This is specifically addressed to 6145060 and 3501762, because it is their comments in particular to which it is a response, but the contents apply to any other thinking along the same lines as well.

Please note I am treating your comments as sincere, rather than those of online trolls, and some of what I am pointing out is being written witht he thought that you have not realized it in mind.

614: "She's cute....I do not intend to demean women...."

There is no place in a non-demeaning assessment of anyone --other than of course an assessemnt of their physical attractiveness to you personally-- for statement's like "She's cute". In this context you have already reduced someone to a creature whose only value is her physical appearance and how much that counts as "attractive". If you still don't understand this, you might wish to try thinking about how you'd feel if a performance report began with information on how physically attractive your rater found you...and that this was considered a perfectly correct way to speak about you in that context.

"Is it worth the obvious damage to them?" Is it worth the obvious damage to any military person? Perhaps, if as you assert, war is something created and perpetrated by males only, human beings should simply bar men from participating in it. War is after all detrimental to civilians and military personnel of both genders alike, as well as detrimental to the very planet we live on, and if barring men from it stops it, that's clearly the thing to do. In short..the statement sounds facetious rather than factual in any way related to the topic you are addressing. Perhaps it might make it clearer to pont out that saying you don;t wish to demean someone or the job they are doing tends to carry less weight when it is coupled with gender-denigrating cliches?

"I speak from actual military experience, and current work experience,...women, as a rule, are not physically, or emotionally as strong as most men. That is a medical fact,....thus, they are NOT allowed in actual COMBAT roles." I am not sure what your medical/biological knowledge and/or experience consists of, but you may wish to review biological facts a bit. (Similarly, I am not certain what "noncombat fields" is being defined as, which ties into this as follows Very often "strength" is used as a euphemism for "upper body muscular strength" and a larger percentage of males than females in our society have a greater amount of that, true. However a larger percentage of females have better endurance, which is also a much needed strength. Women are biologically better suited to such roles as military combat pilot than are men. This has been known for a considerable period of time; it is nothing new. There is also considerable evidence that --all else being controlled for-- women have greater emotional resilence than men.

All of these may be partially obscured by two things: social conditioning and anti-role prejudice. In other words, if you compare studies of physical evidence from areas in which men and women eat/exercise in similar fashion there are far fewer body differences than areas in which gender roles featuring "strong men" and "weak women" are enforced, and if you define emotional health in ways that do not use such social ideology as showing one's reactions being weak there are other similar surprises. However, the bottom line --for mammals in general-- requires stronger and more resilent females for the simplest of reasons. They have to successfully carry the next generation internally in a variety of harsh conditions and must therefore be better at certain things than males of the same species.

Remove social and role conditioning and have another look. And whatever you do, always keep in mind that pigeonholing an entire group --whether it's by gender, race, or any other general physical characteristic-- is a futile exercise. There are ALWAYS individuals in such groups who are not as the pigeonhole would force them to be. Women with more pecs than half the weight lifting men in the world. Men who excel at English studies. Genius level IQs in both genders. And on and on. Anything that bars those individuals from using their own abilities because they are a member of some group is not just a shame, it's bloody foolish.


Lastly. It's also true that women are at a higher risk than men in general "over there" because of sexual trauma. This is not to say there are no men who experience this problem, but it is to point out that many of these women are suffering this trauma at the hands of OUR OWN male military personnel and that should never be seen as acceptable, excused ont he basis that boys will be boys or women serving have to expect such things, or any other excuse that's been aired in the past couple of years. Men who would commit such an act on their own colleagues, espeically in any sort of war or pre-war or near-war zone, clearly belong behind bars rather than pretending to serve their country and uphold its ideals.

Thanks for reading.

My .02.

There is a real sense of resentment in the males only combat arms for complaining about how tough it is in non combat arms MOS whom they view as having life just a little better. I think that this is natural and totally healthy.

These men, in the infantry and combat arms, from my perspective, have the absolute worst job of any job in any war... By far.

I will not ever believe that any other MOS has seen more horror than the average infantryman and his corpsman who travels along. IMO, the medical staff, other than the corpsman does not share that same horror. I will also never believe than any MOS has had less creature comforts than the average infantryman and his corpsman in any war or that any other MOS should get more pay and respect than the average infantryman. When I say infantryman, I specifically include the infantry but also imply the entire combat arms genera of MOS to some degree.

Now, having said that, this in no way detracts from the rest who are actually experiencing their own hel* which has absolutely no relation to MOS. This war is exposing so many young men AND women to horrific sights, sounds and experiences that will and do haunt many of them combat arms and non combat arms alike.

I would also state that the women should get in the SAME exact line at the VA as the male infantry grunt who has this same problem. No special treatment or initiatives should be given based on gender b/c that only promotes an unhealthy resentment IMO and may actually discourage their male counterparts from seeking the help they need./

It is a big mistake IMO for the VA to push any initiative that even remotely correlates PTSD and gender. These articles are bad enough and I can almost bet that some men may get the notion that PTSD is for women which probably means just what it says to many men.

Instead I'd personally like to see it stated that PTSD is a disease that occurs sometimes after exposure to something utterly horrific.

I think we all could agree that no veteran should ever HAVE to travel through life on edge, guilt ridden, insomnic, self-medicated, withdrawn, angry and depressed b/c there was no help. I've known a few to find certain items listed above to be therapeutic and I won't begrudge them their coping skills.

One positive note is that PTSD levels may actually be at their lowest levels in this country in over 100 years (even though it was not recognized as a disease until relatively recently) but sadly b/c of the passing of the WW1 generation, WW2 and Korean War vets.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ffa211,

quote:

Lastly, while my "attack" (as described by Dave Barker) was no such thing, perhaps those who live in "glass-houses" ought to drop their stones and get a grip on reality. In the meantime, I shall be trying to improve my "uneducated" status, Seeing my doctor to "have my head examined", and reading up to refresh my "military knowledge" that seems to be so deficient. I shall also enroll in the local school of engineering to brush up on my combat-medical, independent-duty Corpsman skills. Have a nice day!

Sir your profile shows you hold the rank of Commander, which I respect My response to you was do to your post:

quote:

That must have been the case with our female former-POW hero (Bronze Star), Jessica Lynch. Musta been delayed stress. After all, it didn't show when she wrote (er, put her name on) her book and made big moola.

You need to review Jessica Lynch's situation. She was used by the Army and politicians against her will for political purposes. She is a service connected disabled veteran rated at 80%, for her wounds, who served in a hostile fire zone.
Attacking those who served this nation, just because they were pawns by Army brass is no reason to attack an individual veteran.
I am speaking to you as the Lead Moderator on the PTSD Information and Links Discussion Boards.
Dave Barker
________________________________________________
Your comment to me "perhaps those who live in "glass-houses" ought to drop their stones and get a grip on reality." I sir have a good grip on reality, as daily I deal with many veterans in treatment for PTSD. Your comments judgemental of a fellow veteran, wherein her family choices are her business.
Your opinion is yours and in no manner do I make judgement on you. I do enforce the TOS as moderator. As stated before Ms Lynch was used and abused by the system. I will defend her veterans status as long as my functions are intact, as I would yours.

quote:

(women) are barred from certain military roles like ground infantry

Is there other infantry?

quote:

Originally posted by 42317:

quote:

(women) are barred from certain military roles like ground infantry

Is there other infantry?

Sea infantry (Marines)

It might just take the female psyche more than one generation to shape her mind into that of the cold, heartless killer on the battlefield that war has been trying to do to males for 10,000 years. Maybe that is why the rise in PTSD for ladies. But once it is achieved, will it be something to be proud of??

rise in incidents for ptsd is simple... more women are serving in the military.

if all of a sudden, more men were serving in the military, we'd see this sudden spike of men with ptsd.

if you actually look at the statistics, the actual percentages for women with PTSD in the military has stayed about the same per capita, the numbers simply look bigger than previously, as more women are serving.

60 years ago, women were relagated to the "auxiliary" corps, mostly as clerical workers, and nurses. while some of these women (especially in the medical field units) were exposed to situations in which ptsd could occur, most were not, working instead in offices, and rear administrative locations.
freeing up men for combat.

as society changes, the roles women play in our armed services change. as these things change, we will see more women exposed to the same dangers as men, therefore, having a higher likelihood of developing ptsd.

headlines such as for this story, give a very myopic impression of reality.

there is a marked increase in the number of MEN with PTSD, as well... yet we don't assume it's due to gender issues... if you look across the board, PTSD cases have risen steadily for the last 5 years -- there is no major disparity between the numbers of women vs men with this disorder.

if you look at a cross section of the overall us population with ptsd from all sources of stressors -- there are still more men (percentage wise) in that group, than women.

it's stories like these that muddy the waters of preventing and treating ptsd.
combat ptsd affects a person, pretty much the same regardless of gender, sexual trauma again, the same. what seems to differ, isn't the gender of the sufferer, so much as the event, that created the problem to begin with.

i have to disagree with one point you made Prismatic -- in that while women -- in the general population -- are not ON AVERAGE as physically powerful as men, they are in most instances emotionally just as strong if not stronger. because in our society, it is more acceptable for us to have and feel our emotions, in any way we choose, and does not degrade our status within our gender, or our society (individual family dysfunction aside).

women -- again, generally speaking -- have a harder time compartmentalizing their emotions, than men, who are hardwired physiologically to be able to focus primarily on the task at hand, and stuff emotions in a far corner of the psyche to be dealt with at a latter more 'appropriate' time. making this a FEAR that a woman wouldn't make a rational decision in the face of traumatic situations.

anyone who has been a mother, and seen their child mangled in a bad accident, but able to tend to that child, pull them out of a bad entanglement of metal, and fiberglass, attend to first aid, while sending someone to fetch / call for medical rescue, and staying calm, in control, and cognizant of the situation, only falling apart and releasing the emotional overload from said event AFTER the child is in the capable hands of medical staff, and stable -- would agree with me.

women aren't in combat due to outdated thoughts on strategy and warfare. while there is still a need, and a large component of ground based fighting forces, our warfare is fought more now from control rooms on ships, and flying intelligence aircraft, than from hand to hand combat and bayonets. my guess would be, at sometime in the very near future, we will see this change too. as women are now flying attack helicopters, fighter jets, etc, where as 15 years ago, women flyers were relagated to cargo transports, training schools (fighters) and medical evacuation.

personally, i am happy as a clam that women are still, more or less, excluded from having to face the horrors of hand to hand, muzzle to muzzle shooting, and combat. if i were called to do it, i would, but to not have to worry about that? makes me glad i'm a female. i'm not a glutton for punishment.

so on that point (the emotional weakness) i beg to differ, but you're post was very eloquent and well said.

PRISM -- oops! lol sorry, i misread what you posted... you were quoting another poster... :-p i should've known better! sorry!

it is interesting to note -- the incidence of sexual assault among members of the military, is NO HIGHER than that for rest of the populace.

while the military is in effect a mini-society with it's own rules, social norms, and mores, it is also a SUBSET of the larger society, the United States, and as such, a representative cross-section of the larger group.

my personal opinion -- and again, simply an opinion, is that while ADULTS should be able to control what actions they take since they've been given brains, and not be subject to the desires of their libido -- if you put 200 young, hormonal, barely out of their teens folks, into a small section, walled off with barbed wire, and guarded with guns, rarely allowed to leave the post, put them in high stress situations (such as combat etc) restrict what they are allowed to watch (due to host country restrictions, which are MUCH stricter than simply, NO PORN) and no outlet for that stress, or the stress of simply being a barely out your teen mentality, for OVER A YEAR at a time, something is going to happen.

partly i blame the society we live in where everything is instant gratification, and rarely are the younger people taught self-control in any real shape of the word, and partly i blame the situation we place them in, and then of course there is the fact that people are people and whether they wear a uniform or not, people are sometimes just barbaric.

and then there is the question -- if you teach someone all their lives that killing is bad, and never to do it, and then, train them, that well, killing is okay sometimes, and then when you go home it's not okay anymore -- for some people that can shake their very grasp on right or wrong in the reality of life.

i'm not making excuses, but we wonder why PTSD, and MST, and substance abuse rates are rising in the military???? hmmm. i wonder. has nothing to do with GENDER at all -- men have been getting raped by other men in the military for EVER.

quote:

i'm not making excuses, but we wonder why PTSD, and MST, and substance abuse rates are rising in the military???? hmmm. i wonder. has nothing to do with GENDER at all -- men have been getting raped by other men in the military for EVER.

On target! I have filed hundreds of claims of males being raped. These assaults are far more common that one would think.

quote:

Originally posted by SignalSgtWilliams:
I like that shade of lipstick.

the brave sgt should try that color I'am sure it would look good on him, where is your head at anyway?

Fact is that PTSD does not discriminate. Actually think women are actualy stronger when it comes to dealing with emotions. Leave it to the professionals does not hold water either as they don't know all the answers either. Audie Murphy , most decorated combat vet of WW II had it and it was he, that thrust combat fatigue into the national spotlight back in the 60's. Fact is that PTSD has nothing to do with male, female, combat, support role. All has to do with experience. The brian chemicals released by our system under stress cause a physical change in the brain chemistry. You probably have a better chance predicting who is going to get cancer or diabetes or Athletes foot. But what do I know , I m just an old Vietnam doorgunner.

DaveBarker ... curious, are you familiar with a Psychologist in TX, Dr. Alan Hopewell or Tim Jennings (both military psychs) in Dalton, GA? We know them, great men, but your posts are very close to their "mindset" & writings regarding these type topics (interesting reading). Alan Hopewells father was POW/MOH President Reagan honored on 60th Anniv of D-Day, FYI.

As wife of PTSD Viet Vet - thanks for being here & sharing assistance for those in need!

Happy New Year!

quote:

Originally posted by Serafinosdream:
DaveBarker ... curious, are you familiar with a Psychologist in TX, Dr. Alan Hopewell or Tim Jennings (both military psychs) in Dalton, GA? We know them, great men, but your posts are very close to their "mindset" & writings regarding these type topics (interesting reading). Alan Hopewells father was POW/MOH President Reagan honored on 60th Anniv of D-Day, FYI.

As wife of PTSD Viet Vet - thanks for being here & sharing assistance for those in need!

Happy New Year!

No, not familiar, but glad I am not alone

Thanks for your kind comments.

Agreed, no stigma should be attached. I have seen the "toughest" crumble. The mind is not invulnerable. A person sees a lot of death and destruction and something is going to change in that person's mind. I cannot imagine what can be done in terms of prevention. I suppose all that can be done is treat post deployment with compassion and concern.

My comical feelings towards the APA aside, all I have to say is this: getting PTSD in a noncombat situation requires no more and no less than a chuckle and a shake of the head.

Combat situations, though, are totally different.

Also, during my transition from the Marine Corps I was made aware of many military members faking PTSD to get benefits. That is one reason why the rating system is backed up because they have to check for all of those dishonest souls and are paying money to those that don't really need it. That part is not the VA's or gov's fault. Maybe specific events should be required to be logged in to the SRB to validate PTSD?

quote:

getting PTSD in a noncombat situation requires no more and no less than a chuckle and a shake of the head.

That is incorrect and uncalled for.

How about rape, fire, plane crashes? There are many other stressors people are affected by in the military and naval services. In my years as a veterans service officer, most likely have seen a little of it all. When a person has PTSD it is not a chuckle and shake of the head, it is terror.

incorrect and uncalled for to be sure!

it is MORE difficult to get a rating for PTSD when it IS a NON-COMBAT situation, than if you have a purple heart or CIB. what planet are yo on???

as for fakers, yes, there have been many from about 1970 on -- but guess what??? they weren't NON-COMBAT fakers, most of them, were combat troops, who MADE UP events, that DIDN"T happen! funny, considering, if they would've stuck to the truth -- they probably would've had a better chance.

then there are the folks that are in non-combatant roles (admin, engineers, maintenance folks, med staff, and clergy) that are exposed to verifiable stressors, have it in their records, and STILL can't get rated for PTSD, because of their MOS / ASFC!!

it pays to know somewhat of what you speak, before you make such an errant offhanded comment such as that.

quote:

Originally posted by SignalSgtWilliams:
I like that shade of lipstick.

couldn't you say anything positive PTSD is for real, I think you should do some reading about how changes people not only men but woman also I hope with GODS speed she will over come some of what she is going through ........

quote:

Originally posted by DaveBarker:

quote:

getting PTSD in a noncombat situation requires no more and no less than a chuckle and a shake of the head.

That is incorrect and uncalled for.

How about rape, fire, plane crashes? There are many other stressors people are affected by in the military and naval services. In my years as a veterans service officer, most likely have seen a little of it all. When a person has PTSD it is not a chuckle and shake of the head, it is terror.

THANK YOU DAVE!!