On the ARMY, Homosexuality and Sexual Harassment

[Lost-in-FL]

I was listening to Jerry Springer on the radio talking about why is that the DOD does not allow Homosexuals in the armed forces. The discussion was about the Pentagon calling homosexuality a mental disorder. My question is not if the PENTAGON is prepared to accept homosexuals but if SOCIETY is ready to accept homosexuals in the military.

The reason I ask is because, as a female veteran I knew of many cases of rape and sexual harrasement. Unfortunately, on rape cases the victim was considered the person who facilitated the act or the one who got themselves in the position to be raped. I heard of females soldiers complaint of constant harrasement by certain people but nothing was done about it. My roommate was raped by a high ranking male and she was basically slapped in the hand, and the perpetrator was just transferred to another office within the post. That was it! Her Commander made her feel it was her fault. She was not provided with counseling, nothing. She eventually left the military out of plain embarrasement.

Imagine that we accept homosexuals in the military? Do you think they would be safe? What would be the reaction of Commanders if soldiers get beat up for being homosexuals? I can predict the military doing nothing to protect homosexuals just the same way they do nothing to protect females.

[valerief]

1. So, using your logic, why are there females in the military? n/t

[Lost-in-FL]

2. I am not against it!!!

I am concerned with the fact that society is still not ready for something like that. I met great people who were gays and once has a roomate who was gay. She was the greatest person I have ever met. I ahve great respect for her and she was a great soldier by all military standards.

Why are they (females) in the military? Cause they can.

[valerief]

7. I didn't think you were against gays in the military, but I don't think

the anti-gay military policy is because of rape cases.

Religion is the only thing that keeps poor people from killing rich people.--Napoleon

[Lost-in-FL]

8. It could be.

I just don't know enough to say that homophobia or racism are solely about religion.

I don't think the anti-gay military policy is because of rape cases. I just wanted to note that just the same way females are not protected from crimes by males who only want males in the ARMY (there are LOTS of guys who would want an all male force), homosexuals won't be protected either.

[Sapphocrat]

15. Excuse the interjection, just a thought...

I just don't know enough to say that homophobia or racism are solely about religion.

I honestly don't think either homophobia or racism really does stem from religious belief. I think both are just the result of insecurity, fear of "the other," the need to find somebody else to spit on in order to feel better about oneself -- they're both simply justified by religion (which is supposed to make such bigotry unassailable).

(We all know about the biblical justification of slavery, but I was thinking of a much more recent example of religion-"protected" racism: the Mormon church's steadfast refusal to admit African-Americans into the priesthood. That's changed over the last decade or two, but still.)

As for the U.S. military and gay people, it's the same thing. Just as the "religion" of militarism demands dehumanization of the enemy, indoctrination into military culture involves dehumanization of "the other" within one's midst; i.e., the "faggot."

With the except of Turkey, that mindset is exclusive to the United States among western nations (and, personally, I'm on the fence about whether Turkey is a "western" nation or not). I'd like to see the reaction to the "faggot!" epithet thrown at a gay German soldier... or Aussie soldier, or Spanish soldier, or Brit, or Canadian, or... In fact, even Dark-Ages-religious Italy allows openly gay people to serve.

I suspect if the reaction weren't violent, it would be, "Yeah? And?"

[justin899]

9. The problem you've got is that gays already serve in the military

and always have. The current policy doesn't expressly prohibit gays from serving. It forces gays who are dumb enough to join to remain in the closet (which is about as bad). Your insistence that a change in policy would make things worse than they are now is idiotic.

[Lost-in-FL]

13. The policy won't change.

Your idea about my post implying that a change would make things worse is idiotic.


There's nothing dumb about gays joining the military but very stupid to join the Log Cabin Republicans. Now that is stupid.

[meegbear]

3. You should read "Conduct Unbecoming" by Randy Shilts ...

while discussing gays in the military, it covers how when women were accepted more into the military fold, they were sexually harrassed.

Worse was the male machismo attitude that if a woman didn't have sex with him, "she must be a dyke" and women were unhonorably discharged because of the claims.

[Lost-in-FL]

5. Yup!

That is the attitude. It is like you have to prove everyday that you are a woman.

[Cornus]

4. Gays already are in the military

They just *don't tell*.

[sui generis]

14. and have been since the beginning of militaries.

The question is when is "society" going to wake up and realize there really isn't a damn thing they can do about it?

I think negative obsession with homosexuality is indeed a mental defect, especially if one claims to be straight.

And, most especially in the military gays are trained to fight and stand their ground just as well as anyone else. There are plenty of straight people in the military who have a gay sib or relative who won't put up with "bashing" - unfortunately it's only bad news that makes the news.

[gator_in_Ontario]

6. Rape is largely a male thing

Not totally, but in a big way. Been on both sides of the fence, females are much less likely prone to violence, IMHO.

[justin899]

10. According to polls "society" IS ready for gays to serve openly...

From last year:

New Poll Shows Overwhelming Support for Allowing Gays to Serve; 'Boston Globe' Reports Majority of Republicans, Churchgoers Think Gays Should Serve Openly.

WASHINGTON, May 16 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A poll published in Sunday's Boston Globe reports that 79 percent of Americans believe gays should be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military. "Large majorities of Republicans, regular chuchgoers, and (even) people with negative attitudes toward gays think gays and lesbian should be allowed to serve openly in the military," the Globe reports.

Don Mihovk, who works for the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce and agreed to be interviewed after responding to the poll, told the Globe that, "(Gays) can serve their country, they can work in any job they want."

The Globe poll follows other recent polls showing growing support for allowing gays to serve openly. Recent Gallup polls have reported between 65 percent and 79 percent support for lifting the military's gay ban. The Annenberg Survey reported in October that half of junior enlisted personnel and their families support allowing gays to serve. And in 2003, FOX News reported 64 percent support for allowing gays to serve.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=47378

So society is "ready" for gays to serve openly. The only people who aren't are bigots who aren't likely to change their minds regardless of the policy.

[Occulus]

11. Want to know why that percentage is so high?

Because the "regular chuchgoers, and (even) people with negative attitudes toward gays" who are nominally against gay anything see this as a legit way for us to get killed.

They WANT that, and so they're more than willing to support us in a job where it could easily happen.

Our actual service to the country? Meaningless to them.

[zbdent]

12. The rapists likely fear being on the wrong end of the rape

(and is quite unlikely . . .)

I always figure that the "decline" of the military forces was in part to all the homophobes who used Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" as an excuse to keep from enlisting (when they actually were whiny, cowardly tiny pricks . . .)