Book of the Month

Genghis's picture

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Bend Over to Pick Up the Soap

by Genghis 12/6/2010 - 3:22 pm   |

"If 'don't ask, don't tell' is repealed and you are assigned to bathroom facilities (that have)] an open bay shower that someone you believe to be a gay or lesbian service member also used, which are you most likely to do?"

-- Question on 2010 Department of Defense Comprehensive Review Survey of Uniformed Active Duty and Reserve Service Members

It seems that ensuring shower security for American soldiers and Marines is critical to maintaining our global military pre-eminence. If our brave men and women cannot comfortably bathe in environments free from the risk of homosexual lust, how can we expect them to battle armed Taliban insurgents and other enemies?

In order to assess the gay shower hazard and other threats to military readiness if the "don't ask, don't tell" policy were repealed, the Department of Defense surveyed American troops over the summer.

Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, found the results reassuring. He told the Senate Armed Services Committee, "Repeal of the law will not prove an unacceptable risk to military readiness. ... I believe our troops and their families are ready for this," although he acknowledged, "some soldiers and Marines may want separate shower facilities."

Read the full story at CNN.com

Good piece. I'm a bit confused about the shower tie-in though. Are you saying it's such an insanely trivial issue to resolve that McCain is an idiot and should just let it go and allow the military to handle it, or are you saying that wanting separate shower facilities (if they are to be open-bay) is analagous to wanting segregated units? I could take either message, really.

 

by kgb999 12/6/2010 - 3:49 pm

I'm saying that allow gays and lesbians to serve in the military is a civil rights issue, and as such, morale concerns such as homophobic fears about showers are irrelevant. The segregated units proposal is meant to satirize the notion that it's not a civil rights issue.

by Genghis 12/6/2010 - 4:08 pm (re: kgb999)

Then you obviously have no concept of how readiness and morale function.  In your enlightened state you forget how some people probably haven't attained such heightened mental status.  First and foremost however lets just put this out there: don't ask don't tell isn't to keep gay people out of the military.  The unspoken purpose is to PROTECT them when they get in.  Consider the rash of suicides and the recent purple ribbon day (I'm not privy to exact term that was used).  if you think its bad outside the service, take a look at inside.  Do you think for one minute that the words "gay" and "fag" aren't used on a DAILY basis?  You are fooling yourself if you don't think that racial slurs aren't used on a daily basis.  I know. I was there.  And as much as that isn't "allowed" behavior, neither is sex between servicemembers stationed in Iraq/Afghanistan.  It happens.  Do you think bullying is allowed? It still happens.  So put yourself in Private GayServicemember shoes: NONE of your fire team likes you, no one asks you to go to the bar after work when you guys are in garrison, no one wants to even talk to you (all this happens even to straight soldiers).  Would you be slightly more than hesitant about getting into a fox hole with some of those guys?  i would. 

Which brings us to readiness and morale.  How "ready" do you think that soldier is?  Where do you think his morale ranks?  Trust me, the military sucks.  Its a crappy job and liberal judges and attorney's who would rather bring you up on charges for killing some terrorist (who would probably kill the attorney AND the judge if he could seeing as that would be akin to a one way ticket to paradise and 70 virgins for him) than congratulate you on a job well done don't make it any better.  They make it worse.  Your buddies are all that you have to make it bearable.  Its not about stupid shiny medals or accolades from a colonel or captain who doesn't even know you.  its about your pals.  And not having any sucks in that environment.  Away from home, away from family who loves you unconditionally no matter how "special" you might be, away from "enlightened" friends who are morally and intellectually superior to those who actually go out and bleed for those rights that they take for granted everyday, away from your rights, you NEED those guys in that foxhole.  Because Johnny Jihad doesn't care.  In fact, he would probably be first in line to stone you because you're if you lived in his country. 

No one is saying that gay can't be in the military.  What they are saying is we don't need to know.  its for their own good.  Think about it.

by Anonymous (not verified) 12/6/2010 - 5:12 pm (re: Genghis)

The unspoken purpose is to PROTECT them when they get in.

The only way one can believe that is to be woefully ignorant of how the rule has been applied.

by Atheist (not verified) 12/6/2010 - 5:23 pm (re: Anonymous)

Atheist, how about a little slack here. The guy might not be completely right but chances are you aren't either. I, for one, would like to invite him to join the conversation. Can anyone else who contributes here give a perspective derived from recent experience?

by A Guy Called LULU 12/6/2010 - 6:27 pm (re: Atheist)

LULU, the commenter argued that discharging gays and lesbians who tell the truth about themselves is actually for their own protection. Not only is he (or she) not "completely right," the comment lacks any ounce of reason. I'm happy to respectfully engage intelligent criticism. This ain't it.

by Genghis 12/7/2010 - 12:02 am (re: A Guy Called LULU)

Ghengis, did it take you the entire day to misread what the guy said. He did not say discharging gays was for their protection, he said that for them to stay on the "don't tell" side of the policy was for their protection.   That was probably not completely wrong, at least at the beginning. I think that the policy was a compromise attempt to integrate gays into the service and it seems reasonable to me that in forming the policy that there might have been fear among some that bringing in openly gay personnel might lead to trouble and that trouble might include violence and likely would include shunning. 
 Everyone in favor of changing the policy to allow gays to serve openly, that includes me, sight the statistics from the study to make our case. The servicemen  who didn't answer the way we think they should are presumably serving with honor and dedication too and were expressing opinions that have been common among many men everywhere and forever. Should we shun them because they haven't come around yet to our enlightened way of thinking.
I felt that rudely jumping on what is probably a first time commenter who has recently served, who has actually been inside the situation that we talk about endlessly and very possibly under conditions that you and I, and probably Atheist, cannot imagine or relate to in any way, was completely wrong. I still do.
 It is just possible that we could learn something from him. He might be able to add a little nuance to our understanding of conditions for todays soldiers. Maybe things we could not get from a book. Things about the soldiers we all thought would burn out and go crazy before their second deployment was finished. Maybe he knows something about the ones who have been back five times. The ones we pay little attention to now except for those in a certain niche.
 Like I said, I would like to invite the guy to be part of the conversation. You apparently feel different. Or maybe you just feel so damned smart that he could not possibly have anything to offer to your understanding. That's fine, he probably won't be back.

by A Guy Called LULU 12/7/2010 - 1:14 am (re: Genghis)

I think that the policy was a compromise attempt to integrate gays into the service and it seems reasonable to me that in forming the policy that there might have been fear among some that bringing in openly gay personnel might lead to trouble and that trouble might include violence and likely would include shunning.

I think it was reasonable to assume that many people viewed this as a worthy goal in the beginning. However, as my comment meant to suggest (albeit more rudely than perhaps was required), it really requires being completely uninformed of how the policy has been used to imagine that this is still the case. That's why Bill Clinton, who originally supported the plan, presumably for the reasons you suggest, is now completely against it.

I felt that rudely jumping on what is probably a first time commenter who has recently served, who has actually been inside the situation that we talk about endlessly and very possibly under conditions that you and I, and probably Atheist, cannot imagine or relate to in any way, was completely wrong.

Continue to correct me. I appreciate it. I agree that I could've been kinder in my correction.

by Atheist (not verified) 12/7/2010 - 10:09 am (re: A Guy Called LULU)

The unspoken purpose is to PROTECT them when they get in

I think that's a pretty clear statement about what he/she meant. Look, I never argued that gays and lesbians in the military must out themselves. If they feel that they would be safer or more comfortable by keeping their sexual orientation secret, that is their right. But punishing those who do out themselves and claiming that it's for their own good? It's absurd on its face.

As to welcoming and engaging newcomers, I'm all for it, and I have done it a lot. I often work harder to welcome dissenting voices because dissent makes for better discussion and ideas. But that doesn't mean that I welcome everyone who walks in. There are plenty of drive-bys who clearly have nothing to contribute. I acknowledge, however, that it's not always obvious on a first comment, and as a general policy, it's better to err on the side of welcome, which Atheist and I did not do in this case.

by Genghis 12/7/2010 - 10:48 am (re: A Guy Called LULU)

Genghist, thanks to you, and Atheist above, for considering my opinion and responding thoughtfully. I won't continue by bickering about those details which we see differently. [Unless you want toSmile]

by A Guy Called LULU 12/7/2010 - 11:52 am (re: Genghis)

My pleasure LULU. Thanks for thoughtfully presenting your opinion in the first place.

by Genghis 12/7/2010 - 12:29 pm (re: A Guy Called LULU)

…(all this happens even to straight soldiers).  Would you be slightly more than hesitant about getting into a fox hole with some of those guys?

So, by your logic we should also ban straight soldiers who aren't liked enough, right? Go back and re-read how many other errors are in your logic. I count at least three blatant ones, but I'll save the third as an exercise for the reader.

by Atheist (not verified) 12/6/2010 - 5:27 pm (re: Anonymous)

It sounds like you have either had or know someone who has had a bad experience, and feelings based on personal experience have to carry some extra weight. But, many of the people who are being bounced aren't in that position because they told, but someone told ON them. We're losing good people for dumb reasons. There has to be a way to work this out w/o people getting canned because they're gay.

I was recently told a story (by a person who was there) about a sex game they play in Afghanistan, that had us all not only cracking up laughing, but, frankly surprised that guys would do that, and he sheepishly laughed and said, yeah, well, ya all go a little gay over there... And this story matched closely ones my son told about their antics in Haiti when he was in the Army.

I get the impression that the majority of service people just don't care much about a person's oriention, and the problem is more with bullying...and that is something the military should be able to do something about.

by stillidealistic 12/6/2010 - 7:11 pm (re: Anonymous)

I would say on a need to know basis, if I were gay, anonymous would not need to know about it, and with or without or without DADT that wouldn't change. Also, the CO, XO or chief of enlisted can get rid of anyone in a unit who they want to, they often make up reasons to do so, if the person involved was damaging morale transferring them would be no problem.

by NCD 12/6/2010 - 7:26 pm (re: Anonymous)

full survey at www.servicemembersunited.org/survey

The survey appears to be a typical production of the Pentagon bureaucracy, made up by some ass kissing ambitious officer, who has never frequented a YMCA locker room, a high school or college gymnasium same, never been deployed to sea, or to a field combat zone and who has never had to regularly use a public restroom outside of Liberty University or Harvard. The project supervised by an 0-7 or higher, with a similar background, or worse the whole thing could be a product of some lame-ass contractor where not one person has served in the military, or if they did, they are told to produce crap like this or get fired.

Why don't they survey the troops on whether they feel safe in Afghanistan and then leave if the support is not 100%?

by NCD 12/6/2010 - 4:23 pm

I'm just glad that there are no homosexual men in the locker room at my gym.  All of the men there are clearly heterosexual.  They work out daily, groom themselves meticulously, watch their diets and dress to flatter their hard earned physiques.  Also they have great taste in music and some are awesome dancers.  Now if I can be 100% sure that everyone using the locker room I use is a straight guy, don't our military volunteers deserve the same assurance?

by destor23 12/6/2010 - 4:48 pm

Does your gym have a chaplain?

by NCD 12/6/2010 - 7:14 pm (re: destor23)

Hey, wasn't it your gym that The Village People wrote a famous hit song about? Laughing

by artappraiser 12/6/2010 - 7:23 pm (re: destor23)

Great article, Genghis.  I was going to say--but NCD beat me to it--we don't survey the troops about their opinions of being sent for a fourth, fifth or sixth combat deployment.  But suddenly we get all solicitous about what McCain assumes are the troops' homophobic feelings about showering with gay men or lesbians.  Oh, and when most of them say they really don't mind?  We should still discriminate to accommodate the most homophobic of the troops.  Ugh.

by scofflaw 12/6/2010 - 5:48 pm

Thanks for coming by, scofflaw. Adm. Mullen made much the same point during the hearings.

Mullen also noted that the official idea behind the survey was to figure out what to do if DADT is repealed--which is reasonable enough. But the survey has nonetheless become part of the discussion about whether to repeal DADT.

by Genghis 12/6/2010 - 6:04 pm (re: scofflaw)

I only wish they were more concerned about shower safety when it comes to electrocution.

Oh wait....I forgot. The republicans think our soldiers are fighting for the unfettered capitalism that is KBR.

...deaths like that of Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth, 24, of Pittsburgh. He died in January 2008, one of at least three soldiers killed while showering since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

'It's Russian roulette'
Scores more soldiers suffered shocks between September 2006 and July 2008, according to a database maintained by KBR Inc., the Houston-based contractor that oversees maintenance at most U.S. facilities in Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29891090/ns/us_news-military/

by mageduley 12/6/2010 - 8:02 pm

For those who aren't aware, it should be pointed out that KBR is a former subsidiary of Halliburton.

by Atheist (not verified) 12/7/2010 - 10:12 am (re: mageduley)

Obviously as the Bible says the unbelievers are blind and confused. They are consumed by their own lusts and God has given them over to their own desires and the devil. It's real simple it's not rocket science. Black folks can't change their DNA so equating "gay" stuff to the Black civil rights is well to put it mildly is not logically sound. The State never takes a persons word for it and DNA tests can prove what race a person is. Also there is no way to tell if someone is "gay" by looking at them so how in the world can they be descriminated against. I cannot choose to be Black or White and homosexuals can deside not to have or have sex with who or what they choose. No one is stopping them. Having sexual preference is not something one can claim as written into their DNA as well regardless of preference the decision to have sex of any kind is a choice to indulge or not indulge otherwise if forced to accept sex against ones will we have a crime codified in law.

What one does in the bedroom should not be talked about in civil conversation or on the job and certainly not in the Courts or the Legislatures. It's discusting to most "normal" people and anyone who is proud or wants to promote their sexual orientation is free to do so and it's called pornography.

There is a time and place for everything and as humans we have the right not to be offended by sexual talk. Of course all of this is a sign of the decline and degeneration of our society and now we have slipped into civil discord and people are being force fed pornography by "gay" lunatics who what to legislate their acceptance on people who have the right to reject their lifestyle and find it disgusting and abhorant. Actually sexual abuse upon civil society with their speech which should be classified as pornography. The word "gay" is pornographic.

by Anonymous (not verified) 12/7/2010 - 8:47 pm

Oh dear god, this is a joke, right? 

by LisB 12/7/2010 - 8:51 pm (re: Anonymous)

Let's count:

…and God has given them…

That's one.

The State never takes a persons word for it…

That's two.

…DNA tests can prove what race a person is.

That's three.

…so how in the world can they be descriminated against

That's four.

Having sexual preference is not something one can claim as written into their DNA…

That's five.

…wants to promote their sexual orientation is free to do so and it's called pornography.

That's six. (Seven, if you include the implication that DADT is only enforced when people discuss or promote their sexual orientation.)

Impressive. I'm not sure if that's a high score for trolls, but it certainly comes close.

by Atheist (not verified) 12/7/2010 - 8:59 pm (re: Anonymous)

+1 for the misspelling of discrimination

by LisB 12/7/2010 - 9:54 pm (re: Atheist)

And another +1 for misspelling disgusting.

by stillidealistic 12/7/2010 - 10:16 pm (re: LisB)

Hey Anonymous (not verified), Are you the sam Anonymous as the one who posted above?

by A Guy Called LULU 12/7/2010 - 10:06 pm (re: Anonymous)

LULU, you're not supposed to ask!  Hee...

 

by LisB 12/7/2010 - 10:10 pm (re: A Guy Called LULU)

And Anonymous is not supposed to tell!

by stillidealistic 12/7/2010 - 10:12 pm (re: LisB)

Really, and I'm not sure I want to know. But, can admin check IP address or by some method tell?

by A Guy Called LULU 12/7/2010 - 10:21 pm (re: stillidealistic)

Different IPs

by Genghis 12/8/2010 - 9:00 am (re: A Guy Called LULU)

Thanks, that doesn't make for certainty but it tells me how to bet.

by A Guy Called LULU 12/8/2010 - 12:56 pm (re: Genghis)

Latest Comments

more