Pakistani Special Forces should induct women in combat roles?

[Pakistanisage]

I am all for it as long as they adhere to same Physical and Intellectual Standards as their male counterparts. We don't need " Trophy Soldiers " in Combat.

 

[Jf Thunder]

They dont have worldly laws mixed with Islam, they have their *** backwards culture with their bullshit customs mixed with Islam to satisfy the egos and insecurities of equally *** backward barbarians saudis. Now where in the hell do they come up with a law that women cant drive. That shit has so so so much crazy even Allah would be like wtf.

We have the same issues with our mullas here, plus our tribals are equally if not more assbackwards. Thinking guns are a man's jewellery, no wonder they are still living with cave mentality and couldnt be any further from Islam with their tribal fucking bs customs and what not.

Hey if a mulla stamp is on anything then i guess thats that, and if we go against it then we're kuffar and asshole narrowminded two bit mullas like the resident PDF terrorist sympathizer Zarvan will put a fatwa for qatl on you and stroke his beard parroting alhamdulillah, jazakAllah. Such is our conundrum.

dude, that's just the point, extremist people are giving the beard and the words "Alhamdulillah" and "JazakAllah" a bad name, we shouldn't call these things bad just because of some black sheep

 

[Armstrong]

Idk about Pakistan, but in Australia, females are not allowed in combatant roles and for good reason.

There is a very small minority of women that could meet the physical standards for the regular forces, but by and large they won't be able to. For non-combatant roles, I can accept less than equal physical standards.

The special forces is another story. There can't be any lapse in standards for them.

Sexist !

Bhabi ko yahiii post word-to-word jaaa rahiii haii !

Khair jokes aside - I dunno if there is a study that substantiates that !

I thought I read somewhere that a women's body is better able to cope with higher G forces then their male counterparts - If that is true & I don't know if it or it isn't I just recall reading it somewhere, then maybe some of that is transferable to other physical attributes as well !

 

[F.O.X]

Not a Good idea .. The operational requirements of a Army Sf team is very diverse & their scope is very wide .. women SF soldiers will not fit in that environment , and it will decrease the operational potential of any team .

We already have women SOF in training under police , that is all we need for now .

 

[kbd-raaf]

Sexist !

Bhabi ko yahiii post word-to-word jaaa rahiii haii !

Khair jokes aside - I dunno if there is a study that substantiates that !

I thought I read somewhere that a women's body is better able to cope with higher G forces then their male counterparts - If that is true & I don't know if it or it isn't I just recall reading it somewhere, then maybe some of that is transferable to other physical attributes as well !

In civil employment, the average female physical performance is limited to two thirds of the physical performance of men by regulations.[20][21][22] The different physical gender-performance is standardized in ISO 11228 (Ergonomics - Manual handling) and EN 1005 (Safety of machinery - Human physical performance).

The Center for Military Readiness, an organization that seeks to limit women's participation in the military, stated that “Female soldiers [are], on average, shorter and smaller than men, with 45-50% less upper body strength and 25-30% less aerobic capacity, which is essential for endurance”.[23]

The female skeletal system is less dense, and more prone to breakages.[24][25] There is also a concern that, in aviation, the female body is not as adept at handling the increased g-forces experienced by combat pilots. However, there is evidence that the male body is less able to handle the g-forces than the female body with regard to black outs: women are less likely to black out due to shorter blood vessel routes in the neck.[26] Furthermore, health issues regarding women are argued as the reason that some submarine services avoid accepting women, although mixed-gender accommodations in a small space is also an issue, as is explained in more depth below.[23]

The Austrian Armed Forces, significantly lower physical performance requirements for entrance test and subsequent tests apply to female soldiers fitness for service.[27][28] The Swiss Armed Forces abolished this advantage for female soldiers in 2007.[29]

The United States Marine Corps is implenting the Infantry Officer Course (IOC) to test the physical abilities of their female officer candidates for those who apply for the combat positions. [30]

- Women in combat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An answer for pretty much all of your concerns.

 

[Abingdonboy]

AFAIK there is no professional SOF in the world with full-time female SF operators. And in fact very few militaaries that even allow women in combat roles.

Looking purely from an objective stand point one has to say that from a biological point of view the vast majority of women are just not cut out for the Spec Ops- they are fundamnetally built differenlty to men, they can't build muscle as easily, they are more prone to get injured especially on their hips- so it is hard to beleive many would pass the basic SF selection process that most men cannot pass. If you start artifically lowering selection criteria for women you are heading down a slippery path that will only damage your force as a whole. And unless the female operators have undergone the exact same rigorous selection and training process as their male counterparts they will be nothing but a liability in theatre.


It just isn't a practical idea.


And this isn't just me being sexist but this opinion has been formed by quite a bit of research on the topic.

If you want to see a real life example of this just take a look at the issues the USMC is facing trying to get females into their combat arms- to date not 1 has passed even basic selection(for infantry officers) even though the physical standards have been lowered for females anyway. And this is the USMC- not even SFs.

Then one has to wonder if these women could even be useful in the feild- there is no way they would be able to haul as much as their male counterparts and given the SFs are the tip of the spear- the best of the best in any military, would they really excel in the high tempo hardcore world of SOFs when it is unlikely they could even keep up with the men on their teams? I highly doubt it.

I don't actually know exactly what Pak SF selection standards are but I know some of the Western ones (US,UK, Canadian, Aus and Indian) and I know the number of women who could pass these tests are almost zero.

 

[blain2]

Not feasible. The standards for the Special Forces would have to be brought down to accommodate the women. This in no way can help the Special Forces. Secondly, the basic role of our Special Forces is to operate behind enemy lines. Its not only unacceptable in our culture for men and women in small teams to co-mingle, but it also would pose significant problems due to risk of female operators being captured etc. Men are away on missions, there could also be breach of discipline resulting in harassment and molesting of women. Now I can be an idealist and say, well that should not happen, but I won't because the reality is that during combat missions, its very hard to regulate troops who are operating without a senior officer in a buddy team format and specially when the SF teams are out for days and weeks at times with little oversight. In all honesty, this is asking for unwanted trouble. The men would always be worried about the mission becoming compromised due to safety concerns for the fairer sex.

Its not needed, nor is it worth it for women to be in this role. There are very many other important roles that women can fit in. Pakistan does not have to mimic what other nations are doing. Educate the women and open up staff, support roles (as is being done currently) and that is fine.

With the PAF, lady pilots, during hostilities, can be put in combat roles over our own air space as that reduces the risk of their getting shot down over hostile territory and being exposed to all of the risks such incident would entail. With the SF, with their primary mission being operations behind the enemy lines, this option is not available.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

I regret to disagree
at this sharp end of the stick a special services team cant afford to be politic

the one and only reason i will support any female or transsexual or whatever gender is if that person fits the strict selection cafeteria and is not there for calender and media photo shoot.

sorry I meant criteria.
I like going to cafeteria by the way

 

[Koovie]

If they meet physical and mental standards, why not?

 

[Jaanbaz]

Most of Pakistani women can't even run properly never mind enrolling in Special Forces.

 

[Rashid Mahmood]

The Problems of Women in Combat – From a Female Combat Vet
It’s not all about qualification. I’m speaking as a female Marine Iraq war vet who did serve in the combat zone doing entry checkpoint duty in Fallujah, and we worked with the grunts daily for that time. All the branches still have different standards for females and males. Why? Because most women wouldn’t even qualify to be in the military if they didn’t have separate standards. Men and women are different, but those pushing women into combat don’t want to admit that truth. They huff and puff about how women can do whatever men can do, but it just ain’t so. We’re built differently, and it doesn’t matter that one particular woman could best one particular man. The best woman is still no match for the best man, and most of the men she’d be fireman-carrying off the battlefield will be at least 100 lbs heavier than her with their gear on.


Women are often great shooters but can’t run in 50-80 lbs of gear as long, hard, or fast as men. Military training is hard enough on men’s bodies; it’s harder on women’s. And until women stop menstruating, there will always be an uphill battle for staying level and strong at all times. No one wants to talk about the fact that in the days before a woman’s cycle, she loses half her strength, to say nothing of the emotional ups and downs that affect judgment. And how would you like fighting through PMS symptoms while clearing a town or going through a firefight? Then there are the logistics of making all the accommodations for women in the field, from stopping the convoy to pee or because her cycle started to stripping down to get hosed off after having to go into combat with full MOP gear when there’s a biological threat.

This is to say nothing of unit cohesion, which is imperative and paramount, especially in the combat fields. When preparing for battle, the last thing on your mind should be sex; but you put men and women in close quarters together, and human nature is what it is (this is also why the repeal of DADT is so damaging). It doesn’t matter what the rules are. The Navy proved that when they started allowing women on ship. What happened? They were having sex and getting pregnant, ruining unit cohesion (not to mention derailing the operations because they’d have to change course to get them off ship.)


Read more at
The Problems of Women in Combat - From a Female Combat Vet

 

[Strigon]

Be there a criteria or not, I really don't think we have come down to a level where we have to ask women to do a man's job. Man is physically built for fighting roles, women no. Think of women as the last line of defense when all men after military are spent in a scenario.

Women can be inducted to go where it would be inappropriate for men like family houses filled with women and their children and still not for fighting.

But that's just my opinion.