Well there are several situations in which its far easier for a women to infiltrate than a well built man , This region is still conservative and more so in Kashmir, POK etc and people are extremely wary to military age males but women can go in and out with a more natural ease , More so if they're under a burkha for ex .Secondly their fighting abilities and strength can be underestimated by a lot of people and that can hand them a unique advantageasgkhan wrote:Somehow I am not comfortable with women in the special forces. While the photo-ops and image management is fine and dandy, hope the gobmint will not use them as the tip of the spear.
The physical and mental toughness required in the forces should not be diluted in the interest of promoting diversity and appearing in some foreign mag tom-tomming equality.
Reason, logic and practicality are not the traits around which this country is run. Instead it is the social justice and secularism circus which reigns supreme here.asgkhan wrote:Somehow I am not comfortable with women in the special forces. While the photo-ops and image management is fine and dandy, hope the gobmint will not use them as the tip of the spear.
The physical and mental toughness required in the forces should not be diluted in the interest of promoting diversity and appearing in some foreign mag tom-tomming equality.
Women are not a part of SAG. In fact SAG is a very small part of NSG.asgkhan wrote:Somehow I am not comfortable with women in the special forces. While the photo-ops and image management is fine and dandy, hope the gobmint will not use them as the tip of the spear.
When you know it's stupid don't postasgkhan wrote: NSG releases Photo of it's Elite Mahila Commando Team for the First time on #InternationalWomensDay .
I am not trivialising the strength of women. What I meant was, there are studies which shows women were unable to come close to 20% of hard fitness displayed by men. In fire-fighting, they failed to carry the equivalent weight carried by male fire-fighters. Some could not force open the door. They struggle to reach minimum of pushups, pull ups and situps.AkshaySG wrote:Well there are several situations in which its far easier for a women to infiltrate than a well built man , This region is still conservative and more so in Kashmir, POK etc and people are extremely wary to military age males but women can go in and out with a more natural ease , More so if they're under a burkha for ex .Secondly their fighting abilities and strength can be underestimated by a lot of people and that can hand them a unique advantage
Not all spec ops requires heavy duty lifting and physical perfection , There can always be situations where going unnoticed and stealth is the name of the game .Definitely worthwhile to have highly trained females for any such situation
Just thinking why it is us who have to dealt with disadvantages if a "women" POW becomes reality. Why we can not push it on the other side that harming or taking a women pow is end of humanity yadda yadda etc.. use the wokes to our advantage and steamroll the other side. Would the case be same if it was Kiran not Kulbhushan ?asgkhan wrote:
Also women-pows will trigger a massive shitstorm complicating achieving the objectives of mission.
In these days of political correctness, woke-diseased-thinking and getting on global news-letters, the bar required for achieving the cap should not be lowered.
asgkhan wrote:
I am not trivialising the strength of women. What I meant was, there are studies which shows women were unable to come close to 20% of hard fitness displayed by men. In fire-fighting, they failed to carry the equivalent weight carried by male fire-fighters. Some could not force open the door. They struggle to reach minimum of pushups, pull ups and situps.
Also women-pows will trigger a massive shitstorm complicating achieving the objectives of mission.
In these days of political correctness, woke-diseased-thinking and getting on global news-letters, the bar required for achieving the cap should not be lowered.
Btw, I have a daughter and I am all for empowerement, but it should be equality based not by special favors.
asgkhan wrote:Now I would gladly support if wimmen-loga clear the same requirements as shown in the documentary above.
Till then, the armed forces in general should keep of tokenism and encourage the population to enter the AFs on merit, irrespective of gender.
What you are saying does make sense. Intelligence agencies around the world use this format to infiltrate their targets. Following their cue the elite special forces like SFOD, Devgru and israeli SF have also been inducting limited number of qualified women for executing niche tasks.AkshaySG wrote:....
Being dependent on women for securing any nation and too much glamourising of females in military points to one major flaw in that society. That the men of such a nation are weak and impotent(i.e in spirit). If this is indeed the case then this nation deserves to be colonized and enslaved.Theeran wrote:Looks like some here need to read up on Velu Nachiyar, Kuyili and countless other women warriors in our history.
Wow.. That's just a massive leap you've taken right there,darshhan wrote:
Being dependent on women for securing any nation and too much glamourising of females in military points to one major flaw in that society. That the men of such a nation are weak and impotent(i.e in spirit). If this is indeed the case then this nation deserves to be colonized and enslaved.
Ofcourse certain number of women will be required for niche security and intelligence duties. That is about it.
Outliers are an exception. Not a norm. I pray the services to recruit based on merit without diluting the standards.Theeran wrote:Looks like some here need to read up on Velu Nachiyar, Kuyili and countless other women warriors in our history.
asgkhan, you know that admins have been more than benign with you, despite you going off the deep end sometimes? Or are you supporting a particular poster and picking a fight with admins for pointing out the posters’ ridiculous notions of manliness etc.asgkhan wrote: I am not from Bhajanmandali or a woke-tard here looking to over-use my salivatory glands on imaginary social issues to score some free pack of biskoots from admins, unlike certain posters who have prematurely jumped the gun.
The same enthusiasm was shown in recruiting women in US Firefighting forces. Majority failed as they could not even do basic tasks as breaking the door, carry unconscious victims (dummies) during the training exercise.
Also havent we seen women officers refusing to take up hardship postings and demanding special privileges in IA?
I want critical judgement and judicious thinking before going all woke.
While getting teams of wimmen for search and intelligence gathering within the borders is good and shows very good results, getting them to act behind a enemy lines is fraught with risks (unacceptable?)The following is a list of issues at the center of the debate whether or not gender integration lends to combat effectiveness. The debate centers more on the physical characteristics of individual women rather than the question of their overall contributions to teams and units. A detailed study was also done by Global Policy on the ongoing debate, which categorizes the following criticisms.[82]
Physical concerns
The Center for Military Readiness, an organization that seeks to limit women's participation in the military, stated that “Female soldiers [are], on average, shorter and smaller than men, with 45-50% less upper body strength and 25-30% less aerobic capacity, which is essential for endurance”.[83]
Motherhood accounts for 58% of hospitalizations among active-duty female troops.
A 2014-2015 experiment by the Marine Corps with a gender-integrated combat unit found that women were twice as likely to suffer injuries significant enough to remove them from duty, and that women's shooting accuracy was much less than that of men in simulated combat situations. Female soldiers were also found to have lower performance in the basic combat tasks like negotiating obstacles and removing wounded troops from the battlefield.[84][85]
The female skeletal system is less dense, and more prone to breakages.[86][87] There is also a concern that, in aviation, the female body is not as adept at handling the increased g-forces experienced by combat pilots. Furthermore, health issues regarding women are argued as the reason that some submarine services avoid accepting women, although mixed-gender accommodations in a small space is also an issue, as is explained in more depth below.[83]
In the Austrian Armed Forces and almost all NATO countries, significantly lower physical performance requirements for entrance and subsequent tests apply to female soldiers in determining fitness for service.[88][89] The Swiss Armed Forces abolished this advantage for female soldiers in 2007.[90]
Social concerns
The purported disruption of a combat unit's morale is cited as another reason for women to be banned from front-line combat situations.[91][92][93]
There is a secondary concern that romantic relationships between men and women on the front lines could disrupt a unit's fighting capability and a fear that a high number of women would deliberately become pregnant in order to escape combat duties.[94] To compare, the U.S. military is substantially staffed by young women. The volunteer military has turned out to be "family friendly". Marriage is frequent and fertility levels are increasing to this day in the military.[95][96]
A third argument against the inclusion of women in combat units is that placing women in combat where they are at risk of being captured and tortured and possibly sexually assaulted is unacceptable.[96] Rhonda Cornum, then a Major and flight surgeon, and now a Brigadier General and Command Surgeon for United States Army Forces Command, was an Iraqi prisoner of war in 1991. At the time, she was asked not to mention that she had been molested while in captivity.[97]
Finally, there is the argument that by not incorporating women into combat, the American government is failing to tap into another source of soldiers for military combat operations. This argument claims that the government is creating a military that treats women as second-class citizens and not equals of men.[98]
Tactical concerns
Lieutenant colonel Dave Grossman's book On Killing briefly mentions that female soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have been officially prohibited from serving in close combat military operations since 1948. The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines was due less to the performance of female soldiers, and more due to the behavior of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an instinctual protective aggression that was uncontrollable, severely degrading the unit's combat effectiveness. However, in 2001, subsequent to the publication of Grossman's book, women did begin serving in IDF combat units on an experimental basis. There is now a male-female infantry battalion, the Caracal Battalion.
In a similar vein, Melody Kemp mentions that the Australian military has also voiced similar concerns saying their soldiers "are reluctant to take women on reconnaissance or special operations, as they fear that in the case of combat or discovery, their priority will be to save the women and not to complete the mission. Thus while men might be able to be programmed to kill, it is not as easy to program men to neglect women."[99]
Recent studies from Harvard Business School and MIT have shown that group intelligence of an organization rises when women are on teams. Women tend to bring a level of sensitivity and the ability to read emotions of other people. In today's battlefield experiences, social sensitivity is a very much needed skill for military professionals. Having women in the military would dramatically increase the ability to extract critical intelligence. This could possibly be the difference between a mission's success or failure.[100]
Grossman also notes that Islamic militants rarely, if ever, surrender to female soldiers. Similarly, Iraqi and Afghan civilians are often not intimidated by female soldiers.
Combat support
In modern warfare, however, where "winning minds" and gaining intelligence can prove more important at times than enemy casualties, having female soldiers serving alongside a combat unit may have some advantages. For example, the use of female US military personnel attached to combat units specifically for the purpose of performing culturally sensitive searches such as in the USMC Lioness program which used female Marines to search females[101] at checkpoints both on the Iraq-Syrian border[102] and inside urban areas.[103] Another example is the US Army Cultural Support Teams (CSTs). that accompany special operations teams and work alongside them providing access to the needs of and information and from local community women in communities where contact between male soldiers and civilian women is culturally fraught.[104]
Women made a huge impact in 2010 when the United States Army began utilizing Female Engagement Teams in Afghanistan. The main purpose for these teams was to engage more female populations where such combat was not possible by male service members. These teams perform a number of duties, including intelligence gathering, relationship building, and humanitarian efforts.[56]
There is evidence showing women in both Iraq and Afghanistan have had considerable success in acquiring intelligence from children and women. In these cases the US military adheres to local customs for the purposes of counterinsurgency, whereby males are not permitted to talk to women who are not in their family or are not married to them.[105]
++ Amen to that bro.Pratyush wrote:As a civilian all I care about is that the individual wearing the uniform is fully trained and motivated to do the job they have been selected to do.
If that's not the case, then we are fcuked. It is immaterial if the individual is a male or female or trans.
My line of discussion is towards dilution of training and recruitment standards. I am not making any other references.Cyrano wrote:darshan, asgkhan,
Going by your biased view (can't call it logic) only Haryanvi Jats or Punjabi Sikhs should be in SF, since they confirm to your Schwarzenegger image, and there is no place for a southie Swarnashekhar or a NE Mary Kom or a Gurhka since significant raw strength differential may exist between Jats and the rest. By the same token, thin wiry Indian SFs would be no match for beefy Rambos of US SFs ?
Learn how to spell the word W-O-M-A-N first and then come back to BRF. You have earned a one month ban for this and other nonsensical posts on this issue.asgkhan wrote:While getting teams ofwimmenfor search and intelligence gathering within the borders is good and shows very good results, getting them to act behind a enemy lines is fraught with risks (unacceptable?)
Since you have been banned for a month, kindly attend hell week and provide your first-hand account of it. We will all be enlightened.asgkhan wrote:Now if you look @ the brutality of hell week, the stamina and strength required, I hope women can pass it without any preferential treatment.
You are a senior poster. Why the bad language? You know the rules.Pratyush wrote:As a civilian all I care about is that the individual wearing the uniform is fully trained and motivated to do the job they have been selected to do.
If that's not the case, then we are fcuked. It is immaterial if the individual is a male or female or trans.
Why are you attributing misogyny to stifle a debate on an important topic? Women in armed forces is a much more complex issue that simply a case of equality before the law when it comes to employment.Rakesh wrote:To All: Stop with misogyny please. Women have earned their place in the Armed Forces. No more on this on the forum.
Source: https://www.theweek.in/theweek/current/ ... euvre.htmlAt the academy, there is a marked difference in the physical standard requirements of men and women. For instance, while men need to complete a 2.4km-run in 10 minutes, women get 15 minutes. In the battle physical efficiency test, ‘excellent timing’ for men is 24 minutes and 40 seconds while for women it is 31 minutes and 30 seconds. “To clear the physical fitness test, women cadets get multiple chances, including mercy attempts. And the instructors are more lenient with women cadets,” said an officer involved in training.
Raising up one individual as an example to paint the entire gender as such, is counterproductive.rohitvats wrote:- A lady officer from the JAG Branch of the Indian Army filed a case against the Army when it wanted to send it on Temporary Duty because it claimed the said location did not have creche to look after her child!
====================================CBI is investigating how army officers, were ready to pay lakhs of rupees to get a posting of their choice.
- What about non-availability of men officers during and post PTSD?- What about non-availability of women officers during and post pregnancy?
PTSD has operational repercussions. Both during and post PTSD.rohitvats wrote:Pregnancy has operational repercussions. Both during and post pregnancy.
Meet Mitali Madhumita: First Woman Officer To Receive A Gallantry Awardrohitvats wrote:- Has any women officer from various Corps ever served an attachment with RR in the Valley? Many officers from ASC and AOC have lost lives and earned gallantry awards while fighting in CI Ops with RR - Ever heard a lady officer in this role?
