FWG, or, Flying While Gay
(h/t to Deep Confusion)I'm homosexual . . . How and why are idle questions.
It's a little like wanting to know why my eyes are green
--Jean Genet
The homosexual subculture based on brief,
barren assignations is, in part,
a dark mirror of the sex-obsessed majority culture
--George F. Will
Ain't I a woman?
--Harriet Tubman
Hateful to me as the gates of Hades
is that man who hides one thing in his heart
and speaks another
--Homer
Hypocritical because gays have long served honorably in the military; hypocritical because it presumes serviceman must live a closeted life if they are to be allowed to execute their job.
Hypocritical because 2-10% of the animal kingdom is homosexual, and a civil nation cannot force someone to switch their sexual orientation, any more than they can require they bleach their skin or hew to a state religion. These are not things a democracy forces upon its citizens. DADT gives the lie to the idea of a nation where All Men are Created Equal.
The Army should have one standard for retention, that being performance of duty.
The Supreme Court denied former Army Captain James Pietrangelo II the right to contest his discharge under DADT on June 8. However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco is allowing former Air Force Maj. Margaret Witt, a decorated flight nurse, to pursue her lawsuit over her dismissal.
The 9th Circuit Court got it right when they said the AF must prove that discharging Witt advanced its goals of readiness and unit cohesion.
Also in the news is Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, discharged after a distinguished 18-year career after being outed by an acquaintance.
He is being kicked to the curb just shy of retirement for Flying While Gay (FWG). As with the prejudicial view towards those ensnared DWB (Driving While Black), so it goes with FWG . What possible impact does this officer's sexual orientation have on his ability to fly his aircraft?
"The winner of nine air medals for distinguished service in flight, including one for heroism the night U.S. forces captured Baghdad International Airport in 2003, Fehrenbach is in the process of getting kicked out of the military a year after an acquaintance told his bosses he was gay (Aviator Hopes Gay Ban Will End Soon Enough for Him)."
In the case of both officers there is no indication their dismissal had anything to do with military logic. The military traditionally eliminates/discharges personnel via one of two methods: qualitative or quantitative review. Neither Witt nor Fehrenbach fit either mold, as both are producing qualitatively and there in no Reduction in Force in place requiring quantitative limning down.
It is both cruel and unusual to eliminate people like Witt and Fehrenbach after honorably serving their country and having reached field grade officer status. If heterosexuals can serve and still have sexual liaisons without harassment, the same respect is due homosexuals. Why should one community have to essentially neuter themselves to remain acceptable?
Your boss may be a Yankees fan, but that doesn't mean you can't root for the Mets without fearing your dismissal. Freedom of choice.
That's the American way.
Labels: army's policy on homosexuals is hypocritical, dadt. dont ask don't tell, james pietrangelo, margaret witt, victor fehrenbach
posted by Lisa at 2:09 PM
9 Comments:
DADT is something Obama could fix for the moment with a word. I wish he'd do it. The proper solution might take an act of Congress, but Obama should have gotten the ball rolling by now.
I think perhaps one of the things holding him up on it is that doing away with DADT is going to piss off some wingers big time and he needs their representatives' votes for health care.
And the gay coffin is the one on the left, naturally.
Gordon,
While you may be correct about hoping for Republican votes, I am reminded of an excellent Valentine's political cartoon which showed Obama holding out flowers and candy to the Repubs, who had meanwhile put a "Kick Me" sign on his back. Things are so partisan, and nary a sincere walk across the aisle is to be had.
Good call on the left one.
Bipartisanhip is a pipe dream as long as the Repugs depend on their far right base to accomplish mission #1, which is to get re-elected. He just needs to peel off a couple Repug votes. On the energy bill as well.
He needs to get the economy, energy, and health care done so the threat from the right is less on the cultural issues which, like it or not, aren't his biggest problem right now.
I once wrote a letter to the editor about this issue, which as I think back upon it...probably didn't endear me to my pastor.
It was publish alright, and many a person who knew me said that they "secretly" agreed with me.
/facepalm
Why does it have to be such a "secret"?
There is one thing that is being discussed without being outright spoken too which is the "coed" military.
Women and men.
Are women capable combat soldiers?
Yes?
No?
I don't know, I'm not a combat soldier, and G-d willing I'll never, ever be one, so I'll defer to those who do know.
However, do we allow men and women to bivouac together?
Shower together?
Dress together?
Sleep together?
Answer these questions, and you begin to get close to the heart of the issue.
Why wouldn't a woman want to dress, undress, shower, and sleep in the same barracks as the men?
They're all soldiers, right?
But they don't, why not?
I know why the men would want to dress, shower, and sleep in the same room as the women, so no need to answer that question.
But once you address that question about the women, reverse the perspective...a heterosexual man who knows how he physiologically responds to a woman, knows how a homosexual man will respond physiologically to the object of his desire.
Remember, men are visually cued.
And as a male, I can say that I would much prefer to be ogled by a woman than by a man...but that is my own bias speaking.
So the issue here is that the manly men are feeling a bit squeamish in their brain pans, and hence this issue of gays in the military isn't so much about their performance as soldiers as it is about the males of our society being really uncomfortable around other males who view them sexually desirable.
Just as women know how men look at them, so do men know how they look at women, and thus the issue for the heterosexual men is that they feel like women around homosexual men.
"the issue for the heterosexual men is that they feel like women around homosexual men."
Pardon me, but that's just ridiculous.
Sheerah,
Your statement is withering.
The (feared) gaze of the gay male transforms the Het male into an object of desire, even if not acted upon. A manly man would probably be more averse to this squeamish feeling of objectification than a woman in the presence of a lesbian, as women are accustomed to the gaze of objectification.
It is a compelling thought.
"Pardon me, but that's just ridiculous."
It's quite possible that "the issue for the heterosexual men is that they feel like women around homosexual men" is ridiculous beyond the pale.
Then again, it's quite possible that it is true beyond belief.
I only work with what I know, and have seen myself. So, Gordon, if you are convinced that I'm full of shit, then there is not much I can say, or do that will convince you otherwise.
On the otherhand if you allow yourself an opportunity to discuss this with women...and by discuss, I mean listen to women talk about being "eyeballed" by the men, and ask them how they feel when that happens. I think/suspect you'll find an interesting opinion they have.
But thats not the end of it.
Then talk to guys about being "eyeballed" by another guy...I think you'll come to realize that perhaps...I'm not so far off base as you think I am.
As I said, I don't pretend to know everything...I just work with what I have seen or experienced.
Post a Comment
<< Home