Case (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
case) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomsecrets2013-01-28 06:44 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2013-01-28 06:44 pm
[ 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.
Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS
But I would like to know how would burying tampons differ from burying bodily waste?
How do you account for documented cases of women passing as male soldiers during the Civil War or the women who had to live through similar situations throughout history?
I'd also like to ask if you accounted for the fact women's periods were much lighter and shorter than they are today when you calculated the 90 day supply of feminine products.
I am interested but very busy so any response to your reply might be slow in coming but not due to lack of interest!
Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS
(Anonymous) 2013-01-29 08:46 pm (UTC)(link)Burying bodily waste: rarely done before the 80s because of the possibility of giving position away. When it was done, it was most often a shallow communal trench. Those were used mainly when a group (usually no larger than a squad element) was about to change position. Pits were used when they were far enough behind the front line that their commanders deemed it acceptable. Women were usually serving in those areas, anyway. Also, tampons weren't the norm, maxi pads were.
Historically (US only): Firstly, I'm talking about about a military that allows females to serve, so I did not include anything from WWII or earlier. Women serving in combat in the Civil War was known at east as early as the Korean War but the risks to women in those situations was also known. The government will not allow someone serve in a capacity that it deems more hazardous for them than is explicitly necessary. (yes, I'm aware of how laughable that is when you're talking about sending people to their deaths)
90 day supply: took into account that maxi pads were the norm and their size was more than 10 times what it is now. As for how many are included in a 90 day supply, that hasn't changed at least since 1975, the original date of the ALARACT message addressing it (available on APD): "Females are required to take Seventy (70) individual feminine hygiene products when deploying: Ten (1)0 per day for Seven (7) days of Three (3) months"
90 day supply is a common thing in the military and isn't just for tampons. Soldiers on medications have to take a 90 day supply of their medication with them when they deploy and all unit logistics are planned on the assumption that resupply won't be possible for 90 days (which is often the case but I think some of that has to do with the resuppliers not acting as fast as they might because they know the unit has a 90 day supply with them). Clothing is usually carried on a 5 or 7 day model but it varies by unit based on their location and mission. Because of the way we pack, the clothing model is based on a single bag (usually the ruck) and then additional clothing is required in additional bags (A Bag or B Bag or both).
One last thing about how warfare has changed for the US military: we work out of established bases now; we go out for combat and then come back to our base where we have all of our supplies, facilities, medical care (though field medics are out when we are), and food. This has long been true of combat support MOS but was not true of combat MOS. Infantrymen and artillerymen especially would operate outside of our support bases for prolonged periods. During Vietnam, for example, it was common for an 11B to leave the base within days of arriving in country and not return even once until their tour was over. Resupply for those troops was inconsistent and it was either retrieved by a small element or very rarely it was delivered to them. The military is slow to adapt to a changed battlefield and stuck to this model even in conflicts when they shouldn't have (Panama and Grenada both jump to mind immediately again). So by the time Desert Storm happened, we were still conducting warfare this same way, though not always to such an extreme (coming back more often/frequently, not having as many soldiers out for prolonged periods). We even started out this way in Afghanistan in 2001 and it wasn't really until Iraq in 2003 that we finally began operating the way we do now.
My military background: US Army 1990-2011, SFC (RET). MOS: Ammunition supply 1990-1997, EOD 1998 (1 mission), Intelligence Analyst 1998-2011. Positions of note: platoon sergeant (multiple), Master Analyst 2002-11, Acting 1SG 2007-08, Acting CSM 2009-10. Combat Tours: Kosovo 1998, OEF 2002, 2006-07, OIF 2003-04, 2005-06, 2007-08, 2009-10. Echelons: BN, BDE, DIV, Corps
Also, I've never encountered anyone over the age of about 20 (someone who is literally too young to be in a position of authority due to lack of experience) who had the mentality that female soldiers were in any way lesser or needed protecting. It's also been my experience that males are more likely to freeze in combat but that might be due to the fact that I know more males than females who have been in combat (no surprise as there are more males than females in the military). If I had some way of cooking the numbers down to percentages divided by gender, I don't know how close they would be.
Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS
Have you considered starting a blog? We need more woman veteran's voices.
The Betty H. Carter Women Veterans Historical Project
Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS
(Anonymous) 2013-01-29 09:57 pm (UTC)(link)What specifically are you studying? My training and work as an intel analyst necessitated I learn a staggering amount of military history, sadly more than I can remember. But my interest has never faded and there's always something new to learn. I can still map out D-Day perfectly but I can't remember the maps of The Six Day War or the name of the woman who was behind the V2 rocket or even how many operatives were involved in Operation Wrath of God :( I'm rambling, but my point is that despite my inability to retain certain really cool facts, I still love learning military and intelligence history because it's just so interesting. There's a good chance that whatever you're studying is something I know little or nothing about and it might be the next thing I take up reading about because I'm almost out of books to read and haven't decided what to start on next.
Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS
It sounds like you're into strategic stuff; my interests are more cultural! But you might be interested in this. Probably the best source on the WAC that you can get easily online is Mattie Treadwell's official history:
It's biased, obviously--Treadwell was a WAC officer herself--but she does a really good job.
Bookwise Creating GI Jane
I don't know if you have university library access, but if you ever want someone to send you a JSTOR pdf or anything like that I'd be happy to. I love talking about this stuff!
Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS
I'm not asking about or disputing anything you said about modern attitudes, standards, or practices.
I'm mostly curious by your assertion that poor genital hygiene would have killed more than half of women ("more often than not" = <50% of the time to me) had they been in combat situations they were banned from in the past. I'm sorry for the confusion but thanks for the interesting read!
I'm am a little confused by your mention of bodily waste trenches not being used for fear of giving away position. How is a human-sized BM not as, if not more, attention getting than a freshly covered hole? But I can probably google that for myself later if that's something you can't really expound on.
Re: Pentagon lifting ban on American female troops in combat MOS
(Anonymous) 2013-01-29 09:45 pm (UTC)(link)