In the latest issue of Policy Review, Mary Eberstadt argues that we should reconsider the military policy of sending mothers to combat:
In November 2009, one of the uglier fruits of the current practice of seeding mothers into the American military burst briefly onto the national stage. Ordered to Afghanistan from Hunter Army Airfield in Georgia, an Army cook named Alexis Hutchinson refused to go. A 21-year-old single mother, she explained that there was no one to care for her infant son because initial plans to leave him with her own mother had fallen through.
What happened next should disturb anyone who has so far succeeded in ignoring the fact that the United States now sends soldier-mothers off to war. Specialist Hutchinson was arrested and threatened with court martial and her son was temporarily placed in foster care — because, as the Fort Stewart spokesman explained, the 30-day extension that she had been granted was “plenty of time” to find some other babysitter for that ten-month-old while the only parent seemingly present in his life went off to Afghanistan.
This is one face of contemporary battle that no one wants to contemplate point-blank. Nevertheless, face it somebody should. Ever since Congress in the 1970s passed a law allowing women with dependent children to enlist in the military, the collision visible in the Hutchinson case between motherhood and soldiering has been waiting in the wings. The wonder is not that an Army cook and mother would choose staying stateside with her child over her deployment. It is rather that — given two wars and current American military policy — more cases like Hutchinson’s have not erupted already.
February 19th, 2010 | 9:30 am
On a slightly different issue: If the military draft were ever reinstated, would the military be required to draft 18 year old girls? I wonder how that would work.
February 19th, 2010 | 11:51 am
Single moms and single dads should _not_ be serving in a military which includes assignment to areas “in harms way”. Children count. Equally as undesirable are couples who are both assigned to battle zones – or even overseas where children cannot accompany them.
The military lifestyle is hard on families. The old expression was “If the Army thought you needed a wife, it would have provided you with one”. A bit much perhaps, but it’s true that the single soldier is better suited to the military’s needs.
The underlying problem is the equality for women issue. You can’t make any special rules for women or there’s an accusation of discrimination. That’s whether it means not permitting women in certain areas, or mandating that they are treated differently from men who have similar circumstances. There’s a non-recognition of the fact that women bear children, men don’t. Like it or not, that’s a fact and some people just want to ignore it.
February 19th, 2010 | 1:07 pm
I note, incidentally, that she claimed that she had made plans, that her own mother would look after the baby, but that these had fell through.
Except that as soon as she was arrested, her mother came to claim the baby from social services. In fine, her mother could look after the baby; she was lying.
February 19th, 2010 | 4:27 pm
Wars are fought over competing visions of the future. Children literally are the future, and women produce the children. The reason why few if any societies have allowed women to serve is not because they can’t, but because you don’t risk the very thing you’re fighting for.
February 19th, 2010 | 9:26 pm
This is an indictment against the feminist idea of women in combat roles, and an indictment against 21-year-old-single-motherhood. How many reading that article had even a twinge of reaction against this unfortunate habit, which has now become so commonplace in our culture?
February 20th, 2010 | 5:25 am
Hey, let’s not forget that this young lady joined the Army of her own free will. The wars were in full swing, so she knew she was volunteering for deployment. She became pregnant after making it through the training process. That kept her out of what should have been her first deployment. While she was pregnant, the Army would have let her out with an Honorable Discharge. She again(!) made the choice to stay with the unit, which is the most deployed aviation brigade in the Army. Another deployment was inevitable. Yet she hung around, drawing a paycheck and betting that a medical condition would keep her in the States. When it was determined that she was medically fit for service overseas, that’s when her family care plan “failed”. The US Army has much bigger fish to fry than a junior enlisted cook who has legitimate problems with child care. They smelled a rat, investigated, and pressed charges based on solid evidence. She obtained a lawyer who likes to hold court in the media. The fact that she pled guilty and requested a discharge under other than honorable conditions shows that she and her attorney knew that it was a case they would lose in the courtroom.
February 25th, 2010 | 2:03 pm
I don’ t think you can write an article on mothers in the military without discussing fathers. It takes two to tango. Citing that “Sending fathers into military zones has been a tragedy for as long as war has been around” as a reason to keep moms at home is a flawed argument. Historical precedence would keep women out of many many occupations. The military should make allowances for children to have at least one parent at home, father or mother with no discrimination (i.e rank/status) as to who fulfills this role. Preventing pregnancy is the responsibility of both parties, and any pregnancy and child is the responsibility of BOTH the mother and father. A male Sergeant who is the father of a private’s baby, should not be allowed to stay in the Army without consequences as she departs for civilian life and single-motherhood.
I think this part of the article pretty much sums up Ms. Eberstadt’s view
“…few things in life could be more certain than that in almost any place — let alone in a place surrounded by healthy and fit and attractive young men — many of today’s healthy twenty-something females are tomorrow’s mothers.”
She’s basically saying ‘what can you expect when you put women in an environment surrounded by young virile men?’ I disagree completely. Are we no more than our animal impulses? Do we expect young women who work in a male-dominated business environment to become pregnant based solely on them being surrounded by young virile executives?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact