Women in Combat

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Jun 2011 07:58

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.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Jun 2011 00:02

Viv S: If you don't mind me asking...in which branch of the army did your father serve in?

negi · Post by **negi** » 24 Jun 2011 10:06

Viv S wrote: 'female cadets are physically unfit to serve as junior officers'?

This is a loaded question; the way I see it the physical standards have already been watered down by having a separate selection process for males vs females . That is why the usual rhetoric about equal opportunity for women in combat or all roles in military is a flawed argument. In the civil sector both males and females have to undergo a common selection process for a given job profile that is not the case with armed forces; lets say if a group comprising of 20 males and females (say 10 each) is asked to complete a obstacle course and after completion of which only say 3 will be shortlisted what are the odds that a female would make it to the final three ? There is a reason why the SSB selection standards for males and females are not the same.

SRoy · Post by **SRoy** » 24 Jun 2011 14:16

negi wrote:
RajeshA wrote:That's the whole point. If a woman thinks she can handle it, and she proves equal to her men colleagues in training for the job, then she should be allowed to do it, and not be dismissed for the role because she is a woman.If she has no such motivation, then all iz well!
Which is fine but if you noticed the SSB selection standards be it the exam or even the physical standards they are different for men and women ; unfortunately the enemy won't make such a distinction. Case in point why is that there is no provision for women to join the armed forces via the non-commissioned route i.e. as a jawan/sailor/airman ?

Negi bhai,
Excellent catch. I too posed that question couple of years ago in one of these threads.
There is a good reason as why this will not happen.

Hankering for induction in combat branches is all about sense of entitlement for women of a select slice of the society and it is nothing to do with soldiery.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Jun 2011 16:00

A musing on the whole issue of women in military, including in combat roles.

Considering the future evolution of the Indian nation, should we opt for the Indian Woman Warrior as part of the imagery we and others associate with India, it would set in motion a whole new psychological transformation of the male mentality. It would become completely insufficient in society to be considered a man of moderate built, for the Indian male would have to compete much harder now for respect and adoration of the Indian female, as her expectations too would increase.

The imagery of Indian Women Warriors would inspire millions of other women to think in terms of strength. Men would follow suit. The whole society would move towards enhanced physical fitness levels.

By keeping women away from combat role, Indian males are taking the low road to superiority in physical strength and endurance. If the woman is weak, the man too does not need to be too strong in order to dominate. But if the woman is strong, the man would really have to work hard on himself to keep his advantage. The skewed gender ratio in India would drive him all the harder.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Jun 2011 17:08

RajehshA please pardon me for saying that your message above is inspiring sounding trash.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Jun 2011 19:03

shiv wrote:RajehshA please pardon me for saying that your message above is inspiring sounding trash.

Yes, I have my moments!

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 24 Jun 2011 20:08

why trash? large parts of india adore durga, kali and laxmibai of jhansi...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Jun 2011 20:15

Lalmohan wrote:why trash? large parts of india adore durga, kali and laxmibai of jhansi...

Please Lalmohan, this is utter trash. Complete nonsense. Faux astrology.

it would set in motion a whole new psychological transformation of the male mentality. It would become completely insufficient in society to be considered a man of moderate built, for the Indian male would have to compete much harder now for respect and adoration of the Indian female, as her expectations too would increase.

The whole society would move towards enhanced physical fitness levels.

If the woman is weak, the man too does not need to be too strong in order to dominate. But if the woman is strong, the man would really have to work hard on himself to keep his advantage.

I am going to try getting out and staying out of this thread for a while. It has produced nothing worthwhile of late, just uninformed cooked up theories and clever rhetoric.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Jun 2011 21:36

Lalmohan wrote:why trash? large parts of india adore durga, kali and laxmibai of jhansi...

and has that magically transformed the general health of the female population, let alone have a positive domino effect on the male population ?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Jun 2011 21:44

One needs new role models who wear new combat attire, bear new weapons, show muscles, and look gorgeous. Then other women too would imitate. Then other men would imitate. Then nation will become very TFTA.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 24 Jun 2011 22:00

RajeshA wrote:One needs new role models who wear new combat attire, bear new weapons, show muscles, and look gorgeous. Then other women too would imitate. Then other men would imitate.

Sounds more like a fashion house than Army to me. Hardly any Infantryman shows muscles or tries to look gorgeous (and thank god for that!).

Then nation will become very TFTA.

Yes, that sounds about TFTA for sure. However, who said that anyone wants to look TFTA?

PS: You were originally prophesying about how Women joining Infantry would make Males feel insecure and women feel proud leading to better fitness among all. While I found that incredulous, I am even more baffled in comprehending how this fashion aspect fits into the whole women in infantry debate!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Jun 2011 22:15

RajeshA wrote:One needs new role models who wear new combat attire, bear new weapons, show muscles, and look gorgeous. Then other women too would imitate. Then other men would imitate. Then nation will become very TFTA.

sorry but

this post reminded me of

(from PLA's national day parade)
looks golgeous doesn't she ?

but hey, if a senior and well respected member wants to make laughing stock of himself who am I to stop him.
___________________
edit : there are existing role models if that's your point. but you are fixated on 'combat role for women' so you choose to ignore them (or don't know about them, which is worse.)

Fg. Off. Gunjan Saxena, armed with an AK-47 Rifle, gets ready for a sortie in her Cheetah. Fg. Off. Saxena is the first woman IAF Officer to fly in a combat zone. (From BR's kargil archives)

CRPF women to protect Prez of Liberia
http://www.news24online.com/CRPF-women- ... 21305.aspx

BSF women troopers positioned at Indo-Pak border
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/245 ... -indo.html

SRoy · Post by **SRoy** » 24 Jun 2011 22:32

RajeshA wrote:One needs new role models who wear new combat attire, bear new weapons, show muscles, and look gorgeous. Then other women too would imitate. Then other men would imitate. Then nation will become very TFTA.

You mean like this ? Weapons, muscles, TFTA ityadi for sure...

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Jun 2011 23:53

Rahul M ji,

thanks for those photos. Now I feel like going to gym first thing tomorrow!

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 Jun 2011 07:42

Rakesh wrote:Viv S: If you don't mind me asking...in which branch of the army did your father serve in?

Sure. Corps of Engineers.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 Jun 2011 07:57

negi wrote:
Viv S wrote: 'female cadets are physically unfit to serve as junior officers'?
This is a loaded question; the way I see it the physical standards have already been watered down by having a separate selection process for males vs females . That is why the usual rhetoric about equal opportunity for women in combat or all roles in military is a flawed argument. In the civil sector both males and females have to undergo a common selection process for a given job profile that is not the case with armed forces; lets say if a group comprising of 20 males and females (say 10 each) is asked to complete a obstacle course and after completion of which only say 3 will be shortlisted what are the odds that a female would make it to the final three ? There is a reason why the SSB selection standards for males and females are not the same.

The physical standards required at SSB at lenient to a point where they may as well be nominal. As long as you aren't overweight or very underweight, its not much of an issue. Its your intelligence, personality and leadership qualities that are really evaluated by the board. The only real difference that fitness makes is damping the learning curve. Cadets with mediocre fitness will have a tougher initial two or three weeks than others but two months into the course you'd be hard-pressed to point out the individuals that joined while relatively unfit.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Jun 2011 09:23

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 25 Jun 2011 10:53

shiv wrote:

This PARTICULAR example is the ultimate wrong choice for championing the cause of women in

the Armed Forces.

It can only serve as an example of why women should not be recruited into the Armed forces.

Incidently, note the claws / nail that simply preclude all manual labour!!

and all that is automatically implied thereby.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Jun 2011 13:41

chetak wrote: Incidently, note the claws / nail that simply preclude all manual labour!!

and all that is automatically implied thereby.

Well Paki women are better. After all lipstick and carefully plucked eyebrows will not hinder manual labour?

In the photo below - only the Hijab girl on right has no lipstick

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 03 Sep 2011 03:46

SC boost for women officers in Army

A bench comprising Justices J M Panchal and H L Gokhale directed the Army to take back 11 women officers who were discharged after completing 14 years of service despite the Delhi High Court ruling that the women had a right to permanent commission.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 12 Sep 2011 00:59

This is very tragic ...

First IAF woman officer to be court-martialled, Anjali Gupta commits suicide

negi · Post by **negi** » 12 Sep 2011 01:14

Viv S wrote: The physical standards required at SSB at lenient to a point where they may as well be nominal. As long as you aren't overweight or very underweight, its not much of an issue.

Boss if you read the thread it is about 'women in combat' and you say physical standards required should be nominal ? Btw the standards ARE nominal i.e. just like in any degree course even though the cut off is 60% it does not follow that everyone above 60% will get an Engg seat likewise number of vacancies in armed forces automatically filter the candidates based on their physical fitness standards.

Its your intelligence, personality and leadership qualities that are really evaluated by the board.

Yes but they do not compensate or in any way make up for shortcomings in physical fitness if any. Leadership in fauj is not akin to usual netagiri; how do you propose to lead a group of jawans and men under you if you cannot keep pace with them , that is why during the initial training officers have to go through a much tougher grind.

The only real difference that fitness makes is damping the learning curve. Cadets with mediocre fitness will have a tougher initial two or three weeks than others but two months into the course you'd be hard-pressed to point out the individuals that joined while relatively unfit.

Boss you simply don't get the point if you are to select 10 people from a pool of say 125 (a typical SSB batch size) then it becomes incumbent that whatever be your eligibility criteria you will have to pick up top 10 finishers, not only from the process pov but it would fair thing to do as far as the candidates are concerned.

Presently the selection processes for boys and girls are separate and hence are their roles in the service.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 25 Sep 2011 17:39

Women IAF pilots shine in Sikkim relief

sevoke · Post by **sevoke** » 02 Oct 2011 16:33

Start of a new trend I hope.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 206379.cms

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 02 Oct 2011 17:12

^^
Now that is unexpected and impressive at the same time! Hats off to Mrs Shanti Tigga.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 02 Oct 2011 19:12

^^^

I hope that a she will be able to inspire a lot of her sisters in following her.

The fact she out performed men physically means that the standards will not have to be lowered in order to induct women in service.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2011 20:05

I hope the lady has a safe and effective career in a bastion of testosterone. Wish her luck.

prithvi · Post by **prithvi** » 02 Oct 2011 20:08

shiv wrote:I hope the lady has a safe and effective career in a bastion of testosterone. Wish her luck.

I passed out from a reputed Engineering College.. in Mechanical Engineering and in my department there were no girls ( a batch of 100 engineers)... for last 8 years....only in my batch a girl got herself admitted and it became a massive news and all the seniors folks came to see the girl as if some miracle had happened.. the girl though was a rowing and karate champion... Lolz...

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 02 Oct 2011 21:52

Same news report but with a photograph of the lady soldier at firing range.
http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?737000

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 02 Oct 2011 22:04

Nikhil T wrote:This is very tragic ...

First IAF woman officer to be court-martialled, Anjali Gupta commits suicide

As per the article, her suicide has nothing to do with her IAF court martial.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 03 Oct 2011 00:58

Good for her

Hope more such events occur

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 07 Nov 2011 06:48

Military dead against permanent commission for women across the board

Leave alone allowing them to serve on operational warships or fly fighter jets, or join infantry, artillery or armoured corps, Indian armed forces do not want women even to serve in all non-combat and support arms on a permanent basis.

Army has reiterated to the defence ministry that permanent commission (PC) to women officers should be "restricted" to only the legal (judge advocate general) and education ( Army Education Corps) wings as of now, sources said.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Nov 2011 14:58

^^^About time Services put their foot down and stop this nonsense.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 07 Nov 2011 15:19

Rohit

Are you for women serving in military in combat role or against? Your statement above is not clear.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Nov 2011 15:38

^^^Not serving.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 07 Nov 2011 23:09

"One big bunch of testosterone driven mards" is going to get thrown at the defense forces. Hope they're prepared to back up their views. Especially when we have a shortage of people. No hope at all.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 07 Nov 2011 23:20

Prasad wrote:"One big bunch of testosterone driven mards" is going to get thrown at the defense forces. Hope they're prepared to back up their views. Especially when we have a shortage of people. No hope at all.

On the whole, the Services experience with lady officers has not been a happy one.

The only long serving ladies are from the Army Medical Corps and that a whole other ballgame. No one objects to them.

The Army is very correct in taking a firm stand and should not be pressured by idiotic women's lib types who don't know their ......... from a hole in the ground, in these matters.

jagbani · Post by **jagbani** » 08 Nov 2011 15:18

At a time when the US is now allowing women to serve on board submarines and countries like Australia are dismantling all gender barriers to allow female troops to serve on the frontlines, India remains extremely reluctant to even give them permanent jobs in the military.
Source:- http://www.punjabkesari.in/punjab/fulls ... 58_153735-

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 08 Nov 2011 15:52

chetak wrote: On the whole, the Services experience with lady officers has not been a happy one.

The only long serving ladies are from the Army Medical Corps and that a whole other ballgame. No one objects to them.

The Army is very correct in taking a firm stand and should not be pressured by idiotic women's lib types who don't know their ......... from a hole in the ground, in these matters.

Even AMC has been a mixed experience. While some Lady Medical Officers are thoroughly professional but some forget about gender equality once they enter service and want special treatment. Many take advantage of the fact that most COs and senior Officers feel uncomfortable talking too harshly to a lady.
It is good that they don't get posted to forward areas unlike their male counterparts. It is IA's decision. However, Lady Officers are even reluctant to go to to Temporary duties! Leave alone TDs, many even don't go to firing practice when the whole unit has gone to do so. I have known of one lady MO saying something along these lines: "How can I go to firing practice? It goes on for such a long time in open area. Where will I pee if I feel like it?"

By god, why the hell did she join Armed Forces then?
So, it is not a surprise that many get Lady MOs get rejected for PC even in AMC. Again, this is not to paint all AMC lady Officers with a broad brush. As I have said before, some are thorough professionals.

BTW, does anyone know how IA's experience with Lady Officers has been in AEC and JAG?