Talk:Military brat (U.S. subculture)/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Defending the Brat

Ok, here is a question for you all (namely Sandy,) do you think this article needs a new section elaborating upon the usage of the term "Brat." EG a full section looking at the history of the term and the acceptance in the military community?Balloonman 19:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That might be a way to introduce the article, in terms of reorganization. (I archived the old nom - when you resubmit to FAC, you should link to it.) Sandy (Talk) 19:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't directed really at me, but I think that if you can actually fill up a section on that, that it would answer a lot of questions and concerns. We grew up with the term and don't give it a second thought, but others might be confused as to why it's used and how and when it applies, more than what is laid out in the article. Oh, and it's the 65th anniversary of Pearl Harbor. Happy PH Day. --ScreaminEagle 19:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
If there is an authoritative source of the history I'd be happy to learn it, but frankly will be skeptical of explanations of "origins" of the term. As said above, I too grew up with the term and never had a second thought about it. People rarely asked me if I was an Air Force brat, but I often identified myself as one to people I'd just met. (Frankly, we were a clique. Dayton, for example, was once a very military (Air Force) town; I met my wife with just such an introduction--she was too, it turned out. But we were both in our late 20s and very civilianized.) It sprang up at some Army post somewhere along the way and was simply adopted by continued use, then spread as the miliotary spread.--Buckboard 07:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linguistic Reclamation

I think I have it. Brat undoubtably was used negatively towards military brats years and years ago, but there is a term used to discuss how groups reclaim those terms that are used against them. Linguistic Reclamation, we have redefined the term so that we have taken control over it... kind of like how Queer/Nigger/Gay/Nerd/Geek and many other words aren't insults (when used in the proper context.) Some words have long lost their insulting meaning,

"To reclaim literally means to make one’s own, to regain, retrieve, recover, repossess, salvage, or rescue. We reclaim terms, words, specific phrases, so that we refashion their meanings to correspond to our particular goals, we rescue or salvage them from their earlier, often derogatory, meanings, we repossess them so that we make them our own, so that their meanings have the authority of our ownership behind them. Thus, the immediate target of “reclamation” is language. However, language alone is not the ultimate goal of reclamation—linguistic reclamation is usually a tool for disarming the power of a dominant group to control one’s own and others’ views of oneself. The point, as Lynne Tirrell says, is to reshape the social landscape. So in the end, by taking control over a term that has been used against oneself and one’s group, one takes greater control over one’s self-image, self-conception, or self-understanding, and limits the ability of others to categorize oneself or one’s group in a totalizing way." [1] see also [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Balloonman (talk • contribs) 06:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Some names that were originally insults, but were later adopted by the group they were intended to insult: Chicano, Whig, Tory, Quaker, dude, Cowboy, Tar Heels, Anabaptist, Sooner, Methodist, Yankee, and Mormon.

[edit] Images

Here is an image in the public domain that I think could flesh out the photos for this article, military brats on a ship for family day.[3] Military families overseas would be good, also base housing photographs, and an image of the commisary PX, etc., complex on a base, and maybe a military school. Here's a picture of a female servicemember helping her son at a base school.[4] And its source site, as I only assume it is in PD.[5] The ribbon cutting honor guard for base housing.[6] Here's one with a whole group waiting for the return of their servicemembers.[7] & [8] Military family housing destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.[9] & [10] I would like to see a bit more variety incorporated into the images. [11] & [12] [13] & [14] KP Botany 02:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I didn't see these pictures... I'll take a look at them alter and possibly add some!!!Balloonman 21:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PubMed Research

Digging up all the PMID abstracts I can find on military families (if you can give me the names of the authors, or the titles of the papers, quoted by Wertsch, I can find the studies) - based on what comes up, apparently child abuse is some kind of an issue (??) - sometimes you can get the full text for a fee:

From Google Scholar (you can get some of these for a fee):

A lot of this doesn't look helpful, but while searching for info, I realized that the Wertsh work is pretty old - a 1991 publication would be based on studies done in the 80s ?? Sandy (Talk) 02:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks I'll have to figure out how to get some of these... perhaps through the library? Child abuse and alcoholism are two factors that Wertsch talked about, but that I couldn't find any other sources for... The only place where I saw either one of those mentioned was in Wertsch... I didn't even see it discussed in non-authoritative sources, but I personally believe both are legitimate factors. Wertsch is pretty old, but she is still highly regarded. I used her book primarily for historical facts or where the issues have been fairly well established.Balloonman 04:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
For research in sociology, however, 15 years is not as old as research in medical sciences or other areas, because the researchers look at long term impacts. Newer sources, yes, add, but don't totally dismiss older sources, especially books by respected researchers. KP Botany 18:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
She's not a researcher, but rather an author... who has garnered a lot of respect in the field. Her book is highly quoted and referenced in the literature that I've seen, but it would be stretch to say "reasearcher." She interviewed a number of people and did a fair amount of research into the subject before writing her book, but it is not a scientific "research."Balloonman 19:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

These were very helpful... and thanx outriggr for getting me some of themBalloonman 21:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse in Military Families

Rather than zeroing in on 'abuse'-- why not describe the "Challenges and Strengths" of the military brat experience?

Challenges: As a brat (I assume most of here either are brats or are familiar with the brat experience) I would say that my life held special challenges like moving constantly, adapting to foreign (and sometimes hostile) cultures, authoritarian parenting, and for some of us-- dealing with a parent being in a war (my Dad was in Vietnam in my case when I was 9), dealing with friends who's fathers were casualties in war, and dealing with the aftermath of war (what parents were like returning from war)--

Strengths: But on the other hand-- I have noticed that many brats have special strengths-- resilience, adaptability, appreciation of many cultures (both overseas cultures and many American regional cultures for primarily Stateside Brats). Apparently 80% of us are also somewhat multi-lingual. Then there is the warrior ethos that we were raised in-- of courage, service to others, self sacrifice, duty, honor and love of country. I would say that many brats that I have met also have a real sense of adventure because growing up as a brat-- life is an adventure!

So yeah, this could be expanded upon (feel free to use and adapt this) but I think "Challenges and strengths" better describes the brat experience rather than just putting the label of 'abuse' on brat life (I know that was not the posters intention here-- but I have run into that 'oversimplification' of just assuming we are all just a bunch of abuse survivors). Best to all. -Phil

72.16.201.2 00:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Phil, the abuse section is a very small section, indeed, especially when compared with the rest of the text that describes exactly (and I mean exactly) what you just described above as challenges and strengths. Everything you listed I said, "Has that, has that, has that, has that...." I think perhaps on first reading you may have zeroed in on just the one section for some reason, glossing over the rest of the article that goes into depth on those very topics you've raised. --ScreaminEagle 00:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, I think you have a point there, and am glad to see that an article like this wiki article on Military Brats now exists.

Best, Phil

63.225.108.158 02:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The abuse section also discusses an area that is found in the literature, but points out that right now there is no definitive position one way or another. The article doesn't say that military brats are more prone to abuse (which is something researchers used to say.) Nor does it say that the brat is less prone to abuse, which is what some researchers are now saying. It is saying that the jury is still out. It is in NO WAY saying that we are a bunch of abuse survivors, in fact it says quite the opposite... But yeah, I have to agree with Screamin, just about everything you said is covered in the article---with documentation and support. But, failure to discuss abuse, after it was such a big part of Wertsch's book, would IMHO, be incomplete.Balloonman 04:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


Hey there Sandy, I'm reading through some of the literature that you pointed me to... and I probably will not have a section on Abuse. Apparently, it is an area with a lot of debate. Some studies show higher levels of abuse and others lower levels. The results are very mixed with little being known definatively. To quote the Rentz article, "Studies comparing military and nonmilitary families in terms of child maltreatment or spouse abuse show mixed results, with some reporting higher rates in the military and others finding lower rates in the military." 94 This coincides with what I observed elsewhere.Balloonman 06:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you mention the issue though? If there's that much research, conclusive or not, it's apparently an issue in the military that readers may want clarification on. –Outriggr § 01:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
already done... I decided to mention it for the exact reason you brought it... but I'm going to expand the section some more.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Balloonman (talk • contribs) 01:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree that my proposed categories cover topics already in the article (sorry-- and I am very grateful to those who have worked so hard here ) I think abuse is worth mentioning-- but I was probably reacting more to the stereotypes I have encountered from some people (at times) who assume that if you have any association with the military, you are crazy (I do not agree with that stereotype). But **Nobody has written any such thing in this article at all-- it's just that 'general' stereotype that I was perhaps anticipating.

But I do think, however, that if only the phrase itself-- "Unique strengths and challenges" were added into the existing writing it would help to tell the brat story-- It is a challenging lifestyle-- it can leave it's scars and it's hurts-- but we also have many strengths and gifts from our experience as well.

I will be very pleased with this article whether or not that suggested phrase is added-- I think you guys have done a great job and I am pleased to see something like this on the internet.

Although I have had many wonderful civilian friends through the years, I have felt in so many ways like they had no clue about how I grew up. I am glad to see us become a little less 'invisible' here.

Well done!

Phil

63.225.108.158 02:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

When I revise the intro in a few days/weeks, I'll consider that phrasology... it does makes sense... it's just a matter of whether or not it works... but I'm taking a short break from the article (per Sandy's recommendations.)Balloonman 03:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New form

I like this better now, espcially the linguistic part. I'd be surprised if it didn't make FA. Rlevse 15:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the goal. I think it could have made it to FA under the old version, but with the explicit change to focus on US brats, some observations that I made, and advice from Sandy/Outriggr I decided to revamp it some. I'm not a believer in significant revisions while in FAC status. Balloonman 15:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copied comments from ScreamingEagle's talk page RE request for review

Hey There Screamin, I just finished my major revisions on the article... significantly more coverage of the Post-Cold War Brat... and I think a little better organized. I was hoping that you could take a look at it and let me know what you think? I know the intro needs to be expanded, but that was going to be my last thing...Balloonman 08:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I found a couple of things that you can adjust on your next edit (since you edit it frequently enough).
  • "because truly random samples on adult brats is impossible." Perhaps explain why the logistics of a truly random sample are difficult to achieve?
  • "Non-military personnel may find the term “brat” insulting, and not may understand...." Switch "not" and "may"
    • This is a comment that I don't follow, the others make sense... but I don't see what you are recommending here.

Balloonman 16:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

      • I meant it should read "Non-military personnel may find the term “brat” insulting, and may not understand...."
        • It's times like these where I wish I could say I was dyslexic... I read that section numerous times in the article itself... I read it here as you wrote it... and I couldn't see what was wrong with it. I continually read it as "may not" despite it actually saying "not may." WowBalloonman 21:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Military culture has its own norms and expectations, which are so different that military brats can find civilians very different and often incomprehensible." It seems like that's one too many "differents" in a sentence, and also kinda redundant, actually. First it says they're so different (different from whom? Civilians) and then it again says the brats find civilians different. You see what I'm getting at.
  • "Yet, the one constant where they find comfort is the order and regiment of military life." I think it should be "the one constant in which they find...." Military life is a thing, not a location. Also, the statement suggests they find comfort in nothing else. Is this true?
  • "Even though the faces and geography have changed, the "base" remained recognizable because the rituals are consistent." Everything in the sentences leading up to that have been in present tense, then it switches to past tense there. I would say, "Even though the faces and geography change, the "base" remains recognizable, etc."
  • Either define "Retreat" (as part of lowering the flag) in the article or link to it within Wikipedia--non-military aren't going to know right off what that is.
I concur. (Though they ought to) Retreat was not just the bugle call but the ceremony as well. I grew up around it at five different Air Force bases, and while we joked about it and even pretended it wasn't "cool" when I was in high school, all of the kids in my group of "NCO kids" (btw that's a distinction that might be made also) thought it was special to be part of something every day at 5 pm.--Buckboard 07:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "The Pledge of Allegiance will be recited every morning and patriotic/militaristic songs may be sung at military schools. " Switching tenses again (present to future). I would say "the PofA is recited every morning and ... songs may be sung...etc." Either the PofA is currently recited each morning, or it isn't. Predicting the future and stating it as fact isn't always a good idea.
  • "Prior to movies at the base theater's, everybody stands for the national anthem and often another patriotic songs such as "God Bless the USA"." A wording preference. I would think it would sound better if you replaced "everybody stands" with "patrons and staff stand." Also, Switch "another" with "other."
  • "Disciplinary expectations, however, extends beyond the military family." Should be "extend" not "extends."
  • "...authoritarian, democratic, and mixed, inconsistent way." "And a mixed, inconsistent way?" I'm wary of correcting direct quotes, but you should double-check that since it sounds wrong.
  • "For example, on base housing for officers will be significantly nicer...." "Nicer" sounds less professional. Of a higher quality? Something like that. Also, is there supposed to be a hyphen between on and base?
  • "Senior officers housing may be slightly larger and nicer than their lower ranking counterparts." Again with the "nicer." Also, either put an apostrophe after the 's' in officers, or say Senior officer housing.
  • "On the largest bases, there might be a row of opulent houses referred to "Colonels' Row" or "Generals' Row."" Referred to as.
  • "On the other end of the spectrum, are the enlisted quarters. Oftentimes enlisted personnel might be assigned apartments and only then if space was available." Take out the comma in the first sentence. Second sentence, "only then if space is available" to match to present tense.
  • "The Officer Clubs are nicer than the Enlisted Clubs. Officers may even have nicer recreational facilities than their enlisted counterparts, such as a nicer swimming pool or recreation halls. Historically, base chapels and movie theaters would have designated seating for officers and their families." Nicer, nicer, nicer. Time to dig your thesaurus out!
  • "Some bases even had two Boy Scout and two Girl Scout troops — one for officer children and one for enlisted children." When? It's in the past tense, so say, even something like "at one time" but I doubt people would go for that. Aim for a time period. Also, is there evidence stating brats are more likely to be involved in Scouting? Just curious.
    • I haven't seen any, I'll ask Rlevse because I personally believe that to be a true statement... might have something. As for timing, I know it happened as recently as the the 60's and perhaps 70's, but I don't really know.Balloonman 16:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, then I would say "For at least the first half of the 20th Century and possibly as recently as the 1970s, some bases even had two Boy Scout and two Girl Scout troops...." And I asked about scouting because my brothers and my husband (all brats) were heavily into scouting, encouraged by our AD fathers (mine was Scout Master even). So I'm guessing it would make sense, too, given the order and such. --ScreaminEagle 16:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Wertsch describes how children of enlisted personnel perceived their officer counterparts to receive specialized treatment." Worded a little awkwardly. I'll have to think more on how to make it simpler. Or you can.
  • "The children of officers socialized with other officers' children. The children of enlisted personnel socialized with those of other enlisted personnel. Even if an officer brat and an enlisted brat became friends at school, this friendship rarely carried over to the home life. The physical separation and differences between available activities made it very difficult." This is all said in past tense as if it happened in the past, but it doesn't happen now. Is that the case?
  • "This separation is by design. According to the U.S. Code of Military Justice, it can be illegal for an officer to become fraternize" Take out "become"
  • "...it could be akward to have friends whose parent worked together." Awkward is misspelled. Also, the wording needs to be better. "It could be awkward to have two friends whose parents worked together..."
    • Yeah, this was a sentence that I struggled with...Balloonman 16:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Military brats often develop a sense that allows them distinguish the rank of another child's father." I've often found this to be a little funny. They develop a sixth sense or something? I would think they would just have to ask or look at the uniform. I'm assuming you mean that they develop a sense of the necessity to distinguish the ranks or something like that rather than some supernatural power that tells them the ranks of people they've never met.
In Germany we don't have such a difference among brats (I encountered) but among the different educational levels of recruits. It is based upon choice of words, stylistic preferences, body posture (differs whether someone feels like relying more on intellect) and the notorius "Why?" of the highest educational level recruits (makes other enlisted and NCOs sometimes get mad). I guess it's a similar case here but you need some examples.
  • "...rivalries don't just end at the end of the branch of service, each branch of the service has its own...." That comma should be a semicolon to avoid a run-on sentence.
  • "where it was actually against military law to make a racist remark or not intervene when someone else does." Switching tenses, mid-sentence. "...when someone else did."
  • "With strict guidelines based upon the rank in the military member" Rank of the military member.
  • "smaller than the off base community" Again, should off and base have a hyphen?
  • I copyedited a whole section because there was too much to put here. See if you agree with the changes.
  • "Two of the common themes in Wertsch's book were abuse and alcholism." They still are those themes, so change were to are.
  • 1980's and 1990's should be 1980s and 1990s.
  • " The impact on the military's efforts remains inconclusive. Some studies report higher rates of abuse in military families others report lower rates." The impact of the military's efforts. And stick a dash or a comma + "while" between military families and others to avoid a run-on.
  • "serving in the armed forces, this opens up the possibility of both parents being deployed at the same time...." Run-on. replace comma with semicolon, or add another connecting word after the comma such as "and" or "as"
  • "Military members can be deployed for days, months, even years without their family." "Or even," or "and even."
  • "With the increased demands on the U.S. military, many reservist..." reservist should be plural.
  • Death in Combat "agressive" is misspelled. Two Gs.
  • "Because they identify so strongly with other brats, they are curious about famous brats and the depiction of military brats in fiction." I know it sounds repetetive, but the second "they" should also be "brats" to make it clear that it is the brats who are curious and not, I don't know, researchers or something silly. English is funny that way.
  • "Brats have more in common with each other than they do with non-brats." I would say they "often" do, not that they absolutely do.
  • "Others join brat groups because they feel disconnected from civilian culture or want to be able to share their story with other brats who can appreciate their story" How about "want to be able to share their story with other brats who can identify with it."? "Their story" twice sounds funny.
  • Also, I finally figured out what makes it sound so much like a research paper: all the direct quotes. A few quotes here and there are good to stress a point I think and to mix it up, but continually quoting these authors makes it look like the article can't speak for itself. Referencing them is one thing, but the quotes make it seem like the whole article may be just one big paraphrase. I might look for quotes that could be edited out or paraphrased. If the sentences around the quote basically say the same thing as the quote, then take it out--there's no real need for it (the citation to it will do just fine).
Oh yeah, and an excellent job on all the new information! --ScreaminEagle 14:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Awesome... I'll take a closer look at these later and try to incorporate them... thanks Balloonman 15:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Made just about all of these edits... including getting rid of most quotes. I left a few in where I felt that it was important to cite the original speaker/document, but got rid of 2/3rds of them.
  • Sorry if I stepped on anybody's toes but I had a viscerally strong reaction to the word "underling" in relation to enlisted members and changed it to "subordinate". My dad was a career NCO, a combat crew member at first and later a desk-bound specialist, a very mild-mannered gentleman, but he was never anybody's underling.--Buckboard 07:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beautiful. This article is improving all the time!

**But don't leave out cold war brats (like me)and PRE-Cold War brats (like my Mom) -- did you know there are 70 year old brats in this country-- my mother for example is 70 and she went to 18 schools by the time she was 18 years old. She still considers herself a brat and always will (then she married my Air Force Dad and kept moving-- she has moved 30 times in her life! What an amazing lady!

So still-living brat culture goes back three generations-- let's not forget that.

Best to all.

Phil

72.16.201.2 00:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've put a lot of effort into this.... Cold war brats is the focus of most of the research... the post-Cold War brats is a new addition which isn't very well known... as for pre-cold war brats. I doubt if I'll add anything on it... there is so little known about them and what was said about them is VERY suspect. The stuff written about your mothers generation was written during a period where the only things that were said about brats came from psychologist/psychiatrist who were describing their patients and extrapolating that to the population as a whole... VERY negative.

I should have given it all a more careful read. I was reading it quickly at work.

I also agree with your thinking on shoddy or unbalanced research that negatively stereotypes military personel or military dependents. There is a lot of poorly done (politically motivated?) crap out there.

Thanks again for your efforts! :-)

Phil

63.225.108.158 02:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Associated civilians?

At most US military installations, especially those overseas in the Cold War, there was always a population of American civilians with support duties, and those civilians had their own dependents. I was one of those. :-) These civilians often go unmentioned in the "Brat" context but they partook of much of the same environment and were immersed in the same culture, and are generally included in the Brat discussions I've seen; they could be used as a "control group" in the commissioned-vs-enlisted difference discussion. (BTW, as a civilian dependent whose father belonged "by courtesy" to the Officers' Club, I concur with most of the observations mentioned above.) Some mention of those civilians might be added here, though I have no good citable sources for numbers of such people. BSVulturis 18:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome! I think any former or present mobile DoD kid is without a doubt a part of the Tribe :-)
I knew a DOD kid who had quite a history (his dad was a Department Of Defense civilian)-- this kid grew up mobile and all over the world-- the most notable post being Cambodia during the Vietnam war and near the border no less. He knew another DOD civilian kid that was killed when his father took him on a helicopter ride over Vietnam and the VC or RNV shot down their chopper with a missile (the father died too).
I knew another highly mobile State Department kid who was with his father and family in Nicaragua holed up in the U.S. embassy during a coup or near coup-- he told me about tanks in the streets all around the embassy with fighting in the distance. Those kids were 'civilian' but they were a lot like us-- maybe they even went through more than a lot of us. 168.103.82.104 05:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The only two people that I am still in contact with from HS were kids of government employees. While I agree that civilian kids on military bases probably share some of the experiences of a military brat, there are some crucial differences in upbringing. Some of the more obvious differences: 1) Civilians live off base, 2) They are not subject to the same risks of death, 3) they have more control over duty assignments, and 4) the civilian family (despite it's close proximity to the military community) is still a civilian family. These do result in significant differences. What you might be interested in is looking at third culture kids. TCK's are people who followed their parents into a foreign cultures. Government Employees are the second largest largest group of TCK's and next to missionary kids appears to be the second most studied group. Balloonman 07:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Your suggestion about TCK's seems valid ... there are some other even more obscure associations than DoD civilians; my dad, e.g., was American Red Cross's Service to Military Installations. We lived on "base" (that is, in the housing areas with the military personnel families) while overseas, usually off base when stateside (though we were on base once). The funny thing is that civilians' kids were different, as you suggest; in some ways they were marginalized even in the Brat subculture in which they existed. In the stratification by parent's rank that goes on in that culture, the civilian's kids end up at the bottom, since the parent has no rank! Sort of a logical extension that supports the point made in the article. Probably not appropriate for entry in this article, though. I'll hunt for verifiable source matter and edit the TCK article when I have something appropriate. BSVulturis 16:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
My experience was that civilian kids were 'honorary' officers in the heirarchy, but still different than military brats... Balloonman 16:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The difference being our isolation from the rest of the world during much of our ordinary living. Many of us attended city schools, but many attended schools on base, limiting our interaction to civilian kids of any type. For many of us the isolation was real, not just titular--three of the six bases I lived on were located at least ten miles from the nearest town and surrounded by either farms or desert.--Buckboard 08:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old US DoD schools?

Overseas the US Dept of Defense operates schools at those bases where there are enough US dependents to make it worth it. A number of those were closed at the end of the Cold War; of those I attended, the physical buildings still exist, and one is (again) in use as a school, albeit by the civilian host nation (Germany, in this case). It seems like an article about these DoD schools would be a worthwhile addition to Wikipedia, with a direct link to this article. BSVulturis 18:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

you mean like: Department_of_Defense_Dependents_Schools?Balloonman 18:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. (Why didn't I find that before?) Thanks. Now to see how to properly work that link into this article. BSVulturis 21:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unconventional brats

Some female soldiers may happen to be mothers. Some more info on this topic would be appreciated. Wandalstouring 00:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a little on "non-traditional" military families in the Ender book. I'll take another look at it.Balloonman 04:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historic souces on brats and military families

There are some ancient sources mentioning military brats (Hannibal who didn't want his father to leave him again and went with him to the combat zone in Iberia or his elder sister who was present in the besieged Punic army camp during the Mercenary War and got married to the Numidian king Navarro) in the Anabasis of Xenophon brats and family life of the Greek soldiers fighting their way through enemy territory gets mentioned. Perhaps we should think about a way to link to these historic references on the subject. Wandalstouring 00:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)