Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics

Notices

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-18-2009, 09:42 AM   #41 (permalink)
Who You Crappin?
 
Derwood's Avatar
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Tzu View Post
I wont go into many of them, but how about huddled next to one another (nut to butt)in the mud for a couple of days waiting for a target. Go visit a sub like Clinton did. It opened his eyes a little.
so you're fine being "nut to butt" with hetero dudes by not gay ones? doesn't sound like a particularly sexually charge scenario.
Derwood is offline  
Old 01-18-2009, 09:48 AM   #42 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Cynosure's Avatar
 
Location: the center of the multiverse
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaver View Post
Sun, that's the exact same argument as to why Blacks and Whites could not serve together.
Is it? I see Sun's argument as more comparable to why men and women should not serve together. That is, it's okay to have women in the military, and it's maybe even okay to have women fighting side-by-side with men in combat situations, but it's not okay for men and women soldiers to be sharing, like, tents and showers, together.

Last edited by Cynosure; 01-18-2009 at 09:53 AM..
Cynosure is offline  
Old 01-18-2009, 09:58 AM   #43 (permalink)
Who You Crappin?
 
Derwood's Avatar
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynosure View Post
but it's not okay for men and women soldiers to be sharing, like, tents and showers, together.
it seemed to work fine in Starship Troopers

but seriously, the underlying assumption this theory is that gay guys look at every situation sexually. clearly, being trapped in a fox hole and fighting for your life isn't exactly a time when one is thinking "oh yeah, rub your butt on my nuts". it's a pretty outdated way of thinking.

and if a gay guy DID act inappropriately in that situation, I don't think any of us would be upset that they were disciplined accordingly
Derwood is offline  
Old 01-18-2009, 09:59 AM   #44 (permalink)
Conspiracy Realist
 
Sun Tzu's Avatar
 
Location: The Event Horizon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood View Post
so you're fine being "nut to butt" with hetero dudes by not gay ones? doesn't sound like a particularly sexually charge scenario.
Me personally, it depends I guess on whether the guy had made any prior advances. Like I said the doctor I had worked with who was gay, never did. he was one of the best physicians I have ever worked with.

Im not talking about me, though. Im giving you my opinion of what the outcome will be based on all the people I met and things I did in the military.

The phrase is what that was known as literary be so close because of what was going on. In essence that as with many of the things I would describe are just words your reading on a monitor. It will not cast any lasting meaning until you've experienced it for yourself. Although not in all cases, but in most- its the reason why a large protion of the people wanting this to happen are individuals that have not served.
-----Added 18/1/2009 at 01 : 12 : 21-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood View Post
it seemed to work fine in Starship Troopers

but seriously, the underlying assumption this theory is that gay guys look at every situation sexually. clearly, being trapped in a fox hole and fighting for your life isn't exactly a time when one is thinking "oh yeah, rub your butt on my nuts". it's a pretty outdated way of thinking.

and if a gay guy DID act inappropriately in that situation, I don't think any of us would be upset that they were disciplined accordingly

Yeah looked what happend in Starship Troopers between Rico and Liz. Fighting for life and limb does take priority, but what about the rest of time. (and there can be a lot of it)
__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Last edited by Sun Tzu; 01-18-2009 at 10:15 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Sun Tzu is offline  
Old 01-18-2009, 10:29 AM   #45 (permalink)
Tilted
 
TheNasty's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood View Post
it seemed to work fine in Starship Troopers

but seriously, the underlying assumption this theory is that gay guys look at every situation sexually. clearly, being trapped in a fox hole and fighting for your life isn't exactly a time when one is thinking "oh yeah, rub your butt on my nuts". it's a pretty outdated way of thinking.

and if a gay guy DID act inappropriately in that situation, I don't think any of us would be upset that they were disciplined accordingly
In Basic Training and Combat Situations there is little assumption to privacy. Women would not be expected to shower, change, and sleep in close proximity with men (who may or may not find them sexually attractive).

Why should men be expected to shower, change, and sleep in close proximity with men (who may or may not find them sexually attractive)?

Yes, I know, they already do. There is a big difference psychologically between doing so without the knowledge of it (how it is currently) and with the knowledge of it. Label that any way you want, but that's the way it is.
TheNasty is offline  
Old 01-18-2009, 10:38 AM   #46 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Cynosure's Avatar
 
Location: the center of the multiverse
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood View Post
...the underlying assumption this theory is that gay guys look at every situation sexually. clearly, being trapped in a fox hole and fighting for your life isn't exactly a time when one is thinking "oh yeah, rub your butt on my nuts".
It's not their being in a foxhole, together, in combat, that is problematic in and of itself. It's the downtime situations and events – and the social/psychological ramifications thereof, which could affect soldierly trust and morale – that took place prior to their being in a foxhole together, that could cause serious problems.

No, gay guys aren't going to look at every situation sexually, and I'm sure the last thing on their mind in the middle of combat – even in a foxhole, with "nuts to butt" – would be sex. Still, gays males are still male, thus they are, like most all other males, visually sexually stimulated (far more so than women are), which could easily cause, at the very least, discomfort and unease among their heterosexual peers during downtime in the barracks and in the showers, what with soldiers' closeness to one another and their utter lack of privacy.
Cynosure is offline  
Old 01-18-2009, 11:42 AM   #47 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
You know what might make a soldier uncomfortable and complicate their relationships and cause them serious problems? Killing people.

Perhaps we should phase this whole "killing people" thing out of modern warfare. If there's anything the prototypical American soldier has shown himself incapable of, it's being uncomfortable.
filtherton is offline  
Old 01-18-2009, 01:24 PM   #48 (permalink)
Conspiracy Realist
 
Sun Tzu's Avatar
 
Location: The Event Horizon
Phase killing people out of modern WARfare . . . . don't get me wrong, maybe things would be better with paintball.
__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking
Sun Tzu is offline  
Old 01-18-2009, 01:43 PM   #49 (permalink)
Future Bureaucrat
 
KirStang's Avatar
 
Wait wait, let's just have the smartest minds of each country play chess! Whoever wins gets to claim the territory and displace millions of people!
KirStang is offline  
Old 01-18-2009, 03:03 PM   #50 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Quote:
Wait wait, let's just have the smartest minds of each country play chess! Whoever wins gets to claim the territory and displace millions of people!
So since we have Deep Blue... does that mean we win?
__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas
Seaver is offline  
Old 01-18-2009, 10:28 PM   #51 (permalink)
is awesome!
 
Locobot's Avatar
 
I don't know what the source is for this discussion. Everything I've seen has said that this is not a priority for Obama: Washington Times - Obama to delay 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal. If he does decide to make a change to the policy it will be interesting to see what kind of response comes out of the active service personnel. Clinton was threatened in Washington Post guest editorials that he would lose the allegiance of the junior officers. That was 1992 though, and there's a lot of turnover in the military. Obama has some ambitious plans for Afghanistan, it's probably not in his best interest to start things off with such a severe challenge to the military command structure. Some of those same people who threatened the 1992 coup are now senior officers (or whatever).
Locobot is offline  
Old 01-18-2009, 10:56 PM   #52 (permalink)
I Confess a Shiver
 
Plan9's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Tzu View Post
Is there anyone in this thread that has combat experience or at least combat training experience that thinks its a good idea for people to be open about their homosexuality?
I was in the army for a weekend once.

I don't think it is appropriate for the occupation. I have nothing against homosexuals, but there is a perfectly reasonable motivation as to why the military only wants heterosexual males to occupy the "combat arms" occupations. Simplicity. It is easier to manage like-minded drones.

The military is essentially adult day care for violent henchmen and it's easiest to maintain control over a homogeneous (har-har, I said homo) group of stereotypical angsty woman-humping males than it is integrate different the two biological genders and whatever sexual orientations may exist into the mix. The military wants to try to keep things basic. Although it once was, race isn't an issue from what I've experienced. The excuse to keep women out of combat arms is that men can't psychologically handle seeing a woman blown in half. Honestly... after being deployed for a while, I doubt anything blown in half would really shock me: Man, woman, or child. The excuse to keep open gays out of military is that "it's icky" and that it would violate some conservative sense of military discipline and decorum. I can't argue with that. The military has a hard enough time with male-on-female sexual harassment issues.

Studies from the Israeli military found too many drama issues with coed combat units. The problem with homosexual males in a combat unit is that it's like having a girl... but a big ugly hairy one that gets to see you take a shower in a trailer with no privacy curtains. We're really insecure about that stuff.

Military Spirit: I submit that there were no openly gay Vikings. The military is a place of manly-men and homosexual males are not considered "real men." It's hard to get Sergeant Ultimate Badass to befriend Corporal Cupcake. Sexual orientation equates to more than just what you do with your genitals during your free time in the military. Homosexuality means weakness, ineptitude, being a total pussy, unreliable, won't kill the bad guys, might touch my no-no hole, etc.

Seriously... how would a drill sergeant insult an openly gay private? Call him Princess? Hah, they use that on the straight guys.

...

God, sexual orientation and gender roles are freakin' confusing. Pfft, no wonder the military doesn't like homosexuals...

It's beyond the 7th grade reading level to understand the implications.
__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Last edited by Plan9; 01-18-2009 at 11:06 PM..
Plan9 is offline  
Old 01-19-2009, 06:08 AM   #53 (permalink)
Who You Crappin?
 
Derwood's Avatar
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
oh my god, that's hilarious
Derwood is offline  
Old 01-19-2009, 06:37 AM   #54 (permalink)
I Confess a Shiver
 
Plan9's Avatar
 
Hilarious or not, it's true. I think it's sad that something as petty as sexual orientation can be a huge limiting factor in one's life. It's just as bad as gender or skin color or religious preference.

I can understand where the logic came from but I sure as hell don't know where it's going. We live in a society where "everything is cool now" but is it?
__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."
Plan9 is offline  
Old 01-19-2009, 07:16 AM   #55 (permalink)
Who You Crappin?
 
Derwood's Avatar
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
well thank God I'm a straight white male and I don't have any of these genetic defects. well, my "love's blowing shit up with guns" gene is defective I guess, which basically makes me a black homosexual
Derwood is offline  
Old 01-19-2009, 07:17 AM   #56 (permalink)
Addict
 
Deltona Couple's Avatar
 
Location: Spring, Texas
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton View Post
But if we let the gays force us to let them serve openly in the military, what's going to stop them from forcing us to let dogs, children, dead people, and/or polygamists serve openly too?
You can't SERIOUSLY be comparing gays in the military to animals, children etc??? I mean honestly.

I served my time in the Marines, and met a few Marines, Navy, and Army that were gay. We all knew they were, but we didn't concern ourselves with that. All I gave a SHIT about, was that if the shit hit the fan, and I was being shot at, would they help protect me and save my ass from being dead.(ok, I see the humour from the last sentence coming soon...lol) We didn't care if they were gay, they didn't hit on any of us. We did our job, we followed orders, and we got the job done. THAT is what the Marines were about. get the job done, follow orders, and get back safe. THAT is what is important. And YES I have been in confined areas with others who were gay. It didn't bother me, acause I knew I saw straight, and they new I was straight. Who cares. they are human beings, just like everyone else.
__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison
Deltona Couple is offline  
Old 01-19-2009, 07:28 AM   #57 (permalink)
I Confess a Shiver
 
Plan9's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton View Post
...what's going to stop them from forcing us to let ...dead people... serve.
They already do. They're called decent Iraqis and they get blown up a helluva lot more than we do.
-----Added 19/1/2009 at 10 : 31 : 17-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood View Post
well thank God I'm a straight white male and I don't have any of these genetic defects. well, my "love's blowing shit up with guns" gene is defective I guess, which basically makes me a black homosexual
Where did anyone mention genetics, guy? Plenty of straight guys that can't fit the bill in the military. And why did you mention race? I fail to see how...

...

Oh, wait... you're Derwood. Sorry. Carry on.
__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Last edited by Plan9; 01-19-2009 at 07:31 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Plan9 is offline  
Old 01-19-2009, 07:36 AM   #58 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deltona Couple View Post
You can't SERIOUSLY be comparing gays in the military to animals, children etc??? I mean honestly.
I was comparing the people who use slippery slope arguments against increased acceptance of homosexuality to idiots.
filtherton is offline  
Old 01-19-2009, 07:53 AM   #59 (permalink)
Who You Crappin?
 
Derwood's Avatar
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crompsin View Post

Where did anyone mention genetics, guy? Plenty of straight guys that can't fit the bill in the military. And why did you mention race? I fail to see how...

...

Oh, wait... you're Derwood. Sorry. Carry on.
I was just riffing on your absurdity. carry on.
Derwood is offline  
Old 01-19-2009, 08:10 AM   #60 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Study Finds Gays Do Not Undermine Canadian Military Performance

18 April 2000 - SANTA BARBARA, CA. A new 44-page study of gays and lesbians in the Canadian military has found that after Canada’s 1992 decision to allow homosexuals to serve openly in its armed forces, military performance did not decline.

The study is the most comprehensive academic study of homosexuality in a foreign military ever compiled and reflects an exhaustive inventory of relevant data and research. Its title is "Effects of the 1992 Lifting of Restrictions on Gay and Lesbian Service in the Canadian Forces; Appraising the Evidence".

The study was written by Aaron Belkin and Jason McNichol. Belkin is Director of the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California, Santa Barbara. McNichol is Doctoral Candidate in Sociology at the University of California, Berkeley and Director of ELM Research Associates, a non-partisan research firm in Berkeley.

Key findings are as follows:
  • Lifting of restrictions on gay and lesbian service in the Canadian Forces has not led to any change in military performance, unit cohesion, or discipline.
  • Self-identified gay, lesbian, and transsexual members of the Canadian Forces contacted for the study describe good working relationships with peers.
  • The percent of military women who experienced sexual harassment dropped 46% after the ban was lifted. While there were several reasons why harassment declined, one factor was that after the ban was lifted women were free to report assaults without fear that they would be accused of being a lesbian.
  • Before Canada lifted its gay ban, a 1985 survey of 6,500 male soldiers found that 62% said that they would refuse to share showers, undress or sleep in the same room as a gay soldier. After the ban was lifted, follow-up studies found no increase in disciplinary, performance, recruitment, sexual misconduct, or resignation problems.
  • None of the 905 assault cases in the Canadian Forces from November, 1992 (when the ban was lifted) until August, 1995 involved gay bashing or could be attributed to the sexual orientation of one of the parties.
Study Finds Gays Do Not Undermine Canadian Military Performance | Palm Center

Also,

Soldiers march in Toronto Gay Pride parade

This can mean a few things, but maybe we can come to this conclusion: Gay and lesbian members of the U.S. forces should continue hiding regardless of the outcome...or they can try to join a more tolerant armed forces culture. Most of NATO should be okay...the U.S. is problematic and has a similar situation to Russia, who allows "well adjusted homosexuals" in regular service (i.e. "don't be gay").

Remember, the U.S. is quite conservative compared to other industrialized nations, and the military tends to be more conservative than other areas of society. It might take a while, but I think things will change eventually. You can't change a culture overnight.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 01-19-2009, 08:24 AM   #61 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
I wonder how much of the problems from integrating open homosexuals into the military can be directly traced to the fucked-up notions of masculinity used to define military culture.

It seems to me that if the military found ways to motivate people that didn't depend on sexual insecurity (i.e. calling someone a princess) they might be in a much better position to welcome openly homosexuals to the party.
filtherton is offline  
Old 01-19-2009, 08:29 AM   #62 (permalink)
I Confess a Shiver
 
Plan9's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton View Post
...directly traced to the fucked-up notions of masculinity used to define military culture.
Honestly, what do you care? Military is just a bunch of dumb baby-butchers anyway, right? Henchmen for the man! Just a waste of tax-payer dollars. All we do is ruin foreign countries on purpose. All the deep intellectuals of the world can solve all our problems without conflict.
__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Last edited by Plan9; 01-19-2009 at 08:32 AM..
Plan9 is offline  
Old 01-19-2009, 08:36 AM   #63 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crompsin View Post
Honestly, what do you care? Military is just a bunch of dumb baby-butchers anyway, right? Henchmen for the man! Just a waste of tax-payer dollars. All we do is ruin foreign countries on purpose. All the deep intellectuals of the world can solve all our problems without conflict.
Did you get that defensive presumptuousness in the service?
filtherton is offline  
Old 01-19-2009, 08:37 AM   #64 (permalink)
I Confess a Shiver
 
Plan9's Avatar
 
I did.

Where did you get your deep enlightenment about the military?
__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."
Plan9 is offline  
Old 01-19-2009, 08:46 AM   #65 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Did you think what I said was deep? It seemed pretty obvious to me.
filtherton is offline  
Old 01-19-2009, 08:49 AM   #66 (permalink)
Who You Crappin?
 
Derwood's Avatar
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
Crompsin has taken an early lead in the 2009 Strawman of the Year race.
Derwood is offline  
Old 01-19-2009, 01:01 PM   #67 (permalink)
is awesome!
 
Locobot's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood View Post
Crompsin has taken an early lead in the 2009 Strawman of the Year race.
He doesn't seem to be paying attention to other people's experiences which negate his assumptions about how gay service members ARE assimilated. He also is apparently unaware of the past 5 years of women in combat roles (and 17+ years as combat pilots). Israel is a different culture, their military has a largely different purpose, and Israeli soldiers are conscripts. His concern seems to be focused on the platoon level where, yes, non-conformity can be dangerous and erode morale. It's already been pointed out that military conduct codes wouldn't allow for someone to be a flaming pansy regardless of sexual orientation. Interestingly, some of the more stereotypical lesbian personality traits would be ideal for military service.

I think with Obama, unlike Bush, at least we'll have a military Commander in Chief who will prioritize individual's vital skill sets for combating terrorism over excluding people based on their sexual identity. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/op...amin.html?_r=1
Locobot is offline  
Old 01-19-2009, 01:22 PM   #68 (permalink)
I Confess a Shiver
 
Plan9's Avatar
 
Eh, we talk about what we know. I know platoon level. That's what I did. I avoid some of the posts in this thread because they aren't similar to my experience.

...

Where are the female 11Bs (infantry), again? 13 series (artillery)? 18s (special forces)? 21s (combat engineers)? Oh, yeah... there aren't any. When I said "combat arms" I meant combat arms, not combat service support.

...

Well, I know how many days I wore a uniform. Anybody else?

...

At no point in this thread have I said that I have anything against homosexuals serving. I did say that it would be a bad idea right now for the points that others above have noted: because of the two fronts we're "fighting" on and the conservative senior leaders.

Don't rock the boat when the boat is firing missiles.
__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Last edited by Plan9; 01-19-2009 at 01:29 PM..
Plan9 is offline  
Old 01-19-2009, 01:23 PM   #69 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
If Alexander the Great was a fag, thats good enough for me. A fighter is a fighter.
powerclown is offline  
Old 01-19-2009, 01:31 PM   #70 (permalink)
I Confess a Shiver
 
Plan9's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locobot View Post
Interestingly, some of the more stereotypical lesbian personality traits would be ideal for military service.
And what would those be? I'm curious, because my old unit had two undercover-but-obvious lesbian mechanics and they were just as bad as the male mechanics. Don't stereotype homosexuals. That'd be politically incorrect.
__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."
Plan9 is offline  
Old 01-19-2009, 01:33 PM   #71 (permalink)
Who You Crappin?
 
Derwood's Avatar
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crompsin View Post
Don't stereotype homosexuals. That'd be politically incorrect.
It would be incorrect period
Derwood is offline  
Old 01-19-2009, 01:37 PM   #72 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crompsin View Post
Where are the female 11Bs (infantry), again? 13 series (artillery)? 18s (special forces)? 21s (combat engineers)? Oh, yeah... there aren't any. When I said "combat arms" I meant combat arms, not combat service support.
Really?

Now I know that between the U.S. and Canada, our armed forces are like night and day, but we have females serving in all of these roles. I'm sure we aren't the only ones. Are you sure there aren't any in the U.S. forces, or are you speaking in generalizations?

Oh, and I'm sure there are homosexuals everywhere; they're just hiding, as per their orders.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 01-19-2009, 01:41 PM   #73 (permalink)
I Confess a Shiver
 
Plan9's Avatar
 
Military Times discussion on women, unrelated to original thread topic
__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Last edited by Plan9; 01-19-2009 at 01:45 PM..
Plan9 is offline  
Old 01-19-2009, 01:55 PM   #74 (permalink)
Future Bureaucrat
 
KirStang's Avatar
 
"Complicating the dynamics would add more problems than it would solve."

I'd tend to agree with that.
KirStang is offline  
Old 01-19-2009, 02:02 PM   #75 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Does this suggest that U.S. personnel don't have the discipline?
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 01-19-2009, 05:18 PM   #76 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Quote:
Military Spirit: I submit that there were no openly gay Vikings. The military is a place of manly-men and homosexual males are not considered "real men." It's hard to get Sergeant Ultimate Badass to befriend Corporal Cupcake. Sexual orientation equates to more than just what you do with your genitals during your free time in the military. Homosexuality means weakness, ineptitude, being a total pussy, unreliable, won't kill the bad guys, might touch my no-no hole, etc.
I submit there were plenty of openly gay Roman soldiers/officers. I submit there were plenty of openly gay Greek/Spartan kings/soldiers. I submit Richard the Lionheart was so openly gay his own beloved countrymen constantly mocked him for never providing an heir.

Quote:
I wonder how much of the problems from integrating open homosexuals into the military can be directly traced to the fucked-up notions of masculinity used to define military culture.
Part of me hates the fact we are on the same side of the issue after you put forth a statement like this.
__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas
Seaver is offline  
Old 01-19-2009, 05:53 PM   #77 (permalink)
Eccentric insomniac
 
Slims's Avatar
 
Location: North Carolina
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locobot View Post
He doesn't seem to be paying attention to other people's experiences which negate his assumptions about how gay service members ARE assimilated. He also is apparently unaware of the past 5 years of women in combat roles (and 17+ years as combat pilots). Israel is a different culture, their military has a largely different purpose, and Israeli soldiers are conscripts. His concern seems to be focused on the platoon level where, yes, non-conformity can be dangerous and erode morale. It's already been pointed out that military conduct codes wouldn't allow for someone to be a flaming pansy regardless of sexual orientation. Interestingly, some of the more stereotypical lesbian personality traits would be ideal for military service.

I think with Obama, unlike Bush, at least we'll have a military Commander in Chief who will prioritize individual's vital skill sets for combating terrorism over excluding people based on their sexual identity. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/op...amin.html?_r=1
Dude, you don't want to get into a discussion about women in combat roles. Just because females sometimes come under fire does not mean they are, by and large, physically/culturally prepared for full blown combat. My experience with women in actual firefights is limited, but I was very disappointed. Most women in 'combat roles' aren't. They are serving in ways that do not typically place them toe to toe against someone else who is trying to kill them. We had a female canine handler with us for a while and she embarrassed herself when we got in our first real fight with her. After leaving her at the local fire base for the next couple firefights we were told to take her along again and that we were being sexist. We got in another fight and she almost shot one of our guys because she was shooting with her weapon over her head and being afraid rather than aggressively trying to deliberately line the gun up and kill people. Oh, and her dog ran the show...she had very little control over him and she refused to allow her dog to be put at risk instead of a soldier because she valued him as much as a human.

I have had to run and fight while wearing 90+ pounds of kit at altitude. Ruck 130 pounds all night long. Muscle jammed machine guns back into working order. Man handle people I didn't want to shoot. Pee while driving because we couldn't afford to slow down. Carry injured soldiers and detainees out of a fight. Etc.

The army has had to drastically lower the PT standards for women because they are simply not competitive with men physically. Sure, there are exceptions, but they are too few and far between to base policy on.

Also, what Crompsin was trying to get at is that men will try to protect a woman to the detriment of the unit in combat. It is just a part of male culture and Israeli officers would lose control over their units when a woman was injured...

But, for what it's worth, I fully support women in roles where they can compete (or out compete) men. Such as aviation. I have had a female Apache pilot shoot people just yards away from me when my vehicle broke down in an ambush. She would engage when we really needed it but others were reluctant because of the possibility of a mishap. I am friends with a bunch of fantastic female Kiowa pilots and I have seen them do some amazing things.


As for gays, I don't particularly care about someones sexual orientation...unless I am going to be naked around them in communal showers/toilets, spooning to stay warm in the cold, etc. Then it is an issue for me.
-----Added 19/1/2009 at 09 : 07 : 10-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
Really?

Now I know that between the U.S. and Canada, our armed forces are like night and day, but we have females serving in all of these roles. I'm sure we aren't the only ones. Are you sure there aren't any in the U.S. forces, or are you speaking in generalizations?

Oh, and I'm sure there are homosexuals everywhere; they're just hiding, as per their orders.
Canada can get away with it because they are not actually fighting. Come the next real war and the policies will change real fast.

Additionally, with open recruitment and equal standards for men and women, women comprise less than 2% of combat arms branches in the canadian military. If they were just as capable as men, there would be more of them in the more demanding fields.
__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

Last edited by Slims; 01-19-2009 at 06:21 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Slims is offline  
Old 01-19-2009, 07:31 PM   #78 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaver View Post
Part of me hates the fact we are on the same side of the issue after you put forth a statement like this.
To be fair, those fucked up notions of masculinity are pretty much the norm outside of the military too (though less so lately).
filtherton is offline  
Old 01-19-2009, 07:44 PM   #79 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slims View Post
Canada can get away with it because they are not actually fighting. Come the next real war and the policies will change real fast.
Canada's role in the invasion of (and continued deployment in) Afghanistan

Captain Nichola Goddard, artillery observer, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (1st Regiment Royal Canadian Horse Artillery), Canadian Forces casualty in Afghanistan

What is a "real" war anyway?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slims
If they were just as capable as men, there would be more of them in the more demanding fields.
Where have I heard that line before?
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 01-19-2009 at 07:48 PM..
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 01-19-2009, 07:53 PM   #80 (permalink)
I Confess a Shiver
 
Plan9's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
What is a "real" war anyway?
World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."
Plan9 is offline  
 

Tags
obama, overturn, policy


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:46 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360