Women Cadets In Bangladesh Army
nkdat...@my-deja.com
Times Of India
9 December, 2000
Bangla Army to raise platoon of women cadets
DHAKA: Women have been accepted for officer training in the Army for
the first time in Bangladesh. , .
In mostly Muslim Bangladesh where many women still wear veils and are
encouraged to stay home, the he 35 women, aged 16 to 18, were selected
from among 11,000 applicants and will join the Army as Gentlewomen
Cadets next month, becoming the first platoon of female officers.
The Army was overwhelmed with applications after Prime Minister Sheikh
Hasina, a woman, changed the Army's long-standing policy of allowing
women only in the Army medical corps.
A two-year training course for the 35 women will begin Jan. 7 at the
Bangladesh Military Academy, a defence ministry official said.
The women officers will be assigned to duty, which could include combat
platoons, after their training.
"I'm thrilled to know that I've finally made it," Shabnab Shahid, one
of the women cadets, said.
Shahid is the daughter of a retired Army officer. "It's my father who
has encouraged me most to join the Army," she said.
Recruitment officials said the Army would bend some rules in the
training for women to accommodate local customs.
The women, for example, will wear long track pants during their
physical training program. Men wear shorts.
Also, women will have separate dormitories. Male officers are required
to live with enlisted men in barracks.
A male officer can't marry until he reaches age 26; women officers will
be allowed to marry when they are 22. (AP)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
eq...@my-deja.com
This is just pure politics in action to "imporve" Bangladesh's image to
the world. What Bangladesh need is food, not an ever lasting expension
of the useless army. Even US, Russia have been reducing their army
since early 90s. NKDat for the sake of SCB audience, pls give us an
OBJECTIVE response.
{P.S. I hope this is the last time you post this article (2 month old)}
In article <90rmid$949$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
--
console flame page }http://www.geocities.com/moinsoft/segaad.html{
Shakil Sarwar
>tell me how does this add any value (strength) to the Bangladesh Army?
>This is just pure politics in action to "imporve" Bangladesh's image to
>the world. What Bangladesh need is food, not an ever lasting expension
>of the useless army. Even US, Russia have been reducing their army
>since early 90s. NKDat for the sake of SCB audience, pls give us an
>OBJECTIVE response.
>
>In article <90rmid$949$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> nkdat...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> Times Of India
>> 9 December, 2000
>>
>> Bangla Army to raise platoon of women cadets
<crap deleted>
Don't expect anything from Datta dada that will benefit Bangladesh.
From numerous postings it is quite evident that this West Bengalee
atheist (just like any other typical fanatic disciples of Jyoti Basu)
wants to see a Bangladesh that will be void of any trace of islamic
identity, and as such his (and his cohorts') propaganda spree
continues todate unabated.
Induction of women in the military is nothing but the shrewd
prescription of the West operating under the banner of various organs
of the UN. The idea is to destroy the family values existing in the
muslim countries. Here is what a veteran US soldier has to say about
the women recriutee in the US military.
Source: Foreign Correspondent
THE PENTAGON CAN WIN THE BATTLE AGAINST HUMAN NATURE
Eric Margolis
1 May 1997
DETROIT- A US Army drill sergeant was found guilty this week of
raping six female subordinates. Other angry female soldiers
have flooded the Pentagon with 5,000 complaints of `sexual
misconduct.'
In 1994, pressure from President Clinton,Congress and
women's groups forced the Pentagon to integrate women into
formerly all-male combat training units. Previously, female
soldiers were trained in separate units. Political fashion
demanded women be treated like men in this man's Army. So
they were, and today's ugly mess inevitably ensued.
The rape conviction raises troubling questions. No acutal
force was used or threatened.Yet the military jury decided
the sergeant committed a newly coined crime, `constructive
force.' All six white women had consensual sex with the
black drill sergeant. However, all claimed they felt
compelled to have sex, either from fear, or to protect their careers.
When I was in US Army advanced infantry training at Ft. Dix
during the Vietnam War, the very mention of the name of our
terrifying chief drill instructor - Sgt.Major Delmar
Creech - made even the toughest gang members from Newark
blanche with fear. Creech was king. Generals called him,
`sir.' If Creech ordered you to eat dirt, you would, and
yell, `Thankyou, Sgt. Major!'
So I can understand the women's complaints about authority
figure coercion. But I also wonder, how much of this was
sexual harassment, and how much the flip side, sexual enticement?
The same issue surfaced in the Paula Jones case. Did she
really believe then Gov. Clinton invited her to his bedroom
to discuss her career as a $12,000 a year government drone?
Did the female trainees have sex with the sergeant, then
turn on him out of jealously, or spite. Was he a
manipulating bully? Or was he blackmailed?
We'll probably never know. The eternal he said/she said
battle of the sexes will rage as long as there are men and
women. Efforts by Congress, the Pentagon, or the rape jury
to legislate demure, asexual conduct between high-hormoned
young men and women will never work. Biology will always work.
We never learn from history. Five thousand years of
mankind's collective experience teaches: a. boys and girls
are best kept apart in school; b. women should not serve in
the military, or only in separate, non-combat support roles.
Just because ancient Greeks or Romans didn't have TV
doesn't mean they couldn't fully understand human nature.
They knew back in deepest BC that trouble always ensues when
you mix young men and women at close quarters. Human nature
hasn't changed a whit since Caesar met Cleopatra.
The single most important element in warfare is unit
cohesion - the brotherhood of fighting men. Putting women
into combat units - or even near the front - endangers this
vital bond. Mariners have always said it's bad luck to put
women among male crews - and it still is, as the Tailhook
scandal showed. The decision to sexually integrate was
entirely driven by politics and the media: it makes no military sense.
US armed forces have been forced to sharply downsize. Yet
they have had to build expensive separate facilities and
create programs for females that have consumed scare
budgets while degrading combat efficiency. The Pentagon
brass lack the guts to stand up to politicians and say so.
In an organization where obeying a superior's orders is a
do-or-die reflex, men and women must not be mixed. The
military must remain a warrior culture whose prime mission
is to kill enemies in large numbers. This is no place for
cultivating gentle human relations, nor for social workers. .
The armed forces are not just another government agency,
subject to politically correct behavior, or racial and
gender preferences. The nation's sword and shield must not
be degraded by political or sociological fads.
Shakil Sarwar
>tell me how does this add any value (strength) to the Bangladesh Army?
>This is just pure politics in action to "imporve" Bangladesh's image to
>the world. What Bangladesh need is food, not an ever lasting expension
>of the useless army. Even US, Russia have been reducing their army
>since early 90s. NKDat for the sake of SCB audience, pls give us an
>OBJECTIVE response.
UN Makes Big Strides in Campaign to Abrogate Shariah
http://www.albalagh.net/women/cedaw.shtml
September was a very good month for the UN officials who have been
busy
with their agenda of social engineering in the Muslim world
---controlling births, destroying family life, undermining morality
and
haya, and creating social upheavals. On 7 September 2000, Saudi
Arabia
became the latest Muslim country to sign the anti-Shariah
convention on
women, a.k.a. Convention On the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women. Around the same time Bangladesh
became
the second Muslim country to ratify the less known Optional
Protocol
that gives the UN powers to receive and investigate complaints from
individuals, and prohibits the signing countries from expressing
any
reservations regarding this Convention. Further, at the same time,
eight Muslim countries signed the Optional Protocol.
So far about 43 Muslim countries have been "persuaded" to sign the
Convention and everywhere it has been done the same way: with total
disregard for the opinions of the people, the legal experts or the
religious scholars.
The Convention is rooted in the UN vision --- alien to Islam, of
course--- of a unisex world. It is a vision under which men and
women
are to be equal cogs in the production and consumption machinery
designed for the benefit of global capitalism. It defines (article
1)
discrimination against women as "any distinction, exclusion or
restriction made on the basis of sex...in the political, economic,
social, cultural, civil or any other field". By accepting the
Convention, States commit themselves to undertake a series of
measures
to end "discrimination" against women in all forms as defined by
the
UN, including the incorporation of the UN dictates in their legal
system.
The agenda for "equality" is specified in fourteen subsequent
articles.
Article 15 asserts the "full equality" of women in civil and
business
matters, demanding that all instruments directed at restricting
women's
legal capacity "shall be deemed null and void". Article 16 asserts
the
equal rights and obligations of women and men in marriage. This
means,
among other things, that a woman can divorce her husband (Article
16.c). That she is not entitled to financial support from her
husband
but both must earn a living and both must equally share the
household
work ("The right to work as an inalienable right of all human
beings."
Article 11.a ). That Islam's laws of inheritance are to be
considered
an injustice that the new UN Shariah is out there to end. That
Islam's
teachings regarding hijab and segregation of sexes are to be
considered
an anachronism.
What about the essential biological differences between men and
women?
Well, this is a discrimination designed by "nature" but the UN
pundits
are still intent to do what they can to overcome it. For example,
they
advocate, in article 5, "a proper understanding of maternity as a
social function", demanding fully shared responsibility for child
rearing by both sexes.
The Convention affirms the "reproductive rights of women," the
UN-speak
for birth control, abortion and other assorted "virtues." The UN
leaders gleefully point out that the Convention is the only human
rights treaty to mention birth control. States parties are obliged
to
include advice on birth control in the education process (article
l0.h)
and to develop family codes that guarantee women's rights "to
decide
... on the number and spacing of their children and to have access
to
the information, education and means to enable them to exercise
these
rights" (article 16.e). Thus men and women have been given the
"right"
to receive interference from their governments in the most intimate
of
their affairs, so the UN goal of restricting the numbers of
undesired
people in the world can be achieved.
But is there nothing good in the Convention? Sure the women of the
world today face many problems that do need to be addressed.
Unfortunately the real problems of women are not high on the
priority
list of the UN. And even when the document does mention them, it
does
so in a strange UN way. The number one global problem facing women
is
their degradation through pornography. Pornography creates the
atmosphere in which other crimes against women become possible. The
Convention --- the UN boasts it is the women's bill of rights ---
says
not a word about this despicable practice. Nothing, nil, zilch.
What
about the exploitation of women to act as models to peddle goods by
selling their looks? Again the Convention is silent on this
subject.
What about prostitution? The Convention has been generous to
allocate
one sentence to this. Here it is in its entirety: "States Parties
shall
take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress
all
forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of
women."
(Article 6). Read this language carefully. The problem is not
prostitution but "exploitation of prostitution." Hence the need to
safeguard the "rights" of the "sex workers" as UN pundits have
expressed elsewhere!
Another common problem faced by women is the inadequacy or
non-existence of health care services meeting their special needs.
A
very large number of women in the world, including unfortunately
the
Muslim majority countries, face harassment and exploitation at the
hands of male staff at hospitals. Many refuse treatment or seek it
only
in case of emergencies because of this. The Convention addresses
this,
but in the strange UN way. "States Parties shall take all
appropriate
measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of
health care in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and
women, access to health care services, including those related to
family planning." (Article 12.1.) Again read it carefully. First,
birth
control is the real agenda and it is mentioned in every clause
where it
can be inserted. Second, women have been given a right to
healthcare
based on equality of men and women. This is a denial of their
special
needs and requirement for special treatment. If a women demands to
be
treated by female staff only, it could be denied on the basis of
"equality" of men and women.
Countries that have ratified or acceded to the Convention are
legally
bound to put its provisions into practice. They are also committed
to
submit national reports, at least every four years, on measures
they
have taken to comply with their "treaty obligations." Well, the UN
is
serious about its Shariah; it means to enforce it.
Twenty Muslim countries have signed the Convention with
reservations.
That is already less than half of the Muslim countries that have
signed
it. Further, one Muslim country (Malawi) has taken back all the
reservations it first took in signing the Convention. While two
others
(Senegal and Bangladesh) have rescinded the reservations through
the
backdoor--- by signing the Optional Protocol. As the pressure is
now
applied to the rest of the Muslim countries to sign the "Optional
Protocol," more and more will succumb to it, thereby throwing away
their reservations and inhibitions. The whole business was designed
like this from the beginning. The idea was to bring everyone on
board
first and then work on them one by one.
Although this campaign of social engineering by imperialism started
soon after the Second World War, and an unceasing propaganda
campaign
has been going on since then, it has gained momentum recently. The
Beijing Plus 5 conference that took place last June, was a major
step
forward for the UN leaders. There, while the Muslim representatives
opposed the most extreme of suggestions regarding legalizing of
homosexuality, they accepted most everything else. They praised and
fully supported the UN doctrine on the Unisex world and displayed
commitment to bring it about. The most despicable --- yet
representative--- statement came from the Organization of the
Islamic
Conference. Ambassador Mokhtar Lamani, Permanent Observer of the
Organization of the Islamic Conference to the United Nations, said:
"I
speak on behalf of the Islamic Group at the United Nations which
comprises fifty-six Member States and four Observer States of the
Organization of the Islamic Conference... I pledge to you the
fullest
cooperation and collaboration of the OIC with the United Nations in
the
time ahead towards the fulfillment of the worthy and noble
objectives
that have brought us together here at this Special Session."
Similar was the contribution from Pakistan, a country where because
of
opposition from religious organizations as well as a threat of
legal
action, the government had pledged that it would endorse nothing
un-Islamic in the conference. Despite some comments regarding
Islamic
values meant for home consumption, Pakistani representative Mrs.
Zobaida Jalal, had this to say about the gist of the matter: "The
Fourth World Conference in Beijing provided a major impetus to
international and national efforts aimed at the advancement and
empowerment of women. This Special Session will reinforce and
reinvigorate the process that we collectively initiated five years
ago." Subsequently the government has been obediently carrying out
the
wishes of the UN charlatans. Pakistan's ruler, General Pervaiz
Mushharaf, announced his determination recently to carry on the
campaign to reduce Pakistan's population on a war footing. He may
have
been the first general in history to declare war on his own
population
in order to improve their condition! While other Muslim governments
may
not have expressed the desire to carry on the UN dictates on a war
footing, in reality they have been doing the same thing. Thanks to
their compliance, the UN has been moving rapidly toward a world
government where its dictates would be the supreme law. The latest
fall
of Saudi Arabia should be alarming to everyone as it is an
indication
of the momentum this campaign has picked. The religious scholars
and
Muslim political leaders have a huge, un-discharged, responsibility
in
this area. The UN juggernaut is moving with full force. It would
not be
stopped by an occasional show of concern. It requires concerted,
well
organized, ummah-wide response. There is urgent need for one body
of
knowledgeable people dedicated to the task of articulating Muslim
position on this issue, studying and countering UN machinations,
and
guiding the Ummah. Women face problems in the Muslim world because
of
ignorance and deviation from Islamic teachings. They face even
bigger
problems because of the proliferation of a pop culture that has no
regard for dignity, morality, decency, or justice. Muslim societies
are
like a sick person who has the perfect medicine for his ailments
but he
simply won't take it. He is now being approached by quacks that
want to
serve him poison. "It is good medicine," they assure him with their
characteristic chicanery. Should we be signing our own death
warrants?
Shakil Sarwar
>tell me how does this add any value (strength) to the Bangladesh Army?
>This is just pure politics in action to "imporve" Bangladesh's image to
>the world. What Bangladesh need is food, not an ever lasting expension
>of the useless army. Even US, Russia have been reducing their army
>since early 90s. NKDat for the sake of SCB audience, pls give us an
>OBJECTIVE response.
>
>In article <90rmid$949$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> nkdat...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> Times Of India
>> 9 December, 2000
>>
>> Bangla Army to raise platoon of women cadets
a bit more on this topic.
From: alba...@albalagh.net
Subject: Albalagh Action Alert (20 Muharram 1421/ 25 April 2000)
********************************
ALBALAGH NEWSLETTER No. 22
********************************
20 Muharram 1421 AH
25 April 2000
Beijing Plus 5: What is in Store?
Come this June, if all goes well for the organizers --- and there are
strong indications that it will, unless Muslims wake up from their
deep slumber --- then the UN leaders would have pulled a coup of
gigantic proportions against morality, decency and the Shar'iah,
without evoking any resistance. The event, nicknamed Beijing plus 5,
is the special session of the General Assembly entitled "Women 2000:
gender equality, development and peace for the twenty-first century."
The special session will be held from June 5 through 9 in New York.
The session is meant for ceremonial speeches limited to five or ten
minutes. But at the end the General Assembly would have put its
signatures on the declaration of a new blue print for morality,
ethics, family relations --- the UN Shar'iah. The new law will be
supreme, overriding all laws and religious teachings, and it could be
enforced by the same apparatus that is enforcing the sanctions on
Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and Afghanistan today.
Here is a glimpse of what is on the table. This is taken from a
preparatory document produced on 20 April 2000, by the Preparatory
Committee for the special session. The paragraph numbers refer to that
document.
Homosexuality
UN has been assuring us for decades now that that despicable sin and
crime against humanity is actually a basic human right. In countless
documents they have waged war against discrimination based on "sexual
orientation." Like this edict: 102 h. Develop, review and implement
laws, practices and procedures to prohibit and eliminate
discrimination on the basis of sex, race or ethnic origin, religion or
belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.
Yet this time they are going for the finish line. Read this command to
the nations of the world: 102 j. Take action to end discrimination on
the basis of sexual orientation; review and repeal laws that
criminalize homosexuality, since such laws contribute to creating a
climate which encourages discrimination and violence against women who
are, or are perceived to be, lesbians; and address violence and
harassment against them;
It also notes, without elaboration, that "in different cultural,
political and social systems, various forms of the family exist."
Those familiar with the UN lingo know that the various forms of the
family include the homosexual unions.
Family
Family is indeed the focus of this effort. The pundits have quite
innovative ideas about how to disrupt and deform it beyond
recognition, in the name of strengthening it. The key thing is that
the complementary relationship between husband and wife has to be
replaced by a competitive relationship and this most private of
private sanctums has to be opened to intervention. In doing so they
also define new virtues and new vices.
Consider this lament: "Failure to recognize that women are engaged in
both productive and reproductive activities has meant that women's
higher workloads and unequal share and increasing burden of unpaid
work and lack of remuneration of reproductive work have persisted and
have hindered efforts to effectively combat poverty among women." So
the women should be paid wages for the household work, as well as
their "reproductive work." Remember that it is the same experts who
have given us the term "sexual workers" for the prostitutes and
commanded the world to uphold their rights. With this, it is easy to
conclude, "As long as there is insufficient sharing of tasks and
responsibilities with men, the combination of remunerated work and
care-giving within family] and the community still leads to a
disproportionate burden for women". It goes on to suggest that the
absence of data disaggregated by sex and age and analyses prevents the
accurate assessment of unpaid work among women. Further we are
reminded that women also continue to bear disproportionate burden in
the household responsibilities. "Such imbalance needs to be
consistently addressed through appropriate policies and programmes, in
particular those geared towards education and through legislation
where appropriate." Now everyone can see what is the real motivation
behind all of their emphasis on women's education.
It is further commanded that the women should be persuaded to refuse
household work: "Organize public information campaigns to sensitize
public opinion and other relevant actors on the principle of equal
sharing between women and men of work and family responsibilities."
They also introduce a new crime: marital rape, and demand that family
courts be created everywhere to protect wives from their husbands. 103
c. 56(m) Establish family courts and adopt legislation to handle
criminal matters relating to domestic violence including marital rape
and sexual abuse. Establish legislation to handle criminal matters
relating to domestic violence and ensure that such cases are brought
to justice swiftly.
Inheritance
Ignorant western writers have been criticizing Islam's law of
inheritance. Now the UN is going beyond criticism to command. It
directs: "Ensure that national legislative and administrative reform
processes give respect to women's equal rights with men to economic
resources, including property and inheritance rights."
Reproductive Rights
In the UN-speak this fancy new term means right to commit fornication,
adultery, and abortion, among other things. It is noted that despite
much "progress" there is still work to do on this important frontier.
"There is non-recognition of women's and girls' reproductive rights as
human rights as included in the Beijing Platform for Action, paragraph
95."
Reservations
This is the heart of the matter. During all these years, Muslim
governments failed to challenge this anti-morality, anti-family, anti-
decency, anti-Islamic agenda although they were duty bound by their
faith to stand up for truth and against falsehood. Rather they meekly
asked for a reservation here, an exception there. Such reservations
were granted, as they still helped the social engineers to push their
agenda forward. Now they are being asked to remove all such
reservations. Here are the new commands: "102 d: Ratify the Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, limit
the extent of any reservations to it and withdraw all reservations
which are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention
or otherwise incompatible with applicable international treaty law;"
Further: "102 e. Review all existing, as well as future legislation to
ensure compatibility and full compliance with the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women;"
It is hard to imagine a more diabolic, devilish and wicked program to
destroy Muslim societies from within, and create the same mess there
as is visible in the western world. But there is a big difference. No
one from outside conspired to create the mess in the "civilized
world." It was just a natural consequence of the hedonistic and
materialistic values that gripped these societies, despite the efforts
of some sane people to resist them. But the UN now is poised to export
the same sickness to the rest of the world by force.
So far the charlatans have succeeded beyond imagination. Through very
sophisticated propaganda campaigns and orchestrated effort they have
made big hits without any significant protest. The lie that their
population is the problem has been generally accepted by those who had
been expressly admonished against this philosophy by God. The lie that
the new pundits care for the women and have discovered new rights for
them has gone unchallenged. As have their new definitions of vice and
virtue and their new Shar'iah.
When the military government in Pakistan announced that the new local
bodies will have 50% seats for the women, no one questioned the
motives or the wisdom of this edict which had come straight from the
World Bank. When a ministry of law notification in Pakistan announced
that the so called honor killing (in reality dishonor killing) would
be treated as murder, as commanded by the same UN charlatans, again
there was no one to question it. It is the same story at the UN, where
there has been no Muslim representation to speak of. There was a
little storm in the Muslim world at the time of the Cairo conference
(1994), but then everyone forgot what was going on and the UN plan has
continued unhindered.
In Bosnia, Kosova, and Kashmir, the Muslim world failed to protect the
honor of its daughters and sisters. But the failure in the UN would be
bigger. It would be the failure to save the principle that their honor
must be protected. It is a plan for social engineering at a grand
scale. It is the greatest challenge to the supremacy of Shar'iah that
the Muslim world has ever faced collectively. If we fail to challenge
it this time, we may have to pay the price for that lapse over the
next decades or centuries.
tare...@my-deja.com
early eighties, some people questioned its usefulness. The answer was a
well-known politically correct one. When we have 50% people in the
country unemployed, forcing women into jobs that are not suitable for
them is nothing but a political circus. It may satisfy some 'feminists'
ego, but from economic sense, it sismply does not make any sense for
Bangladesh.
Women police in DMP only contributed in one way - participation in
regular variety shows in Rajarbagh Police Line and entertaining their
male counterparts.
In article <90rpnd$bjb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Mo
SEJamil
Tarek Ali writes:
"When we have 50% people in the
country unemployed, forcing women into jobs that are not suitable for
them is nothing but a political circus".
This statement from him in relation to the plan to include female cadets in BD
army. It is not clear from his statement whether he is talking about early
eighties (in fact it is late seventies) or right now. If there is 50%
unemployment, that statistics definitely includes the female unemployed in the
country. It just did not mean 50% male of the country alone that is unemployed.
Tarek Ali is of the opinion that the females are 'forced' to join the
military, creating a 'political circus' and that it does not make any 'economic
sense'? One can ask the question as to what kind of study he is refering to
where it figured out that it makes only political sense and no economic sense.
I am assuming that he definitely found a lot of 'economic sense' in the
Bangladeshi males joining the military. It definitely shows the wisdom of Tarek
Ali in his own lack of understanding in forming societies.
Contrary to his belief, the satisfaction of 'feminists' in Bangladesh in many
cases is past overdue. Like many developed countries in the world, the female
population in Bangladesh also has a role in contributing in the nation
building. Their active participation in the military can help not only the
military but also the nation as a whole. Tarek may not find any wisdom in it,
but the symbolism of such a move is extremely imporatnt for an impoverished
country like Bangladesh. It should score a lot of political points for the
current administration to make such an important move.
Tarek Ali with his obvious prejudiced mind tries to exclude females from a
positive and healthy contribution in the society. Such exclusionary principle
is not supported by not only any social contract, but also by any religion. If
the women are willing to join and fight for this nation in the front, they have
all the right to do so.
eq...@my-deja.com
Here is my thought on this issue. We do need women in police
department to deal exclusively with women in Airport security, Jail,
Hospital, Woman Universities, etc for body search, interrogation
etc.
However woman in Bangladesh Army is a totally different ball game. Why
is the training for a woman solder is relaxed, but they get the same
salary as men? In theory aren’t these women solder (since they decided
to get the job) suppose to protect us as much as their counter parts
(male solders), when India or Pakistan invades Bangladesh. If I am a
taxpayer, I will highly object to this idea that woman can get away in
Military with less training because of their gender. This is plain
stupid, because it undermines the security of Bangladesh in the sake of
woman rights. A lot of people are gonna get killed if there is a war
because the woman Cadets will not perform as much as the male solders.
Who are we going to blame for this?
In article <20001211031837...@ng-cu1.aol.com>,
Shomir
> I don't understand what you mean Mr. Jamil.
>
> Here is my thought on this issue. We do need women in police
> department to deal exclusively with women in Airport security, Jail,
> Hospital, Woman Universities, etc for body search, interrogation
> etc.
>
> However woman in Bangladesh Army is a totally different ball game. Why
> is the training for a woman solder is relaxed, but they get the same
> salary as men? In theory aren’t these women solder (since they decided
> to get the job) suppose to protect us as much as their counter parts
> (male solders), when India or Pakistan invades Bangladesh. If I am a
> taxpayer, I will highly object to this idea that woman can get away in
> Military with less training because of their gender. This is plain
> stupid, because it undermines the security of Bangladesh in the sake of
> woman rights. A lot of people are gonna get killed if there is a war
> because the woman Cadets will not perform as much as the male solders.
> Who are we going to blame for this?
With all due respect to your concerns, you will acknowledge that all warfare
in modern times are not hand-to-hand combats. There are lots of areas
within the modern military complex where an woman can serve without having
to display significant use of physical power. There are many areas such as
intelligence gathering, telecommunications, logistic support, transport
coordination, etc. where a woman can be just as effective as any man.
Besides, given the fact that a male Bangladeshi military personnel today who
operates on the forefront, might not be quite up to the mark with respect to
physical attributes of a Sikh or a pakistani soldier, that should itself be
taken into consideration. You are also making the assessment that a woman
by nature is physically weak to perform tasks that are required in warfare.
There are no relevant data to substantiate your position given the fact that
women who actively participate in warfare in the US and the Israeli army are
in no manner less capable in discharging their duties. I also know for a
fact that even in countries like Iraq there are women soldiers in active
duty. Why then do you make a case that a Bengali woman is in any manner
inferior to their male counterpart? Any explanation ?
Shomir
======================
nkdat...@my-deja.com
During the Pakistan era, physical requirements
(especially height) had actually been relaxed
to find more "qualified" candidates for the army
from East Pakistan. Predictably, there were
ramblings in the military establishment that
complained how standards were being relaxed for
political reasons. But, I understand, that after
the 1965 war, East Pakistan could proudly and
justifiably point to the superior performance of
the Bengali regiment in the defence for Lahore.
Height and weight do not necessarily add to
fighting capability in modern day warfare. This
is something Americans had to learn to its chagrin
in Vietnam.
SEJamil
I am sure BD army has taken the 'physical limitations' of females in general
into consideration before this decision. Although physical fitness is a
prerequisite to join the military and is one of the primary requirements to
graduate from the academy, it itself does not make modern military efficient.
We are past the age of mediaeval times when horse back ridden or 19th/20th
century infantry led army was considered to be the primary determinant to make
offense or defense in war. Todays wars are and increasnigly will be won by
sophisticated technological 'gadgets', where the psychological and mental
fitness is more important. In fact modern day military strength is ensured
(complemented) by the participation of the entire nation (including
technological gadget development), not exclusively the army. There are lots of
very important role the females can play in a modern military and outside of it
too to ensure strategic advantage of the nation. It does not necessairly have
to be 'hand to hand' scuffle with the enemy in the front. If we consider the
army alone, in fact, based on the qualifications of the cadets in the academy,
they are assigned to various corps after graduation (Army Medical, Army Supply,
Army Ordnance etc.) within the army, that really does not have much of a
combative role.
The argument that the lack of at par physical training should not guarantee
them equivalent salary, or that 'a lot of people are gonna get
killed.......because the women Cadets will not perform as much..." is a little
bit premature and misleading to conclude. There are lots of military in the
world with female cadets and officers and a little bit of research in those
will perhaps help to overcome the prejudice, fears etc.
Shakil Sarwar
>Women police in DMP only contributed in one way - participation in
>regular variety shows in Rajarbagh Police Line and entertaining their
>male counterparts.
Thank you very much for the above comments. I can relate a personal
experience of mine with the above scenario. Several years ago when I
went to Motijheel Police Station to get a Police Clearance, I was
confronted by a tall-figured, well-built and good-looking female
police officer. She was wearing, if I recollect correctly, a sari with
a coat on the top of it. However, the coat was unbuttoned. As such,
her midriff was getting exposed as she was moving around or sitting or
standing. [They say that women have an exhitionist nature. Well, you
be the judge.] As she asked me to follow her to a room inside the
Police Station, I noticed numerous hungry (I don't think their hunger
was for food) faces staring at that female officer -- savouring and
measuring up every inch (especially exposed midriff) of her physique.
After we entered a room, the male police officers kept 'checking her
out' while she was busy writing up my clearance certificate. They made
suggestive remarks to her whenever they found any opportunity. She was
entertaining lot of male figures there without her knowledge (?) about
it. Quite a good number of female Village Defence Police (VDP) members
fell prey to rape attacks by their male counterparts during their
service. However, the rape inidents were either covered up or the
victims did not want to disclose the incdents out of the fear of
becoming social outcasts. Poor Women. Frailty, thou art....
Women can't afford to get involved in activities that do not fit them.
Their joining into the Army bandwagon does not contribute an iota to
the building of our nation. That's as simple as that. If they embark
on, in the name of equality or feminism, transgressing the boundaries
set aside by Allah, they are bound to find themselves exploited by
their seemingly unsuspecting male counterparts. Examples abound in the
East and the West. However, only the wise knows how to make a
judicious decision.
Night23
Shakil Sarwar wrote:
> If they embark
> on, in the name of equality or feminism, transgressing the boundaries
> set aside by Allah, they are bound to find themselves exploited by
> their seemingly unsuspecting male counterparts.
Is it because muslim men cannot control their gonads? Mohammad
certainly could not control his.
Stop trying to ape alien arab culture and use your brains for once
instead of having your mind constantly in the gutter like the prophet.
eq...@my-deja.com
but only when there are not enough man alive. There are stories when a
woman were at war with Prophet Mohammed (pbuh).
In article <3a34970b...@news.por.starwon.com.au>,
--
eq...@my-deja.com
I am not making any assumption that woman are physically weak or
anything, I was just replying to the original article which states that
the training for the woman Cadets will be relaxed. Talking about
modern warfare, I have yet to see a war that has been won by gadgets
only. Look at all the modern wars like Iraq, Kosova, and Chechnya.
The technology just destroyed tons of building but didn’t crush any
rebellion. No party have won in any of these wars.
In article <20001211205555...@ng-fy1.aol.com>,
--
console flame page }http://www.geocities.com/moinsoft/segaad.html{
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mo
be looked at , and its unnatural and Islamic not to do so . Of course
Muslims will jump from looking to mention the once in a hundred year
case of rape and ban all the fun. Morons..
SEJamil
Shakil_Sarwar from hotmail.com in relating to Tarek Ali's earlier argument
regarding women's role in the police department, tries to generalize from his
selective experience in a police station. His point is: all the male officers
were "checking her out", made "suggestive remarks" and "she was entertaining
lot of male figures...", as such women in Bangladesh should not become military
cadets! This writer has lived in rural Bangladesh and come to be aware of
sexually deprived rural youths (even older) engaging in beastiality? It may not
be widely prevalent, but such morally unacceptable behaviour by some does not
mean one goes out and slaughter the beasts. These are socio-psychological
deviant behaviour -- the solution of which lies in an array of solutions that
deals with these behaviours. It is kind of presumptive to assume that since
there are morally deviant males in a society, all the females need to be
locked behind the four walls of a house.
Shakil also writes: "Women can't afford to get involved in activities that do
not fit them".
Who is to decide what is a fitting profession for the women? Do the women have
a choice to decide on their own to what is fit for them or some arbitrary
judgement from some male figures that out for them? Could it be looked at as
an extremely prejudiced mind that does not allow a woman to decide what she
wants to be? Can this assertion that "I" will decide what women ought to be run
in direct contradiction to the fundamental philosophy of democracy?
Then he asserts: "Their joining the army bandwagon does not contribute an iota
to the building of our nation. That is as simple as that".
No, it is not as simple as that. To make such an assertion one needs to tell us
as to how he drew that conclusion? Where are the volumes of research that has
been done to prove so? The simplest conclusion, in fact, is that by not joining
that profession they are most likely to be unemployed and that will do damage
to that nation. A conclusion like the one he made above almost unwittingly
presupposes that the whole army bandwagon in Bangladesh is not contributing an
iota in building that nation?
It will not be difficult to refute his other generalized observations like
"they are bound to find themselves exploited by their seemingly unsuspecting
male counterparts? (I was a little confused here). Examples abound in the East
and the West". There are no perfect society or perfect idea in the world. We
don't have problem undersatnding the premise of Shakil's observation. The
solution he is alluding to is more exploiting, more inhuman, more unjust, runs
directly in contradiction to human free will, anti freedom etc. Too little time
and space to elaborate...
eq...@my-deja.com
get roasted, and woman Cadets because of their sex, will not have to
participate in frontline battle? Just like everybody woman cadets have
to start from zero and work their way up. No favortism should be
allowed.
In article <20001211205555...@ng-fy1.aol.com>,
sej...@aol.com (SEJamil) wrote:
--
console flame page }http://www.geocities.com/moinsoft/segaad.html{
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
huss...@yahoo.com
<shakil...@hotmail.com> writes
> Quite a good number of female Village Defence Police (VDP) members
>fell prey to rape attacks by their male counterparts during their
>service. However, the rape inidents were either covered up or the
>victims did not want to disclose the incdents out of the fear of
>becoming social outcasts. Poor Women. Frailty, thou art....
>
>Women can't afford to get involved in activities that do not fit them.
>Their joining into the Army bandwagon does not contribute an iota to
>the building of our nation. That's as simple as that. If they embark
>on, in the name of equality or feminism, transgressing the boundaries
>set aside by Allah, they are bound to find themselves exploited by
>their seemingly unsuspecting male counterparts. Examples abound in the
>East and the West. However, only the wise knows how to make a
>judicious decision.
>
Is this a men problem or a women problem? Rape is purely a men's
problem and we have to face up to the consequences. If one knows one's
friend or colleague is an abuser, then should one not stand up for
justice! Would any man so knowing stay silent?
Since you profess to be knowledgeable in Islam, could you please quote
where in the Koran it is written which profession women should or
should not participate in?
Using Islam to hide behind sexism, people should be ashamed.
**Zahid
--
Zahid Hussain
huss...@yahoo.com
or military) do not want women in their ranks are for two reasons:
1) Do not want to share the plunder of their ill gotten gains with
their female comrades.
2) Believes that women are more honest than them and this could lead to
them loosing opportunities.
;-)
**Z
In article <915cq9$ddc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, eq...@my-deja.com writes
--
Zahid Hussain
# My opinions are my own. For digestion by the gullibles only.
Khairul Hasan
think fit.We must respect a person's age, sex, physical and mental ability
before assigning a job.Men and Women cadets should work where they are
suitable. We shouldn't loose a war by putting weaker women in front line
nor should we use a sexually deprived man to describe the usage of condoms
to a group of women. Both will bring disaster.
Just for the sake of argument, it's unwise to go against the idea that a
woman should decide what profession she wants.
Also, there a minorities in every country. They are given extra
favouritism, just to bring them in line with the majority. There's nothing
wrong in that. If you don't give this favour minorities will fight for
independent states. The situation is same as women's situation in our
country if you think objectively. Our society was male dominated all along
- you have to give extra favour to women to bring them into the same status
as men's and after that you don't need to give them the favour - they will
be on their own. Of course, if you want the male domination to continue
then it's a different matter.
Khairul
tare...@my-deja.com
Let me try to answer your last question you posed to Shakil.
There is no specific instructions in the holy Qur'an which professions
ar suitable for men or women and which are not. But there are enough
guidelines given there by which we should be able to determine which
are not appropriate for women or men. Based on the guidelines of modest
dressing (Hijab), avoiding free-mixing and other physical differences,
there are preferences or priorities for jobs for women. A nurse's job
in the army may be appropriate for a woman, but a field cadet's job is
not. (What would happen if the colonel is pregnant when the enemy
attacks?) Similarly, an OB nurse's job is not appropriate for a man
which is more appropriate for woman. Now, there are felxibilities you
can use depending on situation, like non-availability of the right
people. But those are special situations. I do not believe we are in a
situation where women are needed in our combat forces. For duties of
doctors, engineers, accountants etc. in the army, women can serve
within the bounds of Islam.
Women do not have to prove their equality with men by serving in the
army combat forces, as men do not have to give birth to babies to prove
their equality with women. Male domination of the socieities will not
end by this kind of funny approaches. Only following the true dictums
of Islam will guarantee full honor of women.
TA
tare...@my-deja.com
By Elissa Leibowitz
The Washington Post
Thursday, October 19, 2000
In the middle of the summer, with the heat bearing down on the sun-
baked, dusty gravel path along the C&O Canal in Georgetown, 20-year-
old Layla El-Wafi ran with as much ease as her marathon training
partners. No matter that she was wearing long pants, a long-sleeved
shirt and a black head scarf.
Her athletic attire may not seem appropriate for a sweltering summer
day in Washington--or even for Sunday's Marine Corps Marathon, which
she is planning to run. But El-Wafi, 20, is Muslim. She practices the
tradition of hijab, which among its tenets encourages women to
maintain modesty in dress. Keeping the arms, legs, hair and neck
covered is standard practice, regardless of the activity.
So when El-Wafi, a junior at George Washington University, decided to
train for the Marine Corps Marathon through the AIDS Marathon
Training Program, continuing the practice of hijab--in her case,
wearing cotton pants and a long-sleeved CoolMax shirt and a black
cotton head scarf--did not receive a second thought.
"The concept of hijab is not only a dress code but a whole concept of
modesty--covering up what's private," El-Wafi said. "I consider my
hair to be private, shown only within my family. A lot of people
think it's an oppressed thing, but my life is just the opposite."
Women in Muslim nations often are not encouraged to participate in
athletics. In general, they are discouraged from interacting with
strangers and from wearing clothing that is considered immodest;
sports, which more often than not involve both, are therefore
dissuaded.
During the Summer Olympics in Sydney, for example, Iranian television
refused to broadcast a close-up shot of Australian Cathy Freeman
lighting the Olympic flame, because her form-fitting white body suit
was considered too revealing. No women's events were aired, according
to the Wall Street Journal, including the performance of Iran's sole
female athlete, pistol shooter Manijeh Kazemi, who wore a head scarf
and robe.
"Usually women are not encouraged to exercise, or even to just go for
a walk," said Mona Moursi, El-Wafi's mother, who grew up in Cairo
before moving to the United States 28 years ago. "Some women also
think that they're already married and have children, so there's no
reason to be fit."
Although it may be more common for Muslim women to participate in
athletics in the United States, where El-Wafi was born, it's not as
prreviewent to find women wearing the head scarf--which also is called
a hijab--while they are involved in sports.
Moursi works out and runs on a regular basis but does not wear a
hijab. El-Wafi's friend and frequent running partner, Sadia Ashgar,
20, is also Muslim but chooses not to wear a scarf on a regular
basis. She does wear long sleeves and pants, but instead of a head
scarf, she often tucks her hair in a baseball cap.
"I feel uncomfortable, as if the world is judging me on a different
scale," Ashgar said. "It's been completely different for Layla,
though, because she's inculcated it into her life. I can definitely
say that Layla is a stronger person when it comes to that, not that
my faith is less."
El-Wafi's parents encouraged her and her brother and sister to be
active in sports from a young age. The children even took swimming
lessons when they were young, wearing regular bathing suits. Hijab is
important when girls reach womanhood, so swimming is more acceptable
for children than adults. Still, swimming and other sports taught the
children early on to take care of themselves.
"We're told that our bodies are trust-given from God. We're trusted
with an able body, and physical fitness definitely falls under that,"
El-Wafi explained.
Certainly, El-Wafi's dress has attracted attention. Initially, some
of the program organizers were worried by clothing they considered
too warm for running in the summer, according to Doug Ward, an AIDS
Marathon program representative. Other runners also kept an eye on
her to make sure she was all right.
"I would look at her to see what kind of condition she was in,
because they really stress to us to pay attention to your team," said
Spencer Abruzzese, 30, an online sales representative training in the
program. "She always looked fine. Other people seemed to be in worse
shape."
Other runners were intrigued by her outfit and conviction.
"One of my thoughts as the days kept getting hotter was that I found
it hard to believe that someone would wear so many clothes while
running, even if it was her religion," said Tim Kanaley, 30, a sales
support engineer.
Still, El-Wafi has faith in her running abilities and faith that she
will finish the marathon.
"At mile 16 when my feet are killing and I want to stop, in my head I
call out to God. 'Please, God, get me through this,' " she
said. "There are moments of feeling extremely blessed to participate
in something like this."
Marine Corps Marathon
* When: 8:30 a.m. Sunday.
* Entries: 24,588.
* Start-finish: Marine Corps Memorial (Iwo Jima) in Arlington.
* Friday's paper: Special 25th anniversary section.
(C) 2000 The Washington Post Company
In article <ikUY5.35092$eT4.2...@nnrp3.clara.net>,
Denis Wright
> one correction. Woman are allowed to participate in a war in Islam,
> but only when there are not enough man alive.
Rather inconsistent, aren't you? What about Ayesha at the Battle of the
Camel?
Denis
--
Dr D. Wright
Classics, History and Religion
University of New England
Armidale NSW 2351 AUSTRALIA
nay...@divisionx.com
So, you are suggesting to stay within the 'bounds of Islam' a woman cant
fight/join combat forces. Hmm... then you are saying our Prophet (phuh)
also must have made a mistake by allowing women worriers in the army of
Islam. Does that mean our prophet did not stay within the 'bounds of
Islam'. Gee you seem to know more about Islam than even him!
>
> Women do not have to prove their equality with men by serving in the
> army combat forces, as men do not have to give birth to babies to
prove
> their equality with women. Male domination of the socieities will not
> end by this kind of funny approaches. Only following the true dictums
> of Islam will guarantee full honor of women.
>
What an honor it will be indeed to know that you are always deprived
because you are a woman. Just put yourself in a woman's position and ask
yourself what you would do if you wanted to be in the army.
Frankly, I think this argument has gone far enough. Those who dont
'want' to understand will 'never' be able to understand the concept
behind treating women as 'humans' and not some other minor creatures. If
any of them are willing, I would suggest that they change their sex to a
woman for 1 week and live a life and change back to man again. They
might get a better idea then of whats the 'bound' and how much fun it is
to have 'bounds' simply because you were born as something.
I place this sexism right next to racism and like those who are racists,
sexists too will exist as long as mankind lives. Its what makes this
world imperfect and what makes earth different from heaven.
Me, nor anyone else in the world has the ability to make someone
understand something if they are not willing to understand and always
forcing things with their biased judgements.
Have a good day.
Nayeem
eq...@my-deja.com
Camel. Excuse my ignorance. I am still learning. Please include an
authentic source and more detail.
thank you
In article <1elpfa1.10...@digimodem-37.une.edu.au>,
--
eq...@my-deja.com
Bangladesh has enough well paying jobs for woman even within the army.
I think we are being counter-productive by pushing these women to takes
these grunt jobs. In fact, we should even go farther and ask the
question, why does Bangladesh need a standing military when it cannot
provide safe drinking water to its people. I highly doubt that if India,
Burma, Pakistan or even Nepal invades us, Bangladesh army will be able
to defend themselves. What we really need is an army like in
Switzerland/Singapore where everyone is required to get training after
high school and serves in wartime. Standing army is just a waste for
Bangladesh, unlike US where the army is active and they contribute to
the country through research (Internet, Microwave, V6 Engine), community
work, disaster control (flood, snow storm, typhoon), etc. It will be a
good idea for the Hasina Magi, to get all her army man/woman to the
rivers and start drenching in a daily basis before the flooding season
arrives. At least it will save my grandmother from living on the roof
for 2 month in a year.
In article <91bsvh$rl4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
tare...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Women do not have to prove their equality with men by serving in the
> army combat forces, as men do not have to give birth to babies to prove
> their equality with women. Male domination of the socieities will not
> end by this kind of funny approaches. Only following the true dictums
> of Islam will guarantee full honor of women.
>
> TA
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
--
console flame page }http://www.geocities.com/moinsoft/segaad.html{
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
eq...@my-deja.com
ideals are best use of our hard earned money, then so be it. We all
know Lenin also had a dream.
In article <3A392128...@nokia.com>,
--
Zahid Hussain
determined totally on the level of incapacity. I don't see much
difference.
>which is more appropriate for woman.
the patient. Man can't remember to administer drugs on time?
Is it right under Islamic law then for a female nurse to apply
sponge bath to a male patient, to bandage and clean wounds where
male privates may become visible? Would such action require a male
nurse?
>can use depending on situation, like non-availability of the right
>people. But those are special situations. I do not believe we are in a
>situation where women are needed in our combat forces. For duties of
>doctors, engineers, accountants etc. in the army, women can serve
>within the bounds of Islam.
>
>Women do not have to prove their equality with men by serving in the
>army combat forces, as men do not have to give birth to babies to prove
>their equality with women. Male domination of the socieities will not
>end by this kind of funny approaches. Only following the true dictums
>of Islam will guarantee full honor of women.
in many ways they are superior. The failure of feminism has been
to show this observation to be true and treat women only as victims.
The reverse is the truth. Men, at least in the west, have become the
true victims. Victims of our own blindness, where our failures, our
illnesses, our isolation from society is not recognised.
**Zahid
>
>TA
>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com
>http://www.deja.com/
--
Zahid Hussain
Denis Wright
> I am sorry I am not aware of all the wars, specially Battle of the
> Camel. Excuse my ignorance. I am still learning. Please include an
> authentic source and more detail.
>
> thank you
We are all students, and still learning! I was referring to the the
wife of the Prophet, who waged war against Ali, the fourth of the
Rightly Guided Caliphs. Her army was defeated in a famous incident when
the hamstring of her camel was cut. It was the end of the battle and she
retired from politics thereafter.I really don't think I need a reference
for this but you will find it on most websites devoted to Islam and its
history.