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."

[grania]

This thread is interesting. I didn't realize that the military wasn't reaching its quotas, and one would think that would lead to a lessened quality. There are those arguing that women in combat are a problem. Yet, look at this military. They're magnificent representatives of this nation and doing an incredible job.

On the other hand, I'm troubled by the numbers of single moms who must use the military as they best way to get training and provide a future for their children. It's a choice they make, and it's good that they want to provide for their children, but there's something wrong with a society where so many women find themselves in this position.

I disagree with that choice, but wonder if I wouldn't make the same one in that position. The single women without children who sign up for combat...I guess it's their choice. It's the values of our society that would have to change, and that just isn't going to happen.

[Pukka Puck]

What do you mean, trying?

[Pukka Puck]

Male Democratic politicians cry their fool heads off? Name one.

[BlueLancer]

"You're trying to be funny, right?"
"What do you mean, trying?"

Very, very, VERY trying.

[Catspaw]

body>

This thread is about mothers in the military. But, Ok, do you deny that courts invaribly award custody to women in child custody cases? Since you have to answer "no", the next question is, why is that?

Interesting, but a rather simplistic debating technique.

You said:

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.

I see you're unable or unwilling to answer my question:

So what you're saying is that because of the "heartlink," women should automatically get custody of the children and that fathers should automatically be denied custody of the children for the same reason?

BTW, what is a "heartlink?"   Please provide me with a dictionary definition of "heartlink."  Why do women have "heartlink" and men don't?  Does the "heartlink" apply to mothers who have adopted children as well?  Given your reasoning, it cannot apply to birth or adoptive fathers.

 

[Lorianne]

The two items you posted said "opening up opportunities" in these military areas to women. It said nothing about lowering standards and meeting quotas for women. That's a key dinstinction.

[William Terrell]

So what you're saying is that because of the "heartlink," women should automatically get custody of the children and that fathers should automatically be denied custody of the children for the same reason?

That is what is happening now. It has been the custom for centuries, albeit at low rates compared to now because there was more responsilility on the part of married adults. Why do you think that is?

My answer to that question is that I am a conservative and uphold ancient customs because they have meaning and consequences when not followed. In other words, baring malfeasance on the part of the mother, yes.

But the real problem with your question is the high divorce rate in this country, which, pre-nofault divorce amendments to state codes, would be moot.

Do you think a man or a woman should be able to just leave their partner for any or no reason?

[Catspaw]

You're advocating to keep the status quo with your undefined reference to a mother's "heartlink." I'm sure that many custodial fathers that I know will be surprised by your answer.

[cinFLA]

Do you think a man or a woman should be able to just leave their partner for any or no reason?

Do you believe that a person should have to stay forever with someone they now detest? So much for personal freedom.

[Lorianne]

Actually the ancient custom was for the father to retain the children in the event of a break up. Mother custody is a very recent custom, less than 100 years old. For most of human history children were considered the property of the father, unless he "disowned" them (got it dis-owned) or did not wish to recognize the child as his responsibility, as was the case with "bastard" children who were considered solely the responsibility of its mother.

[Illbay]

Well, for one thing, I happen to believe that such "opportunities" should simply not exist for women, "standards" or not.

For another, you're just seeing the tip of the iceberg. See earlier posts explaining what this has meant. We've already had one woman Naval Aviator killed because she didn't belong where she was, and others have been ramrodded through.

But even if a woman could make the same grade as a male counterpart I would oppose it.

Only when we were down to our last few pilots, and no more men left, and fighting on our knees for survival, should this be done.

A woman does NOT need to be protecting me.

[rmvh]

It is well doculmented that those who read USA TODAY have limited intellectual capacities...It is truly written for the "hooked on phonics crowd" with the reading level geared to the fourth grade....Those who present so called "serious" articles to this rag are simply addressing mental midgets and peeing into the wind as far as important presntations are concerned.

Don't worry about it.

[Lorianne]

Right. Which is why the "standards" argument is a straw man for people who hold your opinions about women's place. It's deceiptful to pretend to set standards when you want to limit the opportunity of some folks to even try to meet them.

It's more honest to just say from the start, I don't want women in this role period. People don't like to say that because it sounds like what it is. So they hide behind "merit" arguments.

[Illbay]

I think the standards issue is real, however.

It's just that my personal view of this is not purely pragmatic.

I do not believe women belong in combat, any more than a 14-year-old who is very good at video games and could probably be a hot chopper pilot belongs in combat.

It is not proper. Women and children are what we protect, not who we want protecting US.

Women in the American Revolution were notoriously brave; many of them even lent a hand with the fighting WHEN ALL ELSE FAILED.

But the MEN were expected to do the fighting under any conceivable circumstances.

I do not think our women today are any more brave or more capable than Molly Pitcher or Abigail Adams. But Molly and Abigail were not expected to be on the front lines, and didn't expect "opportunities open for combat roles."

[William Terrell]

Do you believe that a person should have to stay forever with someone they now detest? So much for personal freedom.

They should have selected their mate more carefully before they made their vows. Many do. Human beings haven't changed over the millennia. Chances are that you'll find that anyone who left their mate whom "they now detest" have left others whom "they now detest".

[William Terrell]

Not according to English or American common law, as far as I have read. You'll have to cite me some authority.

[William Terrell]

You're advocating to keep the status quo with your undefined reference to a mother's "heartlink." I'm sure that many custodial fathers that I know will be surprised by your answer.

I'm "sure" they would. Are you a woman?

[Catspaw]

I'll let the custodial fathers I know that you think they shouldn't have custody because they lack the "heartlink" factor.

Is "heartlink" genetic? Does it come on the second X chromosome?

[cinFLA]

They should have selected their mate more carefully before they made their vows

Are you saying that if you are dumb enough to select an incompatible mate and later mature enough to see the mistake, you have to live with it for the rest of you life?