Stirring the pot: Some thoughts on DADT

[margotb822]

I am currently an active duty female officer in the Navy, and here are some thoughts I have about DADT (and McPeak's column). The flaw in his thinking is that male bonding can only occur among straight men, when, in fact, people bond through shared experience. Women and men can bond as a team, and I have experienced this in my line of work.

There already are gays in the military, everyone in the military knows someone who is gay, and yet, we continue to form tightly knit groups.

Just as with the racial and gender integration of the military, the burden is with the majority to accept the minority. The problem is not gays (or blacks or women). The problem is with the people who are in a position to accept the changes, but refuse to do so.

And, let's be honest. This whole debate about "unit cohesion" is just a euphimism for homophobia. If it weren't, what, exactly, could a homosexual do to undermine said unit cohesion? This is all about straight men who are afraid of being on the receiving end of some wayward homosexual advance. It's absurd. Especially when you consider how many of these men have acted inappropriately with straight women.

As for whether or not we're "sissifying" our military, I think the point has been demonstrated repeatedly that heroism and bravery are not exclusive to hyper-masculine men. Women continue to serve in very trying roles and have not detracted from our ability to wage warfare.

I have to ask honestly, are these people afraid that we're going to start wearing rainbow camouflage? That the military is going to become fabulous and fierce?? It's ridiculous. And, if they're going to stereotype gay men as sissies, what about the other stereotype of lesbians as masculine? Wouldn't that, in theory, be better for the military? The military attracts certain types of people, gay or straight. I find it hard to believe that this would change if homosexuals were allowed to serve openly.

Finally, McPeak wrongly equates homosexuality with disability in his discussion of civil rights. Again, just as with racial and gender integration, if a homosexual meets the physical and educational guidelines set forth, there is no reason to exclude them.

If we are to continue to operate as a volunteer-based force, we must be open to accepting the best and the brightest. Period. Gay or straight, man or woman, black, white or brown, these should not be the deciding factors. The mililtary does not need to be a place of caveman-like behavior. The more professionalism we show, the better our fighting force is. Through the racial and gender integration process, our military has only increased in the levels of professionalism expected and demanded. This is another test of our commitment to equality and justice for all, and the only way we can succeed as a nation is to live the values that we preach and repeal DADT.

[Solly Mack]

1. k/r

[Jamastiene]

2. K&R

Very well stated. I don't see how anyone could argue with your statements on this. You are right.

[TexasObserver]

3. I'm sure most of the opposition comes from military men over 50.

Younger men tend to be less reactionary.

[margotb822]

6. I agree

Like the saying "there are no athiests in foxholes," I bet there are no homophobes in a fire fight.

I wish they would ask the younger troops, instead of making assumptions about what we think and feel about this issue. THAT would make for some interesting Senate Hearings...

[jonnyblitz]

4. thanks for posting!

I am gay navy vet (enlisted). When I was active duty my close navy pals who knew didn't care and most of my best friends in my life have been my heterosexual "shipmates".

I appreciate your post and wish you the best!

[gorfle]

5. They just need to let them in and move on.

I don't understand the big hoopla over this issue.

They are always hungry for people to serve as pawns in whatever the next resource is to go to war over - let them in!

In two generations this problem is going to be moot. They will identify and alter sexual preference in vitro.

[HillbillyBob]

7. Some folks would be very surprised to find that

a good number of those hyper masculine men are homosexuals too.

I used to be quite the rowdy...it really upset some of those poor rednecks who tried to push people around in the bar that I used to be the doorman for. After moppin up the parking lot a few times I would get in their faces and say..you just had your ass kicked by a faggot...be glad you are too F ing stupid and ugly to F**k, now get out and don't come back or I'll let the draq queens have you.

I am a navy vet and my partner is army vet.

[margotb822]

11. That is a good point

Which is why the whole sissy stereotype doesn't fit with the reality of homosexuals in the military (or in general). It doesn't surprise me that some people, especially people who may come from backgrounds where homosexuality is not accepted, cover up for their sexual preference with an overabundance of masculinity.

[tekisui]

8. knr.

[defendandprotect]

9. Terrific post ---- we need less McPeak thinking and less discrimination overall....

agree that males fear being put in the same position they have too often put women

with their advances --

[Caliman73]

10. Hammer, nail, head, SMACK!!

great post. Unit cohesion is threatened only by the shortcomings of the individuals within the unit. Racism, Homophobia, and other psycho-pathologies are what breaks down cohesion. The opponents of DADT are projecting their own irrational fears, prejudices, and hatred into the situation. I am not and have not been in the military, but I would imagine that in a fire fight, you wouldn't care what color, religion, gender, or sexual orientation your squad mates were as long as they could get the job done.