Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Armed Services Officials Looking Into Female Soldiers' Uniforms! Protective Suits, That Is ...
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Takin' Ass and Kickin' Names
May 18, 2012, 6:41:16 PM5/18/12
to
"Ah can feel their pain. Those male outfits don't do justice to our
female soldiers. My take is if you can't get two fingers inside the
waistband of a gal trooper's pants, it's too tight. Loose is better,
believe me."
-- Bill Clinton
-------
Besides IEDs, small arms fire, and other ordnance, should women's body
armor also protect them from the MEN in their units?
=========================
"House Armed Services panel prods military on body armor for women"
By Emily Heil
May 18, 2012
Capt. Sara Rodriguez of the 101st Airborne Division, during training
at Fort Campbell, Ky. (Kristin M. Hall - AP) The old advertising
slogan, “strong enough for a man, but made for a woman” sure doesn’t
apply to the military’s body armor. Seems the gear that protects
soldiers from all kinds of nasty stuff isn’t exactly made with a
woman’s curves in mind—and that’s causing problems as more women take
on combat roles.
But never fear, ladies in arms! The House Armed Services Committee
feels your pain—well, not literally, but, hey, at least they’re
working on it. The committee praised the Army for its attention to the
issue, and has directed the Secretary of the Army to conduct an
assessment of whether there’s an “operational need” for gear tailored
to women.
The dearth of female-friendly military gear is nothing new: there’s
long been griping about maternity versions of the branches’ uniforms.
And women have found that that the body armor created with men in
mind--that’s increasingly being worn by women in war zones in
Afghanistan-- is often too big, disproportionately fitting, and
doesn’t accommodate their figures.
In the panel’s report accompanying the FY 2013 defense-authorization
bill, the Armed Services committee directs the Army Secretary to brief
congressional committees within six months about its progress on
protective equipment for female soldiers. They note that the budget
request included $15 million to develop better protective gear and an
additional $11.9 million to create prototypes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/post/house-armed-services-panel-prods-military-on-body-armor-for-women/2012/05/17/gIQA2NCMWU_blog.html
female soldiers. My take is if you can't get two fingers inside the
waistband of a gal trooper's pants, it's too tight. Loose is better,
believe me."
-- Bill Clinton
-------
Besides IEDs, small arms fire, and other ordnance, should women's body
armor also protect them from the MEN in their units?
=========================
"House Armed Services panel prods military on body armor for women"
By Emily Heil
May 18, 2012
Capt. Sara Rodriguez of the 101st Airborne Division, during training
at Fort Campbell, Ky. (Kristin M. Hall - AP) The old advertising
slogan, “strong enough for a man, but made for a woman” sure doesn’t
apply to the military’s body armor. Seems the gear that protects
soldiers from all kinds of nasty stuff isn’t exactly made with a
woman’s curves in mind—and that’s causing problems as more women take
on combat roles.
But never fear, ladies in arms! The House Armed Services Committee
feels your pain—well, not literally, but, hey, at least they’re
working on it. The committee praised the Army for its attention to the
issue, and has directed the Secretary of the Army to conduct an
assessment of whether there’s an “operational need” for gear tailored
to women.
The dearth of female-friendly military gear is nothing new: there’s
long been griping about maternity versions of the branches’ uniforms.
And women have found that that the body armor created with men in
mind--that’s increasingly being worn by women in war zones in
Afghanistan-- is often too big, disproportionately fitting, and
doesn’t accommodate their figures.
In the panel’s report accompanying the FY 2013 defense-authorization
bill, the Armed Services committee directs the Army Secretary to brief
congressional committees within six months about its progress on
protective equipment for female soldiers. They note that the budget
request included $15 million to develop better protective gear and an
additional $11.9 million to create prototypes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/post/house-armed-services-panel-prods-military-on-body-armor-for-women/2012/05/17/gIQA2NCMWU_blog.html
0 new messages