Talk:Military brat (U.S. subculture)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Military brat (U.S. subculture) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Featured article star Military brat (U.S. subculture) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 30, 2007.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.

On several occassions, the question of why a this article needs (U.S. subculture) after it as compared to writing it in a more global perspective.


Before moving this page or questioning the need for the (U.S. subculture) disambig, please review the previous discussions.

Archive
Archives

(Small archive)



Contents

[edit] Military Brat Online Community

This is a new online service for all military brats (former and current)--

  • Military Brats Online Community A free facebook-style interactive online community for all former and current millitary brats. Created recently by one of the founders of the original Military Brat websites (Vann Baker).

[edit] Military Brat Magazine

Interesting... apparently there was a magazine in 2006 for Military Brats that was printed with the Pentagon's approval [Fox Report], [NPR Report],[Guardian].Balloonman 22:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parental Choice

So as to avoid an edit war ;-) I'm bringing this here... The reason why I believe it is important to mention that military brats grow up in military culture due to their parents decision is because of the nature of culture. One of the criticisms of the article (in the past) was that if it is a culture then you have to choose to belong to it---if there is no choice to belong, then it is a demographic. According to these people, being a military brat (if it is a sub-culture) is not something that can be applied to everybody based upon it's definition. If it is something that applies to all, then it isn't a sub-culture. Well, it is something that applies to all brats because the parents chose the culture in which the brat was raised---thus, the brat had no choice but to belong to it and thus be affected by it. The parents chose the culture/lifestyle that affects the child. The child is thus, forced to adapt to conditions/culture that s/he may have never chosen.Balloonman 14:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe in the moving aspect, but other parts of the brat's life may be chosen (IE delayed adolescence) if the circumstances are right.(unsigned comment)
The delayed adolescence is the impact of growing up in this culture. The parents chose to belong to the culture that moves around, has high expectations related to patriotism/nationalism, high regard for structure/order, that accepts the military mission, tends to be more conservative than the general public, etc. This culture, thus impacts people who were raised in it...Balloonman 16:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Culture is mostly not a choice. Someone who is French usually didn't choose to be French (unless they immigrate to France)-- French people are mostly born and then raised French.

The Military brat experience is very total (relatively speaking, and of course, this is meant as a generality-- individual family patterns will vary)-- but for the most part, it is not just "Dad or Mom are in the military"-- the military intrudes into the lives of military families far more than say, corporate life usually intrudes into the home life of business families. (In terms of citations-- to see more evidence of how the career military is a cultural entity, see the recent ducumentary "Brats: Our Journey Home" Directed by Donna Musil, or read "Military Brats" by Mary Edwards Wertsch).

Some people instinctively resist the notion of military brat culture for political reasons-- but the existence of American military culture is a fact, not a political statement.

Sean7phil 03:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree---it depends, however, on the definition of culture that you are using. Because some people will argue that you are technically talking about a demographic and not a culture.Balloonman 14:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely! There are people who don't see the cultural aspect. They think 'this is just what your Dad or Mom did'. But there was so much more to it than that.

Sean7phil 02:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That view, 'this is just what your Dad or Mom did/does', is one that seems to be one that shaired by people who don't realy interact with military families and/or bases, and as such, rarely see how a brat has to live when they move often, or have a parent move often. MaisReaper 01:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree! We are like this huge but invisible American sub-culture.

Sean7phil (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Militarization of the family unit

In the second paragraph it says "This group is shaped by .... and the militarization of the family unit." What is meant by "The militarization of the family unit?" I just don't understand the phrase. Spebudmak 20:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

See the section on discipline. It is generally referred to in the manner in which discipline and authority are structured in a family. Stereotypically, the military parent brings military organization home. "Duty Rosters," bouncing quarters on beds, "yes sir/ma'am", older children given not only more responsibility but actual authority, etc.Balloonman 21:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Also there is a strong 'warrior ethos' in military culture that tends to affect the children of career soldiers-- the various aspects of the warrior archetype loom large in military life and tend to soak into the lives of career military families (I'm not saying the pattern is uniform, but overall it is there). This 'warrior ethos' is neither good nor bad-- but is made up of elements that can be used in balanced or unbalanced ways depending on the purpose it is used for. What to do with this warrior ethos is the challenge that every former military child must come to terms with at some point-- it can be used to accomplish great things, to move one to serve a higher purpose, and to serve others in many ways-- or it can become self-defeating and even self-destructive.

The challenge in later life for many ex-military kids becomes, "How does one channel this energy?"

Reading "Military Brats" by Wertsch can allow for a deeper and more wide-ranging exploration of issues related to growing up in a military-influenced family.

Sean7phil 03:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International phenomenon

It is my proposition that the bracketed specification within title of the page be changed from "U.S subculture" to "Subculutral phenomenon." This is because military brats occur in most military forces around the world.

If there are no objections within a week, I'll make the changes.

 Exemplar Sententia.

There is a long history of why it specifies US Subculture. Basically, it boils down to this, while there are "military brats" in every country, their experiences differ greatly based upon what country they are from. U.S. brat have a different experience than do Canadian or Israeli or Chinese brats. This is due to the amount of mobility of the family, the nature of the military service, how likely the family is to have the parent deployed, etc. But this issue has been discussed in depth and the "US Subcuture" was the verdict in identifying the fact that the research and this article deals with military brats of the US variety. Research on non-US brats, as of yet, does not exist (see section on research for supporting documentation of that statement.)Balloonman 16:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, no edit.  Exemplar Sententia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exemplar sententia (talk • contribs) 23:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted a LONG post from Exemplar sententia on why he thinks the article needs to be moved to just Military brat. He cross posted it to Talk:Military brat and to consolodate discussion I'm deleting it here. If you want to participate in said discussion please do so on that talk page.

[edit] Classism and ME Wertsch

Mary Wertsch is neither a sociologist nor historian, she's a self described reporter To use her and her alone for many of the references in this section is to say the least problematical. She wrote a fine book based on mostly anecdotal material and most of that is almost forty years old now. This section is deeply flawed from a neutral point of view. I looked in the archives to see if any similar concerns had been raised and nothing stood out. No one can deny that the military itself is hierarchical and regimented, however, neither I nor any of my peers were in the military, our Mothers and Fathers were. Awotter 04:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

While she may not be a sociologist, she is recognized as an authority in the field. Most of her research has since been validated and cited by others---including sociologists. Personally, I don't agree with everything she said, but her work has since been validated and affirmed by others.Balloonman 06:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


We are all in trouble if we leave social or historical observation solely in the hands of PHD's. The suggestion that academic writers are somehow more scientific or unbiased about these things than anyone else implies that Sociology is a hard science, which it is not-- nor is History a completely hard science for that matter.

Sociology in particular is a very soft science, if a science at all, and more art than anything else.

Most importantly, Wertches book has been well tested by time-- countless readers have found her book to ring true to their own experience as former military children (especially of career military families-- although even children of non-career military families may be able to relate to parts of it)--

It has also been received with wide critical acclaim, from reviewers in both 'Left' and 'Right' leaning media outlets which says a lot as well.

Lastly Wertsch in her book never casts a 'one-size-fits-all' description on anyone. Instead she describes a very wide range of patterns & issues related to growing up military. There is a great diversity of experience in her interveiws and description of former military kids.

People should not form quick opinions about the book without giving it a fair read. Most importantly I think it explores the issues related to a military childhood far more than it draws any final or absolute conclusions.

As a former military brat myself, I have read a great deal of the book and found it to be very wide-ranging in it's observations as well as being quite perceptive.

Sean7phil (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parenthesis

Why is "(U.S. subculture)" part of this article title, if there is no other sense of the term military brat (which itself is a redirect to this article)? This seems like a purposeless disambiguation. — Dan | talk 08:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

please see the info box above which directs you to the numerous discussions on this very question. If you have further questions not answered in those archived discussions feel free to ask them here.Balloonman (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree with OP. It contravenes naming conventions. It's a fudge to get around writing an article with a world view. It could be replaced with a proper dab scheme (military brat as a dab page). It ignores the fact that "military brat" is primarily an American term anyway. It's trying to use an article title to cover up inadequacies in that article, which is not what article titles are for. "U.S. subculture" is not a succinct nor accurate title ("American slang" would be better). Umpteem reasons why the article should be at Military brat and improved, not fudged like this. --kingboyk (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I've moved it back as I just know one or two vociferous folks will be all over my talk page if I don't. I don't need the hassle. Nonetheless I think this is a pretty horrible fudge, per above. --kingboyk (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It is not exclusively an American Slang term. It is used in England, Canada, and Australia. I have first hand (eg non-reliable source) knowledge that French and German kids used it in the 80's. But the fact remains that the research on the subject has been done exclusively in the US. IF you, or anybody else, can find reliable sources from other countries, I would welcome such, but as has been documented in the article, numerous experts have lamented the fact that other countries haven't studied the fact.Balloonman (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to grow up as a military brat to understand it, but 'brat life' was very much an all-emcompassing subculture.

A point of confusion for some-- This article is not an attempt to promote any kind of political agenda. It does not promote patriotism at all-- It just describes what we children of career American military families were often heavily exposed to.

Some people get stuck on this. They read the term 'patriotism' and they think that the article is pushing a patriotic theme. It isn't doing that at all--

It's decribing how many of us 'brats' were raised. It is descriptive, not promotive. This is the subculture that what we were immersed in while growing up--(and for many of us in very large doses): lots of patriotic themes, lots of moving from place to place (often with much more geographic mobility than average Americans) and very often with an intimate family connection to war:

We are therefore a subculture, not a political movement. The article describes this immersion in certain themes and ideas rather than endorsing or opposing any such ideas. Our lives speak for themselves-- covering many thousands of miles, many painful uprootings, and for many of us, immersion in different nations and cultures as well; and always the shadow of war on our heels. This has bred a unique set of outlooks, an unusual mix of perspectives; a patchwork of strengths and challenges. This is the subcultural phenomenon known as 'the military brat experience'.

Sean7phil (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

66.227.84.101 (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sean7phil (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert of revert in the Military classism section

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This issue has been mediated and resolved, so I'm closing the discussion before it devolves further.-Wafulz (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I did not create this Military Brat entry. I think the entire entry is silly, but there it is. I am unfortunate in that I know a little bit about this subject: I married a US Army colonel's daughter, and my own daughter was born at Camp Lejeune, NC. Like I said, I think this entire entry is silly and not needed, except perhaps in the narrow area that all professional military organizations around the world produce military brats that share similar characteristics, and this manifestation is independent of culture, religion, and country.

That said, the original entry on which I made my comment left an erroneous impression, and that is that the prejudices of the brat have some basis in fact. I assure you that these prejudices are completely ephemeral and are not real at all. If one wants to speak on the prejudices of military brats matching those of the military parent, it is important to emphasize that the prejudices of the parent are erroneous as well.

For example, in US military Special Forces units, Air Force Special Forces units are a joke. They are a joke, that is, until someone tries to perform their mission, and then they might understand their specialized mission and training. In other words, prejudices among military units arise from a misunderstanding or misapprehension of their assigned missions. All such units are needed, and no one unit is more important than the other, when mission is taken into account. All prejudices about military units are just like any other prejudice: emotional only, with no basis in reality or fact.

This is the rationale of my original entry. I believe this concept is self-evident once it is explained, but I have no scholarly reference to prove it. Perhaps this concept could be stated better, or maybe cited better, and I am amenable to any well-intentioned rewrite. That said, I would appreciate at least a half-assed explanation for reverting well-reasoned comments that you personally don't like. Military brats are called "brats" for a reason. I am not a brat, but I see very clearly that you are. I know the type, and I know you can't be convinced of anything without a threat of force. How about this: Revert again, without a good reason, and I will be glad to take this issue to the pump (insert personal perjorative here).

I have already wasted more air on this issue than my original entry. You wiki-whateveryouares are very tedious. Nevertheless, I am glad to know you. Have a nice day.

Jarhed (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

one of the core principles of Wikipedia is verifiability and no original research. Just because it *MAY* and you believe it is true, does not make it encyclopedic.Balloonman (talk) 04:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Balloonboy, forgive me, but you are not the god of wikipedia, you do not get to revert just because you do not like something. If the community agrees with you, then I will submit. Until then, you are just a wikichump just like me. Take your revert and shove it. Jarhed (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Jarhead has been warned about OR and civilityBalloonman (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Revised entry posted, although I believe my original entry was much more clear and concise.
In the context of the "military brat" article, I will prove just how unresonable your criticism is. Under the heading of "Values and patriotism", the following claim is made:
In the 1990s, the army officially adopted what have come to be known as "The 7 Army Values," which are summarized with the acronym "LDRSHIP." LDRSHIP stands for Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage. While this acronym is relatively new, the ideas it represents have been at the heart of military service for generations.
The only link reference in this paragraph is on the words "The 7 Army Values", and the link goes to the Wikipedia entry for the United States Army. In other words, every statement in this paragraph is completely bogus.
This is just one minor example of unverifiability in an article of dozens! And yet you choose to single out ME?
If you really want to clean up this article, let's start with the LDRSHIP paragraph. Do you have some agenda other than cleanup, Mr. Brat? I have no dog in this fight other than accuracy, so what is your excuse?
I will not be intimidated by anyone. Make your objections fair and reasonable, or stand aside. I will not back down from petty attempts at intimidation, here or anywhere else.
Have a great day! Jarhed (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
First, LDRSHIP is not a supposition of facts or overlay of opinion on an article. You are inputting opinion and supposition that requires sources. You are representing your beliefs as facts. You've already been warned for civility, please refrain from personal attacks. Your latest efforts, while closer to something acceptable, was still based upon unverified opinions.Balloonman (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Ha ha ha, this is rich. Please explain this to me: a complicated acronym (LDRSHIP) is introduced into a wikipedia article, attributed to a government agency, but the entry provides not one scintilla of source, NOTHING. Is it real? Is it propaganda? Is it imaginary? Is it fake? I say fake, but who knows?
And yet you still assert that the LDRSHIP paragraph "is not a supposition of facts or overlay of opinion on an article"? I am trying my best to be civil to you here, but please sit back and think for a minute about just what you are asserting. Would you accept the claptrap coming out of your mouth from anyone else, on any other subject? I certainly would not, and I do not expect you to do so, either. Please admit that I have an encyclopedic point to make, and stop quibbling about minutiae. At the very least, please treat all of the idiotic additions to this article at least as hostilely as you have mine. The point that I am making is valid on its face. If you do not like what I said, then rewrite it; do not merely revert it without comment like some intellectual charlatan. Jarhed (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Reality check: you ought to be rebutting things actually said instead of things not. Namely, we're talking about the whole swatch of personal interpretation/opinion you put under that bit of DOD PowerPoint Ranger-sourced LDRSHIP hoo-haa. If you're unable to see that or unwilling to conform to local standards, that's not our problem, it's yours. --Calton | Talk 05:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Jarhed, is there a text that you could point to or a study that has been done on the rationality of prejudices? That might help Balloonman with the OR aspect. I understand the statement that all prejudices have no basis in fact, but I think we could find a psychological study somewhere that might reenforce that, then we can say we are citing the study and it's not OR. And you are right, that the army has adopted the LDRSHIP values should be cited. And the statement about the ideas being at the heart of the military for generations is opinion and unverifiable. Both good points. Now let's see if we can find a study on military prejudice and we'll be done with this. Padillah (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Padillah, I appreciate your temperate mediation. Here is the issue: before I made my edit, the article made an erroneous statement: military brats adopt the prejudices of their parents and that these prejudices are true.
Now, I know from my experience that this is absolutely not the case. Prejudice is prejudice, as you have made perfectly clear that you understand. I do not pretend to be an academic expert on this topic, and I would be happy for any informed rewrite of my entry.
This issue is extremely abstruse and does not lend itself well to academic sourcing. I will grant that. I stated that I find the entire entry silly, but there it is, in all of its pregnant, unsourced, incomplete, imperfect glory. If I had the gall of Balloonman, I would delete the entire entry. The entire entry, really, smells of bogus on the half-shell.
However, here it is, with citations and everything. I made an entry that clarified a very small part of the issue. Balloonman disagreed with what I entered, but instead of rewriting what I said, here merely reverted it, and he did so multiple times. Forgive me, but my contribution was a valid one. A mere revert is not sufficient to address the point I have made, and I resent this treatment. His phony indignation about my "civility" completely belies his intellectual obtuseness and rudeness about his multiple reverts without real explanation. Please forgive me, who is the rude one in this dialogue? Jarhed (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it goes a little beyond just finding a study, but rather the interjection of opinion:

Because of the cruelly competitive nature of the military environment, if ever there were a Meritocracy that awarded individual achievement and individual achievement only, the US Military would be it. All units combined in this meritocratic force are needed, and would be ruthlessly eliminated if not. In other words, a parent might form disparaging judgements about other military units besides his or her own, but such judgements are emotional in nature and not based on the Darwinian reality of military existance. Such emotional evaluations are identical for the military brat.{{fact}}

That is opinion, not fact and while it might make for a good book/newspaper article, such colorful descriptions is not encyclopedic.Balloonman (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh give me a break. Everything I said there is flat flipping the truth, and there are millions of military people, in the US and around the world, who would back me up. If you consider my references a little light, like I said, before we start on my paragraph with references and millions of people who agree, let's start with the LDRSHIP paragraph where the references are ABSOLUTELY ZILCH.
Forgive me, Mr. Brat, but your husbanding of this article for your own personal purposes amuses me greatly. May I suggest that you get a life and a girlfriend (or boyfriend, whichever way you swing, it is none of my business.) However, your enormous efforts against my minor and paltry contribution to this silly little article betray what I consider to be an unhealthy attachment to minutiae, and an egocentric desire to dominate. Well, to each his own and all that. I hope you enjoy your fiefdom: you may have it.
Have a great day! Jarhed (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely zilch??? er... I currently see five references in that paragraph alone. As for the acronym itself, you don't have to have every fact single sentence cited if it is common knowledge and easily accessible. Wow, the article it links to has sources as does a quick google search on the word ldrship. As for your maintaining civility... if this is civility, then I would hate to see incivility. I have no problem with people editing the article, so long as they don't add unsourced biased opinion such as what you've tried to add. It's your exposition on the facts that deters any merit from what you have to say.Balloonman (talk) 06:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I can understand that some of that language could be inflammatory as well, which is all the more reason to leave it out. I was reading the first post here and it looked like his point was regarding the factual basis of prejudice, so I guess that might be a good place to start. What are the feelings regarding some mention of prejudice and it's basis? Could we find a way to agree that there are aspects of this that conform to prejudice/discrimination? If that's the case we can find something to make mention of the fact and then link over to Discrimination. How does that sound as a plan? Padillah (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Jarheads edit is competly OR and shouldnt be included at all unless a source can be found. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 22:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Padillah, I appreciate your mediation, really I do. However, I know the type, and no mediation is possible. You guys run this article as you will. If you ever need any help with your logical fallacies and your academic gaffs, please call someone else.
Have a great day! Jarhed (talk)
And if you need help with your spelling ("gaffs"?), your attitude adjustment, your lack of familiarity with basic academic and/or encyclopedic sourcing, or your inability to distinguish your personal opinions from objective fact, give us a yell, will you? --Calton | Talk 05:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia:No original research is worth mentioning. Things must be explicit. It was not Jarhed's fault but now after reading the Wikipedia policy, I believe he will understand better. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I've mentioned it to him... but he doesn't accept it... nor does he accept that little word below above the edit summary that says, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."Balloonman (talk) 06:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


This section is full of personal attacks and false personal accusations made by Jarhed. I think it would be completely fair to remove them. He was warned about personal attacks and has persisted in making them.

Sean7phil (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And of course, you, Sean, agree with the original deletion of my contribution without comment, in contravention of Wikipedia guidelines. That is perfectly fine. I will wait a month, a year, a decade...perhaps until I retire. After you wiki-whateveryouares go away, and I will make a perfectly reasonable edit to this article. I don't want to argue with you or anyone else right now or ever. Have a great day! Jarhed (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


Ah yes, you decry the assumption that the military leaves any imprint on it's personnel or their children... ...and yet you do so with all the stubborness and determination of a U.S. Marine!

Not that I have anything against Marines-- but my point is that military traits should not be so easily dismissed when looking at the impact of military life on individuals.

Sean7phil (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Not our experience

We are an active duty U.S. Army aviation family. I am personally a U.S. Army community educator (AFTB, 7 Habits, Red Cross, Family Readiness Groups). In a month I meet numerous family members from all ranks and I absolutely do not see pervasive authoritarian family dynamics or strong patriarchal authority in our community (nor in any in which we have lived in the past 10 years). Furthermore, these things are also quite unusual in the many Air Force and Navy families we know. I question this source and wonder if it is not out-of-date. Though published in 1999, I believe it reflects the realities of military life one or two decades earlier. Furthermore, numerous other assertions made here about rank classism and other aspects of military life are not representative of our personal experience, unflattering to our (male and female) commanders, and generally a sensationalist, damamging and unrealistic portrayal of military life today.Saseigel (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest (as the original driver behind getting this article to its current shape), it isn't entirely my experience either. I felt that parts of it addressed my parent's experience more than my own---or now the current generations. That being said, we have to go with what is published. Most research on military brats is on people who are 30+. But if you can add more to the article that is researched from today's perspective, please do so.Balloonman (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. That seems like a fair response. I am still bothered that, since FA articles carry a lot of weight, it's crucial that they portray the most current realities, annotating historical content as such. Some resources that could be invaluable for updating this article are official publications, various more recent military and scholarly studies (of military family life), the Military Times family of newspapers, the Pacific and European editions of "Stars and Stripes," and the entirely private "Military Spouse" magazine. As I find resources, I will try to incorporate them.Saseigel (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


Wertsch never calls such dynamics absolute or equally true for all military families. Rather she describes a continuum that includes such dynamics to varying degrees for some families.

An additional point-- in a divided country (as the United States is today)-- it seems we end up with two distortions about the military brat experience--

Distortion From the Left: The military brat experience was highly abusive and military families are largely authoritarian.

Distortion From the Right: There are no problems in military familes and there was nothing challenging about growing up military (with the exception of challenges faced by war families).

Such games of ideological football make a casualty of the truth. The reality is probably somewhere in between (and also varies significantly from family to family)--

It isn't accurate to suggest that military life has no impact on military kids--

Nor is it accurate to insinuate that all military kids experienced abuse or extremely strict upbringings.

Sean7phil (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


A third distortion may come from military parents--

Nothing could be harder than to look at any critique of parenting directed at ones own community. The chances for denial in such cases should be taken into account. Yet on the other hand--

The fact that the military is a political football in our society also means that exaggeration of "the military impact on families" is always a possibility as well.

Sean7phil (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good job

Nice job. Last saw this article a few years back and it was total crap. Congratz on FA status --Armanalp (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, in Nov 06, I had a hell of a fight on my hands to save the article because it was garbage---more of an add for a military brats website.Balloonman (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


I wouldn't assume that the motivation for the original article was to promote any other website. That is quite a stretch.

I was not involved at all in writing the original article; nor do I know those people--

But in fairness to them, there is no proof that they did it solely to promote another website.

I also do not own or run any military brats website myself.

I post here because I feel passionately about these issues and because I grew up as a military brat.

Sean7phil (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


P.S. Although I own no such site, and have no interest (or time) to do so, I also think it's a bit unfair to assume negative motives on the part of anyone who does. There is a huge need for services for brats. The handful of people who provide them deserve thanks, not aspersion.

Sean7phil (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)