[General Battuta]

Just to clarify my problem with what you're implying:

"It would say like, 'the patient rode along on convoys,' like I was just a passenger in the back seat," McNeill said.

In the context of an article about the assumption that female vets did not participate in combat.

In a passage presenting problems that McNeill faced with a VA sergeant who treated her as if she was a noncombatant.

(None of which you have disputed in the slightest.)

You want to make the claim that she is imagining this noncombatant assumption in this particular case, when the soldier in question is clearly implying that she was assumed to be a noncombatant or a passenger? And you simultaneously do not dispute all the other claims in the article that women are treated as noncombatants by civilians and fellow military alike?

Meanwhile, let me present my interpretation of what she's saying: statements like 'she rode along with convoys' were interpreted as 'she sat in the back seat', rather than 'she provided overwatch from a Mark 19'.

[Uchuujinsan]

Probably you are talking about me...
I am implying that you read part of the article wrong.

Your statement, a little translated:
She said "rode along on convoys", someone else interpreted as "was just a passenger in the back seat"

The articles version:
She said "x" (unknown)
Someone else interpreted it as "rode along on convoys"
She said it sounded like "was just a passenger in the back seat"

[NGTM-1R]

That's clearly not what happened in the article.

However I do believe her reaction to the statement "rode along with the convoys" was unwarrented, considering the source and its presumable knowledge of the situation.

[General Battuta]

That's not what I said. The VA paperwork said 'she rode along on convoys', which she suggested implied to us meant 'as a passenger'.

The statement up for interpretation here is what was on the VA paperwork. The people who wrote the statement apparently interpreted it as "passenger in the back seat" when they wrote it. She interpreted it the same way.

[Flipside]

Possibly 'part of the Convoy Escort' would be not only less ambiguous, but also more accurate?

[Uchuujinsan]

So, NGTM-1R disagrees with my understanding of the article, and General Battuta disagrees with my understanding of his statements?
To prevent further misunderstandings, do you agree with my representation of what General Battuta said in his first post, NGTM-1R?
Do you agree with my representation of the meaning of the article, General Battuta?

[General Battuta]

I have no idea what your representation is.

If the representation is "McNeill was treated as a noncombatant or a lesser contributor by VA administration paperwork", then yes.

[Uchuujinsan]

Probably you are talking about me...
I am implying that you read part of the article wrong.

Your statement, a little translated:
She said "rode along on convoys", someone else interpreted as "was just a passenger in the back seat"

The articles version:
She said "x" (unknown)
Someone else interpreted it as "rode along on convoys"
She said it sounded like "was just a passenger in the back seat"

I meant that one under "The articles version"

[General Battuta]

Sure, but that's not in conflict with anything I said, as far back as the first post of the article.

Again, to quote myself, the VA people wrote "rode along on convoys" to mean "was a passenger", when it should have meant "was an active combatant."

[StarSlayer]

The niggling over semantics in light of the overall content of the article makes me sad

[General Battuta]

Seriously. *sigh*

[Uchuujinsan]

Some of this stuff is pretty disgusting: statements like 'she rode along with convoys' being interpreted as 'she sat in the back seat', rather than 'she provided overwatch from a Mark 19'.

So, I think we are pretty close to a solution now :>

I'm assuming I misunderstood what you meant with this quote, but I find no interpretation that fits what you said in your last few posts.

It says, if someone reads "she rode along with convoys" and interprets it as "she sat in the back seat" instead of the probably more accurate "she provided overwatch from a Mark 19" it is disgusting (and I would probably agree)
But this situation isn't mentioned in the article.
And it is introduced with "statements like..."

So, I see 3 possibilities:
a)I don't understand what is written there
b)You didn't write, what you intended to write
c)You did write what you intended to write, but have changed your opinion what the article says somewhere after that sentence.

I don't want to rule out a, you can always be wrong, but...

[General Battuta]

Again:

The statement in McNeill's VA forms, "she rode along with convoys".

Was written with the intent to convey "she sat in the back seat", i.e. she was a noncombatant. Was interpreted in this way by those who wrote it, and by others who are cited in the article - bartenders, friends, ordinary civilians, etcetera.

Should have instead implied (as it might have with a male soldier) 'she provided overwatch from a Mark 19'.

[NGTM-1R]

Again:

The statement in McNeill's VA forms, "she rode along with convoys".

Was written with the intent to convey "she sat in the back seat", i.e. she was a noncombatant. Was interpreted in this way by those who wrote it, and by others who are cited in the article - bartenders, friends, ordinary civilians, etcetera.

I don't see any evidence for that. The article quotes the person in question who is in turn quoting from a VA document that at no point in the article is there anything to indicate anyone but her and the VA saw. Without knowing how the VA writes it up regarding a male we have no evidence anything untoward occured; we only have the word of the person in question, who also doesn't know how the VA would have written it up if she were male and for that matter appears to be drawing her conclusions solely from how it was written up as opposed to any kind of personal interaction! The rest of the article is quite solid I agree, but this particular instance is not.

[Goober5000]

To go off on a tangent...

Putting a few examples out there helps correct our availability heuristic back towards calibration. If we were on target, one out of every five soldier prototypes we generated would be female.

Could you rephrase that in a non-Spockian manner?

[General Battuta]

Again:

The statement in McNeill's VA forms, "she rode along with convoys".

Was written with the intent to convey "she sat in the back seat", i.e. she was a noncombatant. Was interpreted in this way by those who wrote it, and by others who are cited in the article - bartenders, friends, ordinary civilians, etcetera.

I don't see any evidence for that. The article quotes the person in question who is in turn quoting from a VA document that at no point in the article is there anything to indicate anyone but her and the VA saw. Without knowing how the VA writes it up regarding a male we have no evidence anything untoward occured; we only have the word of the person in question, who also doesn't know how the VA would have written it up if she were male and for that matter appears to be drawing her conclusions solely from how it was written up as opposed to any kind of personal interaction! The rest of the article is quite solid I agree, but this particular instance is not.

I'm willing to take her at her word. She has better information than us. She may in fact know how similar situations were written up for others.

To go off on a tangent...

Putting a few examples out there helps correct our availability heuristic back towards calibration. If we were on target, one out of every five soldier prototypes we generated would be female.

Could you rephrase that in a non-Spockian manner?

These veterans are having trouble because people don't know women are often combat soldiers. Helping people learn that women are combat soldiers will ease this problem.

We use prototypes, rather than rules, to define groups. Take this old chestnut:

A man and his son are driving in a car one day, when they get into a terrible accident. The man is killed instantly. The boy is knocked unconscious, but he is still alive. He is rushed to hospital for immediate surgery. The doctor enters the emergency room, looks at the boy, and says..."I can't operate. This is my son."

Most people will not solve this instantly the first time they are exposed, though the problem is less severe these days than it used to be. It's an example of prototyping. Exposing people to exemplars of the solution helps counter the effect. (It is also an example of a different order of priming effect which somewhat conflates the results, but it is a useful illustration nonetheless.)

In this case our prototypical soldier is male, which is an experientially derived trait (and not an invalid one.) But we do need to take into account that some soldiers are not male.

[Dilmah G]

These veterans are having trouble because people don't know women are often combat soldiers. Helping people learn that women are combat soldiers will ease this problem.

What you really need to do, is quietly educate the public through your ever famous, "Army Strong" ads and the like. When people see a woman on the gun of a Humvee, or returning fire with the boys, you can break the stereotype that every woman in the military is sexually immoral Logistics NCO.

[General Battuta]

Yep. I actually think they do a pretty good job of that already. Progress progress.

And Iron Man had a good one too. They had the balls to kill her off like any other red shirt, too.

[Grizzly]

A man and his son are driving in a car one day, when they get into a terrible accident. The man is killed instantly. The boy is knocked unconscious, but he is still alive. He is rushed to hospital for immediate surgery. The doctor enters the emergency room, looks at the boy, and says..."I can't operate. This is my son."

My version did not have that part, so I never assumed the mother actually existed at all. If the highlighted part was included, I think it would be very easy to solve that puzzle...

[General Battuta]

My version did not have that part, so I never assumed the mother actually existed at all.

wat

Generally children have mothers.