Military Uniform Breastfeeding T-shirts

Miss Military Mom has introduced a line of short and long-sleeved t-shirts in various colors, designed to accommodate the breastfeeding mother in uniform.

As you can see, the design is pretty straight forward and it’s wear is already being added to the USAF’s clothing instruction, AFI 36-2903.


28 Responses to “Military Uniform Breastfeeding T-shirts”

  1. Ian cornell says:

    Next up, armor plates that can accommodate a baby bump in

    • SSD says:

      Why would they have those? Pregnant service members are nondeployable.

      • Jordan says:

        Wait until feminists find out about it.

      • Whiskey2Sierra says:

        He’s just being a dick and attempting to say women shouldn’t serve in the military.

        • SSD says:

          That would be great if men were lining up to swear in.

          I for one am proud that my wife, daughter and mother-in-law have all served our nation in uniform.

          • Whiskey2Tango says:


            Me too. As well as the female SMs I work with. Some of the most brilliant I’ve had the pleasure to serve with.

          • Ian cornell says:

            It was just a ironic feminist joke! I absolutely love and respect all woman who serve. Many are tougher than I’ll ever be. I meant no disrespect

  2. reaper says:

    ok, whatever.

  3. Toby Melville says:

    I do believe they should make those for men but in our shorts, oh wait, they do! Lol, I can really care less if a female service member wore this and quite frankly it’s not as if they are sitting in the BX in the food court whipping tits out and breastfeeding while providing some First Sergent a copy of their I Corps uniform manual. Oh, by the way, the big army is required to carry it at all time at Fort Lewis. I could see it now, an E-8 or E-9 stomping through the BX on Lewis and he sees a female soldier whos child is chin deep while she is in uniform, damn that would be a mess. I am laughing so hard right now.

    • AbnMedOps says:

      I would slam down hard on any a-hole, civilian or military, who is interfering with or harassing a breast feeding mother. Regardless of any views I may have about appropriate MOS fields for females.

  4. DAN III says:

    All you emasculated males who love the weaker sex, need to wake up. Women today are reversing the roles of men in American society. Our society and nation are in decline because of you diversity fools. You are the same fools who welcome the Third World invasion of this country with the introduction of millions of illegal invaders.

    Bring back family values. Return females to being women and being a good wife and mother. Get females OUT of the US military. Return to the Spirit of the Bayonet and start winning wars !

    The US military was once a way to defend the nation. Now it has become nothing more than a social justice platform.

    • ThatBlueFalcon says:

      Yes, please tell us how to #makethekitchengreatagain…

      Go back in your cave so you can yell at the young people to get off your lawn.

      • SamHill says:

        ThatBlueFalcon and Lasse can make fun of DAN III if you want, but he is not lying.

        My main problem,though, is with the lowering of standards.

        Lowering the standards to let in women, or trannies is not the answer. If it takes X amount of pushups to get into a certain unit that is what it should be, not less for some other group. That hurts the unit.

        I also worked in law enforcement after the military and they let 300 pound black women who never did one step of jogging nor one pushup pass the PT standards tests…let me clarify they did not even try, yet were passed and went to get the same paycheck as I did although I was fighting felon lifers with STDs inside a maximum security prison, and they got to sit in an air conditioned office or tower and talk on the phone to each other, while snacking all shift.

        Hard jobs like MIL/LEO have standards for a reason. Lowering those standards for the progressive’s ideals of diversity hurts the unit and hurts the overall institutions. I’m not saying women shouldn’t be in the military, I am just saying there shouldn’t be multiple goalposts if they are going to be there.

        • SSD says:

          While I’m a huge proponent of standards, I’m curious why you made a point of the race of the women you are obsessed with. Is your issue with their sex, race, or performance?

          • Ed says:

            Pretty sure he laid it all out in his detailed post. You sound touchy today.

            • SamHill says:

              @SSD because it was pertinent to the story. Why are you being touchy about sex/race? We are grown ups here, and stats are important in certain types of conversations. If we are artificially hiring, lets say, a 50/50 percentage of one group, when they only comprise less than 20% of the population, it leads to the problem I described: Lowered standards.

              We should not be hiring X number of women, X number of a certain race. The standards should be set per job, and whoever qualifies can get the job. No bonus points for diversity. No racially motivated bonus points.

              Diversity, in its self DOES NOT equal strength. That is a progressive lie. People from diverse backgrounds CAN BE strong, but they are not strong BECAUSE OF a diverse background. Again, MIL/LEO, and likely other places as well, should focus on hiring the most qualified applicants, not making special privileges for diversity hires.

              BTW, I’m not obsessed with anyone SSD, perhaps you are just too touchy about someone not being drunk off of the diversity cool aid. Seriously, I did not say I hate or obsess about any person, race or sex. I said they should be included only if they pass the same tests. I don’t want to see the recon marine job watered down so they can take in people with the most diversity bonus points. That is not good for the marines, that is not good for America and truly, its not even good for the applicants who, realistically, didn’t make the cut except for artificially modifying the goal markers.

              • SSD says:

                Why am I being touchy/feely? Because race had zero impact on physical or cognitive ability.

                As a leader, it was my duty to lead all of my troops, regardless of their race or religion. I would pay a lot of extra attention to someone who pointed out the race of others, particularly when associated with criticism, and you are one of those people.

                If your issues are actually about performance and ability, there’s no need to discuss race, unless that’s your true focus.

                • SamHill says:

                  Of course, as a leader you lead all of your troops regardless of race or religion.

                  I am talking about hiring practices here. The idea that every job has to be 50% women 50% men, 50% white 50% black or it is considered racist/sexist etc. is liberal bull shit.

                  I am saying that our institutions should no longer use affirmative action type policies in hiring. Not considering race at all would be true equality. I am talking about equal treatment (and standards) not special treatment and you are bordering on trying to accuse me of having a problem with different races.

                  If you think different sexes and races need special treatment and a special set of standards you are part of the problem. I am a proponent of equal treatment for all and equal standards.

                  • SSD says:

                    I’m not a fan of quotas and I am deadset against lowering standards, particularly performance standards. The standard should be driven by the task, not the applicant.

              • Friend of Eric says:

                I’m a long-time associate of Eric and I’ve got two things to say about your hysterics:

                First off, you’re a prison guard so reel in the attempt at law enforcement cred.

                Second, Eric’s wife is African-American and a great lady. She is also a Veteran and along with Eric has raised three outstanding sons of mixed racial heritage. So while you see a black woman who doesn’t cut it, Eric sees a woman who doesn’t.

                You really do sound like a racist and the more you say, the deeper you dig your hole.

                • SSD says:

                  I appreciate your support, but my wife prefers black over African-American and I do not believe that the commentor is a racist. That is a term which is thrown all too often and too quickly. However, I do believe he should take stock in his beliefs.

                • SamHill says:

                  @Friend of Eric
                  Look at you coming in to save the day and throw out the racist card. No hysterics here, maybe you are reading too much into it, in your attempt to belittle a profession while kissing your buddies ass in public.

                  How on earth you can get that I am racist, from wanting EQUAL standards I don’t know, unless you are on the liberal cool aid where everybody who doesn’t agree with you must be a racist.

                  I thought our government decided at some point we shouldn’t be making laws bases on race, right? If it is unacceptable it should be unacceptable at all times, not only acceptable when it benefits your preferred group at that moment.

                  Not sure what job you did, or do, but if you are a street cop, great job and thanks. I do envy that some of the people you may pull over can be nice sometimes and that you get to carry your gun. That is one of the bad parts about prison work, especially at an end of the line prison, everyone is at their worst, at all times and there are no real carrots or sticks. I am sorry you place little value on the profession. If you work at neither then reel in your virtue signaling, you look silly.

                  @SSD based on your last comment we seem to be in agreement. I am against quotas and very against lowering of standards. I want our units and institutions strong and, if diverse fine, but not diversity at the expense of lowering standards. Take care.

                  • SSD says:

                    Thank God I meet your standard of worrying about race first. Get your priorities straight. You are fucked up like polio.

                    • SamHill says:

                      Again, the race or sex checkbox on the application, being moved ahead to fill a quota would be “race first”. I am disappointed that you are having such a hard time seeing that.

                      Perhaps it is you prioritizing artificially diversifying our institutions ahead of their strength. If race was not considered as a factor for hiring, wouldn’t that be true racial equality?

                    • SSD says:

                      Perhaps I’m blinded by working places where performance was THE factor. If you’re that obsessed with this, go join the big leagues and see how you measure up.

    • Lasse says:

      I’ll be blown away if you aren’t a part of the “Incel” movement.

  5. Gator says:

    At first I thought this was something from the pages of Duffelblog. It certainly could be.
    God help us.