by Doctor Science
In the discussion to Sebastian’s post celebrating the end of DADT, commenter avedis took issue. I found avedis’ comments more honest and comprehensible than most defenses of DADT, but they raise disturbing questions about rape culture in the military.
WARNING: POTENTIALLY TRIGGERY DISCUSSION OF RAPE AND RAPE CULTURE
avedis said:
To be blunt, I have no doubt whatsoever that there are homosexuals who have the phsyical and psychological right stuff to go out slaughter human beings with the best of ’em. However, the typical 18 to 24 year old who is out there doing that kind of work sees sexually conquering females as an important aspect of the personna and sucking dick and taking it up the ass as being antithetical to it.
I think avedis is both honest and clear about why he thinks DADT should remain in place — much more so than any public figures who have spoken about the issue (Senator McCain, Marine Corps General Amos, etc.).
As I understand him, avedis is saying that:
a) a “macho” construction of masculinity is a crucial shared value that keeps combat military units together
b) one factor that holds such units together is that there are no sexual relations inside the group. All inside the group are effectively peers, a Band of Brothers, even though some are leaders or commanders (=older brothers). Sex is something you do with outsiders, and therefore *cannot* be with peers, because your peers are your unit.
c) a macho, masculine man is always dominant in a sexual relationship; his partner (male or female) is degraded or made less by penetration. In other words, having sex with you (the man who is the POV in this story) is bad for people. Sex is not how you show or get caring or trust: you get that from the Band of Brothers.
What avedis is IMHO describing is a form of rape culture, as several other commenters noted. But he is also describing a *very* traditional and (presumably) militarily effective culture. Crudely, military men are put into units where trust and emotional care are completely separated from sex, and all sex becomes whoring or rape. If you permit open homosexuals in such a unit, their very feelings threaten the division between Us (those we trust and don’t f*ck) and Them (those we don’t trust and may dominate or f*ck).
*That*’s why getting rid of DADT threatens “unit cohesion” — because it threatens the strict compartmentalization between sex and the rest of life. As avedis says, prime combat troops are young, healthy, and have a naturally high libido. Why should straight men agree to live in a single-sex environment, given their natural desire to meet women? One way is to tell them that they don’t need to get to *know* women to have sex with them: prostitution is enough, rape is enough.
Remember, the over-arching purpose of “unit cohesion” is *not* to get the unit members to depend on each other emotionally. The purpose is to make them work together to do whatever their commanders tell them. When units get too close, they’re just as dangerous as when they “lose cohesion”: unnecessary casualties are bad, but disobeying orders is military disaster. I suspect that keeping combat troops sexually frustrated is one of the ways traditional military machismo helps keep them obedient. Certainly in ancient warfare (e.g. the Iliad) one of the rewards of military success even for foot soldiers was the right to rape women in a conquered city.
Basically, I think avedis is right that gay-acceptance undercuts the macho, gender-conformist rape culture that’s part of traditional military culture. We all know, I trust, that the US military has had a lot of trouble integrating women into the forces, especially with regard to rape and sexual harassment. The female vets I know say that whether they were accepted or not depended almost entirely on their Commanding Officer: when the CO was firm but fair, the military is far more respectful and empowering than civilian culture often is. When the CO thinks women don’t really belong, though, it’s an unparalleled nightmare. That says to me that the services *as a whole* haven’t accepted women — too much depends on the individual COs, too little on the overall military culture.
The same thing will happen with gay men, and I expect their experiences to be correlated with those of women. That is, the Marines have the lowest proportion of women of any of the services, and they also have objected most to lifting DADT. To me this says that the Marines are most gender-conformist and may well have even more of a traditional rape culture than the other services, awful though that is to imagine for someone raised knowing there’s “the right way, the wrong way, and the Marine Corps way”. In any event, I don’t think that the services will be able to change their attitudes unless they acknowledge what their attitudes are, what they’ve been in the past, and what they need for the future.
A good post that, on its own, could use some spelling out of the differences between rape and rape culture. The link provided describing rape culture is very helpful.
This comment ties in with something I’ve seen from at least one doubting officer: that the type of person (usually male) who can be trained to kill, will not take well to homosexuals being around. Note that we are talking, in practice, about a fairly small fraction of the military (but largest in the Marines): most people do not serve in combat, especially at the level of directly shooting at other people. The WWII experience with a large conscript army showed that many of the infantry could never bring themselves to fire.
I have no idea how sound this thinking is, but it seems to me to be a separate line of argument from the “small-unit cohesion” one.
Still does not answer the question why it is allegedly worse that now gays can be known while before they were anonymous. The alternatives should be either no gays or open gays. Would not from that point of view the suspicion that a unit member is gay without knowing for sure be much more undermining the cohesion? Would the same guys that would not tolerate gays in their unit ‘allow’ 100% gay units (I assume not just with the hidden intent to use them as cannonfodder like they did with blacks)?
I also thought that any sexual relationships ‘inside’ were banned anyway (hetero as well as homo).
It’s interesting how different countries handle the topic of sex of deployed troops. In Bosnia the French had official supervised brothels, the Germans had a ‘don’t get caught’ policy*, while US troops were run by puritans.
*no formal ban but brothel stories were considered embarassing by the political leadership (‘what if a married man is caught in one?’)
This post may be guilty of over-analysis, perhaps by several orders of magnitude. Military people are, for the most party conservative, conservative socially and in responding to change. Sure, there are the adrenalin-charged, psychotic outliers, which is unavoidable, but the balance constituting the huge majority simply are ignorant and fearful of a new dynamic within their units, a dynamic they don’t understand and aren’t really interested in understanding.
In civilian life, most heterosexuals do not encounter overtly homosexual behavior, largely because they live, work and play in heterosexual environments. Most heterosexuals are disinterested in experiencing, seeing, hearing about or discussing homosexual intimacy (though many straight men seem fine with lesbian activity). A concern some, perhaps many military people have, is the fear of having to deal with homosexual intimacy up close and personal. Whether this fear materializes or is laid to rest by the passage of time remains to be seen.
I think the “rape culture” is, itself, at least partly a function of the CO as well. Even in a combat unit, if the CO is having none of it, the unit will function just fine without it. But if the CO thinks that the attitude Dr. S (and avedis) describe is OK, the unit will also function fine…as long as it doesn’t have to deal with a) women or b) [known] homosexuals inside the unit.
Which, it occurs to me, suggests that the Marine Corps may have a bigger problem dealing with integrating openly homosexual troops than the other services precisely because their Commandant has a problem with the idea. But fortunately (again assuming that the CO is critical) that is a problem which can be addressed by a new, and more accepting, CO. No doubt that will, at least initially, be denounced as “requiring political correctness” — but then, any action which runs counter to someone’s personal beliefs is open to that charge.
This is a very interesting post. I would like to point out that, IMO, the comparison to integrating blacks is a closer comparison than to integrating women.
Women were, and in many ways still are, integrated over a long period of time and were initially support and rear echelon positions AND, more importantly, were segregated in the living spaces.
The integration of women in forward positions is in, IMO, some ways less problematic because they are still segregated in any place where it is feasible.
The “18-24” hormonal culture was, and is, a challenge for non fraternization policies in the military, and gays will be living in the same barracks and tents. So, for those who are uncomfortable with gay intimacy, it will be a bigger problem than integrating women.
Rambling a little, but my point is that it isn’t directly comparable to some of those things it is being compared to.
In civilian life, most heterosexuals do not encounter overtly homosexual behavior, largely because they live, work and play in heterosexual environments. Most heterosexuals are disinterested in experiencing, seeing, hearing about or discussing homosexual intimacy
I think there are a few words here that need some unpacking.
It’s likely true that “most” heterosexuals don’t have a lot of exposure to “overtly” homosexual behavior because their exposure to overtly sexual behavior of any kind is gonna be kind of self-selected to hetero. Because they are hetero.
But my guess is that “most” heterosexual people have a lot of contact with homosexual people. They just aren’t doing so in a sexual context. Just like they don’t have contact with most of the hetero people they know in a sexual context.
If gays in the military immediately begin hooking up right and left in barracks, we’ll have a problem. Most likely, they will not do that, because that would in fact create a problem for their unit and their mission. If some do, they will probably have a very short military career.
Just like straight people, gays are fully capable of distinguishing between the private and public spheres. Just like straight people, they are fully capable of establishing and respecting reasonable social boundaries and etiquette between themselves and other people. Just like straight people, gays are able to restrain themselves from behaving sexually toward other people when that is neither wanted nor appropriate.
If folks are not interested in experiencing or being exposed to the details of homosexual intimacy, all they need do is mind their own business.
Most heterosexuals are disinterested in experiencing, seeing, hearing about or discussing homosexual intimacy
And you were elected to speak for them, were you?
I have little to contribute to this discussion, except to mention that the recruiter described in Anthony Swofford’s book “Jarhead” seemed like an illustration of Dr. Science’s thesis, though maybe a “prostitution culture” would be more accurate than a “rape culture” if you go by that book. As I recall the recruiter put a lot of emphasis on the abundance of overseas postitutes as one of the big selling points — which turned out not to apply in Kuwait. Here’s a link to the most “helpful” critical review of the book at Amazon–the critic thinks Anthony is a liar on some points, but seems to agree with Swofford’s description of the raunchiness of Marine culture. In particular, he says he can count on one hand the number of Marines he knew who stayed faithful to their wives when they went to Okinawa.
link
Of course this was 20 years ago.
And here is a link to the military prostitution issue —
military prostitution and the US military in Asia
Though come to think of it, the line between prostitution and rape is very blurry and often non-existent. What the article I linked to above describes was essentially a system of sexual slavery which was tacitly supported by the US, but that is beginning to change.
Dr Science, Thank you for organizing my argument for me. I think you did a very good job.
One quibble; I wouldn’t want anyone to get the idea that the Marines condone rape. They don’t.
I will point out an interesting and possible germane aside. Many women in the military are, as my Navy daughter was shocked to realize “a bunch of sluts” (her words). Some women in the armed forces actually take advantage of the mens’ pent up libido and prostitute themselves for extra cash.
In our previous discussion re; repeal of DADT some commentors were tossing out various articles in the UCMJ like it is going to have an impact on post repeal sexual behavior. All of the relevant articles are violated with consequence every day.
Sorry to go off course. Just wanted to slide that in.
At the risk of engaging in difficult to verify stereotypes–I’d say that the Marines are the most publicly resistant branch because they are the ones with the largest percentage of homosexuals. And this directly ties in with Doctor Science’s hypothesis. The Marines I know who are gay all have stories about getting into the Marines about proving, either to themselves or to others, that they were *real men*.
I would be resistant to call the Marine culture a rape culture in general, but I would say that certain permutations of it do revolve around such ideas and that the culture can be permissive of those permutations.
That may sound like a distinction without a difference, but I think it is crucial. Contra avendis, the Marine culture is surprisingly non-interested in women one way or another. If I were to attribute cultural focusing concepts to the Marines, they would include manliness proven through toughness, endurance, and a resistance to physical pain. Being able to get a woman is assumed, not highlighted, in the core culture. The Marines are really very homo-social, in the sense that they are a hyper-male culture which not much interested in women, rather than a rape culture, which is *very* interested in women and their place. The kind of rape culture you describe can easily fit into the core Marine culture, because the input of women’s viewpoints is so rarely sought or seen.
Essentially I think that military culture is more focused on homo-social aspects of what it is to be a man than on woman-oriented subjects (like getting a woman). I’ll admit that many feminist scholars suggest that such a thing is impossible–that a male homo-social culture must by definition be centered around opposition to the female. On some levels of abstraction that may be true, but in general I think it isn’t (for various reasons which would be well off topic at this point).
But because I don’t accept that frame of reference, it is easier for me to believe that something which challenges the getting chicks side of manliness which avendis seems to be worried about, isn’t actually a challenge to the overall core values and core structures of how the military makes things work. Also, it has been tried before in other military structures with good success.
Just wanted to slide that in.
Dude, yellow light.
“Dude, yellow light.”
LOL
also, I meant to say “…violated without consequence…”
Needless to say, I disagree with with Sebastian. He is way over-emphasizing a certain jar headed subset of the corps.
I agree with avedis in so far as IMO the racial integration of the military has been a lot more successful than the gender integration of the military and if the DADT repeal is successful enough I think we might finally have successful gender integration because the culture will have changed enough.
I would consider successful gender integration to be when I someone like me ten years ago would not have made the decision not to go to West Point based on an entirely reasonable fear of rape and sexual assault that had nothing to do with the “other side”. (There were other reasons I might not have ended up going – but that one stopped consideration of the others.) And when women are in the combat forces.
I think it’s one of those interesting and peculiar things about gender discrimination/oppression. Because almost all men love at least some women the oppression of women as a group is never as bad as certain other groups (i.e. the worst case scenarios – genocide etc.) – there are always options for a happy life as a woman (if you are lucky enough) in any society that is functional – but perhaps because of this it can be a lot harder to change than other discrimination.
I’m extremely happy about the repeal of DADT and hopeful for what it will mean for homosexual military members, hopeful for what it will do to the military culture and hopeful for what it will do for women in the military.
Anyone with any knowledge of history and other cultures has to concede that there are a variety of military cultures that can produce an effective military. I don’t think it’s too much to hope that ours can do without a rape culture that is so corrosive to 50% of our population.
avedis is, as we used to say in the military — too stupid to pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel. He sounds like a complete tool whose understanding of the military comes from bad movies, TV shows, and a few people who feel that caricature fits their political agenda.
But it sure as hell isn’t the military I was in. Sure, there were a few tools there. But most every straight guy I knew was looking for the right girl or married. There were very few “players” and only a couple numb-nuts (out of 40-or-so) that would even ‘kid’ that way…
MosesZD, Yawn…..what outfit were you in? The onward christian soldiers brigade?
From the link provided by Donald Johnson (upthread);
[a former Marine writes in regards to Swothords “Jarhead”]Wow, surprised at all the emotion here. I didn’t think this many people read books like this.
Couple of bullet points after reading the book and the reviews.
1. Swofford really downplays the honor of being a marine sniper. I was a line company machinegunner in 2/5 and all of the snipers I knew were a cut above. Not only that but if someone was deemed immature they would be dropped back to their line company platoon, no matter how well they did in sniper school.
2. I agree that the book is rife with innacuracies, exaggerations and downright lies. Then again, it is a memoir, not a history book.
3. The story about the guy watching a videotape from home that shows his wife having sex with another guy is the biggest urban legend in the Corps. Second-place going to the oft-repeated Mr. Rogers was a sniper story.
4. I am not wanting to sound like a tough guy but I don’t know once person who pissed their pants in combat or talked about being afraid. By the time you’ve gone through boot camp, SOI a work-up for deployment and a trip to Oki, you’re going to be ready to eat nails, if for no other reason than that all of the hard and miserable training has made you mean.
Pissing your pants in boot camp is very common because of all the forced hydration and few chances to use the bathroom.
5. His whining is actually pretty common, especially in the grunts. I know I’m guilty of it. What is uncommon is his lack of sense of humor. The funniest people I met were in the Marines. if you don’t have a sense of humor, you won’t be able to laugh off all of the bad things that happen to you.
6. Raunchy tales of whoring and drinking are 100% accurate.
7. His story about pulling a rifle on another Marine is probably false. Marines like to screw around and bend the rules but he went way past the line. No one I knew would have put up with that and not reported it.
8. His lack of aggressiveness is pretty shocking. When he talks about his buddies moaning that they are going to die before any mission is hard to beleive. The Marines I fought beside were all raring to go. If you’ve spent three years training to do something, you want to do it no matter how dangerous it was.
9. The infidelity of Marine wives and girlfriends is sadly true. then again, I can count on one hand the guys I knew who stayed faithful when we went to Oki.
10. The love/hate of the Marine Corps is a very tense subject for all Marines. When he talked about being embarrassed by other Marines while out in town, I was right there with him. I avoided Marines like the plague whenever I was on libbo. I started counting the days until I got out when I still had a year left, but I am more proud of being a Marine than anything else. It’s a very strange life, being a Marine.”
Yep. That about covers it.
I’m not sure I’d take that as a given, but: so what if they were? It’s not as if repealing DADT makes for mandatory gay-porn video night in the barracks.
If you’re threatened by the presence of a gay person in your unit (so to speak), maybe you need to get out more, and maybe consider that having a gay person fighting alongside of you doesn’t mean the gay rubs off on you. Because I’m pretty sure that it doesn’t.
Here’s another link. I recommend that it be read to flesh out some of what I – and now Dr S – am saying. It is a reply to a USMC Captain that didn’t like Swofford’s depiction of the Corps, by a man who served with Swofford.
“Behind the facade erected to present a professional face, 95% of us were distorted, in terms of civilian or proper mores. To put it more bluntly, one of the common cadences went “We’re gonna rape/ kill/ pillage and burn – We’re gonna rape/ kill/ pillage and burn – and eat the babies!”
“…the likelihood of a gay person surviving in that environment would be slim indeed…”
http://www.grose.us/gulfdir/jhemail1.htm
I’m not sure I’d take that as a given, but: so what if they were? It’s not as if repealing DADT makes for mandatory gay-porn video night in the barracks.
If you’re threatened by the presence of a gay person in your unit (so to speak), maybe you need to get out more, and maybe consider that having a gay person fighting alongside of you doesn’t mean the gay rubs off on you. Because I’m pretty sure that it doesn’t.
First, “party” should have been “part”. Otherwise, I stand by my statement. The issue isn’t fighting side by side, and it isn’t living in close proximity, although there are surely those who find that troubling. As you say, so what? Get over it. My comment expressly goes more to overtly sexual behavior, which can be and often does fall far short of outright sex–hand holding, snuggling, other forms of publicly acceptable or tolerated forms of affection. In civilian life, most of this is, by self-selection, confined to gay or straight environments, and so whatever reaction that might arise is forestalled. To reiterate my point, which was in response to Dr. S’ over-done and largely fictional thesis on rape culture, is that the issue is more likely apprehensiveness about being personally confronted with same sex intimacy.
McKinneyTexas, you know, while I did thank Dr S for organizing my thoughts and presenting them well, I am with you on the term “rape culture” being over the top. I think normal heterosexual relationships involve a pursuit by the male and a certain prey characteristic on the part of the female. It all works out because, ultimately, the female can reject the male,It is this way with all animals and it is part of the normal healthy mating game played by socialized humans. I think that the author of the linked article is a little radical and a little bitter – just look at her – because she is not asble to play that game. She wants to be appreciate for her intellect, alone, or something. Good luck with that.
I think that the author of the linked article is a little radical and a little bitter – just look at her – because she is not asble to play that game.
You’re a real schmuck, you know that? Until you’re willing to slap your and your wife’s pictures up, Beau Brummel, keep this shit to yourself.
BTW, stuff like, “That ugly b*tch is just bitter because she can’t get a man” is part and parcel of rape culture. Way to score an own-goal.
It all works out because, ultimately, the female can reject the male
I think that the author of the linked article is a little radical and a little bitter – just look at her – because she is not asble to play that game.
“Just look at her”? Wow. Am I reading you correctly? That remark’s as offensive as the right-wingers’ insistence that all homosexuals only want to ravish our poor heterosexual soldier boys.
Itals gone?
As for the assertion that Seb is exaggerating the whole gays in the Corps thing, I gotta say that every Marine I’ve talked to about it says that they knew gay Marines and didn’t care.
Second, and unrelated point — the single biggest source of opposition to the repeal of DADT and the faction most beholden to ‘unit cohesion’ ploy from what I have been able to gather is the Evangelical Christian types in the officer corps who see the units under their command as their God-appointed mission. Openly gay servicemen and servicewomen can’t ever be Christian soldiers in their eyes. They have chosen a ‘lifestyle’ over ‘proper service’.
I guess in this framework the whole ‘rape culture’ thing (which need not, after all, be a literal rape so much as a dominance display) finds its analogue in ‘conversion’. The figure of the unconverted sinner is every bit as much of an objectification of the individual as the typical sexual target.
“I guess in this framework the whole ‘rape culture’ thing (which need not, after all, be a literal rape so much as a dominance display) finds its analogue in ‘conversion’.”
Everyone in politics is trying to convert someone to something. Yep, libs as much as anyone.
So is Obama “raping” the armed forces with this repeal? Is he “raping” General Amos who expressed his lack of entheusiasm for the repeal?
By your definition I think he is.
you guys are too much.
“It all works out because, ultimately, the female can reject the male
If that were true, we wouldn’t have a word for “rape,” would we?”
Phil, on earth rape occurs when someone, usually a man, decides he isn’t going to play by the rules anymore and will just forceably take what he wants (sex) even if the (usually) female doesn’t want it. It is a crime. Earthlings have constructed elaborate – and occassionally functional – systems of justice to which those who choose to violate the game are remanded, to be tried and, if found guilty, sentenced to punishment.
I sense an objection to the whole natural earthly game on your part. Doesn’t surprise me.
At this point, I don’t really care what you think, other than you seem to me to be representative of a mindset from another world and, as such, of scientific value. Your perspectives should be recorded.
So, with that in mind, how, exactly, are males and females….oooops sorry to discriminate……carbon based life forms…. in your world….supposed to hook up? How does that happen where you come from? Is there a mating game? a little dance, if you will? is marriage pre-arranged? do they just recognize their mates at first sight? Do they have one life long mate? more than one? or is there something akin to a spawning season?Thanks
Forget the “just look at her” comment. I lost it at the whole my daughter says many women in the military are there for the sex and are prostituting themselves.
I don’t know if it is for real or a bad joke but either way the act is a sad one.
At this point, I don’t really care what you think
That makes it quite easy for the rest of us to figure out exactly how much of our time we want to invest in a conversation with you.
Enjoy your fifteen minutes of ObWi notoriety.
RogueDem, It is sad and it’s the truth. It’s been going on since women began serving, but it got a lot worse starting in the mid ’80s.
I never completely joke. And I’m not joking at all about this because it is so disturbing to me.
Like I keep saying, you guys don’t know anything about military life. But you sure want to make decisions that impact it.
All you hear is the sanitized stories; from both the left and right.
I provided a link upthread that meshes with I saw and experienced. Somone else provided another one. Did you read them?
If all you have available for gathering information is google, then use it. Google the topics I bring up. Don’t just read the first hit on a topic, read a bunch of them.
Then come back and let me know if you still think I’m a troll.
I’m telling you the truth and I’m sorry it’s fouling your atmoshere. I thought you guys were into expanding your understanding.
“My comment expressly goes more to overtly sexual behavior, which can be and often does fall far short of outright sex–hand holding, snuggling, other forms of publicly acceptable or tolerated forms of affection. In civilian life, most of this is, by self-selection, confined to gay or straight environments, and so whatever reaction that might arise is forestalled. ”
The fraternization rules certainly aren’t being repealed. There won’t be much of that kind of stuff to react to in the barracks or wherever.
re; fraternization, “There won’t be much of that kind of stuff to react to in the barracks or wherever”
Really?
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/12/171046.shtml
and when the gays are overseas under the same conditions?
</i>
avedis – the CMR that was cited in that story is a partisan organization with a conservative social agenda and I didn’t see anything in there that I would trust much. The article was all money quotes and no real meat. It fits with the websites overall bias.
Newsmax would not be my high on my list of places to go for reputable cites, but knock yourself out.
So, that’s how it is.
I don’t need newsmax or any other media outlet because I know from first hand experience.
Sorry, I don’t get the weekly liberal briefing. I don’t know what sources are lib approved.
But the truth is you guys will just refuse to look into the issue because it’s inconvenient to your cause or, if you pretend to, will only select those reports that confirm your bias.
Aren’t these the behaviors you’re griping that conservatives employ?
Like I’ve been saying, liberals or conservatives, left/right; same snot from different nostrils.
“I don’t need newsmax or any other media outlet because I know from first hand experience.”
No, because we’re aware that fraternization gets punished, is frowned on, and ends up not being a huge deal because it is tightly control. Nothing you said suggests that will be different for gay people. Your cites only prove what you think in your own mind.
This is quite a claim to make without supporting it. Some cites?
McKinneyTexas:
This is quite a claim to make without supporting it. Some cites?
Cite? Or should we just take your word for it?
Marty:
Marty, I can provide a cite to what a thousand random people’s opinion is. Or ten random people. Would you find that persuasive or interesting?
If so, why? If not, is there something unique about your unsupported opinion? If not, and you’re not expecting anyone to find unsupported opinions persuasive or interesting, what is your expectation of how people should respond to cites to someone else’s imagination?
Phil:
You’re coloring outside the lines there, Phil. Please don’t. Thanks.
Phil:
Ask Doctor Science, Eric Martin, or Slart, or anyone else with the password. I’d love to help. Really, I would.
But I can’t. I’d advise writing the kitty, but I have reason to believe that would be no more useful. But maybe someone will suddenly start answering. The future is unknown.
It’s a problem that shouldn’t exist, and could easily be fixed if those who could fix it desired to.
MosesZD:
avedis:
For the benefit of everyone reading this or any thread on Obsidian Wings: the Posting Rules:
The Banning Rules:
This is a warning to all.
Play nicely.
McKinneyTexas:
[…] My comment expressly goes more to overtly sexual behavior, which can be and often does fall far short of outright sex–hand holding, snuggling, other forms of publicly acceptable or tolerated forms of affection. In civilian life, most of this is, by self-selection, confined to gay or straight environments, and so whatever reaction that might arise is forestalled. Cite?
Let me clarify that when I ask for a cite, it’s reasonably possible that if you don’t provide one, I will. Facts are useful, and terribly easy to find and present. There’s this whole “internet” thing that’s useful in this regard.
People will draw whatever conclusions they will between someone who can cite facts, and those who cite the inside of their heads and their imaginations.
What one prefers is an individual choice.
But if people think citing the inside of their head is persuasive, I ask them, yet again: how persuasive do you find a simple assertion?
Of course, maybe people who can only cite what’s inside their head actually do simply believe anything they’re told.
I wouldn’t know. I’m inclined to doubt it, but I do wonder why some people seem to think that “my opinion is” is persuasive to anyone. So let me ask: if you use that line, why are you doing so? What do you think you’re accomplishing? What grounds do you have to believe that you’re accomplishing something?
Grounds you can cite.
Lastly: people offer cites and ask others to read them. We like that.
But it only works if it goes both ways.
Respect is earned. You want me to read your cite? Absolutely. So long as you read mine.
If not: fine. I speak only for myself in this.
However, cites involve specific links to specific information
You can, hey, google it. That’s all you need to know, right?
No.
Assertions that people should just go use the internet to selectively find that which someone else has selectively found, or looked for, are, again as useful in one direction as they are in another.
Do you find “go read via google” or “go read via the library” persuasive?
Why do people think others will be persuaded by means they are not?
Could someone who uses this technique explain why they bother? Thanks, if so.
This is funny as a sketch. On this blog, some of us know it for what it is.
LOL-ing at whatever definition of avedis’s “you guys” is supposed to encompass me, Sebastian, russell, Slarti and whomever else. I doubt that the four of us could agree what to get on a pizza, let alone a bunch of other things, but somehow, because we all disagree with this yutz, we’re groupable as “you guys.”
(Which is apparently supposed to be “liberals” who get a “weekly briefing.” Welcome, Sebastian! Sorry we didn’t make a cake.)
Gary, “schmuck” is about as civil as I can reasonably be when someone busts out, “No wonder she hates men, just look at her.” I’m only half-surprised he didn’t call her a lesbian, too.
Gary,
You ask for cites. When they are provided no one reads them or if they do read them, but the content is contra their priors, the cite is dismissed or ignored. I suppose there could be cite wars ad infinitum. I post mine, you post yours, I discredit yours, you discredit mine, I find another, you find another……
The hyprocisy here is palpable. The support of the joint chiefs for the repeal of DADT is cited, by backers here, as evidence of the goodness of the act. The joint chiefs?!!?? These are the same politicians in uniform that folks like you (correctly IMO) have identified as having helped lie us into and then perpetuate two pointless and unwinnable wars. You accuse me of “mind reading”, but you have the ability to discern when the joint chiefs are actually being honest and when they are not?
As far as I can see you have no more interest in understanding military culture than your ideological opponents do. You both seem to harbor very sanatized and, again, very selective perspectives. You both just want to use the young men and women in uniform as tools for advancement of your ideologies; no matter how misguided those may be. You both, by and large, have never served. There is a reason that the military so often views civilians with contempt. I just explained it in part.
You’re helping the military by allowing a few thousand closeted homosexuals come out without risk of reprisal? In the big scheme of things this is pretty small pototos even if your hypothesis is correct. You really want to help to men and women in the service? Don’t praise that President of yours for this “win”. Don’t let this boost his liberal creds as he wants it to do. His creds should only get a deserved boost when he brings all of the troops home and puts a stop to the senseless waste of lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Or put the same time, effort and dollars spent lobbying for the repeal ( concerning what tiny % of the entire force?) into buying the combat troops the equipment they need. The SAWs are about worn out, There is a need for more body armor……you know; sometimes it is the little things that count……ask some troops what it is they need when they are deployed. They’ll tell you and they would be more appreciative of you rising to those requests than focussing on DADT.
My take away is that people here have priors that are impervious to change and that they will resort to any tactic to maintain their defensive perimeter.
I won’t be posting comments here anymore. There is no point.
Looks like “mission accomplished” for avedis. Maybe overly polite to provide him with a platform with this post. These are cultural issues, not especially inherent or universal. This reminds me – would anyone know whether this Theban “Band of 300” is something historically accurate, I just came accross it in a forum discussion and forgot to google about it. Anyway, this is a non-issue, what we are only talking about is whether an organization willing to change. It is perfectly able to change without hampering its performance, but it might not be willing to change. Nothing is stopping it though, and I guess it inevitably will eventually change and people will think us strange for even debating the issue. So there we go.
the Marines are most gender-conformist and may well have even more of a traditional rape culture than the other services
If the US military is indeed permeated by rape culture, how can one be in favor of letting its members loose on people in foreign countries? In this case the only moral stance would be an immediate, complete and worldwide disengagement of the US military. Or does it not matter so much because the victims are foreigners and “such things happen in war”?
I doubt that the four of us could agree what to get on a pizza
Artichoke hearts and black olives for me. Or, good old ‘roni gets it done.
I won’t be posting comments here anymore. There is no point.
Bye bye.
The fraternization rules certainly aren’t being repealed. There won’t be much of that kind of stuff to react to in the barracks or wherever.
No, because we’re aware that fraternization gets punished, is frowned on, and ends up not being a huge deal because it is tightly control.
Sebastian: I think your faith in the fraternization rules is misplaced/overly-optimistic. A rough parallel would be speeding here in Texas. With a few exceptions (school zones), it isn’t really speeding unless you are going more than 10 miles over the posted limit. If every instance of a couple holding hands, say while in their civilian clothes en route to leaving the base, was brought up on charges, the services would be too busy dealing with these issues to fight or do anything else.
Low levels of horizontal fraternization are inherently unavoidable with hormone charged kids running around. It is tolerated, not encouraged, but not dealt with administratively absent some level of aggravated circumstance (I don’t know what the criteria is and it probably varies from unit to unit).
The very difficult part of this discussion is addressing the notion that while more straight people today than ever before are fine with repealing DADT, fine with gay marriage/civil union, social and legal equality, fine with so many things that were universally viewed as perversion when I was a kid, there remains–and will remain for some time, maybe for quite some time–a fairly bright line between acceptance of different orientations and receptivity to observing or other proximity to acts of same sex intimacy, even low level acts of intimacy.
I don’t need a study to reach this conclusion–I am straight, have been around straight males all of my life and have discussed this issue with 100’s of straight males for years. The view is so widely held as to be virtually universal. Same sex intimacy is the bright line that straight men won’t cross. It’s part of the wiring. It’s visceral. It’s what made it easy for straight males to view homosexuality as a disease or a perversion, when really it was and always will be simply a different systemic imperative that a straight male is no more free to throw off than is a gay male.
McKinneyTexas:
In civilian life, most heterosexuals do not encounter overtly homosexual behavior, largely because they live, work and play in heterosexual environments.
This is quite a claim to make without supporting it. Some cites?
McKinneyTexas:
[…] My comment expressly goes more to overtly sexual behavior, which can be and often does fall far short of outright sex–hand holding, snuggling, other forms of publicly acceptable or tolerated forms of affection. In civilian life, most of this is, by self-selection, confined to gay or straight environments, and so whatever reaction that might arise is forestalled. Cite?
Let me clarify that when I ask for a cite, it’s reasonably possible that if you don’t provide one, I will. Facts are useful, and terribly easy to find and present. There’s this whole “internet” thing that’s useful in this regard.
Gary, I don’t need a study to believe any of the following to be true:
1. Traditional, non-religious conservatives generally favor, in theory, smaller gov’t and less gov’t spending.
2. Traditional conservatives’ actions are often in direct contradiction to their expressed beliefs.
3. Roman Catholic theology holds that, in communion, the communicant is actually eating Christ’s flesh. Many RC communicants either don’t think if it this way or actually view it differently. Many others do.
4. The US office corps is predominantly conservative in its outlook.
5. Straight males are attracted to women, straight women to men. There are no exceptions. There are bisexuals, but no exceptions.
6. Men are generally stronger than women. There are many exceptions, but this is the general rule.
7. Female sexuality is more complex than male sexuality.
8. People, for the most part, exercise choice and judgment as to who they interact with outside of the workplace, where they go in their free time and who they are intimate with.
9. The majority if not the vast majority of straight men do not voluntarily put themselves in a place where encountering male same sex intimacy on any level is reasonably foreseeable, except possibly a fleeting instance such as in a play or a movie.
P.S. I tried to ditch the italics and couldn’t.
“I don’t need a study to reach this conclusion–I am straight, have been around straight males all of my life and have discussed this issue with 100’s of straight males for years.”
You and your hundreds of straight friends sit around and discuss gay male sex?
“If the US military is indeed permeated by rape culture, how can one be in favor of letting its members loose on people in foreign countries?”
That’s the question that interests me the most–the link I posted above ( military prostitution and the us military in asia )
talks about this and that link also gives this link to a NYT story about prostitution in Korea and how the US seemingly collaborated with the rightwing dictatorship in Korea in the 60’s through the 80’s in supporting it.
NYT story about Korean prostitutes
It sounds like there is less toleration for this sort of thing now. It took long enough.
OK, I have no idea how to make it stop. Any suggestions?
Looks OK to me now.
“If the US military is indeed permeated by rape culture, how can one be in favor of letting its members loose on people in foreign countries?”
I suspect that the people who believe the former are not the people who support the latter.
</i>
Yay success! I used my Superpowers to edit the comment with the extra tag.
@McKinneyTexas:
The view is so widely held as to be virtually universal. Same sex intimacy is the bright line that straight men won’t cross. It’s part of the wiring. It’s visceral. It’s what made it easy for straight males to view homosexuality as a disease or a perversion, when really it was and always will be simply a different systemic imperative that a straight male is no more free to throw off than is a gay male.
Of all the things in this thread, I’d say that assertion needs a cite more than any other. Because it’s completely contrary to my experience, and, I’ll wager, the experience of many other people on this site.
I’ve met many, many straight men who have no visceral reaction to two gay men holding hands, cuddling, or kissing one another. Not to the thought of it, not to the sight of it.
My closest friend (straight, male, raised in Holland) received a passionate declaration from a gay friend when they were both 20, and reacted with sympathy and regret that he was straight and unable to reciprocate. No fear, no horror, no disgust.
I believe it’s cultural, not inbred. Nurture, not nature. You’ve been trained to fear and hate this aspect of human sexuality. And it’s entirely possible to overcome that kind of upbringing, or to refuse to pass it on to the next generation. And there’s no cause to inflict more suffering on gays just because you, personally, were raised to freak out about them.
Sorry I haven’t had much time for joining this discussion, guys — yesterday was Shovel Day, today is Yule Dinner Day (now that people were finally able to travel down from New England), which means Cooking Day. I’ll try to reply to comments roughly starting from the top.
Dan:
Yes, one of the things I’m finding hardest about this kind of blogging is making my posts short enough to be readable and timely. I’m glad you found the Shakesville material a good supplement.
there remains–and will remain for some time, maybe for quite some time–a fairly bright line between acceptance of different orientations and receptivity to observing or other proximity to acts of same sex intimacy, even low level acts of intimacy.
Just to follow up a bit on evilrooster’s point….
McK, you and I are of approximately the same generation. Young people now are less squeamish / freaked out / uncomfortable with the sort of normal, quotidian expressions of affection that we’re talking about here — holding hands, arms around each other, kiss hello or goodbye — between people of the same sex than folks our age were when we were young.
As you say, I don’t need a survey or a poll to figure this out, I can see it with my own eyes.
The folks entering the service are, on average, likely more conservative than not, but they’re still part of a generation that is just less viscerally bugged by homosexuality than ours was.
DCA:
The WWII experience with a large conscript army showed that many of the infantry could never bring themselves to fire.
I remember that, but I’m pretty sure I’ve seen something (google fail) about how this is *not* the case for recent generations of recruits. Video games, in particular, are blamed/credited with getting people used to pointing and shooting at realistic human figures.
the type of person (usually male) who can be trained to kill, will not take well to homosexuals being around
I’ve also heard this kind of statement, but it doesn’t actually make *sense*. What is supposed to be the logical or psychological connection between “capable of killing” and “will not tolerate gays”? I can come up with theories, but they are pretty theoretical.
S. L. A. Marshall first made the claim that infantry troops in WWII seldom fired their weapons, even when being shot at. There’s some doubt about the quality of Marshall’s research.
Hartmut:
Still does not answer the question why it is allegedly worse that now gays can be known while before they were anonymous.
One thing IME that straight (civilian) men often say, in explaining why gay men make them uncomfortable, is “What if he hits on me?”
You’ll notice how this phrasing immediately makes sexual interest a form of aggression. That’s part of rape culture: as avedis says, men are predators and women are prey. So if you’re a Traditional Manly Man™, for another man to express sexual interest in you is for him to say: You’re prey. You’re vulnerable, you’re rapeable.
This is what they mean by “breaks down unit cohesion” — if you have gays (or women) and you *don’t* change the underlying premises of a rape culture, then people in the unit will be prey *for each other*. And that is, in fact, what happened to one of the female vets I know (Air Force, in this case).
You know, it’s kind of interesting. Gay men (and women) have been integrated into the Canadian military for a long time now. Somehow this hasn’t turned out to be a big problem for unit cohesion/readiness/whatever. Not only that, but I feel I should point out that these integrated units have been in Kandahar for years, and have been estimated to have been very effective.
This isn’t a problem of military culture. It’s a problem of military culture in the US… which means it’s really a problem of US culture. Colour me shocked.
Donald,
Na Young Lee has an article in Feminist Studies that goes into more detail about how the Japanese system provided the basis and how domestic pressures coupled with a US refusal to contemplate licensed prostitution, led to a half solution. A similar system was set up in Japan immediately after the war, by Japanese, called the RAA or the Recreation and Amusement Association.
Rape culture, or whatever you want to call it, is just the inevitable realization of what the military is really all about — raw power. (Shock and Awe, anyone?) That certainly doesn’t make it acceptable, though, and the longer it is tolerated (or ignored or used as a cudgel over others), the longer that we’re no better than animals.
re: firing percentages. Hartmut is correct that S.L.A. Marshall is the usual source of those figures. More recently those figures gained wider circulation through Dave Grossman’s On Killing, which repeats and expands upon Marshall’s assertion.
Marshall’s figure of a 20% firing rate seems to have been arrived at through intuition and heuristics because Marshall does not seem to have kept detailed notes and did no quantitative work at all in his after action reporting.
Grossman asserts that the military raised the firing rate amongst conscripted troops through systematic operant conditioning and the adoption of silhouette targets after WWII. He also argues that our military has no issues with firing rates now because most of the people in combat are “sheepdogs” who have no qualms about using violence to protect the “sheep” from the “wolves”.
Grossman’s research is much read and cited and he claims to have data beyond Marshall that backs up his assertions, but I have not found any of it in a couple years of research. What’s more, in one of his letters home during his training for WWII Louis Simpson clearly describes going through full on tactical simulations with pop-up silhouette targets while he was still in tank training before joining the 101st.
On the other hand, Donald Burgett describes seeing soldiers even in the 101st that chose not to fire at other human beings in The Road to Arnhem.
My own conclusion using the same methods as Marshall — lots of research and talking to people — is that Marshall is way low in his estimate and that Grossman overstates his case. I also think that the decision to fire is situational and highly dependent on stress levels and the length of time the person has been in continuous combat posture.
If anyone has quantitative evidence for or against this I’d be really interested to see it.
polyorchnid octopunch:
Do you have data/anecdata about the treatment of women and/or homosexuals in the Canadian forces? Are there some regions of Canada that have proportionately more people in the armed services, similar to the well-known US pattern where the states of the Confederacy are over-represented in the military?
polyorchnid, yes indeed, and in the UK’s armed forces, and in many others. It is an American problem.
You and your hundreds of straight friends sit around and discuss gay male sex?
Not gay sex. The topic comes up in discussions of gays in the military and gay marriage/civil union, changing attitudes toward gays and the overt bigotry against gays used for political purposes. The discussion often spills over into why some men are gay and most aren’t. A fair number of people believe it’s a choice. My reply is, “Fine, choose it. Just try to choose it. Just put the thought in your head.” My follow up is: “If it’s choice, then implicitly, it’s one anyone can make. But, in fact, it’s not a choice at all. If it was, horny young guys would be overwhelmingly bisexual.” The end game to these discussions, regardless of how many minds are changed, is that while the notion of sex with another man is foreign and unappealing, the same is ‘likely (logically)’ true for gay men at some level regarding sex with women.
I put ‘likely (logically)’ in quotes because I have no idea what consensus, if any, there is among gay men and their views of sexual intimacy with women. I suspect–and my suspicion is likely rife with errors great and small–that a significant number of gay men of my generation have tried to be intimate with women because, to one degree or another, they wanted to ‘fit in’. I have no idea what their innermost reaction was–indifference, aversion, I have no clue. I also sense that, growing up in a world inundated with heterosexual imagery, gay people are far more acclimatized, if that is the right word, to hetero activity. But this is just supposition.
FWIW, some years back, once I clued in on the absence of choice, the notion of treating people differently because of innate characteristics that impact no one other than themselves simply wasn’t fair. What I found out to be true for me turns out to be true for a lot of people who’s views have changed: it turns out we know a lot of gay people and the fact of being gay is 99.999% irrelevant to any aspect of our relationship. The closet seems to be getting smaller everyday. Not fast enough, but it’s happening and the result is what one would hope for, which is a significant change in attitude.
I’ve met many, many straight men who have no visceral reaction to two gay men holding hands, cuddling, or kissing one another. Not to the thought of it, not to the sight of it.
Well, I question this statement—not your belief in it—but the validity of your observation. First, it’s unlikely that you know a representative number of straight men who (1) regularly or even irregularly encounter gay male intimacy and who (2) talk about it and (3) you are likely considerably younger than me. But if you do, I suspect that your cohort is a small subset of the straight male community who’s professions or social or recreational interests put them in more regular contact with significant numbers of gay men, and thus experience a level of socialization that is not widespread.
You’ve been trained to fear and hate this aspect of human sexuality. And it’s entirely possible to overcome that kind of upbringing, or to refuse to pass it on to the next generation. And there’s no cause to inflict more suffering on gays just because you, personally, were raised to freak out about them.
You are incorrect in each of these statements. I didn’t know what a homosexual was until I was in college. No one taught me anything, good or bad, about gay people. The general take on homosexuality then, quite some time ago, was that it was a deviancy. Homosexuality was rarely a topic of conversation until fairly recently.
I can’t overcome my wiring. I am simply not interested in male same sex intimacy, nor is male same sex intimacy something I or any other straight male wishes to be exposed to. I know of no straight men who feel differently. Tolerance is a different item and tolerance levels vary individually by person and by circumstance.
As for inflicting anything on anyone, what I don’t do is impute from grossly insufficient data (1) how someone was raised or (2) a desire on anyone’s part to inflict anything on anyone else. My arm isn’t long enough to pat myself on the back, at least not very hard, but from my time as a dorm RA through my eventually seeing the other side of gay equality, I can look back on every interaction I’ve had with gay men and women and not regret a thing I’ve said or done. Not one thing. Whatever private views I’ve had, or still have, do not affect the way I was, in fact, raised, which was to respect and deal decently with anyone and everyone, particularly their privacy.
McK, you and I are of approximately the same generation. Young people now are less squeamish / freaked out / uncomfortable with the sort of normal, quotidian expressions of affection that we’re talking about here — holding hands, arms around each other, kiss hello or goodbye — between people of the same sex than folks our age were when we were young.
As you say, I don’t need a survey or a poll to figure this out, I can see it with my own eyes.
The folks entering the service are, on average, likely more conservative than not, but they’re still part of a generation that is just less viscerally bugged by homosexuality than ours was.
I see this, as well. One of my daughter’s best friends, going back to high school (she’s 28), is gay. My son’s suite mate in college came out to his seven off-the-charts straight suite mates, and the unanimous consensus was that we were friends yesterday and today, nothing has changed. They remain friends to this day. The closer people are on a daily basis to gay friends socially, the more the wiring will soften at the edges. But, the wiring is still there.
One thing IME that straight (civilian) men often say, in explaining why gay men make them uncomfortable, is “What if he hits on me?”
You’ll notice how this phrasing immediately makes sexual interest a form of aggression. That’s part of rape culture: as avedis says, men are predators and women are prey. So if you’re a Traditional Manly Man™, for another man to express sexual interest in you is for him to say: You’re prey. You’re vulnerable, you’re rapeable.
There are two parts here, the gay part and the rape culture part. One the gay part, as a general observation (and personal experience), straight men who are uncomfortable around gay men and who are not irretrievably bigoted are that way because of lack of exposure and ignorance. I have been hit on, aggressively, by a gay man once. I didn’t like it. But that is one time, many years ago, out of hundreds, maybe north of a thousand, of times I’ve dealt with openly gay men professionally or socially. My experience with gay men, mostly of my generation, is that there are plenty of things to talk about besides sex and since we don’t have anything in common in the sex department, there’s no point in bringing it up. So, I see ignorance and perhaps an inflated view of one’s desirability as the main issue here.
Next, the rape culture thing. Jesus. People are different, including men. Some men are a**holes, some are socially inept, and many men, particularly young men, are clumsy—usually very clumsy—around women. A minority of men do prey on women. Their methods vary from manipulation to physical force. A minority of women are sexually aggressive. However, we don’t speak of the Slut Culture when talking about women in any walk of life. We don’t because it isn’t there. The expression “hitting on” only implies violence to someone predisposed to see men as the only sexual aggressors and to see that type of behavior as typical. It is current vernacular for “approaching” or “flirting”. Kids today “dump” or “get dumped”. We used to say “broke up with.” This is not some kind of heavily freighted, Freudian turn of phrase. Boorishness, shallow, insensitive opportunists who piss women off is a larger class of male. Rape Culture? Not here, not now.
avedis wrote:
Many women in the military are, as my Navy daughter was shocked to realize “a bunch of sluts” (her words). Some women in the armed forces actually take advantage of the mens’ pent up libido and prostitute themselves for extra cash.
I am extremely surprised by this, and suspect that you misinterpreted what your daughter said. Generally speaking, “slut” is the *opposite* of “whore” — a slut is a woman who has sex for *fun*, for her own pleasure; a whore is a woman who has sex for material gain with men in whom she has no actual sexual interest. I assume the Navy women your daughter encountered (and I totally believe her) are, in male terms, “players” — they’re taking advantage of an unbalanced sex ratio to have sex with a variety of men with no strings attached.
I don’t think you understand what people are talking about when they use the words “rape culture.”
However, we don’t speak of the Slut Culture when talking about women in any walk of life.
No, we engage in Slut Shaming instead, as sexual aggressiveness is reserved for men.
In any case, see if you can suss out for yourself some differences between promiscuity and sexual violence (or violent sexuality). I bet you don’t even need any hints.
Doctor Science, herewith some British data/anecdata — the first to hand
“http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/how-the-forces-finally-learnt-to-take-pride-1762057.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/11/gay-soldier-ben-rakestrow
www,proud2serve.net will have more
we don’t speak of the Slut Culture when talking about women in any walk of life.
Sure we do. We just call it something else.
OK, I have no idea how to make it stop. Any suggestions?
Just for the record, although I can’t recall the exact minimum number of tags to close open tags (which cleek has specified from time to time, down through the ages), the following (somewhat overkill) combination is what I used upthread, which seemed to do it from my (Firefoxy) perspective:
<p><p><\i><\p><\p>
<\i>
Doctor Science:
1. Go to Typepad Dashboard.
2. Unver “Manage My Blog,” click “Obsidian Wings.”
3. At the top of the page you should now see the menu choices of:
* Compose
* Overview
* Posts
* Comments
Click “Comments.”
4. You should now see all comments in chronological order, but also sortable as is either obvious to you or irrelevant.
Close any unclosed tag within a comment by editing the comment.
That’s the only way to fully fix an unclosed tag made in a comment so that all browsers will apply the now properly closed tags.
Attempting to do it via additional comments will only work on certain browsers under certain conditions. It won’t do the job.
Please feel free to email me with any questions about Typepad at gary underscore farber at yahoo com, or in a thread, as you like, but I’m far more apt to see email.
If you ask anything excessively ambitious, keep in mind that all I know about Typepad is that I’ve spent the time I have posting. I haven’t read any Typepad Help yet, but certainly will as necessary.
As I seem to have an aptitude for such, and looking at GUIs and grokking them, and I very much would like to learn more about Typepad, I truly do desire to be asked useful questions that would give me an excuse to invest more time in reading/playing with the software, as time and priorities allow.
I know fully well that everyone’s time is limited, and time available to learn posting software isn’t going to easily fit into anyone else’s schedule. I’m delighted to help wherever I can.
I live to serve.
novakant:
Could you suggest a timeframe in which you believe this can practically be accomplished?
Thanks!
Russell, I’m pretty omnivorous, but I’ve yet to develop a fondness for either olives of any kind, or anchovies.
I love chopped beef, but dislike beef in other than tiny sized bits. Similarly, I prefer dark meat on chicken, and fork-sized white meat.
The prior ‘graph isn’t particularly relevant to pizza, but the above are almost the entirety of my food dislikes of food I have yet tried, unless we start listing outliers in America such as lutefisk, and… doubtless other foods.
But familiarity breeds new habits when necessary, or possible.
I’m great with pizza with any topping, though if we’re ordering, I’ll mention preferences if asked, and otherwise go with the majority. I have no problems picking anchovies or olives out, and besides, next time I’ll try them again, and maybe I’ll decide I like them. I bet myself I can make myself.
Maybe I will next time.
I try to re-examine all my prejudices whenever I’m reminded I should.
And the past has taught me that the few prejudices against foods that I once had, when tried again, I later realized were silly mental habits/memories of childhood, no longer operative. (There are sound and known neurological reasons for this, which I won’t bore anyone with.)
Thus I once wasn’t wild about raw tomato. Until decades ago, I thought, hey, wait, I haven’t retried that in years. And, yeah, tastes from childhood, as the research shows, differ from adult tastes, mouth sensations, reflexes, habit, and so on.
Tomatos are fine.
And even adults can change tastes under a variety of circumstances.
My problem with large hunks of meat are that as a child, I used to choke on them a lot. I still have leftover gag reflex. I could overcome it, if I tried, but it’s not a high priority.
Habits are overcomeable via practicing new ones. When or if a person is capable of it, interested, and open, and did I mention capable?
Allergies and physical/chemical reactions are, of course, another matter. Each individual’s body, brain, and mind is unique.
Feel free to put up an open thread on pizza preferences. 🙂
It could be useful information for future gatherings!
http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/Canada5.pdf is a good start for Canadian reactions to allowing gay service members.
It should be noted that in both the UK and Canada that there were fairly common fears such as expressed by avedis, and that in the end those fears weren’t realised. I see no reason why we should be different.
perhaps an inflated view of one’s desirability
Indeed. What I keep thinking is “They’re just not that into you.”
And the past has taught me that the few prejudices against foods that I once had, when tried again, I later realized were silly mental habits/memories of childhood, no longer operative.
I thought for years that I didn’t like fish or vegetables. Then I found out that I just didn’t like the way my mother cooked them.
McKinneyTexas: Happy 2011!
How do you compare this to women and men serving together as they have done for years?
I know you believe it to be true, and I know you believe you don’t need a study on it, but it is, in fact, untrue. Would you like some cites to prove it as a matter of fact?
Try the Kinsey scale!
Learn about Asexuality.
Learn about Intersexuality.
None of this is academic; I have a number of friends I’ve personally known for decades who have written about their lives, and will tell you in person, if you meet them. I can point to many more such individuals, who add up to significant numbers in society, if little-noticed by those who don’t notice.
I highly recommend Raphael Carter and Raphael‘s novel, The Fortunate Fall.
Hope you’ve had a lovely Christmas!
Sure we do. We just call it something else.
I don’t think the hook up thing is used to define solely women.
@McKinneyTexas:
I think we’re into dueling anecdotes here. You don’t think that I know what I say I know. I don’t think that what you call hard-wired is hard-wired.
I still say, if you want to tell me that dislike (rather than indifference) is the hard-wired reaction of men to seeing sexual behavior that doesn’t interest them, then you’re going to need some good, reliable sociological studies to back it up. Otherwise I’m going to believe that, without explicitly teaching you about homosexuality, your formative influences instilled this reaction in you.
And I’ll thank you not to tell me off about making assumptions about you when you made them about me any my sources.
And I’ll thank you not to tell me off about making assumptions about you when you made them about me any my sources.
Fair point up to a point, the difference being that I was value-neutral about you and your sources.
the difference being that I was value-neutral about you and your sources.
I think that depends how much, and what sort of, value we put on intellectual honesty. I know how it came across to me when you told me I was overstating or misinterpreting what I know and you do not.
Just in time for New Year’s, here’s a perfect example of rape culture and slut-shaming all in one!
“.. I assume the Navy women your daughter encountered (and I totally believe her) are, in male terms, “players” — they’re taking advantage of an unbalanced sex ratio to have sex with a variety of men with no strings attached.”
Dr S, since you directly addressed me and because I find you both intelligent and open minded, I will reply to you (and you alone).
She meant both types of behavior. Primarily, females “hooking up” with numerous males (also in uniform). However, it should not be too surprising that some enterprising females realize that there exists a prime opportunity to make a buck…..so much for reliance on antifraternization laws. BTW I have seen this behavior myself 20 years ago. I know of several other former service men that report the same.
Dr. S, you were so very close to understanding the issue. This whole rape culture discussion is an unfortunate distraction.
You see in combat units – and I emphasize ‘combat’ – men have to stay tough; always. The training is brutal. Everyone is hurting physically, everyone is exhausted mentally and emotionally as well. Everyone wants to quit at some point. Everyone is sick and tired of the BS. But they keep going because if the other guy is doing it then so can I and the other guy is looking to me for the same motivation. This is an important element of unit cohesion. Each man keeps the other strong. Bad news from home? Yeah I hear you man. Ok. Let’s get past it. F___k it. It don’t mean nothing.
Then there is actual combat itself. Even more brutal and dehumanizing. Even a greater need to have your bro.s staying hard and for you to stay hard for them. And everyone is afraid. But you can’t express that. Fear in combat is death. It can spread like wildfire through a unit. Everyone is watching everyone else. Hey, if he can keep doing it under these circumstances, then I can keep doing it to. You laugh or shrug off at the sickness, the sh!t, the gore and… the unspeakable…taking another human’s life… and your bro.s help you laugh about it or shrug it off.
As the prayer goes, “Yeah though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I shall fear no evil for I am the bad motherf___er in the valley”. Your bro.s reinforce that you are a bad motherf____er and you reinforce that they are bad motherf____ers.
It’s like prison rules. There’s no room for an iota of weakness. And everyone’s watching. And these are young impressionable men.
We do the F____ing; We don’t get f___ed.
We are the ultimate hunters. We hunt and kill humans. We even take, like hunters, trophies from our kills.
This is survival, existential and mental, and it’s combat effectiveness.
So now there’s a gay in the unit. Under the repeal he can be openly gay. maybe he’s looking at you like maybe he likes you. Why? Is there something about me that suggests weakness? I’m like a prey to you? You want to f__k me? well f___k you. I need to do something to reassert that I am all man by our definition. I may kick your ass. I may kill you. Whatever, you are not my bro. You are not giving me the support I need from my bro.s and they need from me.
Is this clear enough? Like I said, I think you got it. Just wanted to add some nuance.
avedis – “Dr. S, you were so very close to understanding the issue. This whole rape culture discussion is an unfortunate distraction….
…it’s like prison rules.”
Looks like an own goal to me.
So, avedis, about all those other militaries that are integrated. Are you arguing that the IDF has gone soft since 1993? Do you argue that the SAS cannot be effective combat troops because integration has ruined their unit cohesion?
It’s not that I don’t believe what you are saying here is not representative of some mainstream portion of combat troops. What you have said here is neither shocking nor novel. But neither is it in any way a necessary element of esprit de corps or of coping with combat stress. It’s not nature, it’s *a* military culture, and it can — and will — change.
so, my data/anecdata links won’t work; sorry. I’m not sure what went wrong. I’ll just put the original links here.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/how-the-forces-finally-learnt-to-take-pride-1762057.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/11/gay-soldier-ben-rakestrow
http://www.proud2serve.net
Doctor Science, thank you for an excellent and thought-provoking analogy; I hadn’t considered the problem from that angle before.
“maybe he’s looking at you like maybe he likes you. Why? Is there something about me that suggests weakness?”
Let’s unpack this syllogism. Gay men only scope out men who are weak. Being scoped out by a gay man therefore makes you doubt your manhood.
Why is this?
If I posit, according to your proposition, that gay men in combat are, unlike other men in combat, likely to have time and energy to scope out their brothers, doesn’t that make them more manly than the men who are too busy trying to stay alive?
I cannot resist mentioning that one of the best-selling porn videotapes sold by Good Vibrations is called Bend over Boyfriend, which teaches heterosexual couples how a woman can penetrate a man (with non-manufacturer-supplied equipment, obvs.) Redbook, a mainstream women’s magazine, listed the practice as one of “5 sexy things he’s longing for you to try in bed.”
It’s at least possible that some of those manly heterosexuals in the armed forces are “taking it up the ass”… from female partners.
nous, the IDF is a different situation. Universal conscript and fighting right at home. Have they gone soft? Yes. They have had their asses handed to them in recent engagements. They wouldn’t even be half of what they are without our support.
SAS? Good outfit. How many openly gays serving in it? But there still not US Marines.
Madame Hardy, I’m also talking about pre-combat training. I could care less about your kinky nonsense. It doesn’t shock me, if that’s your aim.
I have to go make gravy and be festive, so I am just warning you-all to KEEP IT NICE. We’re discussing issues that are EXTREMELY sensitive to many people in many ways, so please, think twice before you guess about anyone’s moral character.
avedis,
I really think you’re the one not getting it. What you say is exactly the point.
Can you understand that the culture and viewpoint of the men you are describing the “I f.ck, I don’t get f..ked” makes me, as a woman, react exactly the same way these men react to the idea of a gay man looking at them? It pisses me off, it freaks me out, it makes me want a gun on me. Because it’s a threat and it feels threatening.
We are looking at the same mechanism, both acknowledging that the issue are these men see women as prey/weak and hate the idea of being prey/weak – but you think the answer is to refrain from making these men feel prey/weak and I (we if I might presume) feel that we should dismantle “sexual partner of a man” as equivalent to prey/weak.
And in my universe mating still happens because instead of approaching a potential mate with the attitude of “you will get f.cked” they frequently approach with the attitude of “do you want to f.ck together?” an entirely different thing. Or, you know, like all those navy girls, the women frequently approach and make the same offer.
Arcinian,
I can completely understand where you are coming from. I think that men that exclusively hold and display these attitudes in civilian life are offensive. I can understand why would you find them to be more than unattractive; even frightening.
But we are not talking about civilian life. We are talking about men whose sole mission is to excell under the most extreme adverse conditions to kill and achieve the mission or die trying. I think that too many people in modern civilian America underestimate what this means. Which is one of the issues that gets me so upset with some people posting comments here. It’s like they can’t or won’t even consider what it means to be in training for and then in combat.
Success in extreme situations calls for extreme personalities or mindsets. I am sure that if you were looking for a man to spend social and perhaps intimate time with, you might select an artist or musician or intelligent and sensitive college professor……..but would you really select any of those guys to drop out of a helicopter and mercillesly shoot up an al qaeda stronghold?
There are reasons that combat troops often find adjustment to civilian life difficult. One is that they do have to ease off that edge they’ve been living on. The edge is mental, physical and psychological.
It’s one of the costs of war. Training young men to be what you find abhorent is a necessity to ensuring success. I think people forget that when they start waving the flag and calling for our troops to go get this or that bunch of “enemies”.
That being said, I do think that the prey/hunter model, to a much lesser, kinder/gentler extent, is a part of traditional male/female mating rituals. There are women that are….well maybe a little old fashioned…in that they do want to be pursued (again, gently). I know times are a changin’. Still, why can’t people that really do enjoy this paradigm do so without some women’s studies prof targeting them?
One more thing, Arician, since I think we are engaged in a mutually respectful exchange……..someone will suggest that these men can be trained to have a different mindset (it’s already been suggested by someone here that they can be ordered to have a different mindset).
I don’t think so. The USMC has found that instilling and reinforcing this mindset is an ingredient for successfully perpetuating the finest and proudest fighting outfit in the world. It has worked for over 200 years. I don’t think that it would be a good idea to start messing with a proven formula. Certainly not now. Maybe never.
I’m not a women’s studies professor and I’m not targeting anyone. If I have my way everyone should be entirely free to engage in any kind of mating dance they prefer. I’m not even saying that men with a mindset that frightens and causes revulsion in me should not exist.
I’m saying that I do not want my military, the military of my country, to encourage and tolerate a culture that is entirely full of such men and treat it as necessary.
And I do not believe it is necessary.
Which I guess is where we disagree – you think this kind of mindset is linked in some way to the ability to kill other human beings and experiencing other physical hardship and I do not think it is. You can put me in any extreme conditions you like – and I’m not going to regard consensual sex as a win/lose proposition that requires prey and predator and I firmly believe that to be true for several men I know intimately. I do think that both I and they would be twisted and perhaps broken by battle, certainly changed dramatically but whatever pathologies and extremes would result from such an experience I firmly believe it wouldn’t be that one. The extremes that get brought out in us have to be in us to begin with and while I have a lot of unpleasant things in me that’s not one of them. And I know men for whom I believe that’s true as well. And I do not think that everyone without that mindset is ‘not cut out for war’ or some such.
It’s not even that it (prey/predator mindset) is the worst thing I can imagine – but to treat it as necessary and desirable and part and parcel of combat – no.
What do you think goes on in the heads of women who end up in combat zones? You have to concede that there have always been women who underwent extreme physical hardships and women who’ve killed others and gone on dangerous missions (from slavery to guerilla wars to militaries of other countries). Do you think they too have that mindset and what? cast men as prey? never want/have sex at all?
It’s funny but I think you are arguing against yourself in a sense. You want people to have more regard for the cost of war to our soldiers but I think that increased regard is linked to a mindset you advocate as natural/necessary. That is, if that mindset changed I think you’d find the military used less and more sensibly/carefully.
Because if I think of the military as “other” as those “violent crazy people who are different than you and I” it is one thing. But if I think of the military as ours and necessary and as potentially me and entirely human it is something else. I would be willing to step on a battlefield for some things – the current war in Afghanistan isn’t one of them. I don’t want to send human beings to do what I wouldn’t and I do believe that combat soldiers are entirely and heartbreakingly human with all the darkness and potential of that humanity. And some of those combat soldiers are gay and some should be women – because we are all human together and we should be working together because we live together in one society and we want this society to get better.
“We are talking about men whose sole mission….”
I need to make that a stronger and truer statement. It’s not their sole mission. It’s their sole purpose in life.
A Marine be killed in action, he is told, but he will live for ever because the Corps lives forever. The indoctrination is meant to be absolute.
Jarheads truly are mutants from a civilian perspective, but that’s what makes them so good at what they do.
Could you suggest a timeframe in which you believe this can practically be accomplished?
Well, I suppose if a host country canceled or renegotiated a SOFA, this would go rather quickly. Also, not fighting any more wars would be a start and a good idea in general.
Some post scripts.
The idea of our military as a group that doesn’t see me as entirely human is very scary. And no, that isn’t who I want defending me.
I don’t expect ending DADT to magically transform everyone in the military but I don’t think everyone is how you describe them and I think people will adjust and small changes will be made and things will change.
I don’t expect this to make the military or combat troops nicer or softer I just expect it to make it more equal, to make a culture where homosexuals and women can be an “us”.
Sorry to get personal but it is easy to think there is nothing wrong with the traditional approach when you are male and straight.
Hey, no problem, Arcinian. I think you have been one of the few respectful commentors here. I am ok with people disagreeing with me as long as they actually listen to what I am saying; which I can tell you have. And, I really do try to understand where you and other women are coming from on this. I do appreciate your position.
“I’m saying that I do not want my military, the military of my country, to encourage and tolerate a culture that is entirely full of such men and treat it as necessary.”
I can understand you not wanting that. However, it’s always been there. You can’t wish it away. The military tends to recognize that you would find all of this unappealing and troops are trained to put on a polite face in front of you and the ugliness is largely kept out of sight and out of the media.
“Which I guess is where we disagree – you think this kind of mindset is linked in some way to the ability to kill other human beings and experiencing other physical hardship and I do not think it is.”
Yes. This is where we disagree – or, more importantly , where you and the Marine Corps disagree.
I still think you are underestimating the degree of hardship and the mindset that is needed to counter that. It’s not being able to kill in one quick action. It’s being able to do it under extreme conditions reliably, efficiently and repeatedly any time any where…. like they are shooting back at you, people, your buddies, are getting killed and then being able to get up the next day and do it all over again…perhaps for days on end with no sleep, in the cold, in the rain, in the scorching heat, little or no food, potentially month after month…and there’s all the stifling boredom in between.
….in probably every recruit platoon there’s some poor guy who calls his rifle a “gun” (big mistake). The lesson administered by the DI almost always involves a comparison….the recruit drops his skivies, holds his penis in one hand and his rifle in the other…this is my rifle (presenting the rifle)….this is my gun (presenting his penis)…this one’s for killing, this one’s for fun…
…..I don’t know, you’ve got young men (no women) with a lot of libido, weapons, close living quarters, a need to build unit cohesion and team work, a need to break down individuality, a need to instill absolute discipline…a need to inspire a warrior spirit (complete with the ability to kill)….did I mention libido which will go unstatisfied potentially for many months on end…..
If you can think of a better way to handle this mix and channel it to the desired outcome – which is to accomplish the mission efficiently under any circumstances – then you have a lucrative consulting job at the Pentagon waiting for you 😉
Your question about women in combat gives me pause for thought. I don’t know how they handle it. There are few women who have ever been at the point of the spear (no 2x entendre intended). It would be interesting to see a psych profile. I suspect the sample size is too small and that the cultures where this occurs too different to get a good understanding. I have met, in my day, some tough women that are every bit, if not more, sexually predatory as the worst males. Maybe your women warriors cut from that cloth….I knew an NCO who had been in Vietnam. He told me a story wherein an indig female approached him, stripped down and had sex with him. She was the initiator and “aggressor”. A few days later a squad led by the same NCO was ambushed. They fought their way out of it. They examined the bodies of the VC that had been killed. Among them was the same woman (she had been armed and had been shooting). True story? I think so. What does it mean in regards to our discussion? I don’t know. Maybe something, maybe nothing.
I have enjoyed our exchange. I am afraid that we are at an empasse, but willing to talk more if you want to.
“Well, I suppose if a host country canceled or renegotiated a SOFA, this would go rather quickly. Also, not fighting any more wars would be a start and a good idea in general.”
Cheers! I’ll drink to that.
http://www.counterpunch.org/white05292004.html
if anyone doubts my cred.s or thinks I am skewed.
Ok, then.
Wait, what?
novakant:
Agree!
Wait, what?
Slow day on the horse farm.
“However, it’s always been there. You can’t wish it away. The military tends to recognize that you would find all of this unappealing and troops are trained to put on a polite face in front of you and the ugliness is largely kept out of sight and out of the media.”
I certainly have no trouble believing this on all sorts of issues. It’s what bureaucracies tend to do in general, even (or especially) the well-armed ones. But on the gay/gender issue I don’t know that it has to be that way, as you claim. To take the racism comparison, I know you reject it, but a couple of generations ago (or even more recently) a lot of gung-ho Southern whites who might have served enthusiastically would have been vehemently opposed to fighting side-by-side with black soldiers. That prejudice was overcome, so I’m not sure why sexist attitudes couldn’t. It might take awhile, of course.
Incidentally, avedis, I’ve stayed out of the argument, but most of the hostility you received came from your own initial approach–go back and take a look at your first post (I think) in the previous thread and it basically reads something like –You’re all a bunch of lefty fruitcakes and you believe in global warming too, you morons–. (I started to put quotes around the paraphrase, but Gary wouldn’t like it.) It’s a great way to ensure a hostile response. Then some of your comments sounded sexist and/or homophobic. It didn’t sound like you were just giving your view of how young Marines think (which might or might not be accurate), but that you were in some sense defending it. There’s a difference between asserting that young men under certain conditions have a tendency to be sexist and homophobic (which might or might not be true) and saying it has to be that way and it’s a good thing too. You blurred the distinction.
There’s a bit of a paradox here. What you’re saying about the military is what I’d expect to hear from a hardnosed, slightly self-righteous pacifist and antiwar activist on the far left, but you presented it in the persona of some rightwinger defending the necessity of having a Marine Corps of trained sexist killers.
to McK Texas: First, thanks for making reasonable and polite comments. Not all do.
Second, since you keep referring to your generation as having perspectives on this issue that younger commenters may not share, allow me to chip in. I’m in my mid-60s: same generation as you, perhaps? Served in the US Army, long ago, though not in combat. Married to the same woman 40+ years.
And I am NOT revolted at homosexual behavior, nor in my experience are most of my friends. In the most spectacular refutation, a huge contingent from the college/community choir showed up to sing at the “commitment ceremony” of two fellow choristers (let’s call them John & Wayne). It was a wedding in every respect except name and law, this being a state that still doesn’t recognize gay marriage. But we all showed up, and celebrated their union.
I’m not denying that many men feel otherwise, but my experience refutes your claim that this is somehow “hard-wired.” So does the historical/anthropological observation that there are many societies in which a “stage” of homosexual relations is actually customary for ALL men, most of whom wind up married. Ancient Greece has some of the best-known, and the tradition that men *should* go into battle alongside their gay lovers, because it would encourage them to show greater bravery!
This of course does not prove that DADT should be (should have been) repealed. But I hope it puts paid to arguments against it based on the simplistic views that (1) all “straight” men are automatically revolted by homosexual behavior; and/or (2) warriors must be not just straight, but actively gay-aversive.
These are simply untrue as generalities. If they are true for particular subsets of nation, age, and/or profession, then they are the product of particular cultures – and cultures can be changed, if we want.
I was thinking it was more an exhibition of pointlessness, russell.
To wax personal, for no particular reason, some people here may recall that my editing/publishing experience includes a military history line, a military fiction line, particularly of WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, and I’ve read literally thousands of books and manuscripts of such, all written by veterans, which means I directly worked with many of them on their books.
Fewer may be aware of amount of time I spent in the late Seventies working, as my full-time job of the time, for SEA-VAC, the Seattle Veteran’s Action Center, which was the primary non-profit, organized and run by Vietnam veterans, Seattle center at the time for veterans to go to do find help with their problems, and just to be among fellow veterans.
I didn’t not listen, nor not talk to vets.
In summary, I’ve personally spent thousands of hours, talking to hundreds and hundreds of veterans, both some of the most articulate alive in my lifetime, and those too traumatized to even speak coherently, or much at all, for over thirty-two years, plus worked on huge numbers of military history books — incidentally, my best friend spent many years as editor of the Military Book Club, and I spent plenty of time in his office, and still am in contact with him multiple times a day much of the time, like, say, today — and the reason I did this professionally may actually relate to some interest in affairs military, including grunts, jarheads, and warriors of every type — not fobbits, and a past where, just as a hobby, I’ve read several thousand books on military topics.
None of which approaches being in one second of combat, or being in boot camp for a week. I actually have some grasp of that, curiously enough.
But it all goes to show, along with all that I’ve previously mentioned, and linked to, I obviously am unfamiliar with, and hate all things, military, including the Marines.
Repeat: none of which approaches being in one second of combat, or being in boot camp for a week.
Repeat: none of which approaches being in one second of combat, or being in boot camp for a week.
It’s all just second-hand knowledge, whether orally, or in writing.
I’m entirely aware of the difference. It would be impossible for me not to be entirely aware of the difference.
But I do have one or two clues. Of course, Hack wouldn’t know anything about combat.
(And, no, he didn’t approve of women in combat, either; that’s not the point; neither is he someone I ever worked with; I’ve simply read most of what he’s written, along with thousands of other warriors, talked to them, etc.)
A handful of names of people’s whose books I did have something to do with: Michael Herr, Dispatches. (Just on the re-issue, to be sure.)
Gustav Hasford (didn’t have personal contact other than reading his personally typed manuscript when he submitted it to us, and I desperately tried to get us to publish The Phantom Blooper, which didn’t happen because, in essence, Hasford’s legal problems.)
If you haven’t read that, or heard of him, you should, and read The Short Timers.
Vietnam vets can reality-check, and non-vets can be educated. Just one guy, two very short novellas.
But I could keep going.
By wacky non-coincidence, Dispatches and The Short-Timers were the basis of a little-known film called “Full Metal Jacket.”
Again: books are books, films are films, reality is reality, combat is combat. I’m not in the least asserting otherwise.
Another not entirely obscure author I worked with wrote the book of this movie, as well as his own various other books on his Vietnam combat experience.
And on and on through endless numbers of veterans. And the many books of military history, because I was specifically responsible for working on the entire Vietnam War, and WWII, and military history lines as my job.
Mind, I was the primary or acquiring editor on only one; I don’t want to puff my credentials; all the other books and manuscripts I worked on were in a junior/subeditorial position, or in other cases, merely copyedited, or even just proofread.
Nonetheless, this meant going over hundreds of published books, and many hundreds of then or never-published works, with the author, not infrequently at length. And reading thousands of submissions. Many very good to wonderful.
None of which equals ten seconds in combat, or a week in boot camp.
But I just hate, hate, hate the military, and never listen to anyone who is a warrior.
Lastly, I repeat myself, with variant words: if anyone truly respected military men they would read MAJ Olmsted‘s Final Post, look at the links on the upper right of this blog, click through, read some of them, and wonder just why such a man, who died in the line in Iraq, might have chosen to post on this blog.
Rather than blather about how no one is reading their links.
But speaking of links: Special Reconnaissance Regiment:
Pansies.
You are wrong there, avedis. They were citing the UCMJ to prove how your claims that DADT repeal would grant gays special rights within the military that straights wouldn’t also have were false.
@McKinneyTexas:
After a night’s sleep, I agree that I was unreasonably judgmental and made unwarranted assumptions about you.
I still firmly disagree about how much of the reaction you describe is hard-wired rather than socialized. And I still trust my information sources. But there are better ways to say so.
Here’s what I see.
Right now, today, it’s highly likely that there are gay people serving, in combat arms, in the Marines, Army, and other services. When I say “highly likely”, I mean it’s virtually certain. They are in combat, now.
They are serving alongside of straight folks.
As certain as I am that gay folks are serving in combat, I am equally certain that at least some of the straight folks serving with them are aware that they are gay.
Maybe there are lots and lots of incidents of straight vs gay conflict going on that we just don’t hear about, but to the casual observer (i.e., me) I’m not seeing psychosexual apocalypse going on.
It would appear that folks in the armed forces, including Marines serving in combat missions, are capable of dealing with gays in their midst.
The difference between DADT and no DADT will be that we can all stop pretending that the gay folks are there. They’re there now, folks know they’re there, they just have to pretend they’re not.
On the topic of troops not firing on the enemy:
Do the studies mentioned by posters here have something to say about distinguishing shots not being fired due to killing inhibition and those due to lack of opportunity or withheld due to rational decision? There is an interesting fact about the Battle of Königgrätz (one of the largest of its era) that the number of rifle shots fired was roughly equal to the number of participants despite several units running dangerously low on ammo (iirc each infantry soldier on the Prussian side carried 60 cartridges). The surprising conclusion is that a vast majority did not fire their rifles more than once or even not at all and that in a battle not known for people mostly staying around doing nothing. So, which part of the soldiers were ‘killing inhibited’. Not firing back even when under fire can be a complex decision and in the special case above a factor that came into play was clearly the paranoid fear of conservative parts of the Prussian military leadership that brechloaders would lead to reckless waste of ammo => extreme emphasis during training to keep fire discipline.
—
On those ‘effeminate’ gays: A recent ‘argument’ (not used by anyone here!) against gays in general is the ridiculous claim that Hitler totally relayed on gays because only they would be vicious, tough and cruel enough to take on the world. Would that not be a reason to establish yet another military branch? One could call it the Gayserks and send them in even before the Marines 😉
—
Personally, I consider many sexual practices used by ‘normal’ straight people to be extremly disgusting. Do I have problems with straight people I have to suspect engage in those practices on a regular base? No, and there is the fast forward option in prawn* when they inevitably show up.
I would also not feel fully comfortable, if straight people would engage in sex in my presence unasked 😉
*as usual, I don’t know whether the correctly spelled word triggers any filters
My problem is with the characterization of sexual interaction in the military as a predator/prey kind of thing. Aside from reminding me of that horrible storyline in Star Trek Voyager, it suggests to me that the military is not doing a very good job in its training. Predator/prey may work when combating actual enemies, but shouldn’t they make a distinction when it comes to other situations, not only with women soldiers, but with civilians they may encounter along the way? It may be simpler and more efficient to stereotype anyone outside the military unit as “prey,” but it may also prove to be counterproductive in the long run.
as usual, I don’t know whether the correctly spelled word triggers any filters
We’ll probably get spam for seafood restaurants.
I’m very interested to see what the practical effects of the DADT repeal will be in the coming months and years. I imagine it will mainly result in a lot of gays in the military feeling a lot less stress about losing their jobs, and not much more. We’ll see, and the need for theories will have ended. That’s a bit of a wet blanket for a comment thread on a blog, I guess, but there it is.
“The surprising conclusion is that a vast majority did not fire their rifles more than once or even not at all and that in a battle not known for people mostly staying around doing nothing.”
What would be surprising would be if any military historian or student of the military were unfamiliar with S. L. A. Marshall‘s foundational Men Against Fire.
His work has had its methodology clearly challenged and found to be faulty, but his conclusions remain almost entirely undisputed, and have been standing wisdom and taught in all U.S. military schools, to be best of my limited knowledge, since 1947.
In short, Marshall’s methods weren’t scientific, but more anecdotal, and he exaggerated that.
The basic truth he asserted remains common wisdom, however accurately or inaccurately (I’m inclined to believe with the range of reasonable accuracy, but, as I said, there are serious questions, and serious students should look into the matter of fire ratios themselves).
I’d recommend Men Against Fire, and then Grossman, along with John Whiteclay Chambers II’s Parameters critique.
Key point of Marshall:
Men against fire: the problem of battle command, Samuel Lyman Atwood Marshall, Chapter V: “Ratio of fire.”
new topic less, emotionally charged topic….maybe we can all get along?
I find Marshall’s stat.s to be unbelievable.
1. I don’t think victory in the Pacific would have been achieved with those firing rates. The Japanese certainly weren’t hesitant to use their weapons.
2. Accounts of combat in the Pacific that I have read – memoirs like Sledge’s – have everyone firing.
3. It would be a senior NCO’s specific job to make sure – especially given troops new to combat – that everyone is doing his job (i.e. firing). He would watch the line like a hawk and square away anyone failing to be combat effective. If there were low firing rates, then the NCOs weren’t doing their jobs and if the NCOs weren’t doing their jobs, then the whole system breaks down. Defeat would be inevitable under those circumstances.
That being said, there are things some men would be/should be doing other than firing their individual weapons. Some would be NCOs more focussed on what I described above than pulling triggers themselves. Some would be ammo bearers. Some would be stretcher bearers. Some would be assisting on crew served weapons.
I think that it is possible that in the European theatre firing rates could have lower. There troops faced German armor and an M1 simply isn’t going to do much good against a panzer attack. You would merely give away your position and get killed if you fired at armor. And then there’s that whole difference between marine Corps volunteers and their training versus Army conscripts and their training, but I don’t want to over emphasize that 🙂
For the points I made above, I thnik Marshall would be off re; the Army in Europe as well.
Finally, it seems that his 1947 published stat.s resulted in a sort of consulting job for Marshall. I sense the possibility of a motive to under-report firing rates.
In addition to what Gary says here I’d just like to add that Marshall’s method of gathering soldiers together after a battle and asking open ended questions to elicit responses where people chime in details at random is not a very methodologically sound method for gathering accurate data. It does, however, make for cracking good narratives, which was, after all, SLAM’s official job. Related to this, I’d recommend the first chapter of John Keegan’s The Face of Battle as well for his helpful analysis of military history writing fashion.
Short answer for Hartmut’s excellent and crucial question, the details of which can be worked out from Gary’s links — SLAM didn’t study firing rates. He got soldiers together and asked them how many of them had fired their weapons. He did not seem to ask them why the did or did not fire. And Grossman asserts that SLAM’s findings have been upheld by every study since, but Grossman fails to identify any of these studies or do any analysis of their data or conclusions, which is why I asked if anyone knew of any reliable studies because I have yet to see anything that I think passes muster.
avedis:
The USMC has found that instilling and reinforcing this mindset is an ingredient for successfully perpetuating the finest and proudest fighting outfit in the world. It has worked for over 200 years. I don’t think that it would be a good idea to start messing with a proven formula. Certainly not now.
Calling your service “the finest and proudest fighting outfit in the world” is IMHO equivalent to calling your father “the greatest father in the world”. It expresses an emotional truth that is important to you, but it has next to no empirical value.
When I read through the report on the effects of gay-acceptance in the Canadian Forces, the word that keeps jumping out is “professionalism”. At all levels, including combat troops, the Canadian military has found that sexual orientation just isn’t that big a deal. As one said:
Canadians seem, by comparison to American troops who’ve talked about the issue, to be less emotional and more professional about the stresses of combat.
Dr S,”Calling your service “the finest and proudest fighting outfit in the world” is IMHO equivalent to calling your father “the greatest father in the world”. It expresses an emotional truth that is important to you, but it has next to no empirical value.”
Oh man, I am disappointed I find that crack as being ignorant and juvenile……then you tell me which branch of any service of any country has operated at the same tempo, generation after generation, and has a record of achievements equal to the US Marine Corps.
The Canadians? Ah yes, their tiny noble little Army has done exactly what since its inception? Compare to the Marines’. And, as I keep saying, Canadians are not Americans. They are far more liberal in many ways throughout their society.
D-Day? The invasion of Narmandy? The Marines experienced something similar, proportionately, every few months 1942 – 1945. Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Peleliu, Saipan, Guam, Gaudelcanal, Okinawa, etc, etc…….any similar actions on the Canadian’s part? A disaster at Dieppe comes to mind…..anything else you can think of Dr S.?
I’ll toss another twist at you; one beyond this idea of a “rape culture”.
When you sign up for the military – Marines included – they tell you that they accept recruits regardless of race, creed, color, religion……but in boot camp you find out that doesn’t stand. Your personal identity as any of that, African American, Catholic, Muslim can and will be used against you. You are first and foremost a Marine. If you need to have a religion, the Corps will issue you one and it may not be one of your liking or the one you came in with. You are not an African American. You are a dark green Marine. Some recruits have an issue with that…..”this recruit is an atheist. He does not believe in the existance of god” will result in severe punishment. “This recruit is a Muslim” will get you punished and a major and very unpleasant interegation on why you don’t believe in Our Savior Jesus Christ.
There is no right answer to anything other than what the DI says. What you hold dear will be stripped from you.
So I am wondering what happens when the DADT repeal goes into effect. Being gay is an identity that potentially separates or identifies the individual as, well, an individual. I am sure the DIs are going to ask who is gay and I am sure some gay guy, wanting to make a political statement is going to reply in the affirmative and there is going to be hell to pay. Does it end up in court? In the media? How do the other recruits that have had their personal identities stripped from them feel if the gay guy gets special consideration? That is a potential breakdown of culture and cohesion that goes beyond this feminist rape culture thing.
The marines are sublime. The indoctrination is uniquely intense. It is a form of brainwashing and it is meant to be total. And it woks. It produces real killing machines.
Why do we want this?
Because, throughout the past few hundred years of European/American history – until most recently – Naval power has been the expression of imperialism. Marines are Naval infantry. In imperial wars men will be asked to kill people that have not attacked their homeland; people who they have no beef with. However, there can be no morality based hesitation when the order is given to kill. Marines are the empire’s hired killers.
Furthermore, being naval infantry, they are the first in. They are often outnumbered and asked to succeed against overwhelming odds in favor of the “enemy”. No other large force trains for this kind of mission. Certainly not the Canadians.
Honestly, a “good Marine” is not that far removed from a kamakazi or suicide bomber in mentality. Again, the Canadians and other Armies just don’t go that far (excepting the much smaller SOFs like the SAS, Spetznatz, SEALS….but those are for entirely different and smaller scale missions).
Finally, there are reports that there have performance issues on the Canadian’s part in Afghanistan. True or not, they are not doing the heavy lifting.
Because, throughout the past few hundred years of European/American history – until most recently – Naval power has been the expression of imperialism. Marines are Naval infantry. In imperial wars men will be asked to kill people that have not attacked their homeland; people who they have no beef with. However, there can be no morality based hesitation when the order is given to kill. Marines are the empire’s hired killers.
If I didn’t know better, I’d think you were arguing for the abolition of the Marine Corps.
Hogan,
The Marines don’t start the fights. The politicians and their wealthy backers do. It is they who need the Marines to do their dirty work. Get rid of them and we can have a force that is more like Canada’s.
but Hogan, what fruits of empire are you willing to live without if that happens?
The argument that Canada is a more liberal society throughout concedes that what we are talking about here is culture not human nature.
You can not argue that a certain view of sexuality is hardwired with being ready for combat and argue that how Canadian soldiers feel doesn’t matter because Canadians are more liberal.
Your link of dehumanization and effectiveness/toughness is popular but IMO mistaken and certainly not proven. While you are entiteled to your opinion about that you aught to acknowledge that it is your gut instinct, supported by certain military forces’ practices, and not proven. Unfortunately my view isn’t proven either.
But there is support for it, people higher in empathy suffer less from PTSD. IMO rigidity is fragile. (I should dig up a cite for this).
what fruits of empire are you willing to live without
The dismissal of non-military solutions to diplomatic problems.
The deaths of innocents.
The costs of occupying foreign countries.
The aftermath of having imposed tyrannical regimes on those countries.
http://gradworks.umi.com/32/30/3230345.html
This one was found somewhat at random but gets the general idea across.
http://www.socialworkcontinuingeducation.com/courses/contentUR/secUR09.htm
It’s not clear where this one is getting its information from but seems reputable.
What does this mean? Shorthand, of some sort? I’ve seen you use this before, but thought it was a typo.
I come from a very different place than Gary does. The military is my customer, and I have fairly regular contact with them.
Sometimes they’re wrong. Frequently, in fact. It’s my job to listen to them, investigate, and then communicate my findings. Sometimes they’re right, too. Frequently, even. But I never, ever take their word for it, because they’re human beings, and therefore fallible, and not one of them understands the kind of engineering that I do the way I understand it. I also never, ever dismiss what they have to say, because they’re my customer, and because I respect what they do, and because word of mouth is usually our first indication that things are not working as intended.
Not very many of my customers are Marines, though, because Marines usually wind up on the short end of the funding stick.
The USMC has found that instilling and reinforcing this mindset is an ingredient for successfully perpetuating the finest and proudest fighting outfit in the world. It has worked for over 200 years. I don’t think that it would be a good idea to start messing with a proven formula. Certainly not now. Maybe never.
Argumentum ad antiquitatem. Plain and simple. That this methodology has worked for the USMC does not in any way prove that it is the only possible working, let alone best, methodology.
Also, what DrS said about the significance of your claim that the USMC is the finest military organization in the world holds true. That it is the proudest dwarfs even this former claim in narcissism: it requires absurdly blinkered navel-gazing, is not even vaguely provable, and for that matter is wholly independent of said first claim. Just sayin’.
This has not been my experience. How many Canadian troops have you spoken with, in person, and how many American?
Me: approximately 12-15 Canadian military personnel, comprising, to the best of my memory, ~3-4 officers, ~7 enlisted.
Approximately, best guess, 1200 to 1500 American military, 300 to 400 officers, 900 to 1200 enlisted.
To be sure, mostly rather some years ago, though by no means entirely; at least 8-14 were in January of 2008, and at least an equal number between 2002-2008. A drastically smaller sample, but, again, not proportionally different in my own very limited experience.
I’m not counting written correspondence, phone calls, nor simply reading writing, of course. I couldn’t begin to estimate those numbers, and it’s an entirely different thing to read the writing of someone you’ve never met, though it can still be, of course, a deeply moving and powerful experience, just as all writing can have such power, or more.
Though Sturgeon’s Law does apply.
I’ve found tremendous variability among American troops, approximating the variablility found among the general population of Americans over the age of 17.
My sampling of speaking with Canadian military is, obviously, vastly smaller, but I haven’t encountered any noticeable differences.
The American military personnel I’ve spoken with have been, due to circumstances, approximately 95-97% combat experienced, best as I can estimate/remember.
The Canadians were, I think, about 8-9 combat experienced, and 2-4 not.
Perhaps others might chime in with their experience, particularly those who have actually served.
I could email at least a couple of Canadian officers who have served in Afghanistan to ask them to comment, if that would be helpful. Bruce Rolston would be the first person I would ask, and it’s highly likely, in fact, hell, I’ll drop him an email now.
Okay, done. Whether it’s a bad time for him, or whatever, I couldn’t possibly say, and thus the odds are against his dropping by, but it was easy enough to ask, and a nice excuse to drop a line to someone I’ve not been in contact with in too long.
but Hogan, what fruits of empire are you willing to live without if that happens?
Snarkiest answer: cheap bananas from Guatemala.
Less snarky answer: If I end up saving from the tax reductions from dismantling our imperial defense structure, but have to pay something more like the market price for oil, would I come out ahead or behind? Please show your work.
I mean, since I’m not a shareholder in Halliburton or in Blackwater (or whatever the hell they’re calling themselves this week), I’m not sure what “fruits of empire” actually accrue to me personally. Other than bragging rights, what exactly is my cut?
I take your point about our corporate overlords, which was also made by that great Marine Major General Smedley Butler. But it may also be true that if we deprive them of the tool (or at least make sure the tool isn’t subsidized with tax money), the job is less likely to look profitable.
Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan.
Every name is listed, and many details on most deaths.
Context: Coalition casualties in Afghanistan:
National Inventory of Canadian Military Memorials (NICMM).
Some Canadians.
What Canada’s military has done.
Operations database.
I’ll just do Middle East. You can go to the above pages and click links on each operation for details.
May I ask how many Canadian troops have you served with in combat to any degree, or witnessed in combat, or were in the same area of combat?
How many Canadian troops have you personally met?
What is your direct personal experience and knowledge of Canadian troops and the Canadian military, approximately? Indirect? Other?
Reading on Canadian military and battle actions of the last, oh, ten years?
Other?
It would be helpful to know what your specific basis of comparison is, and relevant knowledge base. Thanks if you might feel like clarifying this.
Would you like more detail in response to to your query?
I’d be happy to help.
Look here:
1.) If having gays in the military will degrade its operational capability to ANY significant degree, I say: Why not? If our military is so degraded, perhaps we won’t threaten to use it so often.
2.) If the cause of “the gay” is more genetic than environmental, then excluding gays from the military will (given the fact that a lot of military die in wars) raise the population ratio of “the gay”. Is this a desirable social outcome?
Discuss.
Not very many of my customers are Marines, though, because Marines usually wind up on the short end of the funding stick.
I worked for a while for a company that, among other things, provided simulation software for military training exercises. One of our main customers was the USMC, and I have been to Quantico in support of training work using that software.
I also have some extended family members who served in the USMC.
From that exposure, what I know about Marines is that they are intelligent, resourceful, fanatically mission oriented, and they are committed as an organization to learning and growing from their hands-on experiences.
My personal opinion, FWIW, is that the Marines, as well as the other services, will adapt successfully to the demise of DADT.
Just my opinion, nothing more or less. We’ll see how it turns out. If there are problems, we’ll deal with them.
Snarkiest answer: cheap bananas from Guatemala.
Rimshot!
The “fruit of empire” I am willing to forgo is empire. It ain’t worth the candle.
Gimme back my republic.
me: Canadians seem, by comparison to American troops who’ve talked about the issue, to be less emotional and more professional about the stresses of combat.
Gary F: This has not been my experience. How many Canadian troops have you spoken with, in person, and how many American?
I was unclear. I meant that, in reading the report on gays in the Canadian military, I was struck by how professional an approach they took, and how many times they referred to their service’s professionalism, its dedication to following orders and getting the job done. In contrast, Americans such as avedis who have argued against repealing DADT have stressed the importance of troops’ emotional reactions, especially with regard to “combat unit cohesion”.
yes, sadly, the Marines do, indeed, get the short end of the funding stick. In a perverse masochistic way (born of their training) they buck up and get the job done anyhow.
“What is your direct personal experience and knowledge of Canadian troops and the Canadian military, approximately? Indirect? Other?”
Honestly, zero. second hand only, at best.
The germans in WW1 assigned the US Marines – as usual the first in to fight for the US – “storm trooper” status. Has any Canadian unit ever achieved this high honor from an enemy? Marine Corps training and ethos remains the same to this day. This is why they are resistant to change. Their training has always produced effective warriors that shock and destroy the enemy where ever he is found.
Gary, I don’t know what you are trying to achieve in presenting your list of recent actions and casualties of the Canadian forces. A similar list over the same time frame pertaining to the USMC would be considerably longer. You know that. Sometimes I don’t get your style; it’s purpose. I wonder if it’s a smoke screen for a fall back? Or a way of offering a perspective but not make a point? You tell me please.
“Bananas”. Good one. Sometimes I think that’s all there is for most of us. However, the economic analysis of the value of empire could be the topic of a completely separate post. probably of many doctoral theses, books, volumes of books, etc. I think most of us could agree that cheap and accessible oil is another benefit. Does it outweigh the costs? Interesting question that requires more space and greater analysis capacity than is available here. I’d be interested in hearing viewpoints. Personally, I’d like to see a greater reliance on solar and wind and hydro. Some people more educated in this area than I tell me these are not economically viable alternatives at this time. Others say otherwise.
Stat.s….yes an abbreviation for statistics. I work in insurance for a day job. I am a numbers guy. It’s an abbreviation we use daily.
“If having gays in the military will degrade its operational capability to ANY significant degree, I say: Why not? If our military is so degraded, perhaps we won’t threaten to use it so often.” Your slip is showing. The liberal anti military bias is often quoted by conservatives. It doesn’t help your cause. However, I think you and some others here really are hostile to the realities of US military culture. It is apparent in comments. Were you one of those calling for reprisals, calling to get Bin Laden in the days following 9/11? be honest. Well, the Marines, even though they be Naval infantry were the first regular troops into Afghanistan. Fast and nimble while the Army lumbered about in its elephantine manner.
I often seeing libs say we have to stay in Afghanistan because women’s rights there need to be fostered and protected. Maybe for you guys the spread of women’s rights is a tangeable gain of empire.
Marines – or any other service branch these days – don’t only – or potentially don’t only – prosecute imperial wars. There are bad guys out there that need killing before they kill us or before they kill some other innocent friendly group – or us. No one seems to want to attack Canada or its interests. Perhaps this is the result of previous screwed up US foreign policy. Regardless, the ripple effect is a problem today that still has to be dealt with.
I’d like my republic back too. First let’s kill all the media jingoists and then all of their political funder masters. Let’s tax the bejeebus out the the wealthiest 5% who have more money and power than they could ever use in several life times and build our educational and healthcare and civil infrastructures here at home such that the average citizen has a chance at the pursuit of hapiness. I’m with Smedley.
I’m thinking a lot about this, lately, among many many other things. Also another death, on January 9th, 2005.
Today I did not get my California non-driver’s license ID.
I also did not get arrested, because I know my rights, and when a sworn officer of the law is trying bullpucky intimidation. It’s useful to know the law.
I violated California anti-terrorism law, unintentionally, it’s true.
Then I walked a mile.
It’s something I’d like to write up, as what happened actually has a significant political and policy element to it.
But my life is so full of fun and laziness, there’s little time to do it.
Although I did write down the dialogue, and I have some relevant photos. So I have, at least, a very rough draft.
And I comment too much here, I understand, so that’s all for now.
I don’t like the first two weeks of January any more.
That’s my reply to the remaining comments in this thread for now.
I expect, for now, at least, to be commenting much less on ObWi in future.
I’ve been asked by skippy the kangaroo to take up blogging there, not long before Eric invited me to guest post there. Also a couple of other group blogs. I preferred the idea of blogging at ObWi, which I felt most comfortable.
I never quit my group blogging stint here.
I simply stopped when I felt uncomfortable, and disappeared, and eventually I was emeritus.
I could take up posting there again, but I stopped because I became uncomfortable, so probably not.
Meanwhile, if my comments here become at all infrequent (will they?; I’m not a seer, so I really have no idea), all I’ll say is that if anyone here can let me know if I’ve ever broken my word to them, I’d appreciate a reminder.
I do hope to post a post on January 5th, but it’s at least as likely that I won’t find myself able to.
I won’t be responding to comments on this comment, ad my apologies to Doctor Science for the degree of off-topic excess prose from me on her thread.
Same apology to other ObWi bloggers.
Ta. Happy new year.
I do not like the first two weeks of January any more.
The previous sentence is not an accidental repetition.
Some remarks made here about the USMC reminds me of Platon’s Politeia and the problem of how to get a military with no inhibitions towards the enemy that does not at the same time endanger the order of the state by simply taking over (he uses the image of the guard dog that viciously attacks anyone alien but is totally docile towards his masters).
His solution amounts to systematic brainwashing too including feeding them fake ideology/religion and keeping them separate from the general population.
Do I have to add that I am not a big fan of the guy (and not just because I had to translate the stuff at school).
Hartmut, it’s “unit, corps, god, country”. The order of devotion is interesting, no?
I think politics of civie leadership could cause the rubicon to be crossed figuratively, but I don’t know about literally.
This DADT repeal will be a test of that.
@avedis:
I think politics of civie leadership could cause the rubicon to be crossed figuratively, but I don’t know about literally.
The Presidency is a civilian office, by definition. The President is CIC of the armed forces. Civilian leadership of the armed forces is part of the foundation of the United States of America.
If there is even a question that any part of the armed forces will accept civilian leadership, then that part of the armed forces should be disbanded immediately and with prejudice. Sow its culture with salt and start again.
Seriously. If the oath is to defend the constitution, the oath is to submit to civilian leadership. If any US armed forces can’t take that, they’ve dishonored themselves.
There are limits evilrooster and there are degrees. Some see that oath and civie leadership as a formality and an inconvenience.
You have no idea what sorts of operations go on behind the scenes. Once in a while an Ollie North gets caught and there is a brief glimpse into that world.
You see the military and its culture are eternal. Certain operations and missions had begun and will extend past any one POTUS’ term in office. No one is going to break down what has built up just for the sake of some flash in the pan politician. If they did, planning would become a rollercoaster ride. Allies, other governemnts, etc would not be able to depend on consistency of certain arrangments and would, therefore, be less likely to enter into them in the first place.
You can quote your theories all day long. they don’t stand up in the real world day to day application.
Everything I am hearing here in posts and comments – as well as what I get from coworkers, etc – is convincing me that civilians and military should be kept separate and civilians should be, largely, kept in the dark.
Too many of you are overly concerned with niceness and fairness. The good sheep focus on the “rights” of a few thousand homosexuals when there are massively more important and serious issues and operations that you can’t even conceive of taking place. They listen to whichever MSM affirms their little bubble and they quote back from it.
Lives are on the line every day, entire govenments, economies, the fate of future generations even; including your own.
Let the professionals handle this. They aren’t encumbered by grade school notions of appropriate interactions.
Everything I am hearing here in posts and comments – as well as what I get from coworkers, etc – is convincing me that civilians and military should be kept separate and civilians should be, largely, kept in the dark.
Funny how different people respond to things differently.
Everything I’m reading here is convincing me that military service should be as broadly based as possible. Universal is probably not practical, but some form of national service should be the norm.
Relying on a cadre of people socialized to the military and only to the military for national defense is asking for trouble. And I ain’t just talking about DADT.
They aren’t encumbered by grade school notions of appropriate interactions.
I’ll speak for myself, but I suspect I speak for others as well.
The condescending attitude that characterizes your posts here is an annoying PITA.
You’re not bringing any kind of new or unique insight to the table here. Yes, we all understand that lots of folks in the armed forces don’t like the idea of serving with gays. Yes, we all understand that combat arms is a violent mission. Yes, we all understand that military culture is masculine and aggressive.
Noted.
Unless you have some kind of freaking crystal ball, you have no better idea of how the repeal of DADT is going to play out than any of the rest of us. We all have our opinions, and that is all we have.
Feel free to offer your point of view as regards substance, but kindly give the freaking Col Jessup routine a god-damned rest.
We all have our opinions, and that is all we have.
Well, we all also have the empirical evidence in the form of results of gay integration of other militaries in other countries. You (generically, not specificially russell) might say, “The US military is (or marines are) different.”
I’d say every country and each military body is different from others in various ways, yet, to my knowledge, the results in other countries have been universally undisruptive.
Are the US and its military branches so very different from other nations and their militaries, so much more different from the others than the others are from each other, that their experiences indicate nothing worthy of note as regards what we should expect here?
I don’t think so. The overwhelming evidence from other countries strongly suggests we won’t have major problems.
We’ll see.
avedis:
civilians and military should be kept separate and civilians should be, largely, kept in the dark.
The trouble with this even from *your* POV is that civilians who are kept in the dark about warfare will support military adventurism, as we’ve seen in the past decade. When what civilians see is (a) shiny guns, planes, and explosions, and (b) hard-core machismo, then a lot of voters and their representatives are going to support senseless, wasteful, immoral wars — while cutting those messy, boring veterans’ benefits.
They aren’t encumbered by grade school notions of appropriate interactions.
In contrast to highly developed notions like “I am a hardass” and “gays=icky.”
Some see that oath and civie leadership as a formality and an inconvenience.
Those people should either not re-up, resign their commissions, or be stood in front of a wall and shot. Seriously.
You want to live in military dictatorship? I will personally take up a collection to ship you and your family to some third-world junta-ruled sh*thole.
You see the military and its culture are eternal.
This word, “eternal,” I do not think it means what you think it means. In fact, the American government could disband the military with the stroke of a pen, if it became necessary to do so.
Ok Avedis since you’re so bent on offering disrespect to the Canadian army (including WW1 soldiers, which seriously you probably don’t want to do if there are any actual Canadians around) how about the New Zealand army?
They’re every bit as integrated as the Canadians and while most of what they’re used for is peacekeeping, they also include among their number the NZSAS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Special_Air_Service
and a living recipient of the Victoria Cross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Apiata).
“Everything I am hearing here in posts and comments – as well as what I get from coworkers, etc – is convincing me that civilians and military should be kept separate and civilians should be, largely, kept in the dark.”
So how well did that work for Soviet Russia? Which society that has a much less open military would you prefer to live in?
I mean that seriously. There are an enormous number of recent and semi-recent examples of states where the military either was very independent or controlled the state. So far as I can think of, none of them include places I’d rather live than the US. In fact the only one that seems even mildly palatable would be Turkey.
Which *specific* examples, do you think have been successful in a way that leads to a place you’d like to live? Pakistan? North Korea? China? Maybe you’re thinking of Chile as the success story?
I’m no doubt wrong about this, but it really seems like avedis might be someone with Jesugislac’s policy views trolling us. I mean, it seems that avedis has managed to be shockingly insulting to members of the US military while spewing far-lefty anti-imperialist talking points. And he seems to get a lot more respect than any actual far-lefty or pacifist would get were they to make the same points. But I might be wrong; I can’t tell if a lot of regulars are refusing to engage him because they think he’s a troll or because the holidays are slow times for blog commenting.
I must say, if avedis is not a troll, I’m somewhat astonished that such a conflicting bag of policy beliefs actually exists reified in any one person.
Like I’ve said before, if the US was to take a relatively isolationist stance as opposed to wars of aggression, projection of power and general medling in other countries’ affairs, then I do believe the character of the military could change to be more along the lines of what you guys here would prefer. Frankly, I would prefer that as well.
However, things being as they are, I want Col. Jessup and the mentality that his command engenders in his subordinates. It is best for success with the current mission.
I am a realist; not a dreamer.
I am not really telling you that the military should necessarily be separated from civilian control. I am telling you that it IS separate to a much greater extent than you would imagine.
I would also add that your civilian leaders, including POTUS, are more separated from the populous that elected them than you care to imagine concerning – well probably a lot of things – but also military missions. What good does it do you if the letter of the Constitution is followed in that POTUS is signing the orders, but you, the people, have no idea what he’s signing? You weren’t a part of the process at all?
BTW, I wouldn’t want to live in Turkey. I’d be a second class citizen there. I might be jailed due to my ethnic heritage.
Turb, why do I need to buy into any party view point hook, line and sinker? That to me is evidence of zombiehood.
To make and maintain peace is the best.
Conflicts arise. It’s best to resolve with through diplomacy.
Sometimes when the unresolved conflict is serious enough in its ramifications it becomes time to kill. When it is that time, you don’t break out a BB gun.
I have not dissed the military at all. That’s your interpretation because you find my accurate description unpalatable.
Do we pretty up everything we like and ugly down everything we don’t like? Is that a way to get to the truth?
Avedis at 12:06 p.m. –
Everything I am hearing here in posts and comments – as well as what I get from coworkers, etc – is convincing me that civilians and military should be kept separate and civilians should be, largely, kept in the dark.
Avedis at 4:14 p.m. –
I am not really telling you that the military should necessarily be separated from civilian control. I am telling you that it IS separate to a much greater extent than you would imagine.
You contradicted yourself without explanation. I will not argue with you because in order to do so, I would need to construct your arguments for you, as you have so far failed to even maintain a consistent stance to which I could object. If you misspoke in your earlier comment, you would be better off explicitly saying something like “I didn’t mean what I said earlier, instead I meant to say ___.” As it stands I cannot tell if you are lying, forgetful, or multiple people masquerading as one commenter.
No. I don’t base this on IP, which I haven’t looked at. Impossible by style and word choice.
I’m somewhat astonished that such a conflicting bag of policy beliefs actually exists reified in any one person.
“Policy beliefs” may be putting it too strongly. –Military people know everything worth knowing and you pansy civilians should just STFU and let us get on with it– is pretty internally consistent, if a poor guide to actual decision making.
Turb – the thought had crossed my mind as well, but I didn’t see anything coming of bringing it up except for another unfocused attack on ‘anti-military lefties’ and another several paragraphs of denial and escalation.
It remains, of course, entirely possible that he’s sincere, emotionally driven, duty oriented and not prone to demanding consistency from his personal worldview.
Whatever the case, his expressed views are at odds with those expressed by the majority of Marines with whom I have interacted and discussed DADT. Two years ago a former marine infantry officer that I know told me that he knew an active duty, not-telling DI who predicted that the policy would crumble with little net effect. A bunch of people would leave over the change. A bunch more would join. The rest would adapt.
…or, put another way, any group of people who are routinely able to set aside personal opinion in order to enact a mission set before them by a group of people in whom they have very little faith can carry out the ‘mission’ of integration in exactly that same manner.
No. I don’t base this on IP, which I haven’t looked at. Impossible by style and word choice.
This assessment might be correct if I had written “I think Jes is trolling us” but since I didn’t write that, your response seems incorrect.
“Policy beliefs” may be putting it too strongly. –Military people know everything worth knowing and you pansy civilians should just STFU and let us get on with it– is pretty internally consistent, if a poor guide to actual decision making.
True enough, but all the military people I know would laugh at the notion that ‘military people know everything’ — being in the service seems synonymous to being exposed to a lot of military stupidity. I imagine that’s true for any big institution as well.
“Everything I am hearing here in posts and comments – as well as what I get from coworkers, etc – is convincing me that civilians and military should be kept separate and civilians should be, largely, kept in the dark.”
doesn’t pair well with
“I am not really telling you that the military should necessarily be separated from civilian control. I am telling you that it IS separate to a much greater extent than you would imagine.”
Is there an internal consistency that you could explain for us? It admittedly gets you out of answering my question, but it doesn’t do much else.
In which countries do you think keeping civilians and military separate and keeping civilians, largely, in the dark has been a good strategy for their internal politics. Are there specific countries where you wouldn’t mind living where you think that is more true than in the United States?
Do those countries have an established military might which the US should strive to emulate?
Which countries and/or systems are you thinking about?
Ok, Julian, you got me, ouch. What I should have said in the first staement is that I am beginning to consider that “that civilians and military should be kept separate and civilians should be, largely, kept in the dark.”
The second statement you quote was a toning down of the first upon further consideration.
I am not sure what a troll is. I don’t know who this jesu’ person is. I’m still here I because find the mindset expressed by the various commentors to be fascinating. I truly do not understand you anymore than you understand me. At this point I continue to engage because I am learning something about my fellow Americans’ thought processes. I think that is important. Also, I feel like if all the political and personal sensitivity and the petty gotcha games are dried up, there may be some final coming together; not necessarily in agreement, but in mutual understanding and respect. I could be wrong about that, though.
I do not understand what opposing beliefs I have presented to anyone here. I do not see where I have been insulting – and certainly not shockingly so.
Was this guy a troll? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm
I agree with him. I don’t think what I have expressed is so very different.
sheesh….”not see where I have been insulting – and certainly not shockingly so -TO THE MILITARY.
Based on what I read in the news. Between 60+ and 80+% of American women are raped, at least once and often repeatedly, in their life time.
There is no such similar statistic for straight males or females being raped by homosexuals of their own gender.
Most pedophiles are heterosexual males. Some rape boys some girls but none that I have read about are homosexuals, with two possible exceptions Dahlmers, and the Atlanta murder.
The Air Force Academy recently admitted that 64% of female cadets are being raped by heterosexual cadets. No number is claimed for homosexual males raping male cadets or female homosexuals raping female cadets.
However there are frequent news stories of gangs of heterosexual males gang raping and sadomizing and beating suspected homosexual males.
I see no rationale to homosexuals not gladly being included in any group.
So, Sebastian, what military orders did Obama approve today? last week?
What is the CIA doing in every country it operates in right now? Where are the SEAL teams this evening? What are they doing? How about Delta? How about various USMC black ops units?
You tell me.
How is the war in Afghanistan going? Really going? How do you know that your source isn’t just buying into another McNammara moment?
Why don’t you call your congress person? I’m so very sure that he/she will give you a full briefing. Let me know how it goes, ok?
oh no Marnie, that never happens becaus the UCMJ has articles prohibiting it. Just ask anyone here. The UCMJ is always followed to the letter.
Let the professionals handle this.
Like Burnside, Gamelin, Gates, Haig, Custer….the list of these wise professionals is indeed long.
Avedis, you think a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature and the ability to fully integrate both homosexuals and homosexuality in a society as shown by history is a gotcha game while I think that it’s, well, a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature on which you’re basing dubious conclusions. And exactly what you’re basing those conclusions on keeps changing, logical consistency is fairly necessary for any kind of substantive engagement that’s not purely emotional, I don’t really see where gotcha enters into it.
You have never addressed the military, combat experienced men that are in favor of repealing DADT. I would be interested in you talking about them because from what you’ve written so far it is as if you do not believe they exist which ofcourse is factually untrue.
“How is the war in Afghanistan going?”
Lousy.
“Really going?”
Really lousy.
But yes, three cheers for Smedley Butler.
ancinian, the gotcha was in reference to the you said this bit now you sat that. Semantics. As opposed to addressing substance. Nothing to do with the meat of the discussion.
Ah shorter Smedley; Marines are the best fighters, Marines are the hired killers of the empire. “three cheers for Smedley Butler.” A shorter me; Marines are the best fighter, Marines are the hired killers of the empire. Boo….avedis isn’t consistent…he’s a troll….
i was enjoying a nice latte with a gay Marine and he said…..
of course afghanistan is going lousy. Why are we even there?
But yeah obama. he’s a good lib. he’s letting gays be open in the military.
Avendis, you’re deflecting. You suggested that the US civilian state has TOO MUCH transparency with respect to the military, RIGHT NOW. Asking questions about its current state with the apparent rhetorical suggestion that there is much I don’t currently know, while simultaneously arguing for civilians to have less knowledge and control isn’t a sound technique.
So again. Which system or countries are you thinking about that have LESS transparency than the CURRENT state of affairs in the US and are nonetheless BETTER on some interesting scale/dynamic/outcome?
That is what you have asserted and that is what I’m asking you to defend.
“of course afghanistan is going lousy. Why are we even there?”
Because President Bush thought the term “Grave Yard of empires” referred to all those *other* empires?
Seriously you haven’t answered my point about the MZ army, the NZSAS is operating under very similar conditions and to marines and is doing it quite well by most accounts despite it being fifteen years since homosexual soldiers could serve openly.
Perhaps their grip on the concept of masculinity is not quite so delicate as that of Marines?
Someone already mentioned it somewhere above, a potential real problem with integration of homosexuals could be (I actually think: will be) the religious crackpots that have infiltrated the US military to an alarming degree with the Air Force academy just being the tip of the (unfortunately non-melting) iceberg. If there is any need of a purge it would be these guys and cries of ‘anti-christian’ from the usual suspects should be seen a signs that the course is correct.
Unfortunately I see no chance of that happening beyond some cosmetic changes. Even Boykin was allowed to retire instead of getting the dishonorable discharge that should have been the minimum.
—
As far as WW1 goes, Scottish units also had quite a reputation as enemies to avoid if possible. Plus a no-prisoners attitude.
Yes, gay Marines love them some lattes, don’t they?
Bigotry. You’re soaking in it.
Christians are “crackpots” that need to be purged, but gays are normal and need to be accepted? Good luck with. It will do much to further your agenda.
But yes, there is strong christian strain in the military (BTW, I am not a christian). Your fringe ideology is up against the vastly more prominent and mainstream christian ideology with the repeal of DADT. It is yet another military culture clash that spells trouble for your agenda.
“…Because President Bush thought the term “Grave Yard of empires” referred to all those *other* empires? ”
and now Obama is doing the same.
“..You’re deflecting. You suggested that the US civilian state has TOO MUCH transparency with respect to the military…”
Not transparency per se. Too much input into policy like DADT. Transparency would get us into a whole other discussion as to what should be classified and what shouldn’t. Right now gov’t transparency is minimal and probably becoming less. This isn’t just with regards to military matters. It appears to me at least to be in regards to just about everything.
I can’t answer which other country I’d rather live in because the question has tied enjoyment of civilian life style, gay service, civilian control or lack thereof and military effectiveness together as if these variables are not only integrally connected but are the most important coefficients of an equation that doesn’t make sense to me as posed by the questioner. I suppose one of these days I’d like to do a Gaugin and retire in Tahiti. Bali would work as well.
The NZSAS is another small special forces type outfit. As I have already said, the SOF have entirely different missions than larger forces like the USMC. How many gays – “poofs” their called by the Brit SAS – in the NZSAS? Do you have those stats? If not, what’s your point?
“You have never addressed the military, combat experienced men that are in favor of repealing DADT. I would be interested in you talking about them…..”
Takes all types. Some men have a different perspective. That’s ok. I think that it may depend on how the question is put to them. I was talking to my son (1st Lt, USA – combat arms) about this. He is ok with homosexuals being in his unit if they pull their weight and “keep their gayness to themselves”. His concern, as a company commander, is that he is going to be faced with situation wherein, despite all the sensitivity training that is coming down the pipe, some of his troops just won’t be able to accept the gays if they are openly displaying homosexual behavior and there is going to be an extra command load that will be a dangerous distraction from the myriad of other more mission essential points of focus.
I think this is the distinction; if you ask some men if they are ok with the general concept of serving in combat with gays, there are many who are not encumbered by religious ideologies, personal insecurities, stereotype thinking, etc that they will respond “yes”.
if you pose to the same group of men the same question, but ask if it will cause disruptions from a training and command perspective, the answers will be different. Or maybe you don’t even have to frame the question any differently. Some men will just consider it from that other perspective.
Then there are men that for whatever ideological background and/or personal psychology, just don’t like gays. they will tell you that combat effectiveness will suffer based on their personal dislike.
In talking this over with my son – who is pretty open minded, but has the lives of some 200+ men to worry about – the biggest concern about the quality and character of gay troops seems to be, if, with the repeal, there is going to be an influx of the swishier gays who will be trying to make a political statement and causing all sort of legal and morale problems and command impossibilities. My son is one of those who says he’d resign his commission under those circumstances if he could. He can’t due to contractual obligations. So his solution, he says, would be to migrate into the special forces community where he is certain that sort of nonsense would never be tolerated.
So, you see, depending on how you asked, my son could give you a range of answers that would support any political position on the topic of DADT.
I suspect that is the case with many – perhaps most – surveyed.
“christina crackpots”
Yep, all them christians are just plain crazy.
Bigotry. You’re soaking in it.
I was talking to my son (1st Lt, USA – combat arms) about this. He is ok with homosexuals being in his unit if they pull their weight and “keep their gayness to themselves”.
That’s mighty white of him.
Then there are men that for whatever ideological background and/or personal psychology, just don’t like gays. they will tell you that combat effectiveness will suffer based on their personal dislike.
In other words, they’re crappy soldiers and too unprofessional to do the job. Good riddance to them.
if, with the repeal, there is going to be an influx of the swishier gays who will be trying to make a political statement
Joining the military these days is an almost certain ticket to someplace where you are going to be shot at. I’m sure there are a bunch of Harvey Fiersteins sitting around just waiting to sign up.
“christina crackpots”
Yep, all them christians are just plain crazy.
Bigotry. You’re soaking in it.
It curdles my blood that someone who claims to work in the insurance industry, perhaps helping to make life-and-death decisions over people, is too goddamned stupid to understand that “Christian crackpots” refers to a subset of Christians who are crackpots, and is not a claim that all Christians are crackpots.
If you can’t even read English, how the fcuk do you read actuarial tables?
Gay soldier. Killed by an IED in Iraq while on patrol. Shielded two other soldiers from the blast.
Purple Heart, Bronze Star. Criteria for a Bronze Star:
Rogers had two.
People who can’t find a way to serve alongside gays will have to suck it up and deal or get out. I understand that that will be difficult for many of them, but DADT is difficult for lots of other folks. Nobody gets everything they want.
If you think repealing DADT is a mistake, that’s your prerogative, but the folks making your argument lost the political battle. If that strikes you as candy-ass political bullsh*t, so be it, but that’s the way things work. You win some, you lose some.
And yeah, to some degree this is a matter of a bunch of privileged liberal political do-gooders imposing their agenda on the folks in uniform. Just like DADT was a matter of a bunch of privileged conservative bigots imposing their agenda on the folks in uniform.
Will the ensuing controversy have some impact on good order and preparedness? Maybe. Banning folks who identified themselves a gay also had some impact on good order and preparedness.
The rules for how the military operates come from civilian legislators. That’s how we roll, and it’s good that we do things that way. If the military decides to rise up in insurrection over repealing DADT, the shit is going to hit the fan in about 1,000,000 ways, so we all better hope they do not do so.
But I don’t see that happening, because gays serve now, everybody knows they do, most folks in service know at least some other folks in service who they know are gay, and nobody is freaking out about it.
In other words, your “you can’t handle the truth” spiel to the side, most folks either just aren’t bothered by gays, or can find a way to not let it get in the way of carrying out their mission.
Because they are grown-ups and professionals, they take justifiable pride in their competence, and they’re not going to let something as irrelevant to the mission as somebody else’s sexual orientation get in the way.
As it turns out, folks can handle the truth.
When you join the service, you leave your personal preferences at the door. If that doesn’t work out for you, you get out. That’s the way it works.
If that bugs you, be happy you’re out of uniform now.
So, avedis, what military orders did Obama approve today? last week?
What is the CIA doing in every country it operates in right now? Where are the SEAL teams this evening? What are they doing? How about Delta? How about various USMC black ops units?
You tell me.
I haven’t had time to write on it in a while, so here‘s what I thought on October 9th, 2009.
Get back to me when you’ve read it all, and do please post your own analysis of what you thought was going on in Afghanistan in September of 2009, with, oh, a ratio of one cite for every ten I gave. I invite you to do it in this thread. Or in any future open thread, or in the next post specifically having to do with Afghanistan.
You know much more than I do, so this should be no problem whatever.
I’m happy to answer your question here.
Of course, my opinion is somewhat different a year and almost three months later, but I’m sure you’ve had a history of writing stuff like this for the past decade — and I’ll give you lots more links to lots more past writings of mine on military subjects, if you ask.
Feel free.
I’ll give you ten for each one you show me you wrote the same year. Fair?
If you prefer more recent stuff, I’ll give you links to Eric Martin’s writings here, same terms. Fair?
Quoth avedis at 4:46 PM on December 29, 2010:
So how is it different if what you hold dear is your homophobia?
Seriously, if Marine training so thoroughly breaks down and rebuilds a person so that [i]f you need to have a religion, the Corps will issue you one and it may not be one of your liking or the one you came in with, then it’ll teach recruits to cope with gays.
That is if it’s going to follow orders from its civilian bosses. And if not, if the Corps is going to be so publicly and blatantly Non Nunc Fi, then I say rip the flags off the sleeves and throw the whole lot of them out.
This is not the secret machinations of the wise and powerful military doing unmentionable deeds in the dark so that simple-minded Americans can lead their sheep-like lives in peace. Refusing to scrap DADT and live with openly gay soldiers is up-front, in the open defiance of civilian control. It will lead to open and unpleasant consequences. And I don’t think the military leadership is that stupid, whatever truths you think civilians can’t handle (as russell put it).
Oh, but please do be sure to read all the articles I linked to in this post — every word — so we’re working off at least the same pages on that, and you can be sure I’ve not taken anything out of context.
Remember, I did it, and do it all the time, and since I know nothing about the military compared to you, you should find it quick, easy, and entertaining, even though duplicative of everything you already know.
And you’re a devil dog.
But that’s part of the deal I offer, not your OFP, gyrene. I’m not asking you to read a single thing I didn’t link to in that article, which I only linked to not just because I read all the articles I link, always, but because of the body of knowledge and context I have that leads me to my own evaluations of how high or low confidence I place in a given piece and source of intelligence.
As an intel-trained person, you are, of course, professionally competent to just confidence, and, after all, you write here in such a professional manner, that I’m sure you were highly rated for your analyses by your superiors.
That wasn’t above your pay grade, I’m sure. A snuffie with a snow job wouldn’t describe you, especially now that you’re outside.
In fact, why don’t you post, oh, three professional analyses you’ve written in the course of your intel career, with every single word that’s a specific noun, or that in any way classified, blanked out and replaced with [BLANK], so we can judge for ourselves your analytic professional intel skills.
Be first of foot, and right of the line. No need to be most ricky ticky, and I don’t think you’re a s**tbird nonhacker who thinks we’re moon floss.
Or you could give a zoomie salute.
Or, since you might say you can’t do show us a derogated version, because you can’t declassify even words like “the” and “a,” just write us your closest paraphrase that you can muster, in the same professional language you’re used to using when you write an intel report, on, oh, any subject of your choice, but as if you were filing your normal duty analysis in the past, only applied to any military topic of today of your choosing.
Of course, you may think it’s not worth the effort to put up or shut up.
But I have faith that you can do it with fortitude, John Wayne. I don’t want you to feel like a big green weenie.
And I’m not inviting you to shut up. Comment away as you like, so long as you stay within the posting rules. The smoking lamp is on. Open debate about facts is what we’re all about.
You might keep in mind that around here, you’re a maggot. And we don’t expect you to be a rock.
Remember to sight in.
Your choice.
Retreat Hell! [You] just got here.
It don’t mean nuthin’.
If you’d like more, BOHICA.
And quit hitting Maggie’s drawers.
Happy 2011 to you and your loved ones, God bless America, and semper fi.
As I have already said, the SOF have entirely different missions than larger forces like the USMC. How many gays […] in the NZSAS? Do you have those stats? If not, what’s your point?
How many gays would likely be serving in USMC? Do you have stats? What’s an acceptable ratio for regular infantry vs. for SOF, and do you have an objective basis to determine this? If not, what’s your point in demanding stats, other than to deflect this w/o acknowledging its direct relevance?
I don’t think he’s FUBAR; he’s just thinks he’s the only one who knows s**t on a shingle, and can hand it out as SOP; he’s on liberty. SNAFU.
No need to lock and load; we don’t have a brig, but we get to choose what we chow down on. We’ll see how far he can hump with us, and if his flack jacket is up to it. I’m good to go, if I decide to bother, and it doesn’t seem like I’m commenting too much.
He’s just a boot who can’t tell who’s a gunny outside, and thinks he’s giving value for your tax dollar, and that good, now I can shoot in all directions.
Ooh rah.
russell,
Someone like Rogers was apparently very openly gay and served well. But this cuts both ways. Why do we need a repeal of DADT if we can have a Rogers being open to the point of being a gay activist and yet not being drummed out for this reason? A theme throughout our discussion has been that there are poor victimized gays who have been discharged despite fine service records. Rogers would seem to counter that perspective.
Here’s a question. How do we know that the gays that have been discharged based on sexual orientation actually were stellar servicemen and women? I sure that you can find an example or two, but I am talking about overall; the majority of these cases. Of course a gay being discharged is going to claim discrimination and that is one of my points against the repeal. Now they can raise the spector of discrimination whenever they are disciplined up to and including discharge.
What about military the wiki leaks guy, Braddley Manning? http://www.aim.org/aim-column/military-homosexual-scandal-tied-to-wikileaks-treason/
This kind of activism among gays portents trouble for order and discipline.
I totally disagree with the assertion that the number of gays coming into the service will equal the number of those leaving the service if the repeal becomes an issue. That is an unsubstatiated unstudied proposition. Mere wishful thinking. Then again, I am just guessing too. Like you said, time will tell.
My daughter just stopped by to drop off some belated Xmass presents (she is on leave). I asked her what she thinks the repeal. A: “f___ing retarded”. she went on to relate an incident in boot camp (Great Lakes Chicago) where a recruit in the shower asked to her soap her back (with sexual innuendo). My daughter says that it made her feel “grossed out” and that they “beat the hell out of her [the gay] that night”. Exactly the sort of incident I expressed concerns about. My daughter had gone in with very liberal viewpoints on all of the issues.
My father, a Marine in WW2 who fought in the pacific (WIA, Purple heart) is a hardcore christian and thinks gays are an abomination to god.
So, in this military family, that’s 1 against gays in the service under any policy, 3 against openly gay, and 0 for it.
But you guys all seem to know so many gay Marines, etc. I’m starting to doubt this. Maybe it’s selection bias. The only Marines that would talk to people like you about this issue are gay.
At the end of the day, russell, you are perhaps only partially right about the fact that a law has been made and service members will either suck it up or leave. The law has not gone into effect. I will make a prediction. You best enjoy your little “victory” while you can. It never completely will be implemented. It will be sabotaged. The law will be changed, repealed or never practically aplied. We will see. Maybe we will revisit this in a year or two and decide whether your side really did score. This whole thing was about Obama scoring points with people like you so he can get your vote while he still behaves like a closet conservative where important issues are at stake. If the repeal can die a quiet death with Obama still maintaining the appearance of a win through next election, then the repeal will will never become a reality.
Phil, “If you can’t even read English, how the fcuk do you read actuarial tables?”
I read actuarial tables just fine, thank you. Christian crackpots….I don’t read anything qualifying that statement like “the SUBSET of christians that are crackpots”. And what would define that subset? Probably any christian that doesn’t agree with your special little world view.
“That’s mighty white of him.” My son is leading men in battle; ostensibly to keep you safe so you can run around mouthing off your opinions no matter how silly they may be. I think he has earned the right to call ’em as he sees ’em.
And my daughter, who wears the DIA badge as well as a hanging medal for her contribution to Operation Enduring Freedom has done the same.
Gary, “You tell me.” I can’t. That’s the point. 20 years ago I could have told you more than you could have told me. I don’t even ask my daughter because she won’t tell me and I know that. She did tell me that got to watch a baby whale being born somewhere in the world. That’s pretty cool 🙂
rooster, “So how is it different if what you hold dear is your homophobia?” It isn’t. If you’ve got a big defining personality characteristic along those lines it will be broken out of you as well. That’s not the point. The point is the opposite situation where a gay defines himself as being an individual by virtue of that characteristic and the DI tries to break it out of him and the gay cries foul and now is protected by law for doing so. You have created a special class of individual.
Gary, talk about maggie’s drawers, that last from you was the worst example of mass unaimed fire I’ve seen yet on this blog. Spray and pray worse than the Hajis….and you’re on the KD range.
Re; your Amygdala articles, I find myself appreciating them as well written and relatively accurate. We are agreement on how the Afghanistan campaign is “going” and why it is going the way it is.
And Gary, don’t think for a moment that I haven’t applied my skills and training to you personally. “Three months of college, but look at what a great writer and analyst I am!” You have a big chip on your shoulder and it is a weakness that makes you vulnerable. It’s obvious. Give your ego a break. You write well, OK? When that ego comes into play you start to fall apart and become emotionally driven and less coherent.
You doubt my credentials? Fine. I don’t care.
Here’s another individual with essentially the same outlook on this issue. http://www.turcopolier.typepad.com/
Look under ‘catagories’ and select either ‘politics’ or ‘policy’. There are some recent posts on DADT. Oh, and don’t forget to check his credentials. I’d say they are superior and impeccable. let me know what you think.
Let me see if I have this right.
“They” (you don’t say if your daughter was actually involved so I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt) “beat the hell out of” someone for making an unwanted pass at them. And you think the problem here is the behavior of the person who got assaulted? Talk about blaming the victim. I’d be interested in hearing you explain the moral theory under which the behavior you attribute to “they” who did the beating is acceptable. I’m not a huge fan of analogies, but say that in 1950 a group of white soldiers had “beat the hell” out of a black soldier who made a pass at a white woman. Would you say that the solution was to keep black men away from white women?
Minor edit: for “making an unwanted pass at them” read “making an unwanted pass at someone”. I think this actually sharpens the analogy.
she went on to relate an incident in boot camp (Great Lakes Chicago) where a recruit in the shower asked to her soap her back (with sexual innuendo). My daughter says that it made her feel “grossed out” and that they “beat the hell out of her [the gay] that night”.
Well dude, that is pretty f**ked up. Seems to me that “Sorry, that’s not my thing, plus, you know, no fraternizing” would have sufficed.
Exactly the sort of incident I expressed concerns about.
Perhaps you should explain to your daughter that she shouldn’t be beating the crap out of other people for stuff like that.
What about military the wiki leaks guy, Braddley Manning? http://www.aim.org/aim-column/military-homosexual-scandal-tied-to-wikileaks-treason/
First, AIM are the folks who brought us the “Hillary and Bill killed Vince Foster” revelations. So, a grain of salt.
Second, let’s assume everything in the piece is true. Let’s say Manning is gay, pissed off, and that he did the wikileaks dump to get back at the US for DADT.
What that would tell us, if true, is that Bradley Manning is an irresponsible and childish person.
Extrapolating from that to any kind of conclusion about DADT would be like saying that the Nidal Hassan shooting demonstrates that Muslims should not be able to serve. Or, that doctors (Hassan was a doctor) should not be allowed to serve. Or, that guys with receding hairlines should not be allowed to serve.
So, that’s what about the wikileaks guy.
What about your daughter, beating the crap out of fellow service people for a social faux pas? WTF is she doing still in uniform? Where’s her commitment to unit cohesion and good order and discipline?
The problem ain’t the gays.
Actually I don’t know if my daughter did the beating or not. I didn’t delve into the story any farther than what I wrote. We had other, more pleasant things to talk about.
Order and discipline. the gay should have known better than to make that sort of come on in that environment (i.e. military boot camp in a shower). It goes beyond sex. It goes to knowing how to behave appropriately in a situation. I goes to understanding unit cohesion. The beating, I would imagine, was more about teaching a lesson in paying attention to social and military mores than it was about picking on a gay.
In a way, the other recruits were giving the gay a chance to get with the program and become a sailor. Had they invoke the UCMJ the gay recruit’s career could have been over right then and there.
“The NZSAS is another small special forces type outfit. As I have already said, the SOF have entirely different missions than larger forces like the USMC. How many gays – “poofs” their called by the Brit SAS – in the NZSAS? Do you have those stats? If not, what’s your point?”
The argument is not whether special forces should be making an effort to recruit gay people, the argument is that allowing homosexuals to serve openly does not have an impact on the ability of soldiers to discharge their orders.
Of course since the SAS draws its recruits from the rest of the service, they will almost certainly have served at some point with openly gay people without wilting on the vine or quitting in a huff.
@avedis:
No. According to the linked article:
But Rogers was not identified as a gay man until gay friends came forward to salute his service, as well as his personal opposition to DADT.
So neither openly gay nor an activist.
Again, the article mentions another soldier who was outed by an evangelical roommate who had ‘baited’ him into admitting it. I’m not sure I’d use the inflammatory “victimized” there, but the gay guy wasn’t the activist in that account.
The burden of proof is on you, I’d say. Put up some evidence, reliably sourced and statistically viable, about the service records of people subsequently discharged under DADT. Show that they were not good soldiers before their orientation came out. Or stop smearing people by category.
They used to say blacks would not, as a group, make brave soldiers, you know. Nor women neither. How’s your daughter feel about that one?
That presupposes that the armed forces won’t be able to reform military culture to the point where an accusation of homophobia won’t stick. We’re back to that point again, and I still say, if they can’t do that, they’re a failure. They betray us and themselves.
But you know what? I think the armed forces are capable of more than you do. I think they can make homophobia something other than the default. I think they can do enough that accusations of discrimination against gays can be evaluated on their merits.
(Indeed, on the ground, the experience of gays already varies, as the article russell links to shows. One closeted man wins medals. Two decline to lie and continue to serve. And one is outed on ideological grounds. Shifting the legal penalties changes which side of the mixed picture is officially supported.)
the gay should have known better than to make that sort of come on in that environment (i.e. military boot camp in a shower).
No doubt. Assuming the situation was as your daughter described it, that’s inappropriate behavior.
It goes beyond sex. It goes to knowing how to behave appropriately in a situation. I goes to understanding unit cohesion. The beating, I would imagine, was more about teaching a lesson in paying attention to social and military mores than it was about picking on a gay.
The less it was about “picking on a gay”, the less it is relevant to the issue of DADT. It was just somebody acting out of line, in one of the 10,000 ways in which someone can act out of line.
Which, in the end, is sort of my point.
Seriously? This is your defense of beating someone up?
You know, there are lots of things that are socially inappropriate, and even illegal, and yet somehow society generally gets along pretty well without the response to them being a beatdown. Certainly, if I were foolish enough to sexually harass a colleague (and, btw, a single pass, even in the shower, does not come anywhere near this bar), I would far rather be fired than have my colleagues decide to beat the hell out of me. I wonder whether this particular recruit felt that they were being given “a chance”. Do you think they were asked “would you rather be reported or beaten up?” And while we’re on the topic of the UCMJ, would you happen to know what it says about beating the hell out of your squadmates? Is there some special exception if they’re gay and made a pass at someone?
Again, I’d be interested in hearing exactly what moral theory you’re operating under that says that vigilante violence is an appropriate response to behavior that is at worst socially inappropriate.
Actually I don’t know if my daughter did the beating or not.
You don’t even know whether your daughter was really being harassed, or whether she misinterpreted things and got the other woman beaten up for nothing. Ir wouldn’t the the first time.
russell, you make some good points and i am going to think about them.
You are correct that this all comes down to the military’s willingness and ability to change. I say it is unwilling and unable to do it. I am serious when I say I could be wrong.
I do disagree that, as you assert, that it was unknown that Rogers was a gay activist. The link, supplied by you, states that he was a gay activist. He was also in intelligence. If he himself did not openly reveal his orientation the intel command would have known. They watch these things more closely than you’d imagine. Their “watching” would even include knowing his IP address and following emails and internet activity.
..or that it happened to his daughter at all and isn’t unit or service folklore that’s passed on, personalized and repeated as an example because it expresses a truth about the military even if it never happened or happened differently to someone else.
No way to tell.
Maybe the recruit said “Watch my back” instead of “Wash my back”.
So much for unit cohesion.
It occurs to me that the sheer amount of raping and unwanted funking and coming-on in the American armed forces testified to in this thread should lead to massive amounts of bloody violence on bases across the planet given the ready availability of firepower and ordnance on hand.
I don’t know that I would want to fu*k with the formidable daughter here. Despite avedis’ contention that women in the armed forces aren’t worth the trouble, I’d send her and the fellow deadly gangshowerers over to the Afghan/Pakistani border to kick a little Taliban and al Qaeda butt. Though I suppose the enemy would have to sashay, or is it swish, out of their caves and blow kisses across the mountaintops for this particular unit to get really pissed off and battle-ready.
Then again, as the evidence mounts, maybe the daughter couldn’t beat the sh*t out of teh gay all by her naked lonesome and required an armada to do the job.
I do think it’s cute about the baby whale being born.
Killer whale, was it?
Thank you, avedis. I appreciate that, and it means something coming from you.
Why do we have to have DADT, when we have perfectly decent gays in the service?
Gays that don’t fit in in the service well, won’t. And probably don’t, already. Might as well get it out in the open, no?
Some of you continue to display appalling lack of understanding or respect for military culture.
My daughter is not a fist fighter. It is entirely possible that she could not have beaten up the gay by herself had she wanted to. Who cares? That is not the point.
The beat down had to be done as a unit to show the offender that the entire unit was displeased and was demanding of conformity to its norms.
Individual v individual beatdown would have served no purpose.
This has been a thrilling thread.
However, I don’t believe avedis’ comparison early on between homosexuality and necrophilia has been adequately addressed.
In fact, I’m now concerned, given the seemingly natural and logical fit between the military’s killing machine and necrophilia, that we must be experiencing a silent “influx” of necrophiliacs into the armed forces. I mean, with all of that death and the bodies around, can the necrophiliacs be far behind?
Do THEY swish? Or do they practice another sort of funny walk, say, the traipse, or the zombie stagger? How can you tell if you are serving with a necrophiliac? Do they take out the machine gun nest, and then wounded, spend a little extra time enjoying the fruits of their labor before humping their wounded comrades back to friendly ground?
The upside of necrophiliacs in the military, of course, is that you needn’t fear showering or bunking with them. Dying in their presence is another matter.
But then, so what, considering most of the damage has already been done? C’est le guerre! Or is it c’est le vie?
Regarding the radical Christianinst persuasion of some in the military, what bothers me about serving with them is their take on the Marine mantra: “This is my rifle; this is my gun — this is for fighting; this is for fun”. (with all the attendant pointing at said weaponry)
The radicals seems to get too much of a Jones on about the rifle/fighting bit, but then they go all preachy and uptight about the gun/fun equation. I’d like to see a little more enthusiasm about the gun/fun end of the deal. I CAN’T HEAR YOU!
Until of course they return stateside and become lay pastors/tea party/hate radio hosts and/or Republican politicians and all of a sudden, without diminishing the stress on fighting, they start fu8king everything in sight, whether its prostitutes, their girlfriends, their mistresses, their parishioners, their boyfriends and the odd goat or two. Without, of course, relinquishing the smarmy preachiness.
And they use terms like “gun show” and gun store” and some of the war-lovers even use the term shotgun to describe whatever battery-operated device their wife is going to hand them to shoot Census workers. One wonders about these bulletheads’ conception of fun.
Plus, if they’ve been in the Air Force they are always saying “I’ll roger that”, which I find annoying, if not alarming. “Would you like a sandwich?”, you ask innocently and they inevitably say “I’ll roger that!” or they and 12 other grunts beat the shit out of you for suggesting a sandwich.
What’s with that?”
russell, you make some good points and i am going to think about them.
Can’t ask for more than that.
I do disagree that, as you assert, that it was unknown that Rogers was a gay activist
That was in the article I linked to but it wasn’t my assertion. I brought Rogers up only to indicate that gay folks serve effectively and with distinction, DADT or not.
Some of you continue to display appalling lack of understanding or respect for military culture.
lack of understanding no, lack of respect — in this instance — yes.
“Appalling”? No.
This thread also bears witness to the sheer amount of raping and fu8king going on in the military from top to bottom, from Air Force Academy to battlefield, from ship to shore. There seems to be more fu8king and raping going on than Dagny Taggert could ever dream of.
It concerns me that the military might be neglecting, or at least shortchanging the other major part of its mission: pillaging.
But that’s another thread for another day, or in this case another year.
Finally, having spent a little time at Subic Naval Base in the Philippines years ago when the American fleet would enter port to lay siege or lay pipe or whatever it is they did, I noticed the thousands of female prostitutes lining the streets and festooning the balconies welcoming our boys.
But there was always a contingent of male prostitutes purveying their wares as well, and who could miss the male transvestite prostitutes gussied up for the “influx”.
But I don’t know for whom the bell tolled in those cases.
Aren’t the Marines part of the Navy? Ahoy! Maybe they required a rougher trade during R and R, not that there is anything wrong with that, in my book, if you’ve read the naughty bits, which you haven’t because my book is boring.
To paraphrase a certain midwestern Senator who was against lifting DADT, one would like to know if the Marines were fully equipped in their search for a few good men.
Let’s hope that like General Ripper, our boys did not let anyone partake of their essence.
Really? So, the UCMJ permits this sort of behavior? Can you point to the relevant section?
I, personally, have an enormous amount of respect and regard for military culture.
Which is not to say that individuals in the service, or those who have served, can’t be argued against.
Hopefully that’s not your point.
Taking some time to re-read this thread before the guests arrive (miracles do happen! though I’ll probably bug out at 10 or something), I want to address one of avedis’ early comments:
Dude, what planet do you come from to think, of a woman making a powerful statement against rape, *anything other* than “she and/or someone she’s close to is a rape survivor.” How can that *not* be the most likely source of her bitterness? And why shouldn’t she be bitter, if it is?
I frankly can’t remember offhand if she’s a rape survivor herself, but IIRC at least one person who blogs there is. The important point is that your statement is *much* too close to being flip or dismissive about rape, and I won’t be having with that. Also, it’s a really bizarro-world vision of likely human motivations.
@avedis:
Of course a gay being discharged is going to claim discrimination and that is one of my points against the repeal. Now they can raise the spector of discrimination whenever they are disciplined up to and including discharge.
You have persistently refused to detail how the existence of another class of individuals granted EO protections would be revolutionary and create problems that do not currently exist, are not currently dealt with, and for some magical reason could not be dealt with. If a non-white or non-mainstream-Christian or non-male dirtbag is e.g., chaptered out for being a dirtbag, they can file EO complaints now. How will the ability of a homosexual dirtbag being able to file EO complaints to challenge justified disciplinary measures suddenly Change Everything?
@EKR:
Really? So, the UCMJ permits this sort of behavior? Can you point to the relevant section?
Avedis has shown a persistent contempt for the UCMJ, despite obedience to it being in the very oath all service members are required to uphold. Values like discipline, loyalty, duty, honor, and integrity are apparently subordinate to morale and unit cohesion (and anything and everything troops individually and arbitrarily might deem necessary to maintain them) in his eyes.
Kinda cute how avedis keeps referring to the person in this alleged beating scenario as “the gay” rather than “the woman.” But we’re supposed to be the ones who all have problems.
Also kinda cute how his daughter got from “one person made an unwanted pass at me” to “the whole repeal is ‘f*cking retarded.'” With inductive reasoning skills like that, she must be the apple of her daddy’s eye.
Christian crackpots….I don’t read anything qualifying that statement like “the SUBSET of christians that are crackpots”.
The funniest part is that you didn’t read the word “Christian” at all, since the original sentence was, “the religious crackpots that have infiltrated the US military to an alarming degree with the Air Force academy just being the tip of the (unfortunately non-melting) iceberg.’
The funny thing is, you proved Hartmut’s point: He said that if these crackpots were to be drummed out of the service, they’d claim “anti-Christian” bigotry, and you jumped right on claiming exactly that. Another own-goal, making that at least your third in this thread alone. Perhaps a new Obsidian Wings record? Judges
And what would define that subset? Probably any christian that doesn’t agree with your special little world view
***sigh*** Another failure of your inference skills. I could embarrass you again by explaining exactly why, but what’s the point? If you’ve proven nothing else at this point, you’ve proven that you’re incapable of learning.
And Gary, don’t think for a moment that I haven’t applied my skills and training to you personally. “Three months of college, but look at what a great writer and analyst I am!” You have a big chip on your shoulder and it is a weakness that makes you vulnerable. It’s obvious. Give your ego a break.
First, your “skills and training” have led you to draw nothing but incorrect conclusion after incorrect conclusion about me, Sebastian, LJ, Doctor Science and others on this thread, so I wouldn’t be puffing out my chest and parading them about, were I you. Just a free pro tip for the New Year.
Second, I think it’s pretty clear who’s suffering the ego damage here: It’s the guy who’s continually making a fool of himself on Obsidian Wings by getting everything he says wrong, while being an arrogant prick in the process, and is furthermore getting his butt owned by an experienced, intelligent autodidact.
This has been a thrilling thread.
Indeed. Racist trolls get banned, while homophobic ones get fed to their heart’s content. ‘Tis a puzzlement.
I will part ways by sharing a few maybe relevant quotes from a man I come to respect through one of his legacies; his written perspectives. I thank those here who recommended that I become familiar with him. He is a man I would have liked to have known in person. The cost of war is truly too high.
“….global warming has now become more than just a scientific question for many people: it’s a religious belief right up there with the most dedicated theists I know, and just as annoying.”
“Expecting women to serve as effectively as men in combat, or as firefighters, or in any profession that demands a certain level of physical strength, is illogical. Wishing will not make it so, and allowing women into such professions simply because we don’t want to hurt their feelings is dangerous.”
“There are important questions out there that need to be answered, and we can’t get to a good answer if we waste all our time being offended by the others’ arguments. ”
“At a time one might expect the gender feminists to be pleased that the plight of women in Afghanistan is finally being addressed, instead they are fixated on making sure nobody but them can ‘own’ the issue of gender equity, so that they can define it for their own purposes to further their anti-men agenda here in the US. It’s a sad story, but a common one among gender feminists these days. Much like the media, the most vocal feminists of today no longer speak for the majority of those they claim to represent, instead representing a strange far-left coalition of interests.”
“….Morale is a critical factor in combat, and the sweeping success of the Northern Alliance coupled with the presence of such an impressive combat force as a Marine Expeditionary Force should allow us to break the Taliban’s morale once and for all…”
All quotes are from Andrew Olmsted.
I was unable to locate a single commentary or reference in his writings to DADT or Homosexual military service.
avedis,
You obviously didn’t read when Andy wrote this
“I do ask (not that I’m in a position to enforce this) that no one try to use my death to further their political purposes.” link
By invoking Andy’s words and claiming that the absence of commentary on DADT tells us what he believed is a load of crap.
Furthermore, Andy was serving, so it is hard for me to imagine him decrying a policy that was accepted as standard. In fact, when I believe he stopped blogging for a time when an order came down that he interpreted as ruling out blogging for those in the field, even though I am sure that he felt the order was stupid. Which serves to undercut your main point in all this, which is that people serving will refuse to obey orders and let their personal homophobia dictate their actions.
*golfclap* lj
I didn’t know what a homosexual was until I was in college. No one taught me anything, good or bad, about gay people.
McKinneyTexas wrote this. Does anyone here believe this?
This guy managed to get out of grade school, let alone high school, and NEVER heard the words “faggot” “fag” “queer” “pansy” “pantywaist” “sissy” or anything similar and didn’t understand exactly what they meant and that they were bad things to be called? As in, physically dangerous to be called? As in, if your peers believe you to be one, they’ll beat the crap out of you?
I’m calling BS on that; unless he was home-schooled by radical feminists who never let him out of the house, there’s no way what he wrote is true.
“There are important questions out there that need to be answered, and we can’t get to a good answer if we waste all our time being offended by the others’ arguments.”
Ah, the “you can’t handle the truth” gambit.
Well, I’m convinced. The next time someone implies that my relationship with my partner of 15 years is indistinguishable from a relationship with a dead body, or a cow, I’ll have to give it some serious thought. Spending all my time being offended certainly won’t help us solve any important problems.
While it was nice seeing a united front of commenters taking on avedis’ all-too-familiar mix of dick-waving bravado and abject sexual terror, I do find myself wondering just what constitutes “beyond the pale” when it comes to homophobic remarks around here. I’m not referring to ban-worthy offenses, as the posting rules are clear enough. But I have to say that when the inevitable necrophilia/bestiality comparisons were dragged out and numerous commenters just kept on presuming good faith on avedis’ part…well, it makes me wonder.
This whole discussion was effectively over almost immediately after it started, when Gary produced the list of countries that already allow lesbians and gays to serve openly without problems. Avedis never produced a response to this beyond “we’re different” or, more specifically, “we’re real men and they’re a bunch of p*ssies.” And yet the “debate” dragged on, and on, and on, over several hundred comments, as if avedis was going to produce an argument worth engaging sooner or later.
Would a Steve Sailer fan enjoy the same kind of indulgence here? He’s not afraid of asking the tough questions that make PC liberals uncomfortable, you know…
Uncle Kvetch,
Actually, SS has popped up around these parts, a few years ago, and he didn’t get banned.
But avedis started out with the graphic acts and then ‘toned down’, which kinda pulls people in. I continue to have my doubts, and I’m thinking that several people also do as well, given that they don’t feel like taking up his comments, though it may be just a slow time because of the holidays. A lot of it would depend on whether avedis is actually a Marine vet who feels compelled to air his feelings here (in which case, it would be wrong to ban him and it is right to present him with alternatives) or someone playing a game. Anyone who has the time and willingness to research thru all of Andy’s old posts, in order to try to set up a gotcha, rather than deal with the current statements of 3 of the 4 Joint Chiefs, makes me suspect the latter, but who knows, and who cares? Not me, really.
@Uncle Kvetch:
Of course I’m not a regular commenter here, so read this accordingly, but the major difference I see is the relative ages of the two civil rights movements.
“Racism is bad” is simply an older message than “homophobia is bad.” What that means, among other things, is that there are still persuasible people out there about the latter.
I tend to reckon that anyone in this day and age who firmly believes that blacks are inferior to whites is beyond my ability to persuade. But I still have hope that people raised with concepts of manliness and femininity that implicitly (or explicitly) exclude homosexuality as an acceptable option can rethink things in the light of new information and new perspectives.
I doubt that avedis was listening for that new information, those new perspectives. But more people read a site like this than comment here, and some of them may be hearing these discussions for the first (or first hundredth) time. Re-proving the case, laying out the arguments one more time, may still be of use in changing minds.
I’m sorry that this has left you with the impression that your membership in acceptable society is tenuous. It isn’t, at least not in my book, and the united front you mention should go some way to proving that it isn’t here on Obsidian Wings.
Like I said, I’m not a regular commenter; mostly I just read here. But that’s how I see it.
I thank you both for the thoughtful responses, LJ and ER.
I doubt that avedis was listening for that new information, those new perspectives. But more people read a site like this than comment here, and some of them may be hearing these discussions for the first (or first hundredth) time. Re-proving the case, laying out the arguments one more time, may still be of use in changing minds.
That’s a compelling argument and well worth pondering.
Actually, SS has popped up around these parts, a few years ago, and he didn’t get banned.
Just to be clear, I wasn’t calling for anyone to be banned (and this not being my blog, I’d be on very shaky ground were I to do so). I was just surprised at the number of people who were willing to engage avedis in debate, given what I thought was a blatantly obvious combination of ignorance, raw bigotry, bad faith, and proof by assertion right from the start. Frankly I felt more encouraged by the commenters who simply called avedis out as a troll than by those who devoted far more time and effort to his “arguments” than they deserved.
I’m sorry that this has left you with the impression that your membership in acceptable society is tenuous. It isn’t, at least not in my book, and the united front you mention should go some way to proving that it isn’t here on Obsidian Wings.
It does. No hard feelings.
This guy managed to get out of grade school, let alone high school, and NEVER heard the words “faggot” “fag” “queer” “pansy” “pantywaist” “sissy” or anything similar and didn’t understand exactly what they meant and that they were bad things to be called?
In TEXAS, no less!! In the sixties, no less!!!
Come to think of it, this thread might have been even more peculiarly (say that word ten times) “amusing” if Steve Sailer had shown up to engage avedis:
http://www.isteve.com/lesvsgay.htm
In fact, it’s an interesting thought experiment to imagine avedis, his whale-watching daughter (one wonders if the whales felt vaguely discomfited by all of the staring through the binoculars) and his son showering together with Sailer and a few of the lesbian softball players the latter spends WAY too much time obsessing over.
Just to see who would get first dibs on the lufa. The outcome could be expressed in terms of Sailer’s favorite diagram — a bell curve.
Personally, wouldn’t the world be a better place if, instead of this weird “dick-waving bravado and abject sexual terror” expressed by the macho heterosexual (which, I guess, has to be inference, doesn’t it?) patriots in the population, whether while showering or in hand-to-hand combat, or when dropping “Little Boy” from the armored loins of the “Enola Gay” (think what the macho heterosexual patriots in the Japanese military though about THAT!), ……. we could reverse the equation and imagine one lonely straight individual showering with a platoon of gay or lesbian patriots and furtively fantasizing, all shifty-eyed, about beating the sh*t of the them, and then the majority could gang up on the single imaginer of violence and soap his or her back … and then venture into battle as a cohesive unit and kick some enemy butt?
By the way, for what it’s worth, I’m against banning racists and homophobes from virtual places like Obsidian Wings.
Not that I would want to sing “Kumbaya” with them either. I don’t sing “Kumbaya” with racist, war-mongering homophobics bullies. Rather, as a heterosexual and fairly macho male softball player and Jimmy Breslin liberal, I’d prefer to make fun of them or, failing that, invite them into the street for a f8cking fistfight.
They can bring their guns …. sorry … rifles, too.
After all, banning racists and homophobes and other enemies of humanity from Obsidian Wings seems like such a drop in the bucket when we live in a country that, like clockwork elects them en masse to run the government.
Uncle Kvetch, and all: please see my response here.
Also, what evilrooster said.
But I’d also point to, save that I prefer not to by name, quite a few commenters on ObWi who started out in not terribly dissimilar fashion as avedis, or met with similarly, ah, mixed reaction, who over a couple or three years, or less, or more, became very popular, or at least reasonably popular commenters.
Some people evolve with time, others less, others more, others not. Only time and patience tells. I would never instruct anyone else (in this sort of situation) to be patient, nor even suggest they should be patient for a moment, with… many things. Including endless sorts of legitimately taken offense, as has been much given in this thread, and others, and is often the case at ObWi, and on blogs, and in life.
But I’m as patient as I can manage until I’m not. I can only speak for myself, and that’s the only person I speak for unless elected or authorized to speak otherwise by others.
For the rest, see this post, and I’ll respond further there, but not in this thread. Sorry about that, but I have reasons.
And so far as avedis and anyone else is concerned, he and everyone can call *me* a queer faggot all he or they like, and I’m very very gay and love to [WHATEVER HE THINKS A DISGUSTING SEX ACT IS].
I would prefer he put all his projected views on me, rather than anyone else. But all I can do is tell him that, oh, I’m so so so very proud to be gay, because I’m a sissy pansy.
I could actually be specific about the degree of truth here, which certainly includes OMG, well, no, I won’t be specific, because I don’t think it’s relevant or would be helpful, but if I decide to get really specific, without violating the posting rules, I’ll do so if possibly appropriate and helpful.
In my own thread.
Meanwhile, I love love love to s*** c***, and t*** it in the ***. Yum, yum, yum.
All that matters is perception. And I damn well have been called those names many times, and have no problem identifying myself as queer. Queer queer queer queer. A pervert.
What I know for a fact is that I’ve done stuff that avedis would appear to regard that way; I doubt he’d like to know, or would care to know, details.
“This guy managed to get out of grade school, let alone high school, and NEVER heard the words “faggot” “fag” “queer” “pansy” “pantywaist” “sissy” or anything similar and didn’t understand exactly what they meant and that they were bad things to be called? As in, physically dangerous to be called? As in, if your peers believe you to be one, they’ll beat the crap out of you?”
Nah, I’d believe it. I not only heard those words, but got the crap beaten out of me by my peers, but had no clue that they had anything to do with sexual practices, until I was at college. It’s not like nerds get invited to participate in PE locker room conversations, after all. Being a social pariah can leave you pretty clueless about that sort of thing.
avedis at December 27, 2010 at 06:24 PM:
I’ve only just seen this comment.
As an official Obsidian Wings co-blogger, I’m declaring this to be, speaking as only one member of the collective, in my opinion, two sentences (at least) that are in violation of The Posting Rules.
Specifically:
And, most specifically:
Avedis, you’ve gotten away with a lot here, due to a combination of tremendous tolerance, lack of co-ordination, and other factors.
This is an Official Warning.
If you make personal attacks again in violation of this warning on ANY commenter here, you are subject to the possibility and probability of being banned.
Since I’m seeing this belatedly, unless one of the other ObWi co-bloggers has given an Official Warning to you on another comment, I’ll consider this your First Warning.
Do it again, you may get a second warning.
There won’t be a third warning.
How long you’ll be banned remains to be seen.
My own preference would be along the lines of, in future:
1) First offense gets a warning.
2) Second offense gets a one/two day cooling-off ban.
3) Third offense gets you two weeks.
4) Fourth offense gets you two months.
5) Fifth offense gets you two years.
This is not an official ObWi banning policy at this time.
So far as we have an official policy at this time, it’s either up to Eric Martin to declare, or you to be surprised with, and you may appeal any decision by email to ObWings At gmail Dot com
If you have trouble figuring out how that works, speak up.
But it’s how I suggest to the current collective that banning be handled in future.
That, or something similarly consistent and clear; I don’t care about the precise numbers; I care about consistent rules that everyone can understand, that are enforced as consistently as is practical.
Don’t make declarations about other people that you are not entitled to make. This is an example of your doing so, just one of many.
You’re now Warned.
Gary, I have to admit that what respect I had for avedis went out the window with those comments, however if Melissa McEwan from shakespearessister.blogspot.com, who I think avedis was refering to, is posting here then its not under her own name (or possibly I’m blind). So the rule: “Do not consistently abuse or vilify other posters for its own sake.” doesn’t apply since she is not a poster here or at least not one avedis could recognise. So maybe better rules are needed.
OTOH, it would be nice if avedis could be led to understand how offensive those comments were, which sadly I doubt he does.
Nah, I’d believe it. I not only heard those words, but got the crap beaten out of me by my peers, but had no clue that they had anything to do with sexual practices, until I was at college
This is not exactly a ringing endorsement of McKinneyTexas’s claim. I was King Nerd of Nerd Hill in high school, and I certainly knew what “gay” meant. I could hardly help it; before I changed my last name, it was “Kaye,” so I was called “Phil Gay” nearly every day for four years.
The two of you are not particularly older than me, so if you genuinely didn’t know what “gay” meant, it was not for lack of exposure in the popular culture.
BTW, “gay” doesn’t actually refer to “sexual practices.” Another pro tip for the new year.
“OTOH, it would be nice if avedis could be led to understand how offensive those comments were, which sadly I doubt he does.”
I do understand that someone from coming from your pespective would find those comments offensive. Do you understand that those comments are typical of how men talk and think – not just military men – but men in all walks of life? Most men would say that you are being way overly sensitive and way too serious about your pet issues. Some would call you all those names that Gary tossed out in a recent comment above for being offended.
In the hundreds of exchanges that took place over the past week I never once did any name calling. I never referred to anyone here in a derogatory manner with regards to sexual orientation. So where does that come from, Gary (and others)? Overly sensitive and self-conscious? Histrionics (sorry to stereotype). I don’t know. I’m just guessing. You tell me.
I truthfully disclosed that I have friends that are gay and that I enjoy a drink with them from time to time. Yet, I am repeatedly called a “homophobe”. I do not appreciate being called names that don’t fit. Would that not fall under the posting rules? Or are the rules only for those that don’t agree with you?
Yes, of the thousands of words I wrote here, we could focus on the necrophilia comment. That was over the top on my part. Yet, I never did say that homosexuals are perverts or that they are like necrophiliacs. What I asked, no doubt poorly, was why does one particual sexual orientation minority get so much attention when others don’t if the issue is fairness in society and all of that. It was stupid of me and it was rude. That being said, no one has any problem with folks here making fun of my children who are out in harm’s way. Gary asked me to share a little of where I’m coming from. My children’s situation is a major aspect of my life (and the whale was observed givening birth through other means than binos – a satellite?)
One of the fundemenatal points I was attempting to make throughout is that people here have no understanding of military life; especially in combat arms. After the hundreds of comments I remain convinced that I am correct re; that lack of understanding. More concerning to me is that not only is there a lack of understanding, there is what appears to be a wishing away of the mindset (i.e. either they will learn to change or big gov’t will force them to change or they can just leave the service).
I was not presenting an accusatory dichomoty in y descriptions of life in combat arms; “we Marines are tough and manly and you [insert from Gary’s list] are p*ssies.” I gather that some here think I was. More of that overly self conscious and somewhat self-depreciative thought process.
Also, I truthfully provided as much of my background in the area of my service as a US Marine as I am comfortable doing on the internet with a bunch of strangers (hostile ones at that) or to some extent, am able to due to classified nature of intelligence work. Yes, I could give some further ellaboration, but that would probably only lead to more probing questions that I would not answer. The details are not germane to our discussion anyhow.
I’m sure none of us want to start rehashing what has already been argued. That is not my intent for this communication.
I guess what I was -and am – trying to say is that even at my most hard charging (some 20 years ago when I was in the service), I was more open minded and liberal in my thinking than the majority my peers. I’ve mellowed quite a bit since then. I assure you that there are many in the service at all levels that me look like Mary Poppins. Look at this in the news today.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/02/navy.videos/index.html?hpt=C2
And it was in today’s charged political climate. Unbelievable? But there you have it. BTW, I find it disgusting and a disgrace.
Yet you guys call me a bigot and a homophobe and are hardly open to even considering the notion that I – or my perspective – may actually represent a significant proportion of the population that will be faced with either successfully implementing the repeal of DADT or subverting it one way or another. If you can’t deal with me, your side will never be able to deal with the hardcore element that is in charge.
I was told to read Andy Olmsted by more than one commentator. I always act in good faith. If someone I am debating recommends a source I take action and follow through. It was a pleasure to read his perspectives. I found a man I agree with on most issues. When I didn’t agree in part or in total I could at least respect that he had a right to his opinion and that he had given fair consideration to alternative viewpoints. Again, I found it strange that Andy was recommended to me because, as a military man, I found his attitude to be more in line with mine than those recommending him to me. I was not playing gotcha games. I selected what I thought were relevant quotes to help demonstrate another military mindset on the nuances of “the gender wars”, Marines, etc, all of which were being debated with me.
At the end of the day, I find this blog to be exactly what I said it was in my first comment; an echo chamber. The again, I already knew that. I have been reading Eric Martin for many years and have followed him from place to place. I used to comment on his posts. I don’t any more because I see no reason to engage with a bunch of people that are from another world than the one I inhabit. That is not an insult. I make to value call or judgement as to whose world is “better”. Things are what they are. As I was layed up with an injury that didn’t resolve I had some time on my hands and decided to take the plunge and probe the thought processes that I find so allien. A recon by fire if you will. I regret the experience. To what I am sure is your relief, I won’t be doing it again any time soon.
Best wishes for a happy, loved filled and peaceful 2011 to all.
Phil:
“Fairy Garber.”
Every so often someone still thinks it’s original to them.
avedis:
You are exactly as much one of “you guys” as any commenter here.
There’s no telepathy. No homogeneity. No cabal coordinating thoughts and words.
Each of us is an individual.
There’s no one who has ever commented here who has ever agreed with everything anyone else has ever said here. There is endless disagreement.
That’s mostly what we do.
Saying “I agree” and “what X said” doesn’t take very long, and isn’t all that interesting.
There have been thousands of commenters here over the years. Hundreds and hundreds of people who have been regulars for either months, or years, or on and off, and every variation.
Each with their own unique views.
Think this has been a liberal only place?
You’ve already read a tiny bit of Andrew.
Read more of Sebastian H.’s posts.
Read Charles Bird’s posts.
Read von’s posts.
Read Slartibartfast’s posts.
Read Moe Lane’s posts.
Commenters? Read… would be unfair to start naming them, but we have conservatives, we have libertarians, we have people with incomprehensible views, we have liberals, leftists, rightiests, communists, socialists, occasional Tea Partiers, we have people from a wide variety of countries, and a variety of people who speak/read/write English only as a second language.
You’re one as much as anyone and everyone else.
This blog has had representation on the front page of a wide variety of vastly different range of opinion.
Your opinion remains as welcome as any, within the posting rules.
That said, I may have over-reacted with my Official Warning to you, and since that may be so, I’m going to not count it against you. Next time, should there be a next time, will be your First Warning.
Carry on.
Two quick points:
1) Avedis, you may not have read this. No obligation, but I’m pointing.
2):
a) You think everyone agrees with me and doesn’t tell me off?
b) You think everyone agrees with Eric Martin, Jacob Davies, Doctor Science, Sebastian, or Russell and doesn’t call them out?
c) You think we six don’t disagree with each other? You think I haven’t disagreed with each and every single front pager who has ever posted here, including Hilzoy and Katherine, and annoyed the hell out each, numerous times?
d) You think others of us haven’t annoyed each other over content or style?
That’s funny.
This is, within the posting rules, a place anyone is free to comment as they wish what they wish, so long as they’re vaguely on topic, and we’re pretty damn vague about that. Open threads are just that.
As commenters, we’re all the same. You are as much “we” or “you guys” as anyone else: no more, no less. Notice.
Just a follow-up note on McKinney Texas and not hearing about homosexuality in school. I may be, at 66, even older than he is, and I can entirely believe him. (Someone referred to “the 60s,” but I graduated from HS in 1960, so I’m talking about the 50s, which were a different world altogether. Even in California)
There were of course (I know now) gays around – though not the term “gay” in that sense – but there was an enormous conspiracy of silence in the media and in public institutions such as school and church. Which meant that if one was generally clueless and marginalized, as I was, one might indeed not hear anything at all about it. Not hearing the term “faggot” or “c**ks**ker” or anything of that ilk was a distinct possibility. It happened to me.
When in college I started hearing about homosexuality (although I still didn’t meet anyone whom I knew to be gay), I wasn’t so much shocked as enlightened. It was like learning about the Renaissance, or igneous rocks – new information about the world to be processed. And this information included the social data that to be gay (though we still didn’t know that word) was to be subject to ridicule, and thus to be avoided or denied, but it wasn’t anything like as *open* a discourse as the USA has seen over the last 40+ years.
I guess you had to be there. I was, and I’m guessing MT was, too.
The rest of you are kids. Get off my lawn! ;-}
WRT banning, I don’t think “avedis” should be (or should have been) banned. I think that, after the first couple of dozens of rounds, he should have been ignored. Shunned, even. DNFTT.
He claims he is not a homophobe. Maybe, maybe not; no way for me to know.
But he does assert, again and again and again, that real warriors ARE homophobes, and that they will not (cannot?) change, and will even subvert or abandon the military if asked to, and we as a nation cannot afford that. And he maintains this in the face of massive evidence that warriors in other times and other nations have not all been homophobes. As well as evidence that over the past 60 years or so racists in the US military have been forced to abandon the overt expression of their prejudices, and the sky did not fall in. Their patriotism or their devotion to duty ultimately outweighed their racism, and we as a nation are better for it. But “avedis” denies this precedent.
If he is not a homophobe he is a full-time, partisan enabler of homophobia. Not worth my time, or anyone else’s. I feel foolish having engaged him as much as I did. So should we all.
Stonewall.
One change.
More: Homosexuality in 20th century America.
He claims he is not a homophobe.
I’d bet it’s because he believes the term homophobia equals hatred, and he doesn’t feel that he hates. Having read all the posts in this thread, I believe that he does hate, but he does so not with anger and violence, but with denigration and dismissiveness.
I truthfully disclosed that I have friends that are gay and that I enjoy a drink with them from time to time. Yet, I am repeatedly called a “homophobe”.
Some of my best friends are TV Tropes.
I remember this one from Hogan’s link very well (though I’m surpised there’s any record of it after all these years):
Jimmy and Grandpa were fishing.
I was in 2nd or 3rd grade when I saw that commercial, though the point of it was somewhat lost on me. It led me to call people “prejudiced” whenever I disagreed with them, with little regard to the nature of the disagreement. Fortunately, Mrs. Wetzel put a stop to that after hearing me make the charge on the playground one day.
Oh, boy. This looks to be a wilful application of blinders, or self-deception. They’re almost the same thing, but not quite.
Look, as a lad who grew up in roughly the same part of the country as you did, Brett, I never actually saw homosexuality, because That Was Not Allowed. I never even really thought about it, except in the abstract. Nevertheless, if pressed I could come up with some things that made homosexuals homosexual that didn’t involve swishiness or tidiness.
Not meaning to stereotype, but I grew up immersed in it, and that is what I’m attempting to resurrect, here.
So: I think others here have a decent point, WRT the whole I didn’t even know what gay meant until I was in college business.
avedis’ echo-chamber comments are laughable, and not worthy of refuting. That we all have some degree of respect and regard for each other doesn’t mean we agree with each other. We don’t.
You’re free to not believe it if you wish, but I think you’re underestimating just how insulated from things sexual a nerd growing up as a social pariah can be. I derived the equations for transfer orbits from basic principles when I was in Jr. High for fun, but my first kiss that didn’t come from an aunt was after I got to college.
Diversity isn’t just about skin color, you know, it’s about life experiences, too.
Who did your aunt kiss after you went to college?
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
Happy New Year.
Brett’s story is consistent, in terms of lack of exposure, with his earlier one about asking his black college roommate how he got such a great tan. (I do remember that correctly, don’t I, Brett?)
It is hard to believe that someone wouldn’t have come to know certain things into young adulthood, but I just don’t see Brett putting that great an effort into creating the illusion of cluelessness. I believe him, FWIW. Mileage varies.
That’s me you’re talking about, Brett.
What equations are you referring to? Two tangent ellipses having a common focus? Not that it matters; just curious.
Yeah, the Hohmann transfer orbit equations. I was really into that sort of thing at the time.
I believe both Brett and Slarti at January 03, 2011 at 01:43 PM and at January 03, 2011 at 02:06 PM
I have reason to do so.
And they’re among the people whose views I’ve watched evolve over the years on ObWi, in their own ways, to their own degrees, as many of us have, not least of all me, but doubtless as all of us have in one significant way or another.
— Desiderius Erasmus
One thing no one touched on is that the kind
of compartmentalizing that goes on in wars has a price. Some people never get over it and are called insane. Others have no trouble and are
called sane. Those are labels that don’t come close to the truth.
It is in our best interest to have as many different kinds of people as possible working together in the military. The more familiar we are with people who think differently than we do, the more likely we are to be able to negotiate. And perhaps our military personnel will be better able to reintegrate into civilian life. Perhaps our returnees won’t
kill themselves.
Whatever we are doing right now has a hellish price. It can’t be right to throw people into a situation where the only thing they can rely on is training, where they have few reminders of life as they knew it, and where there is no downtime. It can’t be right to say “Only that
behavior which I believe is normal is allowed.” This has our people looking over their shoulders all the time, fearing attack from their own side.
In civilian life we come in to contact with all kinds of people. Give our military people the stability of knowing that their bunk mates are not going to attack them, the freedom to move back into civilian life without needing psychotropic drugs.
I know avedis believes what he wrote. the fact that he was unable oat first, of expressing it in less than offensive terms supports my point.
I’m extremely glad to see a comment from Spiny Adagio, who has been reading this blog for several weeks now.
Spiny Adagio is a very fine writer and thinker.
I invite everyone to welcome Spiny Adagio, and encourage future contributions from SA, whose contributions I believe will be of benefit to many, given sufficient encouragement and response of the right sort.
One last point that I hope won’t violate Spiny Adagio’s privacy: this is SA’s first comment on a blog, ever. SA also just began reading blogs by reading ObWi as SA’s first experience in reading blogs.
Please be considerate of that, and that which you do not know.
Thanks.
Everyone now play nicely, though this thread has probably run its course, in any case.
SA: more and future threads await!
Welcome, Spiny Adagio!
I was unable to locate a single commentary or reference in his writings to DADT or Homosexual military service.
From http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2007/12/military-musing.html:
Would allowing openly gay people to serve in the military cause serious damage to the institution? While I cannot guarantee that the answer would be no, clearly the available evidence would suggest that, in fact, the answer is no.
That’s only one sentence out of whole paragraphs of clear-sighted common sense on the subject. I strongly suggest you read the rest too.
Oh well. Back to Smedley Butler, I guess. In defense of avedis, the post is under the name G’Kar.
If avedis ever returns to this thread, I do hope he’ll read this post with what MAJ Olmsted had to say about gays in the military.