Female Warriors

[Colin]

 

Simple solution for the little boob-suckers - since I wouldn't expect a child-in-tow if someone was on-duty, if the troop is on a work-break with her child then any pre-designated eating area ought to fly (as long as decorum is adhered to, like with the towel-over-infant's-head feeding trick).

 

The problem is that the little guy/girl does not give a Fig about regulations and wants their milk NOW so unless the CSM and Officer wishes to listen to a screaming child they will need to adapt their plans in face of a new 'enemy" As you mentioned a covering would work and the mother can be jacked up for not having done sufficent planning for the likely tasks of the day. Now a CO of an officer /NCO or JR that has a new child will ensure that person is given clear instruction on how to adapt the regulations to the situation.

[Rocky Davis]

Simple solution for the little boob-suckers - since I wouldn't expect a child-in-tow if someone was on-duty, if the troop is on a work-break with her child then any pre-designated eating area ought to fly (as long as decorum is adhered to, like with the towel-over-infant's-head feeding trick).

 

The problem is that the little guy/girl does not give a Fig about regulations and wants their milk NOW so unless the CSM and Officer wishes to listen to a screaming child they will need to adapt their plans in face of a new 'enemy" As you mentioned a covering would work and the mother can be jacked up for not having done sufficent planning for the likely tasks of the day. Now a CO of an officer /NCO or JR that has a new child will ensure that person is given clear instruction on how to adapt the regulations to the situation.

 

Colin - that wasn't my post or my quote.

[Colin]

Sorry the quote was X-files, I grovel in your general direction....

[Simon Tan]

Aha....so it is a super-mountain bashing qualification! Gotta love German nouns as a whole though, they may be long but they tend to be precise.

[nitin]

You are kidding. India?

 

In what way was i kidding? The point I found interesting was that an Army which requires a lot of reliance on physical fitness/raw endurance in its combat arms because it has technology limitations (see:www.i-mef.usmc.mil/external/1stmardiv/7thmarregt/3-4/family/newsletters/NewsletterFeb09.pdf and the bit about the Maratha Light Infantry*) has had much the same criticisms the Kirk made about physical issues. Namely back, spine and other problems.

 

PS: India has women pilots, and in many army functions. Its just that the combat arms demand too much physically.

 

Now, since you guys are engaged in Afghanistan & other places which place a large stress on small unit actions and physical endurance with logistical issues galore, limitations in using heavy fire and maneuver etc tactics developed for conventional forces, the Indian experience should be relevant, at least the physical aspects.

 

* (if you cant get the entire PDF): Lima Company's primary focus for the past two months has been preparation and execution of Joint Training L“ Exercise Shatrujeet. This training evolution involved 85 Marines and went from 4 — 18 January 2009. The 1'-_I exercise occurred in Belgaum, India, which is on the west coast of India, in the vicinity of Mumbai. While in India, the company was partnered with the 8th Battalion of the Maratha Light Infantry. This battalion hasbeen heavily involved in fighting counter—insurgency, within the borders of India, for the past 60 years. The 8th Marathas had an incredible bias for physically and mentally challenging training. Further, the Indian soldiers our Marines were partnered with were well drilled, extremely well disciplined and had incredible physical endurance.

Edited May 31, 2012 by nitin

[Hittite Under The Bridge]

 

 

The actual mountain guide badge is unsurprisingly similar to all of the above:

 

 

 

The badge dates from 1936 and is unchanged from the Wehrmacht version.

[BansheeOne]

Basically, the only changes being the font type and the addition of the icepicks.

 

[shep854]

"Culturally, we can't seem to cope with the idea that boys and girls are inherently different, and apply common-sense solutions",

 

Well, here's something that is definitely different that some are having a problem coping with:

 

http://moms.today.ms...-criticism?lite

Carl Prine on Military.com has a (very balanced, IMO) blog on this incident; rather long, but a good read:

http://www.lineofdeparture.com/2012/06/01/keeping-abreast-of-the-issues/

[X-Files]

Simple solution for the little boob-suckers - since I wouldn't expect a child-in-tow if someone was on-duty, if the troop is on a work-break with her child then any pre-designated eating area ought to fly (as long as decorum is adhered to, like with the towel-over-infant's-head feeding trick).

 

The problem is that the little guy/girl does not give a Fig about regulations and wants their milk NOW so unless the CSM and Officer wishes to listen to a screaming child they will need to adapt their plans in face of a new 'enemy" As you mentioned a covering would work and the mother can be jacked up for not having done sufficent planning for the likely tasks of the day. Now a CO of an officer /NCO or JR that has a new child will ensure that person is given clear instruction on how to adapt the regulations to the situation.

 

I'm familiar with infantile time constraints, but addressing *why* an infant is with a soldier during duty hours seems to be a separate issue. In our Army, it's called a "Family Care Plan".

[Colin]

Unless you plan on barring soldiers’ getting married, having kids during their terms of enlistment, things are going to happen. In the civilian world most employers end up having a lot of flexibility in regards to parents with young kids. Regardless of your oaths, the parents have a primary duty to the child and despite the best efforts of a parent, life can conspire to disrupt your plans, back up plans and last ditch plans. Child raising is a bit like maneuver warfare, where you start with a plan and adapt as the situation changes.

I don’t know anything about the situation in question, likely asking her and her CO what led up to the situation will dictate the response. If the parent had tried everything to deal with the situation beforehand or was following the guidance of her CO, then a directive giving guidance for future similar occurrences is in order. If she ignored current directives and guidance then deal with it as a normal breech of regulation.

[thekirk]

Unless you plan on barring soldiers’ getting married, having kids during their terms of enlistment, things are going to happen. In the civilian world most employers end up having a lot of flexibility in regards to parents with young kids. Regardless of your oaths, the parents have a primary duty to the child and despite the best efforts of a parent, life can conspire to disrupt your plans, back up plans and last ditch plans. Child raising is a bit like maneuver warfare, where you start with a plan and adapt as the situation changes.

I don’t know anything about the situation in question, likely asking her and her CO what led up to the situation will dictate the response. If the parent had tried everything to deal with the situation beforehand or was following the guidance of her CO, then a directive giving guidance for future similar occurrences is in order. If she ignored current directives and guidance then deal with it as a normal breech of regulation.

 

Colin, I think what you're missing here is how contrived this whole incident has to be. Young kids are not supposed to be present in a military work environment in the first place, so nursing them isn't exactly going to be something that the mom needs to do during the course of her workday. Even at lunch, where's the opportunity? As a practical matter, a nursing mother is either going to have to be harvesting the milk while she's in uniform, and saving it for use at another time--Or, she's not going to be nursing. It's not like they're carrying the kids around the flight line or motor pool with them as they work--The kid is pretty much going to be in day care through the work day, period. This whole incident reeks of activists starting crap just for publicity.

 

About the only thing that I think needs to be done for a nursing mother working in a military environment is provide her with some privacy and time to express the breast milk during her work day, and refrigeration to store it. Both of which were easy accommodations to make, and which I've both witnessed and arranged for. The idea that someone would be wandering around a work area with their kid in a bassinet during their workday for easy access to nurse? Ludicrous. Doesn't happen, wouldn't happen, and would instantly get both the mother and her chain of command hammered for multiple reasons. About the only time something like that is allowed is if there's been some really horrendous failure in someone's care plan, like the death of the care provider. And then, it's a hell of a lot more likely that the chain of command is going to tell the mother to go home with her kid, not hang around the work area.

 

There really isn't a scenario I can think of where routine, daily nursing in uniform would even be an issue--Unless you wanted to deliberately make it one.

Edited June 1, 2012 by thekirk

[Colin]

Well according to the link, the member states there is no dress code policy on breast feeding in uniform and she has advocated a policy for 15 years, which means the USAF had their head up their ass and didn't bother to deal with an issue that clearly has been percolating for sometime.

Also there are many jobs in the military that have nothing to do with workshops, field or even outdoors. Not to mention this is the USAF, where getting one’s combats dirty while doing tactical stuff is likely a uniform offense.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Colin

[thekirk]

Well according to the link, the member states there is no dress code policy on breast feeding in uniform and she has advocated a policy for 15 years, which means the USAF had their head up their ass and didn't bother to deal with an issue that clearly has been percolating for sometime.

Also there are many jobs in the military that have nothing to do with workshops, field or even outdoors. Not to mention this is the USAF, where getting one’s combats dirty while doing tactical stuff is likely a uniform offense.

 

You're not getting it, Colin. There are no, I say again, no jobs, locations, or places where there are children allowed for more than very occasional visits. Even working in a headquarters, or any military office setting, you are just not going to see children of any sort, period. You don't have workplace nurseries handily located in your building. The juxtaposition between child care and work that would necessitate nursing in uniform just does not exist, period.

 

For this to even become an issue, you'd have to contrive such convoluted circumstances it is not even funny. You'd have to be calling in the care-giver to deliver the kid to you for nursing during the workday, and then making a point of doing your nursing in public intentionally. The mothers I knew who were on active duty while still nursing would have probably rolled their eyes at this, and then laughed their heads off at the idiots making an issue of it. None of them would have wanted to be seen nursing in uniform. All they wanted was some privacy to express milk, and a place to put it until the workday was over. Most gave it up in pretty short order, anyway--There's like a 6 to 8 week post-partum leave, and then only a 4-month window of non-deployability. The majority of nursing mothers I was around did so for only that first few months, as the needs of the workplace just didn't allow it. I think I remember them quoting a statistic at me once, to the effect that most Army mothers gave up nursing anyway, due to discomfort during physical training.

 

Hell, if I'm not mistaken, there really isn't even a set policy for exposure to hazardous chemicals. That's on a one-off deal, usually done by the commander with the advice of a doctor. I know that we had to provide a letter from one of the pediatricians treating my fueler's kids (referenced earlier in this thread) in order to justify her not working with fuels while she was nursing them.

 

Like I said--This whole thing in the news is due to a bunch of attention-seekers doing what those sorts of jackasses do--Seek attention. Seriously, about the only way this even becomes an issue in most military workplaces is if (and, only if...) someone is determined to make it a big deal about it.

[Simon Tan]

Twin icepicks....now that would look totally rocking. With a chick....it would be off the charts!!!!!

[X-Files]

If she ignored current directives and guidance then deal with it as a normal breech of regulation.

 

Real simple - you can't bring your kids to work on normal duty days and expect to be distracted by them, no matter what their age.

 

Like I said--This whole thing in the news is due to a bunch of attention-seekers doing what those sorts of jackasses do--Seek attention. Seriously, about the only way this even becomes an issue in most military workplaces is if (and, only if...) someone is determined to make it a big deal about it.

 

I'd have pointed my (female) XO to sites like these, prior to her sitting down with the soldier and working out the family care plan.

 

http://www.mayoclini...feeding/FL00120

 

Problem solved, unlock achievement.

 

Moo.

Edited June 4, 2012 by X-Files

[BansheeOne]

This has of course happened in other countries, but is a new experience for Germany: 41-year-old physiotherapist and mother of three makes use of the new voluntary short-time service, finishes basic training as a mountain medic while 16 people half her age drop out from her platoon, and likes it so much she thinks about extending ...

 

[Rocky Davis]

Looks like trouble at Lackland AFB:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47960915/ns/us_news/

[X-Files]

Thursday marked a pivotal moment in Army history, as the role of women in leadership was forever changed.

Fort Hood's 1st Cavalry Division welcomed the Army's first ever female deputy commanding general of a division.

BG Laura Richardson is giving credit to all women who proudly wear the uniform.

 

http://www.kcentv.com/story/18959193/first-ever-female-deputy-commander-of-an-army-division

 

http://www.otc.army.mil/organization/Richardson.pdf

[thekirk]

Ha. And, double-HA!

 

Straight from the horse's mouth:

 

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

 

 

 

Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal

The Marine Corps Times recently published a handful of articles in regard to opening Infantry Officer Course (IOC) to females and the possibility of integrating women into the infantry community. In mid-April the Commandant directed the “integration” of the first wave of female officers into IOC this summer following completion of The Basic School (TBS). This action may or may not pave the way for female Marines to serve in the infantry as the results remain to be seen. However, before the Marine Corps moves forward with this concept, should we not ask the hard questions and gain opinions of combat-experienced Marines (male and female alike) as to the purpose, the impact, and the gains from such a move? As a combat-experienced Marine officer, and a female, I am here to tell you that we are not all created equal, and attempting to place females in the infantry will not improve the Marine Corps as the Nation’s force-in-readiness or improve our national security.

As a company grade 1302 combat engineer officer with 5 years of active service and two combat deployments, one to Iraq and the other to Afghanistan, I was able to participate in and lead numerous combat operations. In Iraq as the II MEF Director, Lioness Program, I served as a subject matter expert for II MEF, assisting regimental and battalion commanders on ways to integrate female Marines into combat operations. I primarily focused on expanding the mission of the Lioness Program from searching females to engaging local nationals and information gathering, broadening the ways females were being used in a wide variety of combat operations from census patrols to raids. In Afghanistan I deployed as a 1302 and led a combat engineer platoon in direct support of Regimental Combat Team 8, specifically operating out of the Upper Sangin Valley. My platoon operated for months at a time, constructing patrol bases (PBs) in support of 3d Battalion, 5th Marines; 1st Battalion, 5th Marines; 2d Reconnaissance Battalion; and 3d Battalion, 4th Marines. This combat experience, in particular, compelled me to raise concern over the direction and overall reasoning behind opening the 03XX field.

Who is driving this agenda? I am not personally hearing female Marines, enlisted or officer, pounding on the doors of Congress claiming that their inability to serve in the infantry violates their right to equality. Shockingly, this isn’t even a congressional agenda. This issue is being pushed by several groups, one of which is a small committee of civilians appointed by the Secretary of Defense called the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS). Their mission is to advise the Department of Defense (DoD) on recommendations, as well as matters of policy, pertaining to the well-being of women in the Armed Services from recruiting to employment. Members are selected based on their prior military experience or experience with women’s workforce issues. I certainly applaud and appreciate DACOWITS’ mission; however, as it pertains to the issue of women in the infantry, it’s very surprising to see that none of the committee members are on active duty or have any recent combat or relevant operational experience relating to the issue they are attempting to change. I say this because, at the end of the day, it’s the active duty servicemember who will ultimately deal with the results of their initiatives, not those on the outside looking in. As of now, the Marine Corps hasn’t been directed to integrate, but perhaps the Corps is anticipating the inevitable—DoD pressuring the Corps to comply with DACOWITS’ agenda as the Army has already “rogered up” to full integration. Regardless of what the Army decides to do, it’s critical to emphasize that we are not the Army; our operational speed and tempo, along with our overall mission as the Nation’s amphibious force-in-readiness, are fundamentally different than that of our sister Service. By no means is this distinction intended as disrespectful to our incredible Army. My main point is simply to state that the Marine Corps and the Army are different; even if the Army ultimately does fully integrate all military occupational fields, that doesn’t mean the Corps should follow suit.

I understand that there are female servicemembers who have proven themselves to be physically, mentally, and morally capable of leading and executing combat-type operations; as a result, some of these Marines may feel qualified for the chance of taking on the role of 0302. In the end, my main concern is not whether women are capable of conducting combat operations, as we have already proven that we can hold our own in some very difficult combat situations; instead, my main concern is a question of longevity. Can women endure the physical and physiological rigors of sustained combat operations, and are we willing to accept the attrition and medical issues that go along with integration?

As a young lieutenant, I fit the mold of a female who would have had a shot at completing IOC, and I am sure there was a time in my life where I would have volunteered to be an infantryman. I was a star ice hockey player at Bowdoin College, a small elite college in Maine, with a major in government and law. At 5 feet 3 inches I was squatting 200 pounds and benching 145 pounds when I graduated in 2007. I completed Officer Candidates School (OCS) ranked 4 of 52 candidates, graduated 48 of 261 from TBS, and finished second at MOS school. I also repeatedly scored far above average in all female-based physical fitness tests (for example, earning a 292 out of 300 on the Marine physical fitness test). Five years later, I am physically not the woman I once was and my views have greatly changed on the possibility of women having successful long careers while serving in the infantry. I can say from firsthand experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not just emotion, that we haven’t even begun to analyze and comprehend the gender-specific medical issues and overall physical toll continuous combat operations will have on females.

I was a motivated, resilient second lieutenant when I deployed to Iraq for 10 months, traveling across the Marine area of operations (AO) and participating in numerous combat operations. Yet, due to the excessive amount of time I spent in full combat load, I was diagnosed with a severe case of restless leg syndrome. My spine had compressed on nerves in my lower back causing neuropathy which compounded the symptoms of restless leg syndrome. While this injury has certainly not been enjoyable, Iraq was a pleasant experience compared to the experiences I endured during my deployment to Afghanistan. At the beginning of my tour in Helmand Province, I was physically capable of conducting combat operations for weeks at a time, remaining in my gear for days if necessary and averaging 16-hour days of engineering operations in the heart of Sangin, one of the most kinetic and challenging AOs in the country. There were numerous occasions where I was sent to a grid coordinate and told to build a PB from the ground up, serving not only as the mission commander but also the base commander until the occupants (infantry units) arrived 5 days later. In most of these situations, I had a sergeant as my assistant commander, and the remainder of my platoon consisted of young, motivated NCOs. I was the senior Marine making the final decisions on construction concerns, along with 24-hour base defense and leading 30 Marines at any given time. The physical strain of enduring combat operations and the stress of being responsible for the lives and well-being of such a young group in an extremely kinetic environment were compounded by lack of sleep, which ultimately took a physical toll on my body that I couldn’t have foreseen.

By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change. My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment. Regardless of my deteriorating physical stature, I was extremely successful during both of my combat tours, serving beside my infantry brethren and gaining the respect of every unit I supported. Regardless, I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement. I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females.

There is a drastic shortage of historical data on female attrition or medical ailments of women who have executed sustained combat operations. This said, we need only to review the statistics from our entry-level schools to realize that there is a significant difference in the physical longevity between male and female Marines. At OCS the attrition rate for female candidates in 2011 was historically low at 40 percent, while the male candidates attrite at a much lower rate of 16 percent. Of candidates who were dropped from training because they were injured or not physically qualified, females were breaking at a much higher rate than males, 14 percent versus 4 percent. The same trends were seen at TBS in 2011; the attrition rate for females was 13 percent versus 5 percent for males, and 5 percent of females were found not physically qualified compared with 1 percent of males. Further, both of these training venues have physical fitness standards that are easier for females; at IOC there is one standard regardless of gender. The attrition rate for males attending IOC in 2011 was 17 percent. Should female Marines ultimately attend IOC, we can expect significantly higher attrition rates and long-term injuries for women.

There have been many working groups and formal discussions recently addressing what changes would be necessary to the current IOC period of instruction in order to accommodate both genders without producing an underdeveloped or incapable infantry officer. Not once was the word “lower” used, but let’s be honest, “modifying” a standard so that less physically or mentally capable individuals (male or female) can complete a task is called “lowering the standard”! The bottom line is that the enemy doesn’t discriminate, rounds will not slow down, and combat loads don’t get any lighter, regardless of gender or capability. Even more so, the burden of command does not diminish for a male or female; a leader must gain the respect and trust of his/her Marines in combat. Not being able to physically execute to the standards already established at IOC, which have been battle tested and proven, will produce a slower operational speed and tempo resulting in increased time of exposure to enemy forces and a higher risk of combat injury or death. For this reason alone, I would ask everyone to step back and ask themselves, does this integration solely benefit the individual or the Marine Corps as a whole, as every leader’s focus should be on the needs of the institution and the Nation, not the individual?

Which leads one to really wonder, what is the benefit of this potential change? The Marine Corps is not in a shortage of willing and capable young male second lieutenants who would gladly take on the role of infantry officers. In fact we have men fighting to be assigned to the coveted position of 0302. In 2011, 30 percent of graduating TBS lieutenants listed infantry in their top three requested MOSs. Of those 30 percent, only 47 percent were given the MOS. On the other hand, perhaps this integration is an effort to remove the glass ceiling that some observers feel exists for women when it comes to promotions to general officer ranks. Opening combat arms MOSs, particularly the infantry, such observers argue, allows women to gain the necessary exposure of leading Marines in combat, which will then arguably increase the chances for female Marines serving in strategic leadership assignments. As stated above, I have full faith that female Marines can successfully serve in just about every MOS aside from the infantry. Even if a female can meet the short-term physical, mental, and moral leadership requirements of an infantry officer, by the time that she is eligible to serve in a strategic leadership position, at the 20-year mark or beyond, there is a miniscule probability that she’ll be physically capable of serving at all. Again, it becomes a question of longevity.

Despite my personal opinion regarding the incorporation of females into the infantry community, I am not blind to the fact that females play a key role in countering the gender and cultural barriers we are facing at war, and we do have a place in combat operations. As such, a potential change that I do recommend considering strongly for female Marine officers is to designate a new secondary MOS (0305) for a Marine serving as female engagement team (FET) officer in charge (OIC). 0305s would be employed in the same way we employ drill instructors, as we do not need an enduring FET entity but an existing capability able to stand up based on operational requirements. Legitimizing a program that is already operational in the Corps would greatly benefit both the units utilizing FETs and the women who serve as FET OICs. Unfortunately, FET OICs today are not properly screened and trained for this mission. I propose that those being considered for FET OIC be prescreened and trained through a modified IOC with an appropriately adjusted physical expectation. FET OICs need to better understand the infantry culture and mindset and work with their 0302 brethren to incorporate FET assistance during specific phases of operations to properly prepare them to serve as the subject matter experts to a regimental- or battalion-level infantry commander. Through joint OIC training, both 0302s and FET OICs can start to learn how to integrate capabilities and accomplish their mission individually and collectively. This, in my mind, is a much more viable, cost-effective solution, with high reward for the Marine Corps and the Nation, and it will also directly improve the capabilities of FET OICs.

Finally, what are the Marine Corps standards, particularly physical fitness standards, based on—performance and capability or equality? We abide by numerous discriminators, such as height and weight standards. As multiple Marine Corps Gazette articles have highlighted, Marines who can run first-class physical fitness tests and who have superior MOS proficiency are separated from the Service if they do not meet the Marine Corps’ height and weight standards. Further, tall Marines are restricted from flying specific platforms, and color blind Marines are faced with similar restrictions. We recognize differences in mental capabilities of Marines when we administer the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery and use the results to eliminate/open specific fields. These standards are designed to ensure safety, quality, and the opportunity to be placed in a field in which one can sustain and succeed.

Which once again leads me, as a ground combat-experienced female Marine Corps officer, to ask, what are we trying to accomplish by attempting to fully integrate women into the infantry? For those who dictate policy, changing the current restrictions associated with women in the infantry may not seem significant to the way the Marine Corps operates. I vehemently disagree; this potential change will rock the foundation of our Corps for the worse and will weaken what has been since 1775 the world’s most lethal fighting force. In the end, for DACOWITS and any other individual or organization looking to increase opportunities for female Marines, I applaud your efforts and say thank you. However, for the long-term health of our female Marines, the Marine Corps, and U.S. national security, steer clear of the Marine infantry community when calling for more opportunities for females. Let’s embrace our differences to further hone in on the Corps’ success instead of dismantling who we are to achieve a political agenda. Regardless of the outcome, we will be “Semper Fidelis” and remain focused on our mission to protect and defend the United States of America.

________________________________________________

Someone who sees the same issues I do with all this. I wonder who's going to step up to the plate and vilify her?

I'd also lay long odds that this young lady is going to be one of those women I was talking about, who's going to be making extensive use of the VA system when she eventually retires. I hope for her sake she doesn't develop long-term issues, but when you're showing evidence of body damage like she describes in your twenties, that ain't boding well for your forties and fifties. I still say the entire idea is a cheap-ass swindle on both the military, and the young women we're telling that they can do it all, just like the guys.

[BansheeOne]

I see no reason to either vilify or elevate to sainthood another opiniator stating a mix of the obvious and personal anecdote. It boils down to: You must know that military frontline service will have adverse long-time effects other than through enemy action on your health, the less your body is prepared for it, the more. The point is, again, not whether to allow women into combat, but to allow them to be informed that they are likely in the "less" range despite political correctness (but then again, I too have vertebrae pressing on nerves all over my spine and once ruptured a vertebral artery when my neck snapped back from a self-inflicted blockade, just from a desk job counterbalanced with too little physical activity).

[TonyE]

....just from a desk job counterbalanced with too little physical activity....

 

Chairborne warriors are the unsung heroes of the modern day office landscape operations, their sacrifices shall not be forgotten.

[BansheeOne]

I once stated in a double interview that compared with my brother #3's deployment to Afghanistan, my biggest job risk was cutting my fingers on paper, but by God, I have suffered more of those cuts in the line of duty to the greater good of national security than I care to mention!

[RETAC21]

Half a league, half a league,

  Half a league onward,

All in the valley of Powerpoint

  Rode the six hundred.

'Forward, the Chair Brigade!

Charge for the paper clips' he said:

Into the valley of Powerpoint

  Rode the six hundred.

[Jeff]

Sitzpinkel comes to the US Navy!

 

Navy's new gender-neutral carriers won't have urinals

July 11th, 2012

01:47 PM ET

 

[updated at 6:17 p.m. ET] The U.S. Navy's new class of carriers will be the first to go without urinals, a decision made in part to give the service flexibility in accommodating female sailors, the Navy says.

 

The change heralded by the Gerald R. Ford class of carriers – starting with the namesake carrier due in late 2015 – is one of a number of new features meant to improve sailors' quality of life and reduce maintenance costs, Capt. Chris Meyer said Wednesday.

 

Omitting urinals lets the Navy easily switch the designation of any restroom – or head, in naval parlance – from male to female, or vice versa, helping the ship adapt to changing crew compositions over time, Meyer said.

 

The Navy could designate a urinal-fitted area to women, of course, but the urinals would be a waste of space. Making the areas more gender-neutral is a relatively new consideration for the service, with most of its current carriers commissioned before it began deploying women on combat ships in 1994.

 

But it wasn't the only reason for the move.

 

Urinal drain pipes clog more than toilets and therefore can be smellier and costlier to maintain, Meyer said.

 

"There's a lot more at play in the design objectives than (making the toilet areas) gender-neutral. We're saving money in maintenance costs, and we’re improving quality of life," said Meyer, manager of the Future Aircraft Carriers Program for the Naval Sea Systems Command.

 

Other quality-of-life updates, according to Meyer:

 

– Sleeping areas, or berthings, generally will be smaller, designed for fewer people per room. On current carriers, some berthings have more than 100 sailors each. On the Ford carriers, the number will be closer to 30 to 50 each.

 

– Heads will be attached to berthing compartments. Currently, many sailors have to traverse a passageway between a berthing and a head, meaning sailors who’ve just woken up have to dress up more for a trip to the head than they would if it were adjacent.

 

The new Ford-class features were first reported by the Navy Times.

 

Some sailors said that they're happy to lose the urinals because they're hard to clean and maintain, the Navy Times reported this week.

 

The Ford class is the future replacement for the Nimitz class. The Ford carriers are designed to allow more aircraft sorties, but with about 660 fewer crew members, according to the Navy.

 

The first three Ford carriers are scheduled to debut between 2015 and 2027, at a total projected cost of $37 billion. That cost includes non-recurring engineering expenses and research and development costs for the first carrier, the Navy says.

 

http://news.blogs.cn...t-have-urinals/

[TonyE]

I once stated in a double interview that compared with my brother #3's deployment to Afghanistan, my biggest job risk was cutting my fingers on paper, but by God, I have suffered more of those cuts in the line of duty to the greater good of national security than I care to mention!

 

Wear every bloodied cut with staunch pride, they are the true badges of honour from your numerous selfless charges against the Xerox Husaren and the Falken Kürassiere.