I am a fellow combat vet. I am a little confused at why alot of males (old school and new school) seemed to think females do not get affected by PTSD. I am one of those females who was declared affected by it. I drove trucks all day in Iraq over there. I drove the infantry around thoughout the city to many different houses for them to search the houses. While you have several Iraqi on lookers, not knowing who had that weapon in the crowd. My truck that I was driving was also struck by an IED leaving my two passengers and me with some pretty good wounds. I am a combat wounded vet.

Corporal I am with you and agree totally. The problem is so many men and women, do not understand what PTSD is and what it does. On the PTSD Information and Links, we have attempted to provide learning aids to assist people in getting understanding and knowledge. Hopefully those visiting will take a look and possibly learn.

Okay – I’m glad the kick of “she’s cute” seems to be over.

One type of comment seems to recur in this thread. It’s a “you asked for it” type of comment. Like you asked for equal treatment now live with the consequences. These types of comments seem to imply that women are complaining about the fact that women are being diagnosed with PTSD. I have not heard one complaint in this regard by a woman; they all seem to be from men. I will grant you that I have not checked all the profiles to be sure of this.

It is a fact that PTSD has not boundaries. I returned from Iraq March 2007 where I did mortuary affairs. While I do not have PTSD or another malady I was certainly changed by my experiences. I consider it an evolution of self. We all change over time through our experiences. One example is I have a huge tolerance for gore where I used to cringe away from it. And I have less tolerance for the niceties.

I do know of MA personnel who have come back with PTSD, some with rather severe cases. My team received training in how to deal with the stresses before deploying. We had a very small group and obviously we didn’t have many people to talk to about what we did. And even if you could you didn’t want to corrupt others minds with it.

you make good points sgtw.

for some reason, when women have ptsd in the military, there are many who use this as a reason why 'women are weak, and have no place in the military' == which in my mind isn't even rational logic -- considering that ptsd was a disorder first diagnosed in MALE military members.

bottom line is -- PTSD knows no boundaries of race, gender, occupation, or social placment.
it is a gremlin that can affect ANYONE unfortunate enough to have trauma in their life.

quote:

Originally posted by SgtW_USMC:
Okay – I’m glad the kick of “she’s cute” seems to be over.

One type of comment seems to recur in this thread. It’s a “you asked for it” type of comment. Like you asked for equal treatment now live with the consequences. These types of comments seem to imply that women are complaining about the fact that women are being diagnosed with PTSD. I have not heard one complaint in this regard by a woman; they all seem to be from men. I will grant you that I have not checked all the profiles to be sure of this.

It is a fact that PTSD has not boundaries. I returned from Iraq March 2007 where I did mortuary affairs. While I do not have PTSD or another malady I was certainly changed by my experiences. I consider it an evolution of self. We all change over time through our experiences. One example is I have a huge tolerance for gore where I used to cringe away from it. And I have less tolerance for the niceties.

I do know of MA personnel who have come back with PTSD, some with rather severe cases. My team received training in how to deal with the stresses before deploying. We had a very small group and obviously we didn’t have many people to talk to about what we did. And even if you could you didn’t want to corrupt others minds with it.

I hope you have gone into my website and read the information on PTSD (as well as the Persian Gulf book). Your mortuary duty is a real and verifiable stressor. That MOS does create severe stress.
When it comes down to the bottom line on the insensitive jerks who make the 'cute' comments regarding women doing their duty, they just show how pitifull uninformed people they are.
This topic was created on "In The News" based on the article. Since the topic is now a PTSD Info and Links topic, it will soon be moved off of ITN and on PTSD Links and Disability Comp.

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

applesandonions....i truly agree with what you said. but as I was reading I couldn't help but notice that you listed Engineers as a non-combat branch, which is clearly wrong, as they are categorized as combat arms. I thought about letting it go...until i read your last statement and thought it was quite humorous and ironic.

what i meant by non-combat -- is that we don't carry weapons around.

if we were truly 'combat' women (such as myself) wouldn't be allowed in the AFSC let alone to command!

in technicality, all LINE officers are combatants, but in reality, we're not considered combat troops. anyone who's been an engineer, and tried to file a claim for combat related wounds (such as some of our seabee brothers here) can attest.

if the airbase we're on gets overrun, it's our duty to assist security police in their job to defend it -- but then again, that job belongs to everyone who's line. we're about as combat as the aircraft maintenance and trans people.. just from my 20 + years experience...

i just looked at your profile BRATT -- you're army, i was air force -- we classify things a bit differently. we're in a 'technical career' field. the air force divides up the careers (AFSCs, army calls them MOSes) into 4 groups. Flight, Non-Technical, Specialty and Technical.

the army (your branch from your profile) divides it basically into Combat Arms, and Combat Support. So for an army engineer yes, that's considered combat arms, for air force, basically we're all combat support (i.e. we're not on the ground running battles -- the flight folks are more in line with 'combatant' roles, but even they seen as support by other branches.


no offense, but only a young officer would feel that needs a correction! in my younger days i would jump all over something like that -- as you progress, you just don't worry about it.

applesandonions....well, now that makes sense. I'm still new to this website and my inexperience and youthful perspective keeps thinking to myself that i'm talking to all Army people. I have a cousin in the Airforce that flies C-130's, and I jump out of them. So, besides that, I do not know anything else about Airforce, except for what my dad (35 years active Army, SOF) tells me about the AF's love for golf courses!

You are right about the correction, maybe if I was older I wouldn't care. In fact, I was really just pointing out what I thought to be a humorous contradiction, like I said, I agreed with your statements. I think it also has to do with my current deployment with Army Combat Engineers...we have our own rivalry, but at the end of the day, I don't think I could live with not standing up for my Sapper comrades.

no worries.

i was a brash young LT once too. and -- us air force folks, owe most of our older traditions to the army folks -- at one point, we WERE Just a division of the army! then came 1947 and well, here we are abotu 61 years later, with our OWN way of doing things...

golf courses... *sigh* yes, but i hate golf, so thank god i don't have to deal with playing anymore. it sort of an unofficial 'promotional requirement' that you play golf (especially in the officer corps and senior ncos), but i preferred raquetball, and schmoozing at the club.

a little good natured rivalry keeps things entertaining, and is a good break for the brain.

quote:

Originally posted by 4367481:
Again, bring these women home to their loved ones. What the hell are they doing over there anyway? Is this what our military has come out to fight with. Little girls picking up a weapon and facing the War on Terror... Let's empty our prison system out and send these individuals over there with the agreement their sentence is reduced if they survive. What the hell is wrong with this country anyway??? We're no better then the enemy if we are forced to use our women in combat!!! Now, go figure that one out!

"

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 6837602,

In 1977 while being a manager of Metroplolitan Life, an agent who worked on my staff was a former recruiter for the USMC in Cleveland. He was compelled to retire after 20 years, for getting recruits out of the county Common Pleas Court, to join the Marines rather than do jail time. "The Cleveland Plain Dealer" found out and literally destroyed his career and he was lucky to get his retirement.
Since we Americans allow the news media to do our thinking, it appears draft is out and options for those facing jail will not fly. Those in prison, most likely would be a poor choice over all. People are there for correction and rehabilitation purposes, the military and naval services have enough problems now without adding to them.

He was just trying to get his share Dave. In the 50s and 60s well meaning court officials would often give the offender the choice of coming back to court with a copy of his enlistment papers or face conviction and sentencing. Some just enlisted on their own to gain the sympathy of the court (and the knowledge that the community would be rid of him). Usually it was the US Army that got those people, sometime we would get indicators when FBI fingerprint checks came back. I think sometimes it worked out for the best, the kids just needed a little discipline to get on th right path.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DaveBarker:
In 1977 while being a manager of Metroplolitan Life, an agent who worked on my staff was a former recruiter for the USMC in Cleveland. He was compelled to retire after 20 years, for getting recruits out of the county Common Pleas Court, to join the Marines rather than do jail time. QUOTE]

true -- but again, in the 50s and 60s most of the time there were juvenile (under 20) offenders, or non-violent acts.

would you really want a gang banger, who's murderd 10 people, including a cop, with a weapon in a foreign country watching your ***? i think not!

as for the 'little girls to defend us' comment -- most men will tell you, women can be far scariery when they fight than a man. don't ever come between a mother and her children, she won't hesitate to rip your inards apart.

besides that fact -- women, aren't in 'combat' roles. we are exposed to combat like conditions, but we're not in infantry, or paratrooping into battle. but that's no different than say, Pearl Harbor -- where women, nurses, clerks, etc, were in 'safe' areas, but still ended up on the front lines. all that proves is there are some really uneducated people around here, who don't even know their u.s. history.

never mind the fact that in WWII in russia, women were combat soldiers right alongside the men, in defending russia from Hitler's invasion -- and they are just as highly regarded in their society as their male counterparts, and fought just as valiantly.

so... with that said... i'm going to read my sunday paper, and clip out coupons

quote:

Originally posted by 6837602:

quote:

Originally posted by 4367481:
Again, bring these women home to their loved ones. What the hell are they doing over there anyway? Is this what our military has come out to fight with. Little girls picking up a weapon and facing the War on Terror... Let's empty our prison system out and send these individuals over there with the agreement their sentence is reduced if they survive. What the hell is wrong with this country anyway??? We're no better then the enemy if we are forced to use our women in combat!!! Now, go figure that one out!

"empty our prison system out "

I do not think that is a good idea people in prison do not make good troops. Bring back the daft we do need allot of young healthy males for the fight. The only way to get them is to bring back the draft.

PS
If it was a first offense, we got them before they went to jail, and basic training was extended to 6 months long it might work for a few of them.

Very true Apples. Most were stuff like trying to out run a cop in their car or such, just more of the "boys will be boys" category.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveBarker:

I hope you have gone into my website and read the information on PTSD (as well as the Persian Gulf book). Your mortuary duty is a real and verifiable stressor. That MOS does create severe stress.
When it comes down to the bottom line on the insensitive jerks who make the 'cute' comments regarding women doing their duty, they just show how pitifull uninformed people they are.
This topic was created on "In The News" based on the article. Since the topic is now a PTSD Info and Links topic, it will soon be moved off of ITN and on PTSD Links and Disability Comp.

I have not checked it out but I certainly will. It helps to be informed on the topic. I know that PTSD can manifest long after the event. While I have not noticed any symptoms in my troops to date, you never know.

Hmmm, I think it would benefit my unit to give a period of instruction on it. I'll bring it up to my Training Chief.

quote:

Originally posted by cutterx2202:
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?

I have been asked to clarify my stance, so here it goes: The military is not a pity-party for crybabies. It's a fact we're trying to produce professional killers, not a nursery. We train you to deal with stress, so if you want to cry or get bent out of shape, it's your own fault. My stance is that PTSD as a mental sickness should only be labeled on a person for events which are of an extremely violent nature, moreso than the average soldier. ie) a really bloody battle with many of your unit dying, being a POW, massive casualties from a plane crash and you had to escape the plane underwater, extreme cases of rape, etc. It should NOT be given in cases of "desk" jobs, a normal firefight, or anything else that other soldiers may deal with on a normal basis or day to day. Again, we give you the skills to deal with any stress, it is up to the person on how they react.

On that note, I'd be ignorant to say that PTSD only affects men, which is why I never said that. But given the above circumstances, percentage-wise there should be only a very small fraction of women that are actually exposed to those conditions. Driving a truck and getting your convoy hit happens daily.

Also, I am not demeaning any of these events or making them any less tragic, (that is what they are- tragic) but we have to stop pawning off all of our own problems and responsibilities.

you have no idea how a mortar attack on a convoy, or IED explosion can affect someone.

each and everyone that survived the IED that took out 2 hummers as we were travelling from one area to amother has some degree of PTSD -- among other injuries.

increased startle reflex, anxiety attacks for no apparent reason that can and do feel like heart attacks, inability to concentrate, or do anything resembling a normal life.

most of us would rather NOT have this disorder, as we were hard working career folks, and would be earning a much larger amount in a paycheck than our pittance on disability.

many people in regular combat do not develop ptsd, but many do -- and if you look at what the stressing event was -- it's normally not a 'routine' firefight, it's something far more horrific.

and one of the criterion for PTSD is something outside the realm of normal human experience -- and even for a soldier, regular attempts to kill another human, or evade getting killed yourself, is considered OUTSIDE the NORM.

most of us suck it up as much as we can -- but you know what, it's NOT ENOUGH when you have the issues we have.

Apples, the single IED might have done it, but from my perspective, it appears that driving that road the SECOND time, and again and again may contribute more, once the fear is realized. It has been a long time since Vietnam, but I really don't feel that any ONE of the incidents I was involved in created my PTSD as much as the CUMULATIVE effect of the entire war experience. For instance the VA considers a mortar or rocket attack against your base as a valid stressor. Again, it seems to me that any attack was not all that exciting, even including the one I got wounded in, but the almost nightly attacks for a year wore me down a lot, and in my opinion were the reason. Just letting my mind wander back, ignore or expound as y'all feel.