And they're worried about recruiters?
Imagine, it's New Year's Eve, you're hosting a party and you've invited a reknown singing group to attend. The college choir shows up and begins belting out the National Anthem when they are attacked and beaten in the streets. Back alley in Boston? Ghetto in the NYC? Chicago's south side? Wrong. Wrong. And wrong. These events played out on the streets of San Francisco's Richmond district. You'll remember San Fran. It's the city that hates the military. The liberal city that voted to kick out recruiters. The progressive city filled with people who don't like the thought of their young being forced into a life of unjustified warmongering. Yeah.
Apparently, the only problem they really have with violence out in the city of boxed rice products is that they like to commit it. Out of uniform, untrained, indiscriminantly and barehanded.
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are comments to this post, your eventual comment might trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Homophobia exists everywhere, even in liberal San Fran, apparently.
Comment by Michael— 2007/01/10 @ 03:51 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2007/01/10 @ 04:27 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Ernie Els— 2007/01/10 @ 05:00 PM — (Reply)
A quick question from a civilian to a military spouse:
Do you think the military is ready/willing/able to accept openly gay recruits? Or do you think the lifestyle is absolutely anethma to an effective military?
This is not a set-up, I'm just curious what you think. I know you don't approve of the lifestyle, but I trust you also know that gays exist nonetheless.
Thanks,
Michael
Comment by Michael— 2007/01/11 @ 02:15 PM — (Reply)
My first guess would be no. Just a few years ago a kid was beaten to death in his bunk because the other guys thought he was gay. Not a good reflection on the military obviously but the hard truth is that there is an amount of intimacy fostered by sharing a foxhole that makes homosexuality a real problem.
If the gay community could beat the rap of being oversexed deviants, there is a chance that they could find acceptability. Unfortunately, the experience most military people have with gays in uniform is probably more comparable to the disgusting behavior that made headlines earlier this year when a group of gay soldiers had sex on camera for money. Even among the gay community, there is open acknowledgement of the fact that committed relationships are rare and that casual promiscuity is rampant. Take for example the new PSA's being shown regarding the rise of AIDS cases among gay men. Tell me, if gays (and I use that term for convenience, not as a slur) were generally monogamous, committed, etc, then why is the theme of the PSA 'You can party, just don't lose your head'. That reflects an adolescent mentality, if ever I've heard one, and it reveals the immaturity of a demographic that (from the sounds of the commercial) widely practices indiscriminate sex with multiple partners. Would you want to be in tight quarters and in intimate circumstances with someone who'll hump anything is sight? And yet, the gay community defines ITSELF that way. "You can party. Just don't lose your head."
Also notice that the word "party" is equated with meet new people and make friends. And then as Rosie Perez says "You can party..." is becomes clear that "making new friends" and "meeting people" are apparently the same as have sex with in homosexual circles.
Don't get me wrong. There are heteros in the military who have the immature mindset described in this PSA. Usually, they outgrow the bad behavior - much like their frat boy counterparts in the civilian world. But while the promiscuous party mentality may apply to a generational cohort of heteros, it's hardly a defining feature of the group at large. No such distinction is made among homosexuals.
Watch Will and Grace, Michael. This show endorses homosexuality and still makes plain that gay characters featured are hugely promiscuous and on numerous occasions have had liasons with older men (not immature adolescents). I use this not because I am suggesting that the characterization is reliable - I have no concrete figures on that - only to say that this show is a ringing endorsement of homosexuality and doesn't bother to alter the 'party' perception. Another example of how the community views itself? I don't know.
In short, you want your buddy guarding your back, not lusting after it. And until people generally see homosexuals as defined by something other than their sexuality, I can't see the ban being lifted.
Comment by Cate— 2007/01/11 @ 04:36 PM — (Reply)
I like your description of the image the gay community projects- the 'partying' notion, and I can see how that could negatively affect their acceptance into the military. The story you sent about the rape and murder is appalling, but I'm sure you're more aware than I am, that rape and murder is hardly unique to homosexuals. But then, the fact that gay men and straight men both are capabale of rape and murder is hardly an argument in favor of inclusiveness.
So, without again wanting to make you feel like I'm looking for a logical "trap," let me ask a couple of follow-up questions...
Would you agree that the lesbian community presents itself in a much different light than the gay male community? Maybe my view is slanted, but it seems to me that there is far less of a "party mentality" or a "do anything that moves" image projected. Does it seem the same from your perspective, and if so, is that the sort of image that the gay male community ought to try and emulate if they are to be more tolerated by society at large? (Note- tolerated... not necessarily accepted).
Comment by Michael— 2007/01/12 @ 08:00 AM — (Reply)
As I've mentioned before, in reading on the net, I've come across comments numerous times that suggest lesbians are often victims of childhood abuse. I don't make that assertion because I simply haven't done the research BUT these are comments I have encountered on blogs written by homosexuals.
Generally speaking, I think women tend to come off as more stable anyway (WRT settling down), although the recent rash of predatory female school teachers and the popularity of shows like Desperate Housewives may give that stereotype an overhaul.
Comment by Cate— 2007/01/12 @ 01:47 PM — (Reply)
If you want to be honored, behave honorably.
If you want to be respected, then be respectable.
It's not the image you project, you know most people know OJ really did it, it's who you are.
I suspect that if the gay community were to really grow up and settle down then people would have less trouble with them. As it is, too many of them protest in the streets like cartoonish freaks, usually with some degree of nudity. Same as the mentally challenged women who think they are going to stop the war in Iraq by spelling out the word PEACE topless.
If you want to be tolerated, behave in a tolerable way.
So long as gay guys are 'defending' their lifestyle by making lewd public displays, they'll remain on the outskirts of decent society.
Comment by Cate— 2007/01/12 @ 05:58 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2007/01/12 @ 05:59 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Ernie Els— 2007/01/11 @ 06:26 PM — (Reply)
Cate's right it's already close quarters. I can't see it being accepted unless it is forced on the military. And there is precedent for that. However facilities would have to go through some renovation etc. I'm not making light here.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2007/01/11 @ 06:00 PM — (Reply)
The year or so before Clinton gained the gay vote via "don't ask don't tell" (only semantically altering the fact that gays are still going to be put out of the services) alterations were made to accomodate non-smokers. Yep. Barracks had to be completely reassigned and designated smoking or non. A logistical pain in the rear.
Extraordinary measures are taken to accomodate women in the field already, and they are a substantially greater percentage of the population than homosexuals. Can you imagine the logistical nightmare of arranging shower times for every differently sexual person out there? No one would get any sleep. Instead of "Get out of the tent fellas, the ladies have to change clothes." It'd be "Wake up and get out guys, Jimmy and Don need to change." "Stay out for Rosie and Ellen." "Okay, any transgendered soldiers need to change clothes? You're up."
Not to mention that a cornerstone of military effectiveness is conformity. Fighting men and women want total predictabilty. Having to depend on someone you can't even understand is a frightening prospect. But then, I don't like the idea of women in combat, either. Too much unpredictability.
Example: In one unit, the kids were down in Puerto Rico for a few months. The young female officers took to sunbathing on the tops of the vehicles. It caused some real problems. Their very junior subordinates were seeing them nearly naked and supposed to salute them and take them seriously when on duty. Who needs that kind of monkey wench thrown in?
Remember this case? What is a CO supposed to do when Justin(e) wants to use the women's bathroom because he believes he's a woman? What commander needs to deal with issues like these when they are taking mortar fire and dodging a sniper's bullets?
I know I've strayed from the original issue of gays in the military but this is such a slippery slope - as we've already seen in civilian America. Once you open the door, you can't close it. Who let the women into combat units???
Comment by Cate— 2007/01/11 @ 06:49 PM — (Reply)
Think about the liberal mindset that men will be men and women will be women
They're always telling us
why fight it
why prevent nature from taking it's course...
hand out some condoms and all will be well
then you stick 300+ men and women where the average age is 19 on a ship for 6 months and tell them naaaaa uhhhhh uhhhhhh
if we catch you you're going to Captains mast (article 15 for you army types)
then they make political hay out of the fact that people won't behave
oi vay....I need a sedative
I could tell you a few recruiting stories with the don't ask don't tell
I was a recruiter from 1993-1996
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2007/01/11 @ 07:48 PM — (Reply)
My own view, which I will freely admit comes from an outsider's perspective, is that central to the military must be discipline. You give someone the ability to kill a bunch of people quickly, and stick them in extremely stressful situations, you damn sure better have them highly trained and disciplined.
Yes, these are little more than kids, flush with all the hormones and virility that being in the prime of life entails. Reflective contemplation usually takes a back-seat to instinctive emotional response, but am I wrong in thinking that that is why training and discipline are integral to the military?
No matter how much two soldiers dislike each other, it is not acceptable for one to beat the bejeepers out of the other, especially in times of combat. You may literally hate the person next to you in the foxhole, but you have to trust that they aren't going to pop a bullet into the back of your skull.
I know I'm being naive and simplistic, but is that far different from saying that no matter how much two soldiers like each other, it is not acceptable to jump their bones, especially in times of combat?
Comment by Michael— 2007/01/12 @ 08:18 AM — (Reply)
By "liberal mindset", I believe that EB is referring to the humanist movement of many Godless liberals and self proclaimed progressives who believe that humans function on an almost animalistic simplicity when it comes to sex. It is my impression that many of the flagbearers of social liberalism are completely convinced that we are little more than the sum of our biological parts and therefore excuse any course of behavior as "natural". Some of them, refuse to ackowledge the need for any sort of accountability.
The mentality EB is referring to (I believe) is not "boys will be boys" but "humans will be animals". The conservative/traditionalist position is found in Romans 8:16-17.
As to discipline. Of course, discipline is key. This is why the perpetrators of the case I referenced were punished instead of receiving commendations. However, it doesn't make any sense to throw gas on an innately combustible situation. Would you suggest making the folks in uniform less comfortable? How would that lead to optimum performance in the midst of unimaginable stress? This isn't just about getting the job done, it's about getting it done the best we can.
BTW, losers (of any orientation) are put out of the military routinely. And those losers, like all servicemembers, are drawn from the ranks of civilians.
Comment by Cate— 2007/01/12 @ 02:11 PM — (Reply)
Thanks for the clarification re: mindset. That makes more sense.
I didn't ask your opinion in order to get into an argument over the matter, but I think I may have seemed like I was starting something by giving my naive opinion. I really am just looking for the view from your experienced perspective. And I thank you and EB for that input.
Comment by Michael— 2007/01/12 @ 02:19 PM — (Reply)
Didn't mean to sound overbearing, just realistic.
Comment by Cate— 2007/01/12 @ 02:39 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/01/12 @ 03:06 PM — (Reply)
I'm not talking about beatings, it's more logistical. The mindset I'm talking abou is the hand out the condoms they're gonna do it anyway crowd.
you're right in that it is discipline...it's also about being professional.
Comment by elmers brother— 2007/01/12 @ 01:12 PM — (Reply)