Gender equality

[Evidencebased]

sexism works the other way too... promote someone just because she's a woman, to get more women at higher levels, even if there's a more qualified man? sexist...

marvelling about the state of women as the governor general, the prime minister, and a handful of premiers of australia are women? not necessarily sexist, but not exactly doing much to eliminate the sexism... it shouldn't matter if they're women, so long as they can do the job... promote based on performance, not whether or not they dangle...

on the other hand, voting for someone BECAUSE they're a woman... sexist...

What if you think that, as a woman, she would understand your opinions on important issues better than a man would and so would do a better job representing you as a voter? Obviously it wouldn't be sufficient for her to be a woman (she would need to be a good candidate as well) but that strikes me as gender-based voting that isn't sexist. I personally prefer female doctors for that reason, too, because they have that bit of extra personal experience that a male doctor could never quite have.

As for your point about not liking to count/track how many women are in positions of power: ignoring sexism (such as the gender imbalance in politics) really doesn't help eliminate it. I know people hate to have issues like sexism pointed out, but that's a much better strategy than sweeping it under the rug in a kind of half-assed "see no evil!" gambit. And it's more honest, too; plenty of those male politicians are there by the benefit of a little extra dangle, because even if we think we're being totally fair and equal we still vote with a lot of unconscious biases that favor male politicians. I certainly have unconscious biases, and I'm a raving feminist! (And if a staunch feminist occasionally stumbles over this stuff, surely you can't expect egalitarian voting behavior out of someone like Freechoice, who apparently just plain hates the sound of women's voices. )

 

[Evidencebased]

snip

If women are reading this could you please comment to get some different perspectives?

*Raises hand* I'm a woman, and while I won't presume to speak for my entire gender, I can offer my opinion as an adult female.

I tend to agree with Raven's Nest, especially that bit I bolded. The threat of rape is something you live with regardless of where you are. And, depending on where you live and how dangerous your neighborhood is, is something you have to take into consideration every time you go out alone. The same way you have to think about the possibility of getting hit by a car, or mugged, or murdered; yes it's something that could happen, but if I let all the might's and maybe's govern my life I'd never leave the house.

So if I know the risks, am willing to accept them, and am qualified, why should I be denied on the supposition that something bad could happen?

On the issue of equality, and specifically to this conversation regarding women in the military, I believe that women should be able to serve in combat, however, I also feel that we should be held to the same physical standards that men are. Because if I'm honest with myself: can I lift 60-70lbs? Certainly. Could I drag or carry a 200lb adult while wearing 60lbs of gear? No. But there are probably women who could. If an individual, regardless of gender meets the set qualifications, then let em' in.

Also a woman! And I basically agree with everything VivaciousDeimos said. (And actually the chances of a female soldier being raped by her own comrades is far, far higher than her chances of being captured, in or out of combat. If male soldiers wanted to drastically reduce the amount of rape suffered by American female soldiers they shouldn't worry about protecting them from the scaaaary terrorists, they should just stop raping them.)

There are women who are able to keep up physically with the men, so fitness needn't be a barrier, and there are methods of birth control that women can use if they so choose (including but not limited to abortion), so having a uterus shouldn't be a problem either. Goodness knows women get raped and killed in wars all the time; at least allow them to participate in a little of the combat too, if they want.

 

[SwiftBlade18]

I do joke about fems making me sammiches, and "back in the kitchen!", but I think fems are more capable at pretty much everything. I'd LOVE to have more fems in government than guys.

I firmly believe women would make good frontline soldiers, there is no convincing reason they should be prohibited... The UK Armed Forces recently reviewed the situation and declined.

Also... Women do make some pretty bitchin' sammiches...

Im not 100% on this but isnt the reason for men only being frontline soldiers because the odds are you will be fighting men...and physically speaking men are stronger...

Other than the physical capabilities of men having larger lungs etc I also believe (whether its the case anymore) that by purely having men on the frontline it keeps the soldiers more focussed on the job at hand without 'female distractions'...also its entirely possible that if women were on frontlines and were injured that more attention/sympathy would be given by comrades.

I could be wrong though...Personally I have nothing against women being in the frontline if they really want to be, but i can see why it doesnt happen

 

[Eisenfaust]

sexism works the other way too... promote someone just because she's a woman, to get more women at higher levels, even if there's a more qualified man? sexist...

marvelling about the state of women as the governor general, the prime minister, and a handful of premiers of australia are women? not necessarily sexist, but not exactly doing much to eliminate the sexism... it shouldn't matter if they're women, so long as they can do the job... promote based on performance, not whether or not they dangle...

on the other hand, voting for someone BECAUSE they're a woman... sexist...

What if you think that, as a woman, she would understand your opinions on important issues better than a man would and so would do a better job representing you as a voter? Obviously it wouldn't be sufficient for her to be a woman (she would need to be a good candidate as well) but that strikes me as gender-based voting that isn't sexist. I personally prefer female doctors for that reason, too, because they have that bit of extra personal experience that a male doctor could never quite have.

As for your point about not liking to count/track how many women are in positions of power: ignoring sexism (such as the gender imbalance in politics) really doesn't help eliminate it. I know people hate to have issues like sexism pointed out, but that's a much better strategy than sweeping it under the rug in a kind of half-assed "see no evil!" gambit. And it's more honest, too; plenty of those male politicians are there by the benefit of a little extra dangle, because even if we think we're being totally fair and equal we still vote with a lot of unconscious biases that favor male politicians. I certainly have unconscious biases, and I'm a raving feminist! (And if a staunch feminist occasionally stumbles over this stuff, surely you can't expect egalitarian voting behavior out of someone like Freechoice, who apparently just plain hates the sound of women's voices. )

my point was not to ignore the sexism, but to ignore the somewhat feminist whoops and giggles and the "ooooh look how successful we are" that at best will make people think "sure, ok, we've done enough now" and at worst think "pffft... lets shut that woman up, she's being super annoying". I do see your point though, in noting a positive effect of gender differences in terms of policy (a greater focus, at least around the edges, on women's issues), but at a certain point it becomes redundant as a good politician will see the whole field anyway, and the only way to gauge whether or not a politician has considered an issue is to ask them, at which point they will have considered it...

point being we don't really know entirely what they're thinking unless we quiz them on every issue (and PLEASE no one scoff at the idea of a "good politican"...). sure, what you do know may be enough to influence how you vote regardless of whatever they believe on a certain topic, which is certainly you're prerogative, it just seems that the "a women know more about women's issues" approach is slightly sexist as well, in assuming men don't have their own beliefs on the matter

apologies, that was all a bit ramble-y, my point was to merely point out how little i like the pride the aformentioned women expressed in the fact that they were women who happened to get high jobs, as opposed to people, regardless of gender, who happened to get high jobs... maybe i'm just affraid of what happens when/if feminism overshoots the mark (assuming we can manage to get it up to the mark in the first place)

(oh and, "whoops and giggles", in case anyone's knee jerks, is a phrase i'd use to characterise similar situations regardless of gender, if you assume it was a sexist comment, perhaps you're sexist yourself for assuming that a) as a man i would be sexist enough to say that and b) whooping and giggling was a sole characteristic of women portrayed to their detriment... feminist in that sentance was an adjective, not part of the noun... and this is to no one in particular by the way, simply covering my arse... though perhaps evidence of my above point)

 

[Griffolion]

A few years back, there was a big equal opportunities blow up because some women who wanted to be fire fighters were dismissed because they physically couldn't handle being a fire fighter. They were kicking off because apparently the fire service was institutionally sexist against women until it was kindly pointed out to them that if their lack of physical suitability manifested in the field and ended up in someone dying, that's the reason why.

The fact is, men and women are equal. But SOME jobs are better suited to men due to physical, unchangeable biology in that men are typically stronger than women. It's a fact, no'one is being sexist or intentionally against women, it's simply the way something is. Vice-Versa, there will be some things that are better suited to women, both biologically and mentally.

But when it comes to a job or role where both men and women would be equally suited, i am all for, no matter the gender, the giving of equal pay, equal perks etc which is something that is still a problem.

 

[MorphingDragon]

2 - I think that some Jobs are better suited for the physiology that a woman has. THough otherwise I don't care.

Though some people would rate me as 10 because I still believe in Chivalry and being a gentlemen.

 

[Raven's Nest]

Im not 100% on this but isnt the reason for men only being frontline soldiers because the odds are you will be fighting men...and physically speaking men are stronger...

No, modern combat scenarios almost never come down to hand to hand combat. Battles are won through superior fire control. Whoever has the most guns pointed in the most directions wins... So being female is of little consequence.

Other than the physical capabilities of men having larger lungs etc I also believe (whether its the case anymore) that by purely having men on the frontline it keeps the soldiers more focussed on the job at hand without 'female distractions'...also its entirely possible that if women were on frontlines and were injured that more attention/sympathy would be given by comrades.

Whilst it's true some men are just stronger and fitter than women, it's not true of all men. Most squaddies don't resemble Rambo. There more than a handful of front line serving male soldiers who are built like your average skinny nerd. The army's fitness standards favour those with long distance running stamina over the ability to bench press obscene weights. In my brief time with the army I saw non-combatant female soldiers run circles around us infantry guys... (they didn't like that obviously)

With regards to the sympathy when wounded thing. It's kinda bull. No-one gets left behind in combat and you want to protect as many lives as you can. Most people don't realise how strong the ties between comrades really are. Trust me if one of your brothers in arms is shot and wounded, you'd want to rescue them just as much as you would if they happen to be female. Coincidently, they are very highly disciplined when it comes to being ambushed, suppressed, pinned down and taking casualties. No good soldier would risk his fellow soldiers lives by attempting to save a comrade who is in shit creek, female or male. Did you know that when you are on the battlefield, it is part of UK military training that if you see one of your comrades get shot but you cant see if they're alive and you are still under fire, they are to be considered KIA until the firefight is won.

Also a woman! And I basically agree with everything VivaciousDeimos said. (And actually the chances of a female soldier being raped by her own comrades is far, far higher than her chances of being captured, in or out of combat. If male soldiers wanted to drastically reduce the amount of rape suffered by American female soldiers they shouldn't worry about protecting them from the scaaaary terrorists, they should just stop raping them.)

There are women who are able to keep up physically with the men, so fitness needn't be a barrier, and there are methods of birth control that women can use if they so choose (including but not limited to abortion), so having a uterus shouldn't be a problem either. Goodness knows women get raped and killed in wars all the time; at least allow them to participate in a little of the combat too, if they want.

Sadly this is true. You are more likely to get raped by a soldier on your own side. Though it is very unlikely to be one from your own unit, especially if you were fighting alongside them.

There's always exceptions though. For some reason, a handful of members of the UK's parachute regiment were court martialled after gang-raping and filming the ordeal, a new recruit to the same regiment... And the new recruit was a guy... go figure.

I think the real reason we don't have women serving front line combat is the same reason for many of the issues in this thread... The occupations that are predominantly male centred, simply don't want females in those job roles. Or I should say, most of the aging male bosses simply refuse to allow women into those industries because of some backwards, illogical and out dated ideals that a women couldn't possibly be better than a man in the same role...

It's the same reason that women are often paid less than a man in the same roles. Sexism pure and simple.

 

[gazumped]

I think the sexism debate is just like the racism one.

...

When these feminist groups, and racial organizations start saying things like, "People should be judged solely on their own merit." instead of, "People shouldn't be judged based on skin color or gender."

Quite!
Imagine if we were saying what people can and can't do because of their physical racial differences. White people's skin sunburns more easily than black people's, so maybe white people shouldn't do jobs where they have to be outdoors. Asian people have higher risks of heart disease, so perhaps Asian people shouldn't do physically demanding jobs.
Of course, we don't think like that because these roles haven't been drilled into our psyche for millenia.

White people still do gardening and there are still Asian firefighters (for example) and you don't hear people arguing that's wrong all the time.

If we presume that things fit certain types of people, it limits them psychologically before they even try. And they might be excellent at something. Or they might be rubbish at it. But why tell them if they'll be good or bad at it before they've given it a go?

For total gender equality to exist, you would need to make it so that if a male and a female would fight, it would be treated as a normal assualt.

*nods* This is really disgusting, here in the UK the amount of male victims of domestic abuse aren't very far behind the amount of female victims, yet any public announcements about it and advertisements of organisations to help abuse victims only ever focus on women and children.
And this kind of thing affects both parties; not only are we suggesting that only men are evil enough to deal out abuse (and awfully neglecting the male victims by making them think they have no one to turn to or that their story won't be believed), it also suggests that only women would take abuse, reinforcing out pathetic and weak stereotype.

 

[VivaciousDeimos]

Thank you for your insight. I wonder if you would be so kind as to look at my other post and tell me if it changes your mind at all? You are the only woman to reply on how you feel about my post. Thx.

I did in fact read your last post before I wrote mine, and my opinion is unchanged. In regards to personal hygiene: if I knew that I was going to be staying in a potentially dangerous territory or place without amenities then I would invest in the Patch before shipping out. They're small, unobtrusive, weigh practically nothing, and can be used for up to eight months without having to actually have a period. I'm assuming that's what you meant by "personal hygiene"? And, while not all women are the same, intense reoccurring physical activity can cause some women to cease menstruating altogether. It's something a lot of female athletes learn about. And I think carrying around 60+ lbs of gear in 117degree weather would count as "intense". So the issue could be moot either way.

As for the sleeping arrangements? *Sigh* Perhaps it's just hopelessly, naively optimistic for me to think that not all men are dogs who will jump me the first chance they get. If I'm going to trust these people with my life, and be willing to die with them or for them, then it seems to me that I should feel safe sleeping in the same room and using the same shower as them.

Also:

Also a woman! And I basically agree with everything VivaciousDeimos said. (And actually the chances of a female soldier being raped by her own comrades is far, far higher than her chances of being captured, in or out of combat. If male soldiers wanted to drastically reduce the amount of rape suffered by American female soldiers they shouldn't worry about protecting them from the scaaaary terrorists, they should just stop raping them.)

I was thinking this, writing my original post, but didn't come right out and say it, so good on you. But basically yeah, if we're all willing to bleed and kill and die for each other, then it's not that extravagant an expectation for those around to me to respect my person and not rape me, right?

 

[Chemical Alia]

lol wow. Your point is only slightly valid, because a man can be raped and subjected to torture just as bad as a female. I don't know anyone who has been raped, but I know it is a huge psychological* blow and takes years for some women to get over. Men can also be degraded and tortured, and just because women are more likely to be raped, that does not mean that they will be.

You're also forgetting that our women are just as infidel-ish as our men for "the people over there", and it is possible that they will be treated the exact same as the men. The woman can still be raped, but so what? The man could have his arms broken, healed, broken again, healed, and have his balls removed.

If she found out she was pregnant, she would deal with it as she would if she found out she was pregnant in any other circumstance that involved rape. I think you really got off topic.
I liked the point that someone made earlier (that I can't find atm) where men are likely to be over-protective of women in combat, because that would definitely be a possibility.

Mostly agreed, especially on the point about how individuals differ in how they deal with situations like torture and rape. But I'd like to see the "front lines" and combat MOSs open to capable men and women. Not just physically, but psychologically prepared, at least to the best extent possible. If a man has some horrible psychological objection to seeing women harmed or killed and would simply break down in such a case or fail to do his job properly, he shouldn't be considered fit for the position.

 

[Sightless Wisdom]

Equality is a strange concept, especially with all the double-standards we currently have. Insulting mens intelligence, totally fine; insulting women's intelligence, not fine. Just one off the top of my head due to another recent thread but there are many such as it.

To get back to my real point, equality is really ethereal. If you treat everything the same way... your bound to be inefficient. There billions of different personalities and situations that all require a different approach. I mean, there are some mean who fit the bill of big and strong and capable of doing physically demanding work. but there are many women who are the same. And on the other side you have men like me... I know many women who are much stronger than I am, but chances are I would still be viewed as a better fit for a typically male job. Which of course is wrong.

Again, the issue is a bit convoluted and I'm finding myself lost within my own explanation, thus the rambling.

TL;DR/main point: People need to be treated situationally, not based upon a static physical trait. There women suited for typically male jobs and men suited for typically female jobs. That said, pushing too hard for equality will only negate the benefit by introducing logical inability to correctly asses a person's abilities regardless of gender.



Hope that was all coherent.

 

[Kaizer_Panda]

If we were on a society with total gender equality, Women would lose all the little advantages they have, for example "ladys first" would disapear, I could punch a girl and there would be no problem, well It would be a problem because Im hitting a Human being not because Im hitting a woman

This post may sound sexiest but that is my vision, also I think Womans day is very sexist

sorry for bad english

 

[siahsargus]

Im not 100% on this but isnt the reason for men only being frontline soldiers because the odds are you will be fighting men...and physically speaking men are stronger...

Other than the physical capabilities of men having larger lungs etc I also believe (whether its the case anymore) that by purely having men on the frontline it keeps the soldiers more focussed on the job at hand without 'female distractions'...also its entirely possible that if women were on frontlines and were injured that more attention/sympathy would be given by comrades.

I could be wrong though...Personally I have nothing against women being in the frontline if they really want to be, but i can see why it doesnt happen

I think it is so ignorant of you not to realize that physical strength does not increase battlefield survivability. Do you think that an enemy combatant would really not hesitate to shoot a woman, a mare among stallions? Also, women are better, more chill sharpshooters than men are. remember also that a woman with military equipment and a gun is less likely to get raped than a defenseless civilian housewife. By the way, homosexual troops have more espirt de corps because they can see what they are fighting for. Why would hetroes be any different? If we have more accountability for rape, less sexism, and a greater understanding between male and females, there is no reason remaining to prevent women from being front line troops. Children have been front line troops because people didn't want to sent in the women. Men should not be the expendable gender, their stereotypical extra strength has better applications than dying.
/rant

 

[Sarge034]

I did in fact read your last post before I wrote mine, and my opinion is unchanged.

Also a woman! And I basically agree with everything VivaciousDeimos said.

Thank you both for your views on this from the other side of the gender fence. I will say that I would be happy to fight and shed blood next to women. I just don't think people see all the issues that come up from it.

I will list some that we, as a society, would have to solve before we could start this.
Fun fact before we start. Did you know Fort Jackson S.C. (one of two army basic training sights) is know as Relaxin' Jackson? It recived this name when soldiers found out that the instruction tends to be easier and that female recruits have been know to give head in their foxholes. Had a buddy that went there. He said it was true, but that he never got one. Just to show that both men and women will need to change to make this work, as this is unacceptable.

Spoiler: long text

Sleeping arrangments
/privacy-A lot of times you have to sleep in a common area. Changing area required.
/rape-This is something we need to grow a set and stop at all costs. However, a lot of this happens at Military Academies. Officers DO get treated differently.
/consentual sex-This is a BIG problem in three areas. 1) Some women get pregnate to get sent back to the states. 2) If people are having consentual sex it will hurt the integridy of the unit. You know that old saying, "Don't shit where you eat." Same as relationships at work, er I guess they are at work. 3) This is the consentual turned rape bullet. It does not happen as often as rape, but it does happen.

Medical aid
/gender different field medics/ corman-We need to decide if it is ok for a male medic/corman to take off the armor and ripe open a female's shirt (possibly bra as well) to treat a sucking chest wound in the middle of the battlefield. Vice versa, if it is ok for a female to remove a male's pants (possibly underwear as well) to work on a high femoral artery (inside thigh) wound. The femoral artery senario would work for the male medic/corman as well.

Require different things
/personal hygene items-The simple fact is it takes money to ship the stuff to the war zone. It takes up extra room in their or the unit's kit. It adds to the overall weight of the soldier's kit. So the main points are money, room in the kit, and weight for the indevidual soldier.
/seperate facilities-This should be self evident. Latrines, showers, changing areas, the whole nine yards.
/differences in using the toilet-I heard a story from my recruiter from when he went through his Marine land combat course. They had to compleat their forced marches every day, but in order to compleate this they could not stop for people to take a piss. This march was early in the morning so it was not light out. They would just whip it out and piss while they walked. This story aside, it does take longer for females to use the restroom and it becomes much more difficult while in the field.

If we can make it that...
1) Women must pass the same physical standards as men
2) All aforementioned problems addressed
3) All women going into a combat MOS sign a waver to show they have been informed of the posibilty of rape and pregnancy if captured. As well as what the military will do for them or cover in the way of medical treatment for such an occasion.

Then by all means sign them up. Could always use more boots on the ground and more lead down range.

 

[Dyme]

Physical work is just better suited for men because they are physically fitter.

And most manager jobs are done by men is because men are more competetive. Which is due to genes, and society/values. Men want good-looking chicks, girls want guys with a lot of money/good reputation.
Women can of course also become managers (or alike), but they rarely have as much incentive to do so as men.

Do I think that "one sex is inherently superior to, more competent than, or more valuable than the other."?
No. Well. Yes.
Men have objectivly judged the better voices. Men voices aren't annoying. Women voices are.

But women have a beverage in their breasts. How cool is that.

 

[Evidencebased]

Physical work is just better suited for men because they are physically fitter.

And most manager jobs are done by men is because men are more competetive. Which is due to genes, and society/values. Men want good-looking chicks, girls want guys with a lot of money/good reputation.
Women can of course also become managers (or alike), but they rarely have as much incentive to do so as men.

Do I think that "one sex is inherently superior to, more competent than, or more valuable than the other."?
No. Well. Yes.
Men have objectivly judged the better voices. Men voices aren't annoying. Women voices are.

But women have a beverage in their breasts. How cool is that.

Well thank god we're good for something! 9.9 (Seriously, the bit I bolded is the only sentence in that entire comment that isn't horribly wrong...)

Anyways, it sounds like the rest of us are having a nice mature conversation! I basically agree with

.

.

.

et al. that if women can meet the physical requirements for a particular job -- which may not be as difficult as sexists like to pretend! -- then they deserve to have a chance at that job. Part of my feminist perspective is that I have a very good opinion of men (no men do not have to be slaves to their biology) and like to hold them to quite a high standard, so I think men are perfectly capable of working alongside women and not raping them and not treating them like helpless children. I refuse to believe "act like decent adults" is an unrealistic goal for our armed forces (or for any of our professional workforce, really.)

 

[Sarge034]

Physical work is just better suited for men because they are physically fitter.

And most manager jobs are done by men is because men are more competetive. Which is due to genes, and society/values. Men want good-looking chicks, girls want guys with a lot of money/good reputation.
Women can of course also become managers (or alike), but they rarely have as much incentive to do so as men.

Do I think that "one sex is inherently superior to, more competent than, or more valuable than the other."?
No. Well. Yes.
Men have objectivly judged the better voices. Men voices aren't annoying. Women voices are.

But women have a beverage in their breasts. How cool is that.

Go tell this to one of thoes female weightlifters and see how much stronger then her you are... You'r a man and should have no problems right? You will obviously be more physically fit cus you are a man. Hell, I'm man enough to admit she would kick my ass. 10.0 on the sexism scale.

 

[Chemical Alia]

I will list some that we, as a society, would have to solve before we could start this.
Fun fact before we start. Did you know Fort Jackson S.C. (one of two army basic training sights) is know as Relaxin' Jackson? It recived this name when soldiers found out that the instruction tends to be easier and that female recruits have been know to give head in their foxholes. Had a buddy that went there. He said it was true, but that he never got one. Just to show that both men and women will need to change to make this work, as this is unacceptable.

Whoa. I went through basic at Fort Jackson (albeit eleven years ago), and I did occasionally hear the nickname "Relaxin' Jackson" a few times, but only ever in comparison to the stricktness at Ft. Leonard Wood supposedly being more severe. Maybe your friend's company was just grosser than hell, but I never heard of such a thing happening, and my platoon was a good 30-35% female. I knew one guy who pissed his pants in a foxhole during marksmanship training, but that's about it.

 

[Sarge034]

I will list some that we, as a society, would have to solve before we could start this.
Fun fact before we start. Did you know Fort Jackson S.C. (one of two army basic training sights) is know as Relaxin' Jackson? It recived this name when soldiers found out that the instruction tends to be easier and that female recruits have been know to give head in their foxholes. Had a buddy that went there. He said it was true, but that he never got one. Just to show that both men and women will need to change to make this work, as this is unacceptable.

Whoa. I went through basic at Fort Jackson (albeit eleven years ago), and I did occasionally hear the nickname "Relaxin' Jackson" a few times, but only ever in comparison to the stricktness at Ft. Leonard Wood supposedly being more severe. Maybe your friend's company was just grosser than hell, but I never heard of such a thing happening, and my platoon was a good 30-35% female.

This was only five years ago, and it might have just been one or two women doing this. You know how these things grow and take on a life of their own in basic.

 

[Chemical Alia]

This was only five years ago, and it might have just been one or two women doing this. You know how these things grow and take on a life of their own in basic.

I think there was one female and a male in my company who got caught having sex at some point, and were Article 15'd or something, and one guy who kept sneaking off to the hospital to buy candy in the gift shop. One thing I found is, when you're doing retarded shit like that, you're basically going to get caught and get in a ton of trouble. It's a great place for rumors, though, that's for sure v: