Gay soldiers have always fought in the US military. Whether they were fighting the Brits, Spaniards, Germans, Japanese, North Koreans, North Vietnamese, or the Taliban, they fought side-by-side with straight soldiers. So why is the issue of gays in the military such a big deal right now? When did the controversy start?
Apparently, according to my research, this has been an issue long before I ever knew it was - perhaps because I felt it didn't concern me or because sexual orientation was not a hot item to discuss until recently. As I searched more and more sites, though, I was amazed by the history of gays in the military. For instance, since Revolutionary days, sodomy has been grounds for a soldier to be purged from service. During WWII, psychiatrists determined if a person was gay, and then the person (even if he didn't perform any homosexual act) was not allowed to serve. During the 80s, 17,000 men and women were discharged based on sexual orientation! And today we are starting to see the supports for discrimination crumble as the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is coming under fire.
As I did my research and as we discussed this topic at lunch, I had a lot of questions running through my mind. When I sat down to sift through them, though, I realized that they all related in one way or another to these two questions:
1. What would change in our military if people could freely state that they are gay? (In terms of their protection, their rights, their treatment by other soldiers, as well as the strength or our military, etc.)
2. How does this compare to other discriminations in the military, such as sexism (the discrimination against women and acts of violence upon them) and racism?
I am not sure if I can answer these questions by myself or do them justice because of their broad scopes. However, I do have a couple of insights that I would like to offer.
In relation to the first question, it seems like gays would have more protection from criminal acts than they do right now. With current policies in place, a gay soldier could not accuse another soldier of maltreatment related to his sexuality; in doing so, he would admit to being gay. So, in a way, getting rid of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" system would offer some level of rights and protection for gay soldiers. On the other hand, I can't help but worry that some gay soldiers will need more protection than these new laws or regulations can provide. I am concerned for the safety of the gay person that must live and work and fight within a culture that celebrates machismo and thrives on testosterone (and some bad behaviors that seem related though not requisite to that type of culture).
In our discussion today, Scott brought up a good counterpoint - that most people in today's military are not in that machismo, in-the-foxholes kind of culture; they are accountants, contractors, truck drivers, and mechanics. In these workers' cases, I am not sure if removing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy would have huge implications. Of course, their lives would change somewhat in the office, but their physical safety (probably) would not be at risk. Those folks aside, I do worry for that smaller percentage that are engrossed in that machismo culture and fear for the safety of those who openly openly admit to being gay (or flaunt/celebrate their gayness).
But is that a reason to keep a faulty policy in place? I think most Americans would argue "no." I think we see that benefits of this omission outweigh this fear. (Though I do not think it should be ignored, especially if it has larger implications about the cohesiveness of squadrons, the trust within units, and by extension, the strength of the military overall.)
As I was further researching my answer to this question, I found an interesting blog that addressed rape in the military. Its author made the following statement: "If we were to punish women by not letting them serve their country because men are committing criminal acts, rape, against them, we would be condoning crime and not serving justice, we would be letting sexual desire supercede [sic] law" (citation) This logic can be applied to gays in the military as well. If we deny gays their rights because we are afraid of violence being inflicted upon them, then we would be placing the crime above the person and the laws.
To answer my second question - how this issue compares to controversies about race and gender in the military - I again felt under-prepared. While I am aware that race and gender have been grounds for exclusion from the armed services, I didn't have enough facts on my side to make a fair comparison. So, again, I did a little research. This is what I found in terms of race:
"Since the birth of the Republic, government decisions have been made about who shall be permitted or required to serve in the U.S. military, and under what conditions. These decisions have frequently reflected society’s attitudes toward its stigmatized minorities. Early in the Revolutionary war, for example, Black Americans were barred from service in the Continental Army. Similarly, Negroes were barred from military service early in the Civil War, despite the eagerness of many Northern Blacks to volunteer. Both policies were later reversed – when, respectively, the British began offering freedom to Black slaves who would join their side, and the Union Army faced a serious shortage of troops." (citation)
This paragraph really shed light on the connection between society's values and military policies. It seems that sexual orientation is today's debated value, and so it makes a lot of sense that policies surrounding it would be called into question. It doesn't surprise me, then, that just like Blacks being allowed in the army, openly gay people will be welcomed into the army once either need arises or society says it is okay. This issue, then, doesn't seem brand new... just different.
In discussing this issue's relevance to women in the military, I almost have too much to say; it is an essay in itself, I'm afraid. But I do want to say that I see many connections between the discriminations we have seen based on race and sexual orientation, and gender. I see how people's biases (both of those in power and those of the society at large) shape policy and keep certain groups out of certain places. And I see how those groups need to fight for equality.
I see that there will be, as one SWAP member said, "growing pains" in changing policies, but I think those pains are probably worth it in the long run.
And on one final note, I think it is important to note that just because people of different races, genders, and sexual orientations are allowed in the military (and protected to some degree), that doesn't mean that the fight is over and that equality has been achieved. When 23% of women in the national guard have experienced military sexual assault (11% have been raped), we can see that there are still flaws in our system (citation). It is my hope that our military can be stronger once these acts of violence and discrimination within our armed forces are eliminated.
Related links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/military_institutes_new
http://www.katiehalper.com/do-rape-don039t-tell-women-us-army-more-likely-get-raped-killed
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
Man Pregnant with Thought... and Babies
Today's discussion focused on an article that hit the news on Wednesday about a pregnant man. Thirty year-old Scott Moore is eight months pregnant with a baby boy.
Before you think this a sci-fi plot or the premise of a bad movie, you should know that Moore was born a woman, kept his female organs, and was inseminated by the sperm of a friend (not his husband, since he, too, was born a female). He and his husband have two adopted children already, and they are thrilled with the news that they are the first gay couple to get pregnant.
Moore, however, is not the first man to get pregnant; so did Thomas Beatie. Beatie was also born a female, but he legally changed his sex, underwent hormonal therapy, and married a woman. Because his wife could not get pregnant, they decided that he could carry a baby. The child was born to a mother and a father in June of last year.
This raises some interesting questions about parenthood, sexuality, and reproductive rights. In our discussion, we addressed the ethics and politics of men having babies, and we even ventured to understand why so many fertility clinics, doctors, and regular ol' people might take issue with stories like these. We considered the health and upbringing of the children, as well as the power of tradition and shared cultural bigotries (if such things exist). We also wondered how feminists might feel about this story - that something so female can be shared with (or taken by) men. (As a feminist, though, I am not threatened. The men in these stories were born female. They were born with uteri, and they are using them. This is not the same thing as males trying to make women obsolete or denying them reproductive choice/ability/power by getting pregnant themselves.)
While some might be able to shrug off such events since Moore and Beatie still have xx chromosomes, it is undeniable that most of us have some kind of gut, emotional reaction as we read their stories and look at their pictures. Whether that emotion is discomfort, joy, anger, acceptance, fear, disbelief, or amusement is based on our individual upbringings, educations, experiences, and values. One thing seems for sure, though, (and I know that that statement invites its own debate) - if that emotion is not positive, then we might need to take a moment and find the roots of our emotions and question them, get to the heart of why we feel the way we do, and perhaps change ourselves as the world changes around us.
Before you think this a sci-fi plot or the premise of a bad movie, you should know that Moore was born a woman, kept his female organs, and was inseminated by the sperm of a friend (not his husband, since he, too, was born a female). He and his husband have two adopted children already, and they are thrilled with the news that they are the first gay couple to get pregnant.
Moore, however, is not the first man to get pregnant; so did Thomas Beatie. Beatie was also born a female, but he legally changed his sex, underwent hormonal therapy, and married a woman. Because his wife could not get pregnant, they decided that he could carry a baby. The child was born to a mother and a father in June of last year.
This raises some interesting questions about parenthood, sexuality, and reproductive rights. In our discussion, we addressed the ethics and politics of men having babies, and we even ventured to understand why so many fertility clinics, doctors, and regular ol' people might take issue with stories like these. We considered the health and upbringing of the children, as well as the power of tradition and shared cultural bigotries (if such things exist). We also wondered how feminists might feel about this story - that something so female can be shared with (or taken by) men. (As a feminist, though, I am not threatened. The men in these stories were born female. They were born with uteri, and they are using them. This is not the same thing as males trying to make women obsolete or denying them reproductive choice/ability/power by getting pregnant themselves.)
While some might be able to shrug off such events since Moore and Beatie still have xx chromosomes, it is undeniable that most of us have some kind of gut, emotional reaction as we read their stories and look at their pictures. Whether that emotion is discomfort, joy, anger, acceptance, fear, disbelief, or amusement is based on our individual upbringings, educations, experiences, and values. One thing seems for sure, though, (and I know that that statement invites its own debate) - if that emotion is not positive, then we might need to take a moment and find the roots of our emotions and question them, get to the heart of why we feel the way we do, and perhaps change ourselves as the world changes around us.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
White Basketballs
When does celebrating racial pride become racist behavior? When is it okay for a group to exclude others from their club (and by extension, their activities and their gathering places)? Is it only considered "racist" if the dominant culture is excluding minorities? These questions were touched upon in today's discussion of a new basketball league that we read about online. Apparently the league wants to exclude all athletes who are not American-born and have two Caucasian parents. Most of us scoffed at the absurdity of such a proposal, but the story inspired us to try to articulate why such a proposal is so offensive. I don't think this conversation is over. There is much to say about racism today - its definitions, its boundaries and limitations, its hypocrisies (or perhaps double standards), its manifestations, and its concealments.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
My Dog Knows Calculus
Have you ever shot a basketball? The arch the ball takes to the basket follows rules of calculus. So, does shooting a basketball based on specific calculations of arch and velocity (even if they may not be accurately applied 100% of the time) suggest that we all have some inherent knowledge of calculus or other higher mathematics?
Toss a Frisbee and watch your dog run after it, all the while calculating the best and most efficient approach it must take to snag the disc in mid-air trajectory (calculus on the run?). So, does this mean that dogs have an inherent knowledge of advanced mathematics?
Well, maybe not. But it was worth a few minutes of fun discussion. We talked about how mathematics (specifically calculus) was a way to explain things that occur in nature, and that it isn't an inherent knowledge or skill. Soap bubbles don't know calculus, but we can use calculus to explain their shape. Just because someone can shoot (and make) a basketball doesn't mean they know calculus, but we can use calculus to explain how the ball was shot.
Toss a Frisbee and watch your dog run after it, all the while calculating the best and most efficient approach it must take to snag the disc in mid-air trajectory (calculus on the run?). So, does this mean that dogs have an inherent knowledge of advanced mathematics?
Well, maybe not. But it was worth a few minutes of fun discussion. We talked about how mathematics (specifically calculus) was a way to explain things that occur in nature, and that it isn't an inherent knowledge or skill. Soap bubbles don't know calculus, but we can use calculus to explain their shape. Just because someone can shoot (and make) a basketball doesn't mean they know calculus, but we can use calculus to explain how the ball was shot.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Illogical Dolphins
Today's discussion focused on an article about dolphins' intelligence and status. The article begged the question, "Should dolphins be called 'non-human persons' because they can be as intelligent as a four-year old human?" While the conversation could have turned silly at any minute, it actually hit on a lot of interesting issues, such as what it means to be a "person" and what rights go along with that distinction. We asked if those rights extend beyond the rights not to be abused and killed (similar to the animal rights we are familiar with). Do humans have a right to eat? To vote? What are these rights, and how does one (person or animal) go about getting their hands (or flippers or tentacles or paws) on them? Are there unalienable rights, or are they always cultural?
The latter portion of our noon hour addressed the nature of logic, or more accurately, logical fallacies. We discussed them as argument strategies and identified some of the more popular fallacies. I questioned my own "logic" and definition of logic (reasonable, down-to-earth, "good head on my shoulders") and my own unintentional use of fallacies in discussions. While it is a good idea to be aware of our argumentative strategies, we shouldn't be paralyzed or silenced by the knowledge that such strategies exist.
The latter portion of our noon hour addressed the nature of logic, or more accurately, logical fallacies. We discussed them as argument strategies and identified some of the more popular fallacies. I questioned my own "logic" and definition of logic (reasonable, down-to-earth, "good head on my shoulders") and my own unintentional use of fallacies in discussions. While it is a good idea to be aware of our argumentative strategies, we shouldn't be paralyzed or silenced by the knowledge that such strategies exist.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Re: Get a Haircut, You Danged 4-Year-Old Hippie!
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2009/12/get_a_haircut_you_danged_4-yea.php
SWAP Consensus:
This child's hair is in violation of the school rules, and these rules probably had an admirable goal of maintaining an acceptable standard of presentation, just as many schools implement dress codes. Indeed, the rules should be challenged, since it seems unlikely that this boy's hair is actually disrupting the education of his peers and since he is required to attend this school (unlike the military or a place of work). Unfortunately, his freethinking parents aren't suited to make the case. If this child had a religious or cultural reason to have long hair, he would have a better chance at overturning the extreme standards set by the school district. As it stands, it may be better for the child to understand that there will be rules that he doesn't understand that he will have to live with for now.
SWAP Consensus:
This child's hair is in violation of the school rules, and these rules probably had an admirable goal of maintaining an acceptable standard of presentation, just as many schools implement dress codes. Indeed, the rules should be challenged, since it seems unlikely that this boy's hair is actually disrupting the education of his peers and since he is required to attend this school (unlike the military or a place of work). Unfortunately, his freethinking parents aren't suited to make the case. If this child had a religious or cultural reason to have long hair, he would have a better chance at overturning the extreme standards set by the school district. As it stands, it may be better for the child to understand that there will be rules that he doesn't understand that he will have to live with for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
