posted on May 11, 2003 10:09:00 AM new
(May 11) - With one single mother from the U.S. Army killed in Iraq and another wounded and captured, some conservatives are urging the military to halt its march toward gender equality and restrict the deployment of mothers in war zones.
``Healthy, responsible nations do not send the mothers of small children to or near the front lines - that violates the most basic human instincts,'' said Allan Carlson, a historian affiliated with the Family Research Council.
For now, the cause has found few champions in Congress or at the Pentagon; politicians and commanders are pleased by the all-volunteer military's performance in Iraq and proud that three ambushed servicewomen became national heroes. But the critics - mostly from groups opposed to the feminist movement - vow to maintain pressure in hopes the Bush administration might one day review deployment policies.
Bush, asked about the matter Thursday, said it will be ``up to the generals'' to determine if any changes are warranted.
Among the fiercest critics of current policy is conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, president of the Eagle Forum, who recently wrote a commentary titled ``Does the Military Have the Nerve to Celebrate Mother's Day?''
She contended that the women caught in the ambush of the 507th Maintenance Company in Iraq - Jessica Lynch, who was rescued by commandos, and single mothers Lori Piestewa, who was killed, and Shoshana Johnson, who was wounded - did not volunteer for the Army with the ambition of serving in combat.
``The reason these sorry things have happened is that the men in our government and in the U.S. military lack the courage to stand up to feminists and repudiate their assault on family and motherhood,'' Schlafly wrote.
In a telephone interview, Schlafly said she was frustrated that the Bush administration, which she supports on many issues, had made no effort to roll back Clinton administration initiatives allowing women into a greater range of war-zone duties.
``There is no evidence in all of history that you win wars or advance the cause of women by sending women out to fight,'' Schlafly said.
Some critics of current policy hope that the Pentagon's postwar assessment of deployment in Iraq will look in depth at such issues as pregnancy, motherhood and single-parenthood. Carlson, for one, would like the military to exclude mothers with children younger than 3 from any war zone deployment.
Col. Catherine Abbott, a Defense Department spokeswoman, said any such special treatment would be difficult to implement, especially if mothers were treated differently from fathers.
``Obviously, it's something that tears on the heartstrings,'' she said.
``But young dads miss their kids as well. People in the military are volunteers. When they raise their hand (to take the oath of service) they know what they're going into.''
Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said he knows of no one on Capitol Hill eager to revisit the issue of women - mothers or not - in combat.
Women who have children or expect to have them ``don't have to volunteer,'' Skelton said. ``But they do, and they perform their specialties well.''
About 210,000 women serve in the active-duty forces, 15 percent of the total force of 1.4 million. As of September, there were about 24,000 single mothers on active duty and 65,000 single fathers.
Lory Manning, an expert on women in the military with the Washington-based Women's Research and Education Institute, said the motherhood issue is being seized upon by critics because they can no longer make headway with claims that uniformed women lower troop performance and morale.
``The stuffing has been knocked out of their old argument,'' Manning said. ``So their new argument is, 'We can't have mothers at war.' It's a very loaded argument; it ignores the fact that there are lots more single dads than single moms.''
Though the military doesn't exempt single parents from war duty, it does try to ensure their children's well-being. Holly Gifford of the Army's Family Programs Directorate said single parents must prepare a plan outlining arrangements for their children's care that accounts for financial and medical contingencies. A soldier unable to make adequate plans can be discharged, Gifford said.
Linda Chavez, who heads the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative think tank, said the military should not equate fatherhood with motherhood.
``As tragic as the death of a father is in a young child's life, it simply can't compare to the loss of a mother,'' she wrote in a recent commentary.
Still, Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America, another conservative group, said that with the victory in Iraq still in fresh in Americans' minds, it may be too soon for policy-makers to reopen the debate.
``It's an issue that will have to be handled very carefully,'' she said. ``I expect the Bush administration will address it, or else be in trouble with some very basic parts of their constituency.''
"Be kind. Remember everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Harry Thompson
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it." - A Few Good Men
posted on May 12, 2003 12:27:22 AM new
Bear, my first ex- was a sergeant in the Israeli army. The women don't fight, and they don't fight alongside the men.
I'm not saying a woman can't fly a plane as well as a man. But they don't belong in combat. A woman in combat is a distraction at best, a liability at worst. This is political correctness carried too far.
posted on May 12, 2003 10:45:36 AM new
I also suppose, twinsoft, you also think we should go back to segregated services, each race having its own section seperate from the rest.
Climb out from underneath that rock. Join the 21st century, hell, I suppose most here would be satisfied if you joined the 19th century, where dating didn't involve a wooden club and strong grip...
A politician will call you intelligent to keep you ignorant. I tell you that you are ignorant so that you may want to be intelligent - Eugene Debs
[ edited by mlecher on May 12, 2003 10:47 AM ]
posted on May 12, 2003 11:14:59 AM new
This is more underhanded scheming to "keep women in their place."
The facts:
1) None of the women who were captured were in traditional combat roles.
2) The restrictions on "mothers" serving
"in or near combat" would impact EVERY woman in the military. It's pretty simple. The military won't train someone for a job unless that person is able to serve in that capacity. That means a woman of child-bearing age would not be allowed to take combat or combat-support training on the off-chance that she might later bear a child. (The same argument was used for a long time to prevent women from serving as police officers.)
3) Cutting women off from the possibility of even serving in combat or combat-associated roles means that they will never be eligible for anything more than menial positions in the military.
That position is a heck of a lot more anti-family than the current situation. There are tens of thousands of single mothers in the military because it gives them a way to support their children and learn skills that will be valuable in the private workplace later.
[ edited by msincognito on May 12, 2003 11:15 AM ]
posted on May 12, 2003 11:58:07 AM new
I figured this one would cause some debate. What I find interesting is that while groups are striving to protect children from the possibility of losing their mothers in war - no one seems to be putting forth a whole lot of effort to protect the children of the 65,000 single fathers from losing their only parent.
posted on May 12, 2003 12:03:19 PM new
Another one for debate.... there was recentl an uproar over a San Diego marine that was set for deployment. The marine is a single mother of a four month old infant and has no family. Is it better to discharge this person or to transfer them to a position that would allow them to remain stateside?
(Please don't turn this into a "why did she get pregnant?" debate - I'm really just curious of how you feel the actual situation should have been dealt with.)
posted on May 12, 2003 02:17:28 PM new
The general rule is that military personnel are supposed to have (and file with their commanding officers) a Family Care Plan for caring for any children in the event of being deployed. Single custodial parents of any gender who can't provide a working plan are subject to discipline and/or discharge.
That's the way it should be. We have a volunteer military. People understand what they're signing up for, and they should be held to it - but if they certify they can meet the demands, they should have the chance to prove it. The current military scheme doesn't hold all women back because of a few isolated incidents, but it does recognize that you can't abandon children.
posted on May 12, 2003 07:05:58 PM newI also suppose, twinsoft, you also think we should go back to segregated services, each race having its own section seperate from the rest.
Climb out from underneath that rock. Join the 21st century, hell, I suppose most here would be satisfied if you joined the 19th century, where dating didn't involve a wooden club and strong grip...
Not really. But if church services involved making instantaneous life or death decisions, and a particular race (as you put it) created a danger for the rest, then I would consider it.
Aside from the fact that women are biologically weaker and less emotionally stable, there is a built-in overt concern for female soldiers by their male counterparts. If a woman is captured or injured, the reaction by her comrades is different. It is of greater concern. This matter, which is genetically influenced and not subject to "political correctness," can and does affect a male soldier's judgement.
This is NOT a political judgement. It is a practical one. IMHO political correctness has no place on the battlefield.
FYI, the Israeli army, generally considered the best in the world, allows both single moms and dads to serve "close to home." Women are not placed in combat positions.
So what if there are no high-ranking women in the army? There are also no women in professional football. War, like football, is a man's game.
Visit Auction Antics
posted on May 12, 2003 07:08:26 PM new"Aside from the fact that women are biologically weaker and less emotionally stable..."
EXCUSE ME???????
edited to add - with all this testosterone being exuded on the board, I can't tell - is it really the 21st century - 2003?
"Be kind. Remember everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Harry Thompson
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it." - A Few Good Men
[ edited by wgm on May 12, 2003 07:17 PM ]
posted on May 12, 2003 08:41:24 PM new
how so, twinsoft? you seem to make a hell of a lot assumptions here - can you back them up with facts?
"Be kind. Remember everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Harry Thompson
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it." - A Few Good Men
posted on May 12, 2003 09:26:52 PM new
I believe women should be allowed to serve in every postition a man serves in now, that would be equal... do I believe that ALL women can fill those roles as well as a man... No
As far as the single mother with no support for her child if deployed... discharge pure and simple, she cannot fulfill her obligations to the service.
posted on May 12, 2003 10:19:51 PM new
I served 7yrs in the Marine Corps with 3 tours in Vietnam.
Women in the Service. I have no problem with it, as long as they have an equal chance die in combat. Lets have equal body counts while we are at it.
I don't care about the single parent or married bit, all should have an equal chance to live or die.
In combat, the only thing you worry about is kill or be killed. You regret when someone dies, but you are sure as hell glad it was they & not you. Then later wish it was you..
For those that want pick & choose who goes into combat, let they be the first in line.
It is easy to say yes or no about who serves in combat, when you have never walked in the shoes of death and live with it's smell for the rest of your life.
