A Memorial Day Thank You
To all the men and women in the military, who risk their lives for the rest of us, and to protect western freedoms and democracy.
I got this email from reason Foundation's Manny Klausner:
On the Memorial Day weekend, I thought it fitting to send information about the Tuskegee Airmen -- the nation's first black military pilots, who flew their aircraft with the tails painted bright red -- and the moving obituary from the LA Times of William B. Ellis, who pushed to break racial barriers as one of the Tuskegee Airmen. "Wild Bill" Ellis died this week in California at 93.In April 1945, Ellis and other black pilots courageously participated in an act of civil disobedience against segregaton in an all-white officers club at Indiana's Freeman Field. The protest, which with other incidents became known as the Freeman Field Mutiny, prompted the War Department to establish a committee to investigate illegal segregation in the Army Air Forces -- the first step toward the official desegregation of all U.S. armed forces in 1949.
Ellis called the officers club incident "the single most socially significant thing to come out of World War II."
A detailed account of the Freeman Field Mutiny is linked here.
On a related note, I'm happy to see that gay servicemen and women will soon be treated like all other servicemen and women.
"I'm happy to see that gay servicemen and women will soon be treated like all other servicemen and women."
---------------------
And what, pray tell, makes you think they will be miss Alkon?
The only significant difference in treatment before was that nobody "knew" who was gay and who wasn't. Quite frankly, as far as I'm concerned, fuck who you want as long as you shoot in the right direction.
But the plain fact of the matter is that this is, at least in theory, a testosterone ladden organization of hard fighters and hard fuckers, ready to lock and load faster than a hat can drop. THe last thing we need is additional sensitivity training to make sure no openly gay man or woman feels entitled to special treatment.
I almost have to bite my own tongue in half every time I sit through the myriad of ridiculous excuses for "training" that we're subjected to NOW.
POSH training (Prevention of Sexual Harassment)
Sexual Assault prevention
Equal Opportunity
...and this, just to name a tiny number, I could also go into the training on religious tolerance and whatnot...but I'd bore you to death.
The point here is that the FIRST thing that is going to start happening is the same damn thing that started happening when women were admitted in large numbers. We're going to be burdened with additional sensitivity training, another half hour or so will be added to our prevention of sexual harassment courses.
And a new way will exist for some entitled jackass to ruin careers by claiming harassment or discrimination. And discipline will break down accordingly.
The fact is that gays on the job were treated like everybody else. Nobody wanted to know if Private Joe Snuffy liked cock any more than they wanted to know that I like slender blonde wenches.
Its one more big hassle, and whom exactly does it benefit? Gays? Straights? Politicians more interested in using the military for social experiments than for warfighting? There is a reason I learned to say "Fuck that" in 6 different languages.
The only people it benefits, are the ones who want to make an issue out of it for their own personal, professional, or political gain.
The army is a homogeneous organization, people join the army on its terms, or stay the fuck out. Or that is how it should be. Anything else, impedes our ability to fight, to perform our missions, and to come home safely in greater numbers.
Bad enough we have to walk on eggshells every day around most female soldiers, now we've got to double the eggshells?
If I sound frustrated, there is a reason. I AM.
Robert at May 30, 2010 3:20 PM
Let me hasten to add, your expression of appreciation is otherwise, quite welcomed and I, as usual, look forward to your next column, pleasant days!
Robert at May 30, 2010 3:32 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/05/30/a_memorial_day.html#comment-1719789">comment from RobertThe only significant difference in treatment before was that nobody "knew" who was gay and who wasn't
Gay people, like heterosexuals, in my experience, don't go marching about yelling about their sexuality. Example: a gay employee of mine. I guessed she was gay when she walked in the door for the interview, but she only mentioned something about her ex-girlfriend in an offhand way after she'd worked for me for three months. Another example: An editor of mine. I'd dealt with him for a year and a half before I knew he was gay, and only because he mentioned that he couldn't participate in his company's blood donation drive as a gay man.
What's good is that gay men and women won't be thrown out of the military if somebody learns that they're gay.
Amy Alkon at May 30, 2010 3:40 PM
"Gay people, like heterosexuals, in my experience, don't go marching about yelling about their sexuality."
True. Except in two circumstances:
1. When they're looking for special treatment.
2. When they're trying to get somebody in trouble for not providing special treatment.
And THAT is what irks me. And THAT is what is going to make life that much more of a pain in the ass.
Some people Miss Alkon, don't give two shits one way or another. Me, as long as someone does their job, I couldn't care less.
But the moment you start to "segment" for lack of a better word, you open up the system for outrageous abuses.
When women joined the service in significant numbers, nobody really thought it would change that much. Females began to get special treatment, Noncoms have to walk on eggshells for fear of sexual harassment complaints or discrimination complaints, Inspector Generals will either spend their time listening to female complaints of discrimination, or male complaints that a senior paid special attention to promoting women's interests. If the organization retained a single rough and tumble standard of conduct, none of the present issues would exist, instead special organizations exist to promote the interests of female soldiers. This is not to say that every female soldier exploits this system. My younger sister never did. But if someone is gaming the system, it is almost certainly a female soldier. And this was only possible because the service adapted to the women instead of the women adapting to the service.
Now, with the "open" policy on homosexuality, we're going to see the exact same goddamned thing all over again, with a whole new group now able to game the goddamn system. And again we're going to see the service adapting to the group, instead of the group adapting to the service. I've served with gay soldiers before, they were my friends, they were like brothers to me, I still keep in touch with some of them. But mark my words on this Miss Alkon.
The can of worms opened by this will further impede the good order and discipline of the military service. Not because gay sex has some underlying mysterious corrupting influence, not even because some people in the service are hostile to homosexuality. No, what will undermine our ability to perform, and what may cost us time, and lives, is the additional undermining of the military service's homegeneous culture of iron discipline. Within the first week, somewhere some straight NCO will get into trouble for disciplining a gay soldier, when the gay soldier asserts he is in trouble because he's gay, not because he overslept four times in a row, missed formation, and failed two physical fitness tests.
It happens so often with female soldiers that male leaders, and yes, even female leaders, often essentially wash their hands of the matter, since attempts at imposing discipline are met with investigations.
THAT is why I oppose these measures. Your giving us all a big headache, another group to file groundless complaints, and another specially protected class of people in the military that promotes its own interests over the mission itself.
----------
As a general rule, people weren't being thrown out if somebody learns their gay before this either. It happened a few times, but what is notable, what you should be asking, is how often did it NOT happen? You can probably pull up maybe a dozen or so instances over the last decade. Do you really think nobody ever discovered somebody else was gay and just ignored it?
We live together, shower together, we have rooms smaller than prison cells, live together and work together for a year at a time, believe me when I say that almost ALL of the people who are gay, have their sexual orientation pretty well known by those immediately around them. Its almost impossible to keep that sort of thing secret. Most of the ones who do get the boot, are the ones who want to make an issue out of it. And do NOT get me started on that.
Robert at May 30, 2010 4:18 PM
I was in the Army in the 60's. This topic came up with one man. I even remember his name. He was from California.
He used to walk around the barracks, stark naked, with an erection approximating a vaulting pole. Other than that, he was probably a good soldier, but for some reason this trivial behavior item antagonized most of the homophobic men...
He was sent home.
Interesting, I hadn't thought about this in years.
irlandes at May 30, 2010 4:41 PM
My eldest daughter who achieved something like E-5 or E-6 in the Air Force herself said military discipline was impossible with women.
She told stories of officers catching women stealing and other serious criminal offenses. When male officers brought charges, they were almost instantly fighting for their careers. Due to the inevitable sex charges, much akin to similar charges by divorcing mothers when they learn they are about to lose custody due to not being the primary care parent.
irlandes at May 30, 2010 4:46 PM
Were you stationed in Germany at the time?
Robert at May 30, 2010 4:46 PM
Eric whacked himself last month, I think he was 43. He served in Desert Storm as transport officer, in charge of a transport company with around 180 members, 10% were women.
He told us almost all of his time was spent dealing with 17 of 18 women. One was a fully professional soldier, extremely competent and did a great job.
The others weren't. Constant whining and complaining about something. They demanded he give them the officer's latrine. They demanded he give them the officer's tent and sleep with the enlisted men. He told them this is combat, and this is what you signed up for. Figure it out, officers have their own tent and their own latrine.
In the morning, they'd load up and drive to the staging unit to load trucks to move supplies to the next stage. One of the women would say, "I forgot my sanitary pads, and have to go back."
He'd suggest she borrow from someone else, and she'd say they don't use the same ones.
So, he'd have to send two people, no work done for hours, back to sleeping facilities, to get her sanitary pads.
All day long, same sort of shit.
I will be the first to admit there are women who can do almost anything men can do. The problem is we don't just let those women in the military; we have affirmative action quotas which means you start letting in totally unsuited women to meet the numbers, and to let them prove their manhood, and you have a mess.
irlandes at May 30, 2010 4:57 PM
I wouldn't doubt it irlandes.
Just 2 months ago we had a young female soldier who was GROSSLY overweight (she didn't start out that way, she kept a trunk full of snacks handy during the field exercise prior to deployment, and had it shipped out to her here, from which she was CONSTANTLY eating), she was angry at an 18 year veteran NCO for his having yelled at her for playing around on a computer all day instead of working.
So she accused him of sexually harassing HER. Leaving aside her physical condition...being rather not nice to look at, he has a really REALLY beautiful wife. On top of that, she asked several other soldiers to lie for her and say he was grabbing female's asses all the time.
Fortunately her story quickly unraveled.
But he got in trouble for telling her off and making her cry the next day. He got transfered to another posting. She went on leave and got pregnant while back in the U.S. within a week or two of coming back after leave, she was out of Iraq again, and on her way back home.
No punishment was brought against her. She didn't lose rank. She didn't lose money. She didn't even pull an extra duty shift.
Robert at May 30, 2010 4:58 PM
Sounds like Eric has had the same experience I, and most of us out here have.
I know of THREE capable female soldiers that are hard charging and hard working in my unit right now.
The rest, the opposite.
The worst part isn't that they behave as they do, or even that they believe they are entitled to do so.
The worst part is that there is no leadership allowed to do its job and provide the discipline we are supposed to, without fear of investigation and the end of a career.
Robert at May 30, 2010 5:09 PM
Just to let you know: It's just as bad on the Civilin side.
Jim P. at May 30, 2010 5:52 PM
I'm not to surprised at that Jim.
It used to be, that when bad shit happened, whether by chance, ill choice, or just someone being a total ass, then you were just expected to shut up and get over it.
Today with the increasingly litigious culture, we're increasingly hesitant to just let shit slide. We're bending over so far backwards to accomadate the whiners amongst us, that we're putting liberty, private enterprise, and the average citizen flat on their respective backs.
Robert at May 30, 2010 6:22 PM
Ahem. Guys, gays aren't women gaming the system.
"What's good is that gay men and women won't be thrown out of the military if somebody learns that they're gay."
This wasn't true before. Robert is right about servicemen knowing about their fellows. What you've seen was that when a gay serviceman (almost always a man - mannish women seem to thrive in the service) made their personal life an issue to be superior to the mission of the unit, they were dismissed.
You do not "apply for a job" in the service; you "swear in". You do not get to say when and where you serve if you are doing your duty.
I know you're going to blink dumbly at the screen and say "that's impossible", but in some units, your CO can actually have you sedated and imprisoned, deny you time off at any time for any reason, and confiscate your pay and restrict you - on his word.
What makes that work is accountability. No, shut up about what you've seen on the news - Obama's not accountable for the oil spill, that's theater. I mean the word related to that most sublime and difficult word, "duty".
No, you don't come first. The unit does. The submarine does. Married? So what - report for duty. Sick? Report for duty - there is a doctor (and a damn good one) at the pier. Birthday? Your buddies will wish you a happy one at your post, which you promised all of them you would occupy no matter what.
But every - every - time some damned meddler interferes, with some bizarre bullshit about equality, we all suffer.
Because battlefields do not give a shit about your ideas about time off, equitable pay or what you do on your off time. You don't get a "do over", much less an award for treating your people right.
You can see that sexual conduct kills servicepeople. I defy you to say it can be prevented in a population told that the individual comes first.
This is how "batshit crazy" - to use the term I saw here first from Amy - we, the public, are about this: we think we know something about military service, but cannot imagine carrying loaded automatic weapons while walking down a, any, street, much less in a supporting formation more coordinated than any NFL play. And we think flowers and bunnies would be nice, so much so that we would prescribe them through the force of law for people we expect to kill people by the hundreds of thousands.
Hey, tomorrow is Memorial Day. Just as I salute the dozens of ordinary guys who did their jobs first, and demonstrated their word was good, I salute the gay fellows I knew in 11 years in the Navy. No more, no less, because you all showed up and did your job. Cheers!
Radwaste at May 30, 2010 6:50 PM
One more thing: the Tuskegee Airmen proved, by irrefutable performance, that they were capable and honorable. They also put the mission first, beyond any personal consideration. That's how rights and responsibilities really work: you pay for rights by demonstrating responsibility.
They are not women in the service, nor are they gays in the service. In fact, they've proven themselves far in excess of either of those groups - when, in plain fact, they were doing their job. Much like the 442nd.
Ohhh, yeahhh...
Now for a lesson in consistent thinking.
This blog has brought up the myth about "equal pay for equal work" and shown numerous examples of the difficulties in mixed-gender employment. Does anyone think that this gets better when conditions are more severe? After you print out and post, "Military Service Is Not Just A Job" near your monitor, do you really think forcing combat units to accept people who have not proven themselves, or who put themselves first, makes that unit better?
Radwaste at May 30, 2010 7:07 PM
A damn good doctor at the pier? Wow the navy must do a good job of screening its medical personnel. The army is a mixed bag.
We have some damn good ones. But we also have some that couldn't make the cutoff scores in the civilian world.
--------------------
True, right now gays are not like women who were trying to game the system. But up until right now, there was no way for them to do so either.
What happens when there IS? Plenty of gay service members are just like any of the other hard working soldiers.
But the ones that aren't, will now have a damn good way to avoid the consequences of being a POS.
And that pisses me off.
---------------------
Robert at May 30, 2010 9:00 PM
Robert,
What you are describing is not a problem with women serving in the military. It is a problem with general discipline and professionalism.
The Army has had such bad recruitment issues lately, due to the burden of these wars, that their standards have had to go way down. When you are letting people in that have tattoos running up their neck, for God's sake, you have a problem.
My branch, the Air Force, has not had such issues with recruitment. We have also not had such issues with professionalism and women who are vying for special treatment. On the rare occasion that it does present its ugly head, our leadership can handle it -- and does.
I just finished a deployment in Iraq where I spent a lot of time with the Army. I think you are overstating the issue. There was a female soldier that cried wolf about being raped (she had been having sex with another soldier for months and happened to cry rape the night he broke it off with her). She was a well known dirt bag and a real piece of shit. It took the Army professionals at the CID (that's the Army's version of our OSI, right?) about three seconds to figure out that she was full of shit.
I agree with Amy that there is no reason to treat our gay brothers and sisters in arms with any less respect as anyone else who volunteers to serve their country.
I also agree that the problems you have brought up are real. However, these are problems that true professionals can rise to overcome. You know this. You've seen the spirit and resolve of our great military first hand.
Take care,
Jon
JonQPublic at May 30, 2010 9:05 PM
"What you are describing is not a problem with women serving in the military. It is a problem with general discipline and professionalism."
I wish that I could say that I were "overstating" the issue.
But the fact is that your description of the problem reminds me of a story I once heard.
"A man is in a balloon floating by a high rise, he's utterly lost, so he writes a sign that says "Where am I?" The office workers, seeing this, write a sign in return that says, "In a balloon." He then found his bearings and landed safely at his destination. When he was asked how he found his way, he told them about the signs read back and forth, and at the confused glance of his questioners he said, "Well, their answer was technically true, but also utterly useless, so I knew I was outside Microsoft Headquarters, which made it easy to know where to go next."
What I'm saying is that while your assessment is ABSOLUTELY accurate, it is also radically understated.
This problem does not exist with male soldiers. The problem ones can be smoked, punished, disciplined, and retrained, the ones that resist that every step of the way, are relatively easily chaptered out. Even the absolute WORST can be handled "the old fashioned way" (I'll leave that statement as it is)
Female soldiers this has not been the case. And after 11 years, 3 deployments, and 3 division level jobs, I do NOT understate, oversimplify, or exaggerate. Indeed quite the contrary, I have not written half, no not even a tenth part, of the issues that have come up.
The tools to fix the problems at the professional level Jon, are indeed allllll there. You are absolutely right.
HOWEVER, we are badly BADLY hamstrung. Its as if we're being told to fix a house...but only allowed to look at the tools we need. I see you raised an issue of false accusations of sexual assault. I could write for pages on that subject, about what I've seen happen year after year after year.
An 18 year veteran was transfered from a relatively safe spot to a more dangerous one, on deployment after yelling at a female soldier that had tried to lie and get others to lie about a sexual harassment accusation against him. She had nothing happen. Not at that, not when she came back from her leave pregnant and had to get shipped back on the taxpayer dime. And I've seen even worse than that over the years. My issue is not so much with women in the service, but rather with women in the service AS A PROTECTED CLASS.
And that is my issue with moving homosexuality into public in the service. Its members will also become a PROTECTED CLASS.
---------------
I also agree with Amy, and yourself, in that treating gays within the service as somehow lesser than others, would be wrong.
But with that understood, I already know EXACTLY what is going to come of this.
We're going to have more of that dumbass sexual harassment training (That kills more braincells than any amount of alcohol...without any of the fun) We're going to see a rise in complaints about it, which will lead to still MORE classes. And of course because now EO is going to have to expand its mission, as will IG, the climate of investigation and the fear to impose discipline will both get WORSE. We're going to have yet another specially protected population in the service that, gods above forbid, should hear a wise crack they don't like, or feel offended about something, or fuckall...will create another group of people in the military that can weasel out of assignments, duties, discipline, or punishment, by claiming discrimination or a hostile work environment.
SO at that point, not only will ever man have to walk on egg shells around women for fear one of them might overhear a dirty joke, but we'll have to walk on eggshells around other men too!
I'm all for people doing their jobs, doing the mission, and knocking the hard shit out, and if people are doing that, I don't give two shit nickels if they're any race, any creed, any party, gay, bi, tri, lesbian (if they're hot, that's just grand!)
But EVERY time some segment gains any kind of special attention, protection, or advocacy from OUTSIDE or INSIDE the military service, it just makes all our jobs that much more fucking difficult. And instead of breaking down stereotypes, it reinforces them even worse than those dumbass feminists did pretending an attack of the vapors when Larry Summers gave his speach at Harvard.
I like the sound of fucking INCOMING more than I like dealing with all that sensitivity shit as it is.
Oy vey...looks like I owe my wench an apology. I do deal with violence better than I do with feelings.
Pleasant days to you and yours Jon,
Robert
Robert at May 31, 2010 12:01 AM
I was USAF -- We had had gays that served honorably, as well as women. We also had guys that were whining more than any little girl I ever met.
It is a a matter of learning what comes first. Your civilian employer has a little more personal concern for you. But the reason that anyone hires you is to improve their bottom line -- not to advance social causes or your personal fortune.
Until you get that -- you are never going to get ahead.
Jim P. at May 31, 2010 4:29 AM
"A damn good doctor at the pier? Wow the navy must do a good job of screening its medical personnel."
They do, for unaccompanied tours on submarines. The corpsman, always an E-6 or E-7, was by his lonesome, and so was the highest rated volunteer they could get.
To add to your point about women - let us not forget that when a carrier is scheduled for deployment, dozens of women show up pregnant, unavailable to do their duty. They are transferred to outfits like SIMA Mayport (Shore Intermediate Maintenance Activity), where they do... nothing, because it's too risky. Men scheduled to be rotated to shore duty are then yanked back to sea to do those jobs.
"Professionalism", Jim? Obviously you've never had an idiot Senator interfere through senior officers.
Radwaste at May 31, 2010 5:51 AM
"Professionalism", Jim? Obviously you've never had an idiot Senator interfere through senior officers.
I was around when a Colonel effectively told McPeak to pound sand. I will have respect for the Colonel until the day I die. McPeak can kiss my ass. As soon as McPeak came out for Obama, I knew we were fucked. It may sound good on paper, but will get us killed. Thank higher powers that McPeak is gone. He was fucking dangerous.
It boils down to the fact that there are the officers (and enlisted) that are of the character to be warriors and those that are of the character to carry the beans and bullets. We need both. Unfortunately the issue is that the military tries to make the bean carriers into warriors and the warriors into bean carriers.
Jim P. at May 31, 2010 9:42 AM
Just to add my two cents....
I agree with a lot of what Robert has stated, I probably disagree as to the root cause of the issues though. At its root discipline issues such as Robert has raised are most often ignored or not dealt with because of poor leadership. Leaders in the Army, and the military in general, do not have their hands tied. Sure there are constraints, some large some not. So maybe the analogy is that our hands are tied together but with a decent amount of rope separating them. I have seen leaders that were very capable of dealing with discipline issues such as the ones raised. The great majority of the time the difference is knowing the regulations, sometimes better than the IG/EO folks, and documentation. Yes, the counseling statement is a royal pain in the ass and I think that it should not be necessary most of the time. I would much rather do a little wall-to-wall counseling then write some shit down on paper. But that is not the military we are in now. Reality changes. This reality is that understanding what regulations are pertinent and how to write stuff for record is a necessary skill. Having leaders above you that know this is also necessary because when the O6 looking at the separation paperwork decides that there is not enough there - and there rarely is for this type of colonel - then you do not have enough top cover and you get what Robert has discussed.
At the end of the day the military in the US has one simple and overriding mission: do what the civilian leaders tell us to do. Protect and defend the Constitution is all well and good, but who defines "protect and defend?" Civil leaders starting with the President. Those same civil leaders are not telling us that gay/lesbian service members should not have to hide their ... gay-ness? Whatever the right term is. Ok, so that is what we will do. And the best way to prevent the erection (yes, I said it...) of a (or another if you will) protected/entitled class is by leaders knowing their job and doing their job well. More often than not we shoot ourselves in the foot, we do not need outside influences to fuck things up for us, we are more than happy to fuck shit up all on our own. Just like any other piece of US society I suppose.
And who am I to comment? Army. 15 years. 3 Iraq deployments. Numerous division and corps level jobs. Enlisted and officer time. So I've got that going for me...
Gareth at May 31, 2010 10:30 AM
At the end of the day the military in the US has one simple and overriding mission: do what the civilian leaders tell us to do. Protect and defend the Constitution is all well and good, but who defines "protect and defend?"
I will semi-argue that any military's job is to kill people and break things; under civilian direction.
ANTONY:
Blood and destruction shall be so in use
And dreadful objects so familiar
That mothers shall but smile when they behold
Their infants quarter'd with the hands of war;
All pity choked with custom of fell deeds:
And Caesar's spirit, ranging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice
Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war;
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.
The point that when you let us off our leash -- we get to do what it takes to win. Not limited war, or a "political" decision. We want our enemies to know they have been touched .
Jim P. at May 31, 2010 1:04 PM
I think we can state with confidence that Jim P. above is no fan of McPeak. I'll bet you never bought one of his redesigned uniforms, either, did you?
I waited until the next redesign undid most of his changes, myself.
old rpm daddy at June 1, 2010 5:55 AM
Leave a comment