This morning, I found it in my heart to blog about the salient fact that of the cell-phone-using, English-speaking, largely urban audience of an Indian television channel, fifty-six percent of the population that can be bothered to vote on these issues believe that women are not, and I quote this word, needed in the Indian Army.
So what's up with these people? Has their opinion prevailed against the public mood because of liberal laziness? Could it actually be that more than half the apparently elitist/radical/feminist or, well, more feminist-than-thou-at-least population of the nation thinks that women = pussies? Were all the ladies with powah not watching this show - making dinner, I don't doubt? Or is it just proof that only a majority of the most grievously stupid of all world populations engages with television news?
I doubt they were all pondering the problem of combatants required to remain in peak fitness every day of their lives, and the possibility of woman combatants failing daily health exams at least once or twice every month thanks to the energy-sapping power of menstruation is significantly high. Maybe it was the simple fear that if we let women drop the ladle and run off to war then we'll have no one to make the bread and babies. I know for a fact that at least one person came up with a reason to the effect that the country would never win a war with women fighters because women are too 'administration-oriented'. This has significant precedent in the Indian armed forces, where women have never been allowed in combat positions, of course. Plus, jocks hate geeks foreva.
A compelling argument, all in all, chaps, and one with a satisfying overarching argument, viz. this. The little women shouldn't be in a demned unpleasant, patriarchy-bitten spot like the military anyway. If the patriarchy had its way, preferably with some alternate power supply, they wouldn't be anywhere.