Fine Gal you are

[Percy]

Who says women don't step up?

Well, I have for a start. many times.

But I have also said many times that they CAN and do on occasion and that it deserves recognition.

So, I Salute a fine gal.

Female medic awarded Military Cross for bravery

A female medic who twice risked her life under heavy fire to treat two gravely wounded Afghan soldiers has won the Military Cross

Lance Corporal Kylie Watson, 23, tried to resuscitate one casualty as bullets smashed into the dust around her in a totally exposed position for 20 minutes.

She was also forced to use her SA80A2 rifle in anger firing 15 rounds to help defend her patrol during an ambush.

The LCpl also ran 100 metres under fire to save the life of another ANA soldier who had been shot through the pelvis.

His Afghan comrades were unhappy about a woman treating the wounded man and tried to stop her.

Read more at:
Female medic awarded Military Cross for bravery - Telegraph

Military Crosses are not handed out like bouquets. They are given only to the very brave. The courageous. They mark substantial leadership.

It is notable that the unreconstructed Afghan chaps were unhappy. We have some MRAs who are like that.

But let's put Adult Human Beings up front, regardless of gender.

Let us also throw out this objection to women in the front line.

Let them catch up in both medals and body count.

5'1" is big enough to stop a bullet. One does not have to reserve the pleasure just for those over 6'.

[nickb275]

A fine example of what being human is all about. An example for future women in combat, and a fine example of courage many men should take to heart. I, for one can only hope to have such character when faced with a similar situation of adversity.
It is gratifying to see effort and courage being awarded by merit.

[haute macabre]

I agree. Women are not fragile by any means and are stronger than most people think. Not nearly as strong as men but by no means weak. We need to get some women out there and fight. They want equality, lets give it to them.

Either put up or shut up.

[dad_savage]

Military Crosses are not handed out like bouquets. They are given only to the very brave. The courageous. They mark substantial leadership.

Credit where it’s due, but even so only the highest levels of decoration are handed out with respect to the relative intensity of the conflict. Earning a Silver Star or Distinguished Service Order in Afghanistan or Iraq is not the same as earning one in Somme mud. Women have never been 'where the iron crosses grow,' so let's not get carried away.

I wish to note also that thousands of male medics, carriers and support personal have been denied such decoration until recently, because they weren't 'in combat,' and carrying wounded men out from under fire / treating soldiers under fire is 'just their job,' (they were simply not eligible for decoration on this basis, nobody was) so while this (admittedly brave) woman is awarded people like John Kilpatrick, who made a lifestyle of doing things like this, continue to go without official decoration. Though of course they do have more recognition (not all of them however)

Misandry as always means the only way to make people care about something is if you can use women as its representatives (i.e. dv) nothing against this woman of course, but why should she receive decoration while men who did far braver things continue to go unmarked (even if only posthumously) stilla large part of why we're still in Afghanistan has to do with exporting values that cheapen the status of men, so women should be leading this crusade.

Let us also throw out this objection to women in the front line.

You mean so a tiny, unrepresentative minority can join the front line (as they have the fire and police forces) and do a piss-poor job which will nevertheless enable liberal propaganda to paint these overwhelmingly male institutions in gender-neutral terms, further hammering in the idea that no good men exist, and no good is done by men? Isn't pop culture already utterly saturated with enough risible 'women can kick ass,' leftist rhetoric, at the expense of reality, yet to the delight of the shameless marxists who object to any (real or imagined) world in which reality does not mandate perfect equality of outcome for all?

But let's put Adult Human Beings up front, regardless of gender.

No one should die in order to export left-wing totalitarianism, and to support the crypro-imperialistic ambitions of a state that sees them as canon fodder. How about women only up front? Nobody should sacrifice anything for a system which will only deliberately obfuscate such sacrifices on the basis of sex.

To my mind the ideal state of affairs in the West is one in which women must fight, not because they're mandated too, but because men (aware of what is being done to them) cannot be TRUSTED to be armed. Like every other down-trodden demographic in history.

[Percy]

Women have never been 'where the iron crosses grow,' so let's not get carried away.

Neither have you, dad.

But I have.

My salute to a fellow military person, of whatever nation, service or gender, is worth something.

[dad_savage]

Neither have you, dad.

But I have.

My salute to a fellow military person, of whatever nation, service or gender, is worth something.

I would be surprised if you have. Not to make any kind of slight against you, or your bravery or willingness, but to my knowledge geo-political realities make it seem unlikely given the nature of the conflicts in which your service may have been conducted. The phrase is meant to be evocative of the most singularly intense and high-casualty engagements and theatres. If you have then, as I say, I'm surprised - pleasantly in this case - I was not aware you had seen such action. We are very lucky, here, that you came through it sound enough of mind and body to do what you've done since.

I haven't, you’re right, though I mention it only out of respect for the fact that whether any man has, or has not, the male sex as a whole lives with the knowledge that, willing or not, they may be sent there under pain of death if their state so decides. Out of respect I say this for those who have been there in the past, and for this reality which men have had to deal with (and still do, and probably will for a long time still) in a world where the achievements and qualities of men, their contribution to society, is often derided. For my part I will freely admit that I would refuse to serve in even a low-intensity war, for two reasons, because my country doesn't care about me and because it deprives those fighting war from the ability to profit from it (a gross injustice) instead occasionally giving them some gaudy tinsel on occasion which (in many countries) they cannot even legally sell to keep off the streets or put food in their mouths. Props to the US at least however in that some of their highest decorations do involve a stipend being paid to the recipient (though these are so rare it hardly helps veterans as a demographic) I also wish to move some focus off this woman.

My sentiment is motivated by fear, I will cheerfully admit this, that I am not brave enough. I am not a coward on the other hand since cowardice is an irrational impulse; my refusal is based on a logical understanding of why it does not aid me, indeed why it is destructive in many ways, to face this fearful and dangerous situation which, in reality, I do not know if I am psychologically capable of facing, having never tried.

Back on point, while I acknowledge that she did a very brave thing I know also that if the news had the opportunity to report on her, or a similar, or even more incredible act committed by a man they would prefer to report on her. Or perhaps celebrity trivia. I am also point-blank suspicious, and while I appreciate this may come off as disrespectful I believe women should appreciate it is a natural reaction to constant misinformation and reporting bias, and even to institutional bias in areas of achievements themselves. Hopefully this attitude will encourage the women who do step up to separate themselves from or condemn those who do not, yet who demand recognition regardless. Praise from systems that promote bias, even for those who genuinely deserve it, is inherently cheapened when applied to those whom the bias supports. It saddens me when they are deserving, but I do not use silk gloves to fight what I oppose, and deem wrong.

[paul parmenter]

I agree with dad_savage that we shouldn't get carried away here. This woman describes two separate incidents where she was exposed in the danger zone for some 20 minutes each time, and a further incident in which she fired in anger, but on her own admission did not hit a thing. How many young men spend a hell of a lot more than 40 minutes in the danger zone, getting fired on by the enemy, but never even get considered for a medal? I can't help thinking she was singled out for this award because of her sex. The UK military is very keen to portray women in the best possible light, and any opportunity to shower females with awards is seized on. I also note that she describes the presence of two men from 1 LANCS and an ANA warrior alongside her while she treated the wounded man. So where are their awards, since their risk must have been the same as hers? I am not suggesting she was not brave. But it seems the standard for females to receive medals seems to be very much lower than that of men. And it is still overwhelmingly the latter who have to spend their time getting shot at. Just look at the casualty figures.

[Percy]

I also note that she describes the presence of two men from 1 LANCS and an ANA warrior alongside her while she treated the wounded man. So where are their awards, since their risk must have been the same as hers?

A good point.

And Dad, you are correct that I did not go through anything like the Somme. But as any soldier will tell you, being fired on is being fired on. You tend not to care so much about how many are around you being fired on too.

[dievas]

She was also forced to use her SA80A2 rifle in anger firing 15 rounds to help defend her patrol during an ambush.

YOU MEAN SHE ACTUALLY HAD TO FIRE HER GUN? EGAD! (also, lulz to the fact that she did in "in anger")

[dad_savage]

You tend not to care so much about how many are around you being fired on too.

No doubt. On the other hand I used the somme as an example as it is evocative of the sentiment expressed in the quote - which refered to the German experience on the Eastern Front after Stalingrad (perhaps Kursk as well) the idea being that there is fighting, and then there is fighting that is nothing more than an exercize in unjustifiable slaughter, and privation so that even when one is not in direct combat the strains are appreciable and severe, and can last for months at a time. I can imagine that in each action the feelings would be simmilar - soldier to soldier, campaign to campaign, war to war, but the strain, on the other hand, of fighting a battle (or war) that is essentially a hopeless proposition for a very long period is something I imagine would be in a different realm. Morale makes a difference in my understanding, and it is difficult to mantain in the face of high casualties and when ones action has little hope of obtaining results beyond simply staying alive (or keeping friends alive) to repeat the whole futile process over again.

The material realities of war change also. Few modern soldiers, fighting for affluent western nations need fear dehydration, freezing to death, the constant presence of disease, etc. Don't mistake me I believe exposing oneself to fire/lethal danger is something like Keegan's detatchment threshold in that the difference between being shot at by ten or one-hundred people is in no way ten times easier, indeed, perhaps no easier at all in any appreciable fashion as a strain to be faced and overcome at that moment, but war offers a host of psychological strains beyond this.

[dievas]

Also, as an addon to my previous post, she fired her gun in anger because some MAN had the sheer audacity to fire a GUN at HER! I mean, she is a WOMAN, after all... c:

[nickb275]

Why don't we keep this simple and just plain admit that any combat situation must suck in the worst way when bullets are flying everywhere and luck of the draw is your only friend. War in any form just plain sucks and must take an incredible toll on any individual and I find it very disgusting when folks diminish the part soldiers play on the front lines regardless of the conflict. They are in harms way in the most immediate of forms. I myself cannot and will not criticize a situation such as combat especially when I have no idea what it looks, smells or feels like in the flesh. Fox news is NOT a replacement for a combat stress exercise.
I don't usually equate women and sacrifice for others outside of her immediate universe (herself) as usually something that go hand in hand. Bravo to this medic for not using the part of her brain that screams for self preservation in the worst way. She was not designed for it, surprising she had the the mind for it. Kudos's!!

[dad_savage]

Why don't we keep this simple and just plain admit that any combat situation must suck in the worst way when bullets are flying everywhere and luck of the draw is your only friend. War in any form just plain sucks and must take an incredible toll on any individual and I find it very disgusting when folks diminish the part soldiers play on the front lines regardless of the conflict.

There is a marked difference in the experience of soldiers in different wars. Most time is not spent fighting; thus the theatre and material qualities make a huge difference. Those on the losing side often suffer more as well; in the US the truama of Vietnam veterans is markedly more severe to that of those from other wars. They had less social support, they 'lost' (we do not praise losers much) and the war was especially unpleasant in character even outside of combat. We must look at these realities to deal with things. It is a disservice to treat all veterans as though their needs and strains are the same.

As for respect for the bravery of those under fire I agree. I have respect for the individual, in this case, but not for the voices which bring her to my attention.

[nickb275]

There is a marked difference in the experience of soldiers in different wars. Most time is not spent fighting; thus the theatre and material qualities make a huge difference. Those on the losing side often suffer more as well; in the US the truama of Vietnam veterans is markedly more severe to that of those from other wars. They had less social support, they 'lost' (we do not praise losers much) and the war was especially unpleasant in character even outside of combat. We must look at these realities to deal with things. It is a disservice to treat all veterans as though their needs and strains are the same.

As for respect for the bravery of those under fire I agree. I have respect for the individual, in this case, but not for the voices which bring her to my attention.

Now that I can wrap my head around.

[Percy]

The most awful and harrowing book I have read about a 'soldier's perspective', one called (I think),'Soldier'is a 'first person' account (fiction, based on fact) of a German finding his way back from the Eastern Front.