new unit when the Op requires it to work along 'regular' male SF).
It may, in time, lead to the full integration of females into current structure- for the truly exceptional ones - but in the meantime, give those ladies with all the requisite skills for SF (minus the crazy weight-carrying yomping) the chance to serve their country is specialised roles.
That way, you avoid the problems of trying to make selection equal and in the longer term increase your numbers of SF operatives (you can then cherry-pick from the new unit when the Op requires it to work along 'regular' male SF).
It may, in time, lead to the full integration of females into current structure- for the truly exceptional ones - but in the meantime, give those ladies with all the requisite skills for SF (minus the crazy weight-carrying yomping) the chance to serve their country is specialised roles.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Crab, got it in one. That is what I alluded to at the beginning. Until we see the official line then it ius possible that The Times merely assumed that women in SF meant women in SAS/SBS.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Perhaps the answer is, rather than trying to 'adjust' or otherwise dilute the training standards for the existing SAS/SBS, you just create a new unit under the same SF umbrella for women.
That way, you avoid the problems of trying to make selection equal and in the longer term increase your numbers of SF operatives (you can then cherry-pick from the new unit when the Op requires it to work along 'regular' male SF).
It may, in time, lead to the full integration of females into current structure- for the truly exceptional ones - but in the meantime, give those ladies with all the requisite skills for SF (minus the crazy weight-carrying yomping) the chance to serve their country is specialised roles.
That way, you avoid the problems of trying to make selection equal and in the longer term increase your numbers of SF operatives (you can then cherry-pick from the new unit when the Op requires it to work along 'regular' male SF).
It may, in time, lead to the full integration of females into current structure- for the truly exceptional ones - but in the meantime, give those ladies with all the requisite skills for SF (minus the crazy weight-carrying yomping) the chance to serve their country is specialised roles.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Perhaps the answer is, rather than trying to 'adjust' or otherwise dilute the training standards for the existing SAS/SBS, you just create a new unit under the same SF umbrella for women.
That way, you avoid the problems of trying to make selection equal and in the longer term increase your numbers of SF operatives (you can then cherry-pick from the new unit when the Op requires it to work along 'regular' male SF).
It may, in time, lead to the full integration of females into current structure- for the truly exceptional ones - but in the meantime, give those ladies with all the requisite skills for SF (minus the crazy weight-carrying yomping) the chance to serve their country is specialised roles.
That way, you avoid the problems of trying to make selection equal and in the longer term increase your numbers of SF operatives (you can then cherry-pick from the new unit when the Op requires it to work along 'regular' male SF).
It may, in time, lead to the full integration of females into current structure- for the truly exceptional ones - but in the meantime, give those ladies with all the requisite skills for SF (minus the crazy weight-carrying yomping) the chance to serve their country is specialised roles.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Perhaps the answer is, rather than trying to 'adjust' or otherwise dilute the training standards for the existing SAS/SBS, you just create a new unit under the same SF umbrella for women.
That way, you avoid the problems of trying to make selection equal and in the longer term increase your numbers of SF operatives (you can then cherry-pick from the new unit when the Op requires it to work along 'regular' male SF).
It may, in time, lead to the full integration of females into current structure- for the truly exceptional ones - but in the meantime, give those ladies with all the requisite skills for SF (minus the crazy weight-carrying yomping) the chance to serve their country is specialised roles.
That way, you avoid the problems of trying to make selection equal and in the longer term increase your numbers of SF operatives (you can then cherry-pick from the new unit when the Op requires it to work along 'regular' male SF).
It may, in time, lead to the full integration of females into current structure- for the truly exceptional ones - but in the meantime, give those ladies with all the requisite skills for SF (minus the crazy weight-carrying yomping) the chance to serve their country is specialised roles.
Meet the Hunter Troop: Norway's tough-as-nails female soldiers - BBC News
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A major problem operating undercover during the troubles was that the fit, tough young men of the SAS all looked exactly what they were, however long their hair. If this gives another string of unpredictability for our enemies surely it's all to the good, regardless of what size pack they can carry?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
Perhaps the answer is, rather than trying to 'adjust' or otherwise dilute the training standards for the existing SAS/SBS, you just create a new unit under the same SF umbrella for women.
Perhaps the answer is, rather than trying to 'adjust' or otherwise dilute the training standards for the existing SAS/SBS, you just create a new unit under the same SF umbrella for women.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coincidentally, I did a 5km run over the weekend where there was over 300 participants. The winner was a woman with a time of 17 minutes 50 seconds (on a slow hilly course)
Ok it's not SAS distances but it proves that women don't need an easier fitness test.
Paula Radcliffe could give most guys a 2 hour head start and she'll still run a marathon quicker than them.
Ok it's not SAS distances but it proves that women don't need an easier fitness test.
Paula Radcliffe could give most guys a 2 hour head start and she'll still run a marathon quicker than them.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A major problem operating undercover during the troubles was that the fit, tough young men of the SAS all looked exactly what they were, however long their hair. If this gives another string of unpredictability for our enemies surely it's all to the good, regardless of what size pack they can carry?
Unfortunately that would exclude a fair few people I've worked with.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the talk about undercover stuff is missing the point that there are already women trained and operating in that exact role. They work alongside the other units as and when required. The primary wartime role of the two main SF units require those strength and endurance attributes that typically only men have.
Yes, Paula Radcliffe would most likely beat every badged bloke in a race. But most likely not with a pack, webbing, body armour, weapon etc., and not for multiple days in a row.
Th current system has worked well, the women have done a great job in their roles. Let them try and pass if they want but lowering standards does no one any favours.
Yes, Paula Radcliffe would most likely beat every badged bloke in a race. But most likely not with a pack, webbing, body armour, weapon etc., and not for multiple days in a row.
Th current system has worked well, the women have done a great job in their roles. Let them try and pass if they want but lowering standards does no one any favours.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,753
Received 2,732 Likes
on
1,164 Posts
Ahhh Paula Radcliffe the phantom pisser
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6I2-YP42rs
you don't see that on the Beeb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6I2-YP42rs
you don't see that on the Beeb
