Moms In The Military? At What Price?

Family Research Council ^ | April 8, 2003 | Kristin Hansen

[Tailgunner Joe]

In a feature story in Tuesday's USA Today, Family Research Council's Dr. Allan C. Carlson said that the cost of sending tens of thousands of mothers to the battlefield is too great for our nation's children. "We've let an ideological drive to achieve perfect equality get in the way of common sense. No other nation has ever put so many women in combat or near-combat, and children are paying the price," he said. A prolific author, policy expert, and historian, Dr. Carlson is the Distinguished Fellow for Family Policy Studies at Family Research Council.

Pentagon numbers show that the amount of single parents in the military has almost doubled in size since 1992 to almost 90,000 today. Over half of the military's 200,000 women are mothers, many of them near the combat front lines.

"The strong and normal human instinct is to protect infants, toddlers, and their mothers," Dr. Carlson said. "Indeed, their wellbeing and security form the central purposes of every healthy nation. How did America get so out-of-sync with human nature and the lessons of human history?"

Dr. Carlson recounted how the 1970's convergence of the feminist movement and a manpower crunch in the armed services caused a boom of women entering the military, so that by 1980, the U.S. led the world in this category. In the 1990's, the Clinton administration eliminated key rules that had protected women from proximity to combat.

"The costs of this great social experiment have yet to be counted," Dr. Carlson said. "Social science research shows that young children effectively abandoned by their mothers for lengthy periods are much more likely to suffer emotional and mental disorders, more likely in later life to be in trouble with the law and abuse drugs, and less likely to succeed in school than children with their mothers available. Grandparents, day care centers, and even fathers cannot replace the unique parenting role of a mother."

Carlson urged President Bush to appoint a special Presidential Commission on Mothers in the Military Service to analyze the historical and anthropological records regarding the treatment of motherhood in times of war. This Commission would study the effects of mother-absence on small children, calculating the real social costs as well examine the military benefit system, to see if it actually creates incentives to out-of-wedlock births. "We must honestly measure the effects of pregnancy and maternity on military deployment and unit effectiveness," Dr. Carlson said. "America should protect the basic human rights of mothers and children...from foreign enemies and domestic ideologues alike."

[TrueBeliever9]

My son was stationed at Camp Lejuene from 1992-1997 - he always said it was the "biggest home of unwed mothers in America." Stands to reason, if you have "unwed mothers" in the Marines, then eventually you have have mothers serving in combat!

[Support Free Republic]

Donating to the FreeRepublic will keep the bright beacon of Freedom shining so that our Troops and the world will know we stand with them.
	Please join us. Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[joesnuffy]

The problem is also that there are plenty of better or equally qualified men to do the job
Who arent allowed to even compete for them thanks to affirmative action
There is NO need to send women into combat other than the political one..
To send a single mom into combat is simply wrong...perhaps evil...no wonder the femanazis are for it..
Even at the expense of combat effectiveness....lowered morale....and the making of orphans of young children

[Righter-than-Rush]

Ladies, prepare your flamethrowers.

Women lost their selflessness when they refused to go back home after the boys came back from WW2. Of course, feminism began before this, but was as effective as numerous in its early years. It became 'screw my family, I'm free!' and the majority of women had careers within a generation.

Today, economics have self-adjusted to require two income-earners per family, just to get by. This is inverse to the family structure after WW2. I reject the feminists and women who must have a career outside of raising their family. If women are so selfish to think their families don't need mom at home (or so gullible that they believe what the media tells them), then I have no use for them.

I make it a point to avoid doing business with married women who have careers outside of the home. Don't preach to me about the less than 1% of women who work out of necessity. The reality that they have elective careers is enough for me. If they loved their families more than their own self-fulfillment, they wouldn't be in a second career... they would be home where they belong.

OK, fire away feminists and moderates (men and women)!

[Lorianne]

Hmmm is he saying that mothers are more important than fathers to children?

[Lorianne]

Red herring. We have a volunteer military. They're not going to turn away qualified men who volunteer. Women aren't displacing men in the military.

[kellynla]

I know the BAMS are going to flame me about this. But like the sole surviving son I don't think the battle field whether ground, air or sea is a place for women. Flame away ladies I have my asbestos suit on. :-)

[kellynla]

Yes mothers are more important than fathers. Since the beginning of time we have protected our women because they are the only ones who can bear children.

[Poohbah]

In a feature story in Tuesday's USA Today, Family Research Council's Dr. Allan C. Carlson said that the cost of sending tens of thousands of mothers to the battlefield is too great for our nation's children.

And, of course, no one gives a flying fornication about sending their FATHERS to the battlefield...or what price the children pay in that case.

[Poohbah]

Hmmm is he saying that mothers are more important than fathers to children?

Yes.

[Tailgunner Joe]

And, of course, no one gives a flying fornication about sending their FATHERS to the battlefield

Take your anti-war crap somewhere else lefty. :o)

[Poohbah]

Kiss my Royal Irish Alfa Sierra Sierra.

This is the rankest form of political opportunism, complete with the "FOR THE CHILLL-ILL-RUUUN!" crap that I got sick of in 1996.

Wars are tough on families. Period. End of discussion.

[kellynla]

Not necessary to have women in combat. There are plenty of men to fill the slots. If it had been up to a BAM to pull me out of my fighting hole when I was hit I wouldn't be here today. She couldn't have carried me. When I was in Nam had we had women in the company there would have been enormous morale problems not to mention that I and my fellow Marines would always be looking out for the BAM instead of looking for Charlie. Hence putting ourselves and our fellow Marines in more danger. I won't even get into the possibility of a woman POW and the problems she would present to herself and her fellow male POW's. Semper Fi

[Lorianne]

Your're post brought back to mind an experience I had. I was interviewing a man just out of college for a position at my firm. About 2 minutes into the interview he asks "Would you be my superior in this firm?" I said "Yes, I suppose I would". He stood up and gathered his things and said "I cannot work under a woman" and walked out.

I admired his honestly but wondered how he expected to get a job in my field in any firm. A young man out of college is not likely to find a firm without female employees with more seniority than him. I've always wonder what happened with this guy. I suppose he must have started his own business.

[William Terrell]

And, of course, no one gives a flying fornication about sending their FATHERS to the battlefield...or what price the children pay in that case.

Mothers have a heartlink to their children that fathers don't, and can't, have. It's one of the reasons courts invariably award custody of minor children to their mothers.

Men are for protection because men are usually whom one needs protection from, and women can't do the job. They could if women were whom we would need protection from.

It's amazing to me that I, as a man, would actually have to say these thing to another man, or woman for that matter. You realize that your position is a most liberal position and just about as far away from conservatism as is possible to get. Remember, it was Bubba that has opened up this can of ill-fated worms, and I think it's entertaining that you support that sociopath in anything.

[Tailgunner Joe]

It was Bill Clinton and Les Aspin who gave me this opportunity to expose the nightmarishness of their feminazi agenda.

[Poohbah]

Look, buddy, I'm just getting tired of the "do this FOR THE CHILL-ILL-RUUN" crap. It's unseemly, whether it comes from the left or the right, and it's a crappy argument because it so completely marginalizes fathers and fatherhood.

[algol]

Since the advent of modern medicine (antibiotics, etc) it only takes one woman to bear sufficient children to replace what it would have taken a half dozen women to a couple hundred years ago.

It used to be that childbirth was the greatest killer of fertile women, and infant death the greatest killer overall.

Also, men are the only ones who can father children, and unless you're arguing for polygamy or breeding bastards, it takes roughly equal numbers of men and women to produce children.