Archives December 2010

DADT PART II: GENDER DIFFERENCES

 

I rarely post follow-up articles, but some of my reader’s comments about DADT gave me cause for pause and reflection.

One of the hidden, or unmentioned, problems in this issue, is the fact that men and women — for the most part — are not just different physically, but vastly different emotionally, psychologically and sexually. But that’s never mentioned or taken into account when referring to the pros and cons of gays in the military, whether they be open, closed or under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Polls taken throughout the U.S. indicate that the majority of Americans, in general, see no problem with gays openly serving in the service. That’s true. But that’s asking an intellectual question of a population base from which many (or even most) have no experience in dealing with military.

The poll results change somewhat when the polls are taken from military personnel currently serving. In 2006, a Zogby Poll of active military personnel indicate that 26 percent were in favor of gays serving, while 37 percent were opposed, and 37 percent were unsure/no opinion. What none of these polls discern are the views held by male as opposed to female service members. Bear in mind, that males comprise 86 percent of the current military service.

Polls would be more significant ( and revealing) if questions were asked in two polls; one of women only, and the other, men only. That’s not being sexist, that’s gleaning true opinions that matter.

There’s no doubt in my mind that the woman’s outlook would be enormously variant from that of men. Gay women in the military have been openly accepted and welcomed, despite the DADT caveat. My best guess (and that’s all it can be) is that 85 to 90 percent of women would vote to repeal DADT. No problem.

Not so with males. I think it would be starkly different if the poll was of men only. My best guess (which is all it can be) is that the male service members would vote to keep DADT by a margin of 70 to 80 percent or better, and not accept homosexuality in the open within military ranks of men.

Why is that?

First, the sexes have physiological differences that manifest in close and intimate quarters.

Secondly, and more profound, many straight males feel uncomfortable — and sometimes threatened — by the presence of gays in an intimate setting (showers, beds, etc.) Whereby, women do not feel so uncomfortable or threatened.

Thus, the polls are skewed by lumping all military members, without breaking out the sexes. Considering that 86 percent of military is men, they should have a voice. Perhaps Gallup, Zogby or Rasmussen would like to take that on.

I appreciate all your comments on this subject. I’d recommend that readers open the original blog and view some of the comments, especially the valuable information tidbits by Darrell, Jack Milavic and Dr. Marlowe, all of whom have extensive military backgrounds. Also, Ashley has some counter views that everyone might want to read.

Thanks to all.

(Here’s the original article with comments)

Click here: FALLOUT FROM REPEAL OF DON’T ASK-DON’T TELL

 

 

"THE KING'S SPEECH" – Review

 
“The King’s Speech” is a classic in movie making, and one of the best movies in a long time. It wouldn’t appeal to predominantly young audiences, because it’s devoid of swirling cameras, exploding cars, millisecond shots (120 per minute), lots of dead people, sloppy sex, gratuitous nudity, mediocre acting and spray of constant vernacular that exceeds filth. In fact, it’s a great, simple story, with a steady camera that follows the lives of two characters who do all the moving about, and engage in engaging dialogue. For that, it will probably bomb at the box office. Unless, of course, it wins an Academy Award.
And that will be a distinct possibility. It is certain to be nominated in a number of categories, including best picture and best actor, Colin Firth, who plays the stammering King George VI of England, and Geoffrey Rush who plays his commoner, speech therapist. It’s all about the man who would rather not have been king, and his inability to overcome the afflictions set upon him at an early age because he was not permitted to be left handed.
Most British landscape movies bore me. But this had a constant dialogue that kept the viewer glued to the story. And, it provided some insights of an historical perspective behind the scenes as Germany’s Hitler embarked on the destruction of Europe.
Helena Bonham Carter admirably played the wife of King George VI, and who we all later remember as the Queen Mother when Elizabeth the II was crowned in 1952.
Watch for at least six to eight nominations. It’s basic movie making at it’s best. A waning art form.
Click here: The King’s Speech (2010) – IMDb

“THE KING’S SPEECH” – Review

 

“The King’s Speech” is a classic in movie making, and one of the best movies in a long time. It wouldn’t appeal to predominantly young audiences, because it’s devoid of swirling cameras, exploding cars, millisecond shots (120 per minute), lots of dead people, sloppy sex, gratuitous nudity, mediocre acting and spray of constant vernacular that exceeds filth. In fact, it’s a great, simple story, with a steady camera that follows the lives of two characters who do all the moving about, and engage in engaging dialogue. For that, it will probably bomb at the box office. Unless, of course, it wins an Academy Award.

And that will be a distinct possibility. It is certain to be nominated in a number of categories, including best picture and best actor, Colin Firth, who plays the stammering King George VI of England, and Geoffrey Rush who plays his commoner, speech therapist. It’s all about the man who would rather not have been king, and his inability to overcome the afflictions set upon him at an early age because he was not permitted to be left handed.

Most British landscape movies bore me. But this had a constant dialogue that kept the viewer glued to the story. And, it provided some insights of an historical perspective behind the scenes as Germany’s Hitler embarked on the destruction of Europe.

Helena Bonham Carter admirably played the wife of King George VI, and who we all later remember as the Queen Mother when Elizabeth the II was crowned in 1952.

Watch for at least six to eight nominations. It’s basic movie making at it’s best. A waning art form.

Click here: The King’s Speech (2010) – IMDb

FALLOUT FROM REPEAL OF DON'T ASK-DON'T TELL

Millions of folks are all aglow now that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy regarding gays in the military has been repealed. While that may be a good thing in some ways, there will be some fallout we can expect, that some folks haven’t thought of. And that won’t be a good thing.
Folks who have read my blogs know that I supported the DADT policy, and thought it should remain. I don’t see straight people walking around announcing they are heterosexual. I don’t see the need for homosexuals to make such announcements. I don’t know how that advances the military. Meanwhile, gays have served proudly.
I have also written that I have no objection with open gays in scores of functions within the military. However, that’s different when it comes to the intimate quarters that prevail such as boot camp. Being an old timer with values that were ingrained during the “Grease” years, I would be uncomfortable sharing sleeping quarters, showers, etc., if I’m aware that my shower partner is gay. I would bet that thousands of straight soldiers today feel the same.
That aside, here’s what we can expect now that gays have a full and open voice in the U.S. armed forces.
1 – Gays in the military, now open and legal, will be empowered to establish minority status organizations within to ensure their rights are not violated, similar to blacks and females.
2 – If anyone says a derogatory word toward or about gays, they may be subjected to court martial for inciting “hate speech.”
3 – If and when a superior, i.e. boot sergeant, screams and hollers at a recruit who he knows is gay, the sergeant may be accused — and even disciplined — of anti-gay behavior. Civil suits are not out of the question.
4 – Will gays who are not promoted for legitimate reason file discrimination complaints and/or suits based solely on their sexuality. Will the Armed Services committees of congress now form statistical studies to ensure gays are being promoted at the same rate of heterosexuals? Will gays get promoted at a faster rate now, to make up for discrimination of the past?
5 – Will an officer’s negative opinion about gays be an impediment to his getting promoted in the future?
6 – What about gay partnership rights? Will they mirror marriage laws that apply to heterosexuals? Does the spouse of a married homosexual get an I.D. card, or qualify for “dependent” status? On base housing entitlements? Health care entitlements? Then again, what would be the definition of a “legal” partner?
7 – Will homosexual Marines be allowed to date each other, hold hands while on duty and on base?
8 – Will homosexual soldiers be assigned to countries where homosexuality is forbidden?
9 – Will gays who are HIV positive be discharged? Could that be a “service connected” illness?
Sure, other countries have openly gay service members serving in their military. But those countries don’t have the U.S. Constitution and it’s wake of liberalized interpretations, which have fostered law suits by the kazillions, especially by minority organizations on constant watch to demand equal rights.
I would suggest the items listed above are but the tip of the proverbial iceberg once this gets under way.
What’s most important now, is adjusting to reality. The law is changing, and people have to change with it.
It was President Bill Clinton, a very liberal Democrat, who first supported the DADT policy which went into effect during his administration. It was a good one, and it worked. It certainly did not mean that he — or any other supporter of the policy — was anti-gay.
I have a wonderful 23 year-old family relative who is bright, beautiful, cheery, exciting, and gay. I love her with all my heart, and she knows that.
But we must be aware of all the consequences of enacting new policies that are not in the best interest of the military armed forces, in general. And if it’s not in the best interest of our military, then it’s not in the best interest of national defense.
Click here: Most US Marines don’t want gay roommates: general
Click here: Marine general suggests repeal of ‘don’t ask’ could result in casualties
Click here: Officer won’t sign order for troop indoctrination

FALLOUT FROM REPEAL OF DON’T ASK-DON’T TELL

Millions of folks are all aglow now that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy regarding gays in the military has been repealed. While that may be a good thing in some ways, there will be some fallout we can expect, that some folks haven’t thought of. And that won’t be a good thing.

Folks who have read my blogs know that I supported the DADT policy, and thought it should remain. I don’t see straight people walking around announcing they are heterosexual. I don’t see the need for homosexuals to make such announcements. I don’t know how that advances the military. Meanwhile, gays have served proudly.

I have also written that I have no objection with open gays in scores of functions within the military. However, that’s different when it comes to the intimate quarters that prevail such as boot camp. Being an old timer with values that were ingrained during the “Grease” years, I would be uncomfortable sharing sleeping quarters, showers, etc., if I’m aware that my shower partner is gay. I would bet that thousands of straight soldiers today feel the same.

That aside, here’s what we can expect now that gays have a full and open voice in the U.S. armed forces.

1 – Gays in the military, now open and legal, will be empowered to establish minority status organizations within to ensure their rights are not violated, similar to blacks and females.

2 – If anyone says a derogatory word toward or about gays, they may be subjected to court martial for inciting “hate speech.”

3 – If and when a superior, i.e. boot sergeant, screams and hollers at a recruit who he knows is gay, the sergeant may be accused — and even disciplined — of anti-gay behavior. Civil suits are not out of the question.

4 – Will gays who are not promoted for legitimate reason file discrimination complaints and/or suits based solely on their sexuality. Will the Armed Services committees of congress now form statistical studies to ensure gays are being promoted at the same rate of heterosexuals? Will gays get promoted at a faster rate now, to make up for discrimination of the past?

5 – Will an officer’s negative opinion about gays be an impediment to his getting promoted in the future?

6 – What about gay partnership rights? Will they mirror marriage laws that apply to heterosexuals? Does the spouse of a married homosexual get an I.D. card, or qualify for “dependent” status? On base housing entitlements? Health care entitlements? Then again, what would be the definition of a “legal” partner?

7 – Will homosexual Marines be allowed to date each other, hold hands while on duty and on base?

8 – Will homosexual soldiers be assigned to countries where homosexuality is forbidden?

9 – Will gays who are HIV positive be discharged? Could that be a “service connected” illness?

Sure, other countries have openly gay service members serving in their military. But those countries don’t have the U.S. Constitution and it’s wake of liberalized interpretations, which have fostered law suits by the kazillions, especially by minority organizations on constant watch to demand equal rights.

I would suggest the items listed above are but the tip of the proverbial iceberg once this gets under way.

What’s most important now, is adjusting to reality. The law is changing, and people have to change with it.

It was President Bill Clinton, a very liberal Democrat, who first supported the DADT policy which went into effect during his administration. It was a good one, and it worked. It certainly did not mean that he — or any other supporter of the policy — was anti-gay.

I have a wonderful 23 year-old family relative who is bright, beautiful, cheery, exciting, and gay. I love her with all my heart, and she knows that.

But we must be aware of all the consequences of enacting new policies that are not in the best interest of the military armed forces, in general. And if it’s not in the best interest of our military, then it’s not in the best interest of national defense.

Click here: Most US Marines don’t want gay roommates: general

Click here: Marine general suggests repeal of ‘don’t ask’ could result in casualties

Click here: Officer won’t sign order for troop indoctrination