All right. A more considered response to Gaze-In-Da-Mil-Uh-Tarry. On the one hand I have sympathy and think it's probably worth a bit of a fight. As with gay marriage, I find the focus of the struggle, the desire to conventionalize one's own otherness in order to claim the mantle of legal equality to be troublesome, but as we are no more going to dispense with the military than dispense with marriage, institutional discrimination is bad and should be fought and defeated. That said, and on the other hand, the plainer truth of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is that it represents and clearly indicates that gays aren't fighting for the right to "defend their country," but are fighting for the right to go forth and kill foreigners in aggressive, hegemonic foreign wars, invasions, and occupations. Does anyone imagine that thousands of specialists would be getting the boot every year if we were locked in a death-struggle with a conquering foreign power? Of course, no such enemy exists, but if it did, and if its tanks were rolling toward the border, and if every able-bodied young fella were being called up to thwart the mechanized Canadian menace or what-have-you, then you can be quite sure that everyone would quite happily turn and look the other way, let what happens between sailors in the head stay between sailors in the head, if you know whuddahmean. The luxury of enforcing bans on sexual proclivities and other personal pecadilloes is really just another bit of evidence in the ever-accumulating store that demonstrates, once more, that we are not the good guys, and that the Department is not of Defense.
30 comments:
An elderly Scott Glenn just said "I want to be pretty for you."
"institutional discrimination is bad and should be fought and defeated."
Whoa. Slipped out of character a little there -- you know, almost like you're advocating action (and of the liberal variety, no less).
That said, and on the other hand, the plainer truth of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is that it represents and clearly indicates that gays aren't fighting for the right to "defend their country," but are fighting for the right to go forth and kill foreigners in aggressive, hegemonic foreign wars, invasions, and occupations.
Yes, and... what? It's certainly true that the American defense apparatus does precious little actual defending these days, but the sense of the position that this fact is somehow germane to the issue of gay participation in said apparatus frankly eludes me.
You're right to point out that the "desire to conventionalize one's own otherness blah blah blah," is troubling, but such is only so philosophically. To me the practice simply underscores the fundamental vapidity of that alleged "otherness" in the first instance. You fags (well, most of you) don't want to be conventionalized - ya'll crossed that bridge ages ago - you just want your conventionality recognized, and so the implication that the average gay man would be a priori less interested in supporting the American imperial project than his heterosexual peers were it not for some unfortunate impulse to rail against institutional discrimination or whatever strikes me as kinda silly.
Because the US would never let its bat-shit ideological preferences get in the way if shit got serious?
Wait, wait, wait. So it's a worthwhile endeavour to fight institutional discrimination in an organization dedicated to killing foreigners in aggressive, hegemonic foreign wars? Sounds like some Donklelicious reasoning to me.
The food in this restaurant is terrible! And the portions! So small!
The_System: man, I never asked to be recognized. I just came late to the party and the game was already underway. But you're right.
J: Granted. A palpable hit.
The last thing the gay rights' struggle needs is the perception that making naked prisoner pyramids is a homosexual impulse (whether it is or not).
I don't know. I like to think of gays as people, AND I like to think of Middle Easterners as people, too! I guess this makes me inconsistent.
right on.
what is easier: undoing and disentangling 'marriage' as treated by our various institutions, or extending its packet of privileges to anyone that wants it? or for this matter, those that want it. clearly people want it. gay people.
it shouldn't matter what one's sexual preference is, when it's obvious that pulling a trigger gets you hot. that has to be part of the allure, you know? otherwise, why discriminate? it seems like you have what you're after right there.
What the fuck, people? It seems pretty clear that IOZ is saying that discrimination is wrong on the merits, and that if some gayboy rilly rilly wants to go fight for Uncle Sam, if it rilly rilly is his life's dream, his gayboyness per se shouldn't be an obstacle. Semi-rational adults, free choice and all that.
That said, people like IOZ will still keep mocking them for being idiots who delude themselves into thinking they're using their new power for good, and he would probably happily waste a few minutes trying to get them to consider whether or not they shouldn't just be thrilled that an irrational prejudice makes it easier for them to not participate in atrocities against foreigners for the glory of a rancid, decaying empire. It ain't like he's going to march somewhere or write a sternly-worded letter on their behalf to make it easier for them to get in uniform.
In other words: "Yeah, whatever, people. Knock yourselves out. I'll be over here getting high." What the fuck is Donklelicious about that?
I think at least some of 'em are fighting because they're paid to.
Brother Seamus, I think it's the "institutional discrimination is bad" line. IOZ was being verrrry un-Dude.
i don't know. i was kind of counting on the prohibition for 6 years from now when my oldest gets drafted to go to Afgranacstan. i was planning on telling him to gay it up and get thrown out.
It seems to be in keeping with the general anti-authority thing here, Rowan. It would be nice if people freely chose to say hell no, we won't go, but they shouldn't be told they can't if they want to, and they shouldn't be forced to go if they don't. I'd have to agree that I don't see the problem here. It's not like any of us stupid lazy fucks are going to be forced to get off the Xbox and agitate for someone else's rights, so chillax.
Power to the peephole.
I'm not complaining, just describing.
And it's a Wii for me these days, thanks.
"The luxury of enforcing bans on sexual proclivities and other personal pecadilloes is really just another bit of evidence in the ever-accumulating store that demonstrates, once more, that we are not the good guys, and that the Department is not of Defense."
Doesn't follow, esp. with yer that said. Also, what would be evidence for us being the good guys. As against the ever accumulating store contrariwise. This response seems less considered than of yore
"And it's a Wii for me these days thanks."
Get 99 lives & Mario takes off his hat. Fuckin geniuses
I go back to what I think is Ioz's main point - that the kicking out of teh ghey is a luxury the military can afford because it really isn't doing much in the way of "defending" the country. And I say, good point. Never thought of that before. That's why I value this blog.
My hunch is that it will take years just to decide who to commission to design our uniforms.
How you gonna keep 'em down on the farm once they've seen Sgt. Hungus?
oops. misfire. meant for the Gaze thread.
And they're considering trusting me with a gun?
bobbo
Is that IOZ's main point? There seem, in this post, to be several vague points rather than a main one, none of which are sharpened all that well. The idea that don't ask, don't tell is a "luxury" indulged in by the military for lack of a proper threat needs more support than "In a crisis such issues would take a back seat," which feels a little truistic. As a newcomer I value this blog because it is hilarious and clever and irreverent, but you can't knock it out of the ballpark every time
What the fuck do you want, flip, a research paper with a bibliography and endnotes?
It may be "truistic" to we blognoscenti, but given that the supposed left wing in this country can't be in more of a hurry to praise our brave troops who are defending our freedom, it's very much worth pointing out repeatedly that we are not "defending" ourselves against anything, a fact reinforced by observing that the military can afford to let such trivial ideological concerns keep able-bodied potential soldiers out of the ranks.
I really like your take on this, IOZ, though I would like to ask what you think about segregation of the military during WWII (to name only one conflict in a long line). Was that a luxury that revealed that we were not really at risk? It may be apples and oranges; I just think that America's industrial might has often allowed it to enact cultural campaigns with no concern as to their efficacy and cost (also see War, The Drug).
Frere Seamus, the issue is the proportionality of the concerns. Sure, it's wrong that the U.S. military discriminates against gays, but when you step back and realize that the U.S. military is in the business of killing innocent people as a matter of course, it seems a little silly to get worked up about about DADT. It's like a feminist complaining that the Nazis (Heil Godwin!) were sexist because they didn't allow women in the guard towers at Auschwitz. The complaint is silly because it misses the big picture.
IOZ, I hit because I love. Bisous.
Another data point on the the Lean, Mean Seriousnness of the Pentagon:
Re the FY2011 "defense" budget estimates, Fred Kaplan points out at Slate that for 40+ years now, the shares for Army, Navy and Air Force have never varied more than a few % from an exact 3-way split.
I suppose that through all the geopolitical and technological changes of that period, each year's cold-eyed, zero-based assessment of needs just happened to come out in that narrow range.
I also suppose that I am Queen Marie of Roumania.
As with gay marriage, gays in the miltary is controversial primarily by dint of its being prohibited. I won't be so tacky as to resort to "forbidden fruit", because it's more in the order of "Who the hell are you to tell me I can't, just because I'm gay?", which often translates to, "I'm going to do it to show you, not me". Nobody wins.
Legalize it all(along with marijuana), and much of this will sort itself out, and even the folks on the other side of the cultural fence will suddenly find themselves with much less to complain about in absolute terms.
Well, there isn't a literal connection, Dude.
@ 8:48 AM
Is that so much to want, my friend--a simple bibliography; a mere bibliography Bibliography, from the Latin biblioblus, to adorn with small puffs. Cf. Plato, &c.: Where are you going in a such a hurry, and with your beard so beautifully puffed, Sextus Ulixes?
Post a Comment