"I'm sure gay men can pull that off, too."
And so can men that arent macho. The point isnt IF they can, its that THEY DO, regardless of sexual orientation they do. What detracts from it is this sense that being gay, because of the way that some homosexual men have portrayed themselves or have been portrayed, it is the opposite of macho. This isnt really difficult to understand. I mean just turn on the TV and if you look at how some of these homosexual characters are portrayed in just about every single show thats on TV, it is feminine.. and prissy. lol These characters are derived from actual male homosexual behavior. And we as a society have been watching. I mean, we didnt make up the images of male homosexuals dressing like females, or walking like females, or incorporating female gestures into their persona. WE DIDNT MAKE THAT UP... they have provided that material in the normal course of the way they behave. What I hear you saying is that the definition of MACHO is incorrect... which.. i mean, I nor the military nor any one single person "made up" what macho is... You understand this right?
"This confuses (and annoys) me so much. Apparently Marines think that gender orientation has something to do with dependability and sacrifice if the shit hits the fan. Your not-so-implicit message is that a gay man would cower or run but a straight man never would."
No... that isnt the inference at all. You have to remember that if a person spends 4 years in the military, that might include less than 24 total hours of "shit hitting the fan". I mean, situations where no shit you are taking fire and explosions are occuring around you in totality is not a lot of time. I was in a situation where our outpost perimeter wall was hit by an RPG... the cumulative time of that entire episode was less than 20 seconds... regardless of whether you are straight or homosexual, in that moment you can only prove to do what you WILL do. Does that make sense? At that stage its no longer hypothetical it just is what it is. Marines and Soldiers alike spend the majority of their careers NOT IN COMBAT, its preparing, training, and even on deployment its maintaining, patrolling, all of which is 95% not under fire... and sometimes 100% for some members. So your interactions for a majority of the time are not dependent upon your actual performance in combat. That may never occur.
However ALL of that preparation, training, and bonding is meant to address those tiny slivers of time when the shit DOES hit the fan. How you will perform in that instant is really entirely dependent upon your training, your confidence, your emotional control, etc... and units build upon that... because units survive in those situations, individuals do not... so the cohesive aspect is paramount. Any disruption that causes any negative effect on that can have very serious consequences. If the majority of this is built under non combat conditions then its not hard to understand the necessity to "fake" it, inspire it, reinforce it, etc..
Surely you can understand this. For a young 18 yr old that just earned the title Marine, he feels like he can do anything... he's a Marine.. lol And we dont want to lessen that meaning, that only hurts us.. thats like a coach giving a speech before the start of the game to his players saying "well theyre stronger, faster, better, than us.. i dont know guys.. im not too confident".. i mean, thats harmful. So I understand it may annoy you, but it to your benefit as a citizen to have young men that believe they can kill any enemy and win every battle, and train as such, and take pride in as such, and use that as motivation and inspiration... thats a very good thing for you even if it does annoy you because thats the purpose of these young men....
So its not to give the belief that being gay is paramount to being cowardly, its that being gay is paramount to being less than "macho" and "manly" and in a profession that relies heavily on undertaking activities such as what Marines undertake.. being seen as macho, confident, superior, a professional warrior, dangerous is a good psychological position. I wouldnt want us to embrace any other type of outlook... im not sure you would want us to either.
"And how is this weakened by the addition of homosexuals into the ranks? Face it, they've been there but closeted, doing the same things the rest of you have done for centuries."
Yes... but if I dont know youre a homosexual then how are you any different or how should I see you any different than I see myself? Im not against homosexuals serving at all... clearly they can do the job. Im against adding distractions and disrupting unit cohesion by adding openly homosexual behavior to a unit. The reason being is societies outlook on male homesexual behavior and the stereotypes involved. It doesnt matter if you believe its justified.. it is what it is. At the same time, I see no necessity for it. Can a homosexual do their job and no one else know they are homosexual? clearly of course they can. Is it necessary to change a policy that helped protect the unit cohesion just so an individual can openly act homosexual with no real punitive outcome? I dont really see any reason for that, all i see is the negative effects that can occur... and it would really be needless and certainly not worth a life.
"More stereotyping. Is it true or not that “One of the goals of the military to break down the mentality you had in the outside world, and they’re going to build you up as a soldier," Jackson said. “If you’re going to find some life experience leading to changes in personality traits, it seems like one of the best environments for that to happen would be the military experience.” Do you have any arguments against the conclusions reached by this study?"
Sure I agree with the quote and the conclusions. What my argument was and is that the military has never even brought up homosexuality at all to me. What im saying is, they havent tried to make me think its okay or that i should embrace it as okay, or that I should hate it and despise it. We have important things to do. Concentrating on how homosexuality is viewed in society is not on the priority list. And to be honest, I wouldnt advocate we spend any time at all on it. We're not societies social engineers... we have more important things to do. When I told you that there was no indictrination I was being literal, I have received no training on homosexuality or the acceptence of it, nor have I received any training on homosexuality and repulsiveness of it. We werent even briefed on DADT. I mean I was not instructed to look out for homosexual behavior and report it up the chain of command... no time was expended upon such trivial matters.
"Well I'm not well-versed in homosexuality minutiae but have to think their personality traits and behaviours reflect those of the rest of society. You specifically mention feminine and prissy, what about "rough trade"? Slang (in homosexual use) a tough or violent sexual partner, esp a lorry driver, construction worker, or docker, casually picked up. And, what about those men with huge egos who flaunt their heterosexuality and have the attitude they're god's gift to women, is there any official blowback over that?"
No homosexual personalities and behaviours reflect those of the homosexuals.. not the rest of society.. with the vast majority of society not homosexual if they reflected society we'd have no homosexuals. So.. I mention the accepted views. Im not going to debate whether or not male homosexuals have conveyed the feminine prissy persona.. thats something I dont feel is in doubt by any reasonable person.
And no there is no real blowback from heterosexuals being heterosexuals since the majority is heterosexual... why would the majority blowback upon itself normal behavior of the majority?
"They are one of the guys, they just have different sexual partners. Sorry, I know you really believe what you're writing from your experience, but it doesn't translate well. It's just discrimination with a layer of sugar-coating."
I think its just a realization of ones surroundings. For as bad an analogy as it is, if you were a straight man and you walked into a room full of man hating lesbian biker chics, would you try to assimilate or would you go on some man chest pounding escapade? lol I mean realizing where you are and who you are with is sometimes just apart of life... in most scenarios it doesnt really matter because life and death are not really apart of the equation. Killing other people is not really apart of the equation.. so this is a somewhat special circumstance.
How does a "weak, prissy, feminine type" get through basic training in the Marines?
Like I said.. if theyve made a choice to join the service they understand what theyre getting into.. they dont bring that stuff to boot camp. Dont be confused by the way the male homosexual is "perceived" by their behavior that makes into popular culture, and the way a male who is homosexual may act when in a military environment.. plus, before it was even punishable to act like that so they didnt. Now without DADT its acceptable, though as I said, I have not noticed anyone choosing to act that way in uniform in my experience in the combat arms community.
"Trust about what? I get this if you're talking about a 12-year old taking a shower with Jerry Sandusky but grown men leery of who's in the shower with them? The military isn't the only place men might shower together, what about gyms? What about sitting around together in a sauna?"
Its a professional trust.. its not complicated. You take a shower with other guys, you trust he isnt checking you out in a sexual manner... its not code. Just basic common sense.
How many "flaming queens" do you know IRL? Damn, that's just such a stereotype.
Ive only known two. Both were good guys, they were paramedics (not in the military)... ya know.. they were flaming queens.. make up, high pitched voices, female mannerisms... the whole act. lol
"You have been indoctrinated, either from the military or your regular life. This comment "ive yet to come across a homosexual that was willing to openly act like a homosexual in uniform" is a case in point. I always believed that when you had on the uniform you were supposed to project the image of the job... sorta like wearing a suit and tie if you're working for a blue-chip corporation. Yet you seem to think all homosexuals are just bursting to, I don't know, dress like Corporal Klinger maybe?"
No... what I meant was, I have yet to come across anyone in uniform who has decided to act or disclose that they are homosexual. Before DADT repeal they couldnt because they could be dishonorably discharged, now they can with no real consequence and yet they still arent. Me relating this experience has nothing to do with any indoctrination, its just a basic observation.
IOW they have to live a lie because of the culture.
That may be true, but it isnt the military's fault...
"I partly agree with this, because society moves glacially slow when it comes to ending discrimination.
Then again no other business place or corporation that I know of has/had a DADT policy. In fact this is mostly the province of religion. I only hope future generations will grow to understand that such bias is senseless."
And again, since you arent apart of the machine that fights your wars you still seem to think this is comparable to business jobs or other things. I honestly find it very disrespectful when people try to associate how a common everyday civilian job is equally subject to petty things in society.. you assholes arent the ones that are facing the shit.. you are watching it on TV and then trying to tell those of us who are doing it that if we could only become more socially progressive then YOUD feel better about our sacrifices... just seems weird. I know you arent doing that intentionally and that you have no real desire to come across that way.. I just..
