Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When mommy goes off to war, it's rough on kids [sickening]
The Seattle Times ^ | 11/28/06 | Donna St. George

Posted on 11/29/2006 8:36:31 AM PST by 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."

(Excerpt) Read more at archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: afghanistan; antimommy; armedforces; army; butch; childrem; children; chivalry; combat; dod; effeminate; effeminatemen; enduringfreedom; era; families; family; feminazis; feminism; femnistagenda; fightingmen; gayagenda; gi; girlieguys; girliemen; homosexualagenda; honor; iraq; jessica; jessicalynch; lesbians; lynch; marines; military; motherhood; nags; now; pansies; pentagon; plannedbarrenhood; radicalfeminists; soldier; soldiers; usarmy; veterans; vets; vetscor; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-302 next last
To: XR7
For my observation, there is a rapidly declining pool of able men...and for any "enemy" analysis, the graying of society, and the decline(disappearance) of males, would be a signal, they we are weak, and prime for a take over....a country run by females, will never last
41 posted on 11/29/2006 9:01:05 AM PST by thinking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rakkasan1
they haven't . my point is if the feminist who force their way into VMI and want to be 'trained fighters' really want equality, they'd demand to be subject to the selective service requirements(IE: the possibilty of being drafted-preferably into all-female units)

I've got no argument with that.

42 posted on 11/29/2006 9:01:30 AM PST by Allegra (Can't Talk Now...I'm Busy Looking for That Civil War the Media Keeps Talking About)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Allegra
What an unmitigated jerk you are.

Feeling a little judgmental, eh?
43 posted on 11/29/2006 9:01:32 AM PST by Antoninus (When your party's platform is "Vote for US because THEY will be worse," prepare to lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: traditional1
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.

Uh, excuse me, but the article refers to her ex-husband. Perhaps you should read it and we should ask where the hell he is?

44 posted on 11/29/2006 9:02:33 AM PST by TWfromTEXAS (We are at war - Man up or Shut up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Allegra
You bore me.

************

I would say there is no evidence to support this claim.

45 posted on 11/29/2006 9:02:47 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: XR7

I'm not judging the woman in question. She just did what our culture told her to do.

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?

Which raises the question, why would they want women to have the right to commit atrocities alongside men, which is the way leftists think of any just war we fight?


46 posted on 11/29/2006 9:02:49 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
You're also a tad immature. There's something wrong with you.

Seriously.

47 posted on 11/29/2006 9:03:13 AM PST by Allegra (Can't Talk Now...I'm Busy Looking for That Civil War the Media Keeps Talking About)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Good to see 'conservatives' still up on their high horses. I was starting to worry..You don't know jack about this woman's situation but still you judge. I don't know why she signed up in the National Guard but I bet when she did she didn't envision going off to fight the war of the purple finger either. Course you can feel comforted..

The fact that we have 'single-mothers of three' serving in our military at all is a national disgrace.
48 posted on 11/29/2006 9:03:47 AM PST by Antoninus (When your party's platform is "Vote for US because THEY will be worse," prepare to lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
Any society that has unwed mothers going to war has something wrong with it.

Women in Combat: A Time for Truth
by R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

The Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal continues to dominate the world’s headlines, even as the incriminating photographs have become some of the most discussed — and infamous — images in history. Nevertheless, missing from most of this conversation is any reference to the obvious — the fact that the smiling face of the tormentor in so many of these photographs is an American woman in uniform.

Why are we not hearing more about the issue of women in combat? The current war in Iraq raises this issue most urgently, because women have been deployed in front-line units from the very beginning of this effort. The famous case of Pfc. Jessica Lynch should have been sufficient to awaken Americans to the fact that women are now serving alongside men throughout the combat theatre.

The inclusion of women in active combat roles completes the project pushed so aggressively by feminists in the 1970s and 1980s and then institutionalized by the Clinton administration in the 1990s. Women now serve in a multiplicity of combat roles, and the armed services claim a goal of “interchangeability” between men and women in most units.

According to Newsweek, women now compose about 15 percent of the Army, 13 percent of the Navy, 19 percent of the Air Force, and 6 percent of the Marines. The proportion of jobs open to women ranges from 91 percent in the Army to 99 percent in the Air Force. Even though women are not yet allowed in infantry, artillery, or armor units, women serve in other front-line combat positions, including service as fighter pilots. Women may not serve in the elite Special Forces units or on the Navy’s submarines, but they can be found throughout most of the other combat-ready units in uniform.

The inclusion of women in the armed forces — and in especially in combat units — was demanded by feminists as a step toward full equality for women. Reversing millennia of human wisdom, feminists claimed that exclusion of women from combat service amounted to a form of unconstitutional discrimination. The decision to incorporate women in fighting units came in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, when the military was itself at a low point of morale, and when the Pentagon’s leadership was especially susceptible to political correctness. With much fanfare, women were put in uniform and in the public eye.

Of course, the military did not publicly acknowledge that in order to incorporate women in fighting units, the services had to lower physical requirements and redefine terms of service. These “redefined” terms of service would come to public attention from time to time, such as when the presence of pregnant soldiers became a complication on the battlefield.

To the Arab mind, the most grotesque dimension of the Abu Ghraib scandal is symbolized in the presence of Pfc. Lynndie R. England, the female prison guard shown with a “thumbs up” gesture and a wide grin pointing to the genitals of a naked Iraqi prisoner. In another picture, Private England, age 21, is shown holding a leash attached to the neck of a chained and collared Iraqi detainee. These photographic images are fast becoming iconic in the Arab world.

These photographs represent far more than pictures of prisoner abuse. To Muslims, this represents utter disrespect for all men, and the total degradation of women. Nothing could be more insulting to Arab moral sensibilities than this — and Muslim outrage over sexual humiliation at the hands of uniformed women will endure long after American troops are no longer in Iraq.

Arabs prize modesty, and Muslim men are not even to show their full nakedness in the presence of other men — much less women. Furthermore, to force a Muslim man to strip naked before a foreign woman is to humiliate him beyond Arab imagination. The Americans went even further than this, forcing the naked Iraqi detainees to perform real and simulated sex acts with the American women watching — and leering.

In an interview with KCNC-TV, the CBS affiliate in Denver, Colorado, Pfc. England explained the tactics she and her colleagues used on the prisoners. “We just humiliated them, got them naked, made them run up and down, you know, get them exhausted.” She clearly understood what this meant to the Iraqi men: “I’m a female, and in the Muslim culture it’s very embarrassing or humiliating to be naked in front of another female, especially if it’s an American.”

Columnist Suzanne Fields of The Washington Times also understands the moral equation. “Being guarded, punished, and humiliated by American women in Abu Ghraib prison challenges the very essence of what it means to be a Muslim man stuck on the lowest rung of the world power hierarchy,” she commented.

An unnamed U.S. Army official told TIME magazine that sexual humiliation can be an acceptable tool used to “break down” an enemy by exposing his psychological vulnerability. “When women have power and control over you, that sets the whole male psyche out of its equilibrium,” he said. “He’s not dominant anymore. It’s not for the squeamish. But the typical Arab male will do anything to avoid it. . . . The overall process is one of humiliating these people.”

Americans are rightly humiliated by the entire spectacle. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s surprise visit to the Abu Ghraib prison yesterday may begin a process of re-establishing order and credibility in the detention center program, but far more remains to be done.

Don’t expect much attention to be directed to the women in combat issue. The Pentagon has trouble enough dealing with the armed struggle, the struggle for world opinion, and the task of rebuilding Iraq. The military brass is not likely to take on the feminists as well. The culture of political correctness treats women in combat as a non-issue, but it will not remain that way forever.

Christian moral teaching holds that military service is for men — not women. The Bible presents a comprehensive pattern of differentiation between men and women. Men are to protect women, even as women bear a special responsibility as nurturers — as wives and mothers. Scriptural texts indicate that war is for men, and “wives,” “little ones,” and cattle are to remain in the land while men go to war [Joshua 1:14]. Christians have understood this pattern for centuries, even if some appear confused in the present. Evangelical historian Harold O. J. Brown observed this consistent teaching within the Christian tradition: “Within both Judaism and Christianity, indeed almost universally in all human culture, the military profession has been reserved for males.”

The presence of women in combat forces degrades humanity, putting women in the line of fire while sending all the wrong messages about family, gender, and moral honor. The Abu Ghraib scandal demonstrates that women do not raise the moral level of men in warfare. To the contrary, it looks as if the men lower the moral status of the women.

Historian Walter McDougall commented that, “one of the central goals of the feminist movement is to establish a fully sexually integrated military, trained, fit, and ready to engage in combat. . . . The United States today is the only serious military power in history to contemplate thorough sexual integration of its armed forces. And thanks to an adamant feminist lobby, a conspiracy of silence in the officer corps, and the anodyne state of debate over the issue, the brave new world of female infantry, bomber pilots, submariners, and drill sergeants may lie just around the corner.” Then again, maybe that world is already here.

A 2001 article in Newsweek offered a glimpse into the world of women in military service and its impact on the family. In the article, U.S. Army M/Sgt. Kelly Tyler told of her 10-year-old son. “You know how kids are always changing what they want to be when they grow up?,” she asked. “The other night [her son] told me he wanted to be a war protester so that I wouldn’t ever have to leave him.” That comment is sadder than sad. The inclusion of women in combat military units is a challenge to the moral character of the American people. This little boy’s protest says it all.

LINK to article: http://www.visionforum.org/issues/women_in_the_military


49 posted on 11/29/2006 9:03:59 AM PST by XR7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: traditional1
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.

Like what exactly? Serious vocabulary question actually.

50 posted on 11/29/2006 9:04:10 AM PST by Centurion2000 (If the Romans had nukes, Carthage would still be glowing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: billbears
I've decided this thread is scary.

Some of these posters must be adults living in their parents' basements and putting on Star Trek uniforms when they think nobody is looking.

Creepy people...

51 posted on 11/29/2006 9:05:38 AM PST by Allegra (Can't Talk Now...I'm Busy Looking for That Civil War the Media Keeps Talking About)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: jgilbert63
BOTTOMLINE: She needs to STFU.

Perhaps before you tell people to STFU you should improve your reading skills. I read the entire article and nowhere do I find the Sgt. bitching. The writer is a pain in the rear but the Sgt. is ready to go again and wants to stay in.

52 posted on 11/29/2006 9:05:41 AM PST by TWfromTEXAS (We are at war - Man up or Shut up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: XR7
Nishimura was a single mother — with no spouse to take over, to preserve her children's routines, to keep up the family apartment.

Sounds to me like she should not have freely chosen to enlist.

53 posted on 11/29/2006 9:06:08 AM PST by Last Laugh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traditional1

There is the possibility that she's a widow.


54 posted on 11/29/2006 9:06:30 AM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #55 Removed by Moderator

To: traditional1; Joann37

If you read the article you'll find out that she's divorced and receives child support. Wonder why "dad" couldn't watch the kids while she was gone?

Lots of personal decisions put this lady in a bind.

The military has always deployed. If you don't want to ship out - don't sign up. duh!


56 posted on 11/29/2006 9:08:05 AM PST by MudPuppy (St Michael Protect Us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: traditional1
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.

What term would you prefer the newspaper use? Besides, what if the mother was widowed? Or if her husband left her due to no fault of her own? The article mentioned, by the way, that she was divorced, so the child was not born out of wedlock... There are lots of things to complain about in the MSM, but I don't see the term "single mother" as anything but descriptive.
57 posted on 11/29/2006 9:08:11 AM PST by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: XR7

If women want equal rights, then they have equal responsibilities.

She should honor her commitment.


58 posted on 11/29/2006 9:08:51 AM PST by sauropod ("Come have some pie with me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #59 Removed by Moderator

To: Antoninus

How is she "abandoning" her children? They are staying with her mother, right?

Be careful of the words you use. "abandoning" is a loaded word and unfair to use in this instance.


60 posted on 11/29/2006 9:11:43 AM PST by sauropod ("Come have some pie with me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-302 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson