When mommy goes off to war, it's rough on kids [sickening]

The Seattle Times ^ | 11/28/06 | Donna St. George

[XR7]

HAVRE DE GRACE, Md. — When they called her name, she could not move. Sgt. Leana Nishimura intended to walk up proudly, shake the dignitaries' hands and accept their honors for her service in Iraq — a special coin, a lapel pin, a glass-encased U.S. flag.

But her son clung to her leg. He cried and held tight...T.J. was 9, her oldest child, and although eight months had passed since she had returned from the war zone, he was still upset by anything that reminded him of her deployment...

The faraway move to live with his grandmother. The months that went by without his mother's kisses or hugs, without her scrutiny of homework, her teasing humor, her familiar bedtime songs.

Nishimura was a single mother — with no spouse to take over, to preserve her children's routines, to keep up the family apartment.

Of her three children, T.J. seemed to worry most... "He went from having one parent to having no parents, basically," Nishimura said, reflecting. "People have said, 'Thank you so much for your sacrifice.' But it's the children who have had more of a sacrifice."

When war started in Iraq, a generation of U.S. women became involved as never before — in a wider-than-ever array of jobs, for long deployments, in a conflict with daily bloodshed. More than 155,000 women have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Among their ranks are more than 16,000 single mothers, according to the Pentagon, a number that military experts say is unprecedented.

How these women have coped and how their children are managing have gone little noticed as the war stretches across a fourth year...

"I tell [the children] that if God needs Mommy to go ... then Mommy's going to have to go again and they're going to have to let me."

[TWfromTEXAS]

In Texas we would call this crawfishing. That's making a statement then backing up from it as fast as you can, anyway you can.

[Antoninus]

I don't think you can answer that with a simple yes and no. The answer to both questions depends on the quality of the people you've banned from serving, and has to be that the military would be stronger in some areas and weaker in others.

Pretty equivocating, PC answer, actually.

Hence the need to take advantage of all those who do choose to serve, regardless of gender, regadless of whether they are a parent or not. If women want to serve and can serve then let them serve.

If this isn't a recipe for a broken army--and a broken society--I don't know what is. I'll tell you right now--we're about to face a scenario where no matter how deep the recruiters dig, they're not going to have enough. How many young men--or women--are going to enlist once the Democrats are in power?

No. To protect your right to choose to be a worthless coward.

I don't believe you. No one has a God-given right to be a worthless coward. And no soldier lays down his life to protect something he finds odious. And btw, history has demonstrated that it's a dangerous trend when soldiers come to despise the very people they're supposed to protect.

[Antoninus]

And fathers were exempt. But in my father's day, we didn't have summer soldiers and sunshine patriots, either. They went out and enlisted.

Now why do you suppose fathers were exempt? And you're comparing WWI and WWII to today? That's hardly a fair comparison. We haven't mobilized anywhere near the number of men we did back then.

And you'd never be drafted.

Why not?

Now you're moving the goalposts even further, I see. "I have not yet begun to fight, and I have no intention of ever doing so."

Your words, not mine. Personally, I don't give a cr@p if you think I would fight or not. This isn't about me.

My oldest grandson enlisted in the Marines this summer. I went to Parris Island for the graduation ceremony.

Good for him. How many minor children does he have to support?

The visitor center at Parris Island is named for a man who enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1942, at 50 years of age, with minor children dependents, completed boot camp, and proceeded to rack up an impressive combat record in some of the toughest fighting in the Pacific. And in 1942, 50 was pretty damn old.

You're comparing 1942 to today. There's your problem. It's very possible that in the coming years, the situation in the world will become so dire that 35-year old men with 4 kids and single mothers will need to be called up to serve. But that day isn't here yet. And the fact that we're even discussing it means that our system as it is currently configured (or the administration's policy) is badly broken.

I guess my father's and grandfather's generations were made of much sterner stuff than today's.

Perhaps. I wonder what they would have thought of a single mother in the corps?

[traditional1]

Which statement is being "craw-fished"?

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Why not?

Here's my take: if there is no exemption for being a father, you would somehow be found to be physically, mentally, or morally unqualified for military service. Your draft board would, somehow, assign you to category "4-F."

[Antoninus]

Here's my take: if there is no exemption for being a father, you would somehow be found to be physically, mentally, or morally unqualified for military service. Your draft board would, somehow, assign you to category "4-F."

How about this: Society back then acknowledged and celebrated the role of father and mother in creating stable families--the building blocks of any civilization. The government recognized the great harm that could be done by removing parents from large numbers of families to serve in the war.

Today, such notions seem quaint and antiquated. And we have huge numbers of children born out of wedlock, a thriving mental health industry, and a culture that finds it perfectly acceptable for single mothers to abandon their children to fight in a war overseas.

Sew the wind, reap the whirlwind. And we're only feeling the first breezes now.

[PLMerite]

"The real question is, how come the feminists insist that women should have an equal right to be in combat, and then turn around and condemn the war effort? Isn't this what they wanted: the right to be a single mom, the right to fight in the military?"

The Left doesn't want to fight any war for any reason. I swear, if space aliens came to earth with the intention of eating every human being available, the Left would side with them rather than fight them.

[Antoninus]

The Left doesn't want to fight any war for any reason. I swear, if space aliens came to earth with the intention of eating every human being available, the Left would side with them rather than fight them.

Don't believe that for a second. Communists are only pacifists when they can't defeat you militarily.

[TWfromTEXAS]

Uh, excuse me, but what is a "single mother"? I believe in the old days (before political correctness was enshrined by Liberals) that less-flattering terms were used to describe out-of-wedlock mothers.

In English, with no more explanation about what you mean, you are calling a woman who is divorced, an out of wedlock mother. If you meant it as a general statement and not about the Sgt. you missed by a mile.

[Campion]

I swear, if space aliens came to earth with the intention of eating every human being available, the Left would side with them rather than fight them.

"We need to dialogue with them, to understand why they find us so tasty."

[gondramB]

>>Uh, excuse me, but what is a "single mother"? I believe in the old days (before political correctness was enshrined by Liberals) that less-flattering terms were used to describe out-of-wedlock mothers.<<

I know three single mothers in the military. One had a chiild out of wedlock, one was divorced by her husband for another woman and one is a widow.

Single mother covers all three - there are child care issues but the person still serves their country.

[ShadowDancer]

These children weren't born out of wedlock. Are you too lazy to read the entire piece?

[Last Laugh]

Pray, what wisdom do you have to impart to us that she was on 'public assistance'?

Well another one that didn't read the article I see.....

You obviously did not read the article either. The following is from the same paragraph you quoted, touting her teaching at a Christian School:

"Before Iraq, Nishimura had worked as a teacher and cheerleading coach at a Christian school in Prince George's County, Md. Her National Guard duty, with the 129th Signal Battalion, brought in extra money. Her ex-husband paid child support. Still, she only scraped by, with the help of public assistance

" And by the way, teaching at a Christian school does not make one moral or a Christian.

[traditional1]

"you are calling a woman who is divorced, an out of wedlock mother"

One more time, I'm going to try to explain.

An "un-wed" mother, in today's speak is a "single mother". The DIVORCEE in the article was referred to by THAT writer as a "single mother".

The actual woman in the article was lumped-in with the politically-correct term "single mother", which was coined to provide safe-haven/acceptance for UNWED MOTHERS, and is mis-applied in the article to a divorcee.

My point, again, is that an un-wed mother is more accurately the description of an un-married woman who has had a child by father or fathers unknown, and has been provided stigmatization-insurance by application of the term "single mother".

the end

[LetsRok]

The definition of a "single mother" is a woman with children that has NEVER been married. If the husband runs off then she is divorced/separated.

[traditional1]

"I know three single mothers in the military. One had a chiild out of wedlock, one was divorced by her husband for another woman and one is a widow. "Your first sentence is politically correct.

Your second sentence is ACCURATE.

[TWfromTEXAS]

Dear end,

Then you should have made that point in your now discredited post.

Thank you this stimulating exchange.

[Finger Monkey]

Wow.

You'd prefer she had an abortion?

And don't give me the pat answer that she is a trollop for having had sex out of wedlock. The deed was done. A child was born.

Perhaps she should have dumped it in a garbage bin.

[Stone Mountain]

The definition of a "single mother" is a woman with children that has NEVER been married. If the husband runs off then she is divorced/separated.

Where in the world did you get that definition from? That's not the way I understand it, nor does anyone I know use it in that way - any woman bringing up children on her own is a single mother around here.

According to Wikipedia: single parent is a parent with one or more children, who is not living with the child[ren]'s other parent. The legal definition of single parenthood may vary according to local laws of nations or provinces. The issue of single motherhood had been a moral controversy in the late 20th century.

Single parenthood may occur as a result of loss (death, separation, divorce, abandonment by one parent), or by choice (single parent adoption, donor insemination, egg donor/surrogate motherhood, choosing to carry to term an unexpected pregnancy and raise the child on one's own).

I also googled "single mother" definition" and couldn't find anyone that defined it as you do - everyone else says that a single mother is a mother bringing up her children alone. For whatever reason.

So... what do you base your definition of "single mother" on?

[traditional1]

"These children weren't born out of wedlock. Are you too lazy to read the entire piece?"I am not going to grace your mis-representation with an answer.

Having read the ENTIRE ARTICLE, the woman is a DIVORCEE, NOT an un-wed mother. SHE IS MIS-CHARACTERIZED AS A SINGLE MOTHER, IN MY BOOK, AS SHE IS NOT AN UN-WED MOTHER, IN THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS.

SHE IS A DIVORCED MOTHER OF THREE.