[ 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

[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

[making_excuses]

We don't have mandatory conscription for females though, the only part females have to show up for is to see if we are fit to service, and even if we are, no one can make us.

Actually where you end up serving your 18 months is a mix of where your skillset is and not every man over the age of 18 have to go into the military, we don't need all of them, only some. And you study with the military backing you (though you have to sign a contract using your skills for 5 years I think, in the military)

And dude, Norway is a part of NATO/UN, we currently have military personnel stationed in:

- Afghanistan
- Gulf Of Aden (Somalia)
- Bosnia
- Egypt
- Kosovo
- The Middle East
- South Sudan

And in the past we have had forces stationed in:
- Congo
- Lebanon
- Libya
- Syria
- Chad

Not bad for a country with less people than London...

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

[natural_blue_26.livejournal.com]

Discharged is not equal to coming home from a tour of duty early or being on leave and unable to serve your country in your original intended capacity. (I've never actually heard of anyone getting kicked out for getting pregnant, just reassigned.)

If it's *only* a man's self control problem... Are you saying there's not women out there five months at sea who get horny too? Because it takes two to tango on that one, and the statistics just aren't there to support every woman in the service who gets pregnant would do so involuntarily. (And if such a travesty occurs, there are options open to women to deal with the consequences.)

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

[natural_blue_26.livejournal.com]

Not sure who told you otherwise, but the military is great at supplying birth control - for everyone who's in the service and free or at a very low cost (depending on what level of health care you choose to enroll in) for spouses.

And forget you from every dedicated female member of the armed services - that's incredibly unfair of you to group them all into a demographic like that, especially because that doesn't fit any women I've ever know or interacted with in any branch of the armed service. You're the one assuming they join the military to escape something, not enrich their lives and further their careers here, not me.

Also? I assume you're the same anon I replied to before, but distraction is not equal to rape any more in the military than it is in the civilian world...And it's not exactly like every man who *notices* a woman EVERYWHERE automatically has to physically ASSAULT her - the hell planet have you been living on?!

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

[(Anonymous)]

Where the female mortality rate is higher than anywhere else in the world? Yeah, they actually DO need to know.

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

[(Anonymous)]

Do you mean fit and fat? Because no, actually you can't.

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

[(Anonymous)]

lol wut

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

[(Anonymous)]

I'm pretty sure no human can be a fat tree.

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.

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

[(Anonymous)]

Very true. The first step in downsizing the force is getting rid of people while still bringing in new and it's nice that they've been enforcing the regulations about the standards. They've also been getting people out on administrative stuff, but I think that's mostly been E8s and E9s with maybe some field grade officers thrown in there.