‘If the Father Says So, That’s How It Is’: Meanings Ascribed to the Notion of the Military Family

Abstract

This paper builds on findings from the first systematic study of military families in Slovenia (2019–2022) to critically examine how military families are perceived and constructed within broader sociocultural and institutional frameworks. Using perspectives from family studies, military sociology, defense studies, and critical military theory, the study investigates whether these perceptions continue to reproduce the traditional binary logic that positions the family as a feminized, private domain and the military as a masculinized, public domain, or whether late modern discourses have begun to disrupt these dichotomies. The analysis focuses on the intersection of gender roles, family practices, parental responsibilities, and the symbolic and practical meanings ascribed to the notion of the “military family.” We used a reflexive approach to thematic analysis, combining qualitative interviews with young adults (aged > 18) who grew up in military families (14 participants), interviews with military and civilian experts (41 participants), survey data from service members, their spouses, and civilian respondents (411 and 125 open-ended responses from separate surveys). Findings reveal significant differences in how military families are understood and experienced. More critically, the study highlights how military institutional power and its greediness extend into the familial realm, not only through logistical demands, but also through the normalization of military values, hierarchical gendered expectations, and parenting practices.

1. Introduction: Military Families in Slovenia Between Modernity and Late Modernity

In our discussion of the experiences and perceptions of Slovenian military families, we engage with and challenge the traditional view of the family as a female domain (e.g., Finch and Groves 1983; Hrženjak 2007; Hanlon and Lynch 2011) and the military as a masculine domain (e.g., Segal 1995; Carreiras 2006) by examining gender roles, family practices, parental roles, and the meanings ascribed to the military family. We analyze military families through the concept of the “dual-career family” (Rapoport and Rapoport 1969), as opposed to the breadwinner model, which is rooted in women’s economic dependence on men. Furthermore, we build our theoretical framework on the concept of “greedy institutions” (Coser 1974; Segal 1986; Vuga Beršnak and Juvan 2013), which refers to organizations that demand extensive time, loyalty, and emotional commitment from their employees—in the military, primarily, though not exclusively, men. With the implementation of gender equality plans and the opening of the military to women, the structure is changing, as is the nature of demands, which are now, as in any other organization, also defined by gender (see also Acker 2006). This phenomenon is particularly salient in the context of dual-career military families, where the demands of military service often create significant pressures for both partners. This institutional avarice appears not only in workload but also in the perpetuation of power asymmetries within family structures. As a highly institutionalized and hierarchical organization, the military exercises a form of social power that extends beyond the individual service member and affects the entire family through its authority, discipline, and value system. This indirect impact on family dynamics, gender roles, and the distribution of emotional and organizational labor is a key aspect of its influence. Military families’ everyday life is shaped by a strong institutional framework that legitimizes hierarchy, obedience, and sacrifice. These values can permeate private relationships and sustain unequal divisions of power and responsibility. In late modern societies, where dual-career and egalitarian ideals are increasingly the norm, such entrenched power relations present challenges to achieving genuine equality within military families. This institutional intervention has far-reaching implications for the relationship between the military and the family, from everyday negotiations of caregiving and household responsibilities to the ultimate expectation of personal sacrifice, even of life, for the state.

Nevertheless, military families are undoubtedly subject to social changes and circumstances (Moelker et al. 2019; Jelušič et al. 2020), and new forms of families are also found in the military, highlighting new aspects of reconciling military and family life (Kasearu et al. 2020; Strader and Smith 2022). Military families are not a monolithic social category but are shaped by various objective and subjective factors, primarily by the different socio-demographic characteristics and material circumstances in which they live. In this sense, they also confront the same challenges as civilian families (Trail et al. 2017). Heiselberg (2023) discusses the concept of the “military family,” noting that this category is often perceived as homogeneous and static. Heiselberg emphasizes the importance of situating analyses within the broader social and cultural context to understand how military service shapes family life, arguing that the notion of the “military family” should not be treated as a fixed analytical category; rather, careful attention must be paid to the wider social and cultural frameworks that define what it means to be a military family in a particular time and place.

This also means that the employment of one or both spouses in the military is not the only dimension that specifically defines a military family, making it even more important to examine family practices, family relationships, subjective experiences, and perceptions of the family. In this context, we could expect rather late-modern and progressive perceptions and views of family life, and our intention was to research whether this holds true for military families as well.

Furthermore, we discuss how perceptions of the military family can reveal the integration of military power into family life. We examine parenting and perceptions of child well-being through the lens of reverse transition—specifically, the shift from prioritizing military service to focusing on family life, work-family balance, parenting, and other soft (non-masculine, non-combat warrior (more about combat masculin warrior in Dunivin 1994)) characteristics. In addition, we analyze the subtle presence of military values and their spillover into the family (e.g., strictness, obedience, hierarchical communication), as well as the spillover of military work into the family (e.g., the military’s greediness surpasses the family’s greediness) and the difficulty in drawing a clear boundary between work (military) and family (e.g., the perception that the military family is, in fact, the military).

Embedding Military Families Within the Slovenian Context

To critically examine the lived experiences of Slovenian military families and their positioning vis-à-vis the military organization, it is essential to situate them within their specific historical, political, and institutional contexts. This includes examining how national policies, the postsocialist legacy, and broader security discourses shape the symbolic labor of military families.

Slovenia, as a small country with armed forces corresponding to its size, has adopted an occupational (Moskos 1986), professional model. Slovenia abolished conscription more than 20 years ago and invested in professionalization, transforming its military into an all-volunteer force.

Slovenian legislation defines the military family as a nuclear family, limited to spouses (whether married or not, including—although not explicitly mentioned—same-sex partnerships) and children (biological, adopted, or stepchildren) (Slovenian Military Service Act 2007, Article 76). Extended (multi-generational) family members, such as service members’ parents, are not defined as part of the military family. Military families are referenced in legislation in connection with financial reimbursements, funeral expenses, and pensions for the spouse and children in the event of a service member’s death while on duty. In addition, families can access psychological support during various phases of deployment and religious support at any time. Some sports and leisure activities are organized for families, and service members can apply for housing or holiday accommodations through the Ministry of Defence, both provided at prices well below market rates. Additional financial support is offered to families of service members who occupy a post abroad in peacetime. Another specific characteristic of military families in Slovenia is their housing, as they do not live in barracks or military communities. Typically, service members commute daily to their posts within Slovenia, while families rarely move and are therefore strongly integrated into civilian support networks rather than military ones, unlike in some other armed forces (e.g., US) (Vuga Beršnak et al. 2023).

An important institutional context shaping the experiences of military families in Slovenia is women’s employment. Slovenia has one of the highest full-time employment rates for women in the EU, including a high employment rate among women with pre-school-aged children, and service members’ non-military spouses are no exception (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia n.d.). The gender ratio in the SAF is becoming more balanced, with women now representing almost one-fifth of service members (Brožič and Pešec 2017). Both genders are allowed to join all units of the Slovenian Armed Forces and Slovenian Armed Forces had a female general as Chief of the General Staff, making Slovenia the first NATO country with a woman as head of the armed forces. The gender ratio is important when discussing the notion of a military family, as it reflects a high number of mothers, not only fathers. Achieving gender balance in the military introduces new tensions between these two greedy institutions, highlighting the tradition of full-time employment among women in Slovenia. The socialist legacy of extensive and affordable public networks for subsidized, high-quality childcare and fully paid maternal and parental leave was maintained even after independence (Humer 2018). In this context, it is essential to acknowledge the gender-specific characteristics present in the sphere of work. This approach departs from the abstract male worker concept, which assumes an absence of care responsibilities in family life and observes the equality in work as well as at home (Acker 1990, 2006). A significant issue arises when considering Slovenian military families. The full-time employment of non-military spouses may conflict with the demands of the military, which relies on the non-military spouse (typically the woman) to assume caring responsibilities for children or elderly relatives, household chores, school commitments, and other duties, while the service member is devoted to service to the homeland and often earns more than the civilian spouse.

We can identify the following key characteristics of military and the state in Slovenia specifically relevant for this paper: (a) Noncombat deployments; (b) Private civilian housing for military families with a strong attachment to the civilian safety network and a very weak attachment to the military; (c) The welfare state offering various types of support to all citizens which diminishes the power of the military over the military family (e.g., publicly available childcare, public and free education from primary school to higher education, a public healthcare system, various family and social support measures); (d) The full-time employment of service members’ non-military spouses reduces their support role within the military family; (e) Well-developed kinship networks, especially including grandparents, which provide important support on a daily basis.

To sum up, as far as the characteristics of families and family life are concerned, Slovenia can be placed among Western countries experiencing significant late-modern social changes in demographic and family trends (Švab et al. 2012). There are also notable changes in intra-family dynamics in everyday life, including a more equal division of family responsibilities, increased paternal involvement in childcare and other family chores, as well as more democratic parent–child and spousal relationships. A specific characteristic of Slovenian society is the presence of well-developed kinship support networks and strong intergenerational family cohesion, especially between grandparents, their adult children, and grandchildren (Rener et al. 2006; Švab et al. 2012).

This article examines the meanings attached to the military family in both civilian and military contexts, and how these relate to late modern changes in family structures, as well as issues of masculinity and power relations. We expected to establish differences between the civilian and military samples, as well as between military personnel and their spouses. We assumed that perceptions of pressures related to balancing work and family life would be especially evident among the spouses of military personnel, and that the greediness of both institutions would also be reflected. Conversely, we expected that the employment of female spouses would contribute to a lower level of traditional orientation but instead found more late-modern and progressive perceptions and views of family life.

This study aims to explore the meanings attributed to the concept of the military family by service members, their spouses, children, and the civilian public. We sought to answer the central research question: What is a military family and what meanings do members of the armed forces, their spouses, children and the civilian public attach to the military family?

2. Materials and Methods

This is the first study to systematically examine Slovenian military families (service members, spouses, and civilians) using both qualitative and quantitative methods for comparison and to improve the understanding of the concept. Furthermore, this study integrates research perspectives from different fields (defense studies, military sociology, and social psychology) and applies various concepts in interpreting the results (such as family studies, military studies, and military sociology). The perceptions of the military family were explored throughout the research project and a constructivist paradigm along with open-ended questions about perceptions of the military family was adopted, namely: “Please share with us what you think of when you hear the term military family”; “Who do you think constitutes a military family?”; “What does the term military family mean to you?”.

The data collected from the interviews and open-ended survey responses were coded thematically according to standard principles of qualitative data analysis (Gibbs 2009; Saldana 2013; Braun and Clarke 2021), through which we identified recurring patterns of meaning (themes). The process involved several steps, from initial open coding to developing higher-order themes that address the research question. In our coding, we applied a reflexive approach to thematic analysis, as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2021). This approach emphasizes the interpretive nature of qualitative research and considers reliability a matter of transparency, reflexivity, and consistency, rather than strict coder agreement. To enhance reliability, we implemented the following strategies:

• Immersive data familiarization: Three members of the research team engaged deeply with the data through multiple readings to ensure a comprehensive understanding and to identify initial patterns.
• Transparent and iterative coding: Codes were developed inductively from the data and refined throughout the analysis. This iterative approach allowed for flexibility and responsiveness to the data.
• Collaborative reflexive discussions: The research team held regular discussions to reflect on coding decisions, challenge interpretations, and ensure consistency. These discussions were intended to enhance the depth and rigor of the analysis, not to achieve consensus.
• Documentation of analytical decisions: Detailed records were maintained of coding decisions, including the rationale for code development and modifications, to ensure transparency and traceability.

By focusing on these practices, we aligned with Braun and Clarke’s (2021) emphasis on a reflexive approach to thematic analysis, which prioritizes the researcher’s engagement with the data and the interpretive process over traditional measures of reliability, such as inter-coder agreement.

Sampling

For the quantitative survey, we opted for a quota sample based on family status and gender. The military sample for the interviews and the survey was recruited with the official assistance of the Slovenian Armed Forces and through our own channels. Service members shared the survey with their spouses. The civilian sample was reached with the help of an external survey agency, following the same approach as in the military sample (quota sampling by family status and gender). For the sample of adult children (over 18) who grew up in military families, we used the snowball method. Interviews were conducted in person before and after the pandemic, and online, via tools such as Zoom, during the pandemic. Respondents signed an anonymous consent form, and the survey procedures ensured their anonymity.

The following samples were included in the analysis: (a) 41 semi-structured expert interviews with SAF service members (in the fields of psychology, human resources, religious support, comprehensive care for service members, etc.) and civilian experts (in the fields of social work, education and care, psychological help, police, etc.); (b) a sample of 125 service members and spouses surveyed during the pandemic; (c) a sample of 14 young adults from military families who participated in in-depth explanatory interviews; and (d) a sample of SAF service members, their spouses, and a civilian sample in a quantitative survey. The total survey sample size is 893 respondents, of which 411 answered the open-ended question: 249 of all open-ended answers analyzed were from service members, 396 from the civilian sample, and 62 from spouses.

To observe interfamily and partnership dynamics indirectly, we selected survey variables that reveal internal family dynamics, intimate partnership satisfaction, division of family roles, parenting styles, and well-being. We observed differences among all three samples and both genders. The analyzed data was obtained through the survey, and the following scales and questions were applied:

• Intimate partnership satisfaction (Couple Satisfaction Index by Funk and Rogge (2007)).
• How would you assess the division of domestic responsibilities between you and your spouse (I take care of the majority of tasks, my spouse takes care of the majority of tasks, we both take care of tasks equally)? (Our own measure by Vuga Beršnak et al. (2023)).
• How would you assess the division of caring responsibilities between you and your spouse (I take on the majority of caring responsibilities, my spouse takes on the majority of caring responsibilities, we both do it equally)? (Our own measure by Vuga Beršnak et al. (2023)).
• Child’s well-being (KINDL by (Ravens-Sieberer and Bullinger 1998a, 1998b)).
• Parenting young children (PARYC) (McEachern et al. 2012), Parental Emotion Regulation Inventory (PERI) (Lorber 2012), and Parental Stress (Berry and Jones 1995).

3. Results

Based on the coded answers, we defined that the military family is perceived through its structural definition, dynamics, practices, functions, and characteristics. The analysis identifies five interrelated themes that clarify the symbolic and practical meanings, greediness, dynamics of masculinity and power within Slovenian military families. The following five areas require consideration: 1. Symbolic and practical meanings ascribed to the notion of the “military family”; 2. The manifestation of institutional military power through gendered divisions of labor and family roles; 3. Institutional family support as a mechanism of soft control; 4. Authority, order, and obedience as internalized values in children’s narratives of military family life; 5. The impact of “militarized” parenting styles on children’s well-being and emotional development.

3.1. Symbolic and Practical Meanings Ascribed to the Notion of the “Military Family”

Findings indicate considerable differences in the perception of the military family in civilian and military samples.

There is no significant difference in how men and women in the civilian sample perceive the military family. Both groups typically understand the military family in structural terms, meaning that one parent (usually the father) is employed by the military. An equally common interpretation involves military values and internal family dynamics, particularly attitudes toward children. They view the military family through concepts of discipline and order, projecting traditional military values—such as discipline and obedience—onto family relationships and interpreting the military family through the lens of the military itself. In addition to discipline and order, the military family is associated with strict child-rearing. Some responses include phrases like “it’s terrible,” “violence,” and “being apart from family,” indicating that civilian respondents recognize frequent absences and their impact on the family. We observed a stereotypical understanding of the military family among respondents in the civilian sample, as reflected in their descriptions: “military families live in barracks,” and “they have to move frequently due to military demands,” among others. These perceptions are clearly influenced by media representations, especially from US films, and do not apply to Slovenian military families, who live in civilian environments. Additionally, no positive characteristics were attributed to military families in the civilian sample’s perceptions. The conceptualization ranges from a structural understanding—“a family member or several members employed by the military”—to values and a lifestyle that view the family as obedient, characterized by discipline and order, with strict child-rearing practices.

The respondents from the military sample, on the other hand, recognize other characteristics of the military family. They understand it as a family that must compromise and subordinate itself to the demands of military work, give up many things, abandon plans, and is less free than a civilian family. Therefore, they emphasize the greediness in the relationship between the military and the family. The men in the military sample also view the military family as “comrades,” “work,” and a “way of life,” and thus see the military as their military family. Some interpret the military family as one in which both parents are employed in the military. We also observe a correlation between the concept of military family and values such as “pride,” “belonging to the military,” “doing something good,” “loyalty,” and “compassion.” Among the women in the military sample, although only a few responded to this question, the predominant role of women as caregivers emerges. They discuss challenges in balancing work and family and mention their children, as in “me and my daughter” and “problems with childcare.” Male service members do not mention these issues.

In the sample of spouses, a military family is defined as a family in which one member is employed in the military. Discipline and hierarchy were recognized by the male spouses, which is notable because it indicates that female service members bring military values and routines into the family. This challenges the stereotypical association of certain traits with specific genders, such as the belief that women are gentle while men are strict and demand order and discipline. It also reveals a family dynamic that differs from the traditional military family structure, typically characterized by a male service member and a female spouse. Conversely, female non-military spouses view the military family as a pillar and source of support for the service members.

These responses indicate that perceptions of military families differ significantly between civilian and military groups. Civilians in Slovenia have very limited knowledge of military life, which allows for stereotypical views likely based mainly on foreign media portrayals and lingering traditional perceptions from the former Yugoslav army.

The thematic analysis initially revealed distinct yet interconnected perceptions of military families. First, there is a structural understanding that aligns with the institutional definition. Second, military life is seen as a way of life that differs significantly from civilian life, characterized by frequent, long-term absences and deployments. Third, the analysis highlights the demanding nature of military service and the heavy burden placed on the spouse or parent who remains at home during deployments. Fourth, patriotism and values—such as pride and contributing to the country—are identified among servicemembers, spouses, and adult children, but not among civilians. Fifth, the civilian sample expresses strong perceptions of military masculinity, which are also evident within military families (for example, the stereotypical view of the military as strict, violent, and ineffective at communicating). Sixth, there is an attribution of familial characteristics to the institution, with the military being seen as a family. Seventh, a significant proportion of respondents view military families as ordinary families and perceive no difference between them and other families.

Thematic analysis of interviews reveals that, although experiences of military family life vary, they are shaped by a common institutional logic that extends the military’s normative power into the private sphere. These findings emphasize the pivotal role of the military family in a broader sociopolitical context. Military families serve not only as a crucial support system for service members but also as a key site for the reproduction of military ideologies, particularly those related to authority, gender, and control.

3.2. Manifestation of the Institutional Military Power and Masculinity in the Family

The military institution can shape family dynamics and gender roles, reinforcing state power through the militarization of intimate life. As a greedy institution that surpasses the greediness of the family, the military can influence or even dictate micro-level family dynamics. The spillover of military masculinity into Slovenian military families can be discussed using quantitative data from samples of service members and their spouses, compared to a civilian sample. To observe internal family dynamics, we begin with intimate partnership satisfaction (Vuga Beršnak et al. 2023). The data for the military sample are notable, although the differences are not statistically significant, because they show that male service members are more satisfied with their intimate relationships than female service members. In the spouses’ sample, female spouses report higher satisfaction than male spouses. Regression analysis confirms that in the spouse sample, satisfaction with the intimate relationship is affected by gender. Taken together, these data indicate that couples in which the male is employed by the SAF report higher levels of relationship satisfaction than couples in which the female is employed by the SAF. This suggests the influence of masculinized expectations of gender roles and positions in the military family on the intimate partnership. The reported satisfaction with the intimate partnership highlights satisfaction with the traditional heteronormative family structure and the masculine military culture, which emphasizes the dominant role of the male service members and the supporting role of the female non-military spouse.

Regarding the division of domestic responsibilities, we found differences between the civilian and military samples. In the civilian sample, among men, an equal proportion of respondents believe that most household responsibilities are either shared equally by both spouses (46%) or handled primarily by the female spouse (46%). Among women in the civilian sample, one third (37%) believe that domestic responsibilities are shared equally, while two thirds believe they themselves take on most duties.

In the military sample, 56% of male service members believe that domestic responsibilities are shared equally between both spouses, while 40% see the female spouse as having the leading role. Almost half (48%) of female service members believe that domestic responsibilities are shared equally, 10% attribute the leading role to their male spouse, and 41% claim they are mainly responsible for household responsibilities. In this case, the demands of the military do not outweigh the greediness of the family. There is a lack of a support network for female service members, as they, being service members, must take on a similar burden as non-military female spouses due to their roles as women and mothers. It is not only the military that continues to embrace traditional gender roles, but perhaps society.

The sample of spouses is perhaps the most interesting, as 0% of non-military male spouses believe that female service members take on most domestic responsibilities. Seventy percent believe that domestic responsibilities are shared equally between both spouses, while the remaining 30% believe they play the main role. In contrast, 63% of female spouses state that they take care of most domestic responsibilities, while 35% believe the responsibilities are shared equally. We have also analyzed data on caring responsibilities, such as taking children to after-school activities, helping with homework, and playing with them. Almost half of the men in the civilian sample believe these responsibilities are equally shared, while 37% believe most tasks are performed by the female spouse. Almost half of female civilians believe they are the main carer or that both spouses share the responsibilities equally.

Just over half (51%) of male service members state that the female spouse is the primary carer, while slightly fewer (45%) believe the responsibility is shared equally. Sixty percent of female service members say that caring responsibilities are shared equally, a quarter (25%) believe they are the main carer, and 15% see their male spouse as the main carer.

The analysis indicates that female service members are less likely than their male counterparts to be relieved of family responsibilities, but they are rarely the primary caregiver. The safety network and support system are predominantly used by male service members. Female civilian spouses show a much greater commitment to domestic duties (51%) compared to male civilian spouses (15%). However, male civilian spouses demonstrate a higher level of commitment than either their civilian counterparts or male service members. This suggests that the demands of the military organization, the influence of military masculinity on the family, and the traditional distribution of roles are linked to the specific characteristics of the military organization and societal expectations regarding gender roles.

Nonetheless, the division of domestic responsibilities may indicate a shift to a late modern family dynamic in which men, including service members, assume certain duties, and women, as civilian spouses, are no longer viewed as the sole supporters and pillars of the military family. This could be an important message for the military, as it can no longer rely on the full support of spouses and entire families to achieve its operational goals.

3.3. Institutional Family Support as a Mechanism of Control

Certain militaries, such as the US, provide various support measures for military families, as these can serve as control mechanisms and improve the commitment, dedication to duty, and performance of service members who know their families are cared for. However, the defensive character of the Slovenian armed forces and the socialist legacy of the welfare state, with strong public networks and support measures at various levels for all citizens, limit the military’s influence over military families. This, along with earlier studies (e.g., Vuga Beršnak et al. 2023), shows that Slovenian legislation does not provide much support for military families. Instead, the limited support available is focused on service members, while military families are left out.

The interviewed service members and spouses confirm these findings, reporting that the military organization provides little support to family members and that families must rely mainly on their immediate and extended family, grandparents, and friends. This supports our initial idea that broader family support networks play an important role in everyday military family life as a Slovenian specificity, especially during deployments.

Findings suggest that the SAF does not recognize support for military families as a mechanism to control and strengthen soldiers’ commitment and effectiveness, which may also be partly due to the institutional and historical framework in which the SAF operates, as described in the introduction.

3.4. Authority, Order and Obedience: Children’s View on Military Families

When asked about their childhood upbringing, respondents (young adults who grew up in military families) generally expressed strong, clear, and emotionally charged views. This finding highlights the importance placed on upbringing in military families. Most noted differences between their upbringing and that of civilian families, often through comparisons with their peers. Many described their upbringing as “military,” “strict,” and “authoritarian,” with parents setting clear rules and boundaries that always had to be followed: “Very strict. I mean, we sometimes jokingly say it was a military upbringing, but we also think it was the truth. So, we were brought up very, very strict. In the beginning, I did not even notice a difference from the other kids, but maybe it became more obvious when I, let’s say, hit puberty. I noticed over the years that maybe I am a little bit different, but also that I am a little bit more restricted by my parents than other kids are.” The decision-making process revealed a sense of democracy in military families, but often only up to the point where everyone agreed with the father (the service member): “We were all involved in the decisions. If there was a dilemma, my father’s word was final.”

Many interviewees also mentioned the importance of authority and the unquestionability of parents’ orders or decisions: “In parenting, maybe in the way we react to certain things, the way we react to authority, funny things like when someone says to me, ‘Now we have to go!’ I go and ask why later. Because I found out through my partners that most people do not do that and ask why first.” (I7). “My father was very authoritarian. If he said something, it had to be exactly like that. It is more like an old-fashioned upbringing, and everything must follow certain rules in certain situations. Maybe if you have a father in the army, it is always like that; it is just that kind of situation.”

Some also noted a pronounced family hierarchy with clearly defined, non-negotiable roles: “The older I get, the more I notice in this upbringing a real sense of strictness and respect, a hierarchy—a family hierarchy. There is a strict separation of what the mother is, what the father is, and what the children are, as well as which are the older children, and which is the younger child.”

An important aspect of the upbringing experienced by children in military families was the emphasis on discipline, order, and organization: “There was discipline; if something went wrong, it was quickly pointed out and had to be corrected.” However, as some interviewees noted in retrospect, they believe such discipline led to self-discipline in the long term and view it very positively: “Basically, the upbringing was very much like that—I would say military. Very militarily organized, a very different attitude; in military families, there is more respect than in other families. If the father says so, that is how it is. I never complain; I have everything disciplined, everything organized. Those who never had a somewhat stricter upbringing, I think, do not have that.”

“The military lifestyle is very specific, and I think that because a certain order and discipline are expected of soldiers in the army, my father expected the same from me. It was a rather strict upbringing: if you said you were going to do something, like study to get good grades, then you could go to a party at night. I always followed through on those things because his approach was different from that of other parents, and when we agreed on something, I took it seriously. So, overall, it was all positive.” In some cases, however, children were overwhelmed by these expectations and could not use them to their advantage: “I often felt under pressure, I don’t know, that everything had to be done perfectly.”

Another important aspect of education in military families, frequently mentioned by the interviewees, is teaching children to respect others and act fairly: “I was raised on the principle that if you are nice to people, people will be nice to you. Kindness begets kindness. Try to be as respectful as possible, look at things from other points of view, and consider how I’d feel in that situation.” “I remember as a child I received a lot of support from my parents to make my own decisions, and they supported me in whatever those decisions were. They also showed me what was right and wrong, that I was not like that, that I was fair to others, that I was able to feel empathy for others, and that I became a team player.”

An essential part of this attitude was the emphasis on developing work habits and helping with housework, especially compared to their peers. “We [siblings] help out a lot, from chores to technical things, just because we grew up with a lot of it, maybe with a military touch.” “We [my father and I] did a lot together, always everything around the house. We did a lot together, whereas in other families the parents were working outside, and the kids were inside on the computer. I basically helped with everything. That is also a way of parenting, a way of preparing you for certain work habits. That kind of education, getting into certain work habits, really helped me a lot. I have seen it now in my student life when I took different jobs in student services. Everywhere I went, they were happy with me.”

Interviews with children revealed the transmission of military ideology, culture, and values—such as unquestioning respect for authority, adherence to predetermined rules, and masculine authority—into the intimate life of Slovenian military families. They showed the subtle mechanisms through which the military way of living and thinking is transmitted to upbringing patterns and influences children’s lives. But it also revealed that those children develop work habits, a sense of fairness and responsibility; they are goal- and achievement-oriented, which are values important for both society and individual success.

3.5. Well-Being of Children and Parenting Styles

We assessed various aspects of child well-being, including physical health, emotional well-being, self-esteem, family relationships, social aspects, and kindergarten satisfaction from the parental perspective. Results show that, overall, child well-being is rated more favorably in military families than in civilian families. However, there is a consistent trend across all groups indicating that parents assess teenagers’ well-being more negatively. Another important measure of family well-being is parental stress (Berry and Jones 1995). The results show significant differences between groups, with spouses reporting the highest levels of child-related stress. For example, 53% of spouses disagreed with the statement, “The major source of stress in my life is my child(ren),” compared with 70% of respondents in the civilian sample and 82% of service members. These differences may be particularly related to the unique circumstances of military families, where spouses are often left alone to care for the family when service members are deployed or attending training. Furthermore, the results suggest that service members are less burdened with childcare, even compared to civilian respondents.

Moreover, the findings suggest that service members are least concerned about their ability to “do enough for my child(ren),” as indicated by results from all three samples. These results are notable, as they portray service members as the most confident parents, while civilian families appear the least confident and most likely to doubt their parenting practices. This pattern is also supported by data on discipline methods. Specifically, we examined the use of physical and verbal discipline in military and civilian families. The Welch test indicates significant differences in discipline practices among the groups (p = 0.000). Overall, there are significant variations in discipline methods between civilian and military samples, with civilians reporting higher frequencies of both verbal and physical discipline compared to their military counterparts.

The PERI scale (Parental Emotion Regulation Inventory) (Lorber 2012) was used to measure parental responses to undesirable behavior, specifically laxness and overreactivity. There was no significant difference among the three samples in the laxness index. However, there is a statistically significant difference between the military and civilian samples (sig. = 0.011), with the level of overreactivity higher in the civilian sample and similar for service members and spouses, who share a similar parenting approach.

Results show that parenting style in all three samples is strict, with high expectations for children and an overreactive response to undesirable child behavior (even higher in the civilian sample). Additionally, the laxness and overreactivity indices for all samples show no differences between genders, challenging the stereotypes of mothers being more permissive and fathers stricter.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

This study has captured a wide range of perspectives on how military families in Slovenia experience and internalize their relationship with the military institution. We identified a significant difference in the perception of military families and the meanings ascribed to them between civilian and military populations. According to our findings, the military population also includes spouses, who seem to adopt the values and perceptions of service members. These include a sense of devotion, sacrifice, and doing good for the country and community, in contrast to civilian perceptions, which focus on hierarchy, dominance, obedience, and strictness. The empirical data suggest that parents in military families are unaware of the latent presence of military values in their parenting style; however, they are noticed and identified by adult children. Therefore, parenting styles and the lived experiences of children in military families illustrate how military power and hierarchy shape family relationships, especially between parents and children. It appears that children’s perceptions are somewhat closer to those of civilians than to those of service members and spouses. They feel the greed, demands and pressure of the military spilling over into family life. On the other hand, they report incorporating positive values such as responsibility, work habits, fairness, and goal orientation, which are important for society and their own success. We did not observe significant differences in perceptions between genders in either the civilian or military samples.

While our findings indicate that the Slovenian Armed Forces do not overtly use family support mechanisms as tools of latent control, particularly for personnel retention, this must be understood within the broader context of Slovenia’s legal framework, the SAF’s primarily defensive orientation, and the functions of the welfare state. These structural constraints limit the military’s capacity to formalize control over the family through institutionalized mechanisms, distinguishing the Slovenian case from more interventionist military systems. However, following the insights of Enloe (2000, 2015), we know that the absence of formal control does not imply the absence of power. Military power, like other forms of power, often operates subtly, not only through hierarchies but also through the normalization of certain gendered roles, values, and expectations, which Enloe calls the militarization of everyday life. This is especially evident in the symbolic construction of the military family. Civilian perceptions frame military families through values commonly attributed to the military institution, such as austerity, discipline, emotional stoicism, and obedience, while military discourses emphasize devotion, sacrifice, and self-reliance. These perceptions extend the reach of the military into the domestic sphere, shaping how military families are viewed in both civilian and military environments and how they see themselves.

From the standpoint of Foucault’s governmentality (Foucault 1977), such forms of power are exercised not through direct coercion but through the production of self-regulating subjects. In our data, military personnel and their typically female spouses often internalize and reproduce the military’s normative framework. This dynamic has been shown to result in the normalization of overburdening, emotional labor, and gendered inequality, precisely because spouses are not formally employed by the military. As Gray (2022) also observes, romantic love—particularly within the framework of the heteronormative family—and the invisible labor primarily performed by women are often idealized in Western cultures as the pinnacle of personal fulfillment, a role in which everyone is expected to willingly participate. Consequently, spouses in military families are positioned as a pillar for both their partners and, indirectly, the military itself. This support is motivated by love and expected to be given with gratitude. As argued by Higate (2003), military institutions rely not only on masculinized ideals of soldiering but also on feminized, emotionally demanding support structures that are invisible, unpaid, and distinct from those found in contemporary Western culture outside military life and expectations. This is consistent with Carreiras’s (2006) observations on gender integration and the persistence of patriarchal structures in military organizations. Despite formal steps toward gender equality, militaries often maintain traditional divisions of labor, framing women’s roles around support and care while men continue to occupy operational and command positions. Our findings reflect this dynamic at the institutional level in Slovenia, where the traditional subordination of the female family domain to the male military domain persists, particularly through the internalization of roles and values that are rarely questioned, even by those most affected. At the individual level, we observe changes as the proportion of female service members rises, women hold high positions, and the dual-earning model has become the norm. However, women still bear a greater burden of career and caregiving responsibilities compared to men. Thus, patriarchal structures remain present but are losing their power.

At the same time, we observe emerging cracks in this structure. Some families, partcularly those of younger generations, show signs of transitioning towards more egalitarian, late modern configurations. In these families, male service members increasingly take on caregiving responsibilities, participate actively in parenting, and challenge the stoic, emotionally detached model of military masculinity. This shift represents not merely a change in individual behavior, but a potential softening of the military’s institutional culture. This may signal a move towards a “demilitarized masculinity.” While traditionalists might view this as a “feminization” of the military, it could alternatively be seen as a reimagining of military identity to include care, emotional competence, and shared responsibility.

In conclusion, we can answer our research question, as we have identified a wide range of meanings ascribed to military family, from normative definitions to those deeply connected to values, sacrifice, cohesion, and camaraderie. Civilian perceptions of military families are much less emotional, more rational, and largely uninformed, reflecting a lack of basic understanding of the specific characteristics of military life. Furthermore, Slovenian military families embody the contradictions and tensions inherent in contemporary military and civilian everyday life. They reflect both the professionalization and defensive orientation of the SAF, as well as broader societal trends such as the dual-earner model, increasing gender equality, and the influence of civilian social networks. Undoubtedly, the broader institutional system of the welfare state, non-barracks logic, and the prevalence of civilian networks contribute to more progressive and democratic changes in family life that may spill over into the military and limit its power over the family. Whether adhering to more traditional norms or embracing more progressive roles, these families provide a critical lens through which to understand how military power, gender, and institutional ideology are reproduced and reconfigured in everyday life.