[ 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

[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

[ill_omened]

That is kinda bullshit then.

Are there any mens rights groups or anything who get het up about that in your country? Certainly seems worse then excluding women from a small number of MOS. Or am I missing something?

And I'm not saying you don't have troops who serve abroad, you obviously do. But as an entity, and real fundamental military that's constantly engaging in wars around the world, you are not a presence in the same way as the US or the UK. It's just not comparable. Setting aside pure numbers which don't tell the whole story, you don't just do the heavy lifting that they do. Most of it is to be quite honest, politics and the appearance of a truly international coalition.

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

[making_excuses]

You seem to be missing a point (or I might not have been clear enough), women are encouraged to get into the military and are also prioritized over men, the only part that women don't have that men do is mandatory military service.

They can only encourage us and put everything in place to let us serve. Men on the other hand have to go into the military if they get the message, women choose freely (as long as we qualify). Females also serve in all branches of our military (minus one, but not because we aren't allowed, but because no female have passed the physical)

And our highest military leader (if you ignore the king) is/was a woman.

Why would men protest it? We also got a "law thing" that says 40% of leaders in any company (and in politics) have to be females. And no one protests that, just like men have a right to leave from work when they have a kid (10 weeks, which have to be completed before the kid is 3 years old) and women can stay at home for up to a year with 80% pay.

I know, we mostly do peace keeping stuff. You guys start the wars, we end them. We don't like sending our military into active warzones, we prefer to use our military powers to help make peace.

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

[ill_omened]

I'm understanding you perfectly fine.

Do you not understand why some (hell, a lot) of men wouldn't have an issue with 'you pretty much have to serve, women on the otherhand can take it or leave it'? Really?

And no, that's not my point. Your military has substantially less experience, less influence, and is less central to the realpolitik your country engages in then ours. I'm making no moral judgement there, but the comparison would be something like 'well in Vardø the police function this way, why don't they in the Met or NYPD?'.

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

[saku]

i think your opinion boils down to the fact that you don't trust women overseas to be respectable members of the military, which is your problem, not mine as a cadet, not any other "woman" by any definition of the word (i say that because i am female-bodied) but not necessarily female).

did you not read the part where i said and/or problems of self-control? it applies to women too. but it boils down to not behaving in a manner consistent with military values.

you also just completely erased the disgusting amount of rape that happens in the military so i am 100% done talking to you

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

[natural_blue_26.livejournal.com]

I'm erasing *nothing* - rape is horrific and wrong no matter where it happens or who it happens to, and it is also punished more in the military than it is in the civilian world. (Also, does anyone honestly think men have never been forced into situations they didn't want to be in while in a warzone just because no one wants to talk about it?) Saying all people who see other people in a 'noticing them' fashion automatically leads to these terrible things happening is just unrealistic though. (All men who see women in bars do not drag them back to their caves by their hair and rape them just because they've whipped out their cheesiest pick-up lines either in case you weren't aware.)

The Air Force specifically has majorly cracked down the last several years on the environment everyone is working in - nothing that portrays women in an unfavorable light is allowed at all, be it ripping down all Hooters posters people have had hanging on their walls to punishment for certain type of language people used.

Additionally they've massively cracked down/cleaned house (and sending to jail for decades, which is WAY more severe then current punishments in the civilian world) MTIs/anyone who forces someone into a sexual position they did not want to be in. Sleeping with someone elses spouse? Yeah, adultery is still a crime they toss you into jail and pretty much throw away the key on here. Leavenworth prison isn't some sort of joke, either. (My husband's married/father of a few children MTI from when he was in basic - who was an ass on the surface and even more an obvious one once all the charges of sexually harassing female cadets in exchange for them having an 'easier' time in basic came to light - who's been striped of all rank and locked up for at least the next 40 years is a drop in the bucket of how strictly the rules are followed/enforced in the armed forces.)

As for your other point - you don't know me at all and that's a fairly insulting thing to imply. Two of my husband's NCOs are women in their very small shop (12 people total but they're never all there at the same time due to rotating deployments), and they are two of the most professional people there. Additionally, the training base we live on that EVERYONE coming into the Air Force goes through at some point is commanded by a (recently) two star female general who is doing a *great* job leading this base.

As for self control? Humans by definition are fallible and not 100% perfect 100% of the time, whether it's cheating on a diet by grabbing a carton of Ben & Jerry's or just plain being lonely and spending 'adult' time with someone else and *everyone* is equally likely to fall off the wagon from time to time. Does this make them bad people? No. Does it mean that they can aim higher? Definitely.

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

[anonymouslyyours]

Um, not trying to be facetious but what on earth do you mean? O.o All I can think of is TSS which is avoidable by simply swapping tampons tor maxipads.

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

[(Anonymous)]

You couldn't use tampons or maxi pads in those situations. What are are you going to do with the used ones? You couldn't burn or bury them. You also couldn't carry enough clean underwear to last you for months and you couldn't wash what you wore.

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

[anonymouslyyours]

Why couldn't they be burned or buried? You can find plenty of brands of maxi pads that are just cotton. I mean tampons' secondary use were discovered by battlefield nurses.

And why would we need more clean underwear than men? Especially if we're using liners for a majority of the time.

I'm just bewildered to think that these would be problems that only applied to American women once they were officially allowed to serve in combat. And not any of the other women who have found themselves in comparable situations throughout history or in other countries militaries.

HELP

[(Anonymous)]

How many days can my nasty self rewear the same underwear before I die. This might be urgent.

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.