Army creating first tactical bra for female soldiers:
The bra, dubbed the Army Tactical Brassier, is in development at the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Center in Natick, Mass., according to the Army Times, which was the first to report the bra's development.
[...] If approved, it would make the garment the first tactical bra to be added to the U.S. Army's uniform.
Women make up about 16 percent of those in active duty in the United States armed forces, according to data from the Brookings Institute.
The Army is working on a tactical bra:
The bra's development began with a survey given to female soldiers on what type of functionality and preferences should be considered during initial design. It has been labeled a "tactical rather than sportswear item," according to Soldier Touchpoints.
It's meant to integrate into existing body armor and give an added level of protection to female soldiers.
"This means that designers are evaluating options such as the inclusion of flame-retardant fabrics and expertly layered compression, structural and protective materials while also taking into account the importance of accurate sizing, reliable comfort, moisture management and breathability," Touchpoints noted.
"The overall goal is to produce garments that not only protect the user, but reduce the cognitive burden on the female Soldier caused by discomfort and ill fit," said Ashley Cushon, clothing designer and project lead for the ATB at the DEVCOM Soldier Center. "Achieving this will improve the Soldier's overall readiness and performance levels, allowing them to focus on their mission," she explained.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Gaaark on Sunday August 21 2022, @11:29PM (6 children)
PICS!....or it isn't happening! :)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2022, @12:07AM (4 children)
There are pix floating around, but they just look like sports
bras to me. I'm a bit disappointed that they don't show the
underwire pulling double-duty as a garotte, or a secret weapon
that goes in the cleavage. Maybe they do, and it's just really well
hidden.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2022, @02:46AM
Probably classified. You will have to engage her to find out. And that will be the last thing you do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2022, @03:24AM (1 child)
...you mean, like this one [ibtimes.co.uk]?
--
...or is this just for school-teachers now?
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday August 22 2022, @07:27AM
Boringly, he probably means the picture from the 2nd story: https://www.militarytimes.com/resizer/QimoHpKLl3NZI4ej1zvHkcDHhTo=/1024x0/filters:format(png):quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/LOBP7NL3XJCR3MQNUIPS4F4XEI.png [militarytimes.com]
And yes, they're just sports bras made to avoid side-boobs clashing with the arms when running and the likes.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by driverless on Monday August 22 2022, @07:32AM
Meh, the likes of Pandora Peaks and Chelsea Charms have been sporting tactical bras for years, there's no way those things aren't heavy-duty military-grade hardware.
(Score: 4, Funny) by MostCynical on Monday August 22 2022, @04:07AM
was this article originally on Boing Boing?
if not, it should have been!
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by aafcac on Sunday August 21 2022, @11:30PM (24 children)
It really does need to be asked how many of those women that enlist are actually in jobs where this is even necessary. It's only been recent that it was even allowed and it's been a tiny number of women that have been able to meet the relevant standards. This is likely to make those hammers look like dollar store trinkets when you figure it out on a per bra basis.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Sunday August 21 2022, @11:49PM
They have jogging and athletic bras, I'd think that would indicate who could benefit from this in the military as well. If you want to start complaining about costs, consider that this is a tactical bra.
Once you start designing them for the military personnel who sit behind a desk all day though, that's when the *really* huge costs come into play, as the military will then probably be hiring contractors to design support structures for strategic and administrative bras(s).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 22 2022, @12:25AM (8 children)
Fair enough question. And, a fair answer would be along the lines of, "Everyone in the military should be prepared for . . . " This is for infantry gals, primarily, of course. Then you have the logistics train, which runs all the way to the front lines, and sometimes behind enemy lines. Aviators. Then, of course, any base is subject to being overrun, at which point, clerks, JAGs, cooks, and other 3rd and 4th echelon types are likely to become front line combatants.
Let's assume that the Army actually makes the best sports bra in the world. Just about everyone who possesses a pair of mammary glands stands to benefit.
Not that I really expect the Army to do such a thing. Let's wait and see how many fashion designers copy these things for their own fashion lineup.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by aafcac on Monday August 22 2022, @01:18AM (4 children)
I suppose, but some of the features they're talking about in the summary are of completely no value outside of a few frontline positions, and it would make far more sense for it to be something more along the lines of a currently existing bra that actually fits properly. It really sounds more like some contractors trying to outfit them with so much stuff that the women can't move around while wearing them.
I'm not sure why these would need to be flame retardant as presumably the layers over it would be.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 22 2022, @02:14AM (3 children)
FWIW, flame retardant clothing is pretty indistinguishable from regular cotton clothing. I'm unsure if the retardant might contribute to health problems, such as skin cancer, but I comfortably wear long sleeved T-shirts throughout my workday. On the other hand, plain cotton is inherently flame retardant. The treatment of the cotton just makes it more flame retardant.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by aafcac on Monday August 22 2022, @05:08AM
My point was that flame retardant clothing is far more practical for the shirt and pants than it is for the undergarments. By the time you're down to your skivvies, it's not going to make much of a difference. Being burned over 80% of your body versus 90% is still going to be agony and probably fatal.
(Score: 2) by HammeredGlass on Monday August 22 2022, @02:53PM (1 child)
I understood the flame retardants that they treat fabrics with are largely dangerous for inhalation of the particles and the outgassing.
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Monday August 22 2022, @07:12PM
Virtually everything that's used to prevent or stop fires is harmful in the quantities needed. Modern firefighting technology has improved to the point where there's frequently very little water used, but if you had it all dumped on you at once, you'd probably drown. It's amazing how they've got it calibrated to the point where they'll often be able to use just the right amount of water without a lot of waste. That is if they get to it before the fire is really out of control.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Silverwing500 on Monday August 22 2022, @01:33AM (2 children)
Ironically, Runaway has to leave the Navy, because he was starting to need a pair of these, and they weren't designed yet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2022, @02:03AM (1 child)
Well, hello again ari. And, again, I see you've abandoned your dead Greeks, to worship at my feet.
(Score: 0, Spam) by LittleWing on Monday August 22 2022, @06:13AM
It's called a "Manzziere", or a "Bro", at least according to Seinfeld. Hello, Runaway. How are the sows?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday August 22 2022, @11:03AM (13 children)
Ah, yes, the "hurr durr women can't really fight" idea. I'll tell you what: Go to your nearest military base, find a bar nearby with a bunch of grunts, and challenge one of the female grunts to a fight. If she kicks your ass, and she probably will unless you also have some actual training, then you need to shut up about standards. Because the whole point of standards is to ensure you have soldiers who can kick somebody's ass when they need to.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2022, @12:00PM (10 children)
No doubt any current member of the military could wipe the floor with me. That's not a valid case.
A valid case would be to have a current male menber of the military go up against a current female member of the military. I'm sure you realize (whether you are willing to admit it or not), that in about 99% of the cases, the male soldier would mop the floor with the female soldier.
The real issue is that the military has repeatedly lowered their standards to make it possible for women to compete.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Immerman on Monday August 22 2022, @01:02PM (9 children)
Still not really relevant. These days soldiers have these things called guns, which make melee combat almost completely obsolete outside of maybe some special forces missions.
When you're fighting with guns it doesn't matter how strong you are, so long as you're strong enough to carry your gun and other equipment.
What matters more is your endurance, because you're likely to have to carry that equipment long distances on a semi-regular basis. And women actually have an endurance advantage over men.
Of course that's still only on average - a strong women may well be stronger than an average man, even without training. Just as a man with high endurance can exceed an average woman's endurance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2022, @03:28PM (6 children)
Citation needed. Probably the most comparable examples are sports. I'm not aware of any sport that involves any sort of physical strength where women can compete with men. That's why they have different categories for men vs women (and that's why men pretending to be women are totally destroying sporting records set by real women).
You are making my case. Yes, the strongest women are stronger than the average man. But they are obviously and clearly NOT stronger than the strongest man. At any level, men are stronger (and faster and have more endurance) than women.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Spook brat on Monday August 22 2022, @04:08PM (5 children)
True, but they don't have to be. As long as they can meet the standard, they can do the job. The military has few enough new recruits coming in that there is no place for discouraging any qualified applicants from doing their preferred jobs. Any sister who wants to step up and is capable of doing so should be encouraged. I'll grant that they may be few and far between; however, I've met and served with some, so I know they exist.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2022, @05:17PM (4 children)
But they can't. They have different, lower standards for women than for men. For example, Navy PRT (age 17-19) standards for the lowest satisfactory standards are:
Source [navy-prt.com]
If it's no longer important that a sailors have upper-body strength or the ability to run fast, then why keep these requirements? If they are important, then why aren't women held to the same standard?
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Tuesday August 23 2022, @02:56PM (3 children)
That's a different discussion entirely. There are many jobs in the military that don't require the same level of fitness as front-line combat, and the minimum standards are geared towards retaining the service members doing those jobs.
If you think that the female soldiers joining elite combat units are only meeting the minimum passing scores on the Army ACFT you are sorely mistaken.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Wednesday August 24 2022, @04:32AM (2 children)
The answer is that they aren't joining those services. At least none of the special forces that people outside the military think of when the topic arises. There have been attempts, but as of this article, none of those forces have been integrated. https://www.cnas.org/publications/commentary/women-in-combat-five-year-status-update [cnas.org]
The fact of the matter is that women are just not capable of doing tasks that are important in these roles. I personally wish it wasn't the case, because we lose far too many men in these jobs, but the fact of the matter is that upper body strength and other factors are important.
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Wednesday August 24 2022, @11:09PM (1 child)
Your logic is bad, and you should feel bad.
The article you linked gives specific numbers on women joining the Rangers and Green Berets as of publication in March 2020:
In addition to those serving in "the special forces that people outside the military think of when the topic arises," the article also lists numbers for females in general combat arms roles:
Again, from the article:
(links to other informative articles preserved)
Your statements not only contradict my own lived experience, they are proved wrong by the article you quoted to support them.
Even worse, your statement that "women are just not capable" not only disrespects the women currently getting the job done and the memory of those who died on the front lines side-by-side with tabbed special operators, they also discourage future women from stepping up who might otherwise try.
I'm sorry for you that your prejudice against women is impairing your reading comprehension. I suspect that this post will not change your opinion. I also suspect that I'm being trolled. In either case, I have no further interest in entertaining this conversation, and will not post any further replies.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 1, Troll) by aafcac on Friday August 26 2022, @11:34PM
That's pretty pathetic. You could field a crew of male wet nurses in those sorts of numbers without resorting to recruiting men born women.
As far as standards go: https://www.militarytimes.com/opinion/commentary/2020/02/28/women-in-special-operations-is-nothing-new/ [militarytimes.com] , whether the standards were changed specifically to allow for more women or to boost numbers is immaterial, women weren't passing the previous standards when men were. It's pretty dishonest to note that the lower standards weren't done to increase the number of women involved, but to increase the numbers in general, but then fail to note that women weren't passing.
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Monday August 22 2022, @07:19PM
Even in the modern era, weapons do jam or run out of ammo, and sometimes the weapon might outright be knocked out of your hand if something nearby is going on. I doubt that this is as common of a problem as it used to be when weapons were less reliable, bullets were harder to come by and the like, but I'm not sure anybody would really like to be in a position where they don't have use of their weapon and don't have any other means of defense. We've seen what happens to our service personnel in some areas when they're captured. Being burned to death in a cage on video is not the way that most people would like to go out.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday August 23 2022, @07:22PM
I think your point about guns was quite poignantly disproven [youtu.be] in one sci-fi military movie of renown. But anyone who has the physical endurance and prowess to make it through military basic training will be stronger than the average civilian, even if only through survivorship selection.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by aafcac on Monday August 22 2022, @03:36PM (1 child)
Which explains why hardly any of them have been able to get through the testing to actually be on the frontline. This isn't a matter of sexism, up until this point, whenever women have been allowed to try, the success rate has been abysmal.
(Score: 3, Informative) by aafcac on Tuesday August 23 2022, @11:59AM
LOL, I'm not really surprised that people are going to be butt hurt over this, but it is a publicly available fact that the standards for women are lower. It's literally been posted in this discussion that the standards are lower. They didn't lower the standards to be nice, they lowered them because if they didn't, they'd have no women at all.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Sunday August 21 2022, @11:47PM (3 children)
That it'll fit correctly?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2022, @12:18AM
A trillion to one against? I'm not aware of any military uniform article that fits properly. There's a reason tailors stay in business near military bases.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Monday August 22 2022, @05:41PM (1 child)
That was my female coworker's first reaction. The Army does not have the best track record of getting something right the first time.
I wonder if the requirements are similar to other applications: other armies, or other hazardous jobs like firefighting. This could be a good example where providing requirements for the public market to fulfill and leaving said product in the public market is the best solution, allowing rapid innovation in the future unlike a rigid selection process.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday August 23 2022, @07:37PM
I've never been in the military, but if I had to bet on whether women would complain straightforwardly with each other about their bras not fitting properly, I'd believe it would happen in barracks before it would happen outside a lingerie shop:
Mall: "They're kind of tight and dig in underneath, but I like how they look."
Barracks: "Permission to speak freely? These new tactical-twin-tit-transports fit worse than [something off-color involving the sergeant's boyfriend/husband] in this private's, er, privates."
(Score: 5, Funny) by srobert on Monday August 22 2022, @01:37AM (4 children)
Do they shoot laser weapons? Cause that would be pretty cool.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2022, @02:54AM
You thought she was well endowed ...
She was. Those were custom high powered mil spec lithium power cells attached to infrared diode lasers.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
(Score: 2) by gawdonblue on Monday August 22 2022, @07:03AM (2 children)
Machine gun jubblies! How did I miss those, baby?
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday August 22 2022, @07:21AM (1 child)
It's probably not going to be what I'd be thinking of [youtube.com]...
(Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday August 23 2022, @03:10AM
Somehow, an image of what your link points to was the first thing that popped into my mind as I parsed the words "tactical bra".
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by bussdriver on Monday August 22 2022, @03:17AM
In 20 years we have an investigation into vet breast cancer which finds out something about the bra was to blame...
(Score: 1, Troll) by maxwell demon on Monday August 22 2022, @05:26AM (6 children)
Apparently she expects the bras also to be worn by men. Or why else would she use a gender-neutral “singular they” in this context?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2, Informative) by choose another one on Monday August 22 2022, @08:52AM
Maybe, just maybe, some of the men have been involved in the development, and now that it's done, they will be more ready and able to focus on their mission rather than preoccupied with bra design...
If, say, they come with a quick release to facilitate emergency medical access in the field, that would be a good indication that the above is the case...
(Score: 2, Informative) by mhajicek on Monday August 22 2022, @08:58AM (3 children)
Do you not use "them" and "their" to refer to multiple women?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2, Redundant) by maxwell demon on Monday August 22 2022, @09:23AM (2 children)
Read the quoted sentence again, carefully. It was speaking about a single (generic) soldier.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Monday August 22 2022, @03:43PM (1 child)
It's probably just a typo, people are going to accidentally transpose characters from time to time, and soldier's is probably more commonly seen than soldiers'.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday August 22 2022, @04:58PM
Then look at the sentence preceding the one I quoted.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Monday August 22 2022, @01:19PM
Perhaps because she felt like it?
Just because you know someone's gender doesn't require you to specify it every time you mention them. Think of how ridiculous that wold seem for any other attribute - shall we specify someone's race whenever we mention (black)him or (white) her? How about (6.1')his height? Or (145lb)her weight?
Why should gender be singled out as something to be mentioned in every. single. reference. Unless you believe it's something so important that it should absolutely never be overlooked?
We have a gender neutral pronoun, and an increasing number of people are working to normalize its usage. Particularly people who are routinely marginalized because they're not traditional men.
Personally I wish we had normalized on something that's specifically singular - but given the huge push-back against popularizing the use of "they" in a way that it's been used for centuries makes me suspect any alternative would be even more problematic. Maybe we can revisit the question in a generation or two once assholes stop insisting that a person be branded with a traditional gender at every conversational opportunity.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Opportunist on Monday August 22 2022, @07:18AM (1 child)
What about all the supply sergeants that have bigger tits than the average female soldier?
(Score: 2) by HammeredGlass on Monday August 22 2022, @02:57PM
PT will fix that.