Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 7:38 AM
Tue Nov 24
46 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
Hearing that just gave me the vapors. #doublex
11/17/09
11/16/09
Oh, right; I'm not married to someone who reads Slate. #slate
11/16/09
But probably not. #slate
11/16/09
Slate sucks, actually. Geek smartasses in the backwater of DC trying to pretend they aren't presenting the dreariest conventional wisdom out there. #slate
11/17/09
11/16/09
I wrote (under a different name), that things weren't actually all that great and that there was plenty of data to support that conclusion. I was criticized for being soooo negative.
If I want to read about feminist issues I go to www.feministing.com. #slate
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
My fave is XXY. Klinefelter's Magazine. #slate
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
Men? More intellectually pretentious superannuated frat boys. #slate
11/16/09
11/16/09
1. Jobs
2. The economy
3. Foreign policy, engineering, technology, math, science
4. Hair, makeup, diets
5. Kids, family, pets #slate
11/16/09
A. Due to the good old boys club
B. Because traditional punditry, in print and in broadcast media, is just bullshit shouty playacting and posturing, hence the relatively high number of talibangelical conservatard authoritarian women pundits imitating the dominant men, compared to actually intelligent liberal pundits
C. Because women just can't have intelligent opinions
i. A
ii. B
iii. A & B
iv. C #slate
11/16/09
11/17/09
11/09/09
I have officially "budged" on this issue, genuinely.
Now, I fully expect a showering of slur-slung insults.
Cheers. #thecorner
11/09/09
#discourse
11/09/09
Maybe I just didn't realize the barometer of this whole issue had changed so much -- by gauging Gawker's readers -- during the last seven years or so when I was off negotiating the war zones and humanitarian crises of this planet, alongside rising-star lady (-friend) reporters, photographers and aid workers pals (who are gals) that might be shocked to learn how I feel about this, specific, topic ... their trust in me potentially compromised ...
My female friends who have been at the frontline with me in Somalia, the Congo, Iraq and Afghanistan would challenge me on this whole thing, rightly so.
Also: Ginmar Rienne's story, if true, and I have no reason to think it isn't, might have moved me to the point of remembering that my military experience has suddenly turned into a generation ago, not just a few years ago, as I recall it through novel remembrance -- and thusly, things have changed.
Move with the tide, or step aside, right?
Plus, I have myself reported on and photographed oppressed women in the nastiest corners of the Earth, so there's no reason for me to oppress my own.
Fu** it. Join up, ladies. #thecorner
11/09/09
Exactly. And with that in mind, maybe now you will understand why so many of us (women) got on your case in that thread - because we have to deal with the kind of attitude and bullshit you were doling out in our personal lives on a daily basis. I mean, you were pretty vile. And childish.
Whatever. I'm glad you saw the light.
11/09/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
I'm a journalist -- someone telling me something over the internets machine doesn't necessarily constitute fact just yet. So unless I am provided some "evidence," I'll word things the way I word them out of good-old fashioned scepticism. I have to cover my a** here, just in case you DO tell fibs to your legions of female followers online and turn out not to be the injured/recovering veteran you claim to be. And in the end, you signed the dotted fu**ing line, so get over it.
I never "did a whole lot more than doubt the concept of women in combat," for Christ's sake -- that is what IT (the THREAD) was all about.
You keep wanting to make this into something more -- there's nothing more here. You just want to tear people down, rather than reach out and clasp the olive branch I have outstretched to you and the others.
Until you start accepting some things, and have a little trust, you'll never be happy.
You'll also never "flip" the guys out there who are far more ardently opposed to women in combat than I, like the Boomers, WWII/Korea cronies and GOP-voting Gulf War I 30- and 40-somethings.
I apologized and I did it my way. If you don't like it, then you can slink back off into the dark corner you normally hide yourself, "Ms." Ginmar."
You're so, so aggressive, I would make a big ole' fat bet that you hurt those who love you the most all the time with your misplaced vitriol.
Cheers. #thecorner
11/10/09
@New Gonzo Drifter: Dude, you sound like one of those bogus celebrity tabloid psychiatrists. Can you really not see how making such pompous pronouncements as: "Until you start accepting some things, and have a little trust, you'll never be happy," is a) ridiculous, and b) insulting c) only reflect badly on YOU, rather than the person who's entire life you are analyzing based on a few blog posts.
11/10/09
11/10/09
I would retort that you ladies/women sound aggressive and arrogant, oppositely, so let's just let this one rest.
Kind regards, Drifter. #thecorner
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
Everything I say is verifiable. Google my fu**ing name (web, images, news, video), for Christ's sake ... it's all there -- the good, the bad, the ugly. Some stuff has washed away from the internet, but if you google my name + Afghanistan, or Somalia, or DR Congo/Goma, Ethiopia, Iraq, Chad, Sudan/Darfur, etc, etc ... or google my name + Associated Press, or Al Jazeera English, or Jane's Defence Weekly, or Stars and Stripes, or Reuters, etc, etc, etc. You can even see the crazy extremists out there who accuse me of being CIA, etc -- it's all there on the Google search, all verifiable.
You need to do your homework.
I can't verify anything you've told me.
Don't try and lump your venom today with my legit words both last night and today. I stand behind my apology, CAUSE IT AIN'T ALL ABOUT YOU.
I have changed my attitiude about women in combat because whether or not they go off to die doesn't affect me (unless I have a daughter who grows up to do such, and the chances of that happening are slim) ... there was no other attitude in question for me to change.
Stick to the issue and stop trying to create others.
You know damn well you had that "fu** you" on Facebook coming, and it paled in contrast to your constant barrage of insults.
So who's the hypocrit.
Look, can't you go argue with some other people on your hundreds of bookmarked sites, please?
I'm the stupid one for continuing this insane exchange with you.
I WON'T BE RESPONDING ANYMORE.
Good luck with your depression. #thecorner
11/10/09
11/10/09
And though you didn't ask, I'm going to go through this publicly ...
First, I'll skip editing comments -- but I will say that the Kos folks could have at least gone over the piece a bit and cleaned it up. It is difficult to read simply because of the run-on sentences and lack of more paragraph breaks.
I understand it's from a "diary" point of view, but still, it needed editing -- well-edited pieces are more powerful. I think Kos was lazy in regard to that. (Although I'm curious if they cleaned it up to the extent to omit certain sections of your original piece ... did they omit anything?)
Next, why are you dealing with the VA? I dealt with the VA when I got out of the military -- I went to them once and I never went back.
If you are going to them because you are not financially able to choose other, better-quality care, there are still options open to you.
You don't have to go to the VA -- they suck and the particular office/branch you are dealing with needs to be alerted to your concerns (someone should anonymously or transparently send the administrators you Daily Kos piece today).
Next, you are dealing with folks who are overwhelmed -- you need mono on mono care and attention. You have probably seen in the comments section that a doctor is offering their services to you ... check it out, from a distance (screen/vet him out first).
Next, drop your angst. It will help you in the patience required to go through what must already be a long process, but it will be made more traumatic and stressful as your stress level rises. *Your were a soldier, which must imply that you have some discipline -- try practicing it when you are dealing with "dumb" people at the VA. -- they're used to getting yelled at and will tune you out if you come in with an attitude.*
"I sat across tables and across carpets with men who'd cheerfully try to kidnap me or kill me and marveled at the manners of the Middle East, where mutual enmity is no excuse for tea and flower language."
I'm surprised DK let this pass ... and this is an example in your piece that offers no specifics, which would need some clarification ... are these men who would have kidnapped you Iraqi Sunnis that MNF-I were dealing with? It sounds almost like a generalization and condemnation of all Iraqis, whereas you sympathize with them in other passages such as this: "I was a soldier in Iraq who rode the gun turret on the long dusty roads of Iraq, past palm trees and herds of sheep, past waving men and women, past fields of sunflowers and charred craters in the Baghdad highway where men and women had lost their lives." --- AND THIS ONE --- "I've seen things that I will discuss with no civilian, because the worse things I saw happened to civilians, to civilian bodies, and I believed then and now that it was my job to have protected them, to the point of risk to myself, and that I failed." --- AND THIS ONE --- "I talked to innocents imprisoned for things they didn't do and I couldn't save them from prison, why on earth can't I find a way to talk about this because it's stuff that happened to other people that haunts me the most?"
And it's easy to tell you were Airborne with the 82nd Airborne Division ... there's no need to guise it the way you did -- it's obvious.
You also have other issues going on, obiously -- " ... they would have to collect this information from me, from a file which might have detailed that my family is dead, and that the reason I do not take public transportation is because I have such bad panic attacks that I black out."
Is your family dead? -- (because you say "might have detailed that my family is dead") -- it isn't clear. One can infer that they are, but again, through the mechanics of the sentence, one might be left wondering either way ...
If they are, do you mind sharing if your WHOLE family is deceased, or all of the direct members, or are there any existing distant relatives? If so, are they not interested in your situation and helping out, whatever "helping out" means?
Next, are you taking any anti-anxieties (prescrips) for it?
In the end, everyone who witnesses the horrors of war is in the same boat. It's about how you manage those experiences that counts. I've seen plenty of carnage, but I won't let it dictate my life. The same goes for male and female soldiers.
Did you do one complete deployment (12 or 15 month?), or did you do more than one tour in Iraq?
What was your exact MOS (job)?
Were you honorably discharged? Did you get the G.I. Bill? Do you have health insurance (hey, I have to ask)?
Next, why did you join the military? When did you join (or was it after 9/11?)? How long have you been out? What FOB or FOBs (forward operating base, for the benefit of other readers) did you serve at in Baghdad (that's the only thing you mention specifically -- you have a lot of vagaries in your piece and for vets who have been there, or for journalists, etc, who have spent a significant amount of time there, one wonders why you are so ambiguous about specifics -- it would help your position, again, to be specific ... if you're worried about other vets reading it that you served with and discovering your real name, hey - you're "out there".) There's no reason to hold back now, unless this published piece, or others, could ultimately lead to disqualification of benefits ... which might make a little sense. I'm speculating here, so please forgive me ...
You seem radically leftist and I can't see the reason for why you would have joined in the first place ... (I was leftist, too, but when Desert Storm ['90-'91] kicked off, I wanted to be a part of it -- yeah, I missed that, but at least I got the G.I. Bill and I got some very interesting TDY deployments in my experience) ...
Next, and lastly, you ask this question -- basically -- to yourself, and I would like to stand it on its head: Why have these experiences affected you so traumatically, and not others? Why are you haunted by it all, but others seem to pick back up where they left off and have moved on? Are there other aspects to your life that you aren't sharing? -- And I'm not trying to sound like one of those docs trying to pawn off the real problem, but I sense there is something else going on in your life, other than the trauma of Iraq and your now poor quality of day-to-day life ...
That's a good question. Many soldiers, airmen, Marines and sailors -- especially those in the infantry and special ops career fields -- go into war zones over and over and over ... they seem to get on with their lives and don't revert to the Vietnam-era cliche that "the war done messed me up."
I always looked at that as a cop out. You are alive. Sure, you saw some heady stuff, but not as heady as some of the other members of our uniformed branches, so why are you allowing yourself to indulge in so much introspection about it all?
It was what it was -- no you get to move on and do something else.
I've got to go ... I tackled this during my lunch and I am past due back to my desk.
One last thing: If you don't like the way I have critiqued, or gone through this, ponder this -- The Daily Kos published your piece today in the diary format because it is fraught with inconsistencies, opinions, writing errors, and fundamentally doesn't tell anything new except that the allegation that female vets aren't getting quality treatment through the VA system. Do you have any pics of those lad mags sitting and waiting for perusal in the waiting room? Why not post that letter you just got from the VA with the Kos piece and the pertinent info rubbed out? Again, we're taking you at your word, but a traditional news outlet would press you much, much harder on details and facts before ever considering publishing it ... Kos frees themselves from criticsm on these many issues but simply dubbing it a "diary" piece and allowing you to keep your voice.
In the end, I and many others are now educated about this issue and you should consider that a success.
I know, again, you didn't solicit this, but nonetheless, I offer you my words. #thecorner
11/10/09
11/10/09
But look, the piece has "editorial" *holes* riddled throughout it ...
And it actually soldifies some of the age-old cliches about women in war: they can't handle it.
I'M NOT SAYING OR ASSERTING THAT PERSONALLY, but that conclusion could be drawn, or seized upon, by GOP oaf-ish males reading that piece -- Ginmar wasn't in a direct combat role position and now she is traumatized by her whole experience in Iraq, generically speaking, and the subsequent discharge period and recovery-from-injury (tangible or intangible) process. Some would counter that THAT is the exact reason women shouldn't be allowed NEAR combat, period. (I'm not the one saying that -- let's be clear.)
Men will use her piece as proof positive that women shouldn't be allowed in direct combat roles -- "Look, she couldn't even handle convoy duty."
And she may have left out the notion that even though she was working the turret, it is not commonplace for females to be working turret duty in Humvees, and other turret-mounted vehicles -- primarily because many women are not qualified on larger caliber weapons (other than the 60 [old days], much less the .50 cal) -- in case you don't know, non-military types, a soldier, regardless of gender, MUST be qualified on an individual weapon before manning/handling it. The primary guy who may have worked that turret might have been sick that day, or was back in the States on leave -- it is common for troops to rotate in and out of positions in a patrol or convoy, or whatever, from one shift to the next ... it is necesaary, as often times in a unit, up to 15% to 25% will be out of the duty rotation for varying reasons. Or, she was in the regular rotation for the turret -- simply.
But she cites that turret experience from a perspective of being somehow hardcore, when in fact, turret duty is loathed -- in the sun, static, in the same position for up to 8 or 10 hours at a go, most often never firing a shot, but acting more like a bully, aiming the gun at drivers next to the Humvee when the patrol is passing through regular, city traffic ... aiming the weapon from the turret, or firing warning shots, is meant to bully regular folks going about their day (locals) to get away from the patrol/Humvee.
But in any event, I'm telling you, it's (Gin's Kos piece) not the compelling case study you might think it is.
I'm not discrediting it -- I'm trying to learn more about it. Applying some skepticism is healthy. It helps me understand thing better -- you have to admit, there are a lot of vagaries in there.
I've been trained to be that way -- skeptical ... and that has come from my training and practical experience during my days in the military, not just college and journo stuff. Remember, I served in a military police field, so scrutinizing is par for the course ... and I'm sorry if all of this comes off as coarse, or unsympathetic. (Any editor would pick her piece apart ... Kos freed themselves of that by putting it out under the Diary banner.
But go on -- go on and think I don't yet "get it." Bollocks. I get it.
The crucial element to Ginmar's piece is whether she is being given fair, appropriate and quality care from the VA. If not, is it really because she is a woman, as she asserts? If so, then yes, THAT'S the story, not the extraneous info ...
There's not a single citation in that piece that is credible -- through an a**hole editor's eyes -- that warrants alarm. It warrants a review of the VA branch and its employees and their qualifications for being there.
The piece needs to be followed up on with a VA administrator, preferrably a female administrator with many years of experience -- Ginmar's story should be verified through her points of contact at her VA branch, and the ones who are charged with her evaluation, recovery and therapy, etc.
That requires an internal investigation ... it will take more females than just Ginmar to come forward and raise their voices before the VA will do anything about anything. (Don't you agree?)
The question is: Is all that worth the low quality of care that she (Gin) is receiving there. Answer: Sounds like "no."
Does this not sound reasonable a critique to you? If not, and you had a newspaper/site, I guess you'd just publish anything without some more credible details.
The details matter here and Gin's piece is lacking in them.
However, I believe her story. My tactic here is to play devil's advocate in saying the story needs to be better articulated because that's how she will win over le masse, rather than a couple of dozen folks who look at an overrated web site (Kos, according to TIME Magazine's 2009 top 25 web sites/and top 25 overrated web sites) ... sometimes you need the traditional media to get things out there, and that means showing a spirit of cooperation. Remember how The Post brought change at Walter Reed?
I'm not against any of you. I'm trying to make you realize how these issues sound -- in the way you all have been articulating it on these blog posts -- so that you can counter a**holes who will always disspell a story like this simply because it emanates from a "woman soldier."
I'm with you. I'm with Ginmar. Listening to an editing critique usually sounds personal to any writer who loves their writing and is passionate about what they write and believe in ... but that's just something EVERY writer has to get over.
In a positive spirit ... #thecorner
11/10/09
11/10/09
I'm not impressed with much of anything "UK edition," by way - all Conde Nast sh** sucks and you probably are the type to think Bono is ACTUALLY doing something real in Africa, along with Geldof (both of whom are pretty much considered morons with the African press corps [both Western and local]) ...
Magazines for Conde might sell, but bright people know where to get the real news and information, and they don't get it via quasi-entertainment lad mags headed by insane editors who flaunt cash like it is going out of style (my hero editors are far more low key than yours, I'm sure) ... 20-somethings who don't know any better and women with poor self esteem read Conde rags, along with "Biff" type guys who attend harvard and think they're smart ...
Those advertorial-oriented mags aren't all that into vetting information either, so I'm not surprised you take things at face value without applying the proper scrutiny.
Now, if you'd said you were chief copy editor at the BBC's World Service desk, or The AP's/Reuters national/international desks, or CNN International/Al Jazeera English's desks, I'd have been impressed, cause I actually know a few of those folks, have worked for them, and respect them.
UK stuff (which conjures to mind The Daily Mirror and Q, oh, and News of the World), isn't widely respected (outside of The Week, The Economist and Jane's Information Group), so try and blow hard at some British kids who think you're cool cause you edited what Amy Winehouse said after she hit the crack pipe ...
Yawn.
Separately, I would seriously urge you to finish reading my "critique" of Ginmar's Kos piece.
Beefs are beefs, but let's have the intellectual capacity and attention span to ride this mother to the end, not cop out. #thecorner
11/10/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
But nothing of substance, again, darn it. Guess you don't want to address any of the *holes* in your "diary" piece?
Fine. I expected as much. Not addressing those things frees you up from actually having to recall factual details for us out here.
Could you at least share with us if you pitched Kos a real story, but they denied it when they got a taste of your venom, and recommended you write it in "diary" format? #thecorner
11/11/09
How are The Sunday Times and the Daily Telegraph associated with Conde or TIME? I think you've fibbed to us, me lady. For shame. You tried to impress me and then lied about it.
AND NO FU**ING CHIEF COPY EDITORS FOR THE SUNDAY TIMES OR TELEGRAPH -- FORMER OR CURRENT -- WOULD HAVE THE INCLINATION OR TIME TO TRAWL GAWKER MEDIA SITES 24/7 AND LEAVE A COMMENT TRAIL AS LONG AS HOWARD HUGHES' LIFELONG PRESCRIPTIONS LIST!
You MUST have been fired from those papers after being hired to be a newby copy editor (and copy editors suck anyway -- what a boring game in the journo biz).
In any event, I'm going to check with my pals at The Sunday Times and Telegraph about past people (women, gasp!) who held those jobs in the last five years. (YOU MUST HAVE SOME ENEMIES OVER THERE.)
Email from me to them: "Yeah, all Ms. So and So does now is comment endlessly on Gawker, Jezebel, Gizmodo, and some other sites that no one has ever heard of and which illicit the lonliest internets-machines people in the world, to which she has become one of -- in fact, she is kind of the leader of the commenters of Gawker Media and treats her profile there as some sort of TWITter friends and followers thing, where losers galore camp out for days."
Them in response: "What the fu** is Gawker, or Jezebel? Don't know about Gawker, but that Jezebel thing sounds like something she'd be into -- she was a hell of a bitch in our newsroom."
Ha, ha, ha ... #thecorner
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
Otherwise, I'll just consider you another one of the internets machine liars.
My, and you feminist types love throwing around the word "co*k,"
don't you? Weird. Wonder what you guys would think of me if I threw around the word "pu**y" with the regularity and ease with which you toss around "co*k." Your mother taught you pretty poorly, 'ey?
You see, I was outed in that days-ago thread, admitted who I was, and took that to the next level and challenged whoever to Google me and look at my site to prove my background, rather than hide behind an endless parade of comments on all the ultra-femi sites you trawl during the time you have "on your hands" while being a big-shot, film-industry freelancer (a.k.a. L.A. diner waitress) you purport to be!
Golly. Now I've really been put back in my place ... #thecorner
11/11/09
11/11/09
Cheers, liar. #thecorner
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/12/09
Uhn, uhn, sister.
Also, I can hardly keep up with when my photos from here and there run now, like a few days ago on The Daily Kos (a friend, from my former employer -- Stars and Stripes, notified me this morning) ran a photo from Iraq of a solider who was just killed in Afghanistan (scroll about five pics down, SSgt. Gonzalez -- [www.dailykos.com])
You are a loser, Ginmar, and a disgrace to every male and female soldier who EVER served in the military.
You're whiney individual who never REALLY saw any hardcore action, BUT THINK YOU DID. That's the problem with types like you -- you get a little taste of the action and think you've been in the shit, and then come back to America and carry a big fucking chip on your shoulder.
I know a knucklehead like you didn't get the G.I. Bill to go to college, cause you're just gonna sit around on your ass anyone blaming everyone else but yourself for your PATHETIC predicament.
I'm sure you've got some sort of conspiracy theory for why a MAN is now being thought the final law enforcement gunman to have taken Nidal down, rather than your heroine, Munley, who was down on the ground.
Ballistics will tell us all in the end. #thecorner
11/12/09
I'm done feeding you. #thecorner
11/09/09
A non-white is the President and a woman stopped a psycho and now looney white males can’t figure out what to do with themselves.
11/09/09