Remind me again what bearing an individual's sexuality plays in the workplace?
Having been over "here" for a couple months now in a combat zone, I'm suprised at how much propaganda is pumped through the military television programming. I guess I shouldn't be suprised, but I thought the enemy was the focus for the propaganda not our own troops. From the (CNN) Communist News Network - Our enemy's eyes and ears, to the endless commercials telling military members they are not allowed to participate in political rallies and have numerous restrictions to their involvement in the political process (without enumerating them), which gives the impression of instilling fear of reprisal for involvement, without backing up what exactly it is you can and can't do.
I just saw a commercial with Secretary Robert Gates stating that the legislative repeal of the Don't ask, Don't tell policy has not been voted on, has not begun the legislative process, and is currently in a position of consideration for entering the legislative process. That said he has begun a study to gather information from current military members on the impact they feel it would have. The link is http://defense.gov/dadt but you will need a CAC card to access the survey. I encourage anyone serving in the military to visit the survey and provide their feedback.
Mine consists of this - Don't ask, Don't tell works. Why are we repealing it? Sexuality is not something to be discussed in the workplace, it is unprofessional. That includes discussion of heterosexuality, homosexuality, transexuality, confusedsexuality, and any other incarnation that carnal human beings can construct. There are already homosexuals in the military, I have served with them, and while no one has ever talked about it, it is a nonissue and doesn't impact unit cohesion, morale, or the ability to accomplish the job. So why are we changing something that works? If it was openly discussed it would have a negative impact. When I was in training at Shepherd AFB, Texas there was a homosexual male who attempted to pick up guys while we were waiting for formation in the morning. He was kicked out. Is there anything wrong with that? No, his behavior negatively impacted unit cohesion, morale, and the ability for the military to do its' job. It is cut and dry as is life and death - current policy works, future policy poses potential for disaster.
So GWH, what is the state of sexuality between heterosexual men and women in the military? I would certainly agree that openly soliciting sex from a fellow soldier, regardless of gender or orientation, could affect unit cohesion, etc., but I have to imagine that most male soldiers exhibit some sexual interest in their female counterparts, and vice versa. How is it different with gays?
ReplyDeleteThe military is not a "workplace" in the sense of civilian life. You don't just work there, you live there. The people you work with, you also eat with and sleep with (I mean actual sleep), and while as a civilian you can compartmentalize and act professionally in the workplace while letting your hair down (or perhaps your pants) in social situations or at home, a soldier doesn't have that luxury. A wider range of behaviors is to be expected, and I wonder how hetero soldiers handle this pressure and how you would expect it to be different with gays.
You bring up some valid questions and points. And you validate my very reasoning for maintaining the DADT policy - which is that a standard is to be established and to hold people accountable to. There is a standard established to maintain professional relationships between military members of different genders - which is - fraternization between officers and enlisted members is a violation of the UCMJ and involved parties will be held accountable to that, adultery is also a punishable offense. I am unaware of legal punishment under the UCMJ for fornication but I would not be suprised if it does exist. Sexual Assault is something the military is battling right now, and if the military were to just relax the standard to allow male soldiers to fornicate with their female counterparts.... would that really solve the problem? How is that any different from rescinding the DADT policy? When you enlist or commission into the military you absolve many of your civilian rights and swear to be held accountable to a higher standard - the military standard ala the UCMJ. If you violate that standard then you are liable to be held accountable to it, and that is a good thing - it maintains proper order and discipline which facilitates unit cohesion.
ReplyDeleteNow - there are many contradictions in the military - pornography is rampant (maybe a reason for the sexual assault problem), alcohol abuse is not tolerated and getting a DUI is a good way to ruin your career and yet alcohol is rampant at most military functions, physical fitness is a must and yet they serve high calorie foods washed down with Sodas and topped off with ice cream being readily available. What is the reason for all this contradiction? A standard is established and then people are allowed their agency to choose whether they will indulge in the vices - and be held accountable for it as well.
I would say that the ONLY downfall to the DADT rule is that someone can get kicked out if they say they are gay, but no one gets kicked out if they say they are straight. What should be true for the one, should be true for the other. If one person is not supposed to declare their sexuality without punishment, then the same should be said for straight people.
ReplyDeleteWhen you are home with your spouse or on your own time, fine. But it would seem to me that if you are in a war zone or in full-time combat situations then your energies should be exhausted toward the mission objectives, not sex. If you are on active duty in Afghanistan, be the disciplined soldier you are trained to be and focus your energies on that alone.
So maybe there is no need to repeal the DADT, but reform it to include both sides of the equation.
I just don't see the relevance of DADT. As James says, there is a big difference here between acknowledging your preferences and acting on them in an unprofessional manner to the detriment of morale and discipline.
ReplyDeleteI also have a problem with establishing a policy then deliberately placing temptation in the faces of those being held to a standard. Permissiveness about violation of policy is not defensible on the grounds that the soldiers should have "personal agency". Nor is it rational to provide bad food to soldiers who are expected to be in peak physical condition. That kind of hypocrisy is clearly a double message. We don't want this behavior officially, but unofficially it's OK.
That said, if we are going to send young Americans in the prime phase of their sexual experimentation overseas and place them in situations of physical peril for long periods of time, we have every reason to expect that some of them will need a sexual outlet and are likely to engage in behaviors that they would not do in civilian life at home. What should they do? Ignore this?