Jill Kirby
2 for 1 tickets to Casablanca, this coming Monday
Thousands of British servicemen on duty overseas are fathers of young children, their experience of fatherhood interrupted by months of enforced absence. Wives and girlfriends caring for their children, like generations of such women before them, have had to adapt to this on-off family life, lived out against a background of anxiety for their husbands’ safety.
When Adam Turney joined the Royal Navy, he probably assumed that one day he would be just such an absent father. It is much less likely that he contemplated the possibility of being at home with a young child as his wife served overseas, least of all awaiting the outcome of her very public capture. Instead of seeing action, he is cast in a supporting role, undergoing the terrible ordeal of knowing his wife is in danger but being powerless to protect her.
In the meantime he devotes his attention to the couple’s three-year-old daughter. As women serve alongside men in increasing numbers in our armed forces, it is inevitable that more and more fathers will be left at home raising children while their wives and girlfriends are exposed to danger abroad.
Are we really comfortable with the prospect of mothers going on active service, separated from their children and risking their lives for us? It is clear that the Iranian authorities expected the British public to be more concerned about the fate of Faye Turney than that of her male crew members. Had they instead singled out one of the men, even though he might be a father, the public impact would have been less. Yet, as Turney made clear in an interview preceding her capture, women in the forces — even those with young children — expect to be treated the same as male colleagues.
Western equal opportunities legislation requires us to make no distinction between the ability of men and women to undertake a task, however hazardous. Legislation also requires that women should not be treated differently on the grounds of motherhood. The phenomenon of mothers at war is nothing more than the logical conclusion of sex equality. So any concern that we might feel when a mother is placed in danger should, in theory, be dismissed as outdated. But theory may not be much use in a crisis.
Colonel Bob Stewart, a British commander in Bosnia, said last week that the presence of women in risky situations was a distraction, because many servicemen were still inclined to protect women and would be more distressed by the death of a woman. Such distress can only be heightened where the woman is a mother. The sailors taken captive with Turney might have considered themselves immune from such old-fashioned sentiment. But as Turney was paraded last week, their concern for her will almost certainly have been different from their attitude to the male crew member later singled out.
Is it wrong to accept that such a difference exists? Maybe we should be demonstrating our ability to rise above Iranian tactics by asserting that Leading Seaman Turney’s fate is of no more significance than that of male crew. Why should a mother be more important to her children than a father?
We know both have an important role to play. The government has reminded us often enough that mothers and fathers are interchangeable and it wants to see more men involved with childcare so that women can spend more time at work. Yet when the family courts are deciding which parent should have primary custody of children after divorce, the presumption still remains that the interests of young children will best be served by keeping them with their mother. That presumption acknowledges that the biological and physical connection between mother and baby creates a bond that should not be severed too soon, unless there are exceptional circumstances.
The special nature of this bond is long established and the way in which a society treats its mothers and children has traditionally been a mark of its values. Yet the demands of equality threaten to weaken that bond, as mothers are put under both social and economic pressure to return to paid work.
Last month’s Equalities Review, from the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights, lamented the continuing disparity between work rates of mothers and other women. It claimed that this disparity results from discrimination, not maternal choice. Although surveys continue to find that most working mothers would rather spend more time at home, both the commission and the government claim that the economy cannot function unless more mothers return to work sooner.
Jim Murphy, the welfare minister, last week reiterated that mothers must work their way out of poverty. Having built an entire welfare system on the assumption that families are irrelevant, Gordon Brown has been confronted with new figures showing that, far from meeting his targets, child poverty actually increased last year. Now he may be wondering if it would have been better to encourage fathers to stay with their families rather than letting the state take their place.
Mothers must be either well-off or unusually determined if they are to succeed in maintaining the maternal bond until their children reach school age. But if it is hard for women to achieve full-time motherhood, it has surely become even more difficult for men to support them in that role.
We have a tax system that denies any concessions to one-earner families. And it is all but impossible for a father to admit that he would rather his children were cared for by their mother than in a nursery or by a nanny. Just as Stewart’s talk of chivalry on the front line makes him sound old-fashioned, so a man who prefers to act as family breadwinner rather than nurturer risks being branded a throwback.
All the same — whisper it quietly — Stewart’s reaction may in reality be closer to the feelings of many young men in action today than the equal rights theorists suppose. And however hard we try to set it aside, our unease at the prospect of young mothers going into war zones might be a sign of civilised values, rather than evidence of a failure to keep pace with change.
Minette Marrin is away
To join the debate on Faye Turney visit www.timesonline.co.uk/alphamummy
Enjoy screenings of all the classic films you love.
Have you ever dreamed of owning your own racehorse or a beautiful painting?
Enjoy comfort, safety, space and great design. Plus enter our great competition
Are you California dreaming? Explore the wonders of the Golden State. Also enter our fantastic competition
Do you have what it takes to be a Times photographer?
Your brain is capable of more than you might think...
Find out to make the most of your money with our wealth management guides
Need help with your property? We have an entire how to guide - buying, selling, letting, moving, to help you
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip
We are seeking entries for the inaugural Sunday Times Best Green Companies Awards
Enjoy some wonderful inspiring wildlife moments
An interactive preview of the brand new For Your Eyes Only exhibition

Love Sudoku? Play our brand new interactive game: with added functionality and daily prizes

Are you irritable when you return from work? Drained of emotion? You could be suffering from boreout
Prepare for some shock and awe, petrol lovers. Despite the greens trying to wipe it out, the car is about to offer us the most exciting year ever
We've trawled the brochures and websites to find this summer’s best holidays for every taste and budget


Why good girls pay good money for bad-girl baubles

Search The Times Births, Deaths & Marriage announcements
2007/07
£57,500
South East England
2007/57
£22,950
The Midlands
2006/06
£41,995
South East England
Great car insurance deals online
£40-55k+benefits+uncapped commission
Morgan Keating
South East
£60k plus excellent benefits
Barclaycard
Stockton / Northampton
£
£55,000 - £75,000 plus bonus and benefits
Diligenta
Based in Peterborough
£45,000 - £70,000 plus bonus and benefits
Diligenta
Based in Peterborough
Globrix, the property search engine
Visit Times Online Property for homes for sale or rent
Residential development site with planning permission
£1,500,000
Mortgages, bank accounts & money transfers to help you buy abroad
Dinarobin Hotel Golf & Spa 7 nights
From £1830 per person – saving £530.
Smart prices on ATOL protected holidays
Excellent online info & holiday selection.
Walt Disney World Resort Florida SALE!
From £619 per person!
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Search globrix.com to buy or rent UK property.
© Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
"That presumption acknowledges that the biological and physical connection between mother and baby creates a bond that should not be severed too soon, unless there are exceptional circumstances. "
What special "bond" are you referring to - this is claptrap. Mothers no more have a special bond with their child than does a father. Bonds are developed/nurtured they don't appear as if by magic.
Equality is equality. Unless of course some of us are more equal then others.
Downsouth, London,
I think it is extremely unhelpful to debate the rights and wrongs of working mothers in this context, whilst Faye Turney is still in Iranian custody. At least have the decency to wait until she is in a position to answer the critics herself.
Sue, Fareham,
I'm surprised that so many people have commented on this article without reading it properly. Nowhere does this article claim that Turney being a woman and a mother has had any effect on the unit's efficiency; nor does the writer claim that women should have any special privileges alongside their equal treatment.
The point being made (and it is seemingly a valid one) is that there was an awful lot more stink kicked up when she was paraded in front of the camers, than there was for the male soldier treated identically two days later.
Why is that? Whence this gut instinct that causes us to regard women in captivity - particularly mothers in captivity - differently from men and fathers? And should we take note of it, and take women off the front line?
Paul Heyes, Sheffield, United Kingdom
Only single women should be accepted for a career in the armed services and their duties should be in administration and back up duties. No women should be allowed on board ship, neither should they be trained as fighter pilots. This business of equality is all about making a point until it all goes wrong and then we see the spectacle of a mother wearing a headscarf and smoking a fag after having written a grovelling apology. The two sailors alongside her were as bad.
Female service personnel should finish their career and then start a family as many women do in civilian life.
H Kennard , Peasmarsh, England
The western world is coming to an end in its total lack of perspective about children and parents and grandparents. The human brain has evolved to its present capacities since the time of the multigenerational transmission process started in agrarian times.
Now we have lost all of the insights that former generations have had and we send mothers to war.
The human brain is regressing into the same level as that of other primates - in front of our eyes!
Eva Sternberg, Gothennburg, Sweden
Somebody should teach Jill Kirby to spell before she appears on the UK Home page.
Ian, Solihull,
It's no different to fathers "going on active service, separated from their children". Unless women are special, should be treated differently and kept in the 'HOME' country. I don't believe you could not see that one coming. What's this; goad the readers time?
Phil, x, W Yorkshire
Why are Mr and Mrs Turney's childcare choices of relevance in this debate? There are different models of childcare for different people. Some women are very maternal with strong parenting instincts who adore being around children. Other women (me included) have less interest in parenting and have a more cerebral or active focus to their lives. Equally I'm sure there are plenty of men with no interest in children whatsoever while there are other men who love being fathers to their children and would do it full-time if they could. Some might argue that more women are oriented towards childcare than men but that still doesn't create a hard and fast rule for all.
Why create black and white rules for parenting? Why does Jill Kirby think she knows Adam Turney's thoughts? Leave the couple and their childcare responsibilities out of this. The whole point of feminism was to give people more choice on how to structure their lives: the Turneys are a good example of this in action.
MB, Edinburgh,
And so the whinging begins; If you want equal rights for women then have them. Don't want them only when it suits you and things are good. If the sight of a highly pressurized woman on TV causes you concern then so it should. But she wanted the job she got it, exactly the same as the men with her. And undoubtedly they are under as much pressure as she. "Ah, but no its different for a girl." WRONG! Pressure is pressure some deal with it well and some dont. Gender is not a factor. If you think it is then the system is wrong and she shouldnt be in harms way. Oh but is that a none PC, antifeminist thought or just sense?
Debate starts again then crack on.
Keith, Newcastle, England
This article is nothing but speculation, there has been no evidence to the effect that, in this instance, being a mother has harmed the efficiency of her unit or how they have been treated in captivity. The authoress should be very careful to differentiate opinion from fact; in this instance the piece is highly opinionated and is based on a subjective reading of the situation. Jill Kirby does a disservice to professional journalism in the way she imbues so much symbolism and meaning to Turney's motherhood and ignores what has actually been happening.
Also, it would seem that the flip-side of her argument implies that a man's life is worth less than a woman's: that male soldiers' lives are relatively more expendable. Such a view is outrageous; no person's life should ever be weighed as more or less valuable than another's. Tread carefully with your arguments!
Laurence, London, UK
Ahem . . . are we any less comfortable with the prospects of daddy being killed on active service?
Is this reverse sexism?
Stevey B, Luton,
The great shame is that NONE of these servicepeople were valued.
Who left them - in 2 boats - in a position without backup?
What was HMS Cornwall doing while the taking of hostages was happening?
DavidN, Melbourne,
A mother should have exactly the same rights and duties as a father. No more, and no less.
Of course a mother will be unhappy if her circumstances or her job make it necessary for her to leave her child with somebody else, even if that person is her spouse or partner. But a father ought to be no less unhappy in the same circumstances, and should receive the same level of sympathy or castigation, depending on how necessary the decision was.
Perhaps only childless people should go to war.
Ros, Upminster,
Michael Gilhooly, your argument doesn't stack up.
Ask a father with an absent wife (for whatever reason) how he feels about placing his toddler into the hands of a stranger. Believe me, the feelings are exactly the same.
Paul, Rochester, UK
Excellent article , but , please seperated , Surely new proof readers should be order of the day ! !
Courtenay Gwynne-Jones, nR bRISTOL, G.B.
Women have played a significant role in our armed forces since the first world war and i have no problem with that.
I am not comfortable however with their planned presence on the front line. I don't believe it is fair for them or their colleagues and to be honest i dont believe it is necessary.
andy, Lyon, France
The media is forever claiming that women are oppressed but the fact of the matter is that a woman's life is valued more highly than that of a man's. Always has been, and it seems it still is today.
Where we are heading is towards a society where women can claim they are just as able as men, yet when it suits them claim special privileges.
The images of this woman wearing modest clothing are not disgusting, as some people are saying. If you want to see disgusting, remind yourself of the photos of the men at Abu Ghraib.
Darren Blacksmith, Brighton, UK
We confront very basic human instincts when we seek separate a mother from her young child for any substantial period. Ask mothers how they feel about having to place their infant or toddler into the hands of a stranger at nursery because of the inordinate economic ( and social ) pressures to do so. Of course it is lunacy that this poor lady, soldier and mother is in a war zone, captive. Only a bizzare political correctness could argue that it is acceptable.
michael gilhooly, harrogate, uk