Having stood up on my soapbox and ranted against Bravo's questionable judgment in reality programs, I was going to be contented and move along from the topic with nothing more to say. Naturally, something came along to prevent this. Apparently, we are starting to question the wisdom of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of gays in the military now, and this of course leads to people saying things that I pretty much have to comment on.
Obviously we're all familiar with the policy, introduced in 1993, that said we would allow homosexuals to serve in the military so long as they didn't talk about being gay. I don't understand this policy for a lot of reasons. First, as far as I'm concerned, if you want to risk your life to protect you're country, go for it. I'm not sure where you're sexual orientation will affect your performance as a soldier (although I do recall some comedian pointing out the whole "I can't shoot him - he's adorable" conundrum). More so for me though, there is a wonderful feeling of being oppressive while pretending that we accept it, a feeling that's pervasive in a lot of the country, where we're saying, "Oh, it's okay to be gay, we'd just prefer if you didn't talk about it".
It's that last part that always made the policy seem so stupid to me. You can serve so long as you don't talk about being gay. Keep in mind, all of the straight people around you will probably be talking about their relationships and loved ones back home, so it seems to me that basically, you would have to either avoid talking about yourself completely (and that's not going to foster distrust among your fellow soldiers) or else outright lie about yourself.
Anyway, people in the government are talking about removing it altogether and just letting gay people serve in the military. Seems to me like a fine move. Of course it will lead to some people being abused for their sexual preferences, at least until such abuse is treated with the appropriate retributions, but that's the joy of trying to grow out of our current state. I stand by my statement that when my kids are adults (or, more pessimistically, my grandkids), they'll probably look back on this period the way I look back on the segregation that was going on seventy years ago.
Anyway, in response to this proposal (and the primary reason I couldn't just let this go), Elaine Donnely, president of the Center for Military Readiness said that the repeal "would impose new, unneeded burdens of sexual tension on men and women serving in high-pressure working conditions, far from home, that are unlike any occupation in the civilian world". Keeping in mind that in 1992 we finally allowed women to serve in active combat (another bizarre exclusion to my mind, but that's a different topic), is she suggesting that allowing gays be, well, gay while serving would somehow lead to more sexual tension than straight men and women serving together? So what, a straight man who has thus far been able to control himself while working with all of these women will suddenly find himself unable to ignore the new Private's abs in the shower because he knows the guy is gay? What the hell?
All I can figure is that the comment was made on the basis of the stereotypes I discussed before. She's concerned that once the gays are allowed to be themselves during active duty, the first thing they'll do is subtly alter their uniforms. Once past that sartorial challenge, they'll make small alterations to their bunk area. And if anyone can really work a buzz cut, it's going to be them. This will naturally make themselves appear more attractive to everyone, including the heterosexuals serving. This leads to the real problem we're facing here, bringing us full circle and thus exposing the real solution to this issue.
People who are involved with decisions about gays in the military should no longer be allowed to watch Bravo.
No comments:
Post a Comment