Wednesday, February 20, 2008
REMFs and DADT
Kevin Drum points to a Foreign Policy survey of U.S. military staff-level officers, and finds much to be discouraged about. For instance, only 22% would be open to allowing gays into the military in order to increase recruitment numbers, while 58% would be open to lowering education standards. This isn't what we would have liked to see from our military leaders, and fortunately, it isn't.
As one of Andrew Sullivan's readers points out,
As one of Andrew Sullivan's readers points out,
The data from the survey clearly shows that it was heavily skewed towards a much older pool of retired officers: - 89% of respondents are over 50. 72% are over 60. 38% are over 70. - 92% are retired. 71% have been retired for more than 10 years.If we were to try and define a typical respondent, he would be a 65 year old former colonel who entered service in the late 1960's and retired in the 1990s. Hardly representative of today's officer corps
It is generally accepted that older people are much less open to accepting gays into society than are the younger generation, so the age of the respondents plays a big role in these results. But even more than just their age, old military officers tend to be even more conservative in their outlook than those of a similar vintage in society at large. Particularly the generation polled here, shaped as they were by the polarizing Vietnam years. The guys that age I know who chose to devote their lives to the military often did so as a bulwark against the usual bugbears that degrade society, from the sexual revolution to abortion to secular humanism. Foreign Policy didn't survey a bunch of warrior-scholar David Petraeuses, they surveyed a bunch of Jack D. Rippers.
Also, one shouldn't make too much of a survey composed of staff officers only. Those guys are the furthest from the battlefield, and the furthest removed from the attitudes of the people who make up the vast majority of the military: the lower enlisted and buck sergeants who actually do the fighting. It's my earlier REMF vs. Cannon Fodder point again: the further you get from the regular troops, the more kool-aid you drink. Which is not to say that the troops are a bunch of open-minded, bleeding hearted sensitive types. It's just that they tend to care less about other peoples' personal lives. It's not so much acceptance as not caring enough to bother. Will & Grace meets the Nintendo generation in an introverted version of the leave us alone coalition.
One last point: maybe this result came about because of the way it was presented: of all the reasons for allowing gays to serve openly, "increasing recruitment" isn't a major one. It's a moral issue, not a practical one.
Labels: homosexuality, military
Monday, September 10, 2007
Slouching Toward Gomorrah (It's not called "Decline and Fall" for Nothing)
I might have predicted that now that a few people are actually reading my blog, posting on something as controversial as gay marriage would bring out the hataz. Here's the comment "anonymous" posted:
Wow. Thanks for the disturbing image. I'm glad such a paragon of decency deigned to comment so vividly on my humble blog. I'm sure my traffic will increase even more now that my blog can be reached by googling "circle jerk daughter."
This comment shows many of the problems that homophobes have when trying to actually think about homosexuality:
1) Their assessment is based completely on the fact that they think homosexual sex is disgusting. First, given the vividness of this commenter's hypothetical scenario (I'm betting he got a little turned-on just thinking it up), I'd wager that a tour through his hard drive would reveal plenty of evidence that he doesn't find anal sex disgusting per se, just when it's a guy getting penetrated. He's probably got a copy of "ANALyze This 14" or "Weapons of Ass Destruction" and a box of kleenex just waiting for him when he gets home from his Klan meeting. But that's OK, because it's, you know, chicks getting it.
2) They refuse to separate the activity from the orientation. Actually, they usually deny that being gay is an orientation at all, but rather a choice, as if people are just lining up to become the next Matthew Shepard. But notice that in my post I didn't mention the activity itself even once. I focused it on love, because that's what marriage, and brotherhood, is about. The thing that small-minded people like Anonymous don't get is that the love that one homosexual man feels for another homosexual man is indistinguishable from the love that us heteros feel for the special women in our lives. My personal transformation occurred when I realized that, and discovered that my pathetic dogmas were no match for my much stronger conviction that
3) They frequently invoke indefinable terms like "fabric of society" to support their arguments, but that's where their analysis ends. What is this "fabric" of which they speak? In a nation as multi-faceted as ours, that's not a question that lends itself to a short answer. The "fabric of society" line is just intellectual laziness. Guess what: even if there is a definable fabric in American society, it's much more likely to consist of things like liberty, individualism and the Golden Rule than discrimination, repression and pretending the world isn't as it actually is. If you insist on living somewhere where those are widely-shared values, Tehran is lovely this time of year.
4) They are always ready to impose their sense of "ewwww, that's disgusting!" on others with the full force of the State. This guy probably came here via a link to my Blackwater Air Force post. It's generated about 80% of the total traffic to my site, so that's a fairly safe bet. You would think he'd be all about keeping the terrifying power of the State at bay, but you'd be wrong. It's only within very well-defined parameters that he is willing to stand for freedom. He's just like Ashcroft or Gonzalez: infringing the rights of others is fine as long as he thinks it's justified. Civil libertarians such as myself, however, tend to be unwilling to grant the State that much authority, no matter what the circumstances. It's the old, "your freedom ends where my nose begins" line, but it applies to other people's noses as well.
5) They actually believe that the world will be better off if homosexuals continue to be relegated to pariah status and have avenues toward healthy, long-term commitment cut off from them. This guy's so worried about the damage to the "fabric of society" done by the acceptance of roughly 10% of the population that he completely misses the damage that is done by the ghettoization and oppression of that same 10%. I submit that normalizing and accepting people who are different from us will not only improve their lives, but ours as well. I submit that opening up the opportunity for that 10% of our people to live openly in fully committed, legally-binding relationships will only strengthen society.
Why are some people so unwilling to just let others be? What could my brother's or Andrew Sullivan's love possibly do to harm him? The answer, of course, is nothing. Nothing, that is, except force him to see that the world is full of people that aren't like him. And thank god for that.
Just because someone you know has skills or qualities that you admire but who turns out to be a homosexual does not mean you should support or condone his homosexuality. What if your uncle was a talented writer who also saved a bus load of senior citizens from falling over a cliff... but you discovered that he also likes to get together on the weekends with a group of guys and circle jerk on his 21 year old daughter, with her permission. Are you supposed to support his love of shooting sperm on his daughter with his buddies? Of course not. It's disgusting and wrong and is detrimental to the fabric of society. (Your blog just went downhill fast.)
Wow. Thanks for the disturbing image. I'm glad such a paragon of decency deigned to comment so vividly on my humble blog. I'm sure my traffic will increase even more now that my blog can be reached by googling "circle jerk daughter."
This comment shows many of the problems that homophobes have when trying to actually think about homosexuality:
1) Their assessment is based completely on the fact that they think homosexual sex is disgusting. First, given the vividness of this commenter's hypothetical scenario (I'm betting he got a little turned-on just thinking it up), I'd wager that a tour through his hard drive would reveal plenty of evidence that he doesn't find anal sex disgusting per se, just when it's a guy getting penetrated. He's probably got a copy of "ANALyze This 14" or "Weapons of Ass Destruction" and a box of kleenex just waiting for him when he gets home from his Klan meeting. But that's OK, because it's, you know, chicks getting it.
2) They refuse to separate the activity from the orientation. Actually, they usually deny that being gay is an orientation at all, but rather a choice, as if people are just lining up to become the next Matthew Shepard. But notice that in my post I didn't mention the activity itself even once. I focused it on love, because that's what marriage, and brotherhood, is about. The thing that small-minded people like Anonymous don't get is that the love that one homosexual man feels for another homosexual man is indistinguishable from the love that us heteros feel for the special women in our lives. My personal transformation occurred when I realized that, and discovered that my pathetic dogmas were no match for my much stronger conviction that
3) They frequently invoke indefinable terms like "fabric of society" to support their arguments, but that's where their analysis ends. What is this "fabric" of which they speak? In a nation as multi-faceted as ours, that's not a question that lends itself to a short answer. The "fabric of society" line is just intellectual laziness. Guess what: even if there is a definable fabric in American society, it's much more likely to consist of things like liberty, individualism and the Golden Rule than discrimination, repression and pretending the world isn't as it actually is. If you insist on living somewhere where those are widely-shared values, Tehran is lovely this time of year.
4) They are always ready to impose their sense of "ewwww, that's disgusting!" on others with the full force of the State. This guy probably came here via a link to my Blackwater Air Force post. It's generated about 80% of the total traffic to my site, so that's a fairly safe bet. You would think he'd be all about keeping the terrifying power of the State at bay, but you'd be wrong. It's only within very well-defined parameters that he is willing to stand for freedom. He's just like Ashcroft or Gonzalez: infringing the rights of others is fine as long as he thinks it's justified. Civil libertarians such as myself, however, tend to be unwilling to grant the State that much authority, no matter what the circumstances. It's the old, "your freedom ends where my nose begins" line, but it applies to other people's noses as well.
5) They actually believe that the world will be better off if homosexuals continue to be relegated to pariah status and have avenues toward healthy, long-term commitment cut off from them. This guy's so worried about the damage to the "fabric of society" done by the acceptance of roughly 10% of the population that he completely misses the damage that is done by the ghettoization and oppression of that same 10%. I submit that normalizing and accepting people who are different from us will not only improve their lives, but ours as well. I submit that opening up the opportunity for that 10% of our people to live openly in fully committed, legally-binding relationships will only strengthen society.
Why are some people so unwilling to just let others be? What could my brother's or Andrew Sullivan's love possibly do to harm him? The answer, of course, is nothing. Nothing, that is, except force him to see that the world is full of people that aren't like him. And thank god for that.
Labels: homosexuality, liberty, personal
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Best Wishes
(Photo by Michael Stuetz)
I know how insignificant my blog is, despite the recent spike from the tinfoil hat-wearing crowd, but I feel I at least ought to pay my (belated) respects to a blogosphere titan on having his own best week ever.
Sully was one of the main reasons I got into blogging in the first place. Four years ago I was working in Washington, DC and spending far too much time on the internet, and the Daily Dish was one of my regular stops. I had no idea what Andrew Sullivan looked like, nor did I know anything about his tenure at The New Republic. It took me a while to even realize he was gay. I just found his honesty, non-partisanship and openness to being proven wrong refreshing. Then one day I went to C.F. Folks, a fantastic little lunch place just off of Dupont Circle, and got into a fascinating conversation on, among other things, David Hume and the Effects of Weather on the History of Philosophy, of all things, with a British fellow who only introduced himself as he walked out the door. He was as idealistic, engaging and tenacious in person as he is in pixels. I always hoped to se him there again, but I never did. I kept reading though.
When I read his defenses of gay marriage, such as this one from 2004, I felt I was looking into the heart of someone who had suffered terribly from the conflict between tradition and reason and had come down on the side of reason, but on emotionally deep grounds. His struggle to find and keep love didn't seem all that different from my own, except for the fact that the world he lives in is populated by people who only wish him harm. I could only imagine how awful it must be to find true love only to have society demand that it not be acted on. Shades of Romeo and Juliet.
I likely would have never come around to being open to him had it not been for another event, which happened more than a decade ago: my brother came out of the closet and I was forced to see my own adolescent homophobia for the grotesque inhumanity that it was. After seeing how much happier and freer he was now that he wasn't wearing his heterosexual hairshirt, I realized that I loved my brother a lot more than I loved my devotion to dogma, but it took quite a bit longer before I was really comfortable around gay men. Sullivan helped with that, by showing me what my brother might be able to strive for if only our repressive, backward society would open up to the wonder and the joy of the wide breadth of human experience. Andrew Sullivan brought me closer to my brother, and for that I owe him a debt of gratitude.
So if for no other reason, Andrew, I thank you for being a catalyst in my life. I don't always agree with you, but then again if I did, I wouldn't still read you. I wish you and Aaron nothing but the best, and I hope you continue to inspire others, gay and straight, to open their hearts and minds to the wonderful possibilities of love. I am happy for you.
Labels: homosexuality, liberty, personal
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
End the Ban
The Military Readiness Enhancement Act has been reintroduced in Congress by Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA). This bill would repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, allowing gays to finally serve in the military. What has this ban wrought? How about more than 11,000 servicemembers kicked out since its inception, 55 of whom were Arabic linguists. Yes, that's right, 55 of the military's small core of Arabic speakers were discharged under other than honorable conditions for the crime of not being straight. This despite the growing number of servicemembers who served honorably while being forced to keep their orientation secret, including the first Marine injured in Operation Iraqi Freedom. A number of Generals, including the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have even come ou (don't take that the wrong way) in support of allowing gays to serve openly.
One of the most important moments in the American Civil Rights Movement was the decision to racially integrate the military. By forcing servicemembers to work with people they had never prviously worked with, the standard reaction of racist servicemembers went from "I could never work with no n****r" to "they're people, just like you and me." Naysayers at the time said that integration could never happen, even arguing that race relations were too tense to be able to ensure the safety of racial minorities in the military. But in general, the opposite happened: people who entered the military with racist ideas were forced to work with people they had never really considered as fully human and discovered that they were good people after all. I believe strongly that this will be the result of ending the ban on gays in the military.
When I was in the service I knew a few soldiers who were gay. They weren't lousy soldiers by any means--in fact, they were some of the most thoughtful, intelligent people I've known, exactly the sort of skillset you want in the Military Intelligence community. But they lived in constant fear that they would be "outed" by one of the people they considered their colleagues. Those people didn't make up the majority--far from it--but all it takes is one homophobe with an ideological axe to grind to ruin a soldier's career. So they lived in fear. I remember well the blatant violation of the "don't pursue" policy at the Defense Language Institute (where they train linguists) several years ago, in which a personal friend, among many others, was forced out just because she was attracted to women.
Is this the way soldiers ought to be treated in a free society? A society whose freedom is defended and guaranteed by thos soldiers? Of course not. The time to end the ban is now. Please sign the petition supporting Rep. Meehan's bill, and do what you can to support the Servicemember's Legal Defense Network in their efforts to end discrimination in the military.
One of the most important moments in the American Civil Rights Movement was the decision to racially integrate the military. By forcing servicemembers to work with people they had never prviously worked with, the standard reaction of racist servicemembers went from "I could never work with no n****r" to "they're people, just like you and me." Naysayers at the time said that integration could never happen, even arguing that race relations were too tense to be able to ensure the safety of racial minorities in the military. But in general, the opposite happened: people who entered the military with racist ideas were forced to work with people they had never really considered as fully human and discovered that they were good people after all. I believe strongly that this will be the result of ending the ban on gays in the military.
When I was in the service I knew a few soldiers who were gay. They weren't lousy soldiers by any means--in fact, they were some of the most thoughtful, intelligent people I've known, exactly the sort of skillset you want in the Military Intelligence community. But they lived in constant fear that they would be "outed" by one of the people they considered their colleagues. Those people didn't make up the majority--far from it--but all it takes is one homophobe with an ideological axe to grind to ruin a soldier's career. So they lived in fear. I remember well the blatant violation of the "don't pursue" policy at the Defense Language Institute (where they train linguists) several years ago, in which a personal friend, among many others, was forced out just because she was attracted to women.
Is this the way soldiers ought to be treated in a free society? A society whose freedom is defended and guaranteed by thos soldiers? Of course not. The time to end the ban is now. Please sign the petition supporting Rep. Meehan's bill, and do what you can to support the Servicemember's Legal Defense Network in their efforts to end discrimination in the military.
Labels: homosexuality, military
