Don't Ask, Because the Answer is Really, Really Stupid
Watch this clip (after a short ad, of course) of a gay Marine describing his experience telling his fellow soldiers about his sexual orientation: "I told tons of people. Everybody was, just, you know, respectful and just like ordinary."
Oh, this soldier also stepped on a land mine. So why does the military insist that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a useful policy? (Leaving aside sane, mature, unhysterical...it's clearly none of those.) An older military representative is given admittedly short shrift at the end of the clip to explain his side, but what he's saying would seem to be contradicted by the Marine's earlier testimony, not to mention, you know, by common sense and decency.
(Via Andrew Sullivan)
Oh, this soldier also stepped on a land mine. So why does the military insist that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a useful policy? (Leaving aside sane, mature, unhysterical...it's clearly none of those.) An older military representative is given admittedly short shrift at the end of the clip to explain his side, but what he's saying would seem to be contradicted by the Marine's earlier testimony, not to mention, you know, by common sense and decency.
(Via Andrew Sullivan)
posted by JMW at 9:36 PM
3 Comments:
The officers that I know in the military explain it as similar to the reason we don't have co-ed college dorm rooms.
Most of the military is of college age. That means that they're 18 to 21 year olds, and have the same rampant hormones and throbbing sexual desires of all guys at that age (and some of my age).
Try bunking two 20 year olds who are sexually attracted to each other, and then try to keep them from having sex. It's a nearly impossible task.
And our military is grounded on discipline first and foremost. That's also why women and men don't bunk together. And that's also one of the reasons that officers are forbidden from sleeping with each other (heterosexual or otherwise). It's too distracting.
Are you going to send your lover head on into battle? Are you going to order your lover to take charge an entrenched position? These are the types of dilemmas that these rules attempt to avoid.
So, sure, there is some homophobic bias in the barracks, just like there tends to be a homophobic bias anywhere that meatheads and jocks tend to congregate (see, e.g., the NBA, football locker rooms, etc.). And that homophobic bias might hurt unit cohesion and all that stuff.
And I think the military's mission is important enough that we should respect that. When these kids have bad days or make mistakes in their day-to-day tasks, they don't get written up by their supervisors; they die. So while the eradication of homosexuality is an admirable goal, it's not worth risking the lives of the kids who are already making terrible sacrifices for us back home.
But the overriding reason that open homosexuality is inconsistent with the military lifestyle is that they're young, and it's a tall task to ask officers to keep kids who are sleeping together from ... uh, sleeping together.
That's not to say that I think homosexuality and military service are inconsistent. Many gay men and women have served admirably in the military (I know some). But military officers say it adds complications to already daunting tasks. And I tend to trust their opinions on military matters.
-- Comish
Comish, I'll overlook the "eradication of homosexuality" slip -- I know you meant homophobia.
Still, even though you state it calmly, I just think your answer begs the question. You admit that men and women can both serve, they just have to bunk separately. So if you get rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- in other words, if you just TELL -- can't we do something to make sure these young, hormone-ridden homosexual soldiers can serve without having bedroom tension become a problem? Given the many strong brains in our military, this problem doesn't seem like rocket science to me.
Most importantly, I just don't see how someone who argues that women should be able to serve can then argue gays shouldn't. Based on the sex-problem model, that makes no sense.
can't we do something to make sure these young, hormone-ridden homosexual soldiers can serve without having bedroom tension become a problem? Given the many strong brains in our military, this problem doesn't seem like rocket science to me.
Well, if it's not rocket science, then I'd love to hear your solution. Personally, I don't think "make the military do it and they'll probably be able to work out the problems" is a good solution. But if it's easily solved, then I wonder, how have colleges -- our fortresses of human knowledge and higher learning -- done with the whole "protecting our students from the problems associated with sex" thing?
Most importantly, I just don't see how someone who argues that women should be able to serve can then argue gays shouldn't. Based on the sex-problem model, that makes no sense.
Because men and women don't bunk together. They don't shower together. They don't change clothes together. They don't use the toilet together. Men and women may serve together, but they don't live together.
Military living quarters are divided by gender. They can afford to do that because women serve in support roles only (unless they're pilots), which means that they're not in the field, where living quarters are often shared as a matter of necessity.
If you start mixing in guys who are attracted to other guys, and gals who are attracted to other gals, then the division of living quarters by gender breaks down. With whom do you bunk the gay men? With whom do you bunk the gay women?
-- C
Post a Comment
<< Home