IAF No Induction of Women

[deckingraj]

Overwhelming emotions! There are a few points that I would also like to make. A basic understanding of some of which (or lack of it) is going to shape our world in the time ahead. .

I am on the other side of the river when it comes to this topic...So yes you are right about "Overwhelming Emotions" however the only difference is they are from your side .....

@Topic
We need to look at this issue from the point of view of IAF. It is their particular consideration that they do not deem feasible that their trained fighter pilot (upon whom enormous amount of money and resources is spent to turn them into fighter pilots) may not be available on crucial times because of very genuine reason of maternity leave and may be even after that,

Now if this is not emotions than what else can be??? Do you honestly think that you are applying your brain here and talking something concrete??? What made you think that women won't be available on crucial times because they are pregnant??? when people here are clearly saying that put this bloody no pregnancy clause till this age in their contracts...Do you really believe in those child hood stories that god comes and leave a baby in the tummy of mom and that's how baby is born??? We are talking about fighter pilots here they are not some illetrate dumb people who know nothing about contraceptives..condoms...and heck what not....Get it right women don't need a 1-0-1 from anyone on how to control pregnancies...

as still in our societies mother's are both emotionally enthusiast and obliged to look after the upbringing of their children and spend most of the time with them. Father's do not play such a major role (and I truly believe they cannot) in the early days of a child. The social demographic of India is different from that of western countries. Here mothers usually do not leave behind their children to nannies.

Oh really??? So how do the children of working women get raised??? Do they take them to offices with them??? Again we are just snubing them thinking they will get pregnant without even considering the fact that they joined IAF with some commitments and contracts...This is 21 centuary for god sake....

Furthermore, IAF cannot propose any sort of punitive action for getting pregnant in the course of the service, because you cannot punish a woman for getting pregnant, that would be very inhuman. So talk of pe-conditions is totally irrelevant. They would either have to decide to recruit them or not to recruit them. The decision, whether it is for or not, should not be looked upon as being gender biased.

This to me is again lame and is nothing but gender biased...Can you guarantee that men folks will not break contracts that they have signed with IAF??? If the answer is no then why this bais with women??? If they indeed break the contract by getting pregnant than they will have to face punitive actions...WHY NOT??? but snubbing them saying that no matter what they will break the contract, is lame excuse....

 

[Valiant_Soul]

I am on the other side of the river when it comes to this topic...So yes you are right about "Overwhelming Emotions" however the only difference is they are from your side .....

I am not sure why you made this comment, as if responding emotionally is inappropriate. I was referring to the women members here and that expression means nothing disrespectful, but simply signifies powerful emotions being displayed.

Now if this is not emotions than what else can be??? Do you honestly think that you are applying your brain here and talking something concrete???

Again you misjudged me and yourself as well. Re-read my post and yours, still if you are unable to distinguish who is responding emotionally and who is not, then so be it.

What made you think that women won't be available on crucial times because they are pregnant??? when people here are clearly saying that put this bloody no pregnancy clause till this age in their contracts...Do you really believe in those child hood stories that god comes and leave a baby in the tummy of mom and that's how baby is born??? We are talking about fighter pilots here they are not some illetrate dumb people who know nothing about contraceptives..condoms...and heck what not....Get it right women don't need a 1-0-1 from anyone on how to control pregnancies...

What made you think that I am making that point? Did you get my point? Who is talking about controlling pregnancy here? Women want to have children. There is strong emotions in them that sneaks in after a certain age (different for different women). And that is the point - they may want to have children after a certain age, and for example, when they do go for a maternity leave and a war begins and they are straightaway required for the service, what happens then? Just a situation, I am not saying that it cannot be managed. May be it can, may be it cannot at some point. And those are crucial points in war.

Oh really??? So how do the children of working women get raised??? Do they take them to offices with them??? Again we are just snubing them thinking they will get pregnant without even considering the fact that they joined IAF with some commitments and contracts...This is 21 centuary for god sake....

They get maternity leave indeed, and then they prefer to pursue their carrier instead of the upbringing of their children, which is entirely a personal choice, but certainly not the right example to set, unless of course there are unavoidable situations. Yes this is 21st century and you are free to do a lot of things, you are even free to shy away from your primary responsibilities. Heck do they even realize them?

This to me is again lame and is nothing but gender biased...Can you guarantee that men folks will not break contracts that they have signed with IAF??? If the answer is no then why this bais with women??? If they indeed break the contract by getting pregnant than they will have to face punitive actions...WHY NOT??? but snubbing them saying that no matter what they will break the contract, is lame excuse....

Okay so you are suggesting that IAF can take action on them for getting pregnant? Very well, if women agree to this. But as I said they have to take and they are taking social demographic of the country into account. Also IAF knows how much they require from their pilots (in terms of time), and they will have to see whether women fits into their bill.

@Topic
I truly believe that IAF is capable of making a sensible decision. I think this issue has come up because they are being pressed to look into it, which means there are enough interested candidates. It will be interesting to see what kind of contract they come up with, in case they decide in favor of the case.

 

[Kinshuk]

My bad, I didn't realize I was talking to a child, you probably still remember the comforts of your mother’s womb. But what you don't know is the ordeal your mother endured for ten months to bring you into this world. There is a reason why men are not the bearer of babies, had that been the case the human race surely would have become extinct a long time ago.

Yes, a child isn't it?

But a PRODIGY.

Ask your mother if it was ruthless.. Or you have problem with vocabulary then please check the literal meaning of "ruthless". I know the pain women bears but its not RUTHLESS... Just calling someone child don't make you an adult and yes might be quite infirm with your old age. If you don't have basic english skills I can't help it... And if you wanted to attack my post then should have used the proper subsitute for the word "RUTHLESS".

My bad, I didn't know I was talking to a senile personality.

 

[deckingraj]

@Topic
I truly believe that IAF is capable of making a sensible decision. I think this issue has come up because they are being pressed to look into it, which means there are enough interested candidates. It will be interesting to see what kind of contract they come up with, in case they decide in favor of the case.

Ignoring everything else let me respond to this one....Yup it woud be interesting to see what kind of contract they come up with - as far choosing in favor i am sure they will if they are sensible(which i know they are)...otherwise they have to come in open and tell the reasons which i am sure will be embarrasment for them....because there are no justified reasons apart from our obsessions with Man is protector of the family...

 

[Kinshuk]

I wanted to say something but I had pormised not to discuss on this topic.. Lol!!! K carry on..

 

[Kinshuk]

Death.By.Chocolate

Sorry Sir, I was quick, I just took 9 months, Oh now I know why it was ruthless.. 10 months lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[garibnawaz]

I believe he mentioned pregnancy leave ...

Legally bind women to not get pregnant for ten years after training?

What punishment if they do get pregnant, on purpose or accident?

IAF has no such rule. Hence from IAF point of view this can't be answered.

Scientifically best time for a woman to get pregnant and have babies is her 20's.

An officer is commissioned at 20-21 at the latest. 10 Years means having a baby after 30 years of age.

Not a good thing.

GB

 

[Hyde]

it says it takes 11.66 crores to train 1 fighter pilot and 13-14 to recover

how do they recover money from that pilot?

 

[r0ck]

I am sorry though i have no intentions to twist your words yet i dont find them balanced by any stretch of imagination...

Let me tell you why...As you said that

You see, as air chief you cannot afford the slightest of chances even the slightest, to affect the efficiency of your air squad

It is like saying that Air-Chief should not allow his so called macho air squad not to venture on roads because who knows they get killed in road accidents....don't let them have drinks,smoke for obvious reasons....Don't let them have sex with anybody - so that their should not be slightest chance of them catching all those STD's..HIV's out there...i know all this sound absurd...but the same way your reasoning about concerns of pregnancy sounds absurd to me...

The way there is every chance for a macho fighter pilot to break rules and then thrown out of Air Force the same way their is a chance of women getting pregnant and thus subjected to diciplinary actions...Putting anything more to it is like saying women are dumb and they love to get pregnant even though their line of duty don't expect them to...

I hope you see the distinction that i am trying to put here...

I see how 'absurd' this really is. The slightest of chances of 'pregnancy' are now dwindled upon accidents, alcohol, kitchen's sink etc. etc. You know what, I won't go in an argument to try explain what I meant, I can see some people are not just willing to accept the truth. Truth that they can't handle, truth that really hurts.

Ok here we go, we're in the 21st century now. Armed Forces of the world are ever researching to try and find ways to 'improve' their soldiers' capabilities, to improve effectiveness, to improve psychological behavior, to minimise potential limitations, to screen out and nullify natural weaknesses or limitations, to enhance the morale of the side by side standing soldier, etc. etc. So as regards to all of you because the world's Armed Forces are full of attitude, machonistic and male-chauvinist thinking, they are not letting women aboard 'certain' positions. That is simply mind boggling for me to say least, utter BS to say the most. Why will they not let women aboard those positions when they're equally capable or could be better options.

Some people here think that the military follows a 'men-only' doctrine thus implying their actions as not being in the best interests of the nation when not hiring women. These people think they know more than their Armed Forces and can do a better hypothesis than their Armed Forces, and can from the comfort of their keyboards can conclusively say that the Armed Forces themselves are not doing a good job regarding gender specific positions.

And yes I've seen how a (very) few women became successful 'fighter' pilots. Now I ask all of you a simple question? If they can do an 'equally' capable job then why are they not there in 'equal' numbers? Now please..............please don't say it's a 'male' attitude or ego related problem. The Armed Forces will take every inch and every bit of help in strengthening their soldiers, without even giving a horse's back about who's male or female. They will take the best, and maintain the best, and provide the best environment for these best individuals to operate, to comprehensively confront a foe in a war-time situation.

I've said it already on some other thread that women can, are and should be completely at par with men. I'm not a doctor but can certainly say that the decision to not allow women to be 'fighter' pilots has to have a meaning other than machoism and male-ego problems. I'm sorry, I really am, but enthusiasm or willingness just doesn't cut it when you're going for a fighter pilot program, I suppose there are a lot of other natural abilities and limitations to also take into account.

If you still think I'm incorrect, I willing to stand corrected once I see the defence of any nation in a women-dominant airforce/army. But until then, get to terms with the reality people.

 

[Kinshuk]

it says it takes 11.66 crores to train 1 fighter pilot and 13-14 to recover

how do they recover money from that pilot?

Arey its not that you will recover the money in actual sense. But if the pilot serves for complete service term, it can be regarded as the best investment, As he has been available to the airforce when and where required.

 

[Hyde]

Arey its not that you will recover the money in actual sense. But if the pilot serves for complete service term, it can be regarded as the best investment, As he has been available to the airforce when and where required.

oh ok..... i thought may be asking pilots to fly Indian Airlines jets in free time and recover money by charging Indian Airlines.........

 

[Valiant_Soul]

I think this issue has come up because they are being pressed to look into it, which means there are enough interested candidates. It will be interesting to see what kind of contract they come up with, in case they decide in favor of the case.

A correction. I think the senior IAF officers are commenting on this issue not because there are interested candidates, of course how can they know that there are interested candidates when women cannot apply for the position. I think they are commenting because the issue has been raised by the President of India. So now they have a stance to take, but they are already suggesting their view that it is not a "good investment".

 

[Kinshuk]

oh ok..... i thought may be asking pilots to fly Indian Airlines jets in free time and recover money by charging Indian Airlines.........

Lol!!!! No they are different organisations. In fact they are rivals. IAF would hate the most if a Pilot leaves the term and fly for Indian Airlines or Jet airways etc. And this happens a lot. IA, JA, Kingfisher pays hell lot, in lakhs, where in IAF you are in thousands..

 

[Nemesis]

There is no scientific, economical, biological, etc reason for not having women as fighter pilots in the air force. The "women have to take maternity leave" excuse is not new. It was heard the day women starting leaving the home to work alongside men in whatever field.

The IAF is recycling 19th century thinking. Basically the IAF sees the fighter pilots as one of the last male bastions and does not want to yield. Patriarchy at its finest. Obviously the air force is headed by very old men with very old ideas. Let's see how long it lasts.

 

[deckingraj]

I see how 'absurd' this really is. The slightest of chances of 'pregnancy' are now dwindled upon accidents, alcohol, kitchen's sink etc. etc. You know what, I won't go in an argument to try explain what I meant, I can see some people are not just willing to accept the truth. Truth that they can't handle, truth that really hurts.

Ok here we go, we're in the 21st century now. Armed Forces of the world are ever researching to try and find ways to 'improve' their soldiers' capabilities, to improve effectiveness, to improve psychological behavior, to minimise potential limitations, to screen out and nullify natural weaknesses or limitations, to enhance the morale of the side by side standing soldier, etc. etc. So as regards to all of you because the world's Armed Forces are full of attitude, machonistic and male-chauvinist thinking, they are not letting women aboard 'certain' positions. That is simply mind boggling for me to say least, utter BS to say the most. Why will they not let women aboard those positions when they're equally capable or could be better options.

Some people here think that the military follows a 'men-only' doctrine thus implying their actions as not being in the best interests of the nation when not hiring women. These people think they know more than their Armed Forces and can do a better hypothesis than their Armed Forces, and can from the comfort of their keyboards can conclusively say that the Armed Forces themselves are not doing a good job regarding gender specific positions.

And yes I've seen how a (very) few women became successful 'fighter' pilots. Now I ask all of you a simple question? If they can do an 'equally' capable job then why are they not there in 'equal' numbers? Now please..............please don't say it's a 'male' attitude or ego related problem. The Armed Forces will take every inch and every bit of help in strengthening their soldiers, without even giving a horse's back about who's male or female. They will take the best, and maintain the best, and provide the best environment for these best individuals to operate, to comprehensively confront a foe in a war-time situation.

I've said it already on some other thread that women can, are and should be completely at par with men. I'm not a doctor but can certainly say that the decision to not allow women to be 'fighter' pilots has to have a meaning other than machoism and male-ego problems. I'm sorry, I really am, but enthusiasm or willingness just doesn't cut it when you're going for a fighter pilot program, I suppose there are a lot of other natural abilities and limitations to also take into account.

If you still think I'm incorrect, I willing to stand corrected once I see the defence of any nation in a women-dominant airforce/army. But until then, get to terms with the reality people.

I totally wanted to ignore your post but then decided otherwise....I did not want to be rude especially when you have take so much time and pain to right all that....I hope you will understand my reluctance to post same thing again and again....so let me highlight your conclusion and ask vey specific question...

I've said it already on some other thread that women can, are and should be completely at par with men. I'm not a doctor but can certainly say that the decision to not allow women to be 'fighter' pilots has to have a meaning other than machoism and male-ego problems. I'm sorry, I really am, but enthusiasm or willingness just doesn't cut it when you're going for a fighter pilot program, I suppose there are a lot of other natural abilities and limitations to also take into account.

Very well said...Now can you please enlighten me any natural abilities/limitations that you are aware of??? The only reasons that are given are

- Physical weakness
- Bilogical Difference
- Sexual exploitation

Can you suggest me anything more than that???

I have already said so many times but let me repeat again..

- Physical weakness - Have the same physical test for men and women...Don't lower the bar for women...If someone qualify accept them....It would be lunatic of me to say that women are physically stronger than men...however it is equally lunatic to say women cannot compete with men on physical aspect and thus allow those who qualify as per your guidelines

- Bilogical Difference - Have a contract with them. You cannot get pregnant for 10-15 years or whatever as per your requirements...Leave the choice to women weather they want to give birth during their prime time or choose to serve the nation....

- Sexual explotation - Absurd logic...Women very well know what is at stake if they get caught...However as per geneva conventions any kind of torture to a POW is an international crime...