Not edited for content

[trinityvixen]

A wonderful conversation about this maddening, obfuscating article about DADT

moonlightalice: oh god the NYT ran a pro-DADT op-ed
me: they waaaaa?
(goes to read linked article)
me: I love how he's like "But we kicked out fatties and no one complained!" Well, yes, because you're allowed to fire people who can't do the job. Point is that gay people CAN. That gayness doesn't automatically disqualify you. This is some seriously deluded BS.
moonlightalice: You haven't gotten to the end. "Individual performance is bullshit, it's about GROUPS." Yeah, because all those integrated units in every other country? They lose wars like crazy
moonlightalice: oh my GOD, he believes the military is "warrior culture"
me: I love how he's like "call me crazy for being an IDEALIST, but I like my military the way it is." Way to cloak yourself in purtiy, asshat
moonlightalice: And warrior culture must be PROTECTED
me: "Waaaaah, stop making me play with faaaaags. Blowing shit up and playing with phallic weapons isn't gay SHUT UP"
moonlightalice: lol
me: I mean, has this guy been far removed from "unit cohesion" or what? Does he not remember how fucking many dudes in the army are constantly waving their cocks around?
moonlightalice: haha "fucking many dudes in the army." I bet that's what he's scared of.
me: The army is already pretty gay, is what I'm saying.
me: These are the guys most insecure about their cocks. Having a gay guy there to go "Yep, that's a good cock" would probably IMPROVE things


I could probably point out more about how disingenuous all his arguments are, and how they all break down into a temper tantrum about how he doesn't want no gays in this man's army, but really, the logical contortion to make an excuse for why sexual orientation fundamentally alters your ability to kill shit is, well, tortured enough that I needn't bother going on about it, really.

Comments

[moonlightalice.livejournal.com]

If I had known I was going to be quoted I would've tried to be a bit more eloquent.

But yeah, warrior culture. Ugh.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Eloquence is not required of gchat, I promise.

[viridian.livejournal.com]

SHE ALWAYS DOES THAT.

A look at trinityvixen's lj archives will show many, many conversations wherein she is witty and I sit there and go "lol" for the entirety of the conversation. (Mostly because I've stopped paying any actual attention by the time she gets to the quotable part.)

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

:P!!!!

[mithras03.livejournal.com]

The thing that always gets me about arguments like this, is that there's always the unsaid (or outright stated) "if we allow gays to be open, then they won't be able to control their libidos like the straight boys can, and there will be unwanted sexual advances and gay rape and such," when, in fact, there is a serious problem with sexual harassment and rape of women by those straight men in the armed forces that is being under-reported because of the "all boys together" culture that the women run into when they try to report it (and if the rapist is her commanding officer?). Not to mention all the harassment that gay soldiers go through ANYWAY, because it's not like their companies don't KNOW they're gay - and then, they can't report any of the harassment, because that would mean outing themselves, which they can't do.

This is not to say that there aren't companies that are perfectly fine with gay or women officers - there are, of course - but whether or not a soldier is gay or straight, a woman or a man does NOT determine whether or not they are going to commit a sexual crime or demean someone or anything else - it's about the PERSON. I think they should worry a lot more about the fact that they have relaxed the regulation regarding the recruitment of people with criminal backgrounds than whether or not the soldier is gay. (But of course, I'm probably preaching to the choir here....)

I do have to say, I love his circuitous logic that DADT actually means gays DON'T have to lie, because before, if they were asked, and they said they were gay, they would have been summarily rejected, so really, this way's better...because they're not being so blatantly bigoted, I guess? It's more like bigotry on the down-low... (wink, wink, nudge, nudge...)

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the "ew, gays!" part of the military is definitely working on this bullshit idea that sex has no place in this man's army, when, in fact, the army is notorious for not only aggressive sexual behavior but by its incidents of sexual abuse and the way they attract prostitutes like flies to honey. It's just ridiculous that those far removed from being in the army imagine that shit doesn't still happen. Heteros are no less sexual than homos, which they seem to have forgotten. But since we define homosexuality as other, and, therefore, it is automatically about sex, it's "pushing it in our faces"!!!

Plus, there are people forced out under DADT who weren't not asked. That's a weird double-negative, but Rachel Maddow had a solider on who was, like four years ago, kicked out for being gay when his e-mails were snooped in on by people higher up. They found something they didn't like and kicked him out. They didn't ask him if he was gay, but they're not supposed to go looking for evidence that he is because that's basically the same thing. It's BS.

[linaerys.livejournal.com]

Having a gay guy there to go "Yep, that's a good cock" would probably IMPROVE things

Hahahah, that is awesome and true. Although since so many wars seem to come from cock-insecurity, maybe the real issue is if these guys were all okay with their cocks, they might not want to go to war so hard.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Of course, if a gay guy complimented a straight guy's cock, he'd probably get the shit beat out of him because to accept a compliment from a gay guy is tantamount to being gay yourself in our normal, bigoted, hetero-centric society, to say nothing of the RAR WE ARE REAL MEN attitudes of the military. Very sad.

And, yes, if we would just respect the peen more, men wouldn't have to kill the shit out of each other. Or, to put it in a way that doesn't make it seem like it's anyone's fault but the insecure: if they would stop defining manliness by ZOMG HUGE COCK status, we'd all be better off.

[wellgull.livejournal.com]

To be fair, most of the military doesn't want to go to war; it's the (chickenhawk) civilian leadership & the political expediency of pushing war that's been responsible for our latest adventures.