fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3234 ]

[ SECRET POST #3234 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3234 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

[Golden Girls]

__________________________________________________

02.

[Boku no Hero Academia]

__________________________________________________

03.

[C.S. Lewis vs. J.R.R. Tolkien]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Pokémon, Leah Remini]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Tales of Zestiria]

__________________________________________________

06.

[The Man In The High Castle]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Marjorie Liu, Sana Takeda, Monstress]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Sleepy Hollow]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 020 secrets from Secret Submission Post #462.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 2 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

NA
Related: I don't think it's wrong for women who want to and are able to serve in front-line combat roles, but I don't think there should be a different set of physical requirements. Now, if the military wants to re-evaluate whether the current standards need to be as tough as they are, OK, but change them for everybody -- and don't change them just to score feminist brownie points, either.

Also: I think it's OK to consider menstruation and how that can affect a combat tour.

OH NO!!! NOT ICKY WOMENS WITH WITH THEIR ICKY PERIODS!!! VAGINAS ARE GROSS!

...how the hell would menstruation possibly affect combat? A well-trained soldier isn't going to start crying if they get a few blood stains on their underwear.

Do you not know how messy periods can be? Protip: Heavy-flow clotty periods can be super fucking messy and certainly a hindrance in, say, Afghanistan and Iraq or other desert climates.

So to avoid that, you have to factor in the logistics of packing pads or tampons, changing them regularly (or dumping your cup, if you go that route, or dealing with needing to take a daily BC bill to stop your period during your tour. And then you have to carry that, too. And that's all fine for non-combat roles.

It can be a problem when you're caught out in a war zone.

If I'm in a war zone, I'm thinking my period is going to be the least of my concerns at that moment, honestly.

Cramps would be pretty fucking concerning though.

This is true, good point. I guess in that case I figure I'd be aching and stressed out enough already from running about that any and all kinds of pain I felt might kinda blur together after a while. When one's running on adrenaline, it's amazing the pain they're willing to ignore or push through sometimes.

Depends on the girl, really. I like to have an ibuprofen the first two day, but I can deal if I don't. Strengthening the core and being in shape helps a lot too, which anyone on the frontlines should be. (I'm fairly outta shape, for the record.)

But cramps aren't like THAT big of a deal for most women. Yeah, you feel them, yeah, it's not a great feeling, but no, it doesn't mean that you aren't able to lead a perfectly normal day. For me, I get like no cramps at all. Sure, we all love to whine about them but I think for most of us, it's more for the love of whining about relatively small things than actual serious pain. For those with bad cramps, ibuprofen usually does the trick. I mean at any rate, in a serious situation that's probably not what you're going to think about and I doubt cramps are going to get a well trained soldier killed.

There's nothing normal (by civilian standards) about a day in a warzone.

Exactly, so why would cramps factor in at all? A bit of an ache is probably the last thing on most female soldiers' minds when they're more concerned with not getting blown up and shit.

So don't take a daily pill? There's not a lot of reason to take hormonal BC daily instead of weekly or monthly.

And women do fly military jets. Ask a military pilot about dietary requirements and pills to make sure you can stay awake and only eliminate at appropriate times.

"It can be a problem when you're caught out in a war zone."

Military women already DO get caught out in war zones. The whole letting women be in combat positions thing? It's basically about ensuring women get paid appropriately for shit they're already doing.

None of this shit is hampering the women who are already out there. Why would it start to now?

Military training, combat, and deployment are very physical, high stress situations. Many women stop getting their periods during such time, and when they do get their periods they are often shorter and lighter than those of a woman who is not physically active.

We absolutely should not lower standards or have different ones. This does mean the jobs will disproportionately continue to favor men, certainly. But changing the standards (for everybody or ladies, either way) for the purpose of having women in those jobs means that when actual shit goes down, there's a group that's going to be holding others back. And that will breed resentment at best. It certainly won't convince anybody those people belong there.

I mean, I agree with you 98 percent, but I'm not down with the blanket "we shouldn't lower standards." They shouldn't be lowered arbitrarily or without study, but I don't think it's out of the question to examine whether they need to be as high as they are in all regards.

For instance, in the Marine fitness tests, you get a perfect score if you can perform X tasks in, say, 3 minutes. If experience ends up showing that, these days, people who perform X tasks but take 5 seconds longer perform just as well in real-world situations as people who did it in 3 minutes, then it might be time to reconsider if 3:05 is the limit by which a perfect score is garnered.

Obviously this isn't a change that could happen overnight. It would take a lot of study and recommendations, but I don't think there's anything wrong with exploring that option.

Yeah, this. Don't "lower standards" just to be inclusive, but it might be worth evaluating whether the current standards are necessary.

Which is pretty much what "lowering standards" involves: evaluating performance in real-world situations with current real-world equipment to determine if the current standards are actually reasonable indicators of efficiency and aptitude. The answer's frequently "no", and occasionally "actually people in between X and Y perform much better than people who score below or above them".

People flipping out about changing standards for dangerous positions are generally either ignorant and parroting what they've heard without actually doing the research, or they have an agenda.

Also: I think it's OK to consider menstruation and how that can affect a combat tour.

Well, of course.

If anything, I think the sight of 2000 women launching fully loaded tampon grenades would be just the thing to repel the enemy.

I remember there having been a study recently about how allowing women into the military based on lower standards can put their comrades at risk in a combat situation because they found that mixed sex groups generally performed worse during some tests than all male. The people who conducted these rests and revealed this study were promptly thrown under the bus by their commanding officer for being sexist iirc.

I agree that if women want to take a high risk job, they need to be able to perform at the same level as the men they're working with. Because I don't think peoples' lives (both male and female comrades/coworkers) should be put at risk just for not wanting to hurt another woman's feelings and wish of self-fulfilment.

That study is currently being torn apart for being badly conducted.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3234 ]

Re: Controversial Opinions

Re: Controversial Opinions

Re: Controversial Opinions

Re: Controversial Opinions

Re: Controversial Opinions

Re: Controversial Opinions

Re: Controversial Opinions

Re: Controversial Opinions

Re: Controversial Opinions

Re: Controversial Opinions

Re: Controversial Opinions

Re: Controversial Opinions

Re: Controversial Opinions

Re: Controversial Opinions

Re: Controversial Opinions

Re: Controversial Opinions

Re: Controversial Opinions

Re: Controversial Opinions

Re: Controversial Opinions

Re: Controversial Opinions

Re: Controversial Opinions