Women in Armed Forces

[Roshan]

Present day Bengal and Kerala don't get to rest on the laurels of their past Heroes.

Truth is, too much matriarchy and liberalism is the reason for downfall of these states and patriarchal Islam will steamroll these states if Hindus don't wake up.

BTW I agree that extreme patriarchy like Taliban is wrong too.

Both these places are where they are since the advent of Communism, not because of their ancient culture. Matrilineal societies are not the same as neo liberal feminist randikhanas with all their irreconciliable contradictions who ignore essentialism. It's something devi worshipping Hindus especially should try to understand.

 

[Roshan]

Yes well there are pros and cons. It's not coincidence either that kerala and Bengal have contributed the most # of great Hindu sages - shakaracharya, chanakya , Chaitanya.
Bengal-bihar ( same culture for most part in terms of women especially the maithili and anga belt) also was nexus central of universities of India.
Not to mention, Bengal literary renaissance produced literature greater than sum total of rest of India.

Now look at the opposite of bengal/kerala: pathans. The culture where women are your slaves. And where are they today ? Exactly where they were 1000 years ago. But none dare fuck with pathans or be mad enough to conquer them.

So what is the conclusion, especially if u see modern western feminism in this context ??

That a woman centric society is one of change at warp speed and thrives on finer things of life. But warp speed change is also a scattershot and u take 2 steps forward and then 2 steps backward: you get women's education and more societal support but you also get transgender nonsense.

While male centric society is definition of stuck in time-capsule warrior society where life totally sucks and no one wants to live in, but none shall dare fuck with you.

Your root cause analysis is itself flawed, as if being women centric is the only reason they attained a veritable cultural zenith. It's reductio ad absurdum of the worst kind which does a disservice to our own cultural heritage.

 

[Roshan]

Stress is stress. Handling stress is making correct decisions when you are at elevated levels of anxiety, tiredness, irritation, etc.

That is the scientific parameter for stress- what causes it is largely irrelevant to how one acts under said stress.

Women have faaar better and proven ability than men in making correct choices and optimal decisions under heightened cortisol levels, sleep deprivation, anxiety, etc.

That is what it means, in scientifically tested terms. And in this parameter, we men are literal house cats and women are tigers. The data on that is incontrovertible.

No it isn't lol. Not even close. A lot of the biology around child rearing makes women a lot more neurotic and more prone to stress btw, not just for themselves but also others. You can't make a claim both ways.
Never mind that if the roles were to be reversed and men were forced to take up the nurturing duties they would still mog women but they don't/won't make a big deal about it. Single dads make for better parents than single moms for a reason. This zero sum game is why feminist ideologues - unsuspecting or otherwise - keep needing reality checks.

 

[Roshan]

Lmao, Bengal is the most bhagwa pilled state in the making. 5-7 years more and it might just become the next Gujarat.

And Bengal is not 'matriarchal', lol. Far from it. A handful of online intellectuals do not represent the state.

Mullas are an issue in all the states bordering kangladesh where unchecked border crossings have taken place for decades. Why does Bengal alone get singled out for it? The Assamese were running oogabooga separatist movements even as the kanglus and miyas were changing demographics in their bordering districts. Why do they get a free pass, just cuz they have started electing the BJP in recent years?

Despite all the shit ya'll throw at Kolkata intellectuals, these guys were electing Jan Sangh candidates as MPs as early as in 1951-52. Following which, the party (and its successors) dropped the ball and would not recover until after 2016...

Do you know what else is a fact? That the Maoists/Naxals (both the junglee breed and their urban backers) have drawn their elite leaders/intellectuals/cadres from the Telugu belt! I do not see you making a fuss over it either.

Hindu nationalist movement wouldn't have existed without Bengal and Bengalis, all the ideological spadework to lay it's foundations was done by them or people like SRG who were from Calcutta. Problem is the trope for the avg Bengali currently - rightly or wrongly - is the unwashed commie ideologue from Kolkata who happens to be henpecked & online at least this demography is well represented. There are plenty of based ones to go around both now and ofc in history.

 

[Waanar]

I have a great idea which will end all debate on whether females should be allowed in combat.

Take multiple batches of all men and all women squad. Train them through the pipeline the regular infantry goes through.

Put them in a proper wargame and let us see. I'm willing to bet my life savings on one side. If you aren't, you're unsure and talking out of your ass.

Sometimes, the answer is really simple. Muddying the waters with "this one trait" and "that one thing" helps no one.

 

[Physx32]

I have a great idea which will end all debate on whether females should be allowed in combat.

Take multiple batches of all men and all women squad. Train them through the pipeline the regular infantry goes through.

Put them in a proper wargame and let us see. I'm willing to bet my life savings on one side. If you aren't, you're unsure and talking out of your ass.

Sometimes, the answer is really simple. Muddying the waters with "this one trait" and "that one thing" helps no one.

Americans have already done that:

Women do have higher stress tolerance, but that alone doesn't make them better in the battlefield.

Marines study: Women in combat injured more often than men - UPI.com

Research on a test unit of U.S. Marines suggests women in combat get injured more often and shoot less accurately than men , a study released Thursday said.

www.upi.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/09/10/marine-experiment-finds-women-get-injured-more-frequently-shoot-less-accurately-than-men/

The fact is that women cannot be sent to the frontlines. But that shouldn't be an issue as there are several roles in the military where they can be useful and equally good as men (like drone operations, piloting cargo planes, etc).

 

[Waanar]

Americans have already done that:

I wish people would think rationally sometimes. This forum constantly surprises me pleasantly and unpleasantly. Smart people sometimes start giving ass tier takes on certain topics.

The one place where I'll concede having women could have some use is the fighter pilot community.
Shorter bodies allow better G force resistance. That still gets negated by the immense morale hit (to the nation as a whole, not just the forces) if one gets captured alive.

People here are talking like we're going to fight Sweden or some civilized country who'll absolutely stick to the rules set out by Geneva convention or something.

You idiots, we're surrounded by savages who dream of raping women more than killing men.
They're so far up in the savage category, they loop around to being progressives by having a culture of fucking men and young boys in the form of bachabaazi.

Have you already forgotten Saurabh Kalia?
When the inevitable push for PoK starts, do you think we will not have similar cases again?

Let's put another test forth.

Take the most fit, gym going, BJJ trained woman from your family and put her in a room with me, an untrained, mildly fit chapri. Let's see what the outcome is.




You feel that surge of irritation and anger?

You thought "How dare he talk of our womenfolk?", didn't you?

I'd question your manhood if you didn't.

Now, don't advocate for other women to go do something that is exactly that but on steroids.

When Kurds or Ukrainians do it, it's out of unavoidable necessity. You aren't in the position to need to do that.

Don't advocate for stupid stuff. Be real.


P.S- I mean no disrespect to any woman. I'm speaking exclusively to the male feminists here.

P.P.S- I've seen how easily you people are swayed during this Op's peak. Any bad news was world ending and any good news made you euphoric and enlighted by your intellect.

If this was you guys (who range from somewhat knowledgeable to borderline autistic on military matters), consider how easily the general public will be swayed with the morale hit of having a female captured.
Just don't.

I've seen this thread go to shit with the discussion when there are conclusive experiments showing women perform worse on combat duties.


P.P.P.S- All of this nitpicking of "this one trait that women may have an advantage over men in" is stupid. A person functions as a whole, not a single trait. This isn't a MMORPG where you'll add all your points to charisma trait to the point where your character can go through a pacifist playthough.
They will have to ruck, they will have to run and they will have to do everything men do.

 

[asl001]

Women in combat roles is a big mistake, particularly against the desert cult enemies. I fear we will regret this in a future war.


View: https://x.com/ShivAroor/status/1926185220916584781?t=yuFu4Bc_DIkfgRRAmEDxOg&s=19

It's okay, it's not frontlines . It's air defence right. It's not like, they will move with armoured column in the war , i guess.

 

[asl001]

I don't mind, seeing women in artillery too. Where there is a distance from the frontlines.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

Telugu states had a naxal problem no doubt.

Difference is, the general population in Telugu states didn't elect Commies even once unlike Bengalis who elected them for 3-4 decades before switching to Mamata.

When Bengal elects BJP and imposes violence on sullas, I'll accept your claim of Bengal being bhagwapilled. Till then, I'll see Bengal as a state where mullas impose violence and Bengali H's turn the other cheek.

Missing from this analysis is WHY Bengal went communist- we aren't kerala where communism has actual Marxist base, bengalis went communist simply because we took a " anyone but congress traitors" stance ever since then netaji incident and tipping point was congress pointedly sidelining our first CM simply because he was " too bhagwa" according to Nehru.

Ask any bong who is 70+ and they will proudly tell you they would rather vote for Osama bin laden than Nehru.

This is also why communism died the moment actual congress party split into congress and trinamool.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

Your root cause analysis is itself flawed, as if being women centric is the only reason they attained a veritable cultural zenith. It's reductio ad absurdum of the worst kind which does a disservice to our own cultural heritage.

It isn't that only reason. But it is the main driving reason. As I said, whether it's women centric Bengal or feminism peddling western, women dominant societies change at warp speed while men dominant societies are much more or a time capsule society frozen in an era. Even amongst western societies, those that are more women centric, such as French culture, evolve at a much faster speed than male centric ones, such as Russia.

This is because Women are fundamentally " emotion oriented", meaning they are far more willing to change things due to feelings, while men are fundamentally more " security oriented", meaning they are more willing to keep the status quo antebellum, as long as it serves the security interests.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

No it isn't lol. Not even close. A lot of the biology around child rearing makes women a lot more neurotic and more prone to stress btw, not just for themselves but also others. You can't make a claim both ways.
Never mind that if the roles were to be reversed and men were forced to take up the nurturing duties they would still mog women but they don't/won't make a big deal about it. Single dads make for better parents than single moms for a reason. This zero sum game is why feminist ideologues - unsuspecting or otherwise - keep needing reality checks.

That's illogical- those who handle far more stress are more vulnerable to stress ?!
That doesn't make sense.
Men don't mog women in role of nurturing. Because men can't handle stress as well as women can. Duh. Single dads don't make for better parents than single mom's and there is hardly any data to conclude this, given how rare single dads are and how much more prone men are in abandoning children and being shit at basic child care compared to women.

I ain't a feminist, you need to read the thread on feminism to figure out that not being a chauvinist like you doesn't make me a feminist.

Women are masters of dealing with people - social hierarchies and children - because they can handle stress a lot better than men and there is nothing more stressful than keeping social hierarchies intact and managing them.
Something we men Suck extremely at.

As I said, women outperform men in stress management at such a superior level, it's like comparing usa and Iraq in military power.
The data on this, as I said is overwhelming and it's clear you have not seen the data on this topic and are just speaking out of your feelings only.

 

[Roshan]

It isn't that only reason. But it is the main driving reason. As I said, whether it's women centric Bengal or feminism peddling western, women dominant societies change at warp speed while men dominant societies are much more or a time capsule society frozen in an era. Even amongst western societies, those that are more women centric, such as French culture, evolve at a much faster speed than male centric ones, such as Russia.

This is because Women are fundamentally " emotion oriented", meaning they are far more willing to change things due to feelings, while men are fundamentally more " security oriented", meaning they are more willing to keep the status quo antebellum, as long as it serves the security interests.

This women centrism you see is an effect and not cause. It is not that you decide to become gynocentric and thus as a result produce high culture soon later. You will find primitive tribes across the world too who are matrilineal. In India from Kashmir to Tamil Nadu you will find great scholarship and work of immense scholarly and spritual merit being produced regardless of whether they were matrilineal or not.
In the Wests case Id argue that their feminism is patriarchy Pro plus max and their societies have generally been far less gynocentric for a millenium at least since the Church became dominant. These movements happened primarily because of the industrial revolution and how it changed society rather than the core value system undergoing a significant change.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

This women centrism you see is an effect and not cause. It is not that you decide to become gynocentric and thus as a result produce high culture soon later. You will find primitive tribes across the world too who are matrilineal. In India from Kashmir to Tamil Nadu you will find great scholarship and work of immense scholarly and spritual merit being produced regardless of whether they were matrilineal or not.
In the Wests case Id argue that their feminism is patriarchy Pro plus max and their societies have generally been far less gynocentric for a millenium at least since the Church became dominant. These movements happened primarily because of the industrial revolution and how it changed society rather than the core value system undergoing a significant change.

No. It is root cause.
Bengal at least right before advent muslim invasion WAS as woke as the western world is today - we followed tantric Buddhism and tantric Hinduism, which is LITERALLY " when in doubt, just relax, phook some ganja and have some sex" way of life.

Why the hell do you think the first thing that happened when kannadiga chalukya vassals conquered Bengal ( Sen were kannadiga), is import shit tons of orthodox brahmins ( kulin brahmins) from Kannauj ??
Because Bengal & bihar were literally as woke and asleel sex crazed cultures like modern day west today.

You compare like to like. When you compare gynocenteism vs masocentrism, you have to compare like to like. A farming settled one to another farming one. A hunter gatherer one to another hunter gatherer one. And when you do that it's clear cut - gynocentrism yeilds more high culture, masocentrism yeilds more high security.

In India the historic centre or gravity of high culture production is bihar-bengal region. Ie, the gynocentric region of India, at least in the north.

Modern west is far easier to explain and you will see this with your own children if you follow this simple axiom: when you rule via a highly illogical and fascist system of governance you enforce through a belief System and then suddenly destroy that belief System as false, those who " had their faith crushed" will act like a typical rebellious teen and go to the polar extreme opposite end to act out/dance on the corpse of the prior dead system.

Don't believe me ? Try it on your kids- raise them from age 5-10 as ultra-orthodox patit-a-pavan-siya-ram and then suddenly go " this is all bullshit, ram, Sita are all bullshit".
You will have a tattoo freak polyamorous kid in no time.

 

[Roshan]

That's illogical- those who handle far more stress are more vulnerable to stress ?!
That doesn't make sense.
Men don't mog women in role of nurturing. Because men can't handle stress as well as women can. Duh. Single dads don't make for better parents than single mom's and there is hardly any data to conclude this, given how rare single dads are and how much more prone men are in abandoning children and being shit at basic child care compared to women.

I ain't a feminist, you need to read the thread on feminism to figure out that not being a chauvinist like you doesn't make me a feminist.

Women are masters of dealing with people - social hierarchies and children - because they can handle stress a lot better than men and there is nothing more stressful than keeping social hierarchies intact and managing them.
Something we men Suck extremely at.

As I said, women outperform men in stress management at such a superior level, it's like comparing usa and Iraq in military power.
The data on this, as I said is overwhelming and it's clear you have not seen the data on this topic and are just speaking out of your feelings only.

Child care and nurturing is not the most stressful job in the world. Don't kid yourself. And so no, they are not more adept at 'dealing with stress' than men. Saying there is data to support this again and again when there isn't and you're just hallucinating things doesn't count for anything. Women being the more emotional and neurotic sex who are more prone to meltdowns and letting their hormones get the better of them is not just basic biology but can also be backed up with data and real life observations that have a sample size basically the whole of human civilization to attest to it. There are no ifs and buts about it unless you're in denial or don't know head or tail of what you're talking about, especially with regards to being 'stress resistant'. Generally and broadly that means not succumbing to frequent emotional outbursts, especially not experiencing negative emotions more intensely than is necessary, keeping a calm head in a crisis - more than just dealing with a bawling baby -, being rational and logical along with courage, basically pre requisites if you intend to lead/govern. You're not telling me women have men beat in all this as a group unless you're on a wind up and have psyched yourself to buy into falsehoods that patently don't hold upto any scrutiny. And no, your personal anecdotes about some poker game don't matter here.
I mean they can barely effectively govern themselves and we are supposed to buy that the whole social hierarchy is handled by women as a conclusion to the fact that biologically they are supposed to raise/nurture kids? Talk about a gigantic leap of logic with basically squat-all data to back it up except/ in spiyr of shrill rhetoric.

 

[Roshan]

No. It is root cause.
Bengal at least right before advent muslim invasion WAS as woke as the western world is today - we followed tantric Buddhism and tantric Hinduism, which is LITERALLY " when in doubt, just relax, phook some ganja and have some sex" way of life.

Why the hell do you think the first thing that happened when kannadiga chalukya vassals conquered Bengal ( Sen were kannadiga), is import shit tons of orthodox brahmins ( kulin brahmins) from Kannauj ??
Because Bengal & bihar were literally as woke and asleel sex crazed cultures like modern day west today.

You compare like to like. When you compare gynocenteism vs masocentrism, you have to compare like to like. A farming settled one to another farming one. A hunter gatherer one to another hunter gatherer one. And when you do that it's clear cut - gynocentrism yeilds more high culture, masocentrism yeilds more high security.

In India the historic centre or gravity of high culture production is bihar-bengal region. Ie, the gynocentric region of India, at least in the north.

Modern west is far easier to explain and you will see this with your own children if you follow this simple axiom: when you rule via a highly illogical and fascist system of governance you enforce through a belief System and then suddenly destroy that belief System as false, those who " had their faith crushed" will act like a typical rebellious teen and go to the polar extreme opposite end to act out/dance on the corpse of the prior dead system.

Don't believe me ? Try it on your kids- raise them from age 5-10 as ultra-orthodox patit-a-pavan-siya-ram and then suddenly go " this is all bullshit, ram, Sita are all bullshit".
You will have a tattoo freak polyamorous kid in no time.

We disagree on the polairites and I think you're being a little too reductionist both in terms of Dharmic history and what value system a culture owes its origins and merits to because of the conclusions you seem to want to draw so there's no point expanding this one without' omitting a lot of nuance and doing it all a big disservice. What you call a 'fascist system of belief as one polarity is in fact quite feminine and irrational, not the epitome of peak masculinity you seem to believe it is. My way or highway is as narcissistically feminine as it gets which is pretty much Islam or Xtianity in having a jealous God who sets very clear red lines.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

Thanks for doubling down and proving that you're only a demigod in so far as peddling the usual specious feminist tropes are concerned and trying to use your degree to convince people as if we are all libtard halfwits who cannot think for ourselves like you & need 'expert guidance' like a lot of the Cancucks you are surrounded by. Academics nowadays - especially of the soft sciences variety - not having touched grass and their useless theories made in some ideological echo chamber deserve only to be treated and dismissed with contempt regardless of how much they themselves are unaware of it or try hard to project like you do by accusing others of having an ideological tilt or 'being unqualified'.

Don't care, you don't have any data anyway so what some evolutionary biology hack which you might have cherry picked said doesn't matter. Just by the sounds of it I can tell it must be wild. You suffering from some mind virus from a place of deep ignorance and along with an inability to think critically is not due to someone else's 'ignorant chauvinism' I'm afraid. You can masturbate to all the theories you want to, I'm sure you can find some rationale for these theories which also say children are capable of providing consent and can experience orgasms apart from gender being a social construct which by itself will blow a hole in the merit of copious amounts of 'research' trying to disprove any differences between men and women to advance feminist goals. A lot of data will support it and a lot of studies have also been conducted in this regard recently.

Heightened pain sensitivity is also why pain tolerance for women is much lower. The only advtg is they can experience some punishment due to having to bear kids but that's far from the only excruciating physical pain one can possibly be subjected to. Your avg woman is far less resilient to physical beatings, never mind mental stress which is why this whole 'mental health' industry which relies primarily on female psychology and championing victimhood is so big nowadays. Regularizing if not romanticizing anxiety and depression along with a host of other 'boutique disorders' like body positivity, anorexia etc which women tend to suffer from much more than men contradicts this quite clearly. And I haven't even gotten into anecdotal experiences of everyday life where your garden variety slay queen makes a big deal out of the slightest inconvenience and would likely blame 'systemic Brahminical/white xtian misogyny' for it. Only someone living under a rock with no interaction with the opposite sex, no observation skills or the ability to glean any nuance from those interactions/observations would disagree with this unless he was an ideologically possessed simp determined to die on a hill.

Army specifically mentioned physical requirements being lowered but you ask anyone who has to work with/recruit them and they will tell you of the host of other issues they bring too. Bipin Rawat stated quite categorically that they don't entertain any gender equality delusions for a reason and increasing their numbers before he died, just like they don't entertain any kind of caste based affirmative action in the armed forces. If it was only physical it wouldn't need to be that emphatic a statement. They will retain a token amount and in roles where their presence makes no perceptible difference to the overall performance of the institution.

Radfem ideology of yore is what you see as the vanilla femcel ideology today that is all over pop culture and permeating every day interactions. I'm not the ignoramus here, you are the one devoid of any context. Overton window has already shifted considerably.
PS Your Magadh guard (?)is superceded by a gorillion other examples of women not being fit for combat so not being entrusted with it or being downright saboteurs, never mind men being so much more superior that it doesn't even make a difference to point it out or make a case for them.They wouldn't need protecting otherwise, often asking for it themselves with a sense of great entitlement. Unremarkable exceptions who don't in anyway disprove the rule but serve only to emphasize it more. I'm sure as a Maths MSc you can grasp this.

I am going to double down because you are speaking nonsense.
There is no such thing as a soft science. Don't insult science by calling arts degree crap of social studies, psychology, etc as a science. That's what artsi people do, not actual science degree holders. We don't see them as science.
Having said that, we also don't throw the baby out with the bath water and when they got the data we listen.

Stress testing on sex based sample size is quite voluminous in track record and the data is absolute on this. The end.
Same with pain tolerance. Women have 2x the threshold of men in tolerating pain.

Bipin Rawat should've studied chanakya and seen effect on society by militarizing womenfolk like israel did.

And if you think being royal guard of the most powerful empire of its time is due to affirmative action of some woke maurya, right under chanakyas nose, I will say your feelings are clouding your judgement. How very womanly of you.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

We disagree on the polairites and I think you're being a little too reductionist both in terms of Dharmic history and what value system a culture owes its origins and merits to because of the conclusions you seem to want to draw so there's no point expanding this one without' omitting a lot of nuance and doing it all a big disservice. What you call a 'fascist system of belief as one polarity is in fact quite feminine and irrational, not the epitome of peak masculinity you seem to believe it is. My way or highway is as narcissistically feminine as it gets which is pretty much Islam or Xtianity in having a jealous God who sets very clear red lines.

I am reductionist because I KNOW history better than anyone here except perhaps Azad. And I know world history far more than he does.
I have omitted no nuance, I have summarized the topic- obviously it will be reductionist if you don't want a 4 page essay on the topic : all summaries are reductionist. Again, duh.

If you read closely the actual muslim sources, the two main regions of India Made caricature of, for having temple Whores and sex sex sex culture, is Sindh and bihar-bengal. The writing of khiiljis, etc are actually talking of bengal and bihar, not the soorseini region or rajputana. Why ? Coz both these regions were clusterfuck of tantric Buddhism competing with either tantric Hinduism or such for popular appeal.

The fascist system of belief I speak of, is Christianity: stfu and obey and don't ask questions on any and all depravity we have.

The reforms in Christianity are due to a strategic mistake catholics made: they copied Islam and BANNED translation of the Bible and made it mandatory that it remain in Latin, but the Bible ITSELF lacks command on no translation, which the Koran contains. So eventually some German dudes ( Martin luther) worked up the balls to call it " roman imperialism" and enact structural reform- which kept gaining Momentum once the dam was breached.

My point was, as history shows, when you implement a highly illogical and fascist control system and then take it away in blink of an eye, the masses who had their faith taken away act in polar extreme opposite way as a psychological 'making up for lost time' .
This is what the west ie going through now and west is eating a double whammy- they not only had their religion being shown as nonsense, they also are coping with their main societal system: racism and white supremacy- also being shown as nonsense simultaneously.