[ SECRET POST #2218 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2218 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 079 secrets from Secret Submission Post #317.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS

[anonymouslyyours]

Well they've certainly served in combat areas, especially in modern warfare where there are no clearly defined front lines, but we haven't been allowed to apply or train for MOS that were deemed combat-oriented like infantry and what have you. Navy SEALS, Green Beret, etc. have been off-limits.

Sorry if I'm not being clear or something. I'm dead on my feet trying to stay awake because I have an exam at 8:00. Hopefully someone else can explain this better.

Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS

[making_excuses]

Seriously? Why?

Edit: Oh and, really I realize I must be sounding quite stupid here, but it never occurred to me that Women in the American army wouldn't be allowed to do the same as men as long as they meet the requirements.

Oh and pictures:







And the ones I changed: http://ungweb.no/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/ungweb/nytt/fylke/jenter-i-militaeret/387675-5-nno-NO/Jenter-i-militaeret.jpg
http://gfx.dagbladet.no/labrador/470/470083/4700830/jpg/active/960x.jpg

Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS

[anonymouslyyours]

Yay! Piccies, thank you!

And as to why?

Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS

[making_excuses]

No problem, that is females from the Norwegian Armed forces btw.

The last picture (that I embedded) is of our (former?) Defence Minister and some other woman who I could google to figure out whom is, but I'm too lazy

I guess that explains a lot, but I still don't get it. But there is a lot of things in the world that I don't get.

Now because I actually discussed this earlier today with a friend of mine: The Norwegian Military on Females a short history:

In 1977 the two first females taken up to "Sergeant school", in 1985 every woman who wanted to could apply to do Conscription* (and every female born after 1992, have to meet up at the Conscription thingamagid, where they figure out if they want you in the military or not) and in 2009 we got our first female General.

Females are actually encouraged to both get into the military and make a career of it, also a female will always be chosen over a man if they both qualify (or are equally fit for the job) the only part of the Norwegian military there is no females is in The Special Forces (I think, it's one of those super duper special parts of the military), and the reason is that no female have yet to pass the physical.

*I really can't find a better word for it, is it right? In Norway you "have" to serve at least 18 months in the military if you are fit for service. (not that everyone fit for service gets drafted, that would be too many people)

Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS

[natural_blue_26.livejournal.com]

Women in the American military in specific areas of work (EOD I know off the top of my head, because that's what my husband does) have been deployed on the 'front lines' for quite some time, but this is generally because they are trained to work in fields that have standards (of PT, etc) that go above and beyond what whichever branch of the military requires for women as a whole. As it stands, women have lower physical fitness requirements then men in the United States military, which is kind of unfortunate in this day and age - if all truly want to be considered 'equal' in whatever line of work Marines/firefights/whatever, my personal opinion is that there should be ONE standard that everyone is held to regardless of X, Y and Z.

At which point, get 'em girls!

Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS

[making_excuses]

I really don't get it, I thought the only idiotic thing you guys had in the military was the: "don't ask, don't tell" when it came to gays. Which you finally got rid of some time ago! And now Women can fight in the front lines! One could almost think you are a modern country!

For normal enlisted military folks here in Norway the women have a slightly lover physical fitness standard (their backpacks weigh a bit less and they have a bit more time on the running and so on), which is fine (because it is just for 14 days and it is the "welcome to the military" thing: or as it is known as hell week).

After that Women are treated just the same as men (except the getting chosen over a equally qualified man in whatever branch/promotion training/stuff they choose to apply to). This is the reason to why we still haven't got a woman in our Special Service - they aren't strong and fast enough to manage the tests, not that there is a lot of women applying.

Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS

[natural_blue_26.livejournal.com]

Don't ask/don't tell being repealed was just a formality for the most part in America, sort of like this announcement is. Case in point - when my longtime friend was deployed in Iraq four/five years ago one of the women in his unit too leave for a few weeks to marry her female partner in Europe/honeymoon and no one gave a damn. *shrug*

It makes a good sound bite on the news channels that this is 'finally' getting changed, but from what I know from women in the American armed forces they slightly appreciate their specific forms of service being acknowledged, but they've already been in the trenches for long enough that this doesn't really change their lives at all.

Is your basic training a heck of a lot shorter than ours is? Curious how this works.

Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS

[making_excuses]

There is a difference between a law being ignored and a law not existing though.

I don't think so. I was just talking about Hell Week, and I don't think we do things the same way: with you guys volunteering and us having "mandatory" military service. 12 months is how long basic training is here - for all branches of the Military.

Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS

[ill_omened]

Not American, but as I recall - women aren't allowed to serve in what are considered front line units. Now they can serve as support in these battalions, and do seem combat, there's just a very small number of positions closed to them (also some extra things like Subs IIRC, but it still represents only a very small percentage).

Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS

[making_excuses]

That is stupid! Like seriously, why can't women fight if they are fit for duty?

Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS

[ill_omened]

~unit cohesion~

(i.e. bullshit)

Given the fact Israel, and now America have serving women in all positions* I'm almost certain that at the next review - which are held once a decade, over the status of barring women from some areas, it'll get overturned. Which honestly surprises me, I never thought that they would beat us to it. The best brain dead example of this policy, is that the SAS actually had a young muslim asian woman who managed to pass selection, and then got turned down. Are you fucking kidding me? Yes I fail to see how that could in any way be a tremendously useful operational asset.

*technically some still have the option of deciding whether to allow, it's going to be interesting if that gets used

Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS

[making_excuses]

Look at my comment a bit higher up in my thread to learn why I am confused. It's another moment of ignorance from me: "we do it like this in Norway, so the rest of the world must be similar"

Oh and thanks for explaining it to me!

Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS

[ill_omened]

Well the main difference I imagine would be because you guys have mandatory conscription. Actually knew a guy who ended up in an artillery battalion for a while. This would lead to a massive shit fit if only half the population were roped into it. Whereas as it exists elsewhere, it's comparatively only affecting a reasonably small number of people, most who have the option of going for something similar but not quite as good.

You also have the reality of Norway doing not all that much from a military perspective, whilst the US and UK are constantly projecting their force across the world, which makes people more leery to institute change.

Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS

[saku]

a bunch of wealthy old guys think men and women can't work together without inevitably fucking like rabbits and getting nuked while they're distracted.

one of the main arguments i heard was that men and women might have to shower together and it could "hurt morale." like really dude? you're fine blowing a guy's head off into thousands of mushy pieces but you're scared of being naked in front of a woman?? why the hell are you even in the armed forces then??

Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS

[natural_blue_26.livejournal.com]

Since I'm married to and related to people in the military, let me get my (very short) soapbox out on this - the numbers of women who get pregnant in the field/deployed are staggeringly high, and a certain percentage of that is by women who openly admit to becoming pregnant to get out of a deployment.

Plenty of times when this *isn't* the case (majority), according to everyone I've talked to who has been deployed the last ten years or so, any woman in a remote camp gets escorted *everywhere* by the men she works with - if only because of biology and the fact that none of them have seen a woman in an excessively long time - which takes valuable resources away from what people *should* be doing.

One way or another, it's a major step to assume *every* woman in the military has aspirations of serving in the front line - because I assure you not every man does. (There being plenty of needed positions within the armed services that rarely/never involve leaving American soil.)

Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS

[saku]

these are all man problems and/or problems of self control. the military is founded on discipline so these people probably shouldn't be in it if they can't behave.

i've talked plenty before about the military and career opportunities, namely the fact that few soldiers ever see active combat. it's still a big step to open that opportunity up to women.

also, department of defense reports that less than 2% of discharged women were discharged for a pregnancy. doesn't seem so high to me.

Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah well maybe once the military gets its head out of christian ass on birth control that won't as much of an issue and can now attract career woman instead of misleading uneducated poor girls looking for a way out of the trailer park. Also congrats on being backhand negative Nelly in EVERY SINGLE comment you made in this thread with bonus men just biology rape FACTZ.

Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS

[(Anonymous)]

Originally it actually had to do with the kind of warfare front line soldiers experienced. Hygiene was the primary issue and front line troops for decades would go as long as months at a time between being able to wash with clean water, usually without soap. The effect that has on a woman's body is fatal more often than not. After the Gulf War, the Pentagon moved to include females in combat MOSs but there were still some medical issues involved because availability of facilities was unpredictable. It wasn't until The Bush Regime, under which I served as a female soldier in the US Army and went to Iraq three times, that it became a matter of discrimination.

Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS

[chardmonster]

Are you seriously trying to argue that a lack of showers is deadly to women

Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS

[(Anonymous)]

It has nothing do with showers, it has to do with being able to clean one's self. And yes, it can be very deadly to pre-menopausal women if they can't properly clean for months at a time which is exactly what the case was in warfare until about the time the US invaded Afghanistan.

Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS

[(Anonymous)]

"...would go as long as months at a time between being able to wash with clean water, usually without soap. The effect that has on a woman's body is fatal more often than not."

So without access to clean water for washing more than half of women will die from having a vagina. Okay. BRB to tell all those women in third world countries.

Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS

[natural_blue_26.livejournal.com]

To repeat myself from above- Women in the American military in specific areas of work (EOD I know off the top of my head, because that's what my husband does) have been deployed on the 'front lines' for quite some time, but this is generally because they are trained to work in fields that have standards (of PT, etc) that go above and beyond what whichever branch of the military requires for women as a whole. As it stands, women have lower physical fitness requirements then men in the United States military, which is kind of unfortunate in this day and age - if all truly want to be considered 'equal' in whatever line of work Marines/firefights/whatever, my personal opinion is that there should be ONE standard that everyone is held to regardless of X, Y and Z. (Case in point: if I need to be rescued from a building by a firefighter, I don't give a damn whether they're a Dick or a Jane so long as they can pick me up and run!)

At which point everyone's held to carrying the same weight, get 'em girls!

Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS

[(Anonymous)]

The varying standards also apply to age. I'm glad the military takes scientific fact like age and gender into account over a social definition of equality. Having said that, it's disappointing that the standards in general have been relaxed so much just so that more people are technically eligible for service. Instead of being physically fit now you just have to not be grossly obese. Obese is ok, though.

Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS

[(Anonymous)]

You can be fir and fat.

Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS

[natural_blue_26.livejournal.com]

Well, to be fair they've overall cracked down A LOT by putting people on notice/kicking them out for failing PT standards now that everything's technically winding down the last few years. I remember reading recently that the army - who gets stereotyped for having the most people in the worst physical condition (which is totally logical since they're the biggest branch) - letting a large number of people go towards the end of last year.