rohitvats wrote:And how do you know that?
If the IA uses watered down physical standards (as compared to male colleague) to facilitate not only intake but during the training of Lady Cadets as well, how does the Lady Officer suddenly become fit to discharge same set of duties requiring the physical standard her Male Officer is expected to have?
I'm basing this on my interactions with folks I met who've graduated from there and one former deputy commandant of OTA. Sure its accuracy may be debatable but its the impression I gathered.
Does 'average male cadet performs better physically than the average female cadet at OTA' equal 'female cadets are physically unfit to serve as junior officers'? Especially given the fact that women don't serve in the combat arms.
The cavalier manner in which you've made the field posting versus desk job remark goes on to show how much you understand the topic of posting.
I haven't served in the army and I'm don't claim to be an expert in the matter. My 'first hand' exposure has been limited to what gathered from my father's career (that including a staff posting in J&K - desk job in a field area). So I do have a fair idea about what a desk job entails, and what a field posting entails and when they can overlap, though I admit I should have revised that statement to '5-7 years with parent unit' and remainder at a desk job depending on availability.
And my attitude towards such 'preferential treatment' comes mostly out of statistics. Seeing as they compose less than 2.5% of the officer strength, I'm skeptical about the idea that female officers spending half or less of their SSC career at desk jobs will be significant enough to cause morale or psyche issues amongst their male colleagues. The army is short of 12500 officers, 700 female officers being granted an exemption (or denied an opportunity - depending on the personal goals) will have a limited impact.