An Editorial on Don't Ask Don't Tell

[Pompidou]

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/in-the-barracks-out-of-the-closet/

One of the detractors in the panel that comprises the bottom half of the article had a thought provoking consequence of allowing open gays in the military, and it's all about women. He argues that the military goes out of its way to separate men and women for sexual privacy issues - separate bathrooms, can't serve together on submarines, etc. I wonder if when they lift the restriction on gays in the military, will gay men be treated as men, in which case it's parallel to allowing men and women to serve together in all the close quarters they can't currently, or would they be treated like women, separated not by what's between their legs, but by what they want between someone else's legs? Same with lesbians. It's going to need some answers, but it could also go a long way in letting women serve in all the areas of the military they can't currently, because of the sexual reasons argued against gays in the military.

 

[Halifirien]

Keep in mind that gay people are already serving in the military, and they're showering with and sleeping beside the straight folk and not jumping them at the first opportunity. I have a gay buddy in the military, and he says after the first few days you really stop noticing who's naked. Most of them are professional enough that it's a non-issue. If anyone is good at not noticing naked people, it's a gay person keeping quiet about their orientation.

 

[Tymon]

I think it all comes down to what you're in the military for in the first place.

Keep in mind, I'm not gay, but I think that if I was, I would be more interested in serving my country and keeping track of my current mission rather than drooling over the other guys there.

If you get all riled up because you can't go around the barracks licking peoples chests and holding gay pride flags, I think you might be in service for the wrong reason.

edit: obviously, "you" is refering to the quintessential person in question

 

[Celvantes]

That actually is the crux of the argument. Believe it or not, we have mandatory training every year on the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy to make sure everyone understands it.

Military service demands that certain freedoms be relinquished in order for the mission to be accomplished. For example, as a member of the military, you can be ordered to live in extremely close quarters for extended periods of times. When I deploy, for instance, I live in very small dorms with 200 other men.

With the loss of these freedoms, however, come certain protections. The military would never order women to share quarters like that with men, for obvious reasons. This isn't to say that it's never happened (there are always extraordinary circumstances), but we're talking about the rule and not the exception. Imagine the class action lawsuit if the military *did* try to force women to live in male quarters and share latrine facilities!

So, it's expected in the military that men and women don't cohabit if possible.

In the military mindset, open homosexuals fall under the same category of women being forced to live with men or vice-versa. It creates a distracting element, not for the homosexual troop, but for those he or she is living with.

If no one knows someone is homosexual, the distracting element for the rest of the unit isn't there.

The point of deployed living conditions is to keep troops' minds on the mission, not on their individual situations. Even the most disciplined unit would be jarred by having a known homosexual in any kind of deployed living quarters.

I don't have any problem with gay and lesbian folks serving in the military. Personally, I wouldn't care if I was living in close quarters with them. However, from a policy standpoint, there's just no way that the military could justify anything beyond the current Don't Ask Don't Tell rule. The only way they could would be to provide gay and lesbian troops separate quarters, which then doubles the amount of resources you'd have to dedicate to separating facilities. That would create worse unit cohesion problems than would allowing openly gay members to sharing existing living facilities with everyone else.

 

[Tristam Green]

For clarification: women aren't on submarines for one real reason - their own protection, and I'll gladly tell any woman who says "we don't need protection" to respectfully step off.

If any of you have been on a submarine before, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. There is no privacy on a boat. None. The only modicum of privacy that exists is a curtain on a sailor's bunk, should he be lucky enough to get one. The heads have doors, but that's really it.

Imagine being a woman (or even, take five women) on a crew of 100. That's a 97% male-female ratio. Now, consider that the vast majority of those men are under age 25, and undersexed from being at sea for weeks and months on end.

Do the math :|

Gays in the military? I don't particularly care. The analogy about women in the military...I don't get. I don't think that heterosexual men are going to be lining up to issue surprise buttsex to their homosexual shipmates.

If any of this sounded ridiculous, I'm sorry - the thought process is sound, but the articulation might be a little off; I'm really friggin' tired this morning lol.

 

[alanon]

Women are a tad different. By seperating them out, the military is not only protecting the soldier, but also protecting their own investment in that soldier. I have a friend who served for a long time with the Marines. One of his stories (and he has a ton) was how he was once stationed on a carrier, and the carrier would have to make regular stops to offload the pregnant soldiers and get their replacements....

 

[Skaw]

In the military mindset, open homosexuals fall under the same category of women being forced to live with men or vice-versa. It creates a distracting element, not for the homosexual troop, but for those he or she is living with.

If no one knows someone is homosexual, the distracting element for the rest of the unit isn't there.

If you're distracted about serving along side a gay man, you're really not civil enough to belong in any position of power like that in my opinion. Why not paint those of black, asian, native american, arabic, and latino lineage white, since obviously theres people out there that are uncomfortable being stationed with someone of another race? While there is no place for sexuality in the military, if something as minute as a known gay man in the ranks is a blight upon the concentration of a unit, the issue doesn't stem from the gay man.

 

[Tristam Green]

Women are a tad different. By seperating them out, the military is not only protecting the soldier, but also protecting their own investment in that soldier. I have a friend who served for a long time with the Marines. One of his stories (and he has a ton) was how he was once stationed on a carrier, and the carrier would have to make regular stops to offload the pregnant soldiers and get their replacements....

Ding. I don't know that this happens as much now as it did during Desert Storm, but I do remember hearing the stories about surface sailors and Army brigades having to offload their "suddenly pregnant" female soldiers who, coincidentally, were consistently bitching about being in combat.

 

[Halifirien]

Gays in the military? I don't particularly care. The analogy about women in the military...I don't get. I don't think that heterosexual men are going to be lining up to issue surprise buttsex to their homosexual shipmates.

Agreed. Our culture still teaches guys to be aggressive and treat women like they owe them blow jobs just for the honor of being in their presence. We're still a long way from treating women as true equals.

Gay men do not get that treatment. Some corn-fed Iowa boy who would think nothing of sexually harrassing a woman, making inappropriate comments about her body, and then calling her a frigid bitch when she turns him down, is not going to be treating gay guys the same way.

 

[Javir]

For clarification: women aren't on submarines for one real reason - their own protection, and I'll gladly tell any woman who says "we don't need protection" to respectfully step off.

If any of you have been on a submarine before, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. There is no privacy on a boat. None. The only modicum of privacy that exists is a curtain on a sailor's bunk, should he be lucky enough to get one. The heads have doors, but that's really it.

Imagine being a woman (or even, take five women) on a crew of 100. That's a 97% male-female ratio. Now, consider that the vast majority of those men are under age 25, and undersexed from being at sea for weeks and months on end.

Do the math :|

Gays in the military? I don't particularly care. The analogy about women in the military...I don't get. I don't think that heterosexual men are going to be lining up to issue surprise buttsex to their homosexual shipmates.

If any of this sounded ridiculous, I'm sorry - the thought process is sound, but the articulation might be a little off; I'm really friggin' tired this morning lol.

Overall, I agree. But I think the concern is that homosexuals on either side are going to be more aggressive (like strait men are towards women). In turn, making strait men feel less comfortable which ultimately leads to a lot of violent crimes towards..well anyone really, not just homosexuals. At least on the male's side. I think for the women it's less of an issue, but as was mentioned before it's better overall to have a blanket policy that helps to try to avoid the issue all together. All this of course also looking past Religious influence on military policy.

Oh, and on another note. Being a gay male doesn't mean you'll hope for men to issue surprise buttsex, it is quite often (in the right situations of course) the wanting to do the issuing =P Maybe that's what they worry about!

 

[Realia]

I was trying to find a copy on the internet of Lucinda J. Peach's article about women in the military, but I can't find it. It basically talks about women being treated unfairly in the military and how some of the previous generals and higher ups thought of women as weak and that all women are the same. She also talks about gender roles and how they affect the way people think about women going to war. If anyone is interested I'd be happy to scan it you.

 

[Ryuoho]

If you're distracted about serving along side a gay man, you're really not civil enough to belong in any position of power like that in my opinion. Why not paint those of black, asian, native american, arabic, and latino lineage white, since obviously theres people out there that are uncomfortable being stationed with someone of another race? While there is no place for sexuality in the military, if something as minute as a known gay man in the ranks is a blight upon the concentration of a unit, the issue doesn't stem from the gay man.

Agreed, but unfortunately the majority of this country don't seem to be fully ready to accept homosexuals in their lives. This doesn't make them completely ignorant backwater fucks. I work on the enlisted side of the Navy and serve with many shipmates who are VERY good at what they do, and will freely admit that homosexuality bothers them. A persons tolerance is not an indicator of their IQ.

 

[Pompidou]

Agreed, but unfortunately the majority of this country don't seem to be fully ready to accept homosexuals in their lives. This doesn't make them completely ignorant backwater fucks. I work on the enlisted side of the Navy and serve with many shipmates who are VERY good at what they do, and will freely admit that homosexuality bothers them. A persons tolerance is not an indicator of their IQ.

I would argue that if they can't put that aside, then they're not good enough at what they do. Work is a team effort, especially in the service. You might have the best technique in the country, but if you can't work alongside the guy next to you, you shouldn't have your job. What if in your paragraph we replaced "homosexuality" with "blacks"? Would the "very good" shipmate who just didn't like black folks get the same sympathy? Probably not. Didn't like women? Probably not. Homophobes are just another bigot in a big pile of undesirable bigots. I'm going to have to agree with Skaw here. I think what you say is accurate, but I don't think what you say should have any basis in policy making. If the military has to choose between keeping the gay and keeping the homophobe, it should keep the gay, same as it should keep the black man over the racist and the woman over the sexist. The US is supposed to be the pillar of freedom and equality, something the rest of the world looks up to. We aren't there yet.

 

[Ryuoho]

I would argue that if they can't put that aside, then they're not good enough at what they do. Work is a team effort, especially in the service. You might have the best technique in the country, but if you can't work alongside the guy next to you, you shouldn't have your job. What if in your paragraph we replaced "homosexuality" with "blacks"? Would the "very good" shipmate who just didn't like black folks get the same sympathy? Probably not. Didn't like women? Probably not. Homophobes are just another bigot in a big pile of undesirable bigots. I'm going to have to agree with Skaw here. I think what you say is accurate, but I don't think what you say should have any basis in policy making. If the military has to choose between keeping the gay and keeping the homophobe, it should keep the gay, same as it should keep the black man over the racist and the woman over the sexist. The US is supposed to be the pillar of freedom and equality, something the rest of the world looks up to. We aren't there yet.

To answer your first question, yes, yes they would. They would still be intolerant -and- good at their job. This is not a hypothetical situation, I see it all the time.

I see the military as a representation of the people of the nation it represents. The battlefield is not the place take risks on advancing new lines of thinking. Not where it could lead more death. Yes, it is still our own fualt for not being how we should, but it doesn't change what it is.

 

[Pompidou]

To answer your first question, yes, yes they would. They would still be intolerant -and- good at their job. This is not a hypothetical situation, I see it all the time.

I see the military as a representation of the people of the nation it represents. The battlefield is not the place take risks on advancing new lines of thinking. Not where it could lead more death. Yes, it is still our own fualt for not being how we should, but it doesn't change what it is.

That's not entirely accurate, I think. There always has to be a first. There were first blacks in a desegregated military. If racism is still alive today, imagine how rampant it was when the government said racism is barbaric, and nixed segregation decades ago? Besides, if the military were representative of the nation, it would have out of the closet gays - what's the estimated percent? 10%? What's the percent of intolerant bigots? I'm not sure. The majority of the nation doesn't care much I think. Gays are getting marriage rights all over the east coast and more.

 

[Ryuoho]

That's not entirely accurate, I think. There always has to be a first. There were first blacks in a desegregated military. If racism is still alive today, imagine how rampant it was when the government said racism is barbaric, and nixed segregation decades ago? Besides, if the military were representative of the nation, it would have out of the closet gays - what's the estimated percent? 10%? What's the percent of intolerant bigots? I'm not sure. The majority of the nation doesn't care much I think. Gays are getting marriage rights all over the east coast and more.

I can't recall how the assimilation of blacks, and women was done, someone who was around then would have better insight than I would. I would have thought this country was ready to fully accept homosexuals as well until the amount of opposition that came up against gay marriage. I initially had thought everyone would understand and work with them, instead of this outright wall bigotry that they seem to have put up for themselves. I don't understand it, and I don't understand when people around me support it, or just don't give a damn that it's there.

I'd like to have enough faith in my shipmates that when they're faced with serving with other gay men, they wouldn't care. But right now, I don't know...

 

[Lukas]

I agree with Skaw and Alanon's respective posts. The military has never been about privacy, especially on the battlefield. A soldier who thinks of anything but mission objectives, survival and teamwork in dangerous situations is a poorly trained one.

You also have to consider it as an issue of integrity. If gays and lesbians are dying for their country, then they should be given the dignity of serving openly like their comrades.

 

[RaidrX]

An accurate take...

 

[Makelith]

I don't think it should matter if you are gay and in the millitary, in fact i think they should be allowed to be as open as they want. I know if i was getting shot at and someone was covering my ass, i'd want them to think my ass was pretty cute.

 

[Airou]

While I personally wouldn't mind serving alongside a gay person in the military I can see why people prefer to keep the DADT policy. A couple people are saying "they should focus solely on the mission and it shouldn't matter". My argument would be, what about when they aren't on a mission ? Just stationed and living overseas or in the sea for extended amounts of time. Such different views can cause disagreements or issues that can lead up to poor cohesion when a mission is given. I think as long as there's a large amount of people not ready to accept gays then the DADT should remain.