Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Dave Welch has a column at the Worldnutdaily chock full of ridiculous statements about the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy and gays serving in the military.
I am wearing three hats simultaneously this week in declaring war on the appalling plan by President Obama to morally undermine the stability and effectiveness of our nation's military. As a combination patriotic American citizen-Marine father-pastoral leader I am compelled to oppose this man's latest assault on a vital national institution.
And as a combination writer - rational thinker - citizen who actually believes in American values like equality and freedom, I am compelled to oppose your idiotic blatherings on the subject. But first, I have news for you: You're only wearing one hat and it's a dunce cap.
Obama's declaration to eliminate "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to fulfill his campaign promise to the Human Rights Campaign and functionally implement an affirmative action system for sexual depravity in every branch of military service would be egregious and offensive at any time. It is even more so in the middle of a war.
Well yes, because allowing gays to defend their country is just like an affirmative action. Except, of course, it's not anything like it at all. And he buttresses his illogic by substituting anecdotal evidence for actual evidence:
There are certainly many who are claiming that the gays currently serving (and who obviously have not told) are integrated and not creating any challenges. A 2006 Zogby poll of "545 troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan" asserts that a growing number of military members are not threatened by the homosexuals they do know.I have yet to talk to a member of the military who agrees with that assessment.
Which means absolutely nothing. I doubt Welch talks to anyone who doesn't run in the same small-minded circles. We now have dozens and dozens of major military leaders, including those like Colin Powell Gen. Shalikashvili who supported the DADT policy initially, who have publicly favored allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. But since Welch hasn't actually spoken to any of them, they obviously don't matter because they don't exist.
All we have to do is compare other institutions like our schools , government agencies and the assault on marriage to understand that lifting the ban on open practice of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, etc. behavior would empower the radical activists to do to our soldiers what they have done to our schoolchildren.
This doesn't even loosely resemble a coherent argument. What on earth could it even mean?
With a father-in-law who was one of the "Chosin Few" of the 1st Marine Division during the Korean War, a father who served in the Navy during that period and a son who has served two tours in Iraq with the Corps, I have a deep love for those who have served and are serving our country in harm's way. Their job is not a social service agency or a humanitarian relief organization. It is to kill people and break things. It is to protect the citizens of this country from violent aggressors and defeat those enemies.
Right, he has a deep love for soldiers - unless they're gay, then he wants them thrown out of the military no matter how good they are at killing people and breaking things (or speaking Arabic, a particularly important skill right now that is in seriously short supply because we've thrown out dozens of Arabic linguists for being gay). If that's "deep love," one shudders to think what he would do if he didn't love them.
Politics
Comments
Why doen't he list himself as a marine instead of a marine's father? Oh right, he probably isn't one. Just trying to lay claim to his son's or daughter's service.
Posted by: rnb | November 5, 2009 9:27 AM
We need to be crystal clear about what people like Mr. Welch are arguing. Social conservatives like this guy would rather lose a war, realize a marginal increase in American casualities, drain the American taxpayer for extending wars, and compromise American power and influence rather than allow gays the free exercise of their rights.
This is the same kind of thinking we see from social conservatives who want to criminalize abortion. They ride a white horse claiming defense of human life when in fact they oppose every measure empirically shown to actually reduce abortion.
I do not understand why the Left remains so cowardly in not taking these people on in a far more confrontational and strident manner. When it's empirically evident you have the superior argument, you should go straight for the jugular.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 5, 2009 9:29 AM
An army with gay people in it is not able to kill people and break things. Just ask the people of Gaza who have not been killed, or had anything broken by the Israeli army. Also, there is no breaking or killing done by the British in Afghanistan.
Maybe this is what American Exceptionalism means; the rest of the western world can deal with the ideas of gay people serving, but America is an exception
Posted by: Donalbain | November 5, 2009 9:30 AM
Social conservatives like this guy would rather lose a war, realize a marginal increase in American casualities, drain the American taxpayer for extending wars, and compromise American power and influence rather than allow gays the free exercise of their rights.
They are also willing to put the troops at risk by lowering standards in order to maintain recruitment goals - so those with criminal records, including some violent ones and some white supremecists, are being allowed into the military while we throw gays and lesbians out.
I do not understand why the Left remains so cowardly in not taking these people on in a far more confrontational and strident manner. When it's empirically evident you have the superior argument, you should go straight for the jugular.
We should also point out that the pro-DADT argument implicitly and, at times, explicitly accuses our military of being weak. They argue that somehow straight soldiers will be at risk from the sexually aggressive gays. But can't the same guys who "kill people and break things" handle the possibility a gay guy might look at them in the shower, or fend off a sexual attack? I mean, in the off-chance it might happen, it's not like it's the gay guys committing rape in our society.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | November 5, 2009 9:51 AM
If men in the military are brave enough to face combat, I think they can handle the thought that an openly gay man might see their pee-pees in the shower. Let's give these guys some credit.
Posted by: catgirl | November 5, 2009 9:53 AM
It's because what we consider "Left" is actually pretty moderate. I think that Obama cares a little bit about repealing DADT, but he doesn't care that much.
Posted by: catgirl | November 5, 2009 9:56 AM
I notice that the British Army, which has allowed openly-gay servicemen for years, is an acceptable US ally in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted by: Philbert | November 5, 2009 9:57 AM
A strong moral core is essential to successful armed forces. Sexual deviants make our forces weak. That’s why I say military service should be barred to these degenerates. Every soldier who has cheated on their spouse, every airman who has who has had premarital sex, every sailor who has frequented a brothel, every corpsman who has... polished their weapon, should be dishonorably discharged. Sure, this will thin our ranks. But God will once again smile upon our mission of killing and destroying and we will be unstoppable, even if an army of one becomes a literal description instead of just a TV ad.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 5, 2009 9:57 AM
"affirmative action for sexual depravity"
CO: "Alright people, who hasn't had a broomstick up their ass this week? We have a quota to meet!"
Posted by: peaches | November 5, 2009 10:09 AM
"I am wearing three hats simultaneously this week..."
One is aluminum foil, one is a hardhat, the third one is something in a nice crushed velvet with with a zebra band and a big feather--fitting for just such a pimp.
Posted by: democommie | November 5, 2009 10:16 AM
If this guy is a marine father, does that make his son Marine Boy?
Posted by: chris | November 5, 2009 10:18 AM
A 2006 Zogby poll of "545 troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan" asserts that a growing number of military members are not threatened by the homosexuals they do know.
I have yet to talk to a member of the military who agrees with that assessment.
The reason that we have scientific polls is because anecdotal evidence like this one is notoriously unreliable.
-
...I have a deep love for those who have served and are serving our country in harm's way.
Except for the gay ones, though.
Posted by: Chiroptera | November 5, 2009 10:20 AM
catgirl @ 6:
I have a notion that this type of argument is often wrong and would argue DADT is an example of where it is. I have zero empirical evidence to back it up so it's humbly presented.
When people think "moderate", they appear to immediately think of people who split the difference between what the center- or hard-Left argues vs. what the center- or hard-Right argues. That is the assumption. I think this assumption is often right, but I also think extending this assumption to all matters is not right. I don't mean to pick on catgirl because it is the common wisdom, I've just increasingly come to realize this is knee-jerk reaction I too shared most of my life is not accurately descriptive on all issues or in all elections.
As someone who self-identified as a moderate-Republicans for most of his life until recently and has not changed his primary ideology much in my entire adult life though hopefully it's better developed as I learn, I don't consider myself moderate because I split the difference but rather because I tend to pick positions I like independent of party or ideological platforms.
For example, my Leftist positions are in no way centrist, they are hard Left. e.g., gay marriage, gay rights, environmentalist. My Rightist positions are also hard-Right - projecting American military power, how we allocate taxes, pro-economic growth (as oppossed to the more popular Corporatist hard-Right position). Seeing 60+% of states support medical marijuana laws or stem cell research are anecdotal evidence I think helps validate my notion.
This goes back to my argument in another of Ed's threads today. The Democrats fail to go for the jugular when they clearly have the superior argument, as opposed to the GOP which nearly always does and will use what effective rhetorical fallacy is effective on matters when they don't but still have a fierce desire to prevail. They appear fearful of offending independents and moderates when I think those people are already supportive of gays being out in the military or easily persuaded with minimal education (e.g., the media reporting on Congressional Committee hearings).
The President and his party in Congress have failed to better educate the American public on this matter as they aggressively pursue enhancing our national security objectives by striking down DADT. We have multiple committees and Cabinets in order for parties and Presidents to walk and chew gum at the same time so other priorities having nothing to do with Defense-related matters is not an arguable excuse though implementing a new policy in Afghanistan might be; but that just hit the Congress a few weeks ago and therefore is not a valid excuse for the entire year.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 5, 2009 10:24 AM
Maybe Mr Welch has a "deep love" for men in uniform in general. Unfortunately for him it's a forbidden love, the frustration of which is making him babble incoherently?
Posted by: Captain Obvious | November 5, 2009 10:26 AM
Welch's "deep love for the troops" and his alleged concern for them are clearly ancillary to his primary agenda, namely keeping down gays at all costs.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 5, 2009 10:49 AM
Michael Heath,
I never claimed that "moderate" is just a compromise or center of the road. However, I would necessarily consider you to be "moderate" based on your description of your beliefs (although I respect your right to pick your own label).
I didn't expand on my comment because I feel like I go on about this too much, but we don't really have a "Left" party the way the way we have a "Right" party. Maybe "moderate" isn't the best word choice, but I think that these issues simply aren't that important to the average Democratic politician. My point is that the Democratic and Republican parties are not just mirror images of each other.
Posted by: catgirl | November 5, 2009 10:49 AM
Mr. Welch is just worried that he won't be able to contain himself when they come out with the crotchless uniforms. I know I won't.
Posted by: kehrsam | November 5, 2009 10:50 AM
Whenever someone starts out by assuring you of how patriotic and American they are, that pretty much guarantees that what follows will involve depriving a subset of American citizens of equal rights. No one would have any need to begin an argument with an assurance of how American they are unless they intended to differentiate themselves from people who aren't "real" Americans and don't deserve the rights that "real" Americans get.
Posted by: Wes | November 5, 2009 11:25 AM
Michael,
This is precisely the problem. Democrats have, for decades, tried to placate "the middle" even when all of the evidence suggests that "the middle" supports a liberal position on an issue. Personally I consider this a byproduct of the Republican success at painting the Democrats as liberal and redefining the word "liberal" as something akin to "ultimate evil on the face of the earth !!!!!eleventy!1!!"
IMO the Democrats had difficulty bending over backwards so often on these issues that most of them opted to have their spines removed for simplicity's sake.
With this issue they seem to be so afraid that they will lose the vote of even one moderate (but anti-gay) old fart voter in outer North Dakota that they're willing to throw reason, reality, and the massive majority of us who support equal rights for homosexuals under the nearest bus.
--------------
This doesn't even loosely resemble a coherent argument. What on earth could it even mean?
Ed,
I'm pretty sure he's claiming that we raging liberals in education have implemented forced indoctrination into teh gay because we don't actively punish gay students, suppress student organizations who support GBLTG rights, etc. This is all, of course, despite the mountains of evidence that so many jackass teachers and administrators actually do these terrible things every day. He's trying to claim that public schools have become giant pro-gay agenda™ training grounds and, I assume, claim that this has caused all of the problems of our society, blah blah blah, bullshit bullshit bullshit.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 5, 2009 11:29 AM
Or how about challenging these idiots on their supposed support for the troops, which consists of sending them to fight unjust, useless wars without adequate equipment and support, and later cutting them off when they are no longer useful as cannon-fodder? Oh, but of course, they wear ribbons! RIBBONS I TELL YOU!
Posted by: Valhar2000 | November 5, 2009 11:35 AM
Someone should remind Welch that a lot of the people who are putting their lives on the line in the U.S. military are women. And one in three of those women in the military will be raped by their fellow soldiers. Yet we still allow straight men to serve.
Actually, I think he knows that. If not the numbers, at least that male soldiers rape female soldiers, and that the rapists are rarely punished. But it doesn't bother him when women soldiers are raped: in his twisted mind, that's probably one of the rights of "our boys in Iraq." As long as he and men like him condone rape, and support a system that condones rape, of course they can't stand the idea of gay men serving: in their mind, a military that allows gay soldiers is one in which some of the victims of rape will be men like them, not women who they probably don't think should be in the army either. Men like that assume that most gay men are rapists, or would be given the opportunity, because that's their opinion of male sexuality in general.
Posted by: Vicki | November 5, 2009 11:35 AM
Gayyyyyy.
Posted by: Adrian W. | November 5, 2009 12:17 PM
Let me first say that this idiot has exactly the argument that I would expect from a jeebus freak bigot who is afraid of homosexuals (meaning it is no argument at all).
I am a veteran and spent a great deal of time deployed on an aircraft carrier. I am reasonably certain that there were gay men in my berthing, and that they saw my pee-pee in the shower, and I didn't care. But I still can't get over this one aspect of openly gay men and women (but men especially) in the military.
When we finally integrated our military, we were forced to provide separate accommodations for both males and females (obviously a good and overdue thing all around). But why did this happen? Because we couldn't reasonably expect women to berth and bathe with men (obviously). I imagine that women would not be very keen on men being integrated into their living spaces, because men, when put in close quarters with women, can sometimes to terrible things, as Vicky correctly and eloquently pointed out above.
I'm not sure her number of 1 in 3 women in the military being raped by her fellow soldiers is factual (I am not in a position to refute it, but it sounds a little inflated (a lot actually)) But if we can't even get men to act like civilized humans in close proximity with women, how can we expect them to not resent and react negatively (and perhaps violently) when put in a situation to respect and be tolerant of openly gay men, especially in close and intimate circumstances.
I am all for abolishing DADT, but I see some problems with the actual implementation of the policy. Unless you think that Evangelical soldiers will all of a sudden start accepting openly gay men in their showers....but I kinda doubt it....just the same as I kinda doubt that women would be ok with COMPLETE integration.
Posted by: Fletcher | November 5, 2009 12:32 PM
Fletcher, #23: But if we can't even get men to act like civilized humans in close proximity with women, how can we expect them to not resent and react negatively (and perhaps violently) when put in a situation to respect and be tolerant of openly gay men, especially in close and intimate circumstances.
If this is a problem, then how do we solve it? By punishing gay men by not allowing them to serve? That seems kind of backwards.
I'm sure there was a lot of resentment about blacks serving in integrated units. How did that problem get solved? Maybe something similar could be done.
Posted by: Chiroptera | November 5, 2009 12:35 PM
Prediction:
Son is gay.
Posted by: rob | November 5, 2009 12:45 PM
This whole DADT question stems from allowing christian morality to remain in our laws. It is long past time to review all our laws and root out the filthy moralizing injected by the followers of an archaic, stupid, and dangerous cannibalistic death cult.
Posted by: Yeti | November 5, 2009 12:54 PM
And there's the additional benefit that out-of-the-closet male homosexuals are unlikely to be Islamic radicals; which, since being an Islamic radical is presently an undesirable trait for our Arabic translators, ought make that a relatively desirable trait.
The British at least waited until after the Germans were defeated to drive Turing to suicide....
Posted by: abb3w | November 5, 2009 1:02 PM
Fletcher and Chiroptera, a good start would be actually punishing those men who rape, instead of just brushing the crimes under the rug, which is what almost always happens now. We shouldn't be focusing on the victims, but rather time rapists.
Posted by: marilove | November 5, 2009 1:12 PM
Here are some statistics about rape in the military, from PBS.org ( http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/336/fact-check-military-sexual-trauma.html )
Note that these are only what is reported, and also only of those reported that aren't ignored as soon as they are reported.
The numbers are pretty astounding.
And yes, men also experience rape, by other male officers (and female officers, for that matter), and I'd say it's probably just as hard for them, because of the extra stigma attached to men being raped. Also, just because a man rapes another man doesn't necessarily make that rapist gay.
Posted by: marilove | November 5, 2009 1:17 PM
@Fletcher | November 5, 2009 12:32 PM
I'm not in the mood today, so I'll simply reply with Fuck off.
Posted by: Owen | November 5, 2009 1:35 PM
Fletcher: Here is a list of countries that allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military.
* 2.1 Argentina
* 2.2 Australia
* 2.3 Austria
* 2.4 Belgium
* 2.5 Bermuda
* 2.6 Canada
* 2.7 Czech Republic
* 2.8 Denmark
* 2.9 Estonia
* 2.10 Finland
* 2.11 France
* 2.12 Germany
* 2.13 Ireland
* 2.14 Israel
* 2.15 Italy
* 2.16 Lithuania
* 2.17 Luxembourg
* 2.18 The Netherlands
* 2.19 New Zealand
* 2.20 Norway
* 2.21 Philippines
* 2.22 Romania
* 2.23 Slovenia
* 2.24 South Africa
* 2.25 Spain
* 2.26 Sweden
* 2.27 Switzerland
* 2.28 United Kingdom
* 2.29 Uruguay
If you have any evidence that they have problems when they expect them to not resent and react negatively (and perhaps violently) when put in a situation to respect and be tolerant of openly gay men, especially in close and intimate circumstances. Now, are you saying that the members of the US military is of a lower moral standard than the members of the armed forces of Estonia?
Posted by: Donalbain | November 5, 2009 2:09 PM
Yes, TEH GAY certainly can't be any good at breaking things, because he's too concerned with making sure everything looks faaaaabulous...
Posted by: Solly Hofman | November 5, 2009 2:09 PM
Just sayin'
Posted by: John Hinkle | November 5, 2009 2:13 PM
Owen, you are a fucking moron.
"I'm not in the mood today". Translation, I have no intelligent response. I don't know how to put this into simple words for you, dullard, but I will try. I think gay people should be in the military. I think that they should not be discriminated against. I think that you are fucking simple. Yada, yada, yada. Why not leave the discourse to the big kids from here on out, hmm?
Thank you for the stats, Marilove. They are alarming and they solidify my point. What do we do about the fact that many men in the military are bigoted jesus freaks, and some are chauvinistic rapists?
I am simply seeking the opinions of intelligent people, not condoning the current state of the military. Can someone who is not a mental midget maybe weigh in? Maybe the answer is that we do nothing, just do away with DADT, and see how it goes? That's great, but is there a better way to ensure that people are not abused, the way that women are obviously being abused in the military? Or should we be like Owen? Should we lambaste everyone with a simple question, treat them like a bigot for simply stating what I believe to be an obvious question? That sounds like a constructive plan....
Posted by: Fletcher | November 5, 2009 2:37 PM
I'd like to introduce "this gentlemen" to several heterosexual military members, who knowingly serve by, above and below (no pun intended) those are hiding under the radar of DADT. They are not threatened or in any way harmed by their compatriots sexuality.
Posted by: Donna | November 5, 2009 2:42 PM
Good stats, Donalbain. What do you have against Estonia? Do we know what the abuse of those soldiers is like in those countries? 1 in 3 women is apparently raped in military service, here in the US. Are you really asking me to pass judgment on the moral state of our servicemen? I would say that the numbers point to "pretty fucking piss poor".
Posted by: Fletcher | November 5, 2009 2:43 PM
They're losing, and they know once DADT is gone, they've lost. Was it a cakewalk between Truman's integration of the armed forces and the enactment of the Civil Rights Act? Certainly not. But it did become inevitable.
As Maine amply demonstrated, lies are all they've got. Sadly, they're still effective (thus, they keep using them). Not for much longer though.
Posted by: usagi | November 5, 2009 2:57 PM
Estonia was picked at random from the list.
Posted by: Donalbain | November 5, 2009 3:02 PM
Fletcher said:
I'm not sure her number of 1 in 3 women in the military being raped by her fellow soldiers is factual (I am not in a position to refute it, but it sounds a little inflated (a lot actually))
A possible source for the 1 in 3 number comes from the Government Accountability Office. The GAO reports are closer to 2 in 7 (about 29%). But the GAO investigators suspected numbers might be on the low side due to under reporting by victims. So I'd be willing to let 4 percentage points slide. I should also note that, 41% of female service members reported having been sexually assaulted.
And what? Of course I expect there to be some incidents, especially at first. That doesn't mean we should kowtow to the bullies who react with violence to being uncomfortable. Throwing a tantrum shouldn't get you your way. And anyway, how many people join the armed services expecting it will be a comfortable experience? (Well, maybe those Air Force wimps, but I’m talking about the real military. :-p )
So what do we do about the bigots who simply must hurt people that make them feel funny inside? We demote, court martial, or otherwise punish them in accordance with military law and tradition. I'm open to suggestions as to how we might minimize the necessity of punitive action; head off the incidents before they occur. But the way I see it any special precaution I can think of, like tolerance training or separate barracks, will only serve to increase division and probably lead to greater violence.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 5, 2009 3:07 PM
Punish them when they commit those (and other) crimes. Make it known that being a bigot, harrassing, or raping is unacceptable and that they will be punished if they are caught. Making victims known that they are not blamed for someone else's actions, and that if they report a crime they will be believed, and that the rapist or harraser will actually be dealt with.
Wanna know why women are abused so much? Because it's accepted. It's accepted in our society as a whole, but doubly so in our military. Victims are blamed. Rapists are given a slap on the hand, ignored completely, or even worse, patted on the back.
Again, we need to concentrate on the rapists and harassers, instead of ignoring them, and putting the blame on the victims, which is what happens now, in the military and in our society as a whole.
It’s completely fucking bass-akwards to say, “Well, since men rape women, women shouldn’t be in the military!” just as it’s completely fucking bass-akwards to say, “Well, since bigots exists, gays shouldn’t be in the military!”
Way to vilify the rapists and bigots. THAT should be unacceptable.
Posted by: marilove | November 5, 2009 3:09 PM
"Making victims known that they are not blamed for someone else's actions, and that if they report a crime they will be believed, and that the rapist or harasser will actually be dealt with."
Wow that's some horrid grammar I've got there, but I'm sure you get my meaning.
What's wrong with tolerance training? Education can only be a good thing. I agree that seperate barracks is not a good idea.
A BIG problem, Fletcher, is that the actions of harassers and rapists aren't taken seriously, or are outright applauded, by their superiors. Take that away, and I'd bet you'd have less incidents.
HOWEVER, you're never, ever, ever going to completely erase harassment and rape, anywhere, especially in the military. People do nasty shit to each other. That's just reality. But you can't let that dictate who you let into the military -- indeed, doing that just makes the situation worse.
I really can't say enough who important it is to actually do something about the crimes, instead of doing what we do now, which is a whole lot of nothin'.
Posted by: marilove | November 5, 2009 3:14 PM
Well, it's only an anecdote, but the Marines seem to be doing fine, even though they currently have an ex-gay porn star, Matt Sanchez, in their Reserves. Because Mr. Sanchez has claimed he was only "gay-for-pay" the Marines opted not to follow the DADT policy and allow him to continue.
If the Marines can handle a gay porn star, then really there is no argument for DADT.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | November 5, 2009 3:28 PM
Out of curiousity, do you feel the same about separate barracks for men and women? If women in the military are brave enough to face combat, I think they can handle the thought that a man might see their bits in the shower.
How would you react if your boss told you that from now on you'd be required to shower with co-workers of the opposite gender? And in what manner does that differ from forced showering with gay people of one's own gender?
To clarify the direction of these questions: I think DADT is a silly policy, and I think everyone knew it could not last long. But I think Fletcher's right in pointing out that the issue's more complex than the way others present it, and that in the short term, lifting DADT will stir up a lot of violent ugliness. I'd like to think that catching and removing some of the perpetrators will make our military better, but we need to make damn sure that we go into lifting DADT in a manner that minimizes the danger of violence by bigots.
Naturally, the same things remain necessary regarding male and female integration in the military.
Posted by: Spaulding | November 5, 2009 3:37 PM
My fear is that it would serve to single out homosexuals, that it would be viewed by the people actually need it as, "you’ve got to use the kiddy gloves on the delicate pansies." In other words I’m doubtful that a training class will result in education among those who actually need an education, but that it might serve to fuel their resentment. Of course I may be wrong. It happened once before. ;-)
Perhaps some pilot programs are in order.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 5, 2009 3:46 PM
Fletcher has a point; implementation should be a concern. I don't think we need to spend years figuring out a plan prior to implementation, instead I think we merely need to work concurrently on a plan along with Congress getting rid of the law.
I also don't think you need to have a great plan in place prior to implementation, but it should follow a few months after with a continuous improvement plan that has resources focused on a long-term integration and performance monitoring plan. Prior to having robust plans in place written communications from the chief brass on principles, integrity, and expected behavior relative to current regulations on behavior would be a start. Especially when coupled with quick, devastating discipline when gays are mistreated, especially officer enablement.
The best initial action would be to allocate some of your best officers (in terms of management skills) to benchmark countries with similar cultures as ours who both have gays openly serving in the military and minimal issues. That start will help build the skeleton of an approach. There will be some need for officer training, to say there won't be is ludicrously naive.
Fast can be stupid, procrastinating is also no excuse. Given th work that Mikey Weinstein does, I foresee problems with Christianist officers incapable of doing their duty. I would advocate some sacrificial lambs (and call it that as well) - the first couple of officers to misbehave should be treated as harshly as military regulations allow and have that punishment communicated widely to serve as lesson.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 5, 2009 3:47 PM
I agree with all of the points that are being made, but some of those don't translate into real world solutions. War is a shitty business, and expecting those that we train for war to act socially responsible is a dubious task (obviously).
But lets leave the obvious problems of assault et al aside, and just focus on one aspect. If we cannot reasonably expect women to share berthing and bathing spaces with men, how can we reasonably expect heterosexual men / women to berth and bathe with openly homosexual men / women? Again, I, as a hetero male, could care less because I am not so arrogant as to assume any gay man wants to jump my bones, simply because he is gay, and I am simply not afraid of nakedness, or who sees my in that state...be them gay, straight, male, female. But this isn't about open-minded me, it's about close minded Billy-Bob and his right to not want to undress around what is essentially a member of the opposite sex (for all intents and purposes). Am I way off base here?
Posted by: Fletcher | November 5, 2009 3:48 PM
I see your point, but I think if done right, it could be a good option, and of course you wouldn't include JUST homosexuals in the sensitivity/diversity training. You’d have to go about it a bit more generally, I think.
The fact of the matter is, they already DO berth and bath with homosexuals, and while not necessarily open, I'm sure there are plenty of officers who know they have gay fellow officers. When you're in close quarters like that, it's hard not to.
Just ask some of the open ex-military members now.
Also, Donalbain has already mentioned a TON of countries that have openly gay servicemen and women. This means it is doable. We just need to do it.
The first thing is to eradicate DADT.
Posted by: marilove | November 5, 2009 4:01 PM
As it's none of his bussiness, I'd have a problem with my boss trying to tell me who to shower with regardless of their gender! Putting that asside for the moment, I get your meaning. Personally I have no problem being naked with either men or women. But I recognise my attitudes in that regard somewhat outside the societal norm. If you'd care to share how you'd feel about it it might better build to your point.
I do see significant differences here. But I’d like to see what point you’re trying to make with your first question before we dive into this one so we don't end up on some tangent.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 5, 2009 4:24 PM
"And in what manner does that differ from forced showering with gay people of one's own gender?"
Um, they ALREADY ARE showering with gay people. It's just that DADT is giving these insecure sensitive souls the illusion that they aren't.
Jeesh.
Posted by: Rick R | November 5, 2009 4:35 PM
The hypocrisy that people miss about "Don't ask, don't tell" is that it applies to heterosexual couples too.
The whole thing is based on Article 125 of the UCMJ, which makes "sodomy" illegal. The manual for courts martial then defines sodomy to include fellatio and cunnilingus between opposite-sex couples.
It leaves no exception for married couples.
I think we should encourage the same punishment for breach of article 125 between heterosexual couples as we enforce with same-sex military personnel.
Posted by: Calladus | November 5, 2009 4:37 PM
Posted by: Dave | November 5, 2009 4:38 PM
But I think Fletcher's right in pointing out that the issue's more complex than the way others present it, and that in the short term, lifting DADT will stir up a lot of violent ugliness.
So, there was violent ugliness when it happened in the British Army? Or the Israeli Army? Or the Estonian Army? Or the Belgian Army?
But lets leave the obvious problems of assault et al aside, and just focus on one aspect. If we cannot reasonably expect women to share berthing and bathing spaces with men, how can we reasonably expect heterosexual men / women to berth and bathe with openly homosexual men / women?
By expecting them to be adults. The way that the New Zealand Army does.
Seriously, your argument seems to be "American soldiers are fucking idiots compared to the rest of the world". Is that REALLY what you want to be saying?
Posted by: Donalbain | November 5, 2009 4:40 PM
In my, albeit limited, experience the visceral, irrational, cold sweat, fear of gays comes not from the gays themselves but rather that the presence of gays might force them to deeply and honestly contemplate their own sexuality. To have to explore the dark recesses of their own minds. Not having already fully explored, confirmed and found comfort in their sexuality they might discover their sexuality is not as simple as they would like. It is fear of the unknown.
Posted by: Art | November 5, 2009 4:46 PM
Thanks, Donalbain. The fact that openly gays serve in outher countries and have for years, successfully, means it can be done, and to argue otherwise is ignoring that fact. Seriously, folks, openly gays can hang with the straights, I promise. And it's not the openly gays fault if a straight asshole harrasses them, sexually or otherwise. It's the straight's fault, period, end of discussion, and they should be dealt with.
This constant, "But but but straight folk can't handle gay folk, so straight folk WIN!" needs to stop.
Posted by: marilove | November 5, 2009 4:50 PM
Just to make sure there's no confusion, I agree. I talking about tolerance training as a means of changing people’s attitudes toward homosexuals, particularly action on the level of what Fletcher humorously dubbed the close minded Billy-Bob. Training officers on how to deal with complaints, foster cohesion, and effectively lead under new regulations is certainly in order. I didn’t communicate that well (read, at all), so thank you Michael for bringing it up!
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 5, 2009 4:52 PM
Can I just comment on how nice it is to have this discussion without the inevitable "dang gays and their agenda corrupting my dang children, and THEY TOOK OUR JOBS!!!"...idiot every 3rd post. When you virtually eliminate the stupid from the discussion....well, I'm getting all weepy over here...
Man I love the sci-blogs.
Posted by: Fletcher | November 5, 2009 5:07 PM
marilove, I'm not sure who you're arguing against at this point. Donalbain, I'm not an Estonian military historian, so feel free to share your informative statistics regarding sexual-orientation-based violence in the Estonian military, controlled for degrees of religiousity and homophobia.
I'm sure most of our soldiers are dedicated and decent people, but I also know that there are networks of religious fundamentalism in our military, more so than in most of those other countries you listed. Homophobia's a big, disappointing part of American culture, and mentioning Estonia does not somehow eliminate that fact.Quite so. Most people rely on illusions to get them through the day, and are disturbed when such illusions are shattered. Sometimes you still have to go ahead with the shattering, but you brace yourself for the fact that it's gonna cause conflict.
Posted by: Spaulding | November 5, 2009 5:25 PM
How I'd feel about it is not germane to the point. It's a question of sexual autonomy.
Again, let's clarify that this is not voluntary, optional nudity we're talking about. This is something mandated by your boss as part of your job, with a threat of incarceration if you refuse. I have difficulty squaring that with a culture which tells us that sex jokes in a workplace constitute a hostile environment and a civil liability.
It's sexist to suggest that everyone except straight men must be guaranteed a non-sexualized workplace. Either we all get over the prudish attitude, or we extend the same protection to everyone.
It's true that members of the military suspend some of their rights for the duration of their service, but we owe it to them as citizens and as soldiers to minimize our intrusion on their rights to what is necessary for military capability. And violating soldiers' sexual autonomy is a pretty big deal.
Posted by: Spaulding | November 5, 2009 5:49 PM
You can search the BBC News web site and easily find diatribes written by senior British army officials declaring that allowing gays to serve openly in the military would be a disaster. Before the 1999 policy change they actively hunted down gays and booted them from the forces.
What's happened after 1999? Nothing. No disaster, no problems with troop morale or anything. Perhaps the only change is that gay soldiers can no report harassment without risking being discharged themselves.
Posted by: tacitus | November 5, 2009 6:09 PM
Spaulding "It's sexist to suggest that everyone except straight men must be guaranteed a non-sexualized workplace. Either we all get over the prudish attitude, or we extend the same protection to everyone."
I don't know if you've ever been in the military, but showers are for gettin' the dirt off. Try thinking sexy thoughts after a few days of no sleep, followed by a forced march, followed by a nice long period of more no sleep. You can't. You have three thoughts: "Man, I can't wait to be anyplace else.", "Man, I'm tired." and "Man, a beer should would go down good right about now."
"And violating soldiers' sexual autonomy is a pretty big deal."
Except that "they" are already there. The lack of "sexual autonomy" being "violated" (used loaded terminology much?) only exists because "the straights" are pretending that "they" aren't there.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 5, 2009 6:11 PM
Modusoperandi: Your last sentence is too tangled for me to get your point. I'll repeat my questions though:
How would you react if your boss told you that from now on you'd be required to shower with co-workers of the opposite gender? And in what manner does that differ from forced showering with gay people of one's own gender?
If you're male, also try imagining you're a female being ordered to shower with straight men. Sure, you're welcome to assume that you're tired and dirty, if you think that makes a difference.
Is this a good precedent for workplace behavior? Because it seems that it would overturn every idea of workplace harassment.
If your answer is that we should all just get thicker skins and tolerate some amount of sexual intrusion in the workplace or elsewhere, I'm inclined to agree. But a couple of weeks ago, a number of commenters here were crying rape when a woman was written on with a sharpie. If that's indicative of one's threshold for feeling sexually violated, how is it not a sexual violation when someone in a position of power orders a subordinate to disrobe and shower beside a person of opposite gender or orientation?
Essentially, I ask these things in pursuit of consistency.
Posted by: Spaulding | November 5, 2009 6:46 PM
What a great (unintentional?) pun, Abby.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | November 5, 2009 6:56 PM
Regarding the idea of being forced to shower among people of the opposite gender or orientation, especially in context of the idea that one has the right to a non-sexualized showering atmosphere ...
How would you handle people forced to shower among people of the same gender, all of whom are attracted to same-gender people?
It does seem a little (hypocritical/ironic/other) to say women can't shower with men if that is the primary reason. Couldn't you just let everyone shower in privacy, or is building separate stalls a waste of military resources?
Posted by: Emu Sam | November 5, 2009 7:49 PM
That woman was unconscious, Spaulding. You're not unconscious when you're showering. And nakedness doesn't always have a sexual connotation to it, like you keep implying.
Respond to tacitus's points in comment 59, please.
The military is different from most other jobs. It's not realistic to ask what would happen if you were forced to shower with a gay or opposite-sex co-worker because most people aren't required to shower with anyone ever on the job. If my boss suddenly told me I was required to shower with anyone, opposite sex OR same sex, I'd be confused and pretty pissed off.
Have you ever considered that straight men "sexually intrude" on other straight men all the time? And straight women do the same, for that matter. Ever been in a high school locker room? Not all of those funny-haha smacks on the ass are wanted, you know, and as many small, skinny teenage boys can tell you, or flat-chested girls, being naked in the locker room can be torture, and it's all about sexual intrusion, as you put it. And having worked in a jail, men use sex as power over other men even when they are straight.
People fucking suck and use sex as a power tool all the time, regardless of gender and sexual orientation. Keeping DADT doesn't mean sexual harassment between same-sex people doesn't exist. It just means they can't fucking report it, for fear they'll get kicked out for being gay.
Posted by: marilove | November 5, 2009 8:13 PM
Again, let's clarify that this is not voluntary, optional nudity we're talking about. This is something mandated by your boss as part of your job, with a threat of incarceration if you refuse
In twenty-one years in the Marines, I never once met anyone who was incarcerated for not showering. Given a blanket party by the people he bunked with, maybe.
Posted by: Shay | November 5, 2009 8:46 PM
So basically he's spewing bullshit, Shay? Surprise!
Posted by: marilove | November 5, 2009 8:56 PM
@ Fletcher | November 5, 2009 2:37 PM
What part of fuck off don't you understand?
Posted by: Owen | November 5, 2009 9:14 PM
Owen: What part of fuck off don't you understand?
I'm gay. I've done some activist work, including rooting for the removal of DADT.
I'm not sure what your point is exactly, but I assume it has to do with Fletcher's concerns about lifting the ban. I happen to share them.
A statistic I'm pulling out my butt but I think comes via the Palm Center and is pretty accurate is that 75% of military personnel have no problem about serving with gays. What about the other 25%? That's a whole mess of possible dissenters or those who might cover for the dissenters.
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation reports on a pretty frightening permeation of the military by christianists (particularly evangelicals). How would they react? Fuck, Ed passed on one case there where a man got forced out for being Catholic.
I'd like to see MRFF coordinate with the Servicemembers' Legal Defense Network to see if they can determine the prevalence of DADT expulsions due to religion.
And Owen, explain yourself better. You're souinding like a brainless Republican congresscritter.
Posted by: Uncle Glenny | November 5, 2009 9:29 PM
marilove, if someone does not wish to be naked with someone else, but is forced to, you don't see that as a nonconsensual sexual situation? Or is a straight man's consent irrelevant?
Your last couple of paragraphs are getting closer to the point. That stuff is not something that anyone, gay, straight, male, or female is really going to avoid, so there's no sense being too thin-skinned about it...yet it also really sucks and it's reasonable to take steps to minimize it, and not to let it be trivialized.
I have no beef with #59, which I don't think was directed at me. I suspect we've got more cultural hurdles to lifting DADT gracefully than the British did, but it's good that we're consulting them for some pointers.
And finally, Marilove, if you're thinking that I am arguing in favor of retaining DADT, your reading comprehension is utter garbage. Go back and review.
Posted by: Spaulding | November 5, 2009 9:34 PM
Geeesh I suppose it was inevitable. Just a note to any of you pissed off enough to go looking for this guy,,, you know, to give him a piece of your mind, I'm Dave Welch from Canada. I think your Dave Welch is missing a few olives from his greek salad.
Regards
Dave Welch (From Canada!!)
Posted by: Dave Welch | November 5, 2009 9:51 PM
The easiest way to square those two notions is to think about what OSHA would say about allowing employees to be shot at as part of their normal duties. The nature of military operations makes them not as accommodating to workplace safety and comfort as civilian ones.
I'm not sure what definition of "non-sexualized" you're working with, but you seem to be asserting that the border between non-sexualized and sexualized is crossed when we go from, "You shower with gay men but pretend that you don't," to, "You shower with gay men." If that's the delta that crosses us over from a safe, cozy environment to a hostile and sexualized one, I'm really not sure that the problem can be solved.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | November 5, 2009 10:13 PM
Spaulding, I'm trying to understand, but without luck so far. If a straight man was uncomfortable showering with other straight men, wouldn't that also intrude on his "sexual autonomy" by your reasoning. Yet that seems to be okay. As is being forced to shower with gay men, so long as they're not allowed to admit they're gay, which is the current situation. But when the gay men are given the option of choosing whether or not to reveal their orientation it suddenly crosses a line. What is that line? I don't see it.
@The Christian Cynic #62
[headsmack] Dr. Freud, to the white courtesy phone.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 5, 2009 10:22 PM
Seems to me that given the choice, I'd go with the Athenian (or is it Spartan, I can never remember) ideal of the Military consisting entirely of gay male pairs. They'll fight harder for their lovers.
Other then that, get the fuck over it. Everyone showers together if it makes you feel better, but stop excluding people.
Then again, if we insisted the military only defend our freedom we'd need a lot less people. Especially considering we haven't fought a war to defend American freedom since 1812.
Posted by: Ryan | November 5, 2009 10:32 PM
Posted by: Dave | November 5, 2009 10:36 PM
Dave, the issue isn't whether it's a big deal for you, or for me, or for anyone else who's posted. The issue (as I gather) is that a part of the opposition to removing DADT is that some straight guys are sexually creeped out by certain aspects of close quarters (e.g. showers) with gay men. That's them legitimately expressing a sexual boundary. Your consent is not relevant to their consent. For the sake of expediency, I too am inclined to encourage them to just get over it, yet I also recognize that it's hypocritical to acknowledge some people's sexual boundaries but not others. Ryan's got it when he says "Everyone showers together if it makes you feel better, but stop excluding people."
Though that's the least hypocritical or exclusionary approach I see, it sounds volatile, and would require vigilant officers.
Posted by: Spaulding | November 6, 2009 12:33 AM
re: #71 and similar others:
You point out that straight soldiers who get the heebie-jeebies about showering with gay guys have most likely already showered with gay guys without ill effects. Obviously true, but where's the argument? Kind of a "what you didn't know didn't hurt you, so you shouldn't mind it continuing now that you do know?"
Would you buy that argument in any other situation? Would you buy it from a cheating spouse? From the government tapping your phones? From an angry roommate who pees in your shampoo? (Seriously, I know a real example of that last one!)
People tend to get angry in those situations.
Posted by: Spaulding | November 6, 2009 12:54 AM
Michael Heath:
"This goes back to my argument in another of Ed's threads today. The Democrats fail to go for the jugular when they clearly have the superior argument, as opposed to the GOP which always does and will lie through their fucking teeth when they don't but still have a fierce desire to prevail."
Sorry, that really needed to be restated.
I will second what Fletcher said about it being nice to see a thread that is free of anti-gay KKKristic assholes.
Posted by: democommie | November 6, 2009 2:55 AM
Spaulding said:
All of those examples would provoke an angry reaction because they are a betrayal of trust.
Allowing gays to be honest about their orientation is not a betrayal of trust in any way.
Discrimination is not good policy, and there is no good reason to bar gays from serving in the military. Other countries manage it well, an the US could too.
Oh, and catgirl is absolutely correct. From either a world wide perspective, or a historical perspective within the US, the US left wing is positively on the right. The US seems to have lost the concept of social justice as a desirable thing.
Posted by: echidna | November 6, 2009 4:08 AM
I've said this before, DADT has to end, but you cannot just end it with no other actions or thoughts. As long as the military cannot and does not force straight women to shower with straight men, by equal rights the military cannot logically force straights and gays to shower together. Unless you are going to force everyone to shower with everyone you aren't being consistent.
"And one in three of those women in the military will be raped by their fellow soldiers"
In looking at your link I cannot see how they get that number. FY2008 had 3134 reports of incidents according to the DOD report. I cannot see how that turns into one in three.
http://www.sapr.mil/Contents/ResourcesReports/AnnualReports/DoD_FY08_Annual_Report.pdf
Rape is an issue in the military, but one in three women being raped is just not backed by any evidence I can find and is insulting to soldiers.
Posted by: Laen | November 6, 2009 5:48 AM
Coalminers and football players (of various codes),not just soldiers, regularly shower together without difficulty.
The few miners I'd met have said pretty much much what Modus Operandi said: the train of thought is shower, beers, sleep. Sex doesn't even get a look in.
That Christianists feel offended by the mere presence of gays is just tough for them. If they want to challenge it in a military court, good luck with that. I suspect that after a case or two, they'll just learn to deal.
All those countries managed it, guess the US Military will have to "improvise, overcome, [and] adapt" too. - DJ
______________________
*I note with some 'shock' that Dave Welch seems to think the US Military's job-description is:
The Australian Army's job is generally one of peacekeeping, nation building, disaster relief, search and rescue, and the like. Strange how different the perceived roles are. (Yes, they do kill people, but weirdly, they try not to unless absolutely necessary).
Posted by: DingoJack | November 6, 2009 6:10 AM
I've had my "eureka" moment!
The anti-healthcare teabaggers are against healthcare because they're for sexual chastity and GODLY heterosexuality. You all just think they're stupid flibbertygibbets, but they've been paying attention. They have that list of countries that allow teh GAY to openly serve in the military AND have universal healthcare--look at the frikkin' overlap! If we allow HQ to become the designation for HOMO QUEERS 'stead of Head Quarters we will HAVE Government deathpanelinternment camps in a matter of hours! 11tyoneSQUARED!!
Sorry I forgot to turn on "Spellsmasher" and my Random Caps utility.
"The Australian Army's job is generally one of peacekeeping, nation building, disaster relief, search and rescue, and the like. Strange how different the perceived roles are. (Yes, they do kill people, but weirdly, they try not to unless absolutely necessary)."
That might explain why Australia, a country the size of Texas plus Rhode Island has fewer people in it than Canada*. If your army was more efficient at killing people they would encourage settlement like we did!
*Courtesy Wikipaedophile.
DingoJack:
Posted by: democommie | November 6, 2009 7:26 AM
Well, I certainly made a hash of arranging that last one! DingoJack, you know where your name belongs in that mess.
Posted by: democommie | November 6, 2009 7:45 AM
Demo - EPIC(ALLY AMUSING) FORMATTING FAILURE!* :) - DJ
_______________
* Step away from the control and 'c' keys (no-one needs to get hurt here).
Posted by: DingoJack | November 6, 2009 9:12 AM
Spaulding, I still don't see how gay and straight men sharing a shower is analogous to men and women sharing a shower together. You keep saying that if they don't allow the latter they can't allow the former. But why?
Men and women have separate facilities for a number of reasons. The most obvious is because there is a long history of women being objectified and dominated by men. The differing physical characteristics of men and women create an obvious division, an us-and-them situation that is only exaggerated by nudity. But there is no history of straight men being objectified and dominated by gay men. There is no obvious physical difference. I don’t yet understand your point.
@Laen #79
The report you link to is only counting complaints filed. When anonymously surveyed by outside investigators the numbers jump dramatically. A little background, in 2003 there were reports of wide spread rape and sexual assault in the military, this study for example, which supports the 1 in 3 number. In 2004 Congress ordered action be taken. In 2005 Rumsfeld formed a task force. From 2003 until last year, there’s been little change in the number of reported incidents. So there’s little reason to think there had been a significant change in the unreported instances either. This is backed up by GAO investigations. Those reports are available on the GAO">http://www.gao.gov/”>GAO web site and show the rape rate to be about 29%.
This past year there was a small but statistically significant increase in the number of reported cases. This is a good thing though, as the general consensus is that this is being driven by a larger percent of cases being reported, not an increase in the actual rate. In fact it may be an early indicator that the programs are working and attitudes are starting to shift. But we’re still a long, long way from calling this issue solved.
I will say I’m not an expert on any of this. My comments here are based on maybe an hours worth of research over the last 24 hours. So if anyone has more or better information, please don’t be shy.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 6, 2009 10:20 AM
Dude, it's part of their job. No, I don't see showering with someone as a "nonconsensual sexual situation" since showering doesn't mean sex. Sex =/= showering.
No, it's them being big babies. Showering has nothing to do with sex. It's not a sexual boundary. It's just a way for them to express their bigotry.
And last I checked, they don't HAVE to shower. They would probably want to, so as not to get their smelly asses kicked, but hey, they have a choice, as an actual ex-marine has pointed out.
Posted by: marilove | November 6, 2009 10:28 AM
When you have teh GAY in the military then crazed muslamic army psychiatrists will shoot people in Texas. I'm pretty sure that's how WNDenial's headline will read tomorrow--under an Orly Taitz byline.
Posted by: democommie | November 6, 2009 10:54 AM
Abby Normal:
That's right, gay men never, ever objectify men!
Lots of women would get the heebie-jeebies when the guys look at them in the shower, and lots of men would get those same heebie-jeebies when the gay dudes look at them in the shower. Same exact thing, though I expect the gay guys would tend to be more tactful about it. It's not about who's got what parts, it's about having some autonomy over who sees you naked.
marilove:
Then feel free to post a link to a non-sexual video of yourself showering. No big deal, right?
Ogling is not sex, groping is not sex, innuendo is not sex, nudity is not sex, sharpie doodles are not sex. There are a lot of things other than sex that can cross someone's sexual boundaries. Sometimes it has to be punished, sometimes it just has to be toughed out. But a double-standard is not defensible.
Posted by: Spaulding | November 6, 2009 12:47 PM
Abby Normal: To be clearer, I can't help but wonder if the issue here is some people buying into the BS double-standard where female body = sexual, male body = asexual / female = sexual object, male = sexual agent. E.g. a naked man is just a another dude, but a naked woman is a delicate, exposed flower.
If so, that's a hypocritically sexist attitude.
Posted by: Spaulding | November 6, 2009 12:58 PM
Abby, that is an interesting study. I find it hard to believe though. For a very small sample size they extrapolate a lot of data. I come back to the small number surveyed, 640, and that they are applying that to close to forty years worth of time.
Let me clarify yet again, I'm not defending rape or rapists, I'm just pointing out things about this particular study that stick out as odd which may be affecting the numbers they came up with.
"Notably, more than half of veterans of PGWera women reported sharing sleeping quarters with both men and women."
I've only rarely seen women sharing the same building with men, never the same rooms. I'm not sure where this situation occurs, but it certainly isn't common.
"Nearly half of our participants had experienced childhood
sexual abuse, rape, or both before military service."
That stuck out to me. Am I completely blind to how often women are raped and sexually abused in the civilian world? I can't grasp half the women in the military having been sexually abuse or raped before...
As to the being babies, and it's not sex, it's just a shower. I have a feeling that if a woman felt she was being ogled or stared at while being forced to shower with men, the reaction would be a little different.
Posted by: Laen | November 6, 2009 1:21 PM
I asked this before, but never got an answer. Why is okay that we require men who are not comfortable with other straight men seeing them naked to shower together? Doesn't that also intrude on their boundaries in exactly the same way?
Yea, that's exactly what I was claiming. You're not distorting things at all. (Is my sarcasm coming through?) But perhaps this will help. If a guy is being ogled or otherwise harassed, that's not acceptable. The victim should take appropriate action. But to claim that some random instances are equivalent to the systematic oppression of women endemic in our culture is laughable.
The argument for separate facilities for men and women isn’t just about protecting delicate sensibilities, but that it is necessary for safety precaution. I don’t think you’re claiming that ending DADT will lead to gay men sexually assaulting straight men the way straight men have been sexually assaulting women. So I don’t see how you can think the situations are equivalent.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 6, 2009 1:40 PM
"it is necessary for safety precaution"
Really? Separate bathrooms is the only thing protecting women from being raped? Is this just in the military or all over the world?
Would you force a woman to be examined by a male doctor? Do it in front of a crowd. It's not sexual so she's just being a baby right? I know, completely open showers, no walls, no curtains, clear ones where weather requires. It's just a shower, it's not sexual.
Posted by: Laen | November 6, 2009 1:59 PM
Abby, your argument is ridiculous. The fact of the matter is it is for the protection of the gay men, not the straight men. Just like separate facilities are necessary for the protection of women. I know for a fact that there would be very serious abuse of openly gay members of the military in many close situations while deployed. I spent plenty of time in close quarters with soldiers on deployment, and I can tell you this...many guys would flat out refuse to shower with gay men, and would threaten them with violence if they tried. If you think the behavior of men abusing women is swept under the rug, the abuse of gay service members would also be tolerated and ignored. It sucks, it's bullshit and it's also a fact. These are very real problems and the solution certainly isn't saying "stop being a big baby" (marilove). You speak like someone who has absolutely no clue what the military is like, or even the first notion of safety and morale.
The fact is, you cannot expect men and women in the military to shower together, and you can't reasonably expect men to shower with openly gay men, either. Whether or not that is wrong or right doesn't change the fact that it is a reality, and can't be dealt with. And your question of "
Why is okay that we require men who are not comfortable with other straight men seeing them naked to shower together? Doesn't that also intrude on their boundaries in exactly the same way? "
is also very poor. You know the answer to that, you just don't like it....
Posted by: Fletcher | November 6, 2009 3:00 PM
Maybe Abby does, but I still don't. Humor me. What's the answer? The objection seems to be that everybody is entitled to their own personal definition of what constitutes an overly intrusive environment. Is the position really that men who freak out about showering with men are whiners while men who freak out about showering with gay men are totally normal and their needs should be catered to?
As for protecting them from abuse, if that's truly the case, it sounds like our military has a discipline problem that needs to be dealt with immediately. They managed to integrate in every other way, so if this problem is really not solvable, we've clearly had a total breakdown of leadership.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | November 6, 2009 4:13 PM
Things I'm learning from this thread:
1) Some guys are REALLY insecure about showing their wee-wees in the shower with other guys, especially if one of those guys might be (gasp!) gay.
2) Apparently, the only thing keeping straight men from getting jiggy with girls is the fact that they have separate showers. Thank god for that.
3) Taking a shower with your fellow soldiers around is, apparently, exactly the same thing as posing in Playgirl.
Got it.
Posted by: Rick R | November 6, 2009 4:32 PM
@ Laen
I can’t even begin to imagine the mental crazy straw that turned what I said into that steaming pile on nonsense. I suppose if I said seatbelts were a sensible safety precaution you’d claim I was arguing against air-bags.
Again, sexual harassment, including ogling, not okay. It should be dealt with if and when it happens. There is however, no evidence that straight and openly gay men sharing shower facilities leads to increased sexual harassment of straight men. In fact when we look at the militaries that do just that we can note an absence of issues. What we do see is a US military that routinely harasses, assaults and even rapes its female service members. So extra precautions to protect them are called for.
If you think that separate facilities for women do not help protect them from predation, I think that would be an interesting avenue to explore. I can see an argument that joint facilities might in fact serve better. But that’s tangential to the question at hand.
@ Fletcher
I think you are confusing macho posturing with reality. I’ve no doubt that there were many harsh things said about gays while you were deployed. But how much of that would translate into actual violence? There’s always a lot of noise before a change. But once it happens most people tend to adjust fairly quickly.
Lets look a little closer at this separate facilities idea. How would that work? Would there be a regulation that all homosexuals must use a particular facility? Keep in mind ending DADT is not the same implementing a You Must Tell policy. Then there are the logistics to consider. Add in the Jim Crow overtones and the related potential for increasing divisiveness and prolonging the adjustment period and I have to say I’m skeptical. But if you think it could work, by all means share your vision. Perhaps my concerns are misplaced.
I really don’t. The premise of the Spaulding’s argument is that people have a right not to be seen naked by people they don’t want. I don’t see why it’s okay in his mind to suspend that right in one case but not the other.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 6, 2009 4:33 PM
Laen, #89: For a very small sample size they extrapolate a lot of data. I come back to the small number surveyed, 640, and that they are applying that to close to forty years worth of time.
Actually, 640 is quite a decent sample size. It may surprise people, but statistical studies rarely use larger sample sizes; it's more work and more costly for very little improvement in accuracy.
What is more important is the method used to select the sample; if you aren't careful, it's very easy to bias the sample so that it's not really representative of the population being studied.
Posted by: Chiroptera | November 6, 2009 4:37 PM
Laen, I owe you an apology. I see now where you got the idea I was saying separate showers where the only things keeping men from raping women. I was in fact trying to illustrate that disparity between the threat women face from men and the threat straight men face from gay men. The straw that leads from that attempt to what you said isn't as crazy as I made it out to be. I apologize.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 6, 2009 5:27 PM
Demo said:
Crikey! Australia is a bit larger than that.
Australia:7.7 million square km
Area of Texas + Rhode Island (0.7 million square km).
US (contiguous mainland);9.83 million square km
It is also as dry as a bone: the limit on settlement is water.
Posted by: echidna | November 6, 2009 7:40 PM
"Lets look a little closer at this separate facilities idea. How would that work? Would there be a regulation that all homosexuals must use a particular facility?"
And where oh where would we put the bisexuals?
Posted by: Rick R | November 6, 2009 7:41 PM
echidna: You're failing to take into account the sheer size of a Texas kilometer. They're way bigger than the Australian kilometer. Approximately eleven times bigger! They ain't never not gonna be like them pansy Aussie kay-ehms, no siree.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 6, 2009 9:18 PM
Echinda:
You are a delightful person and, as one of what, two monotremes on the planet I care deeply for your survival. To that end I'm going to tell you that ol' demo was pullin' Mr. DingoJack's leg a bit.
Modusoperandi:
Don't forget to factor in Rhode Island--It's thousand or so square miles are honest, puritanical square miles and have no real comparisons in australian square miles.
Posted by: democommie | November 6, 2009 10:24 PM
My last reply was a bit...overly dramatic. It probably didn't help much. I apologize for the tone, it didn't advance the discussion. Back to my point.
Right now there is a legal illusion in the military. People are forced, yes it is forced it's the military you don't have a choice, to use communal showers. No you can't choose not to shower, for health, morale, and appearance reasons you can be ordered to shower in the military. The reason the military can get away with this is because everyone knows there are no gays, or lesbians, in the military *wink* *wink*. It is not a sexual situation, and there is no chance for sexual harassment charges. It is the same logic that says a soldier, unless it's an emergency, cannot be forced to see an opposite sex doctor any time you are required to remove your cloths.
The things I believe will happen after repealing DADT.
1. Increase in violence against gays.
2. I would guess 50% or more openly homosexual soldiers would have harassment charges filed against them.
3. A lawsuit by soldiers pointing out the lapse in logic when it comes to showering, sharing rooms, and medical treatment. Meaning why you can choose based on sex, but not orientation.
There is nothing we can do about number one, education and time are the only thing that will change that, assuming there is quick harsh punishment against the offenders.
Number two may or may not become a coordinated attack by the right wing fundies against gays, but will certainly be used against gays as why they shouldn't have been allowed in after the law has been repealed. I promise you within a year of the law changing fundies will be spouting the number of harassment charges against gays as ammunition for why it "can't" work. It's important to note I'm not saying harassment will occur, I'm saying the charges will be filed as an attack on gays to damage their careers and force them out of the service.
Number three...if straight men and women cannot be forced into those situations, then logically you should not force straights and gays into that situation. Any situation that currently allows or demands separation based on sex will have to equally be applied to sexual orientation. The other choice is to eliminate that option completely, everyone shares the same showers, everyone sees whatever doctor is available, etc... If you change those rules you limit how often problem number two can occur and eliminate problem number three.
Again, I am against DADT. It does require a little planning though, not just poof and everything will be fine.
Chiroptera
640 wouldn't bother me as much if it weren't being extrapolated over around 40 years of service. I do think the sample pool is biased. I pointed out one of the numbers that stuck out to me as odd. There were a couple others. I'm willing to accept that the numbers are almost certainly higher than as reported by the military, but the jump from 2000ish cases filed a year, to one out of every three just seems like too much.
Posted by: Laen | November 7, 2009 3:45 AM
Laen, can I just clarify? Are you saying that the average American soldier is more of a bigotted, violent thug than those of other nations?
Posted by: Donalbain | November 7, 2009 4:13 AM
Remember -
these quoted figures are percentages of rapes/sexual assaults & etc. that are reported AND acted on. They exclude those never reported and those reported but never acted on (for whatever reason).
Thus they would vastly underestimate the actual number of cases (particularly in the case of males who have been raped)*. They are a minimum estimate.
Just to clarify. - DJ
-----------------
* Also, the victim is in the military, the attacker need not be (or have been) in the military. The attack(s) could have occurred in the victim's childhood, or just last week. The attacker may have been prosecuted and incarcerated, been acquitted, may remain as a suspect, or be completely unknown. The figures don't distinguish this information.
Posted by: DingoJack | November 7, 2009 5:00 AM
Donalbain...
Is the US more bigoted and violent than other nations? If so then why would the military be any different?
DJ the numbers provided by the study Abby linked to were after the fact interviews that had nothing to do with reported cases.
Posted by: Laen | November 7, 2009 5:42 AM
These are the figures of which I was speaking, unfortunately the link from the PBS page seems to be broken. Anyone got more information?
My point was, of course, to say that there are limitations on the conclusions that can be drawn from such data. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 7, 2009 6:36 AM
Laen:
Per your latest comment. You ARE guessing, as is everyone else who comments on a hypothetical. The difference is that most people who are guessing about this are looking at a history of 140+ years of sexual and racial discrimination in the military.
The progress of gaining equality for minorities and women in the military has been slow (much too slow) and fraught with false starts. It has happened.
There will, beyond a doubt, be problems in implementing a policy allowing openly gay service members from serving. Too fucking bad. If people want to attack fellow service members for their sexual orientation it is up to their superiors to mete out suitable and swiftly levied punishments for their offenses. If the KKKristian elements within the military decide this is their "Rubicon" moment, so much the better. A de-GODDED military is needed.
Posted by: democommie | November 7, 2009 8:28 AM
To further Denmocommie's point see Glory (1989). - DJ
Posted by: Dingo=JacK | November 7, 2009 8:37 AM
I'm guessing...
I'm guessing there will be harassment charges against an openly gay doctors. Like there were charges against male doctors when females were forced to go to them. Requiring a change in the military law. A female cannot be forced to see a male doctor, unless of an emergency.
I'm guessing there will be harassment charges filed against an openly gay roommate by a soldier. Requiring a change in the military law. The same way a female soldier cannot be forced to room with a male soldier, under normal circumstances.
I'm guessing there will be harassment charges filed against openly gay soldiers by straight soldiers forced to use the same showers. Just like there were charges filed against male soldiers, forcing the rule that men and women use different showers, under normal circumstances.
Do you really think anything different will happen?
I'm going to try this from a different angle. Currently soldiers cannot be forced to see opposite sex doctors, unless it's an emergency. A straight female goes to an OBGYN. Would you force her to see a male doctor? A gay male doctor? A lesbian female doctor? Should she have a choice? Unless your answer is that she sees the first available doctor regardless of sex or orientation, I need you to explain why. Then explain why she should get special treatment.
p.s. I'm an atheist. I'm all for a godless army.
Posted by: Laen | November 7, 2009 1:37 PM
Laen:
So fucking what. Do you remember Brown v Board of Education? Federal troops had to escort the black children to school. Do you remember the integration of the University of Alabama? Again federal troops (a federalized Alabama National Guard) were called in. Do you remember forced busing in Boston (I was living in MA back then)? U.S. Federal Judge, W. Arthur Garrity oversaw the end of the defacto system of segregation in Boston schools.
None of the aforementioned processes was popular with the majority; none of them was unaccompanied by unrest and violence. All of them were carried to their conclusion by individuals who were committed to due process and equality under the law.
Gays in the military deserve no pity, they deserve no handouts. They deserve equality under the law. It's not
"one nation (under or not under GOD), indivisible, with freedom and justice for all, except GAYS."
Posted by: democommie | November 7, 2009 3:20 PM
Yes gays deserve equality under the law. DADT needs to go, as I said. They also deserve marriage rights. I agree 100%, I have never said anything otherwise. Not once have I claimed my thoughts were a reason to exclude gays, not once have I said I would exclude gays. Please answer my question about the female seeing the OBGYN. I would appreciate your viewpoint.
Posted by: Laen | November 7, 2009 3:48 PM
Laen:
I see no equivalency in the two situations. Having someone put their finger up my ass to check my prostate is akin to what you're talking about and the honest truth is that it's an uncomfortable few moments regardless who is the fingerer. As for a woman seeing a male or female OB/GYN I don't have any idea why the Army does it that way. So, I really don't have a thought on it.
Posted by: democommie | November 7, 2009 11:22 PM
Laen:
I forgot to mention. I'm fairly certain that I've had some of teh GAY touching my body (hospital), cutting my hair, selling me things and serving me food. Oddly, I haven't had any of them go wild and attempt to sexually assault me.
Posted by: democommie | November 9, 2009 8:19 AM
democommie-
You tip your hand when you say things like "too fucking bad", and "so fucking what" when you talk about the rights and safety of others. Yeah, that sounds nice when it's not your rights or safety that could be threatened. What you are actually saying, as far as I am concerned, is "it doesn't matter who it hurts, or how it's done, so long as what I see as right is what becomes a reality".
My whole point on this thread is we need to arrive at this end: openly gay Americans serving in our military, free of persecution. But we cannot just make it so and say "so fucking what" to the problems that will arise when we attempt to make it so.
We have a problem in our society. Men abuse women. It is rampant, and it needs to stop. Because of this and other factors, women in the military are given separate personal facilities.
In a utopian society, we would all shower together and poop in the open, because pooping and the human body are part of nature, and people should have self control when dealing with these things. But this is not utopia. We cannot expect women to have to shower with men, and thus we cannot expect men to shower with gay men, because there is not enough self control from either side to make it a realistic situation.
Your example of Brown vs. BOE is irrelevant, because we are not talking about a school full of children. We are talking about the military, which, despite it's recent endeavors, is ultimately here to ensure the protection of American citizens. Things like cohesiveness are unit morale are important, and if something is introduced that could compromise these things, it can put their safety and our safety at risk. Now, I agree that in a time of peace, these risks are acceptable when fighting for the equality of certain members of our society. But at a time when so many of our sons and daughters are in harms way, more conservative actions are merited.
Posted by: Fletcher | November 9, 2009 1:33 PM