The two-faced devil vs.
the children
Posted: March 3,
2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Barbara Simpson
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
Two years ago today, we buried my father. I cried then – I still do. It's hard without him because he'd always been there.
My mother is healthy and lives in the house they shared. Her strength and faith maintain her through each day. There's a gaping hole in life with him gone but his spirit is with her and their love prevails.
My parents, through the ebb and flow of life, were together for 65 years – an astonishing record.
In this day of splintered families, I was fortunate to have an intact home. Mom and Dad were always there.
How do children survive when their parental foundation is torn away? It's bad enough for older children but for infants and toddlers, it's their survival. They are the most vulnerable. It's known that without love, touch and human contact, babies die.
Traditionally, our society valued parenting and, especially, mothering. Giving birth isn't enough; you have to be there.
But times have changed. Not only has the long arm of feminism done its best to destroy the tradition of motherhood and family, the government helps it along.
Women are urged to have it all – career and family. It's become "normal" to farm out infants and children to day care so Mommy can work. Some "enlightened" husbands expect it. The children don't know what hit them.
Government growth on every level has resulted in enormous taxation. The toll on families forces both parents to work just to break even.
But there's one area where the two-faced devil of feminism and government is now evident: The military.
It's in the news as military deployments to the Middle East take place. And it tears my heart out – not that military personnel are being shipped out, but who is going.
I saw it first with Desert Storm: young mothers kissing children goodbye – military women leaving tiny infants while they went to war. I remember one woman with a child so young, its age was still measured in weeks. I thought it was wrong then, and I still do.
Such scenes are back with
a vengeance. Now we see the true colors of the new military:
These are just from one newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, (Feb. 23, 2003). Then, I saw this week's edition of People magazine (March 3, 2003) and was truly horrified!
The article on military deployments showed two boys, ages 2 and 1, as both their parents readied for deployment. They're Marines and they left for Kuwait a week apart, leaving the children with the grandmother. Who knows how long they'll be gone.
That is simply wrong. Not long ago, if a military woman got pregnant, she was out. That wasn't sexist – it was having the right priorities, for military needs and supporting traditional family and mothering.
Today, anything goes. While elitists argue whether women should be in combat, we order mothers ripped from their young children and sent to the front, all in the name of politically correct equal rights.
Are we so desperate that we have to ship both parents overseas, tearing the very grounding out from under two little children? Why is a mother of three, separated from her little ones for more than a year?
No woman with minor dependents should be sent overseas. In fact, such a woman shouldn't be in the military at all. The children's needs should take precedence. If she joined for a "career," then got pregnant – too bad. You can't do it all, no matter what feminism says.
Is it fair that men go to war and women don't? Sorry, life isn't fair, men are warriors and the military isn't "just" a job. Women are warriors on the home front. Children need their mothers. With them. Not in some war zone because of feminism and politics.
Shame on the Marines – in fact, shame on the entire military for permitting this and being too pummeled by political correctness to just say no.
The military, which fights to protect our country, has a duty to protect the youngest of our citizens, the children. It can do that best by allowing mothers to be with their babies at home, not on the frontlines of war.