Indian Woman for Combat Duties

[srevster]

 

[srevster]

 

[Killbot]

the conversation should be about. Even though women are physically weaker than men, how can we enable them to bridge the gap? Extra training, more infrastructure, better education.

you are pushing for status quoism and ignoring untapped potential. That’s the lazy and easy way out

Lmao . Women are intrinsically, physiologically weaker than men. No amount of training gonna change that.

 

[FGFAPilot1]

Lmao . Women are intrinsically, physiologically weaker than men. No amount of training gonna change that.

Do you really think our friend here lives in the real world.

His/her behaviour is the norm, there is no point in any discussion.

Yuri Bezmenov, "Facts do not matter any more"

 

[asaffronladoftherisingsun]

empowerment can happen thru other ways too, not just from women in combat.

This^^^^

Heres are my genuine concerns . Those supporting 'women entry into field combat' can address these points with facts and data before using any self defeating arguments as branding me a brahaminical patriarch lmao .

• Can equality be achieved forcibly?Bharat does not even have any problem with maintaining a standing army full of volunteers. Why such a hurry to jump into it?
• Women can(and have) play many important role in the army. How is it wise to push them into field combat ?
• Which franchise has allowed any direct competition between men and women, whether it is group or individual sports because we all probably know the result of any such competition.
• We took Kargil peaks in hand to hand fierce fight.Do we expect inbred porkys will do the same and send their women to fight ours?It is not Olympics.
• For all the photo-ops by Israeli and Kurdish female soldiers, one should understand that these countries are operating out of compulsion rather than any genuine care for women rights .
• Examples of israel not valid. We do not have a human resource crunch like israel. We actually have too much of it.
• Why all civilizations saved women and kids?Man are disposable.100 men are enough to repopulate with 1000 women, not other way around.
• Examples from amreeka not valid either. 40% women diagnosed with sever mental health conditions. This social experiment has not been successful in west. Also they are most screwed up forces with highest number of ptsd.
• Many studies reveal women are two to four times more likely than men to tear the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) in their knee. so even if they pass the same studies they are still much more prone to injuries than men due to physical diff, which is net loss to army .
• Inconvenient truth is that men and women have been each other’s most consistent distraction since the beginning of time. To pretend that we don’t know what will happen when men and women are thrown together for prolonged periods in emotionally intense situations defies common sense . Why should I not conclude this whole idea is a irrational femenist horseshit.
• Based on research in anthropology, biology, history, psychology, sociology, and law, as well as military memoirs. It asks hard questions that challenge the assumptions of feminists.For instance:
• Has warfare really changed so much as to reverse the almost unanimous history of all-male armed forces?
• Are men and women really equivalent in combat skills, even leaving aside physical strength?
• Do female troops respond to traditional types of motivations?
• Can the bonds of unit cohesion form in a co-ed military unit?
• What about the avalanche of intriguing psychological and military studies that examine male-female differences. Evidences that men are generally better able to carry the necessary gear, and that although even noncombatant women must be prepared to fight hand-to-hand, they are generally more cautious: we would rather solve the situation; if somebody has to die, then nobody really wins, explains one. Men have superior hand-eye coordination and situational awareness as well as a greater willingness to take risks and function better in hierarchies, he says. Women are more democratic and tend to resent taking orders, especially from other women, but overwhelmingly oppose complete equality (e.g., being assigned combat roles involuntarily on the same basis as men).
• What would be a better and more effective fighting force; an all male army or an all female army? If an all male army is better then how does adding women make it better? A sports analogy is appropriate. What is a better football, baseball, basketball, rugby, etc. etc. team; an all male team or an all female team? Even putting one woman on a football team would hurt that team's ability to win games.

Infact many military generals in west have opposed this feminist bs -
Deadly Consequences: How Cowards are Pushing Women into Combat.
Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn't Fight the Nation's Wars.

It is very unfortunate that the government is rushing through these decisions while even the most countries, without any real enemies at their borders and strong feminist lobbies, have deferred this tricky decision for too long.

 

[Cheran]

If there is world war 3 and we have to fight a 2.5 front war, we need every able soul to fight for the survival of the civilization. We need to train our women to fight.

Israeli army has mandatory service for women. Any civilization that comes close to dying will throw the chauvinistic attitude out the window and do what is necessary to protect itself.

India was there during British and Mughal times. There is no guarantee it won't happen again. Don't you want a population of women who have the avenue to train to fight and protect themselves.

My problem here is your reference to the practice of Sati. You have said "..... than a population of women that self immolate when their husbands die. "

Try to make your point without such unwanted reference.

 

[srevster]

My problem here is your reference to the practice of Sati. You have said "..... than a population of women that self immolate when their husbands die. "

Try to make your point without such unwanted reference.

Why not make this reference? It has historical presidency. I think women can’t only be treated as something men protect, but should be given a stakeholder seat when it comes to national security, defense and integrity

 

[Cheran]

Why not make this reference? It has historical presidency. I think women can’t only be treated as something men protect, but should be given a stakeholder seat when it comes to national security, defense and integrity

We are taking about women being inducted for combat duty in 2021.

So no. Sati does not apply.

 

[srevster]

We are taking about women being inducted for combat duty in 2021.

So no. Sati does not apply.

Um I’m not saying it does apply. I’m saying if the situation repeats you don’t want a population of women to consider that as an option. That is achieved by training a fighting force that isn’t just men

 

[asaffronladoftherisingsun]

We are taking about women being inducted for combat duty in 2021.

So no. Sati does not apply.

It was an exceedingly rare act. As Subhodeep Mukhopadhyay shows, even in the most aggressive estimate no more than 1 in 400, i.e. .25% of widows committed sati .

Re-examining historical evidence :
See - http://indiafacts.org/sati-historical-evidence/

I think women can’t only be treated as something men protect, but should be given a stakeholder seat when it comes to national security, defense and integrity

Answer these first -

See : https://defenceforumindia.com/threads/indian-woman-for-combat-duties.79283/post-1875589

 

[srevster]

This^^^^

Heres are my genuine concerns . Those supporting 'women entry into field combat' can address these points with facts and data before using any self defeating arguments as branding me a brahaminical patriarch lmao .

• Can equality be achieved forcibly?Bharat does not even have any problem with maintaining a standing army full of volunteers. Why such a hurry to jump into it?
• Women can(and have) play many important role in the army. How is it wise to push them into field combat ?
• Which franchise has allowed any direct competition between men and women, whether it is group or individual sports because we all probably know the result of any such competition.
• We took Kargil peaks in hand to hand fierce fight.Do we expect inbred porkys will do the same and send their women to fight ours?It is not Olympics.
• For all the photo-ops by Israeli and Kurdish female soldiers, one should understand that these countries are operating out of compulsion rather than any genuine care for women rights .
• Examples of israel not valid. We do not have a human resource crunch like israel. We actually have too much of it.
• Why all civilizations saved women and kids?Man are disposable.100 men are enough to repopulate with 1000 women, not other way around.
• Examples from amreeka not valid either. 40% women diagnosed with sever mental health conditions. This social experiment has not been successful in west. Also they are most screwed up forces with highest number of ptsd.
• Many studies reveal women are two to four times more likely than men to tear the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) in their knee. so even if they pass the same studies they are still much more prone to injuries than men due to physical diff, which is net loss to army .
• Inconvenient truth is that men and women have been each other’s most consistent distraction since the beginning of time. To pretend that we don’t know what will happen when men and women are thrown together for prolonged periods in emotionally intense situations defies common sense . Why should I not conclude this whole idea is a irrational femenist horseshit.
• Based on research in anthropology, biology, history, psychology, sociology, and law, as well as military memoirs. It asks hard questions that challenge the assumptions of feminists.For instance:
• Has warfare really changed so much as to reverse the almost unanimous history of all-male armed forces?
• Are men and women really equivalent in combat skills, even leaving aside physical strength?
• Do female troops respond to traditional types of motivations?
• Can the bonds of unit cohesion form in a co-ed military unit?
• What about the avalanche of intriguing psychological and military studies that examine male-female differences. Evidences that men are generally better able to carry the necessary gear, and that although even noncombatant women must be prepared to fight hand-to-hand, they are generally more cautious: we would rather solve the situation; if somebody has to die, then nobody really wins, explains one. Men have superior hand-eye coordination and situational awareness as well as a greater willingness to take risks and function better in hierarchies, he says. Women are more democratic and tend to resent taking orders, especially from other women, but overwhelmingly oppose complete equality (e.g., being assigned combat roles involuntarily on the same basis as men).
• What would be a better and more effective fighting force; an all male army or an all female army? If an all male army is better then how does adding women make it better? A sports analogy is appropriate. What is a better football, baseball, basketball, rugby, etc. etc. team; an all male team or an all female team? Even putting one woman on a football team would hurt that team's ability to win games.

Infact many military generals in west have opposed this feminist bs -
Deadly Consequences: How Cowards are Pushing Women into Combat.
Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn't Fight the Nation's Wars.

It is very unfortunate that the government is rushing through these decisions while even the most countries, without any real enemies at their borders and strong feminist lobbies, have deferred this tricky decision for too long.

• Can equality be achieved forcibly?Bharat does not even have any problem with maintaining a standing army full of volunteers. Why such a hurry to jump into it?

If a women trains to be stronger than an average man and wants to serve her country, she should not be denied the opportunity. This is an individual's choice. We are a volunteer force, so I don't see a reason for her to be disqualified on the basis of sex if she meets the criteria for acceptance.

• Women can(and have) play many important role in the army. How is it wise to push them into field combat ?

No one is pushing anybody. If you have volunteers, they shouldn't be denied the opportunity.

• Which franchise has allowed any direct competition between men and women, whether it is group or individual sports because we all probably know the result of any such competition.

Tennis doubles. Probably has more similarities to war than any of the games based solely on physical capabilities. Tennis doubles take strategy planning and requires cohesive teamwork.

• We took Kargil peaks in hand to hand fierce fight.Do we expect inbred porkys will do the same and send their women to fight ours?It is not Olympics.

If a women qualifies to join the team that was involved in the fight, I don't see a reason to deny her the opportunity to get some kills. Qualification is determined by selection. There are lots of women who are stronger than men and if they elect to be part of this force, who are we to deny them?

• For all the photo-ops by Israeli and Kurdish female soldiers, one should understand that these countries are operating out of compulsion rather than any genuine care for women rights .

So when you are compelled to use women in the fighting forces, they magically get abilities out of their hats to use in combat? What does it matter if a nation is compelled or not, only thing that matters is if the job gets done.

• Examples of israel not valid. We do not have a human resource crunch like israel. We actually have too much of it.

So if a women is a breadwinner for her family and has the physical fitness to qualify, she should be denied because of her sex because there is a surplus of men. Women can have the same motivations to join, and it can be related to supporting their family members.

• Why all civilizations saved women and kids?Man are disposable.100 men are enough to repopulate with 1000 women, not other way around.

It's wrong to assume that women need saving. It should be their choice on whether they are stakeholders with a seat at the table or victims who need saving.

• Examples from amreeka not valid either. 40% women diagnosed with sever mental health conditions. This social experiment has not been successful in west. Also they are most screwed up forces with highest number of ptsd.

Younger soldiers (20-30%) have a higher PTSD percentage in comparison to older soldiers (10-13%). Yet recruitment is focused on younger soldiers. Using your logic, we should only deploy soldiers 40 years and above.

• Many studies reveal women are two to four times more likely than men to tear the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) in their knee. so even if they pass the same studies they are still much more prone to injuries than men due to physical diff, which is net loss to army .

So is this criteria applied to men from different regiments. Can you use this argument to deny a regiment's participation in combat because they have a higher injury rate.

• Inconvenient truth is that men and women have been each other’s most consistent distraction since the beginning of time. To pretend that we don’t know what will happen when men and women are thrown together for prolonged periods in emotionally intense situations defies common sense . Why should I not conclude this whole idea is a irrational femenist horseshit.

In quantum mechanics, Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment that illustrates an apparent paradox of quantum superposition. In the thought experiment, a hypothetical cat may be considered simultaneously both alive and dead as a result of being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur.

In a simple answer, you won't know the answer until you open the box and take a look for yourself. What you are preaching is also called decision paralysis. It's the inability to enact change or take a decisive decision. It's much more pragmatic to bypass the decision paralysis, using OODA loop to quickly come to a conclusion based on facts. So far I haven't seen any evidence from active deployment that women have a negative impact on the performance of a regiment.

• Based on research in anthropology, biology, history, psychology, sociology, and law, as well as military memoirs. It asks hard questions that challenge the assumptions of feminists.For instance:
• Has warfare really changed so much as to reverse the almost unanimous history of all-male armed forces?

Yes, machine guns, guided munitions and swarm drone warfare negates any biological advantage a male soldier brings to the table. You can't bench press your way of this type of combat.

• Are men and women really equivalent in combat skills, even leaving aside physical strength?

Yes, Stalingrad had many ace pilots who were women and snipers who registered a high amount of kills. maybe you should study history and not make conclusions based on conjectures or hypothesis with cognitive dissonance.

• Do female troops respond to traditional types of motivations?

No, the army will have to adjust management style and accomodate to bring out their best fighting capabilities. Once again, the OODA loop is the best iterative mechanism for quick adaptation and changing of tactics.

• Can the bonds of unit cohesion form in a co-ed military unit?

Interdisciplinary and diverse teams always outperform homogenous group think teams. Diversity of thought leads to greater creativity. Friction is healthy and should be celebrated. Friction creates stronger bonds and mechanisms.

• What about the avalanche of intriguing psychological and military studies that examine male-female differences. Evidences that men are generally better able to carry the necessary gear, and that although even noncombatant women must be prepared to fight hand-to-hand, they are generally more cautious: we would rather solve the situation; if somebody has to die, then nobody really wins, explains one. Men have superior hand-eye coordination and situational awareness as well as a greater willingness to take risks and function better in hierarchies, he says. Women are more democratic and tend to resent taking orders, especially from other women, but overwhelmingly oppose complete equality (e.g., being assigned combat roles involuntarily on the same basis as men).

All of these qualities are good and bad based on the circumstances. Lot of your statements are conjecture. Let's look at actual combat where women were deployed and give me examples of where they fell short. Stalingrad is a great battle to study. let me know if all of your statements were true or false in the context of stalingrad.

I will give you a reason why women are better soldiers. They are better at listening.

Women tend to be better soldiers because they listen during their training and use the training to accomplish their goals. Because of their tendency to listen, they are better at shooting than men.

It’s because they take better instruction than men. Usually women come into a course without a preconceived idea of shooting stands, trigger press or any of the other things that ‘the guys at the range’ taught them.

• What would be a better and more effective fighting force; an all male army or an all female army? If an all male army is better then how does adding women make it better? A sports analogy is appropriate. What is a better football, baseball, basketball, rugby, etc. etc. team; an all male team or an all female team? Even putting one woman on a football team would hurt that team's ability to win games.

Team dynamics, trust, collaboration, communication, empathy, and Focus are better metrics of why you will win games. The team that runs the hardest, fastest and longest doesn't always win. It's the team that functions better as a unit that wins. That doesn't come down to strength. You aren't very adept in people management or have a very basic emotional intelligence.

 

[DocK]

Um I’m not saying it does apply. I’m saying if the situation repeats you don’t want a population of women to consider that as an option. That is achieved by training a fighting force that isn’t just men

If situation repeats… India as it's history full with Female warriors and even generals from Rani Laxmi Bai and Ahilyabai Holkar to more recent Captain Laxmi Sehgal of Azad Hind Fauj. When In Crisis women have not only fought along men but also commanded them. You need not borrow Stalingrad every time.

My problem starts with the team. If a team is ambushed (yes we are not patrolling Canadian border) the women will be targeted. Not because they are weak but because the men in the unit will take Unacceptable Risks just to protect them. Not knowingly, but as a cultural force that will not let these comrades be killed.

You did mention that if women soldiers participated and died of free will in Galwan Clash it should be their choice. Well 20 soldiers lost their lives and India was baying for blood. Can you for a second imagine if 1 only 1 of them had been a female?

1 The soldiers who survived the clash were still happy about Avenging Col. Babu. If even 1 female had died we would not have Any Survivors as they would have literally roamed the Chinese side killing till they were killed.
2 The government would have been under so much pressure that no amount of Economic Harm to China (which I believe is the best retaliation) would suffice, leading to an all out war. And irrespective of what anyone will say we are NOT PREPARED for a war.

We need to industrialise our military before we induct female cadre in the Fighting Formation. Planning, logistics and drone are all good but we as a society are not ready to see female form draped in Tricolour.

 

[ezsasa]

This^^^^

Heres are my genuine concerns . Those supporting 'women entry into field combat' can address these points with facts and data before using any self defeating arguments as branding me a brahaminical patriarch lmao .

• Can equality be achieved forcibly?Bharat does not even have any problem with maintaining a standing army full of volunteers. Why such a hurry to jump into it?
• Women can(and have) play many important role in the army. How is it wise to push them into field combat ?
• Which franchise has allowed any direct competition between men and women, whether it is group or individual sports because we all probably know the result of any such competition.
• We took Kargil peaks in hand to hand fierce fight.Do we expect inbred porkys will do the same and send their women to fight ours?It is not Olympics.
• For all the photo-ops by Israeli and Kurdish female soldiers, one should understand that these countries are operating out of compulsion rather than any genuine care for women rights .
• Examples of israel not valid. We do not have a human resource crunch like israel. We actually have too much of it.
• Why all civilizations saved women and kids?Man are disposable.100 men are enough to repopulate with 1000 women, not other way around.
• Examples from amreeka not valid either. 40% women diagnosed with sever mental health conditions. This social experiment has not been successful in west. Also they are most screwed up forces with highest number of ptsd.
• Many studies reveal women are two to four times more likely than men to tear the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) in their knee. so even if they pass the same studies they are still much more prone to injuries than men due to physical diff, which is net loss to army .
• Inconvenient truth is that men and women have been each other’s most consistent distraction since the beginning of time. To pretend that we don’t know what will happen when men and women are thrown together for prolonged periods in emotionally intense situations defies common sense . Why should I not conclude this whole idea is a irrational femenist horseshit.
• Based on research in anthropology, biology, history, psychology, sociology, and law, as well as military memoirs. It asks hard questions that challenge the assumptions of feminists.For instance:
• Has warfare really changed so much as to reverse the almost unanimous history of all-male armed forces?
• Are men and women really equivalent in combat skills, even leaving aside physical strength?
• Do female troops respond to traditional types of motivations?
• Can the bonds of unit cohesion form in a co-ed military unit?
• What about the avalanche of intriguing psychological and military studies that examine male-female differences. Evidences that men are generally better able to carry the necessary gear, and that although even noncombatant women must be prepared to fight hand-to-hand, they are generally more cautious: we would rather solve the situation; if somebody has to die, then nobody really wins, explains one. Men have superior hand-eye coordination and situational awareness as well as a greater willingness to take risks and function better in hierarchies, he says. Women are more democratic and tend to resent taking orders, especially from other women, but overwhelmingly oppose complete equality (e.g., being assigned combat roles involuntarily on the same basis as men).
• What would be a better and more effective fighting force; an all male army or an all female army? If an all male army is better then how does adding women make it better? A sports analogy is appropriate. What is a better football, baseball, basketball, rugby, etc. etc. team; an all male team or an all female team? Even putting one woman on a football team would hurt that team's ability to win games.

Infact many military generals in west have opposed this feminist bs -
Deadly Consequences: How Cowards are Pushing Women into Combat.
Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn't Fight the Nation's Wars.

It is very unfortunate that the government is rushing through these decisions while even the most countries, without any real enemies at their borders and strong feminist lobbies, have deferred this tricky decision for too long.

Me thinks this women in combat narrative is little more sinister than that..

If we make a list of countries where this “women in combat” is being seriously propagated, next to that column we make a list of each country’s primary & secondary adversaries, high probability that “women in combat” narrative will be absent from the adversary list. which essentially means, if WIC does get implemented and proper infantry combat does occur it would be unevenly matched with adversary having the upper hand in certain theatres of war during combat. Likelyhood of adversary just punching thru and gaining upper hand, tilting the balance in adversary’s favour.

 

[Aspirant847]

If there is world war 3 and we have to fight a 2.5 front war, we need every able soul to fight for the survival of the civilization. We need to train our women to fight.

Israeli army has mandatory service for women. Any civilization that comes close to dying will throw the chauvinistic attitude out the window and do what is necessary to protect itself.

India was there during British and Mughal times. There is no guarantee it won't happen again. Don't you want a population of women who have the avenue to train to fight and protect themselves.

we have enough men to do that and we don't even have the capacity to train the whole nation like those small nations do, it's a necessity for them not for us.

 

[Aspirant847]

Me thinks this women in combat narrative is little more sinister than that..

If we make a list of countries where this “women in combat” is being seriously propagated, next to that column we make a list of each country’s primary & secondary adversaries, high probability that “women in combat” narrative will be absent from the adversary list. which essentially means, if WIC does get implemented and proper infantry combat does occur it would be unevenly matched with adversary having the upper hand in certain theatres of war during combat. Likelyhood of adversary just punching thru and gaining upper hand, tilting the balance in adversary’s favour.

and most of the countries that have this only have this mostly for the name, they don't mostly go to actual combat, that is just a result of those social justice warriors like our very own @srevster

 

[Aspirant847]

dude I've met and I could ace her, no offence to her it's just biological.

She can train to be a good marksman but she'll never be as strong as her men and she won't be respected as a leader as much as a man would be respected

 

[Aspirant847]

Why not make this reference? It has historical presidency. I think women can’t only be treated as something men protect, but should be given a stakeholder seat when it comes to national security, defense and integrity

dude they do enough already, no need to burden them more with actual physical work

 

[Aspirant847]

I believe the national security comes over individual need to serve, a woman may have a good heart and want to serve but we can't let her do that at the cost of our national security. A chain is as weak as it's weakest link.

There are other places where they can serve and they're welcome to serve there.


And who was saying US female soldiers are as good as men? Many of them get knocked up before their deployment and skip it, multiple times. Tons of excuses. The men have to constantly stop for the women team to catch up and many more such instances.

Whether you want to believe it or not if women come in the standards will be lowered. It's happened in most of the countries that did it and we're no special.

You can always say the training at NDA and IMA will be more hardy and brutal than training at OTA.

 

[asaffronladoftherisingsun]

If a women trains to be stronger than an average man and wants to serve her country, she should not be denied the opportunity. This is an individual's choice. We are a volunteer force, so I don't see a reason for her to be disqualified on the basis of sex if she meets the criteria for acceptance.

I told you to refute me with hard scientific data and facts and not the pseudo hippy bs. You have a lack of understanding of issues and a utopian idea to have women in combat.
Even Army chief General Rawat acknowledged that women are not ready to enter combat roles. He has very reasonable grounds to make this statement. Your incohorent fallacy dont matter. Unless you claim to be more qualified than Army chief himself lulz.Also there are certain school yard outcasts who also demand feminists fundamental rights to go into mens toilet. Hell... I will never piss in a ladies toilet . Is it gender discrimination? It is not. It is common sense.
> women wants to be stronger than average man LOL
The military is watering down fitness standards because most female recruits can’t even meet them.
In September 2015 the Marine Corps released a study comparing the performance of gender-integrated and male-only infantry units in simulated combat. The all-male teams greatly outperformed the integrated teams, whether on shooting, surmounting obstacles or evacuating casualties. Female Marines were injured at more than six times the rate of men during preliminary training—unsurprising, since men’s higher testosterone levels produce stronger bones and muscles. Even the fittest women (which the study participants were) must work at maximal physical capacity when carrying a 100-pound pack or repeatedly loading heavy shells into a cannon.

Male officers spend most of their time in frontline positions along the LoC in direct combat, in places like Siachen where the temperature goes below -50 degrees, and in counter-terrorism and insurgency operations in places like Jammu and Kashmir and the northeast.After such difficult postings, away from families, officers look forward to coming back to peace stations where they can take up command positions.
Now, if these positions are given to women officers, where would the male officers go? Should they remain in hard postings? Is this not counter discriminatory to the officer, his wife, children and parents?

No one is pushing anybody. If you have volunteers, they shouldn't be denied the opportunity.

Most Female Recruits cant even Meet New Pullup Standard and you are talking about giving them oppurtunity.Half of female Marines fail 3-pullup assignment. Simply because men and women are naturally born unequal.

What liberals did in Europe was legalizing “freedom, equality, fraternity” without having them in reality. They want just put an ape together with a human being and legalize their “equality” without making them equal. Equality is the last thing such act results in. If you grant equal rights to a human and to an ape, it ends with an ape having all rights and a human having no rights – no right even to survive, since after some time an ape will want to eat and to fuck somebody.

Tennis doubles. Probably has more similarities to war than any of the games based solely on physical capabilities. Tennis doubles take strategy planning and requires cohesive teamwork.

AHAHAHAHAHAHHA . Tennis doubles is similar to war now. You know what Playing hearts of iron 4 has more similarities too. It also requires tactical strategic planning and teamwork. Now you can conquer Russia in just 3 hours.

If a women qualifies to join the team that was involved in the fight, I don't see a reason to deny her the opportunity to get some kills. Qualification is determined by selection. There are lots of women who are stronger than men and if they elect to be part of this force, who are we to deny them?

In Siachen, there are posts with only four soldiers. They sleep and share the same cramped post to attend nature’s call. Can one imagine a female soldier there?
Soldiers undertake patrols that last for over 20 days at times. During this period, the men sleep and bathe together, and do the morning chores in open, often with another team keeping a watch for a possible ambush. There can be no separate arrangements for women.One can go on and cite numerous examples. It is important to stop pushing the romantic notion of women in combat roles and start thinking from a practical point of view, keeping the reality in mind.
There are many more examples that prove beyond doubt that your paranoid fallacy flinging about women entering combat roles in army will only cause more problems rather solutions

The Modi government told the Supreme Court that women may not be able to meet the challenges and hazards of military service due to their “psychological limitations and domestic obligations”.
It also said that male troops, who are predominantly drawn from rural backgrounds, may be unwilling to “accept” a woman commander. They have raised reasonable arguments.

So when you are compelled to use women in the fighting forces, they magically get abilities out of their hats to use in combat? What does it matter if a nation is compelled or not, only thing that matters is if the job gets done.

BS.And the family structure gets cucked . Kurds women are fighting because they have no choice left. 5 million syrian children have suffered as a result in absence of mothers. They are fighting because they are facing existential crisis. They are fighting not because of women empowerment and that they want to fight. The war has been forced upon them. Their homes are already destroyed.In Israel, too, women are mostly deployed in the military police and perimeter security rather than in actual combat. You are comparing two different scenarios which doesnt make any sense.
Your shitty social experiment will only be a waste for resources.

So if a women is a breadwinner for her family and has the physical fitness to qualify, she should be denied because of her sex because there is a surplus of men. Women can have the same motivations to join, and it can be related to supporting their family members.

Men and women are naturally born unequal. But through division of their efforts in organized civilization – women giving their all in feminine jobs, that have a lot of use without breaking women’s delicate bodies, and men concentrating in masculine ones – their income (and therefore quality of life) equalizes because all services are needed, while their impact grows maximum because everyone is realizing their best talent. What feminists did was destroying natural division so that women break their spine gold mining, while men stagnate, their masculine character softens and effeminizes until they are no more suitable for their natural role – protection of nation .

It's wrong to assume that women need saving. It should be their choice on whether they are stakeholders with a seat at the table or victims who need saving.

Your argument is based on pure bs. I ask again. Why all civilizations saved women and kids?Man are disposable.100 men are enough to repopulate with 1000 women, not other way around.

Younger soldiers (20-30%) have a higher PTSD percentage in comparison to older soldiers (10-13%). Yet recruitment is focused on younger soldiers. Using your logic, we should only deploy soldiers 40 years and above.

Are you dyslexic too ? 40% women diagnosed with sever mental health conditions. YOur social experiment to invite women into comat roles has not been successful in west.
I can quote you hundreds of failed examples. Heres one -
In fall 2012, only two female Marines volunteered for the 13-week infantry officers training course at Quantico, Va., and both failed to complete it. Also all female Marines were supposed to be able to do at least three pullups on their annual physical fitness test and eight for a perfect score. The requirement was tested in 2013 on female recruits at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C., but only 45 percent of women met the minimum.

So is this criteria applied to men from different regiments. Can you use this argument to deny a regiment's participation in combat because they have a higher injury rate.

Now you are a confirm dyslexic. Heres my original argument. Which you havent bothered to read . The injury rate is higher not because of difference in regiment you donkey nicompoop.
I post it again.Many studies reveal women are two to four times more likely than men to tear the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) in their knee. so even if they pass the same studies they are still much more prone to injuries than men due to physical diff, which is net loss to army .

quantum mechanics, Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment that illustrates an apparent paradox of quantum superposition. In the thought experiment, a hypothetical cat may be considered simultaneously both alive and dead as a result of being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur.

In a simple answer, you won't know the answer until you open the box and take a look for yourself. What you are preaching is also called decision paralysis. It's the inability to enact change or take a decisive decision. It's much more pragmatic to bypass the decision paralysis, using OODA loop to quickly come to a conclusion based on facts. So far I haven't seen any evidence from active deployment that women have a negative impact on the performance of a regiment.

LOL quantum mechs has been invoked. This is common tactic of quote whoring is used extensively by pseudo intellectuals. Nothing says "smart" quite like being a pretentious jackass full of other people's ideas and creativity! The discerning pseudo-intellectual will be sure to use really obscure quotes that nobody probably haven't heard of in order to really show off just how well read and book learned they are to all those who are beneath them and their Brobdingnagian sagacity.
Tu Kharcha karega kya be all adjustment ka aab? Capital requirements aur projects k liye khoob costing hoti h. Tera chutiyapa k chakkar mein koi beda garak nhi karega uska

Yes, machine guns, guided munitions and swarm drone warfare negates any biological advantage a male soldier brings to the table. You can't bench press your way of this type of combat.

LOL yet It's also not clear whether 85 percent of women could complete basic training. This is what happens.

Interdisciplinary and diverse teams always outperform homogenous group think teams. Diversity of thought leads to greater creativity. Friction is healthy and should be celebrated. Friction creates stronger bonds and mechanisms.

This is a yet another attempt to sound like you are techies, but you have wound up coming out as nothing more than misguided hipsters repeating everything apple's ads said.
Trying to lead 18 to 20 year olds with all the hormones and bravado that comes with them one can not see adding females into the mix. The fact is that modern military operations are not an individual endeavor, it is always a group effort. The effect of placing women in a combat unit, even if one could be found who was as capable as the man she would be replacing, would cause problems in esprit-de-corps, or male-bonding, which is the glue that holds these units together. Placing women into ground combat units would cause problems in real or perceived favoritism, attempts to protect the weaker sex, sexual liaisons, sexual harassment, sexual assaults, pregnancies, privacy, and a general weakening of the combat unit in conducting its mission.

All of these qualities are good and bad based on the circumstances. Lot of your statements are conjecture. Let's look at actual combat where women were deployed and give me examples of where they fell short. Stalingrad is a great battle to study. let me know if all of your statements were true or false in the context of stalingrad.I will give you a reason why women are better soldiers. They are better at listening.Women tend to be better soldiers because they listen during their training and use the training to accomplish their goals. Because of their tendency to listen, they are better at shooting than men.It’s because they take better instruction than men. Usually women come into a course without a preconceived idea of shooting stands, trigger press or any of the other things that ‘the guys at the range’ taught them.

AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.Suka blyat those army groups lost stalingrad because of cominterim womensniper. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAAA


Good joke buddy.

Team dynamics, trust, collaboration, communication, empathy, and Focus are better metrics of why you will win games. The team that runs the hardest, fastest and longest doesn't always win. It's the team that functions better as a unit that wins. That doesn't come down to strength. You aren't very adept in people management or have a very basic emotional intelligence.

BS. It requires a societal change first with most terrible repurcussions. Even countries such as the amreeka have only recently started inducting women in infantry combat roles. There is no evidence of its success.Subhumans tortured Saurav Kaaliya. Imagine the outpouring of emotions nationally if this was a women.

 

[asaffronladoftherisingsun]

Me thinks this women in combat narrative is little more sinister than that..

If we make a list of countries where this “women in combat” is being seriously propagated, next to that column we make a list of each country’s primary & secondary adversaries, high probability that “women in combat” narrative will be absent from the adversary list. which essentially means, if WIC does get implemented and proper infantry combat does occur it would be unevenly matched with adversary having the upper hand in certain theatres of war during combat. Likelyhood of adversary just punching thru and gaining upper hand, tilting the balance in adversary’s favour.

Well equal opportunity for women serving in uniform has been mistakenly transformed into a strictly legal interpretation of total equality horseshit. The people pushing women into combat do not have the security of our nation in mind, nor, I believe, do they even have the long term well being of our nation at heart. They offer arguments that do not hold water. They have only a radical leftist political agenda as rationalization, Putting women into ground combat units will absolutely blow delicate family structures that are absolute must for the survival of Dharma.