fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2218 ]

[ SECRET POST #2218 ]

⌈ 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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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.

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...

Edited 2013-01-29 01:59 (UTC)

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.

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.

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?'.

Seriously? There is no debate about, no one I have ever talked to about this (in Norway) have ever seen an issue with Men having to serve and Women don't (not even the Neo Nazi I went to High School with), nor have I ever met a man (again in Norway) who have had a problem with female military personnel. So no, there is no issue with it, there isn't anyone complaining about it, there is on the other hand talks about maybe making it mandatory for females too, but not because it is "unfair" for the men, but because it is insulting to the women.

We think of it like any other job where the genders aren't equal, men have a right to a job over a equally qualified woman in a female oriented job and women in jobs where men are the majority.

I wasn't really serious in my last comment, but if that is how you want to play it: The Norwegian Military, even if it is small and isn't as big as The British or American military, still are a well trained and organized Military force, with modern equipment and though smaller than quite a few other military forces, no less equipped to handle any combat situations. And also we got the economical power to replace whatever equipment we need to (the latest was new fighter jets if I remember correctly)

And Norway have or had military personnel fighting alongside yours in Iraq and in Afghanistan and during the war in Kosovo in the 90s and so on. (and lost people, so even if we might focus on the peace keeping forces we do send people into active war zones)

So no we might not be as powerful as your military (but why do we need a big military, we got NATO for that), but we do influence politics, and economics, and probably the most relevant to this discussion: Peace Making

Perhaps your people should have an issue with it. Forcing men to conscript, but not women is pretty sexist yo. Whether or not your people are okay with it doesn't overcome that fact.

And no, the sheer disparity in the realities of our forces is entirely relevant. It to a large part explains why our countries are so much more reticent to change things, and go tinkering about, and why there is less of a political will to do so.

Just curious, because this is the first I've heard about how you do things - what happens if there just *aren't* the numbers for a particular company to be 40%, say if they're a small family owned business or whatever? Are people fined for not meeting a standard they can't afford to meet?

Oh it is only when a company is big enough (hard to meet 40% when there is 3 leaders) and only really enforced in everything the government owns.

No fines, because it isn't a law it is an official document from the government so has some weight (kinda lawy, I really can't remember the English word for it), so you can't get prosecuted.

Ahhhh, okay. That makes much more sense. It's more encouraged than it is a by the book kind of thing?

I figured out that I should google this to make sure I gave you the correct facts and here they are, or more correctly here is the law (as in a real law, which I didn't know it was before now)

For AMAs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allmennaksjeselskap):

In AMAs:

Genders should be represented as such:

- with 2 - 3 memebers -> both genders must be represented
- with 4 - 5 members -> Two members of each gender
- With 6 - 8 members -> Three members of each gender
- With 9 members -> Four of each gender
- With 10 and more -> 40% of the members must be female or male

There are exceptions and so on, but that is the gist of it.

The 40% of each gender is spread to all corners of Norway really, business/Education and so on.

It isn't perfect though, but we are trying:

6 out of 10 students in higher education is women
3 out of 10 teachers in primary school is men
3 out of 10 leaders are Women
1 out of 5 Mayors are women (2011)
1 out of 10 in the military is female (though the short term goal is 2 out of 10)

Why thank you! A fairly high percentage of the Norway work force must be female in order for this to work, yes?

Dude, about 50% of the workforce is women... (more women than men work part time though)

89,9% of children aged 1 - 5 was in kindergarten in 2011, and we got a year of paid leave (which we split between both genders) when we give birth, so no woman ever have to give up working to have children.

That's awesome. (But do you mean daycare/kindergarten?) I've noticed an up-tick in stay-at-home dads in America the last ten years or so - I was born in 1985 so I wasn't really paying attention much before that - and that's wonderful you guys are fostering that too. :)

Daycare apparently (the more you know).

We don't really have a stay at home mom or dad tradition any more in Norway.

Not exactly fostering so much more making a law that says Dad's have to stay at home with their kids, just like the mother have to.

Or it works like this:
- 10 weeks is earmarked for the dads (50 days, where they have to be used before the child is 3, but can be used any way he sees fit)
- Except 3 weeks before the birth and 6 weeks after birth which is the mothers, no matter what.
- Then we got 27 - 37 weeks can be split however one sees fit.

And it can get a bit longer, mothers can stay at home for a full year, but then only with 80% pay. We also pay parents to not send their kids to daycare (until they are 3 years old) and you are by law guaranteed a spot for your child in daycare which I think is from the child turns 3. And it can't cost more than 200€ a month (where you pay half for kid 2 and 3 and so on) for a full time spot.

~~wow that got long, in my defence I am learning this along side you guys, seriously. I know the gist of it, then I google it to make sure I give you the correct answers.~~

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2218 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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