Recent Activity

  • Expecting Women to Always Be Caregivers Is Unfair to Both Parties
    Kate commented on the article | about 2 years ago

    In the interest of fairness, it is important to note that ANY Soldier with a dependent child is expected to have a family care plan, not just the females.  Having just lost my job, though, and finding myself thrust into the role of homemaker, at least for a time, I would much rather be back in the workforce- this really is a lot of work.  ;)  My husband will always help when I ask him; he rarely volunteers it, though, because he doesn't want to upset the way I do things.  All I have to do, though, is point out something that needs doing and he's right there doing it.

  • I Am Not A Pre-Existing Condition
    Kate commented on the article | over 2 years ago

    Word.

  • Lioness Documentary Honors Women in Combat
    Kate commented on the article | over 2 years ago

    I will be renting it, because I do like to see things for myself.  I'm sorry I came off as choleric, but being a female Soldier means you always have to prove something.


    And, for the record, I deployed January 2004.  So I was there the same time.  Perhaps the 25th ID was just better than everyone else.  :)  We DO strike like Tropic Lightning...

  • Lioness Documentary Honors Women in Combat
    Kate commented on the article | over 2 years ago

    I am so angry at this article.  I am a female Soldier.  Either the writer was trying to portray us as weak, or the Soldiers giving the comments were.  EVERY Soldier, regardless of gender, receives full combat training.  It's called Basic Combat Training, it's 9 weeks long, and everyone has to do it.  We also have to qualify with our weapons every 6 months, just like the boys.  Before a deployment, EVERY Soldier, regardless of gender, has to participate in individual readiness training, which is stuff like how to be on a fireteam, how to breach doorways and clear rooms, how to navigate a minefield, now to harden a vehicle, and how to operate the weapons systems on vehicles. EVERY Soldier deployed to a combat zone, regardless of gender, expects to be in a firefight.  There is no "back in the rear" in this conflict; I was in a medical unit and got rockets and RPGs fired at me every day in the clinic.  I didn't even have to go out in a fireteam.  Had I done so, however, I would have received a full briefing before hand, as well as the maneuvers covered in basic training.  I was NEVER without the survival tools necessary to come home safe and sound, or to do my job.  These women, who whine about their lack of training or hero's honors, cheapen MY experience and MY fight.  I worked just as hard as the boys, fought just as hard, and excelled in my warrior training just as hard.  I also came back with just as much PTSD as the boys.  EVERY Soldier, regardless of gender, experiences some symptoms of PTSD- the ones that don't are ones I don't want to deploy with, ever.  These 5 women are not unique in their suffering.  The women in Operation Lioness apparently need a special title and attention to fulfill their mission, rather than relying on the training the Army provided and the NCO support channel and officer chain of command.  Were I invited to participate, I would not.  Maybe one day we'll have TRUE equality, not reverse gender bias, and articles about the heroism of women will be unnecessary.  Then, perhaps, I will be able to feel like my fellow women have truly received their due honors.  I am not MORE honorable because I am a woman Soldier, I am more honorable because I am a Soldier.  Also for the record, women are NOT banned from engaging in combat.  The Geneva Convention prohibits us from holding positions in combat arms units (infantry, artillery, armor, engineering), but our positions in combat support units are just as critical- field medics, ammunition, military police, civil affairs, and translation- and all of them, especially in this conflict, mean possible enemy contact.  Killing just can't be our primary mission, like it is for the boys, and there are good reasons.

  • I Am Not A Pre-Existing Condition
    Kate commented on the article | over 2 years ago

    As much as I hate it, I agree with Jason.  We cost more, so it's fair that we pay more.  However,change for change's sake is not necessarily a good thing.  That said, the pre-x problem has GOT to stop.  We may cost more, but they know that when they insure us.  Insure ALL of me, not just the gender-neutral parts.

0 Recruits