Easing the Transition, II
It doesn't matter what you do in the bedroom
as long as you don't do it in the street
and frighten the horses
--The Duchess of Jermyn Street, Daphne Fielding
___________________
Sometimes posts don't go exactly as planned.
Easing the Transition was meant as sarcasm against the cruelest and most ignorant fears surrounding the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding the service of homosexuals in the military. It has long been Ranger Against War's position that bigotry against an individual solely on the basis of sexual preference is absurd and primitive. (We haven't quite hit our stride for 2011, but hope to, soon.)
In the work environment, sexual matters should be irrelevant. A heterosexual's sexual escapades are no more savory a topic than those of any other sexual orientation. Discretion and discipline are the watchwords, especially so in a military environment.
So, no offense intended, and we hope none taken. On a more serious note, if you wish to comment on what you see as impediments to instituting the repeal, please feel free to comment here. As previously mentioned, old institutional ideas die hard; the first wave of openly gay soldiers will take some knocks. As one young soldier shared with us, he would take no offense to serving with a gay soldier, but he fears for the response of some of his more testosterone-driven fellows.
Labels: DADT, dont ask don't tell repeal, homosexuality
posted by Lisa at 5:02 PM
11 Comments:
From an egalitarian perspective I am all for the repeal.
My concern - for what it's worth - is how the new way actually gets implemented.
I am experiencing great difficulty accepting how an openly gay recruit survives USMC boot camp. I am having equal difficulty seeing the typical DI taking the inevitible sensitivity training to heart.
Perhaps, as I have been told, I am under-estimating the flexibility of the military. Perhaps everyone will shut up and follow orders as I was also told. I am skeptical.
I like of the idea of everyone keeping his/her sexual preferences to his/her self when at work. Period. Stop.
I am wondering what "openly" gay means. Does it mean no witch hunts based on what people do when off duty? Great! Or does it open the door for flaunting while on duty? Very bad consequences, IMO.
I conducted a little recon by fire on a liberal blog that was praising the repeal. The return fire was obviously preregistered on repeal opponents' defilades and avenues of attack, but I still found it to be, ultimately, ineffective.
One argument offered in favor of a smooth transition is that it has been done in other countries without much hassel. I'm not so sure about this. In the military there is no bad news. So who knows how it really went. Also, other countries are not the US. By way of example, the IDF is basically a militia with compulsory service. There is very little barracks life. Canadians are, well, Canadians. All of those other countries have extremely strict gun control laws too that will never happen in the US. Why? We are culturally very different; especially in the regions from which our combat arms troops are recruited.
Then there is a comparison to all the doom and gloom that was around the integration of AAs with white units. I know this process was not without hickups. I have heard stories that even through the VN war there was racial conflict even in combat units when off the line. Also, I think sexual orientation and skin color are psychologically different issues.
Whatever. I think it is very courageous of people who have nothing on the line - themselves or loved ones - to champion this cause and to make sunny assumptions regarding implementation; dismissing all hints of negative consequences to the very people they claim to be so concerned about as well the troops in general.
My suggestion: start the repeal in the Air Force only. Study. Move forward to include each other branch of the service - Army, Navy, Marines, in that order - employing lessons learned from the previous implementations in subsequent ones.
avedis
Avedis,
This should've been a guest entry to RAW.
Your only flaw is that starting with the AF would be faulty since they aren't actually military.
jim
LOL!
OK. We'll start with the Army.
This is a lot happier than what came back at me on the liberal blog where I was expressing the same thoughts, was forced to defend my position repeatedly, and, for all my efforts, got called a homophobe, spewer of vomit, etc, etc. One creepy jerk-off went so far as to claim that he had used "google fu" to track down my true identity and, reading between the lines only a little, he was threatening to "expose" me as some sort of "fraud". The sad thing is that he had indeed identified a member of my clan and not myself (I take measures to make sure I am relatively anon. for just this reason and also so if I go off flying the handle or the scotch starts talking too much I won't have a negative impact on my childrens' careers. My daughter tells me that because of her job they might be monitoring my internet activities).
Thanks for restoring my faith in humanity. Sometimes it's the little things that count, you know.
avedis
This is really pretty simple.
Either you are a fully-enfranchised citizen of the U.S., or you're not.
If you are, then you should be equal before the law. That means that refusing someone the legal rights available to others, such as marriage, incorporation, military service, jury service, is not and should not be constitutional unless there is a clear and present danger to the Republic if the citizen is not constrained.
There really is no evidence in favor of this proscription. Other Western nations have successfully opened their services to homosexuals just as they have to any other minority.
The fact that we're still talking and arguing about this is a testimony to the effect the blood libel in the public forum the Right has managed to lay on Teh Gay.
Time and past time we stopped taking those idiots' advice.
avedis: the problem with your approach is that is ASSUMES that there is a problem that needs to be overcome.
There is a prejudice, yes. And it will be ugly in some units, and some places. I was in the service in the late Seventies and I can tell you that there were...umm..."hiccups". My medical platoon (100% white) used to do battle with the battalion cooks (100% black - mhhh, wonder what those recruiters were thinking) on the third floor of the barracks once a year or so. My old roomie kept a baseball bat he called "nigger knocker" beside our door. And this was 1983.
But our chain of command never assumed that there would be "no problems" or made "sunny assumptions". They punished the violators of the UCMJ and drove the fuck on; we were all citizens and soldiers and were expected to behave as such.
And y'know what?
It worked out fine.
We're expending WAY too much energy on this. Let's just make it happen...
Chief, you have a point there regarding my assumptions. But why do I have them? I have to think about more myself. I'll get back to you if I have any worth saying.
avedis
@FDChief
"Drive the fuck on..."
That's a good part of how to get somewhere.
I went through technical schools in '72 with some of the early black and Filipino sailors allowed to break out of traditional billets, and into tech positions.
Some of them were great, some of them had problems, there were idiots aplenty... but at the end of the day, the planes kept flying.
Avedis,
What we have at Ranger is a community, and we have respect for one another. Having said that i try to lighten up every chance i get b/c the topics we cover have very little levity factor. Also we need to laugh at ourselves at every opportunity.
Chief,
This whole gay thing is a throw back to phrenology - IMHO. And it has as much relevance.
It's gonna be real disappointing to some when nothing happens other than moving forward.
My bottom line is that the gays that wanna join will do a fine job, and they are gonna look and feel just like the rest of us NORMAL DUDES.
jim
jim: The great thing about the gay gals I knew back in the day was that you could sit around and talk shit about everything you'd talk with the guys AND comment on their racks, and they would just kid the shit out of you for it.
Good times...
Chief,
The reason you got along well with the GIRLS is because they wanted to be just like you.
jim
Except peeing standing up.
Tho the 210th gals told me that one of their avionics techs used to pee in the shower every morning after PT.
Ht the drainhole damn near every time, too, they said.
GIs; male or female, no matter what gross thing you can think of, they've done it. Twice.
Post a Comment
<< Home