January 25, 2013

"Females have biological problems staying in a ditch for 30 days because they get infections..."

An old meme about women in combat. Is it a bugaboo from old farts afraid of ladyparts... or is it real?

313 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 313 of 313
Darrell said...

Back in the 1990s, a private contractor was asked to put in a bid for an LA County job and he decided to take his lunch in a private parking lot where there was a table and shade off to one side. While he was there, he saw something going on in an adjacent County field, and he decided to videotape it with a camera he started to bring along when he made bids. He found it helpful in putting together estimates--without revisiting the site. What he saw was the final exam for the LA County Fire Department. The tape showed about a half-dozen men and three times that many women. To the Dept.'s credit, the test was not some obstacle course--it was the routine tasks that firefighters do--moving a coil of hose, playing out the hose, carrying a ladder, carrying a "body" (a dummy) on your shoulder, etc.) The tape showed all of the men doing the tasks flawlessly. All of the women had a hard time. All the women fell over with the coil of hose or kept dropping it. They didn't thread the hose fitting on the hydrant correctly and the high-pressure water squirted out. They fell over when they turned on the nozzle. They toppled over with the ladders--repeatedly. Well, the contractor gave the tape to a friend of his that worked at a TV station and the station did some research and broadcast the tape. All of the women on the tape were hired. I believe that none of the men were offered a job (there were less there to begin with because of hiring quotas). When the tape was broadcast the shit hit the fan. The County attorneys said they believed that a crime had been committed by filming the test.An immediate search was conducted among County employees to find the culprit and it was announced that the guilty party would be terminated. When the contractor came forward voluntarily, he was questioned by police and held--he had to secure a lawyer and prove that he was not a County employee or billing the County for his time and that the camera was his own private property.

When Nighline covered the incident, the female County attorneys were still stuck on that and Koppel had a hard time getting them to talk about what was pictured and who was hired. A couple of womens' issues guests said that the problem really is outdated thinking. Who says that one person should carry the hose or ladder? Why not two or three? They wouldn't respond when Ted asked how the taxpayers may feel about that.

Those standard were supposed to be fair as well. That's what will happen with the military and we'll only hear about it from people serving.

Anonymous said...

Lioness: a documentary about female soldiers in combat

chickelit said...

According to the newspaper of record:

Serving in jobs like the infantry remains crucial to career advancement in the military, and critics of the current policy say that by not recognizing women’s real role in combat, women are unfairly held back. link

With that statement in mind, how will women (who can't or likely will not serve in the infantry), advance?

Will the remedy be to disregard infantry experience altogether for women, replacing it instead with Inga's nebulous "combat experience"?

Inga, how is that not lowering the bar? In other words, it sounds to me that serving in the infantry used to, or still is the pathway to promotion.

Inga, aren't going to short-change men who have served in the infantry--but giving over promotions to those who couldn't make the grade?

Inga, what about less able bodied men who can't huck the ruck? Are you for giving them career advancement too?

Colonel Angus said...

I imagine my outdated instinct of protectiveness will get a re birth among the population when a video comes out showing some pretty young female soldier in an Orange jump suit kneeling in front of a bunch of masked Islamic 'freedom fighters'.

chickelit said...

The only fair and equitable thing to do is to reward only women who can make the grade--infantry. If that means disqualifying the majority of women--so be it.

chickelit said...

@Inga: --> What about less able bodied men who can't huck the ruck? Are you for giving them career advancement too?

Anonymous said...

Band of Sisters: American Women at War in Iraq

Rusty said...

In your first example the women were on a training exercise to see if they were fit for combat command.
In the second instance the patrol were out without a full load of infantry gear.
In your third example the woman isn't a combat infantryman.
Deploying to Iraq in 2003, Jane Blair's aerial reconnaissance unit was assigned to travel ahead of and alongside combat units throughout the initial phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
There in no doubt that there are roles for women in combat, but infantry will probably not be one of them. Mental toughness isn't the issue.

SGT Ted said...

Serving in jobs like the infantry remains crucial to career advancement in the military, and critics of the current policy say that by not recognizing women’s real role in combat, women are unfairly held back.

This statement is bullshit. Competition is within the MOS you hold, not with those outside of it. Combat Air Pilots do not compete with line Infantry officers.

There are only a handful of top jobs where the Infantry field is preferred and lots of well qualified men never get those spots as well.

And as long as the "unfair advantage" bullshit is being brought up, women that do serve in the non-combat MOSes have an unfair advantage over the males for promotion because they don't have to perform as well physically to keep their job.

SGT Ted said...

The "unfair advantage" in a career argument is one-sided and convenient to women at the expense of men.

BDNYC said...

Who knew using guns to kick Arab ass could be such a moving and empowering experience for womyn? Lionesses and so forth.

Wait till the girls in the book of the month club hear about this.

The Drill SGT said...

Darrell said...Who says that one person should carry the hose or ladder? Why not two or three? They wouldn't respond when Ted asked how the taxpayers may feel about that.

Course the 'crew' of a pumper is usually just 3. one to run the pumper, one running the line and one with the ladder...

brings me full circle to 911, I have this image of 300 firemen (men, every one), going up 70 floors of stairs in the Towers, in turn-out gear, with axes, airtanks, and coils of hose to their doom. Some Captain, with his arm waving, yelling, "Follow Me!!". Infantrymen, every one, fighting a different foe.

Ann Althouse said...

What happened to all the doctors who usually opine about medical issues?

I really seriously wanted to talk about the issue. I know the press is tying it to Gingrich to turn it into a joke, but I have heard it said elsewhere that infections were THE main problem the military was concerned about.

Obviously, women are physically different. I'm not sure if the issue is urinary tract infections, which are more common in women or if things are finding their way up into the vagina and beyond. I don't know how dangerous these things are and how well they can be handled with antibiotics, given prophylactically.

Colonel Angus said...

Is it sexist of me to not be fully supportive of subjecting female military personnel to a higher risk of death than they already face?

I know some like Inga and Leslyn seem to think such risk is evidently worthwhile for career advancement but I just don't see it that way.

The Drill SGT said...

SGT Ted said...
This statement is bullshit. Competition is within the MOS you hold, not with those outside of it. Combat Air Pilots do not compete with line Infantry officers.


absolutely agree. made that point to Inga more than once in the last 2 days.

Interesting aside. Thirty years ago, I was involved with cadets at USMA. In those days, soon after women got in, all the male officers had to serve in a combat Arm, for that was the reason for USMA, to train the killers. ROTC could provide the REMFs (just kidding, I was ROTC).

After a three year troop assignment the LT's reverted to their primary branch, e.g. signal, or QM, or MSC, whatever.

The prestige branches for the men were the combat arms ones. Women could not serve there. So The women flocked to the quasi-combat support branches. Engineers, MPs, Signal, Field Arty (Missile, in those days), and Air Defense. What it meant was the men in those brnaches were inferior to the hot shot female cadets who would have been elsewhere if they could have gotten into a combat branch.

Anonymous said...

Women's health issues in war zones, Marine Corps News

Anonymous said...

Colonel, it's not simply for career advancement, that is selling a woman short. Women serve for the same reasons men do.

The Drill SGT said...

Ann Althouse said...
I really seriously wanted to talk about the issue.


am not a doctor, but I play one on weekends.

The crotch rot problem is real. all field troops know of the issue. women must have it worse. and what men have can be seriously debilitating, if not deadly.

My wife, the Colonel, has told me of toxic shock issues for female troops but I dont have statistics or lab results to back it up..

Anonymous said...

I know the press is tying it to Gingrich to turn it into a joke, but I have heard it said elsewhere that infections were THE main problem the military was concerned about.

I'd like to know too. From browsing the web, urinary tract infections are at least a problem that the military worries about with women.

Suppressing urination, limiting fluids to avoid having to go and primitive bathroom facilities have all contributed to a high rate of urinary tract infections suffered by deployed women.

Nearly half of 850 women surveyed in 2000 for a study of women’s perceptions of their health care while deployed said they’d had symptoms of UTIs or vaginitis while deployed, according to an Army report released by a new task force on women’s health earlier this year. Many of them declined to seek medical treatment, risking complications like kidney disease and pelvic infections.

Although troubling, the results were not surprising, at least among military experts in women’s health. Prevalent genitourinary problems among deployed women and their difficulties in getting treatment has been documented before.

“It’s in the literature since Desert Storm,” said Lt. Col. Lori Trego, a clinical research nurse, co-author of the report and a member of the task force. “But there’s not been a lot of attention given to it.”

http://www.stripes.com/news/task-force-aims-to-reduce-urinary-tract-infections-among-deployed-women-1.193088

Anonymous said...

Women don't need to have a menstrual period at ALL when deployed. No toxic shock need happen.

Lydia said...

And this also from that Stars and Stripes article on urinary tract infections is interesting:

"Devices that allow women to urinate discreetly will be made widely available before or while they’re deployed. Self-diagnosis kits to let women test themselves for urinary and vaginal infections are planned by next year.

The kits are designed to address the fact that significant numbers of women won’t seek medical attention for genitourinary issues while deployed. Female troops “lacked confidence” in their providers, who were usually male medics, the report said. They had doubts about confidentiality, felt awkward seeing someone they knew, preferred a female provider and said clinics in the field lacked privacy."

Things are getting awfully complicated on the battlefield.

Anonymous said...


"None of the health problems outlined in the report would bar women from serving in combat, but they create unnecessary physical discomfort, Naclerio said. The Army, for example, treated about 450 women for urinary tract infections in Afghanistan last year, according to service data. Basic improvements are needed to help women avoid higher rates of urinary tract or vaginal infections, stress-related menstrual difficulties and the chafing, bruising and bleeding caused by ill-fitting body armor designed for men, the task force’s report.

A key finding by the task force is that the military fails to educate women about how to stay healthy. The result, according to a study released last year, is that half of the women surveyed during deployment suffer urinary or vaginal infections.

Factors contributing to the infections include a tendency by women to drink less water and delay urinating while on a mission in full battle gear.

A simple solution, the task force found, is a device allowing them to urinate while standing. But women are not made aware the device is available during deployment, according to the task force’s report.

Many women also are uninformed about how combat stress can make menstrual cycles more difficult and are unaware that steps can be taken before and during deployment to regulate those effects with contraceptives, the task force determined."

Anonymous said...

Lydia's, hence the need for more female corpsmen and female medics in combat zones.

McTriumph said...

So women in the military get urinary infections the same way they do in the USA suburbs.

SGT Ted said...

Inga, until the double standard in physical requirements is addressed across the board and truly upheld, the proponents of women in Infantry units are just seeking to extend their advantage of lower physical standards into the Combat Arms fields.

Their effectiveness as true equals has not been addressed honestly, because while their ladyparts may not have been such a huge issue, their lack of having the upperbody strength of the weakest qualifying man has an downward effect on the strength of the team.

You can say that it is being part of the team to pick up slack for those weaker at times, but the weakest man is as strong as the strongest females, according to the current standards.

When the requirements are equal, there is room to complain about inequality of access to certain career fields. Until then, it's just whining about life being unfair.

SGT Ted said...

Female troops “lacked confidence” in their providers, who were usually male medics, the report said.


They need to get over their sexism and squeamishness in regards to male medics. There is no reason males cannot be trained to handle this.

Anonymous said...

If women can't hack the physicality of the Infantry they don't belong there, I said this earlier in this thread.

SGT Ted said...

Failing to report health problems that could negatively affect combat readiness because the medics are men is a very, very sexist attitude that has no place in the Military.

LCB said...

Sgt. Ted: Nit pick here. It wasn't the 82nd at Bastogne...it was the Screaming Eagles of the 101st. My uncle was there...


Didn't the Isralies try women in combat...and it was a failure. More from a moral standpoint than anything. Men could get over the loss of another man...but women getting killed triggered a "I should have protected her" feeling if I remember correctly.

Franklin said...

"One solution would be cleaner ditches."

/thread

Mitchell the Bat has the Tumblr feminists pegged.

Anonymous said...

I agree that women troops need not be so shy, but there is no reason more female Corpsmen and medics cannot be deployed in combat zones.

SGT Ted said...

Well, they already are being deployed, but saying that we need more femlae medics because of sexist attitudes of female troops in regards to the Doc is a non-starter with me.

Anonymous said...

Female medics aren't there only to treat women. Young males are often shy with female Corpsmen also.

Colonel Angus said...

Colonel, it's not simply for career advancement, that is selling a woman short. Women serve for the same reasons men do.

Ticket punching certainly seems to be the main reasons being touted. Is serving in logistics or medical somehow less 'patriotic' than infantry?

The Drill SGT said...

The solution to the problems of deploying women is to deploy more of them and create a woman friendly Army sayth the women in the Army...

Alternately, we could...

Anonymous said...

Nope, not at all less patriotic Colonel.

Bryan C said...

"Women don't need to have a menstrual period at ALL when deployed. No toxic shock need happen."

Inga, are you saying that women, when deployed, should be required to be on birth control? Sandra Fluke will be reporting for duty any minute now.

I'm not a doctor, but I do know that a women who use birth-control continuously can have serious problems when they want to stop using it. And a fair number of women can't tolerate hormonal contraception at all.

Anonymous said...

Bryan, seriously? Many women are on birth control pills many women go on to have children when they stop using birth control pills and other hormonal agents.

Anonymous said...

And no they don't need to be REQUIRED, they get to choose.

Roger J. said...

Just a small point: those men (and women) who have been in combat; and by combat I mean closing with and destroying the enemy by close combat, fire and maneuver, for the most part do not talk much about it. It has been my observation that those who want to talk extensively and expansively about what combat is like are full of shit. Just my .02

Anonymous said...

While we're on the subject of size and strength disparities, during WWII the average Japanese soldier was about 35 to 40 pounds lighter than the average American GI, yet they certainly weren't overmatched pushovers.

Peter

Anonymous said...

Chickelit will be along any moment now to remind us of the score, as he has appointed himself official score keeper.:)

The Drill SGT said...

ironrailsironweights said...

However, they likely had less body fat than GI's, and could carry a higher load to body weight ratio. e.g. Though smaller, they were still male and could pick up wounded Japanese and carry them to safety...

rhhardin said...

Derbyshire cites The Report of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission: An Inadequate Basis for Lifting the Exclusion of Women from Direct Ground Combat

SGT Ted said...

Thats right it was 101st at Bastogne. My very big bad.

chickelit said...

@Inga: I only score matches between Shouting Thomas and your BFF. :)

Alex said...

So now Inga is saying all women must be on birth control pills, no matter the side effects? What about freedom of choice?

Alex said...

Like I said, Inga is the She Wolf of the new SS.

chickelit said...

@Inga: so by all means continue here. You are drawing out tons of useful intel.

Anonymous said...

Gee Alex, point out where I said that, you cute little scrawny Moby.

Methadras said...

I just came in here to see if the mule-faced cum-dumpster known as Inga infected this conversation space with her paint melting visage. She did not disappoint.

Michael Haz said...

So what? If political leaders want to send women into combat conditions, so be it. No exemptions for hygiene, pregnancy or any other reason. Full equality. Full parity.

Now make them register for the draft, like every 18 year old male has to do. Enjoy the full power of feminism and progressivism. Women are equal to men; they should be in the same circumstances, suffer the same injuries and death.

It's what women in DC who have never served and would never serve want for other women.

If your twats can't take combat environments then don't enlist. But stop the damn whining.

Anonymous said...

Meth= WhoresoftheInternet.

Anonymous said...

Yes Haz, you de man! I do agree.

virgil xenophon said...

Has ANYBODY looked at the DOD data on women's ability to perform basic combat functions that I linked to@9:55am? It DEFINITIVELY settles ALL the back & forth here.

Treat yourselves to some reality..

Methadras said...

Inga said...

Meth= WhoresoftheInternet.


HAHAHA!!! right... keep trying, Hagatha...

Anonymous said...

Methadras= Whoresoftheinternet .

Yes I'd be ashamed too if I were you.

JAL said...

@ Inga quoting above:

The average male weighs 180 pounds. Now add on approximately 80 to 100 pounds of their gear and then 80 to 100 pounds of your own gear, and you have a near impossible task ahead of you.

Luckily, biologically, our bodies find the motivation and strength to pull our buddies out of harm’s way.


???? "Luckily? Biologically? Say What?

What is the evidence that a 140 lb woman (on the high end because she is more muscle than the average girl on the street) can pull the 180 lb guy with the 80 lbs of gear and her wearing 80 lbs of gear [?!] out of harm's way? Females do. not. have. the upper body strength or anatomy.

Sure -- you get those "Woman lifts car off baby!" headlines once in a blue moon. But blue moons are isolated, rare occurrances. Did she practice/train hauling a 180 lb guy wearing 80 lbs of gear while she herself carried 80 lbs? Or is she just hoping that when/if that time came she would have more adrenalin available to her and be able to do it?

The norm is she will have help. As most medics do, of course. But it is very telling that she follows this dream up with:

I was fortunate enough, though, when I was deployed to Iraq with Marine Wing Support Squadron 273’s Incident Response Platoon not to have to respond to any combat casualties.

So no, she had a great time of service in Iraq and we appreciate that, but she was not called to do a Mogadishu carry in a combat situation.

Look, a friend of mine was a nurse in Vietnam. Women do serve and act in heroic and remarkable ways in battle. I don't doubt that female combat medics are good at what they do, but what we are talking about here is combat as in "fighting in the infantry."

Changing the training and requirements physically and mentally to accomodate women doesn't help us, it means they are entering under the ADA or "affirmative action."

I want a military that is the best in the world to protect the United States. Not a social engineering experiment.

Anonymous said...

JAL, women are not breaking down doors clamoring to get in the infantry. There are other combat arms jobs they can and HAVE been doing.

chickelit said...

Haz says: Now make them register for the draft, like every 18 year old male has to do. Enjoy the full power of feminism and progressivism. Women are equal to men; they should be in the same circumstances, suffer the same injuries and death.

I don't believe you support this. I don't support it. I have a teenage daughter who I would never see sent against her will into slaughter, or allow to be sent to slaughter on a lottery basis. I think you just want to see the whole thing backfire. I can also tell your disingenuity by Inga's warm embrace of your idea. But then, Inga's whole purpose has always been to divide friends. Here and elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

Chickelit, again are you here as as mere score keeper and gossip? Very unmanly.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
chickelit said...

Explain in more detail please, Inga

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
JAL said...

Inga -- of course there are other combat jobs -- women fly Apache helos. Women like your daughter work as combat medics.

But what we are talking about is allowing women in the on-the-ground & in-the-tank infantry.

What is it about that problem you are not getting?

From the article A large number of those combat positions are in infantry...

But then, I also found this interesting:

Women currently make up about 15 percent of the overall force and about 17 percent of the officers, according to the military.

Uuhmmmmm... do women, who are only 15% of the military, want --- what percentage of officers? 25%? 50% (to make it "fair")?

Anonymous said...

Nope, I'm not here to have a gossip session, why don't you add something substantive to this discussion?

Anonymous said...

And Chickelit, I am incredibly loyal to my friends, you are not my friend and never was.


Anonymous said...

No JAL, that is your misunderstanding, we are talking about combat arms jobs, NOT JUST the INFANTRY.

The Drill SGT said...

Inga said...
JAL, women are not breaking down doors clamoring to get in the infantry. There are other combat arms jobs they can and HAVE been doing.


I gave the class @1142

There ARE NO Combat Arms jobs that women have ever had in the American Army. Women have NEVER been Infantry, Armor, SOF, etc...That is what Panetta just changed.

That which was forbidden is now required, unless you get an exemption.

This is all a ticket punching drill for female USMA grads. Their will be 20 female officers and no enlisted, who try to make the grade. 10+ will pass, become mediocre Infantry officers, get promoted for a while, then get passed over. They could have been super MP Officers. A shame

It's the same AA thing that is done in colleges for blacks. Getting in over your head in a program that doesn't fit your abilities.

The Drill SGT said...

Inga said...
No JAL, that is your misunderstanding, we are talking about combat arms jobs, NOT JUST the INFANTRY


NO

read my @1142. Combat arms has a specific meaning and it's not, "get shot at"

Infantry, Armor, Cavalry, Field Artillery, SOF...

women have never been in these MOS's. (well except some Pershing Nuclear missile artillery units in the 80's)

JAL said...

For Inga
Repeat:

From the article: A large number of those combat positions are in infantry...

Get it? It's about infantry and tanks and whatever the Drill Sgt is saying it is ... not your vicarious view.

And the SOFs will HAVE TO ASK FOR EXEMPTIONS. They did not exempt them straight up. What?!1!11!

The services are most likely to request exemptions in elite units where only a small percentage of men are able to meet the demanding standards, such as the Navy SEALs and the Army's Rangers and Green Berets.

JAL said...

Virgil -- I read the article along with rh's link. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Drill SGT. Poin taken.

from Navy Times, women are already allowed some combat arms jobs such as Operating Partriot missle system and field radar

At any rate we will see how many women even want Infantry and other combat arms jobs. And again if they can't hack the physicality of it, they will wash out of it. In the meantime there are OTHER support positions women do in war zones, in which they get Aho at and have the same chance of dying as men and we need to recognize this is something that is happening.

Anonymous said...

Should be , " get shot at".

The Drill SGT said...

Dril tries not to pound his head into the wall and says gently:

Inga, The Army divides all it's branches into three buckets. All have the word 'combat' in them so nobody feels left out:

Combat Arms: Infantry, Armor, Cavalry, Field Artillery, SOF...

Combat Support: ADA. Engr, Signal, MP...

Combat Service Support: Finance, AJ, MSC, MC, NC, QM, Trans, ... (your daughter classes back here)

broken out basicly by the distance they are from guys with rifles.

all have the word combat in their name.

In the Army, we talk about the 'tip of the spear'. it's bragging rights, but the spear point is the combat arms. I was an armor officer and talked shit about the artillery, that fired, but did not see the enemy, while, I, near the end of the spear, could look the Russki in the eye, (through a telescope) and we fought mano-o-mano at 2000 yards with tank cannon.

Infantry, look at them with the naked eye at 200 yards, its relative.

but in a bar, guys like me buy drinks for the infantry, and they buy drinks for the SOF.

Tip of the spear...

The Drill SGT said...

Inga said...
from Navy Times, women are already allowed some combat arms jobs such as Operating Partriot missle system and field radar


Though technically accurate, do you realize that those patriot missile guys, never see an enemy with a rifle and never even see an enemy plane which is 160 km away when they fire. An they never put on armor or a ruck or carry a rifle? note I dont list ADA as a combat arm. none of us do :)

That is why women were assigned...

Anonymous said...

Drill SGT.
The Navy Times called the two jobs I listed as COMBAT ARMS JOBS, is the Navy Times wrong?

Anonymous said...

OK, Drill SGT. , I don't want you to bang your head into anything. :)

The Drill SGT said...

Inga said...
Drill SGT.
The Navy Times called the two jobs I listed as COMBAT ARMS JOBS, is the Navy Times wrong?


No, in theory they are in the Air Defense Artillery and the Field Artillery and as such they sort of shoot at things, or support those that do, but they locate 30 miles to the rear of the front lines and have hot meals and showers.

those of us closer to the tip, call them REMFs

Harold said...

"Roger J. said...
Edutcher: there have been many new conditions manifest in soldiers returning from the mideast--in particular a condition caused by biting flies. Have even seen small pox."

Better not have seen smallpox. Not at all. If you have, then it's time to begin mass innoculations again. Smallpox is extinct in the wild.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The Drill SGT said...

@Inga 457

I thought the most telling para in your linked article was:

A West Point graduate working in the Pentagon estimates she's known thousands of women over her 20-year army career and said there's no groundswell of interest in combat jobs among female colleagues she knows.

She asked to remain anonymous because in the military's warrior culture, it's a sensitive issue to be seen as not wanting to fight, she said. But her observations echoed research of the 1990s, another time of big change in the military, when interviews with more than 900 Army women found that most didn't want fighting jobs and many felt the issue was being pushed by "feminists" not representing the majority,

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Drill SGT, are there " front lines" in Afghanistan, truly? Camp Leatherneck is considered a "forward" base. My daughter was within feet of where the insurgents broke through the perimeter when Leatherneck was attacked a few months back. Bullets were flying every which a way.

Now don't get mad at me and bang your head, OK?

Harold said...

Inga said...
"Female Marines unload their rifles after a patrol with Afghan soldiers in Helmand province in June. The Marine Corps leadership has started an experiment to determine whether female Marine lieutenants have what it takes to become infantry officers and lead on the battlefield."

Female Marines went on a patrol with Afghan soldiers? Ahhh- that doesn't pass the laugh test. Didn't anyomne else LoL as they read that?

The Drill SGT said...

Inga said...
Drill SGT, are there " front lines" in Afgahnistan, truly? camp Leatherneck is considered a "forward" base.


No.

Leatherneck is about as big and as far to the rear as possible. It has a Corps HQ, a Division HQ and a fixed wing airbase on 1600 (1600) acres.

a forward base is 30 guys on a hilltop on 1 acre

wiki

Camp Leatherneck is a 1,600 acre United States Marine Corps base located in Helmand Province, Afghanistan.[1][2] 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade initially developed Camp Leatherneck in 2008 in preparation of its forces deploying to Afghanistan. The forward element of the I Marine Expeditionary Force as Regional Command Southwest is currently based there. It is also home to 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing (Forward), 1st Marine Division (Command Element) or Task Force Leatherneck, 1st Marine Logistics Group and, I Marine Expeditionary Force Headquarters Group.

Anonymous said...

Harold, read the article, I didn't say it, that was stated in the article, believe what you want. Write the editor and complain.

Anonymous said...

Drill SGT, so why do they say 1st Marine Logistics Group
(Forward), what do they mean by "forward"? You are being very patient and I appreciate it.

Anonymous said...

Part of the address I sent my daughters packages to was 1st MLG (FWD)

The Drill SGT said...

It means that the unit is split in half and this is the front half.
The rear could be in Camp Pendleton. I don't know

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Marine_Logistics_Group

Anonymous said...

You could be right. Those insurgents sure got close( and into) to a base so far in the rear, huh?

Methadras said...

BazInga said...

Methadras= Whoresoftheinternet .

Yes I'd be ashamed too if I were you.


Any more delusions you want to project from that wine-soaked addled box of rocks you call a brain? Please cry more.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone here noticed that Whoresoftheinternet , Methadras, and President Mom Jeans use the same exact language, attacking only Garage, Garage's chronically ill child and myself, occasionally calling for the death and rape of m daughter? What a coinkydink.

What is a person to think of these strange comments from the three of them?

Jason said...

Lieutenant Kara Hultgreen, USN, could not be reached for comment.

leslyn said...

chickelit said... The only fair and equitable thing to do is to reward only women who can make the grade--infantry. If that means disqualifying the majority of women--so be it.

Thank you!

That's already the requirement. In fact, whole units can be granted.an exemption from any female even trying out, if they show by some undefined standard that women can't hack it.

leslyn said...

Colonel Angus said,

Is it sexist of me to not be fully supportive of subjecting female military personnel to a higher risk of death than they already face? I know some like Inga and Leslyn seem to think such risk is evidently worthwhile for career advancement but I just don't see it that way.

Sexist, yes, if women can do the but men are sent to die in their place. Chivalrous (not a bad thing--chivalry espoused certain noble values) ...also yes.

As to the rest: It seems so self-evident to me that I find it hard to explain to those for whom it is not self-evident.

It is a moral devaluation of the soul of a person to be ousted from the mere opportunity to prove their best; to attain achievement when achievement is merited; and, yes, to serve one's country or fellow man honorably and nobly. It is not good enough to say, "serve honorably and nobly somewhere else" merely because we don't want you here. That is the same moral devaluation.

Yes, some women are willing to die to overcome that moral devaluation. (Think of suffrage.) Some are still willing to die for that today. Many more are willing to put their lives on the line, simply to serve; and proud to serve where they are capable, honorably and nobly.

leslyn said...

Here's the short version:

To the statement, "I don't believe in a woman doing a man's job," my answer is:

"I'm not doing a man's job. I'm doing MY job. And if a man were doing this job, I'd believe that he was doing MY job."

Jason said...

..And heeeeere comes another libtard, wanting to FEEL her way through a controversy instead of THINK through it.

leslyn said...

Philosophy is thinking, Jason. You can't think past your dick.

Eric said...

I predict that if women go on the front line, one of two things will happen:

1) Standards (like how much you can carry, how fast you can run, etc.) will be split for different recruits, probably in a gender-neutral way, so that smaller/less-strong recruits can still pass muster.

2) All standards will come down.

Both options degrade the military.


Once women go into infantry relaxed standards are inevitable. Congress views the military as a jobs program, so any regime that prevents women from getting 50% of the jobs is going to be under pressure.

A full infantry load can top 120 pounds, plus weapon. How many women can even lift a pack that heavy? Hell, not many men over 30 can do it. Now put that 120 pound pack on the women who can and march them up the side of a mountain at 12,000 ft. How many get to the top? A handful, maybe, in the entire country?

Women can fight, but even as combatants they need to be in roles that aren't going to require large amounts of brute strength. If we don't allow the military to make allowances for basic biology people are going to die as a result.

Kirk Parker said...

Larry J,

OMG.

DACOWITS is still around? Somebody, somebody please drive a stake through its heart.

Jason said...

leslyn...

Ooh, now there's an informed opinion. (rolls eyes)

Did you want to compare resumes, silly person? When did you graduate from infantry school again?

دردشة ومنتديات عراقنا said...

thanks man
ابراج يوم السبت

leslyn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
leslyn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
leslyn said...

leslyn said...

Yada, yada, yada. I know y'all love debating just how and when the world is coming to an end but:

1. 14,500 previously-designated combat positions were opened to women a year ago. Mostly Army. But not infantry. Fait accompli. The Army hasn't fallen apart. Old news.

2. The Air Force is opening all its positions to women. Except for whatever the AF may do in Basic, that doesn't involve humping 120-pound packs 30 miles.

3. The Navy will open more sea positions. One example could (COULD) eventually (EVENTUALLY) be submarines.

4. That leaves the rest of the Army, the Marines, and special forces. The JCS has already given them an out, by providing that they can ask for exemptions for whole units, or Military Occupational Specialties, that THEY determine women can't do.

5. If women can't cut it in a position, they wash out. Just like men. It's in the memo. Plus it's already the practice. Old news.

6. The infantry is not going to be overrun with women. The percentage of women in the military is small, and they are not all going to suddenly run to the infantry shouting "take me! Take me!" Believe it.

Y'all might be in the military yourselves, by the amount of complaining you do. Complaining is a military art.

The facts is the facts. The military is not headed for certain destruction. Things will mostly go on pretty much as always.

Carry on.

leslyn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
leslyn said...

P.S. It made a good sound bite for Newt.

JAL said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JAL said...

In fact, whole units can be granted.an exemption from any female even trying out, if they show by some undefined standard that women can't hack it.

"...some undefined standard..."

Right.

How about reading Virgil's link Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992, published in book form by Brassey's in 1993).

And RH's link The Report of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission: An Inadequate Basis for Lifting the Exclusion of Women from Direct Ground Combat.

And spend some time on Netflix or Amazon Prime or some other source of Discovery's "Surviving the Cut" series on the Special Ops training. Seriously.

Keeping females from "even trying out" ...?

So friggin' what.

If that offends, I could hardly care less, as we do not need to waste time and resources on something which the raw data (science!) says isn't worth the time and money.

There are other positions available and yes, "whole units" should be granted "exemptions." They should not even have to ask, if the DOD and Leon were actually doing their jobs.

More of The Hunger Games strategy from this administration. Keep dividing the "districts" up and pitting them against each other.

RecChief said...

I dont' know the answer, but I do know that female soldier told me that yes, females have different hygiene concerns than men.

RecChief said...

Also, what is the definition of sexism? Female PT standards.

RecChief said...

I dont' know the answer, but I do know that female soldier told me that yes, females have different hygiene concerns than men.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 313 of 313   Newer› Newest»