h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Great bit, I liked the nature of the posting. . it is outright and formal. . .

I do have a ? for you though and I don't know if you have already touched on this in a previous article

Do feel that the legislature passed by government. . i.e. don't ask don't tell type stuff. . .does this highlight the gay community and perpetuate to the stigma they have, unfortunately, been given?

Aaron

I haven't specifically covered this. It might be better in an entry specifically about discrimination.

If you look at textbooks covering racism, I think you see the same phenomenon. People's willingness to act out violently, hurl verbal abuse, and so forth can be curtailed by a clear social message of disapproval. The government is one of many social authorities (along with others like the church, the schools, and so forth) that can send this message.

I personally believe that when the government shows willingness to discriminate for its own purposes, certain individuals feel this gives them permission to do their worst. Of course, not everyone will agree with me on this one.

There are laws like Don't Ask Don't Tell, sodomy laws, and 'traditional family' laws that outlaw same-sex marriage that demonstrate the government is willing to discriminate. And then there are laws like inclusive hate crimes laws, workplace discrimination laws, and civil union laws that send a message that the government dislikes discrimination.

In the case of Don't Ask Don't Tell, I think we have an embarrassing situation where the government meant to reduce ill treatment towards gays in the military. But by making the policy such a touchstone and giving it a lot of attention, I think some people got the message for better or worse that the government discriminates, so they can too.

Violence and verbal harrassment against people who are perceived to be gay has gone way up, and the number of folks thrown out for being gay has shot through the roof since the policy was implemented. Meanwhile, in Britain, harrassment is down and a report has been issued that the government's inclusive policy has not hurt troop moral at all. Rather, recruitment has gone up (something we sorely need) because gay people aren't afraid to join.

Well, I can say that I am a minority in my RL peer circle. . and what I mean by that is. . .How many Heterosexual Irish Roman Catholics serving in the US Army will, once presented with someone who is not straight, say "You aren't straight, cool. . anyhow, want a beer?"?

I admit that this is a subject I know little about with our own culture, and as I have told others I have back ground in Anthropology not sociology. So thank you for the discussion.

I do have another question fer ya

Obviously, and understandably, you feel (as do I after reading your arguement) that those who are making these laws, and by laws I am talking about the basic need for those in power to control the populus and end the potential chaos (a stipend of the anthropological definitiion of laws in underdeveloped socieities), perpetuate this kind of intolerence.

How do you feel about such tregedies such as the Matthew Shepard story, with respect to how we, as a western superpower, view things such as hate crimes? Do media portrayals of these things, and by things I mean stuff like the MTV special on MS and movies such as American History X with respect to racism and sexual discrimination, sensationalize or educate? And when watching these types of multimedia portrayals, is there a shift in the paradigm to become intolerent of those who are intolerent (a contradiction)?

Aaron

Good for you, Aaron. We need more military men like yourself.

Well, I believe in tolerance as a general principle. I agree that there are some people who cross the line between defending targeted groups and acting on prejudice towards bigoted people. It can be a fine line, though. It's often difficult to guess whether a particular person or group poses a serious threat to others. It's easy to be too careful. Too careful can amount to a restriction on free speech or other liberties. Not careful enough means someone may die.

I think we have two other issues here. One is hate crimes laws. The other is the media's coverage of hate crimes.

To address the laws, I would say that I support the intent of the laws while not always agreeing on the specifics. I think it is very important to log hate crimes, because those logs can be a powerful tool to help the police take proactive measures to prevent future crimes. If a strong uprising in incidents in one area is logged, for instance, this can be investigated to find the culprit(s). Since so many hate crimes involve violence and rape, this should of course be encouraged. Unfortunately, police often fail to log hate crimes if a law does not mandate that they do so.

I sometimes disagree with the additional penalties that are opposed on criminals as a result of hate crimes laws. For instance, it is possible to seriously aggravate the sentence of a teen who put graffiti on the wall they didn't understand due to peer pressure. Perhaps that's jumping the gun a little. In some cases, I feel that it would be better to have folks committed of hate crimes examined by a psychologist and/or mandate a class that addresses prejudice.

As far as media coverage, I tend to view it as positive in nature but embarrassingly lopsided. Coverage of Matthew Shepard's death brought awareness to a lot of people who were previously ignorant. Furthermore, groups seeking hate crimes laws that includes coverage of gays and lesbians were more successful in the year following his death. So in a very real way, I would guess that the media coverage helped to save lives.

However, transgendered people are commonly overlooked victims of hate crimes. The press reports on their deaths far less often, because it is thought that they do not present a positive image of the gay community. Obviously, there is something wrong that one person's death means less than another's. Not all victims can look like Matthew Shepard.

Okay, I get your point. .. but how are transgendered persons a separate issue? How is what they face from society different than taht of those who are homo/bisexual? I have not had any enounters with individuals like this so I am totally uneducated with respect to this.

Aaron


Oh and sorry for the lateness of this, I am moving to NY right now and had an opportunity to jack into the forum briefly to see what you had to say. SO if in the next week if my responses seem to be lacking, it isn't for lack of interest but for lack of time, I am interested in this point of view, I find it intrigueing and enlightening.

Transsexual people:

... challenge gender roles by being a different gender at one point than at another. Rarely but often enough, people who define themselves by their gender see a challenge to their world view or integrity in transsexuals, and decide to punish the messenger rather than reevaluate themselves or their world.

... receive discrimination when trying to go to the bathroom. People in both the men's and the women's make take offense to their presence. But obviously, they have to go somewhere.

... will find that some people refuse to identify them as the gender they consider themselves to be, no matter how much they do in the way of hormones, therapy, dress styles, hair styles, surgery, and so forth. Finding a partner is especially hard, because many otherwise understanding people will refuse to date a transsexual.

... are sometimes treated like members of a freak show, especially when they are in transition from one gender to another. (It usually takes years of therapy and hormones before full surgery is approved.) Because they can be picked out of a crowd at this stage, they are easy targets for homophobia -- even if they are straight, they are presumed gay.

OH. . .

So do you feel that all the discrimination that people that aren't straight get is amplified upon these people or is it a different type of discrimination all together?

Well, I think they get both gender-based and orientation-based discrimination. Whether the orientation-based discrimination is amplified or not I couldn't guess. While lots of studies have been done to determine how much discrimination/violence gay people receive, I don't know of any study specifically about transsexuals.

Well, that is understandable and probably at large mostly debateable about the amount transexuals get and so forth.

But being a transexual doesn't imply homosexuality right? How so?

Well, for the purposes of this question, let's create a hypothetical transsexual. In this case, it is a person born male who through the course of their life becomes female through hormone therapy, surgery, etc.

If this person prefers men, they are gay before their sex reassignment. But they are straight afterwards.

If the same person prefers women, they would be straight before their sex reassignment. They would be gay afterwards.

If that person likes both genders, they are bisexual both before and after sex reassignment.

So what are they when they're somewhere between genders? Well, we don't really have a word for that. Sexual orientation as a concept falls apart when you or your partner's gender is indeterminate. That's part of the problem.

Since most people only notice transsexuals who are between genders, people in mainstream society often find it easier to classify this unknown sexual orientation as 'gay.' They know what gay is and they know it doesn't refer to them, so that's the easiest assumption they can make.

In general, transsexual people tend to give their orientation based upon the gender they would like to be, whether they are currently of that gender or not. That may seem odd at first thought, but to them it seems entirely natural.

This labelling practice allows them to change genders without changing orientation. It's especially helpful when in the middle of the reassignment process, since there is otherwise no clear orientation to give them.

Indeed, most transsexuals don't feel as if their orientation ever changes. Rather, they feel a sense of affirmation after sex reassignment. They feel they are finally able to pursue the gender(s) they have always preferred from the right angle, as it were.

If you think about, this makes more sense than assuming that all transsexual people are gay. If this were true, our hypothetical male-to-female transsexual would have to wake up from surgery and suddenly start preferring the other gender. Even if such a sudden shift weren't extremely rare, I'd be surprised to see it take place right after painful surgery.

Hi,

"Rarely but often enough, people who define themselves by their gender see a
challenge to their world view or integrity in transsexuals, and decide to punish the
messenger rather than reevaluate themselves or their world."

Actually the problem is more extreme than that. I'm a heterosexual male, and comfortable enough with myself that I don't feel threatened by gay activity in others. I often get approached by gay men who think that I may be available. (As you said, it's hard to tell - although it's very rare that anybody surprises me by announcing their orientation, I usually get a 'feeling'.) I probably get more attention than reserved gay guys because I am often percieved as 'girly': Long hair, touchy-feely, expressive, not into macho BS.

None of this is a problem, generally everybody just accepts everyone else for what they are and we have another beer.

But try being in a situation where some testosterone-orientated thug is having a bad day and the situation changes rapidly - especially if there is a girl involved. I have lost count of the numer of times that men have wanted to pick fights with me because they have seen me with somebody they feel attracted to. It's as if by not competing on their terms (not doing the macho thing) I threaten their whole world picture. There is only one way to compete, one way to behave, for these people. To be different, and to be succesful/happy, is to say that they're doing something wrong.

Generally, lacking the effective intelligence to adapt, the only way to deal with the situation is to re-assert the value of 'manly' behaviour. ie hit someone.

Even as I write this it's occuring to me that any legal or social pressure to accept 'sexual deviance' is backing people like this into a figurative corner (safest place to be with all these butt-pirates about!) The US in particular does not teach social responsibility. Society here (I'm a visitor) is basically competitive, not only between individuals, but between individuals and the state. What's fair and reasonable takes second place to 'what can I get away with?'

Don't ask, don't tell is about letting people get away with being gay. It's not about accepting that people have different preferences that don't affect their ability to do their job. Prosecuting someone for gay-bashing is simply telling them that they didn't get away with something they think is OK, it isn't making them address their prejudices or learn to accept people.

On a more positive note, I now live in California (land of nutcases and wierdoes) and most of the people I meet seem to be pretty accepting of pretty mch anybody. After you see enough men holding hands you stop noticing, leastways no-one comments any more. There are still bigots out there, but they are very much the minority these days.


Of course, whenever a female fails to appreciate a man's charms or he loses in any kind of interaction (eg sales) then it's obviously because she's a lesbo-dyke manhater. I wonder why!
All the best
SB

Hi, stragbasher. Thanks for your comments! You bring an interesting perspective into the debate, as a straight guy who is... as you say... perceived as 'girly.' Folks like yourself provide great evidence that people aren't really discriminating against you as a person, or based on what you do. They are discriminating (and/or hitting) based on their perceptions of you. And as your case proves, perception and reality often don't match.

Women who don't appreciate a prejudiced guy or who beat him at competitions are perceived as lesbians because this is the only way the guy can rationalize their behavior. A 'real' woman would be entranced by their charms, of course, and could never beat them at anything. That's gender stereotypes for you.

I've heard so many wonderful things about California that I've thought of moving there after I'm done with college. But then there's the astoundingly high cost of living in the better areas. I'm not sure I'm ready for that...

That was me writing above. I was doing administrative work for a group I help to run, and forgot to log out.

Ah, so you have a split personality as well.

You'll fit right in here, but .... as you observed ... it is frightfully expensive, and that is part of the general problem that I'm becoming aware of. (I've just seperated from my wife, and am finding american-style dating rather hard going.) Meeting someone of the opposite gender it doesn't take long before you find yourself being sized up on the basis of image rather than reality.

What do you? Is that well paid? What do you drive? Where do you see your career taking you? How much disposable income do you have with which to buy my affection? Or Hey, you must be a surfer. Let's do lots of drugs and not, under any circumstances, actually tell each other anything of value about ourselves less it is used against us.

Again, it's all competitive. If you measure up you might get a shag, which is assumed to be your goal, but the values don't have anything with your personal qualities. As people, I have found that the majority of gays I meet are more interesting and relaxed than anyone who feels that they're in some kind of struggle with me.

I don't know if it's the same for same-sex encounters, but I get the impression that the biggest problem is simply one of knowing who you can proposition.

This all makes it very hard to function on a non-sexual level. The assumption is that as a male you are a predator, or at least a potential predator, and I can only assume that the 'measuring up' is done with a certain amount of fatalism. ie "I'm going to get taken advantage of, so I might as well pick the highest status rapist I can find" All very sad.

Actually I started to follow this train of thought in an entry on nudity a little while ago. Nude beaches are often equated with perverts, because most people are so uptight about the idea of baring all that the only ones who do so are usually exploring/ have explored their sexuality and feelings about their selves.

Oh well, Friday night. Must run.

ttfn
SB

Wow this whole thing took a turn didn't it. Well lets let me comment now that I have some time to do so.

Lets start with the "get away with thing." I think you might have gotten a bad taste of some bad people in the area you are in. Sure our marketing strategies and busness etique is only slightly colder than a bluster Alaska winter, but we aren't all of this vein. Most of us go on our merits and should that be not enough, well then what is the point. . .Basho once wrote "Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Seek waht they sought." This speaks volumes about the more honest and true individuals here across the puddle you traveled from. And should you still not believe me, then I am sorry, but take heart, my door is open and should you want better economic climes you can chill here, just bring along a six pack

Now let me move onto the Dont ask Dont tell thing. As an Army Officer, this is a subject we all have to be in the know about. So please realize that I am in possession of the reasons. It doesn't justify homosexuality, or even allow for it. What it says is basically, the military doesn't care about your orientation until you want it know about it. In the professional military environment, sexual endeavors aren't something that is shared with any great detail. It breaks the professional aloofness that we require. The military is a cross section of society. We have all sorts and all types. And from the prospective of a line guy, in a combat scenario, one wants all detractors eliminated so we can focus at the task at hand. NOw, lets illustrate this, in a foxhole, you have one gay guy and one bigot. Do you really think that all attention is going to paid to the trees in front of them. No. And distractions in my line of work more often than not cost lives. So, sexual orientation is the least common denominator so it taken out. Now can you be gay or bi in the military. Yes, just don't tell us about it. DOn't come out to us. ANd the precedents that have been set for such events lead the people to disastor. FOr more often than not, people do it to get out or highlight themselves, and in an environment that reaks of intollerence, it makes things messy. Like I told Frag before, I only care about your ability to preform the task at hand, not what you do when you aren't at work. I don't share my personal life at work, and it is expected that that respect be given to others. Now there is casual joking and leering, yes, but why would a homosexual or bisexual highlight their minority in such an environment? Not a smart move. Company must be considered. So, in short, in an environment where every facet of society is represented, and aggression is bred into us, tolerence is something that can be expected. So in an effort to make things as welcoming as possible, we ask that EVERYONE, not share their personal lives at the professional level. Personally, I care not about orientation, it is about esthetics and nothing to do about morallity. . .just a matter of who you fancy. I love women. Period. But that is me, and I don't pretend to be the Buddha. . .as long as a person is upright and moral and feels justified in their actions. . .then I drink one for them. Professionally however, I have to consider the lives of 42 men, that puts a spin on the subject. I deal in lives, not feelings. Is that right? ONly god knows.

NOw let me get on the Manly behavior thing. HEre I will speak from my Anthropological background. But Frag beware, I am not a sociaologist, so roles and considerations are seen much differently, so don't get offended (should you find reason to) For my personal beliefs and methods are more accepting. Anthropologically speaking, the man is the stronger, more versitle sex. THe dominant one. We have a tendency to lash out at that which we feel is threatening. Anthropologically speaking, sexual patterns other than hetero, are contrary to the surviviblity of the group, thus they are not welcome. THis intolerence is propelled outward, and when confronted with the possibility of it, a "man" will reject it vehemently. Man is naturally protective. We step up to the plate in order to gaurd what is ours. So a man regarded your presence as threatening. . .regardless of your appearence or emotional openness, jealousy and aggression are very real emotions and they stir this drive in the MAN. Now, from my own Point of view, since we have far exceeded the civilized barriers that otheres have failed to reach yet. . .roles have twisted a little. Now greater importance is placed on understanding amongst those of us that seek greater potential. YOu got accosted by some barbarian who felt you a threat. . .perhaps he didn't want to know waht you are "all about." I would regard it as a typical example of the male species in the more developed cultures (or better educated ones) in an underdevelpoped country I would say yes, be careful. BUt here, there is so much that read into. . .shrug it off. . .it isn't worth your time. Now all this being said. . .I will leave with another qoute by Meister Eckhart
"The shell must be cracked apart if what is in it is to come out, for if you want the kernal you must break the shell." Understanding and learning is the key to evolution now, not the blind following of assumptions.

Aaron,

Thanks for that. To be honest I never thought about what the published logic behind don't ask don't tell might be. I just made my judgement based on what I observed, casually without looking too hard. And here I am bitching about people who do the same thing.

The rationale behind the policy makes sense, assuming that bigotry and intolerance are something you accept in your people and think you can control by telling a bunch of manly men not to talk about sex. Personally I'm having a hard time thinking of any hetero-male environment where there isn't an element of competition that brings sexual prowess into open debate. Locker room banter will sooner or later turn to the sex lives of those concerned, and imho will put gays under an obligation to hide their orientation.

As the defenders of the free world wouldn't it be more appropriate to explain to your bigots the reason they may find themselves sharing a fox hole with a gay man, or a black man, or a catholic, or a democrat, or someone they suspect is gay but never dared proposition/punch? Would it be appropriate to explain why that foxhole may be the last line of defense for a muslim village facing obliteration at the hands of right- thinking, beer drinking, god-fearing men in the former Yugoslavia.

Their job, for which they volunteered, is to preserve the rights and freedoms of others - even the ones who don't drink beer, or did I make that up? (Thanks for the invite, btw, but I hate the stuff. I might turn up with a bottle of Bacardi, tho')

Was there a don't ask don't tell policy when race was the burning issue and it was OK to hate n*****s? Police forces today admit black people in the same way that they admit homosexuals, but until the bigotry of a minority of officers is addressed there will still be Rodney Kings in the world. How long 'til a suspected gay man is beaten/killed in the army, someone who previously would not have joined because he knew he wouldn't be tolerated?

The movie 'A Few Good Men' comes to mind - a man is killed by his fellow soldiers because he doesn't measure up in their eyes. Sure, it's fiction, but it illustrates the point nicely.

Not bringing your sex life to work is an excellent idea, and should be a foundation stone of any disciplined, professional, organisation. This becomes more true as women achieve parity with men in all walks of life. Male-female tension can be just as harmful as any other type of tension, but in a truly professional organisation the ability to do the job should be the only thing that matters. My own experiences have taught me that there are some people who will always imagine a problem - I wouldn't want to be in a foxhole with someone who has decided that I'm gay, even though I've made a point of being professional and not bringing my sex life to work. As you said, men lash out when threatened. For a military unit to function effectively everyone must have confidence in everyone else, but is that a realistic goal when anybody could be hiding a secret that will make them inadequate in the eyes of people who are relying on him to watch their behinds? Wouldn't it be better if he had never been encouraged to enlist in the first place?

Rereading this it sounds like I really have the knives out for the US military, which is not true at all. I don't even know how big the problem is and, as you said, these people are bred for aggression. Perhaps the price of freedom is to put all your really nasty people to work channelling their aggressions into something useful, and minorities will just have to be excluded in the interests of keeping things running smoothly. Or, accepting inter-service/ inter-unit rivalry as a fact of life, there should be specific groups where 'flexibility' is accepted. Are there still 'black' regiments in the USA? Is there space for a few (can't resist, but sorry for the stereotyping) 'pink' units, with their own recruitment campaigns.......

fades away into comic speculation about TV (ouch) ads featuring impossibly good looking young men in spiffy uniforms with lots of leather, shots of phallic weaponry, parachutists descending to the tune of "It's Raining Men", even The Village People singing "In The Navy". This sounds like a real vote winner.

I think I should stop now before I start being really silly, but for the record I work in sales/ marketing. American practises don't seem to be any worse than in any of the other three countries that I've worked. In fact, the tendency to litigation probably forces higher standards in that arena. I was referring to a more subtle difference that's hard to identify exactly, but several of my european friends have described it in exactly the same way. It's probably more noticeable to me as an outsider, in the same way that americans sometimes tell me things I never noticed about the UK.

I guess that there are more unwritten rules in more homogenous societies - everybody grows up with a clear understanding of what's acceptable. The US, being so polyglot, doesn't have that clear 'social framework' (don't know if I'm being too clear here) so everything has to be legislated - and generally everyone finds themselves getting what they perceive as a raw deal at some point. Faced with 'restrictive' legislation and a clear perception of absolute individual freedom I guess many people stop considering the 'common good'. The rest of the world seems to be going the same way, an inevitable by- product of globalization? Increased sophistication and individuality don't exactly go hand in hand with obedience to unwritten rules. Hell, I can't even follow the written ones most of the time.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? And where does it leave the simple soldier who is risking his life in defense of, er, something?

SB

Well SB. Not really sure how to take this posting. It borders on offensive every time I read it. . at least to me. And when I first read it I had a hard time separating myself from my own emotions to write this, but now let me go ahead. First of all, it is known that no matter what you think on this site, as long as you can support it and stand on it, I will support you no matter if my own personal beliefs be different. You my friend have not come across thusly. I urge you to clarify your standpoint and that you be honest in doing so, so I can understand you better. Perhaps that might be the reason I am finding this thing all that offensive, and I do hope so. Okay onto the posting.

You say . . "The rationale behind the policy makes sense, assuming that bigotry and intolerance are something you accept in your people and think you can control by telling a bunch of manly men not to talk about sex. Personally I'm having a hard time thinking of any hetero-male environment where there isn't an element of competition that brings sexual prowess into open debate. Locker room banter will sooner or later turn to the sex lives of those concerned, and imho will put gays under an obligation to hide their orientation." Again your choice of words is insulting. You seem to imply that we accept and turn a blind eye to intolerance. You seem to think that our logic is a false one and one in which we also accept blindly. If this is intentional than I grieve for a thread that was supposed to be an education for me, and not banter about how this is messed up or that is screwed up has ensued. If this is not intentional than PLEASE clarify your statement. Hetero-male sexual prowess is in place in an environment such as mine in the infantry, but in support roles of the military, such as supply and finance and all that, male domination is not present. Partly because we have a ZERO tolerance of Sexual Harassment and conversations such as what you imply will happen in an open forum are considered Sexual Harassment. That is, making disparaging remarks in a sexual nature in front of those who find it offensive. Do we know if someone will find it offensive, NO, that is why we refrain from such banter in such environments. And also the domination is not there because women are just as likely to be in control as men. Now again, in the infantry and Armored worlds of the US Military where women are not allowed, the decorum is greatly lessened, does this make it right, no, but are people offended, no. It is simply a facet of the bonding that NEEDS to happen in a combat unit. Finding that common ground that all of us Heterosexual males have, that is women and sex. Is that all we talk about. HHELLLLLLLLL NO. We talk about everything and anything. But I wouldn't equate it to adolescent locker room topics about the prom queen. Are gays under an obligation to hide their sexuality in such an environment, no, but if they do feel the need to "come out" for the sake of the whole the one is let go. For his or her safety and the morale and combat readiness of the rest. Should they hide it anyhow, then that is fine as well. The argument is similar in that of relations between the rank structures. I can not, under any circumstances, have intimate or personal relations with an Enlisted individual, being as I am an officer, it under mines authority, breaks morale and is a detriment to combat readiness. Will I tell my "manly men" not to talk about sex. NO. We do not control conversations, we do not adhere to abject censorship, we give the policies regarding specific violations, and should they break them, then they have already been warned. There is a lot of ZERO tolerance amongst the ranks. Intolerance is not accepted. Bigotry and intolerance do occur, that is a fact, there are gay men and women in the military, that is a fact, there is religious persecution for being gay and there are those who follow these religious precepts who are not bigots but when faced with an alternative lifestyle are likely to rebel against it, that is also a fact. Unfortunately the military is not a democracy, we all gave up the right to choose when we signed (voluntarily) on the dotted line and agreed to follow the rules with no mental reservation or purpose of evasion. Now does this mean we are brain washed mind less war mongers. NO. We are subject to the same morals everyone else is. We just follow more than the civil ordinances with regard to some topics. For example, you as a civilian can wear what ever you would like no matter what it entails, you can belong to whatever extremist group you choose. I on the other hand cannot. I can't belong, nor would I ever, to the KKK or the Aryan nation. And I can't wear clothing that is of less than socially decent (i.e. shirts with disparaging literature or pants where my unit hangs out.) I am subject not only to civilian authorities but the military ones as well in my daily life. Does this influence my day to day? NO.

You say "As the defenders of the free world wouldn't it be more appropriate to explain to your bigots the reason they may find themselves sharing a fox hole with a gay man, or a black man, or a catholic, or a democrat, or someone they suspect is gay but never dared proposition/punch? Would it be appropriate to explain why that foxhole may be the last line of defense for a Muslim village facing obliteration at the hands of right- thinking, beer drinking, god-fearing men in the former Yugoslavia." You again seem to imply an insulting precedent. Again if this is implied I am indeed sorrowful, if not please clarify. Are we defenders of the free world? Yes. Are we the only ones, NO? And with respect to explaining, hey, we have any one and everyone in our ranks. Unfortunately the only thing you need to get into the military is high school education, which is, as we all know, less than worldly. The US military makes no distinction within its ranks. They only distinctions that are there are ones of Rank. I as a LT with One year active service out rank EVERY enlisted and warrant officer, regardless of the time served and the rank gained. Hell, I outrank my father in the military world. That is the benefit of being an officer. Now, being an officer, or someone of post high school education, doesn't imply intelligence. We have men and women with Associate degrees, Bachelor Degrees, Masters, Doctorates, and Post doctorates. Some of which I wouldn't follow to the grocery store. So do we endeavor to show those that are less than tolerant the errors of their ways, no, we simply kick them out. But if they do have a problem with so and so, then we mediate as best we can. Does that mean I want them on my line, depends, will I be apprehensive, yes. But explaining away years of culture that these individuals have received, though may be justified from our points of view, is an intolerance in and of itself. Have I sat two privates down with a disagreement and mediated, yes, does it work. Not always, But like everything else once you start the paper trail, then evidence is being provided. And as far as our involvement in Kosovo, which is something I think you are alluding to, we aren't there to defend Muslims, Serbs, Albanians, or anyone else. We are there to stop the genocide. The differences between the groups is something they are being forced to solve by our presence, but we seek only to stop the needless slaughter of innocents for the gain of the tyrannical. And that is something I DO hope you can understand.

You say, "Their job, for which they volunteered, is to preserve the rights and freedoms of others - even the ones who don't drink beer, or did I make that up? (Thanks for the invite, btw, but I hate the stuff. I might turn up with a bottle of Bacardi, tho')" and to this I say OKAY. I like bacardi too, though I get horrible hangovers from it.

You say "Was there a don't ask don't tell policy when race was the burning issue and it was OK to hate n*****s? Police forces today admit black people in the same way that they admit homosexuals, but until the bigotry of a minority of officers is addressed there will still be Rodney Kings in the world. How long 'til a suspected gay man is beaten/killed in the army, someone who previously would not have joined because he knew he wouldn't be tolerated?" No there wasn't a don't ask don't tell policy with respect to race. I mean you can't exactly hide skin color can you. Is this something that is being more and more an issue? . .NO. . Race is not an issue in the military. We serve beside one another. WE look to one another as a buddy, one whom we won't leave behind. Something I don't think you understand from your word choice in this post and your last. Is there racial profiling in the civilian world most certainly . . .but we as a military are safe guarded against it. And any racial intolerance is highlighted easier than sexual ones. . And again the punishment is the same. . removal. Are there still racists in the military, yes, are we watching for them, yes. And there have been killings and beatings with regard to sexuality, and that is a sad day for us. A day when men like myself have to step up and say that is not right and YOU WILL BE PUNISHED. And the perpetrators have been and are removed. The sentencing in the military has no regard for extenuating circumstances, only the crime. In short my friend, with respect to the military. . You are wrong and out of line.

You say "The movie 'A Few Good Men' comes to mind - a man is killed by his fellow soldiers because he doesn't measure up in their eyes. Sure, it's fiction, but it illustrates the point nicely." Yes it does illustrate your point, but to bad it is fiction.

You say, "Not bringing your sex life to work is an excellent idea, and should be a foundation stone of any disciplined, professional, organization. This becomes more true as women achieve parity with men in all walks of life. Male-female tension can be just as harmful as any other type of tension, but in a truly professional organization the ability to do the job should be the only thing that matters. My own experiences have taught me that there are some people who will always imagine a problem - I wouldn't want to be in a foxhole with someone who has decided that I'm gay, even though I've made a point of being professional and not bringing my sex life to work. As you said, men lash out when threatened. For a military unit to function effectively everyone must have confidence in everyone else, but is that a realistic goal when anybody could be hiding a secret that will make them inadequate in the eyes of people who are relying on him to watch their behinds? Wouldn't it be better if he had never been encouraged to enlist in the first place?" And this is where you are illustrating my point. Yes those who are racist and bigots shouldn't enlist. I agree. . And once identified they are swiftly removed. More often than not though, a person's value is proven to those around them. Regardless of rank. People watch the newbies, people assess the newbies, and once they have proven themselves the confidence is gained. Do we have secrets, we all do, and do we want to know them, NO. We are a professional fighting force, check your baggage at the door and come to fight. We fight for the rights to have those secrets, but in an organization such as this, it can be detrimental to a person's success. I urge you to look at the DOD Equal Opportunity policy and Homosexual Policy for clarity in this issue, for I lack the patience to explain it. Do we encourage people to enlist? Yes . . .but only after a screening do find out if they are viable. DO people slip through the cracks, yes, but are they found out, yes. We as the officer corps of the military are educated to look for those things that identify a person. . Tattoos, music choice, movie choice, slang usage and all those things associated with one group or another.

You say " this it sounds like I really have the knives out for the US military, which is not true at all. I don't even know how big the problem is and, as you said, these people are bred for aggression. Perhaps the price of freedom is to put all your really nasty people to work channeling their aggressions into something useful, and minorities will just have to be excluded in the interests of keeping things running smoothly. Or, accepting inter-service/ inter-unit rivalry as a fact of life, there should be specific groups where 'flexibility' is accepted. Are there still 'black' regiments in the USA? Is there space for a few (can't resist, but sorry for the stereotyping) 'pink' units, with their own recruitment campaigns......." Do we have black regiments in the USA NO NO NO. We are integrated and happily so. PINK UNITS. . .jeez man, no. All gay units would be running into the same exclusion that the all black units had in the early part of the twentieth century and we won’t do that to anyone again. We do have some conscience. Now as far as nasty people go. . .none of us want war. But we serve for an ideal, we, in our lives somewhere; have found the prospect of honor, duty, and country to be appealing. We stand the line so you don't have to, and we don't want pity because of it. . We only want you and all you hold dear to be there tomorrow. We sacrifice; our family's sacrifice, and some sacrifices are the type people don't come home from. But when asked if they would do it again f they had the chance, they, 9 times out of 10 would say yes. It is the feeling of doing something that brings about the security of our family and friends and country. I do it, for the man that never came home. I do it, for the family he left behind. I do it for you and your family and all those you know. I don't want you to respect me if you don't want to, for it is the blood and sweat of guys like me that give you that choice, but I do want you to not to disrespect me. There are premises I hold dear in my life. Premises that are present everywhere in society. The only difference is that I might be asked to die, or send my men to die, for those premises. Does my existence perpetuate the need to have me? NO. I would love nothing better than for world peace to be declared and for me to be out of a job, for then I know I was ready and I was there if I was needed.

You say "fades away into comic speculation about TV (ouch) ads featuring impossibly good looking young men in spiffy uniforms with lots of leather, shots of phallic weaponry, parachutists descending to the tune of "It's Raining Men", even The Village People singing "In The Navy". This sounds like a real vote winner." I say. . hmmmmmmm.

You say, "I think I should stop now before I start being really silly, but for the record I work in sales/ marketing. American practises don't seem to be any worse than in any of the other three countries that I've worked. In fact, the tendency to litigation probably forces higher standards in that arena. I was referring to a more subtle difference that's hard to identify exactly, but several of my european friends have described it in exactly the same way. It's probably more noticeable to me as an outsider, in the same way that americans sometimes tell me things I never noticed about the UK." With respect to the civilian economy, yes they can be ruthless; I used to work retail before I was commissioned. I know the climate. But don't let that be the judge of the populous. Are other countries different? Oh I don't doubt that. But at least here you have the freedom to voice the opinion. And as far as noticing things, I am always ethnographically breaking apart people in an effort to understand them. That is what I learned to do at college and that is what I love to do. So that is why I as you to clarify any misconceptions, or if they aren't misconceptions let me know. Again, I support a person who stands for something regardless of what it is.


You say, "Is this a good thing or a bad thing? And where does it leave the simple soldier who is risking his life in defense of, er, something" I say, this indeed needs clarification.

If I come off hostile, then I am sorry. It is just that your intentions are hidden behind contradictory language choice. PLEASE MY FRIEND, PLEASE Clarify.

OK, I apologise. And, no, I didn't explain myself very clearly - except perhaps with regard to Bacardi - a problem I am aware of.

It's way too long a posting to break down yet again into "you say" etc, so let me just throw a few thoughts back into the melee and see what you make of it.

Firstly, I did my time in the military, enjoyed it, learnt a lot, and don't have an axe to grind - I certainly didn't ever feel victimized or inadequate. I still have tremendous respect for anyone who has chosen to make a career out of doing a job that needs to be done.

I would even go as far as to say that there are some people who would really benefit from being in the military because they don't have the discipline or benefit of a firm code of conduct that would make them a lot easier for the rest of us to deal with. But let's keep away from the conscription debate - you're the expert and I don't have a strong or informed opinion.

Without rereading it I accept all that you said about non-front line personnel, but you were talking about two hypothetical men in a foxhole, faced with some external threat. If one is gay and one is a bigot you have a potential problem, as you said.

If one is an extremely competent soldier, a heterosexual, and happens to have somehow given his buddy the idea that he may be gay there is not automatically a problem. But the kind of people who are intolerant towards homosexuality are very often the ones who are also actively looking for it in others. Having encountered enough of these people with this absurd way of going through life this seems to me to be a reasonable scenario to imagine. In this case you still have a problem, caused by one person's perceptions and prejudices rather than by any actual differences in sexuality.

I did not intend to challenge the way the policy is currently implemented by people such as your self, and don't know enough to know how it really works 'on the ground.' But it seems as if don't ask don't tell is refusing to face up to a real situation, rather than accepting realities and telling people to deal with them, and get over their personal prejudices.

The race comparison was not a good one, because skin color is not something we can politely not bring to work. But it also demonstrates that issues that were once unbelievably divisive can be overcome with education and a conscious effort to accept people for who they are. There are still problems, all over the world, and most of the people with authority to address them continue to do so. No criticism was intended there either.

Alluding to yugoslavia might have been a bit below the belt, as it had more to do with US foriegn policy than with the topic at hand. But if the people at the front line are still carrying all their prejucices with them when they find themselves in a hostile environment then they're less likely to do their job impartially. A lot of people here seem to have very strong views about all kinds of things based on the fact that uncle george was from Lithuania, or whatever, and putting a gun in their hands and sending them off to keep the peace there doesn't seem like the smartest idea. Making a big effort to tell people that they have to get over their prejudices seems like a better policy than telling them that they can think what they like as long as they don't talk about it.

When all's said and done you're in a position to tell me whether the policy is working as is. I'm not qualified to be saying "No, no, do it my way." and I'm not trying to persuade you that I'm right. I just have concerns based upon what I have observed, and welcome anything you can say (and have said) to address them.

Hope this clears things up a bit. Let me know your thoughts.

SB