"SAS out of reach for elite women soldiers " Topic

And commandos too.
From
link

Why not woman?
Do you agree that they would have the chance?
Maybe a new range of little soldiers in a near future?

Amicalement
Armand

You do realse that that article refers to the Austraalian SAS and not the British SAS?

Pity the rest of the article is behind a pay wall.

Demi Moore became a Navy Seal so anything is possible.

And if I recall correctly, Goldie Hawn briefly became a Green Beret in Private Benjamin.

99% of all men can't get into the special forces either…

neh.

Yep … I agree Tgunner … Spec Op units are extremely hard for males to get into … And after my more than a decade in the infantry, in my "youthful" past … it's doubtful if any women could get into the Infantry let alone Spec Ops …

99% of all men can't get into the special forces either…

If that's true it would be surprising if any women could pass the standards, unless they have different standards for women or the standards are not based on absolute strength. Women are nearly two standard deviations smaller than men on average. In a standard distribution that means a woman as large and strong as one man in a hundred would be about one in a hundred thousand.

More like one man in twenty could pass, then it would only be one woman in a thousand.

News last week.
link

Is it important for special forces types to be large?

No

But read "Men Women and War" Martin Van Creveld.

Warning, this is a book, it requires an attention span of more than a sound bite and some analytical skills to use.

Is it important for special forces types to be large?

I assume it's important for them to be strong but I was just using size as an easy and objective comparison.

You could as easily use Olympic records. In the 100 meters for example the fastest woman is about 10% slower than the fastest man. If you assume women are on average 10% slower than men and speed is distributed on a bell curve and you crop that curve at the top 1% there will be very, very few if any women in it.

My point is more about how statistical standards play out in populations.

You don't have to be large to be special forces (or the infantry). But you do need to be able to hump all the gear and not physically break down. There are damn few men and far, far fewer women who can carry the 180 lb loads that they frequently have to haul. I'm 43 and every day feel the aches and pains from doing that work when I was in my 20s.

Combat requirements drive how much you have to carry, not how much you weigh or your sex. There are so few women who can physically meet the standards, and even fewer who would want to, that to completely restructure the special forces makes little sense.

> that to completely restructure the special forces makes little sense

That sounds a lot like the arguments used against minorities in the military…

Sorry GUYS but women can do just as well as men in special forces work.

Frankly the lingering sexism regarding women as soldiers is pretty pathetic.

I can't ever recall meeting a SF person who was big build and had a lot of muscle mass??? All the ones I've met are thin and had very high level of endurance and strong mental fortatude. Do I think there are women out there that could pass selection and could make SF operators? Not a doubt.

No, Dynaman, a sexist remark would be along the lines of arguing that women shouldn't be in special forces because:

1) They are too dainty
2) Them being around would hurt unit 'morale'
3) They don't have the guts or killer instinct
4) We need to shelter and protect our women
5) They should be home barefoot and pregnant

I offered an objective measure, the sustained ability to carry, move and fight with equipment nearing 180s lbs. Nobody ever suggested that minorities were incapable of the physical exertion, so its not a thing like the arguments used against racial desegregation.

What is your evidence that women can do just as well as men in special forces work?

Ditto,

I didn't know that Canada has female tank crew. I started my career as an M60A3 tank crewman and I wondered if women would be able to do the loading maneuver from rack to breech, as well as stand up to the maintenance demands (like changing out road wheels). Have there been any problems?

After later serving in the light infantry (and by 'light' they mean that instead of having a heavy vehicle to help carry your gear, you hump it all on your back), I can positively declare that being a grunt is much, much more physically demanding.

Dynaman is being an obvious troll, pay no attention.

I have heard stories of a female ejection-seat mechanic that the unit could not get rid of (because she was a woman and played the discrimination card) when she was the only member of the unit that could not change out an ejection seat unassisted.

I know a couple rather bulky special-forces types. A friend of mine went into the SEALs and was a skinny twig (6'3" and less than 170lbs) when he got out of BUDS, but he put on about 40lbs of solid muscle in jump school. He didn't have anything better to do than to go to the gym after classes, so that's about all he did for ~8 weeks of jump school.

I've said it before. The surest sign that an idea for integration is BAD is when the Israelis abandon it. The Israelis used to integrate combat units all the way down to the platoon, but they found out that an adrenaline-soaked male brain makes poor military decisions when women are at risk. So the Israelis have segregated platoons or companies.

If they didn't lower the standard and treated women just like the men, that would eliminate many problems with women in some positions. If they lower the standard to allow women to "succeed" then I have a problem. So far, I've seen the lower the standard approach.

I have served with some women who I would trust with my life. One of the rescue helicopter personnel was female and I thought she was as good as they come.

Dynaman216,

Sorry GUYS but women can do just as well as men in Special Forces work.

Sorry mate, and putting all the usual "ism"s to one side, they can not.

Selection to various SF units is open (pretty much)to those who either wish to apply or are recommended.

I've never seen any woman take part in any selection process – why, because as has been stated very few are physically capable and, quite frankly, most do not desire to do so – along with many men!

If yomping, yet again, up a certain slope in the Brecon Beacons carry heavy bergans, followed by E&E Ex and RtoI Ex, is your game then fine – but thus far I ain't seen too many woman even attempt it, (though I'm a bit out of date).

Of course, I look forward to the day when they do.

DB

> Sorry mate, and putting all the usual "ism"s to one side, they can not.

Give it time. Might not be in our lifetime but it will happen.

> I've never seen any woman take part in any selection process – why,

Because they know the process is still stacked against them. The process is still stacked towards picking the best MEN for the job, not the best soldier.

Yes, size really does not have that much to do with it, but those soldiers with some muscle mass, endurance, and in good physical condition do better in humping large loads, carrying heavy weapons, etc. … Taller, physically stronger soldiers, usually get the heavy weapons, are RTOs, etc. … There are many females in the US Army, but none in the Infantry, Tanks, FA, certain ADA positions, and Combat Engineers(females are in Construction Bns, not Combat Engineer Bns). And when I was on active duty, '79-'90(back in the Stone Age!), females had different PT standards. Not that it is sexist, it's just a physical reality. Most Spec Ops missions/duties require many abilities/skills of an Infantryman. I was in an Air Assault Bn and 3 Mech Bns, and I'll freely admit, it got pretty tough sometimes !!! Not to mention something, I've seen as an athlete in school, in the gym and in the Infantry. A human male's innate testosterone, makes a big difference … among other things it makes the human male very aggressive at times, contributes to his strength, endurance, etc. … and some times … many time gives him "the killer instinct" … makes him a killer on the battlefield. I have to agree with 74EFS and Snowman on many points … No Dynaman, I can't imagine any Infantryman, using your arguement, or having the "field" experience, to back it up … Many males I met in the civilian world couldn't make it in the Infantry … let alone the average female. I was an Infantry Officer, I'd like to think I have a little experience, in this area. And many, many females I know would not even care to try ! Of course the IDF experience says it all, IMO …

Sounds like someone has been watching too many modern films where the best soldier and leader is usually a female and males are relegated to the cowardly geek!

We have many females operating with the infantry in very unpleasant and dangerous operations and locations as medics, Psy Ops, Int etc, they do very well and have demonstrated great initiative and bravery. However ask them if they would be happy doing the Infantry role and you get a resounding NO Thanks!

In NI women carried out Special Duty roles passing the same very difficult selection courses as the men – FRU and 14 Int, however these courses were designed for the province not general warfare.

Women have taken part in the selection process and not passed because it is stacked towards picking the best soldier not the best man. So far no women, and plenty of men, have not made the grade.

So many modern thinkers have a C*** stand about how women should be there in the SAS, Infantry etc, but it only seems to be Western thinkers and Hollywood. One has to remember a great many people in this world automatically assume that the man is the leader, I remember turning up at a Serb site in 1996 with my boss, a female and ex SD from NI. On the trip up I had run out of cigarettes and on arrival my first thought was to scrounge one off the Serb sentry who met us. The Serbs immediately assumed I was the boss and it took a little persuasion to convince them that my Boss was indeed the Boss!

Tally Ho!

Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester awarded Silver Star.
link

Ironwolf – I don't think anyone is saying females can't be brave or do a good job under pressure.

Some jobs require more than just guts.

Ditto,

Yeah, I was thinking about the loader having to make the transfer of rounds from the ready rack to the main gun breach. It's worse in the M1, as instead of standing like in an M60, you sit, so the motion is all upper body strength.

I had almost forgotten trying to man-handle the breach block. Taking the M85 .50 cal in and out of the cupola was almost as tough.

Now I'm a 43 year old Air Force intelligence officer. I gave my back to the army and am giving my brain to the Air Force. I suspect I'll retire with service-connected damage to both!

Now I'm a 43 year old Air Force intelligence officer. I gave my back to the army and am giving my brain to the Air Force. I suspect I'll retire with service-connected damage to both!

You can really cut down on the service-connected head injuries if you stop beating your head against the brick wall…

If you show me a woman who can walk around all day carrying more than her own bodyweight in gear, let her try out.

It is dangerous to the rest of the team if they lower some physical standards.

And I've already said my bit about the vagaries of the adrenaline-soaked male brain.

I agree with Cincinnatus and nickinsomerset … and again no one said, females can't be brave, think under pressure, etc., etc. … They just can't handle the physical and in some cases psychological aspects of being a Grunt … And yes, SGT Hester was very brave and obviously a very good soldier. She was an MP, not in the Infantry … as Cinci said, some jobs do require more than just guts …

I'm always cautious of such generalisations, as there is always one who will prove you wrong…

Yes Geoff, so far they are all in Hollywood! Until a female can pass the same selection and course as the men there won't be in the real world,

Tally Ho!

Dynaman216

Because they know the process is still stacked against them. The process is still stacked towards picking the best MEN for the job, not the best soldier.

Oh do come along ……I suppose one should define what is meant by "good soldier". If we are referring to selection to infantry based SF units then a good soldier roughly equates to a good infantryman plus. As in common with all military units you need to be able to conduct infantry work first before building upon this foundation.

As has been stated there are many good women in non-infantry roles but SF ain't much good without its teeth arm – that of up front infantry work. You can have all the intel you like, but it still requires infantry to do the actual work.

One of the main requirements of a good infantry soldier is the ability to win a potential firefight – how many female gunners (GPMG, et al) do you know who can carry out infantry work armed with a GPMG? All the very good female soldiers I knew, found an SMG hard enough!

Secondly, why is a woman any less capable of performing well in an E&E exercise or an RtoI exercise? None of these courses are based on physical strength. It is also perfectly possible for soldiers of certain units (esp. those that have a high ratio of women to men) to take part in just these courses alone. However I never saw or heard of any female soldiers who volunteered to do so, even though they had ample opportunity and would certainly have benefitted from them.

Obviously if you could be a bit more specific in your point, hopefully based on some evidence, I'd be delighted to hear it.

DB

Oh, I don't know, I've seen some pretty tough women.

Seriously though, provided they are tested in the same way, and have to meet the same conditions, I don't think any of the armed forces discriminate. If the job requires you to lift xxx pounds, and you can't lift it you clearly are not able to do the job, irrespective of sex.

Statistically, you are more likely to find males who meet the requirements than females, but that isn't (or shouldn't) go to say that it couldn't ever happen.

I suspect the tough ones just prefer not to join the army ;-)

Let there be no doubt there are some very "tough" females … but those are very far from the norm and very few in number … Have some of you "advocates" seen what Ranger and/or SF, SEAL training is like ? If you have … you wouldn't be so sure women could pass it … I've been out for over 20 years, but I saw a number of programs showing todays SF and SEAL training, etc…. Holy Mutha !!!!!!!!!!!!! Makes RANGER School look like a warm-up … and RANGER School is a Mutha !!!!!!!

By the way, GI Jane was about the first woman to go through Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape school. SERE is not pleasant, but it's not a SPECOPS course.

BUDS is so intense that 2/3rds of the men who wanted to be there cannot handle it. We're talking sheer physical overload cannot handle it, nevermind the mental toughness needed.

And we haven't even gotten to the truly insane SPECOPS school yet: USAF Pararescue. Two years of special ops schools, all of which you need to pass in order to be accepted as a PJ. 'Superman School' is more than twice as long as any other SPECOPS selection course, and each individual school is part of another special ops training pipeline.

Like Lion said, USAF PJ school is insane. If the physical stuff doesn't get you, its the academics of the medical training.

Dynaman,

What exactly do you mean by

"Because they know the process is still stacked against them. The process is still stacked towards picking the best MEN for the job, not the best soldier."

Could you please give specific examples of unfairness in selection rather than a vague soundbite, otherwise I will have to assume that your statement is indeed, the utter ballhooks that I already believe it to be.

The last time I looked, SF selection didn't involve comparing willy size, peeing up the wall competitions or lighting their farts.

Well, not usually, anyway…

That's Para selection, isn't it?

You mean I have been buying all those devices whose ads arrive in my email box without any need?

I always thought that the reason that there was tension between the sexes is that some ultra-orthodox bigots can't stand to listen to women sing.
link

At the same time, there is the Caracal Battalion, a combat unit that is 70% female.

link

No Geoff,

Para selection also involves Soggy Biscuit.

However, I believe from personal observation that elements of the above may have been involved in WRAF selection.

LOL !!!!

"US to ease restrictions on women in combat: officials
by Staff Writers
Washington (AFP) Feb 9, 2012

The US military on Thursday eased some restrictions on women soldiers, allowing them to serve in thousands of jobs that will bring them closer to combat, defense officials said.

The move reflects the increasing presence of women on the front lines during a decade of war and marks a milestone for the American military, which has lifted prohibitions on women's roles since the 1970s in incremental steps.

"The department plans tomorrow to open 14,000 jobs that previously had been closed to women in the military," a senior defense official told AFP.

"This is only the start," the official said on condition of anonymity. "It's conceivable in the future, after conducting more reviews, that more jobs will be open to women."

The changes, which will be officially unveiled on Thursday, mainly apply to the Army and Marine Corps, the official said. The Air Force and Navy have few remaining restrictions on female service members, after a 2010 decision that allowed women to serve on submarines.

Until now, female intelligence officers, signal officers and other specialists could not serve in battalions likely to face direct combat, but the new policy will allow women "more tactical opportunities" instead of being confined to brigade-level posts, the official said.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta approved the policy change after receiving an internal report that looked at women's roles and the experience of a decade of war that thrust them into battle.

But the policy change stops short of a wholesale repeal of the ban on women in combat, including rules that bar women from serving in special forces.

Despite those rules, women increasingly found themselves in firefights in Iraq and Afghanistan in recent years as they took part in counter-insurgency campaigns with no clear front lines.

Officials described the new rules, not as a radical reform, but as an evolutionary step to revise policies that were out of touch with battlefield realities.

The Pentagon is due to formally inform Congress of the change later on Thursday, giving lawmakers a brief period to delay or block the measure before it takes effect.

Congress ordered a review of women's roles after an advisory panel, the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, urged rescinding remaining restrictions that have prevented women from serving in ground combat units.

The successful performance of female soldiers in the 1990-91 Gulf war helped prompt an earlier wave of reform that paved the way for women to serve in combat aircraft and naval warships.

Opponents of allowing women in ground combat argue that they lack the required physical strength, that their presence could prove disruptive to the "cohesion" of combat units and that mothers should not be placed in harm's way.

But retired officers, both male and female, and activists have long urged a complete repeal of the combat exclusion rule, arguing that the restriction holds back women from senior leadership positions by denying them tactical experience deemed crucial for promotion.

Only about six percent of all of the Army's general officers are females, even though women comprise about 15-17 percent of the force.

At least 144 women service members have been killed in war since the attacks of September 11, 2001, according to the Pentagon.

The policy change comes only months after the US military ended a ban on openly gay troops serving in uniform."
link

I'm slightly baffled by all this.

Under what definition of "special forces" do SOE not count as special forces? Many women served in SOE, usually with great gallantry. Given that SOE gave birth to the Special Forces Club, please think carefully before insisting on a radical redefinition of a long-established term.

If your definition of "Special Forces" restricts the term only to weightlifters capable of lifting a far greater proportion of their body weight than a mule would, I suggest that you've failed to understand what the term really means -- and refer you, inter alia, to the last charge of the Calcutta Light Horse.

All the best,

John.

Hey that is why we have birth control

Yugoslavs gave up on women in combat roles post WWII. It seems that in integrated combat units (Partisans) 25 percent of the female soldiers were pregnant at any given time. Plays heck with unit readiness. Also hard to set up maternity wards out in the boonies.

I also saw some articles that reported that on our coed carriers about a hundred swabbies are pregnant at the end of the cruise. Got to love breeding your own future crews.

On the other hand, I have to say that spending the military budget to fund daycare for unwed mothers seems illogical. Presumably the Hyde Amendment still applies insofar as the other solution?

But what the hey, adding 10-20 percent to the defense budget to allow for all the maternity related complications is a small price to pay so that a woman can get that coveted combat experience that will earn a top promotion.

Had my connection interrupted this morning when I went to post this, but got it up at NRO. Amusingly someone replied to my post with the observation that a significant number of the swabbies show up pregnant at the time to embark on these tours.

Wonder if the Navy has managed to factor this in when crewing their ships – 'Well Captain you have x number of women in your crew so here is a list of alternates for those who might need to stay in port to have their baby.