This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
No More "Don't Ask Don't Tell"
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Ok- cheap metal walls in the showers and a dose of everyone-calm-the-heck-down to be taken by all parties on all sides of this issue. If your only concern is the showering, I'm betting the fix will be cheaper than what it cost to put in female facilities in the boot camps when they started letting women train for combat. And then everyone should be happy except the die-hard homophobes. And really, no one cares when they're not happy.
Post by
gamerunknown
It's hard to see the other side as being
well-meaning
Well...
perhaps it boils down to
this
?
Post by
MyTie
Ok- cheap metal walls in the showers and a dose of everyone-calm-the-heck-down to be taken by all parties on all sides of this issue. If your only concern is the showering, I'm betting the fix will be cheaper than what it cost to put in female facilities in the boot camps when they started letting women train for combat.Maybe that would fix that problem. Expect that there will be other problems, though.And then everyone should be happy except the die-hard homophobes. And really, no one cares when they're not happy.Just because their position is unpopular and discriminatory doesn't mean that they should be ignored. They themselves present a very real problem. There is an anti gay atmosphere in a lot of the military that will create a lot of headache and problems for a while. The gay guy we had in our unit caught heat every single day. He didn't help himself be liked any better, by his confrontational attitude, so maybe that had something to do with it. However, the attitudes of die hard anti gays will be an issue all in itself, because there are a LOT of them in the military.
Post by
Heckler
Because people in the military are made uncomfortable by something, it shouldn't be dismissed because "that's life in the military".
I agree, not
everything
should. However,
some
things should, by that exact logic. The question is how to distinguish those that should be dismissed, and those that shouldn't. Example, you shouldn't be subjected to repetitive excessive sleep deprivation or damaging malnutrition. However, if you need to stay up for 30 hours once every couple months, or deal with Yankee Pot Roast (which usually had a weird green 'shine' to it) every day for 2 weeks, that's probably acceptable (or leave home for 6 months+ at a time).
The only two concrete examples you've provided (a handful of boot camp showers and an annual waist measurement) both seem silly, to me (especially compared to some of the things that
are
commonly dismissed as 'life in the military' norm). Again, they seem like demands for minor comforts in an environment where an expectation of even
normal
comfort is misplaced.
I don't disagree that the repeal of DADT will probably make some people uncomfortable, but an 8 month deployment also makes people uncomfortable. Converse to your statement -- just because people in the military are made uncomfortable by something isn't
necessarily
a reason to not do it (especially when the repealed policy was discriminatory).
You have stepped over into ridiculing, now. No one is asking for "perfect comfort" or "satin sheets". No one is so modest that they want to cover their "belly buttons".
Indeed, my statements were hyperbolic, because hyperbole serves a purpose. ^These expectations would be extremely silly, and it's not a huge stretch to place the two examples you've provided in the same category. "That's life in the military" actually
does
justify many of the military's discomforts.
Personally, I would have preferred stall dividers in boot camp showers irrespective of the sexual orientation of the other 9 guys in there. Sort of begs the question, if communal showers are rare elsewhere in the military, why are they present in boot camp? What purpose do they serve? I've never really thought about it, but maybe it's just another "breaking you down" measure to attack your modesty and expectation of privacy -- you don't even need to bring up sexual orientation to find an attack vector on that.
However, the attitudes of die hard anti gays will be an issue all in itself, because there are a LOT of them in the military.
Hopefully the repeal of DADT will bring a lot of their behavior to the surface where it can be dealt with appropriately, without the victim fearing punishment.
Post by
MyTie
Converse to your statement -- just because people in the military are made uncomfortable by something isn't
necessarily
a reason to not do it (especially when the repealed policy was discriminatory).I agree with this. It's a matter of subjective opinion as to where that line sits. Certainly, a reverse argument could be made for DADT. Perhaps just because gays were made uncomfortable by not being allowed to be openly gay was not a reason to repeal DADT. I'm not saying that is the case, but that 'line of comfort' sits somewhere in the middle. Who is the authority to define that line?I've never really thought about it, but maybe it's just another "breaking you down" measure to attack your modesty and expectation of privacy -- you don't even need to bring up sexual orientation to find an attack vector on that.I also agree with this.Hopefully the repeal of DADT will bring a lot of their behavior to the surface where it can be dealt with appropriately, without the victim fearing punishment.I agree with this as well, however it will be difficult to prosecute. How do you punish someone for not being nice to someone? You can't force people to change their opinions and attitudes, nor should you try.
I don't think these problems are insurmountable.
Post by
Heckler
You can't force people to change their opinions and attitudes, nor should you try.
When it has an adverse effect on the mission or the work environment you can at least punish them for that, and possibly convince them it's in their own best interest to change their own opinion. The amazingly vague language of the UCMJ allows a lot of room for arbitrary enforcement of just about anything (this of course could be just as much a bad thing as a good thing).
Post by
MyTie
You can't force people to change their opinions and attitudes, nor should you try.
When it has an adverse effect on the mission or the work environment you can at least punish them for that, and possibly convince them it's in their own best interest to change their own opinion. The amazingly vague language of the UCMJ allows a lot of room for arbitrary enforcement of just about anything (this of course could be just as much a bad thing as a good thing).
Yes, and while the UCMJ can allow for a lot of lateral movement in the punishment of people, it also requires a lot of levels of input before an actual punishment is implemented. I don't see the entire chain of command going after large swaths of people who don't like gay people. While that is possible, the reality is that gays are going to have a very difficult time integrating, with little help from the UCMJ.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Ok- cheap metal walls in the showers and a dose of everyone-calm-the-heck-down to be taken by all parties on all sides of this issue. If your only concern is the showering, I'm betting the fix will be cheaper than what it cost to put in female facilities in the boot camps when they started letting women train for combat.Maybe that would fix that problem. Expect that there will be other problems, though.And then everyone should be happy except the die-hard homophobes. And really, no one cares when they're not happy.Just because their position is unpopular and discriminatory doesn't mean that they should be ignored. They themselves present a very real problem. There is an anti gay atmosphere in a lot of the military that will create a lot of headache and problems for a while. The gay guy we had in our unit caught heat every single day. He didn't help himself be liked any better, by his confrontational attitude, so maybe that had something to do with it. However, the attitudes of die hard anti gays will be an issue all in itself, because there are a LOT of them in the military.
Actually, the fact that their opinion is discriminatory is EXACTLY the reason that we should ignore it. Not the danger it may represent, but the validity of it. You will NEVER get me to agree that we need to bow to the hate and ignorance of the masses, and that the road of least resistance is better even when it runs straight over the rights of the minority.
There was an anti- African American atmosphere in the military too, for years, and they had separate units and facilities. When they fought for more there were many incidents of the established white majority causing them problems. Do you think it's the fault of the black soldiers who wanted equal treatment? Did they deserve it when they were hazed, unfairly denied promotion, and alienated by their squadmates for being black? Should they have tried to "make themselves liked better" by trying to curry favor with the racists that were giving them a hard time? Should the military never have changed the segregation laws, since it caused an uproar among racists in military?
Every time that we have pushed past a racial, ethnic, religious or gender barrier for equal rights, we've done it with people kicking and screaming that it wasn't "right". And now, 10, 20, 40 years after, we as a country are embarassed that we ever had laws on the book to segregate races or left widows and orphaned daughters destitute when their fathers died because they weren't allowed to own property. We condemn other countries who still have opressed religious and ethnic minorities, or refuse to grant women equal rights. Over the last 60 years, we've made a lot of progress in destroying the barriers put up by racists and sexists, and recognizing that discrimination isn't right just because it's easy or it's been in place for a long time.
So, yes- I expect people who have an issue with this to make problems for gay soldiers who will be the first to come out. I expect many of them will be harassed, and some will be harmed. And they expect it too. And they'd rather risk it, I expect, then live under an official sanction that says they have to hide who they are to serve. Otherwise, they wouldn't come out.
I have very little respect for hate, and intolerance. To me it's a venom, based in a ignorance, and it leads to a lot of the things that are wrong with this world. To try and tiptoe around it is to give it validity, and we shouldn't. Equal rights are more important than popular opinion and doing what's fair is more important than doing what's easy.
And when you tell your story about the gay soldier, who's being harassed, and even suggest that he should have tried to make the guys like him better so that they wouldn't harass him, it means that on some level you're condoning what they did as, if not right, at least natural. It's like reading a story in the newspaper about a student who's gotten beat up for being a minority, and asking if he had tried to pacify the bullies ahead of time by making them like him. He shouldn't have to- if they're harassing him because they don't like what he is, they're in the wrong and he shouldn't have to kiss their hind ends to keep from ending up with a black eye, or being harassed constantly by nasty comments.
And that is why people react to your comments as though you're preaching discrimination- because there's a subtext there and a point of view that comes through in how you phrase things.
Post by
MyTie
@ElhonnaDS:
Let's back up for a second.
First, I never condoned people's discriminatory or prejudicial opinions. I'm simply indicating that they should be expected, and that it will cause problems.
Secondly, the gay guy that got a lot of heat back in my unit, I suspect got a lot of heat due to HIS CONFRONTATIONAL ATTITUDE, not due to the fact that he was gay. That doesn't mean I support giving a person heat, it just means that his heat may not have had to do with him being gay.
Don't try to read more into my opinions than there is. Particuarly, where did you get this: and even suggest that he should have tried to make the guys like him better so that they wouldn't harass him, it means that on some level you're condoning what they did as, if not right, at least naturaland this:You will NEVER get me to agree that we need to bow to the hate and ignorance of the masses, and that the road of least resistance is better even when it runs straight over the rights of the minority.I never gave any indication that either of these were the case. I'll quote what I said for your benefit: The gay guy we had in our unit caught heat every single day. He didn't help himself be liked any better, by his confrontational attitude, so maybe that had something to do with it.You'll see that I don't excuse the actions of those giving heat, but at the same time, point to his particular responsibility to be respectful to his peers, which he definitely wasn't. Here is the other part of what I said that I believe you are misunderstanding:the attitudes of die hard anti gays will be an issue all in itself, because there are a LOT of them in the military.Just because I feel that they will be an issue, doesn't mean I am siding with them. I'm just pointing to another problem that will exist.
Post by
xaratherus
While that is possible, the reality is that gays are going to have a very difficult time integrating, with little help from the UCMJ.
No more so than they would have had before. After all, there are quite likely tens of thousands of homosexuals serving in the military right now. With the repeal, they didn't all suddenly sprout pink triangles above their bunks. I'm not trying to be mocking with that - just using it to point out that in many cases you can't tell a heterosexual from a homosexual just by looking at them, and not all of them are in the habit of advertising their sexuality.
For many homosexuals in the military nothing will change - save that they won't have the constant additional threat hanging over their heads of discharge as an "undesirable" should they happen to leave a love letter from their partner on their bunk in view of someone with a grudge, or mention their partner's name in a casual conversation.
Post by
MyTie
While that is possible, the reality is that gays are going to have a very difficult time integrating, with little help from the UCMJ.
No more so than they would have had before.
I think many of you are assuming that I am using my points as reasons against the repeal of DADT. I've spent a few pages now explaining that, but I'll do it one more time:
I'm just pointing these things out as problems presented by the repeal of DADT. Nothing more, nothing less.
Post by
xaratherus
While that is possible, the reality is that gays are going to have a very difficult time integrating, with little help from the UCMJ.
No more so than they would have had before.
I think many of you are assuming that I am using my points as reasons against the repeal of DADT. I've spent a few pages now explaining that, but I'll do it one more time:
I'm just pointing these things out as problems presented by the repeal of DADT. Nothing more, nothing less.
I didn't mean to imply that. To be honest, whether or not you support the repeal or the reimplementation of DADT doesn't really mean that much to me, personally. Again, that isn't meant to be insulting to anyone.
However, you said that the
reality
of the situation was X; I was pointing out that I don't know that what you say is going to be true. It definitely could be
if
every gay serviceman and woman out there suddenly outed themselves to their units, but that isn't going to be the case, or it would be true if gays were not already serving in the military and now were allowed to sign up with the repeal, but neither of those scenarios is accurate to the reality of the situation.
And yes, I agree there will be some new problems for homosexuals who serve, but if it's true that the justice code used by the military fails to adequately handle those situations, then the code needs to be reviewed.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.