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."

[cinFLA]

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

Are you saying if your mate turns into a total a$$ then you have to stay with your mate for the rest of your life?

[Lorianne]

Several points.

I don't think anyone "expects" women to be the first line of defense. And the vast majority of women aren't clamouring to be there. Most aren't even signing up to be cooks and clerks in the military, much less in to be in combat. To advance anything other than that the tiniest percentage of women even want to be in combat is a straw man argument. Virtually no one "expects" women to be there, including most women.

[Lorianne]

Several points.

I don't think anyone "expects" women to be the first line of defense. And the vast majority of women aren't clamouring to be there. Most aren't even signing up to be cooks and clerks in the military, much less in to be in combat. To advance anything other than that the tiniest percentage of women even want to be in combat is a straw man argument. Virtually no one "expects" women to be there, including most women.

Secondly, even if women would have to be the last line of defense (and this is a very plausible scenario since 9-11), women military personell would be better off trained than untrained to fill that role. Even civilian women would be better off with some degree of training, if only in combat support roles, to that end.

Thirdly, with an all volunteer military, it is strategically unwise to turn away any volunteer who can contribute something. To that end, opening up "opportunities" for the scant few women who a) want to be in more dangerous positions and b) can meet the requirements .... we're talking statistically less than 1/2% of women, is not going to compromise the military.

Lastly, even the head of the Selective Service Administration has acknowledged that in the event things got so bad that we'd have to call up the draft, we'd NEED women in many roles. There wouldn't be enough qualified men in certain roles, such as medical, to meet demand. He advocates that women be required to register for the draft, even if we don't pass a law that they can be drafted, just so the infrastructure would be in place in case we needed to call up selective women to serve (he cites mostly women doctors, nurses and other medical trained women). In short even he uses the "just in case" reasoning you cited. If a draft were to be called it would mean we are in seriously deep kim chee ... and we'd need all hands on deck, particularly trained people, we could get.

[cinFLA]

Chances are that you'll find that anyone who left their mate whom "they now detest" have left others whom "they now detest".

Chances are you are wrong.

[William Terrell]

Are you a woman?

[William Terrell]

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?

Yes.

[William Terrell]

Are you saying if your mate turns into a total a$$ then you have to stay with your mate for the rest of your life?

Yes.

[HairOfTheDog]

Where Moms should be, where Dads should be, what jobs they have, and what risks they take with their careers (or their hobbies) are not for the state to decide. We can have opinions about how our own families should live, but we cannot set a woman's role in life as policy. It is a family's job to ensure children are provided for. The state can get involved only when they are not.

[Catspaw]

Are you a father? If so, how sad that only your wife has a "heartlink" to your children and you lack it.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Where Moms should be, where Dads should be, what jobs they have, and what risks they take with their careers (or their hobbies) are not for the state to decide.

It is when they join the military.

People keep saying that "they chose to be there." Actually, they were ordered to be there.

Soldiers do not have the same freedoms as civilians. It is up to their commanders to decide where and how they should contribute to the war effort.

[Terp]

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.

I wish there were some military recruiters out there but I will speak from what I know. The demographics in this country will not support an all male volunteer force [not enough who are willing to volunteer]. Most branches of the services have a hard enough time meeting their recruiting goals now as is. It will be that much harder if women are left out of the pool.

Well some may say let the women take the desk jobs. This is what we had before the combat units were opened up to the females. And guess what? I'll take the Navy as an example. The way it stands now out of of boot camp you are typically assigned to a ship for your first enlistment [4-6 years] male or female. Now being on a ship is considered aurdrous duty, in other words it's not alot of fun. When it comes time for you to reenlist you would consider what type of shore duty assignments are available if indeed you decide to make a career out of the Navy. If the females are excluded from combat units were are they? Taking up the shore duty assignment [desk jobs] that the male sailor now has an opportunity for. Now there are a limited number of shore duty assignments and most are now filled with females. The male sailor talks with his recruiter and all he has to offer is a shore duty assignment in bum f$$k Egypt. The male sailor or at least most of them say scr$w that and get out at the end of their tour. Those who do except the loosy assignments are pissed because the females get the choice shore duty and it effects morale thoughout the fleet. It's a win win for the females and a loose loose for the male sailor. Only one of two ways to fix the situation in my opinion. One is to raise pay [alot] to attract more males or two institute a draft. Which one will the politicians choose? In my opinion neither.

[Lorianne]

The majority of "desk jobs" as you call them are farmed out to civilian contractors (most of which consist of female employees). The percentage of non-combat former military positions now performed by outside civilian contracting far and away exceeds the number taken over by females even IF military females got first choice on those jobs which I haven't seen any evidence that they do.