Before I begin this edition of What’s YOUR Deal?!? I would like to preface it with several disclaimers.
Disclaimer 1: I have always had a policy of never getting too political or too critical of the United States government and the laws by which we are all bound. It’s not only that I enjoy being gainfully employed but also, I really do believe in America, through all of its faults and glory. But most importantly: THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS BLOG DO NOT REFLECT THE VIEW OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OR ANY ORGANIZATION WITHIN. I am a bleeding heart social liberal, and if you don’t like that, you can stop reading now. Or continue and maybe learn something.
Disclaimer 2: Keeping Disclaimer 1 in mind, I’m also a social justice ninja. I don’t like seeing injustice and I don’t like seeing people perpetuating injustice because they are not adequately informed.
Disclaimer 3: This will not be one of my normal rants, because I will not violate my first Disclaimer. However, in keeping with my role as social justice ninja, this edition of What’s YOUR Deal?!? must happen, not as a rant, but as a list of observations that you can draw your own conclusions from.
Let’s begin...
*****
For those not obsessed with the news and current events like I am, recently there was the first of probably many rumblings towards the potential repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. This particular topic is very near and dear to my heart not just because I am a current events geek but also because of several factors:
1. I am a member of the United States military.
2. I am female.
3. I am a minority. (Although technically, Asian folks outnumber everyone worldwide.... minor detail.)
What do these things have to do with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? Well, allow me to make my observations.
As background information, here is what Wikipedia has to say about DADT:
Don't ask, don't tell (DADT) is the common term for the policy restricting the United States military from efforts to discover or reveal closeted gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members or applicants, while barring those that are openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual from military service. The restrictions are mandated by federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). Unless one of the exceptions from 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) applies, the policy prohibits anyone who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because "it would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The "don't ask" part of the policy indicates that superiors should not initiate investigation of a service member's orientation in the absence of disallowed behaviors, though credible and articulable evidence of homosexual behavior may cause an investigation. Violations of this aspect through persecutions and harassment of suspected servicemen and women resulted in the policy's current formulation as don't ask, don't tell, don't harass, don't pursue.
Okay, now we all know what DADT is. In summary, gay people are allowed to serve in the current military but are not allowed to tell people that they are gay or “demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.” And no one is allowed to ask, harass, or pursue gay military personnel about their sexual orientation. While this compromise, made in 1993 is a little better than an outright ban on gay folks from serving and a little baby step forward from the olden days of mental health and undesirable discharges.
Flash forward to recent developments, according to Wikipedia:
On May 27, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Murphy amendment[1] to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 on a 234-194 vote that would repeal the relevant sections of the law 60 days after a study by the U.S. Department of Defense is completed and the U.S. Defense Secretary, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the U.S. President certify that repeal would not harm military effectiveness. On the same day the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee advanced the identical measure in a 16-12 vote to be included in the Defense Authorization Act. The amended defense bill passed the U.S. House on May 28, 2010, and the U.S. Senate is expected to vote on its version in the summer. The Washington Post has stated that if the bill is approved by Congress and signed by the President, any change to don't ask, don't tell would likely not happen before 2011.
Now, as I said in Disclaimer 3, I will not rant about this. But I will now list my observations.
Observation 1:
There are gay people in the military already. DADT is not a ban on gay people. A repeal of DADT probably won’t mean a gay pride parade suddenly erupts on every military installation. Our allies allow gay people to serve openly. Our military serves alongside gay people every single day, whether or not we know it. Personnel are living in dorms, confined quarters, deployed, and showering with gay people already. Most gay people probably won’t even come out extravagantly anyways, because given how fickle the political process is, it’d be easy to repeal the repeal and suddenly the fiscally overmanned military is downsized rather quickly.
Observation 2:
While reading a fantastic book about the history of women in the military entitled: A Few Good Women: America’s Military Women From World War I to The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I came across this quote from Brig. Gen. Wade H. Harslip in 1941:
“Congresswoman Edith Nourse Rogers has been determined for some time to introduce a bill to provide a women’s organization in the Army. We have succeeded in stopping her on the promise that we are studying the same thing, and will permit her to introduce a bill which will meet with War Department approval. Mrs. Roosevelt also seems to have a plan. The sole purpose of this study is to permit the organization of a women’s force along the lines that meet with War Department approval so that when it is forced upon us, as it undoubtedly will be, we shall be able to run it our way.”
This is the same thing that’s going on now. Only except, there won’t be a gay organization within the military (or at least I hope not, segregation never works out for anyone). If we replace the word “women” with “gay,” Mrs. Roosevelt with President Obama, and “War Department” with “Department of Defense” this statement is as true today as it was in 1941.
As a female in today’s military, it was the pioneers from 100 years ago that has allowed me to serve my country rather than serve someone dinner. The same arguments about masculinity, social norms, and sexual interactions were made before, not for gay people but for women. It is easy to forget that a women’s role was in the kitchen waiting for her soldier, sailor, airman, and/or Marine to come home. A woman not acting in that role was a threat to the fabric of society and the family structure. Just like an openly gay person is a threat to the fabric of society and the family structure. Women joining the military didn’t make the military more feminized and giant orgies didn’t erupt in the ranks. Although, there have been historical cases of sexual misconduct, it isn’t the norm. And it’s a crime whether or not women or gays are allowed in the military. Which leads me into observation 3...
Observation 3:
To assume that gay people will suddenly want to hit on, have sex with, and/or rape everyone is also an argument that has previously been made... against heterosexual men. From the same book, it references the viewpoints of James Webb, a former Secretary of the Navy, and Marine Corps veteran. He was opposed to having women at the Naval Academy saying that Bancroft Hall was a “horny woman’s dream” and “these tendencies can be controlled in an eight-hour workday but cannot be suppressed in a twenty-four hour, seven-days-a-week combat situation.” He also said, “Introducing women into combat units would greatly confuse an already confusing environment and would lessen the aggressive tendencies of the units, as many aggressions would be directed inward, toward sex rather than outward toward violence.” The authors, Evelyn Monahan and Rosemary Neidel-Greenlee make a great point:
“If Mr. Webb is correct about people not being able to control their ‘aggressive violent and sexual nature’ for longer than an ‘eight-hour workday,’ it is a wonder that women are not being raped by men ‘who can’t be expected to act against’ what Mr. Webb considers ‘men’s nature’ on every street corner.”
While there will always be bad seeds everywhere, men or women and gay or straight, the majority tend to be quite normal and not very sexual assaulty. Women in the military have taken significant strides since World War I. Submarines in the Navy have recently become open to women. Nuclear missile crews are mixed gender. Why can’t gay people and straight people work together in a confined environment? They already do now, it’s just no one knows about it.
Observation 4:
There is something cosmically amusing about fighting crazy fundamentalist religious extremists with gay people.
Observation 5:
Admiral Mike Mullen said it best: "Mr. Chairman, speaking for myself and myself only, it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do. No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, personally, it comes down to integrity -- theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.”
Observation 6:
Congressman Todd Akin, Ranking Member of the Armed Services Seapower & Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee, released the following statement on May 27th, 2010:
“Later today, Democrats will try to sneak by one of the biggest military policy changes in decades, forcing a liberal social agenda down the throats of our military... Our military exists for winning wars, not for advancing a liberal social agenda.”
Mr. Akin is partially correct. The military had to accept more women in the early 20th century because of recruiting and retention issues, however the military also accepted more people under lower standards and waivers for criminal activity. This practice has not changed, especially in today’s world where the military is consistently doing more with less. The military does exist for winning wars and wouldn’t it make more sense to recruit and retain the best and brightest that America has to offer gay or straight, not the ones recruited and retained with a waivers and lower standards?
Historically, the military has been at the forefront of social change. Women in the military and desegregation started with the military. As a female minority in today’s military, I am grateful that the military advances liberal social agendas.
In light of my observations, I believe that there will be growing pains and it may take 100 years for gay and lesbian military personnel to truly reap the benefits of equality, much like the struggles of women and minorities in the past have had to deal with. Society will change and it is not revolution, but intellectual evolution. History has shown that military is the instrument of social change, whether or not the status quo likes it. It was the same for women and minorities. Those that don’t learn from history will be doomed to repeat it. But in this instance, I think history has it right.
No comments:
Post a Comment