Military homophobia has always been somewhat of a paradox. Sex between soldiers is officially strictly forbidden, unofficially tolerated (as long as it does not become public knowledge and the 'offenders' retain their official heterosexual identity), and unconsciously encouraged, by forcing men to live together in close quarters without any substantial privacy, by limiting their access to female partners and by promoting close friendships. Marines in many ways are in reverse drag -- the uniforms, the meticulous attention to detail about image and appearance, the exaggeration of the gender-specific attributes. It all makes sense.
Quote from: l i e b e on January 10, 2008, 01:48:36 PMMilitary homophobia has always been somewhat of a paradox. Sex between soldiers is officially strictly forbidden, unofficially tolerated (as long as it does not become public knowledge and the 'offenders' retain their official heterosexual identity), and unconsciously encouraged, by forcing men to live together in close quarters without any substantial privacy, by limiting their access to female partners and by promoting close friendships. Marines in many ways are in reverse drag -- the uniforms, the meticulous attention to detail about image and appearance, the exaggeration of the gender-specific attributes. It all makes sense. The Solo mon Amendment and Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy = Same Problem, Different Victims. Like the Solomon Amendment, DADT purports on its face to limit no more than expression. Just as law schools are asked to welcome discriminatory recruiters but maintain a fully inclusive identity, non-heterosexual service members are asked to pretend to be straight (or to say nothing at all, and thereby acquiesce to presumed heterosexuality) but maintain a fully gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity. If this kind of feat is impossible for the homophobic Boy Scouts or antihomophobic law schools, it is certainly impossible for homosexuals themselves. "Being" gay is as much a matter of expression — the decision to "come out" of the closet, once and then over and over again — as it is about the sexual feelings you have or the sexual acts you perform. Expression is the crucible in which [gay] identity is formed. Solomon and DADT even resort to the same mechanics of expression/identity coercion. Just as the Solomon Amendment tells law schools that they can "choose" to keep their nondiscrimination policy intact so long as they're prepared to lose millions of dollars in federal funding, the military quasi-ban tells present and would-be servicemembers that they can "choose" to come out so long as they're prepared to lose their federal jobs. In both instances the choice is arguably illusory and neither one is it fair, honest, or dignified for either the coercer or the coerced.
Military homophobia has always been somewhat of a paradox. Sex between soldiers is officially strictly forbidden, unofficially tolerated (as long as it does not become public knowledge and the 'offenders' retain their official heterosexual identity), and unconsciously encouraged, by forcing men to live together in close quarters without any substantial privacy, by limiting their access to female partners and by promoting close friendships. Marines in many ways are in reverse drag -- the uniforms, the meticulous attention to detail about image and appearance, the exaggeration of the gender-specific attributes. It all makes sense. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" :: An Interesting Bookhttp://youtube.com/watch?v=4gQv19gbqL0
The Solo mon Amendment and Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy = Same Problem, Different Victims. Like the Solomon Amendment, DADT purports on its face to limit no more than expression. Just as law schools are asked to welcome discriminatory recruiters but maintain a fully inclusive identity, non-heterosexual service members are asked to pretend to be straight (or to say nothing at all, and thereby acquiesce to presumed heterosexuality) but maintain a fully gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity. If this kind of feat is impossible for the homophobic Boy Scouts or antihomophobic law schools, it is certainly impossible for homosexuals themselves. "Being" gay is as much a matter of expression — the decision to "come out" of the closet, once and then over and over again — as it is about the sexual feelings you have or the sexual acts you perform. Expression is the crucible in which [gay] identity is formed. Solomon and DADT even resort to the same mechanics of expression/identity coercion. Just as the Solomon Amendment tells law schools that they can "choose" to keep their nondiscrimination policy intact so long as they're prepared to lose millions of dollars in federal funding, the military quasi-ban tells present and would-be servicemembers that they can "choose" to come out so long as they're prepared to lose their federal jobs. In both instances the choice is arguably illusory and neither one is it fair, honest, or dignified for either the coercer or the coerced.
Author
Topic: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea? (Read 18987 times)
Discussion
Resources