Milk Milk Lemonade

January 25, 2013 in I poo you not, Pottysmoker

If you’ve been reading the news, you probably know that women have been given the green light by the U.S. military to fight alongside their male counterparts on the battlefield.

And if, like me, you’ve dared to wander over to “the other side of journalism” to see the conservative imagination run wild, you probably know that, like we saw with the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, dozens of op eds are being printed that say a lot more about the people writing them than they do about the issue at hand. 

Ryan Smith, whose lurid op ed in Jan. 23rd’s Wall Street Journal attempted to make the case against women in combat by appealing to our natural aversion to all things poopoo-and-peepee-related, couldn’t help but spill his guts:

Marines were forced to sit, in full gear, on each other’s laps and in contorted positions for hours on end. That was the least of our problems.

The invasion was a blitzkrieg. The goal was to move as fast to Baghdad as possible. The column would not stop for a lance corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, or even a company commander to go to the restroom. Sometimes we spent over 48 hours on the move without exiting the vehicles. We were forced to urinate in empty water bottles inches from our comrades.

Many Marines developed dysentery from the complete lack of sanitary conditions. When an uncontrollable urge hit a Marine, he would be forced to stand, as best he could, hold an MRE bag up to his rear, and defecate inches from his seated comrade’s face.

He goes on for a while to talk about how he doesn’t want girls to see his wiener, and how wieners should be shown to other boys only, and only when it’s absolutely necessary, and how other boys’ wieners are gross and make him want to throw up just thinking about them, and how we shouldn’t be thinking about his wiener right now, or anyone else’s wiener for that matter, unless it’s our own wiener, which is fine to think about because it’s ours and it is special and private and unique and no other wiener is quite just like it, no matter what the size–and all the while this blogger is trying to figure out how this guy was able to focus on the task at hand long enough to survive active doody.

While Smith’s essay, perhaps accidentally, says a lot about how woefully unprepared and under-equipped the Bush Administration sent him and his fellow wiener-havers to battle, it also adds yet another brushstroke to the rather unflattering (and, as I’m sure many current and former service men and women feel, unfair) portrait of our armed forces that has, unfortunately, threatened to replace any more realistic assessment the average American might have.

Intentionally or not, the Marines Smith writes about come across as trained professionals who are willing to do whatever it takes, even adapt to the most extreme of living conditions, to accomplish a mission, but who crumble to psychological pieces when forced to contemplate peepees, googies, poop, or tinkle–men who might have felt perfectly comfortable alongside Lynndie England in Abu Ghraib, as long as they didn’t have to whip it out in front of her.

Were I a soldier, I would probably want to kick Smith’s ass and tell him, for as much as I dislike the sexist phrase, to man the fuck up.  Having worked as a caregiver for adults with developmental disabilities, and having recently spent two months in the hospital battling pancreatitis where, on more than one occasion, I shat, pissed, or vomited in the presence of nurses of both genders, I can attest that millions of people, most of them earning far less in the way of compensation than our men and women in uniform, deal with other people’s genitals and bodily functions on a daily basis without being “traumatized,” as Smith himself puts it.

And were I a soldier, I’d be increasingly alarmed by what appears from the outside to be an increasingly hysterical minority run amok, but who nevertheless hold an unjustifiable amount of sway in the military: men who can’t work with women, who can’t work with gays, and who can’t work with anyone who isn’t an Evangelical Christian, when there is, indeed, a lot of work to be done.

  • MilitantRubberDucky

    Yes! A thousand times, yes. I don’t want the military to lower their physical standards because they feel the need to “accommodate” women who shouldn’t be there; I just want them to give women that can pass their current testing the ability to do so. All the talk about not being able to handle shit, or dirt, or gross body stuff, or tight cramped environments or any other excuses is just white noise meant to distract us from the real conversation.

  • Chillbear Latrigue

    I’m not sure what happened before, I left a rather long comment here last night and it’s gone.

  • Chillbear Latrigue

    Here’s the gist of what I wrote last night. By the way, it wasn’t inadvertently or intentionally deleted. I checked on that; it just disappeared. Many of the same justifications for keeping female soldiers out of combat were once used to prevent women from joining police forces. Having worked with a number of female officers over my almost two decades, I have made the following observations. Some of them are really good and some suck. Some of them are mediocre. Some start out really promising but never live up to their perceived potential. Others are really bad at the beginning—almost wash out—and then become really effective. It’s pretty much the same with every demographic I’ve seen, including male officers.

    An unfortunate thing happened in police work a while back. The physical standards to become a cop were relatively high compared to what they are now. Some women who applied could pass the agility tests, but a lot didn’t. I know, I know, fat cops and all of that, but that usually comes later. Anyway, many departments had their backs against the wall because of hiring quotas, so the academies lowered the physical standards for EVERYONE. I have an issue with this. I almost never need a cop to hop over a wall, but the physical standards were not insurmountable for most healthy, young people—men or women—and things like wall-hopping are good indicators of physical strength. Now, because of lower standards, our overall product is physically weaker. That’s not because women are weak—some of them are impressively fit and strong—but because now we’re taking men and women who don’t have to try to become stronger to become cops.

    And to be honest, I would be fine with the lower physical standards if cops were required to maintain them throughout their careers. Some departments test periodically, but most don’t. The result is that we have not so strong cops coming in and completing the minimum standards, and letting their fitness slide over the next twenty years.

    I understand that the military won’t drop its standards and they already do periodic fitness evaluations. This is a good thing.

    @LdL: Great piece.

    • Worthless Emo

      I always wondered what your opinion on that was, but never really asked.

      I think I agree, but I kind of feel bad doing so. Also because I know I have a lot of trouble evaluating health; that is, I am sceptical health really exists as a concept. I’d probably agree with you on the job requirements, but also agree on the academics behind it saying the idea of strength is kind of silly.

      Do you think that at least “trying to become stronger” is more important than outcomes of strength?

      • Chillbear Latrigue

        I think that working hard to overcome physical obstacles speaks volumes for your mental toughness. Having said that, we occasionally get into physical altercations. Sometimes, they’re even life or death. In those cases, I want real strength and agility.

        • MilitantRubberDucky

          If they’re passing the same tests for strength, they should then be able to utilize the same strength in a fight, yes?

          • Chillbear Latrigue

            Yeah, my problem isn’t that the female passing the minimum standards is weaker than the male passing the minimum standard. I see no reason to believe that, with all other things being equal, that they wouldn’t perform similarly. My problem is that the standard was dropped for both men and women.

            What I was trying to say before is that I think in many cases, even with the lower standards, the people who come out of the academy are probably in better shape than many of our ten or fifteen year veterans who haven’t kept themselves up. I can give you examples with initials, but no one would know who I was talking about. We had a cop—long since retired—who could not get out of the car without supporting himself with the doorframe. A month after he retired, I saw him walking with a cane despite the fact that he was sub-sixty. This should never be allowed to happen in the military or in police work.

          • MilitantRubberDucky

            In that you and I are definitely in agreement. I never understood why standards are not maintained once people pass basic in the military or come out of the academy in police work. It just seems counterproductive on so many levels.

          • Worthless Emo

            Yea I would think that’s the most important part. The policy that “maintains” expectations or even how policy delegates physical situations to people.

            This makes me wonder what business students even learn in human resources? Ha!

          • Worthless Emo

            I see.

            Its a really tough set of expectations to work within. It has a lot of really cool ambiguities though. Within them are the sort of dynamics which, as stress points, can encourage the crappy mental health issues among Police and Military.

            I find the academia slowly admitting to the relativism of health, as well as outcomes of health. Experts kind of fail at some point, or spin off from their original aim But you can’t replace that too much with opinion-accounts either. (There is also an incision here where the psychology of authority and evaluation can be detrimental on it’s subjects, especially if some ideas of health aren’t legitimate. The job expectations are, but its easy to mistake the expectation for a failure of one’s body which sometimes is out of one’s control. That wouldn’t be good for anyone’s confidence or self esteem.) It would need to be looked at from a policy point of view I guess.

            All the more reason to support people in the field, knowing its a difficult working environment. It also brings up the question about “physical dignity” in the workplace. (I could see civil rights lawyers sort of destroying the occupation, yet its a tough ambiguity to justify.)

            Meow

  • Worthless Emo

    Ah LL, I think once again you have baffled me with the inherent paradxical stupidity of peepee poopoo while doing an intellectual piece on politics, feminism, and satire all at the same time. Well done (I think.) Also well done for women. Well done for healing the irrational gender of society’s warrior, that which has a daunting set of challenges already. Also practical challenges! I mean you’d have to self advocate a lot, just to be in the military as any gender.

    (Even self advocating for Men in the de-shaming of sharing experiences of difficulty, rather than err developing PTSD or becoming somewhat repressed. I guess, in that, it may slow your momentum on the “man-up” statement. Realistically its probably a combination of manning-down.)

    Meow