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."

[dighton]

If she was good, she wouldn't have been hit.

You're trying to be funny, right?

[wardaddy]

Knowing Liddy, he probably just told her she should be ashamed of herself, that it was wonderful that her husband, who must after all be a superior genetic specimen to be a "warrior," had the chance to spread his seed far and wide, especially with a FEMALE warrior.

Actually he declared "women anywhere near combat risk" as complete lunacy....something that as anyone who follows these threads knows I concur with for an avalanche of reasons.

[myprecious]

I have a friend that is helping watch over a 3 MONTH old baby because the mom was shipped out from Ft. Hood. Mom was told that she would not be called back until the baby was 6 months, but things got moved up.

Nothing can ever replace the natural bonding process that should be occuring. A baby recognizes the sound, feel, and smell of a mother. That detatchment can never be repaired.

[William Terrell]

It being about the chill-ill-ruun is one the more important of the ancient customs governing relationships between men and women living together in a nation. I'm sorry you're tired of hearing about it, but it's just biologically, emotionally and psychologically true.

The reason the customs around men and women are ancient is because the human body has been split into male and female as long as we can remember. In all that time, there are certain repeatable and ubiquitous truths about that relationship that have, through seer presence in the makup, have become customs.

I would expect that all possible permutations of that relationship have been tried by one whacko expermentalist liberal or another down through time, and yet the same basic customs remain and are always returned to.

One basic custom that reappears is that you don't use women to fight wars while that are men to do it and the very survival of the race or nation is not threatened.

This tells me that, in our multi-generational experience of high population and high technology ,we have forgottened the purpose of that custom. I doubt very seriously the purpose has vanished, it's just a margin we haven't come close to in our national memory.

To be "conservative" is to conserve. They way I understand it, to conserve those ways that have endured and served us over the decades, centuries and millennia. Deviating from this oldest of customs is not conservative. It's the freakiest of liberal progressiveism, like the embrace of homosexuality as a natural coupling of male or female.

So, you have to a liberal and I'm glad you're here. Liberal myths always need a truth test.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

I miss Liddy. We used to have him, then the station that carried him replaced him with Dave Ramsey (somebody I like a lot, but geez, how many of those calls can a guy take a day?)

[wardaddy]

LOL....please Sir "may he have another"....sound of clapping in background.

[wardaddy]

Liddy is on WTN....99.7FM....I bet on a good day you might even get a signal up there.

Ramsay is a local syndication from here....you don't live as frugal as he commands do you? Somehow, I picture you as more of an Epicurian.

[wardaddy]

Good for you.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

I'll give that a try.

Yep - epicurean, thats me, but I come by it honest. The funniest conversation I ever had with my dad was after my mother dragged him to a Ramsey seminar. His line was "damn, living like he tells you doesn't sound like any fun at all".

[Lorianne]

You're right it was Tailgunner Joe who made the "emasculated" comment.

I don't agree about our society. Did it ever occur to you that many of the cultures we end up getting in skirmishes with have strict segregation of gender roles. This is a hallmark of all the cultures on the planet that are not doing as well as Western cultures which are based on individual freedom and self determination. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't see masses of people trying to emmigrate to countries which don't practice equity comparable to ours in the West and tend to micromanage their women's vocations. I don't think its a coincidence.

That said, I'm not an advocate of women in combat, unless they can meet the requirements, which most can't. Many men can't either. A small percentage of the military is deployed into combat. Most are in support roles. In fact, many former military work is now performed by civilian contract who in turn employ many women. So indirectly, the military utilizes the talents of many more women than is commonly recognized.

The military uses people where their talents lay, and no successful military ever placed people willy nilly into positions where they wouldn't do the most good. I don't see that changing.

Also recruitment has fallen short every year for the last 11 years, so the military can't afford to be as choosy as perhaps it should be. There is a high attrition rate for first term service. So the military wastes money training people who won't stay or who can't meet the requirments. With an all volunteer military, them's the breaks. Beggars can't be choosers. Those who do make the grade and stick it out are turning out to be real assets (witness Iraq), including women, who many in the military acknowledge they can't do without.

[wardaddy]

His philosophy is very frugal and works mostly as a savings/credit slashing "boot camp" which is fine for personal economy.

However, in my line of work...I have to take on debt to expand or else it would be a terribly slow crawl.

He got destroyed in real estate in 86(?) when the tax codes changed on limited partnerships depreciation/values and learned after bankruptcy or near bankruptcy and became a guru. He's also very religious I think.

[wardaddy]

The phenomenom of babes in battle is only about 9 years old since the risk order was reversed and women in the academies and onboard ships etc only dates back around 30 years max.

I think we did pretty well as a "strict segregation of gender roles" outfit from WWII till then don't you? In many ways better than now.

It is not a question of either Talibanesque or Jessica Lynch in every platoon. There is a common sense middle somewhere. We have never since we became a nation treated women anywhere near Taliban standards to my knowledge...not as an accepted practice amongst folks with manners.

[Illbay]

Okay, she accomplished the mission. And so would whatever male that didn't go so that the quota could be met.

And in the meantime, we males are sitting here watching baseball, basketball and hockey, so that this young woman can go protect us in Iraq.

Something is very, very wrong.

[Illbay]

It is hardly "strict segregation of gender roles" to desire going back to the way things were in the military ca. World War II.

Women had and will continue to have a role in the military.

They don't belong in combat, period. They don't belong aboard ships, they don't belong in hazardous duty. That is not their job.

The military exists, as the saying goes, to "kill people and break things." That is a man's role, and one he is well-adapted at doing.

The changes that have been wrought in the military were NEVER made from military necessity, but only at the insistence of radical social engineers on the Left. Their ONLY desire was to insinuate their principles in every facet of public life.

The lowering of standards to accomodate those aims has been a travesty.

[Lorianne]

I don't think most women belong in combat either. But that is a red herring. Most women don't even volunteer for the military, let alone clamour to get into a combat position.

As to "radical social engineers on the left", I can't agree with you. I've never heard anyone, not the staunchest liberal or feminist, argue for numerical parity in the military or in combat. The number of women who would want to go into combat and who qualify is very small. Even if more qualified I doubt large numbers would want a combat deployment. And I don't know of anyone who is pushing women into combat roles. Most liberals and feminists are anti-military and anti-war across the board. They really aren't clamouring for women to be in the military let alone combat.

Meanwhile military service is voluntary and likely to stay that way. There is no quota system for females that I'm aware of in place to fill military positions. There are overall recruitment goals which haven't been met in 11 years. The number of people applying falls short and the number actually fulfilling their enlistment agreements falls short of military goals.

Therefore, there is no reason for the military to accept unqualified or less qualified people unless they simply don't have enough applicants to fill positions. This is a separate problem the military seems to face. If we want more men it would seem to me it would be smarter to heavily recruit and incentivize men, rather than whine and complain about "lower standards" for women.

[Illbay]

Then you have never read up on DACOWITS, which by all accounts is the bastion of power for the "dyke brigade" within the military power structure.

[Illbay]

If we want more men it would seem to me it would be smarter to heavily recruit and incentivize men, rather than whine and complain about "lower standards" for women.

Yes, you would think that, wouldn't you? But that isn't why they have DACOWITS, nor why they have lowered the standards. They have done these things to make sure that feminist ideologies are well-represented in the military.

That's my point, and that of those here who are firmly opposed to the expanded role of females in the military. It is NOT a "means to an end," it is an end in itself.

[Illbay]

Just two DACOWITS "recommendations" picked at random, from Spring 1994 (height of Clinton administration):

5. Opening Combat Aircraft to Women
DACOWITS reaffirms and further emphasizes its Recommendations that the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force open all combat aircraft assignments to women, including Army Air Cavalry Regiments and Special Operations.

6. Women in Army Field Artillery
DACOWITS recommends that the Secretary of the Army keep field artillery open to women and expand opportunities by opening Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS). DACOWITS reaffirms and emphasizes its Recommendations that the Secretary of Defense open MLRS to women.

It's just ludicrous. This isn't about "military readiness," it is solely about political correctness.

[Illbay]

No. 137 was meant for you, too.

[NMFXSTC]

Yup...the Marines do not have a medical corps...it's all Navy (we get assigned to them and change into the USMC uniform...and wear it proudly!)

"Corpsmen" are Navy...medics are Army...USAF has "medical specialists, but each uis a different specialty.

Best? The USMC doc...OF COURSE!