The Foreign Service Journal, June 2012

J U N E 2 0 1 2 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 9 replied that I didn’t know they were my responsibility. The FSN lost his temper and went to the personnel of- ficer. Neither bothered to get my side of the story or made any attempt to train me. Instead, they gave me no further work. I was, in effect, fired in place; but they kept my situation under wraps in deference to my husband, the “Gunny.” When my year was up, the personnel officer hired someone else, and I worked as a “floater” at the com- missary and several other offices in the embassy. My experience as a PIT was toxic. Yes, I was the gunny’s wife, but I was also my own person with my own ca- reer goals. I was as determined to get ahead in DIA as my spouse was to ad- vance in the Marine Corps. But rather than being treated as a fellow fed, I was shunned. As a career woman with no children, I did not fit in; with one exception, the wives at post were un- employed homemakers. Most of them were members of the “Silent Generation.” I’m now 60 years old, and this hap- pened when I was in my early 30s. Richard and I are still together and, when he retires from the U.S. Postal Service, we intend to move away from Northern Virginia and start fresh else- where. But my experience in Lagos still weighs on my enthusiasm to so- cialize and form new relationships. Perhaps other young career women will learn something from my experience. I must say that I’m over- joyed the “Silent Generation” is long gone, and we Boomers are now in po- sitions of authority. I can only hope things will get better. Eileen F. Roark Woodbridge, Va. The ADAMS Family Your focus on family member em- ployment in the April issue brought back many memories, some fonder than others. In 1990 I said goodbye to Washington, D.C., and my six-figure consulting business to follow my new wife to New Delhi, making me one of the earlier “male dependent spouses.” Fortunately there were two other male spouses at post, so together we formed the Association of Dependent American Male Spouses — the ADAMS, if you’ll pardon the pun. I no longer recall everything we did, but I do remember how the Marines answered our query about the obvi- ous multitude of antennas on the em- bassy roof: “ What antennas?” We also took a field trip to the First In- ternational Conference on the Or- gasm, conveniently held that year in New Delhi. But not everyone at the embassy was so enlightened. During a senior staff meeting, my wife suggested that perhaps an upcoming invitation might better read “and spouses” instead of “and wives.” Apparently, a pin-drop silence ensued, followed by an exas- perated “Well, if you insist.” I was “allowed” to join the Ameri- can Women’s Association, but my sug- gestion to update the name to the American Spouses Association was met with icy stares and strained friendships. I still wonder what was so threatening about either of those ob- vious suggestions. Hopefully these attitudes and be- haviors have improved over the past 20 years. Male spouses and partners, as much as female ones, deserve our respect for the sacrifices and adjust- ments they make for the sake of their family’s service to the United States. Michael Hendricks Independent Consultant Hood River, Ore. How Times Have Changed Shawn Zeller’s article in your April issue describes the slow but steady progress that has been made in recent years on FS spousal employment. But in noting how much remains to be done, it reminded me of my own fam- ily’s experience. In 1958, I married an FSO who had to resign her commission when I was assigned to Warsaw, as regulations required at that time. Writing to our embassy there, I asked if a job could be found for her, pointing out that she was fluent in French and Spanish, and was making good progress in Polish from studying it on her own. (Within six months of our arrival at post she had mastered the language, and she became similarly fluent in German and Russian during my future assign- ments in Vienna and Moscow.) Several months after we got to Warsaw, I found my letter in the em- bassy files. Someone had written on it, “Let her teach school.” Yale Richmond FSO, retired Washington, D.C. The Importance of Family Planning Your March focus on food security? Thrilling. Considerable mention of “integrated approaches”? Sensible. Emphasis on agriculture? Essential. Not one word from any of your four experts about the key component of family planning? Appalling. Multiple studies over many years have shown family planning to be the most cost-effective and beneficial public health effort in the last 60 years. Fundamental to reducing hunger and poverty, it is also the cheapest way to minimize climate change, a key component of conserving the en- vironment, and critical to reducing maternal and infant mortality. Yet not one of one of your contrib- utors even mentioned it. I was thus greatly encouraged to see the excellent article on the subject, “Seven Billion and Counting,” in your April issue. Bravo! Sue H. Patterson FSO, retired Antigua, Guatemala