Please Don’t Tell!
Written by lilmike on January 4, 2009 – 3:32 pm -There used to be an old TV show that in its narration included the phrase, “there are 8 million stories in the naked city”, and I was trying to riff off of that to begin a piece on gays in the military, but I just couldn’t make it work. There are a million gays in the naked military? There are a million naked gay stories in the military? Naahh, this was not going anywhere.
But neither is this subject. Repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell will probably be a first 100 days agenda item for President Obama; at least the executive order part of it. Although no doubt the actual law (Public Law 103-160, Section 654, Title 10) will come up in the new Congress as well. Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher has already stated she plans to introduce legislation this year to repeal the law. So one way or another, DADT is going down.
But as to those stories, there are a lot of them. DADT policy creates a weird loophole that allows gays to serve, in violation of Public Law 103-160 which prohibits homosexuals from serving in the military, as long as they keep their gay shit quiet. This creates all sorts of ambiguity for the military, Commanders, and gay service people themselves.
Several years ago, there was an active duty Army unit that was turning over several items of equipment to a local Reserve unit. I was in the Reserve unit at the time and was part of the group being trained on the new hardware and software. Now I hate to pull out stereotypes, however they are a lot of fun and in this case accurate. Our trainer was a female Sergeant who just looked lesbian. At a distance, and close up for that matter, it was hard to tell if this was a dude or a chick. Needless to say, we waited on following the lead from other people in her unit before determining which pronoun to use.
Driving from one location to another, a bunch of us were in a car following hers, which was festooned with pink triangle, rainbow, and other assorted and like-minded bumper stickers.
“Ha! I knew it!”
“Know what?” replied my crusty old Warrant Officer.
“She’s gay!” I replied.
“Just because she seems kind of mannish? That’s not really fair.”
“No, because of all the gay bumper stickers.”
“Eh?” As far as following pop culture, and its various buttons, stickers, and icons, he had lost track shortly after the smiley face.
As we pulled up to the next training facility, he decided to trump me and my alleged bumper sticker lore. “I’m going to go ask her what those stickers mean.”
“No don’t!” said everyone in the car in unison. But he wouldn’t be deterred; he walked right up to her, ready to prove his point that I had no idea what those stickers meant.
“Hey, Sergeant, I was meaning to ask, but what do all of those bumper stickers on your car mean?”
Sergeant Deer-in-the-headlights froze and her eyes got big. “Uh… those are uh… about people, and uh human rights…”
“Thanks.” Replied the crusty old Warrant Officer. He turned to me and smiled all smug like. “Told ya.”
Later I was speaking with one of the other people in her unit. Yes, everyone knew she was gay, including the commander. How could they not considering her bumper sticker plastered car? But she was good at her job so everyone minded their own business. Someone doing temporary duty at the unit, a new arrival, or some meandering crusty old Warrant Officer could have blown that at any time though. No doubt that Sergeant thought her military career was in jeopardy the moment that Warrant started asking about her bumper stickers. That was probably not the only time she had one of those moments.
Not surprisingly, most of the time military people are cool about that. People know, and just don’t say anything. Sometimes people are actually protected. One time years ago, one of the guys in my unit was spotted by some off duty MPs kissing another dude in a downtown club. The MPs decided to report that to my unit’s security officer, wanting the kissing bandit’s security clearance pulled and his lips and all processed out of the military. After having to answer our security officer’s question of, “What were you doing in a gay club? (working security),” she promised she would take care of it and then promptly tossed the complaint in the garbage.
But what about “good order and discipline,” the standard answer for those who oppose openly gay people serving in the military? For people who have never served in the military or who served in the Air Force, it’s a meaningless statement meant to hide bigotry. But there are real issues that arise in having openly gay people serve in the military.
It certainly brings sexual harassment to a new level. At the post where I had advanced individual training, one of the girls in the class ahead of me would leer and make comments and gestures to the girls in the common shower area. This was relayed to me months later by someone who was subject to this almost daily display of abuse. “Why didn’t you just complain to someone about it?” I asked, using dreaded guy logic. “I just didn’t know what to say.” She replied. Harassment is a hard charge to make when the harassed is more embarrassed about it then the harasser. If there had been a naked guy coming into the female shower area, giving the old once over, the situation would have ended almost immediately.
And that’s part of barracks living, not college dorm living. I spend two and a half years living in a barracks showering in a common open shower area with half a dozen other guys. None of them were gay (that I knew of) but it would have made for an uncomfortable showering time if some of them had been openly gay.
These two lesbians walked into a bar… well actually it was their Company Commander’s office. Taking advantage of the open door policy, they met with the commander, and rather than just explaining that they wanted chaptered (discharged based on various military regulations) out, they proceeded to make out in front of the commander. Rather than freak out, the female commander got the message instantly. “OK got it, you want out. I’ll start the paperwork. Dismissed.” Of course the wheels of military bureaucracy turned slowly so they were not actually discharged for several months. In the meantime, they shared a room, their own lesbian love nest in the barracks. Policy for that unit was that sex was not allowed in the barracks. On the other hand, who else was comfortable with sharing a room with these two? And how would you enforce it?
By the way I knew both of these gals and neither one was hot.
Just thought I would toss that out there.
Being gay in the military is easy if, like the bumper stickered gay training Sergeant, you go home to your own place every night, and the personal is easily separated from the professional. Not so easy is showering together and living together. In many military situations, and I could probably say in most cases on the two major deployments we have going on right now, it’s a little more difficult.
Maintaining good order and discipline is not the worry of either the incoming President or the incoming Congress; politics is. But at the unit level where these policies have to be enforced, I expect Commanders, Sergeants Major, and First Sergeants are going to have their hands full dealing with openly gay service people in extremely cramped conditions where privacy is a luxury. Will it be no sex in the barracks, unless you are gay and sharing a room, or will there have to be special gay shower hours for open shower areas? Are you being harassed if you are straight and have to share a room with a gay guy, or is the gay guy being harassed by having to share a room with a straight guy? If two gay lovers can share a room; why not two straight ones? Would it be better for a male gay soldier and a female gay soldier to share a room?
Having worked along side gay soldiers I would hazard that most of the time it’s a non issue. But if I were responsible for implementing any policy for removing DADT I would prefer that it be handled the same way policies regarding female soldiers are handled, such as not be allowed to serve in low echelon combat arms units or being excluded from combat arms military occupational specialties. That would never happen of course. It will be all or nothing, and given the prevailing political winds, I would guess “all” over “nothing.”
It’s a lot easier for the military to handle gay military members (heh – I said handle members!) when they have an incentive to be in the closet. It will be a lot tougher when track lighting is installed in barracks rooms. So, follow the Milblogs. That’s where the real story will be told of how these policies will be implemented. Only the successes or clear examples of discrimination and bigotry will be in the main stream media. I expect some entertaining reading.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=d3ff4a94-8e19-4fdd-9a0e-2aba884b02a5)
Tags: DADT, Don't ask don't tell, gays in military
Posted in MucheDumbre | 30 Comments »
January 4th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
I understand your concerns, Mike, but I think we need to expect adults to behave like responsible adults.
I am thinking about the two service people who were part of the abu Ghraib photo scandal who were having an affair. They were straight and clearly having sex since she was pregnant – what is the difference in that and a couple of gay people getting together? I shouldn’t compare the two situations since the straight people included a man married to someone else.
I just don’t see it as a problem. maybe I’m naieve…Good article.
January 5th, 2009 at 2:16 am
great post Mike… but I don’t understand why you are making it so difficult?
are there flamboyant gays trying to get into the military or serving now that we just don’t see?
why can’t gays be like everyone else and be responsible and non-overbearing ppl..? you are making them out to something like Nathan Lane in the Birdcage
anyway..how about this…how about we don’t ask,don’t tell and let them serve just like everyone else as long as they follow the code of honor (not the sodomy one b/c you don’t fire dudes from doing it in their g/f’s butt), just like everyone else… and if they crash a plane or a hummer(ha), you don’t go looking to see if they’re gay so you can blame it on them..
“oh he’s gay, well now the wing flying off his plane for no reason makes sense..”
call it DADT + don’t punish just because…
and statistically speaking..someone in that shower with you during that time was gay.. ;) but you didn’t know it so there was no worries..
the sex harassment should be treated just like it would be if it was male/female…I’d venture to guess that that kind happens many many more times and is reported even less than gay harassment..what woman would want to be labeled as someone who’d complain about a little razzing? and you know the guys would think just that.. so does she, so she’s not going to say anything until it reaches a critical level..
also… where do they sleep or work? oh get over yourself…they sleep and work next to you everyday you just don’t know it… so the problem isn’t with them, it’s with you..you’re happy as long as you’re not aware…
what? do you think straight guys can’t rape or harass another straight guy or make him feel uncomfortable in some way?
you think the puny guy in the unti who is bullied by the ‘jock’ isn’t uncomfortable or made to feel ‘weird’ somehow?
it just seems you or whoever want to make it more than it needs to be…dude,K.I.S.S. keep it simple stupid… one rule for everyone… how much easier can it be?
with that said…I don’t like the idea of throwing away with DADT.. I think it’s a mistake… I think it works just fine until you use being gay as a blame for something or in some negative fashion..
January 6th, 2009 at 10:52 am
I think woozxyl kills their own argument. You anticipate everyone acting reasonably then point out the unreasonableness of one of the few actions of military personnel that made into the national consciousness.
It seems that ekg has had little experience with the military. The day that the DADT is ended, here will be Nathan Lanes parading around the barracks. No not more than a few percent of the serving gays, but enough to start trouble. Many in the military now do pretty stupid things that get them punished or kicked out. There is no reason to assume that everyone will begin acting with restraint and toleration just because the president is filled with hope.
Remember that most of the military consists of teenagers away from their sheltered environments for the first time. Both gays and straights suffer from insecurities and the need to impress that will lead them to do stupid things.
Things work fairly smoothly now because gays are constrained in their behavior for fear of expulsion and straights are kept in line by plausible deniability that their comrades in arms are ogling them and by strong regulations against harassment.
Eventually, things will reach a new equilibrium but only after a period of turmoil. New regs will be formulated to deal with the changes and attitudes will be adjusted just as they were when blacks and women were integrated into the services.
January 6th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
I’m uncomfortable taking showers in front of anyone, regardless of gender or sexual preference.
If straight men have such a problem with another man being gay I wonder why some of them snap each other in the ass with towels and engage in other behavior that to me, as a straight person, is disgusting and contains no humor.
I get that the military is special circumstances and that the same freedom one has in normal society does not extend to the armed forces. I always thought DADT was the most stupid thing that I ever heard.
Homosexuals are not predators who salivate at every same sex person they see, just like heteros don’t. I’m not sure what repealing DADT means but I think they should be allowed to serve.
If they are made fun of, that’s what they signed up for. If they are caught engaging in misbehavior they should suffer the consequences.
But if they are a reasonably mentally healthy person who knows how to conduct themselves as a service member, it shouldn’t be anyone’s business.
January 6th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
But if they are a reasonably mentally healthy person who knows how to conduct themselves as a service member, it shouldn’t be anyone’s business
Bingo..
January 6th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
As a 22 year veteran, I don’t really care that much if gays serve in the military.
But, if they did, how do you separate the four sexes? Should gay males be housed with hetero males? If so, why shouldn’t hetero males be housed with hetero females? Housing in the military means bathrooms (sometimes without stalls), common showers, and bunkmates. I’ve asked hetero females how they feel about the prospect of being housed with gay females or hetero males; the answer is a resounding “no way!” Women in any workplace are well aware of and dislike the glances of some men around them. That’s fully clothed in public. What if they were in private? In the shower? Sharing a bunk? The opportunities for sexual harrassment would be astronomical.
For myself, if my naked ass is going to rub up against another in a shower (yes, it’s happened), somehow deep inside I feel some comfort knowing the other guy isn’t gay (or, at least, isn’t advertising it).
Housing gays together brings up an additional concern for the military. The military does not like to house the opposite sex together because they don’t want barracks to become orgy centers, to have all the lovebirds, love triangles, and love spats destroy the cohesion and camaraderie that develops between people working toward a common goal. But housing gay men with gay men or gay women with gay women is akin to housing them with the opposite sex. How could the military maintain cohesion and camaraderie in such a circumstance?
These concerns need to be addressed. It seems that the people who are pro-open-homosexuality in the military are educated and mature. They fail to recognize that most of the world is not educated and mature and won’t behave as they would in such situations as described above.
Why is this coming up again? The last time it came up was in the infancy of the Clinton administration. The first week, in fact. At the time, 20,000 women were being raped every week in former Yugoslavia and the world was waiting for the position of the new administration on the war (many world leaders at the time said they would hold back their decisions on action against Serbia based on what Mr. Clinton had to say on the matter. 40, 000 more rapes occurred before Bill got around to an opinion – gays in the US military had to come first.) My point is; what does it matter? People are out of work and the country is being plunged in to debt that will destroy our economy. If my house were being destroyed by a hurricane I wouldn’t stop to straighten a picture on the wall.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:50 am
woozxyl wrote: “I think we need to expect adults to behave like responsible adults.
I am thinking about the two service people who were part of the abu Ghraib photo scandal who were having an affair. They were straight and clearly having sex since she was pregnant…”
These are people who are clearly not behaving like responsible adults, as should be clear with the words, “abu Ghraib photo scandal.” Were they, “responsible adults”? If they were, how could there have been a photo scandal in the first place? It sounds as if this relationship is noted by woozxyl as proof that men and women in the military have romantic relationships. It’s no secret. It happens all the time. The difference between those relationships and gays in the military (to address woozxyl’s question, “what is the difference in that and a couple of gay people getting together?”) is this man and woman were certainly not living together. If they were, how would he feel with 200 other men leering at her as she got undressed? Such a situation at “home” would create huge problems at “work” the next day. Group camaraderie and cohesion would be destroyed. Hence the problem of gays living with one-another. How would the military address that? Saying “gays should serve openly” may sound great, but how do you implement it?
The abu Ghraib incident is an excellent example of how people cannot behave like responsible adults. I think every crime or wrongdoing in the world would be eliminated if people would behave like responsible adults. The reality is, most people in the world cannot behave as mature adults. Cultures, criminal codes, and, in the military, rules prevent a breakdown of responsibility.
Gays serving openly in the military is not as simple as saying, “it’s the right thing to do.” It’s difficult and complicated to impose cultural rules on a society. The military has done it before, and before the civiliain world has; the military equivalent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was institued in 1950 (or 1951, sorry). Sexual harassment charges were mandated to be believed by the accuser in the mid-80’s. The civilian world still hasn’t caught up with that. However, gays serving openly in the military brings up more complicated problems of who lives with who and who offends who. In the civilain workplace, co-workers don’t sleep in the same room with one-another or use the same bathroom. It’s a very different dynamic. If co-workers in any given workplace were told they’d have to shower with their co-workers of the opposite sex, they’d revolt. It’s rare in society to find unisex toilets or showers. People don’t want it. So, how can it be so easy for the military to implement it?
January 7th, 2009 at 9:00 am
Wow. I don’t know who Pablo and nph are but…
Welcome to the new century. While you’re here, take your heads out of your respective asses and realize that gays have been in the military since Day 1.
The simple fact that your blinders are on so tight doesn’t deflect from the fact that both of your comments are purely homophobic, uneducated, and ignorant.
BTW – I spent many years in the military and have recently been classified as a “classic queen” by someone who thinks he knows everything. I was no different then…yet won many honors while in the military.
January 7th, 2009 at 9:03 am
great postings Pablo
but I can’t help but take the word ‘gay’ out of your argument and insert the word ‘black’ or ‘woman’ and wonder if back in the day,yours were pretty much the same argument against them for being housed with the white guys…or housed on bases period.
once again, whether they are gay women or men, why assume that they can’t contain themselve sexually like a hetero can when they see an attractive person. Are men and women looking at the opposite sex and turning into cats in heat all thru the military and we don’t know it?
is there a fear that one drunken night the navy may have to live thru the embarrassment of a ‘gay’ Tailhook? or is the Airborne Division afraid that they might have a unit of gay men who gang rape and murder the entire family of some young boy?
what I’m saying is, there is no shortage of hetero sexually dysfunction…so saying that we can’t have gays serving openly b/c of the possibilities of some sexual dysfunctions is a bad argument..
now, can heteros openly ‘date’ in the service? or do they have to do it in an ‘underground’ way? I have always thought it was the latter… if so, then why assume that gays who serve openly would have some kind of extra-privilege and be able to walk around base holding hands like a cpl of teenagers in love? besides that, why assume they’d be that stupid? Gay men or women in the service aren’t going to wear that badge with honor, they are going to hide it just like women harassed by men and weaker men harassed by alpha-males hide it..they aren’t going to want the label and the stigma attached to them…. but I am sure they don’t want to be thrown out of something they love and or are exceptionally good at just b/c they are gay..
it seems like it’s not the gay who are going to be the problem…it’s going to be the hetero’s who have the problem with the gays… well, I’m sorry but get over yourself..
the kind of flamboyance that I think the military is afraid of just isn’t going to happen… could imagine the drag queen passing all the tests and challenges they’d need to pass to get into the service? Do you really think if they somehow did, that kind of flamboyant homo would make it thru boot-camp? sure they may try at 1st, but they will find out that it’s actually hard work and either ring out,get thrown out or assimilate like the rebel hetero..
with all that said… DADT shouldn’t be revoked.. at the same time, someone shouldn’t be thrown out or punished if they are otherwise doing a great job, but are found,thru no fault of their own… to be gay
January 7th, 2009 at 11:59 am
In response to Howey, I know Pablo and neither he nor I are in the least homophobic. I realize that gays have served honorably in the military since the beginning of time. We served with gays that we considered friends and had no problem with them. If you’d read the postings we wrote, like the obviously homophillic, educated and nonignorant person you think you are, you’d understand that we’re not opposed to gays serving in the military.
The problem arises when people are forced to cohabitate. Yes, in most instances, both gays and straights can live and work together without conflicts. When you served in the military, I’m sure you didn’t flaunt your homosexuality in public areas. You maintained plausible, if effeminate, deniability.
You do gays a disservice by elevating them to saintly status. They are human and suffer from the same faults as heterosexuals. Many are discharged from the military under the current policy because they cannot restrain themselves. So are an equal percentage of heterosexuals for lack of restraint in other areas. To expect that everyone on both sides of the sexual divide will suddenly begin acting with restraint and respect is unrealistic.
New behavioral guidelines will have to be implemented to smooth the transition from DADT. How far will extreme (note that I said extreme) gay behavior be tolerated? If you’re sharing a room with three heterosexuals, can you put up nude male posters? Bear in mind that you cannot put up a nude female poster in any area that is accessible to females, much less in their living quarters. When you served, I’m sure that you tried very hard to make sure that you weren’t caught ogling a roommate. In an openly gay military, without the fear of being “outed” and discharged, would such restraint be evident? Will gays be ghettoized into separate living quarters by charges of harassment form their hetero comrades in arms? The definition of harassment in the current military is very all-encompassing.
Moving on to “ekg”: When blacks were integrated in the military in the fifties, there were many problems. It was not a smooth and peaceful process. I absolutely agree that it needed to be done and in no way regret that integration. When women were fully integrated in the military in the seventies, there were many problems with harassment and disrespect. Again, I agree with that action.
In answer to your question about dating, two service members can date if they are not in supervisor and subordinate positions. Officers can date officers, enlisted can date enlisted as long as they’re not in the each others’ chain of command. However, the daters don’t share quarters, showers and toilets. If you are housed with a pair of “dating” gays, you can’t just leave and go back to your own room. And what happens when the couple breaks up and they are still sleeping three feet from one another. Would you want to be forced to spend 24 hours a day with some of your ex-lovers? Would you want to be the person forced to live with the former couple?
I’ve merely been pointing out the problems that will have to addressed with the removal of the DADT policy. I assume that it will be changed and eventually the military will adjust. I am not opposed to this. All problems will not disappear. Blacks are still discriminated against by some and women are still harassed by some. The same will happen with gays. Society evolves slowly, but it does evolve.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Right on wph and Pablo. Howey, I was so disapointed to read what you wrote because it was obvious you didn’t read what they wrote. It was not anti-gay, but it WAS asking some good questions. Howey, do you think heterosexual men and women should live and shower together? No and for the same reason, nor should homosexual men and women.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
No, Christine. I read everything they wrote. And still disagree. What they are saying is expressing the fears of the heterosexual when facing an openly gay person. Sleeping in the same room together? That’s the same person who slept in the room before. Showering together? That’s the same person who showered with you before.
Of course, some thing will change. But should gays be housed separately. No more than when the blacks were.
Pablo may express his support of the repeal of DADT, but his fears are the same ones expressed by those who don’t support the repeal.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
One other thing. Why do you guys think that once that door’s opened, every gay man and woman in the military is coming out? That’s just one more silly and misguided assumption.
January 7th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
There are a lot of good comments to this discussion and I appreciate the thought put into the responses. In fact, I think just about any counterpoint I would have wanted to make has already been made. And of course, I am disappointed in Howey’s response. Not because I naturally disagree with him, but because he could potentially add much to this discussion but instead chooses to call anyone a homophobe who disagrees with him.
As I said in my blog, DADT is going down, one way or another. For some people that is the end of the issue, but implementing that is going to be difficult for the military. It’s not about civil rights; it’s about good order and discipline, and maintaining the functioning of military, which is not the same as a paper company. That’s why it’s so hard for people like ekg and woozy to see this as any different that a paper company having gay workers. Everybody does their job and at 5:00PM they leave the offices of Dunder Mifflin and go home to their own lives. There are even large swaths of the military in which that is true. Many in the military have 9-5 type jobs and the professional is easily separated from the personal.
If you truly believe that integrating open gays in the military is no different than a paper company, then you should also have no issue with men and women sharing toilet, showering facilities and living quarters. People will just be mature about that and be professional. Right?
All I was trying to point out was not that DADT shouldn’t be repealed, but that it will put a hardship on the force when it is. As Pablo pointed out, there will be four sexes to deal with. I’m not really familiar with any precedent for that situation so there will be a great deal of chaos for a while. It will degrade the force and be a drag on unit cohesion for a while.
January 7th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Allow me to clarify myself, Mike. I didn’t call either gentleman a homophobe and apologize if my comments were taken that way. What I meant was that the arguments they are using are the same ones being used by homophobes. Hope that helps.
January 7th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
So with the repeal potentially of DODT, that means they will in fact be in trouble and be booted from the military?
January 7th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
why would you think I would have a problem with men and women sharing the same facilities.. I really don’t have a problem with it at all.. I do however see where there could be some severe problems with it and that would be the only reason I wouldn’t recommend it..
and pablo.. “To expect that everyone on both sides of the sexual divide will suddenly begin acting with restraint and respect is unrealistic”
why… why is it unrealistic to think that these service members will act accordingly… and how am I being somehow naive b/c I wasn’t in the service so my expectations are just too high..
if ppl don’t act accordingly then they can be booted out.. end of story..why make it so difficult..
noone should be asking for special treatment here…one standard, one rule, one unit… setting up anything else creates a division that wwould kill any unity..
housing… why worry? they are housed the same way they are housed now and will either act accordingly or not.. if they don’t they get the boot, hetero or homo…. one standard..that goes for the hetero’s also, either they will act accordingly around the gay member of the unit or they can get the fuck out too..
Thank you for the answer on dating, I should have been more specific.. I meant, are they allowed public displays of affection on the base while on or off duty?
this is about the only issue when the gays would have to take a back seat on and be told that it just isn’t going to be tolerated… and here’s the thing..I think they know that… I truly don’t think we’re going to have a huge open closet door and all these fags stepping out with their lovers and rubbing it in..
and here’s the uneducated/homophobe part I think Howie was talking about… to assume otherwise, that all of a sudden all the ‘normal and sedate’ gays will turn openly flamboyant IS kinda homophobic… why not assume the status quo will be the norm… with a minor problem here and there but for the most part, these ppl know how to conduct themselves and either will accordingly to one set standard or they will just be booted the hell out…
what happens when two guys in the same unit date? well the new rule is no dating anyone in your unit..
so they date anyway and then break up and yes, they have to deal with the consequences… just like a hetero cpl on the same base would have too…will it be weird? sure… but no weirder than it would be if the were a hetero couple…
I’m not stupid and I don’t need to be an ex-service member to see where there could be some problems.. but I don’t think they will be on a level that is making you guys freak out..
what happens if they oogle you in the shower? that’s fear..or.. ‘homophobia’ sneaking it… are you that afraid with hetero’s looking at you in the shower? are you afraid of the stupid ‘frat boy’ shower playing that goes on when it’s all heteros?… once again you’re making gays out to be some kind of uncontainable sexual deviant who is going to drool and whip off to the hot bodies in the shower now that he can be openly gay…
I really do think alot of these arguments were the same exact arguments with Blacks and to a lesser degree women being integrated into the military… and I think years from now we’ll look back and wonder wtf the big deal was…
I think there will be some major problems at 1st…just like there were when blacks were housed with the white rednecks… but I think it will work itself out… are there issues that will need to be worked on? sure, but to sit there and put the onus on the gays is wrong… they’ve been serving,sleeping,eating,shitting,showering and dying right next to you since the beginning… just b/c yesterday they couldn’t admit to being gay and today they could isn’t going to change anything in them… for you maybe, but not them…
any rule segregating the gays is going to be the worst thing that has ever happened to the military IMO… and it’s going to set up some extremely massive problems and there’s going to be some pretty bad things happening to good ppl… but I think the “Old Boy’s Club” would want that exact stuff to happen so they can say “see, we told you”
there can’t be 2 sets of rules… there just can’t… one rule for all.. one standard for all…just treat them like anybody else….. it’s the only way this will work..
*BTW…you is not meant to be taken as a personal “YOU”… *
January 7th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Wow! I didn’t expect such a response! My comments even made Howey, who dislikes uneducated comments, riled up enough to say, “heads out of your asses.” It was just a short deviation from his education, I’m sure.
I think the only comment I made that could be considered homophobic would be “…if my naked ass is going to rub up against another in a shower…” Though, if women were forced to shower with several male co-workers but preferred not rub their naked asses on the men, would we call the women heterophobic, as if they were childish, silly, and uneducated? No, we’d respect their wishes. Men often aren’t allowed that consideration.
Recently, a male co-worker of mine, clearly not behaving like a responsible adult, told a female co-worker that he thought she was hot, the hottest woman at work, that she looks damn good in her jeans and those are his favorite pair of jeans that she has, and made several other comments on her body. This was made as she passed by him, as she had to do a hundred times a day in the normal course of her work. She and most women were offended by this. They also didn’t like the way he’d stand with another male, look at women, talk and smile as if they were checking them out. Women found it offensive. The company and all of the rest of the male co-workers agreed. Nobody told the women they were heterophobic or that they need to get their heads out of their asses. I discussed it with our corporate lawyer and he said that this is classic sexual harrassment and must not be tolerated in the workplace. If it came to a court case, no judge or jury would support the man in this case. No lawyer would take such a case. The idea that the behaivor is wrong is the opinion of all of society. However, it seems, if a man does not wish to be treated like this by a homosexual man, he is a homophobe. There is something wrong with him. He has his head up his ass.
I clearly stated that I don’t care if gays serve in the military. My concern is that if they serve openly, there are housing questions that need to be addressed. I have yet to read an answer to that concern on this blog. The military doesn’t have one.
Homophobe? Hmmn… My gay friends would laugh at that! If I were, I never would have agreed to room with my first Army roomate for 1.5 years who was gay and a good friend. I never would have agreed to room for five months with a gay servicemember at Goodfellow AFB. He, also, was a very good friend and we hung out together all the time and had lots of laughs together. Sometimes, he would go out alone and we both knew what he was doing but we never talked about it, and that was fine with us. Would it have mattered, in that case, if he were more open about his homosexuality? I don’t think so. We were both mature, responsible adults and allowed the other to live their lives as they pleased. For example, he never would have called me a homophobe; he knew I was a hetero and didn’t think that not accepting his gay lifestyle as my own made me a homophobe. I don’t think others in the military and the rest of society would have been as accepting.
ekg: Dating in the military is a good point to bring up. Currently, dating by heteros is accepted and dating by gays is not. I think would be a hard pill to swallow for the military, but it could be done. Note that it is only starting to be accepted in the civilian world. Homosexual dating would be much more obvious in the military where much of the “out of the office” time is actually spent with co-workers. In the civilain workplace it is easy for people to ignore what their gay co-workers do after they walk out the door because they won’t see them until the next day, when they’ll be at work and not on a date. Not so in the military; their homosexual dating would be right in the face of their co-workers, in their homes. Could all of society accept that if they had to with the simple passage of a law? I don’t think so. So, neither could the military. Does that make all of society homophobic? Uneducated? On the borderline of racism? (By taking out the word ‘gay’ and inserting black.) I say, yes, somewhat. Society is accepting homosexuality much more than it used to. But, societal changes are slow and can’t be mandated by law.
“Flamboyance” by gays will be a hard thing for the military to accept. It’s one thing to work with others and not talk about your sexuality nor not show it off in the workplace (after all, in most places one is expected to work), but, as wph stated, the problem comes with co-habitation. It’s a very different dynamic from the civilain workplace. In a way, in the military, the workplace extends into the home. Therefore, some of the expectations of the workplace are expected in the home. If it’s offensive in the workplace, it becomes offensive at home. Home being the barracks, the hotel room, the tent, the showers, the bathroom, etc. These become part of the workplace and what is considered an offense at work becomes an offense in these places, as well. One can’t treat a co-worker professionally during the day but at night tell the co-worker he has a nice ass. It’s not homophobia, it’s sexual harrassment.
My answer would be to create four sexes; gay male, hetero female, gay female, & hetero male in the military. It would be very difficult for the ogistically, but I don’t know of a better way to solve the co-habitation question if homosexuals were to serve openly. Comments, anyone?
January 7th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Comments, anyone?
yes… but not tonight.. tomorrow.. so rest your eyes LOL :)
January 7th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
You know, Iceman made a point that I just now got. If DADT is removed as a policy without a change in the underlying law,103-160, Section 654, Title 10, then the situation goes right back to what it was before the implementation of DADT: Homosexuals would not be allowed to server period.
Howey, you may have honestly not meant to call Pablo or wph homophobes, but you can hardly then say that they are using identical arguments from homophobes. Clearly it’s not the case. The arguments made were on practical nuts and bolts matters that are necessary for any lifting of resrictions on gay military servicemembers. You may not care about that, and you certianly didn’t care to address it, but those are real practical matters that exist in a military situation that doesn’t have a counterpart on the civilian side.
You should know that.
January 7th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
The reason that addressing this issue is not, “straightening pictures on a wall”, is that some of those dismissed, as mentioned in a news article today;were Arabic translators.
Putting aside my personal views on how our crumbling empire uses the military, we simply can’t afford to throw service members out based on prejudice.
I think we are a little over obsessed with showers and living quarters. It’s not that difficult. Misbehavior gets addressed.
January 8th, 2009 at 12:54 am
I don’t see the housing issue as a big deal. People of different cultures have to live together (HELLOOO – The Bronx and Biloxi??)and figure out how to cope.
Boys have to figure out places to sex up their girls now and I don’t imagine that is happening in the dorm where the other guys can see and hear. So boys wanting to sex up other boys should find the same solutions or get fucking reported.
Again, just behave like adults and follow the rules. Get rules of conduct in place and vigorously enforce them equitably (something the armed forces have needed for a long time) and see how it shakes out. Appoint HR professionals from the private sector,regardless of party or religious affiliation, and have them police the process and recommend improvements.
This is do-able once you pull your butt rubbing another guy’s butt out of the equation.
I am Woozxyl, and I am hetero female, FYI
January 8th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Wooz brings up a most excellent point…
boarding schools… all over the world boys and girls live the exact same kind of circumstances as what we’re talking about here.. and they’re teens and it works out just fine…
boys, gay or not live,sleep and shower with other boys..
girls, gay or not..live,sleep and shower with other girls..
are you going to tell me that teenagers at a boarding school (co-ed or not) can be assimilated into living with the same sex oogling them,dating,breaking up,sleeping in the same dorms… and live in a responsible way… and ppl we train to kill and give live ammo too can’t be trusted as much as teenagers?
peeeshawwwww :)~
January 8th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Exactly mike. If they remove DODT then they will be allowed to ask if they are gay or not and if they are found to be gay it is a violation of the UCMJ and will be booted out. So Unless they plan to rewrite the UCMJ, it might be better if they leave DODT on the books.
January 8th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Once again I’m hearing the same old story. What none of you are realizing is that gays have been sleeping with, showering with, working with, dating and interacting with heterosexuals since Day 1. Some more openly, some less.
(btw Pablo: My partner and I, along with two lesbian friends, attended many base functions as a “couple”. Everyone knew. Nobody cared.)
There’s only one difference between “then” and “now”. It’s the fact that heterosexuals will face their fear of knowledge that someone may or may not be gay.
That’s all that’s going to change! Gay military men and women aren’t going to be suddenly wearing a rainbow badge, dressing in pink or wearing a flannel shirt, dancing in the streets, or having tea dances on Sunday afternoons. Wait. They may do that. :)
Herein lies my point about the homophobic reactions were seeing in this discussion. Homophobia is a fear. Once the fear is not realized, life in the military will go on. It’s all about the education, guys and gals!
January 8th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Added: Iceman, it’s DADT.
I’m sure an Executive Order will take care of any problems with the UCMJ.
January 9th, 2009 at 2:04 am
Showers?!! “Four sexes” ?
Oh, for God’s sake, I’m a 55-year-old gay man and I can promise you I have not been sending myself out to be dry-cleaned all these years.
In Boy Scouts, in college dorms, in internships, at work in my hospital and at my gym, Pablo and the others have been showering with me and people like me right along. As have police officers, firefighters, and hundreds of thousands of other Americans. Get over yourself if you’re so afraid of being ogled.
What an insult to our service members for you to presume that they cannot act like adults and do the job they signed on to do.
January 9th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Between Howey’s last post and Wooz and EKG’s, I think I get it. Cool.
January 9th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Mike Butler — great post!
January 9th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Finally! Mr. Butler, welcome to the Kingdom of Muche!
Thanks, KC!