Should India allow women into combat roles?

[doppelganger]

Hi,

Don't take this as an insult, but from your views stated above, you should read more.

Physical strength is not the only parameter that defines characteristics of a combatant. Women can match and exceed endurance of their male combatants, along with that they can surpass their male counterparts in presence of mind, exceptional focus, discipline and patience (yes patience, WWII a female polish sniper waited for 3 days in her location for the right shot) . Along with that with the right training and right placement among men, women fighters have time and again proved their mettle on the battlefield in Soviet army, IDF, US armed forces etc.

Fyi women fighter pilots have shown better resistance to higher G forces than their macho counterparts. Also Women combatants have proven themselves as exceptional snipers. Female covert ops have been responsible for changing fates of wars in modern history. So I do think women have place active combat. Absolutely YES!

Nothing changes the fact that a woman is simply not as physically strong as a man.

A basic 3 day march for an infantryman means he has to hump between 35-40 kilos in gear and equipment. This is the norm the world over. And surprisingly even with modern technology, this weight has not changed much in the history of ground warfare for hundreds and even thousands of years (if one goes by ancient accounts). With stuff getting lighter, it just means the grunt gets to carry a lot more.

Very few women, even those in peak physical shape, are built to carry those loads, not just to carry and put down, but to carry them over 16 km day after day humps, 3-4 days at a stretch. Carry and still be able to fight.

Yes I know of all the examples you pointed out. But you can fight the enemy, but you cannot fight genetics or physics.

A jawan also has to spend his time away from his child because he wants to serve his country,women can make such compromises ,if she wants to go down that road.

She still has to give birth.

And for that she has to get pregnant.

A pregnancy lasts 9 months.

Basic early lactation before bare minimum weaning lasts another 6.

 

[WAJsal]

Nothing changes the fact that a woman is simply not as physically strong as a man.

A basic 3 day march for an infantryman means he has to hump between 35-40 kilos in gear and equipment. This is the norm the world over. And surprisingly even with modern technology, this weight has not changed much in the history of ground warfare for hundreds and even thousands of years (if one goes by ancient accounts). With stuff getting lighter, it just means the grunt gets to carry a lot more.

Very few women, even those in peak physical shape, are built to carry those loads, not just to carry and put down, but to carry them over 16 km day after day humps, 3-4 days at a stretch. Carry and still be able to fight.

Yes I know of all the examples you pointed out. But you can fight the enemy, but you cannot fight genetics or physics.

So this thread went from
Should India allow women into combat roles? to Male vs female.

 

[doppelganger]

So this thread went from
Should India allow women into combat roles? to Male vs female.

The whole discussion is male versus female. The world over, where similar decisions have been debated and either adopted or not.

 

[WAJsal]

She still has to give birth.

And for that she has to get pregnant.

A pregnancy lasts 9 months.

Basic early lactation before bare minimum weaning lasts another 6.

Its not farz to give birth to a child you know.

 

[doppelganger]

Its not farz to give birth to a child you know.

My point is, the male's biological job is done in a day. The female is out of circulation for a year and half.

All things (farz etc.) being equal.

 

[WAJsal]

The whole discussion is male versus female. The world over, where similar decisions have been debated and either adopted or not.

Here we go grade 5 all over again.

 

[vsdave2302]

Not advisable. Women are not made for war. In history of conflicts, Women have played a little role and there are few examples where women fought war in shoulder to shoulder to men.

 

[WAJsal]

My point is, the male's biological job is done in a day. The female is out of circulation for a year and half.

All things (farz etc.) being equal.

makes sense.

 

[doppelganger]

Here we go grade 5 all over again.

Depends on the seriousness you give to the discussion. I see it as life and death. Not my weenie stronger than you beanie.

 

[MilSpec]

Nothing changes the fact that a woman is simply not as physically strong as a man.

A basic 3 day march for an infantryman means he has to hump between 35-40 kilos in gear and equipment. This is the norm the world over. And surprisingly even with modern technology, this weight has not changed much in the history of ground warfare for hundreds and even thousands of years (if one goes by ancient accounts). With stuff getting lighter, it just means the grunt gets to carry a lot more.

Very few women, even those in peak physical shape, are built to carry those loads, not just to carry and put down, but to carry them over 16 km day after day humps, 3-4 days at a stretch. Carry and still be able to fight.

Yes I know of all the examples you pointed out. But you can fight the enemy, but you cannot fight genetics or physics.
.

Ok let me ask you this, can you do a basic 3 day march lugging 35-40 kilos? or a bench 300 lbs. If you can than good for you, but the bottom line remains is Human Resources are resources, If women cadets are eager and can pass the required criterion for combat deployment she should have all the rights to serve her nation that fits her best.

If a woman cadet can perform better in combat training than her counter parts, why shouldn't she get the spot she deserves.Meritocracy shouldn't have a gender bias. It's as simple as that.

 

[doppelganger]

Ok let me ask you this, can you do a basic 3 day march lugging 35-40 kilos? or a bench 300 lbs. If you can than good for you, but the bottom line remains is Human Resources are resources, If women cadets are eager and can pass the required criterion for combat deployment she should have all the rights to serve her nation that fits her best.

If a woman cadet can perform better in combat training than her counter parts, why shouldn't she get the spot she deserves.

Good question.

Because the world over, not just in India, there is growing discontent about the basic qualification requirement being watered down at the altar of gender equality and PC. And under pressure from strong lobbies for political gain.

That's a fact. And her I invite you to read up on the debate in the US and Canada for instance.

 

[punit]

True but dont you think it should be one's personal decision and if she wants to do something for the country by working for the Armed forces so be it,i highly doubt if she gets any time for that as apparently most women have

in India.

women dont rear child in pakistan !

 

[WAJsal]

women dont rear child in pakistan !

They do .

 

[punit]

They do .

thanx god !

 

[Assange]

Yes woman should be allowed to fight....We should give them equal opporutnity to prove their skills set....