[Tuthmosis]

To me, this is a sign of broader problems, but I'm curious what you guys think.

   

Quote:

Military Moms Breastfeeding in Uniform Stir Controversy

At a time when breastfeeding in public is already controversial, pictures of two military moms doing so while wearing their uniforms is sparking outrage.

The photo is part of a local breastfeeding awareness campaign by Mom2Mom of Fairchild Air Force Base, a support group launched in January by Crystal Scott, a military spouse and mother of three. Among the intimate close-ups of smiling young mothers cuddling their adorable babies, the images of the two airmen stand out.

"People are comparing breastfeeding in uniform to urinating and defecating in uniform. They're comparing it to the woman who posed in "Playboy" in uniform [in 2007]" Scott told Yahoo! Shine in an interview. "We never expected it to be like this."

(continues)

Full story.

[R Smoov]

New Salute: Just have a baby on their tit and make them yell "SIR YES SIR"

[AntiTrace]

But I get in trouble for pissing on the corpse of an enemy soldier that tried to kill me?

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Why not? Breastfeeding is feminine, one of the things that feminism is trying to eradicate and brand as "servitude", and doing it at work (during designated breaks) is perfectly fair. Plus these women are not single moms who got in the military to show how tough they are, they're also married. I have no complaints.

[kosko]

Meanwhile in China.....

[Timoteo]

My only issue with breastfeeding in public is...that they want it out in the open to prove some kind of point. There was an issue years ago in NYC where a woman was in an aisle of Toys 'r Us breastfeeding. She was offered a more private place to do it, but she refused, demanding to stand right there and do so. You have to respect where you are, and be open to some kind of compromise.

With these soldiers, I have to question their motivation also. They do a professional photoshoot, then claim they didn't expect the reaction/attention it got. Bullshit. You did it to make a point, so own that fact and take the heat. To compare this to defecating or urinating in uniform is silly also, but the whole "we want to pull out tits out and breastfeed wherever we want" is also ridiculous. A mother is a mother, regardless of what she does for a living. I just think they should be more open to compromise, and keep something as intimate as breastfeeding your child private. It isn't about being prudish - it's about decency and respect. If a bunch of men decided to stop and gawk at them while feeding, I'm sure they'd complain about that. But if you're going to decide to do this out in the open, you're fair game.

[Basil Ransom]

It's funny how the whole 'girl power!' movement can corrode something good and natural like breastfeeding into an ugly outburst of attention whoring.

I suppose women, more or less, have always deeply craved attention, but concerns about modesty, propriety, discretion, prudence and reputation restrained them. With such concerns seen now as hopelessly antiquated, women have no problem resorting to shameless attention whoring. The fight for public breastfeeding has little to do with the baby or breastfeeding. It's women saying 'how dare you place any limitation on me?' It's the same mentality that has parents in angry fits when anyone criticizes their child for being unruly. And it's the same as the slutwalkers saying 'how dare you tell me what I wear matters?'

And, the whole image of a nursing mother wearing warrior's garb is ludicrous.

[teh_skeeze]

My problem isn't the breastfeeding, it's having mothers in the military. The reason that the military needs young men is because they have nothing to live for. No property or family that needs them there, and men are expendable. It's much easier to ask a person in that position to go run up a hill w/ an assault rifle to their death. These women need to be there for their children so they should be given an honorable discharge and go back to civilian life.

[Tuthmosis]

This:

(05-31-2012 02:47 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

And, the whole image of a nursing mother wearing warrior's garb is ludicrous.

And this:

(05-31-2012 08:53 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  

My problem isn't the breastfeeding, it's having mothers in the military.

These are the signs of a declining civilization. Fine: you want to have women in the damn military. Even if you can concede that, mothers should at least stay the fuck home--at least till the kids don't need tit anymore. Our military is screwed up on so many levels, and this is yet another way.

I could care less about breastfeeding in public. I like catching a glimpse of one of those engorged nipples. That doesn't bother me at all, and I wouldn't compare it to getting a blowjob in public, or whatever.

Nursing is the exact opposite of what the military does.

[Timoteo]

Women in the military general serve in rear, support positions and not in combat. Just the same, I agree that if a woman has children of the age where she breastfeeding, she doesn't need to be serving in ANY capacity. Or give them something stateside that's more like a normal job if they really want to serve.

[Cincinnatus]

(05-31-2012 10:18 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

Women in the military general serve in rear, support positions and not in combat. Just the same, I agree that if a woman has children of the age where she breastfeeding, she doesn't need to be serving in ANY capacity. Or give them something stateside that's more like a normal job if they really want to serve.

Not to hijack the thread, but it really pisses me off how often women occupy these lower-risk jobs. If women want equality, they should serve in the front line as often as men do, be held to the exact same fitness standards, etc.

[R Smoov]

Honestly, the military is supposed to be one of the strictest institusion/jobs to have. And for a good reason. You want your defenders of your country to be strong, even to the point where other countries would not dare try to fuck with. Historically, the countries who had a weak army reputation, became wiped out in war, captured, or even 3rd world countries in the present.

But as a country with a lot of international enemies, pictures of babies using female soldier tits as their personal gas station is not good for our military reputation. Enemies could gain the inclination that we are soft. While we are still a country not to be played with, occurences like this makes it easier for enemy countries to think we are pussies and have them want to take a shot at us.

Nothing wrong with women in the army, but I'm sure no one wants to hear the "Sorry I'm breastfeeding Bobby" excuse when there are guys wearing different uniforms, speaking a different language and are shooting rifles at your face. Keep women in the medical side of the military. I'd rather have a cute face tending a bullet wound than be filled with bullet wounds.

[Screwston]

I wonder if women join the military because they don't have to do shit in it? I have no idea what they're required to do but I know it can't be nearly as hard as guy's jobs.

[Basil Ransom]

(05-31-2012 10:46 PM)MSW2007 Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 10:18 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

Women in the military general serve in rear, support positions and not in combat. Just the same, I agree that if a woman has children of the age where she breastfeeding, she doesn't need to be serving in ANY capacity. Or give them something stateside that's more like a normal job if they really want to serve.

Not to hijack the thread, but it really pisses me off how often women occupy these lower-risk jobs. If women want equality, they should serve in the front line as often as men do, be held to the exact same fitness standards, etc.

Are you in the military?

I'm not. Regardless, I wouldn't want to compromise the effectiveness of the military by putting women on the front lines, just to prove a point about equality.

The feminist bureaucrats are in a bind, because traditionally the warriors assumed the most powerful positions. Just like how in certain corporations, certain positions within the corporation often supplied the most leaders, the military filled the ranks of its high level positions with battle-tested warriors.

But this meant that women would never hold the reins of power. So the military has had to promote more officers in non-combat positions to high level positions. And either they must do it in a sexist way, where they only promote female non-combat officers to general positions, and not their male counterparts. Or they promote their male counterparts too, and shift the military's focus away from being a warrior.

Then you're left with a military confused about its true purpose. Instead of aiming to protect the US and kill its enemies, it takes on softer, feminized goals providing aid, 'building democracy' and training other countries' militaries, and hell, maybe even spying on its own countrymen. Combine that with a pussified press, and you get episodes like this, where a general gets reprimanded for saying he enjoys defeating the enemies of the United States.

That is exactly the kind of man you want on your side, and thousands of soldiers have said just that about the man. Seriously, I can't help but respond, WHAT THE FUCK?! to all the people "offended" by his comments. Are soldiers supposed to ponder deep existential questions in between exchanging fire with the Taliban? What exactly do you think soldiers do? Whatever you think of the war, you can't run a military on the basis of self-doubt. But nowadays, we're supposed to carry out a war, but completely conceal the fact that, we're still uh, killing people. Even if they're our enemies.

PS: The standard practice in the military complex is to call every member of the military a 'warfighter' but I can't stand this. It's disrespectful to the people who actually fight. It's like calling the busboy in a restaurant 'an executive chef.' It's a blatant, feel-good lie.

[kosko]

(05-31-2012 11:41 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 10:46 PM)MSW2007 Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 10:18 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

Women in the military general serve in rear, support positions and not in combat. Just the same, I agree that if a woman has children of the age where she breastfeeding, she doesn't need to be serving in ANY capacity. Or give them something stateside that's more like a normal job if they really want to serve.

Not to hijack the thread, but it really pisses me off how often women occupy these lower-risk jobs. If women want equality, they should serve in the front line as often as men do, be held to the exact same fitness standards, etc.

Are you in the military?

I'm not. Regardless, I wouldn't want to compromise the effectiveness of the military by putting women on the front lines, just to prove a point about equality.

The feminist bureaucrats are in a bind, because traditionally the warriors assumed the most powerful positions. Just like how in certain corporations, certain positions within the corporation often supplied the most leaders, the military filled the ranks of its high level positions with battle-tested warriors.

But this meant that women would never hold the reins of power. So the military has had to promote more officers in non-combat positions to high level positions. And either they must do it in a sexist way, where they only promote female non-combat officers to general positions, and not their male counterparts. Or they promote their male counterparts too, and shift the military's focus away from being a warrior.

Then you're left with a military confused about its true purpose. Instead of aiming to protect the US and kill its enemies, it takes on softer, feminized goals providing aid, 'building democracy' and training other countries' militaries, and hell, maybe even spying on its own countrymen. Combine that with a pussified press, and you get episodes like this, where a general gets reprimanded for saying he enjoys defeating the enemies of the United States.

That is exactly the kind of man you want on your side, and thousands of soldiers have said just that about the man. Seriously, I can't help but respond, WHAT THE FUCK?! to all the people "offended" by his comments. Are soldiers supposed to ponder deep existential questions in between exchanging fire with the Taliban? What exactly do you think soldiers do? Whatever you think of the war, you can't run a military on the basis of self-doubt. But nowadays, we're supposed to carry out a war, but completely conceal the fact that, we're still uh, killing people. Even if they're our enemies.

PS: The standard practice in the military complex is to call every member of the military a 'warfighter' but I can't stand this. It's disrespectful to the people who actually fight. It's like calling the busboy in a restaurant 'an executive chef.' It's a blatant, feel-good lie.

There is still honor in the trenches. Things like the white flag of surrender and how to handle captives, these types of things had customs in war that go back thousands of years. The mission was the end goal, lives lost where just means to an end. When you deviate from that you get two extremes: Savages whom rip off heads and gun down children and mothers, and soldiers so disconnected from "the trenches" war simply becomes a video game. USA has relied on ultra-tech for too long, kats treat war like Xbox I see no difference in that General and the animal savages that rip babies heads of in "in the heat of the moment. Same shit happened to the Germans. They we're to heavily dependent on tools and tech they lost sight of the reality at hand and then got their asses reamed in the trenches of Russia for it.

The mission is always the goal.

[BortimusPrime]

(05-31-2012 10:33 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

To me, this is a sign of broader problems, but I'm curious what you guys think.

I think the problem with that picture is that there are babies in front of the women.

[Pacesetter20]

(05-31-2012 10:33 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

To me, this is a sign of broader problems, but I'm curious what you guys think.

Quote:

Military Moms Breastfeeding in Uniform Stir Controversy

At a time when breastfeeding in public is already controversial, pictures of two military moms doing so while wearing their uniforms is sparking outrage.

The photo is part of a local breastfeeding awareness campaign by Mom2Mom of Fairchild Air Force Base, a support group launched in January by Crystal Scott, a military spouse and mother of three. Among the intimate close-ups of smiling young mothers cuddling their adorable babies, the images of the two airmen stand out.

"People are comparing breastfeeding in uniform to urinating and defecating in uniform. They're comparing it to the woman who posed in "Playboy" in uniform [in 2007]" Scott told Yahoo! Shine in an interview. "We never expected it to be like this."

(continues)

Full story.

Once I heard about this I was instantly glad that I will be getting out of the military. I want no part of this, it is a joke (granted it was the airforce, so not too surprising that this started with the softest service).

I have no issue with women in the military perse, what I do have an issue with is women being in the military but demanding special treatment, lower standards, etc. This is exactly what this is.

I've actually had a peer tell me once that she would never have to deploy if she wanted to, because she holds the "golden ticket." Which on one hand is fine, because it is one less female downrange, but on the other hand, due to the antiquated military promotion process, it is likely that she will be promoted at the same pace.

When something offends a woman it is (sexual) harrassment, when something offends a man he is being a pussy and needs to "lighten up."

P.S. those women are NOT the average quality of military girls, in fact I'd say that those two are in the top 90-95+ percentilie. Although, the AF does, on average, have better looking chicks than Navy, Marines, or AF.

[j r]

(05-31-2012 02:47 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

And, the whole image of a nursing mother wearing warrior's garb is ludicrous.

Eh, it's the Air Force. It's more ludicrous that the Air Force wears uniforms with a tiger stripe camo pattern. I guess they have to be prepared to operate in a blueish jungle environment.

[alphaspiraton]

Hahaha now we have women defending our countries. What next, a woman president... Oh wait

The day a woman becomes president or prime minister here in Canada, I'm denouning my citizenship and moving as far away as possible. And I don't even think I'm lying.

[kosko]

(06-01-2012 07:13 AM)alphaspiraton Wrote:  

Hahaha now we have women defending our countries. What next, a woman president... Oh wait

The day a woman becomes president or prime minister here in Canada, I'm denouning my citizenship and moving as far away as possible. And I don't even think I'm lying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Campbell

How to renounce your Canadian Citizenship

[Timoteo]

With the whole Jessica Lynch deal, you saw how anxious the military was to present a woman as being "heroic" and tough. But you also saw the pure sexism and PR at play, because Shoshana Johnson, another woman injured and captured in the same attack, was invisible because she was an unattractive black woman, while Lynch was a cute blond. As it turned out, contrary to the original story first put out, Lynch never fired her weapon, and was actually knocked unconscious and woke up in an Iraqi hospital. Some warrior, huh? They were engaged in probably the most dangerous role a woman can hold, in that they were in a convoy delivering supplies, thus were actually exposed to the enemy. All soldiers get some of the same training I assume, in that they are all trained in how to fire certain weapons, etc. even if they will rarely if ever have to actually shoot at someone, and hope they'll never have to. Lynch was a supply clerk, while Johnson was in the military to prepare meals.

[Cincinnatus]

Follow up:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/0...E220120602

Quote:

Two members of the U.S. National Guard photographed breastfeeding in uniform are not expected to face discipline in spite of rules forbidding the use of uniforms to promote a cause, a military spokesman said on Saturday.

Instead, the incident will be used as a "teachable moment" to make clear the U.S. military is not opposed to breastfeeding, Washington National Guard spokesman Keith Kosik said.

[alphaspiraton]

(06-01-2012 09:25 AM)kosko Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 07:13 AM)alphaspiraton Wrote:  

Hahaha now we have women defending our countries. What next, a woman president... Oh wait

The day a woman becomes president or prime minister here in Canada, I'm denouning my citizenship and moving as far away as possible. And I don't even think I'm lying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Campbell

How to renounce your Canadian Citizenship

Hahaha nice links

BUT This was 20 years ago and she was only in office for 5 months. Hardly enough time to inflict any sort of major blunder but just enough time for people to realize the mistake they made. I hope history will not repeat itself for this nation's sake.

edit: closer to 4 months, I just realized it was in that wikipedia article

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(06-02-2012 01:24 PM)MSW2007 Wrote:  

Follow up:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/0...E220120602

Quote:

Two members of the U.S. National Guard photographed breastfeeding in uniform are not expected to face discipline in spite of rules forbidding the use of uniforms to promote a cause, a military spokesman said on Saturday.

Instead, the incident will be used as a "teachable moment" to make clear the U.S. military is not opposed to breastfeeding, Washington National Guard spokesman Keith Kosik said.

Ok, now that's fucked up. If there's an explicit rule against that, then it's definitely not "a teachable moment". Hamster indeed. This time a military hamster. Now where is that gif of a marmot with a bazooka...?

[Cincinnatus]

(06-02-2012 03:37 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Now where is that gif of a marmot with a bazooka...?