What Is True/Slant?
275+ knowledgeable contributors.
Reporting and insight on news of the moment.
Follow them and join the news conversation.

Jul. 1 2009 - 8:39 am | 84 views | 1 recommendation | 4 comments

Another gay soldier thrown out of the military

SELMA, AL - MARCH 04:  Presidential candidate ...

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

And another gay soldier bites the dust.  Barack Obama could have issued an executive order halting Bill Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the military.

The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy has resulted in the discharge of over 12,000 service members for refusing to be in the closet (that is, it’s okay to be gay, just not out) .  It was also something Obama promised to end.   He hasn’t.  Obama, like Clinton, is so good at compromising and being satisfied with results that please no one, that he has done what he always does: promised great things and delivered nothing.

The most recent victim of the policy  is Dan Choi, a West Point graduate who served in the “Triangle of Death” in Iraq.   Of course, Choi isn’t just a soldier, he’s an Arabic speaker and one of dozens who have been kicked out under the policy.  Choi got tired of living in the closet.  He founded a West Point group of gays and lesbians called “Knights Out,” wrote a letter to the Army Times, and is so out that he marshaled San Francisco pride this past weekend.

National Guard: Gay Iraq veteran must leave service – CNN.com.

So now Choi’s been tossed out of the service under a policy that has so far cost taxpayers about $400 million dollars.  Are we more secure for not having gays in the military?  I doubt it.  Of course, I doubt we are more secure for having a military and military industrial complex that now drains over half our tax dollars away from real security, like good schools, a clean environment and health care.  But, if we’re going to spend over half our tax dollars on the military, then all Americans ought to be able to be fully represented in it.

The real crux of the problem is, no doubt, the legacy of the invention of the homosexual.  According to most historians of sexuality, the homosexual (and his twin, the hetero) was invented sometime around the late 1800s.  The homo was born a gender invert, a manly woman or girlie man; the hetero was born a manly man or a girlie girl.  According to the science of the Victorian era, the most advanced humans were those with the most gender differentiation (this was Darwin’s heyday after all).  Since humans who had sex with persons of the same sex could not possibly be advanced, they had to be degenerate (that is, they had to lack extreme sexual dimorphism).  In this way, gay men were invented as sissies and lesbian women as butches. Equally important is the idea that the degeneracy of the homosexual could corrupt others.  In other words, the homosexual was also invented as a sexual predator.

Fast forward a century.  Stonewall has happened.  Chelsea boys have happened- those ultra manly gay men with their rippling muscles.  Lipstick lesbians have happened with their hot bods and insistence on liking women.

But still, the ghost of Victorian degeneracy haunts us.  There is an idea that gay men are not manly enough to serve and that even if allowed to serve, they would put other soldiers at (sexual) risk.  This is a rather odd claim from a military in which female soldiers are regularly raped by their male counterparts.  In fact, according to Helen Benedict’s The Lonely Soldier, rape of female soldiers by their comrades is so common that it is rarely reported.  But that’s different.  Those are women.  And as for women, they are put in combat but still not full combat soldiers.

Which leaves us with a military that is so macho that you have to be a straight man to qualify.  Or a closeted gay man.  But women, even the butchest among them, should probably not be soldiers unless they wish to be subjected to sexual violence and combat without really being able to be a combat soldier.

Obama only has one option as President: to halt the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy with an executive order today.  We as a society have many options.  One would be to ask why all our tax dollars are going to such an institution?  Another might be to demand that the military be reformed, not as a hyperagressive and hypermacho arm of Imperialism, but as a small, protective force free of discrimination.   Perhaps Choi, who is clearly briliant and a leader, can now put his military training to use creating a more peaceful America?


3 T/S Member Comments Called Out, 4 Total Comments
Post your comment »
  1. collapse expand

    My feeling is that President Obama is pushing a great deal … and that for this he has chosen to opt for the PEOPLE to push. I’m not sure why. Perhaps because the economy, the environment, and the heath care are (or shouid be0 without the … what? Stigma? … of relgious belief. Maybe the human rights issues of equality for homosexuals is something that he believes MUST come from the bottom up to be lasting. His postponement of dealing with his campaign promise seems to be working that way … the more his postpones, the more people are standing up and being counted! This could be the best strategy of all.

  2. collapse expand

    Good grief, have we elected Obama or Machiavelli? I find his reaction bewildering and think: Either we don’t understand Obama or he doesn’t understand us.

  3. collapse expand

    I think it is hard to remember all that Obama has on his plate. This should be a high-priority issue though, as it is national security. Is there anything that shows gays and lesbians make worse soldiers?

  4. collapse expand

    This post got me thinking….

    Would you be able to say that the reason heterosexual men fear gay men in the military, is because of the rape issue? Some heterosexual men rape women in the military, and perhaps it is these same hyper-sexualized men (I mean “hyper-sexualized” as in they are obsessed with sex) who fear rape from their fellow soldier?

    The wimpy “feminine” gay guy is not a threat- a strong soldier who can carry 35 pounds of gear would be. You, as a male, are isolated with other men (like prison!), and uh, oh, you have a sexual urge to give in to.

    Gays are marginalized for the same reason women are… their sex. Maybe men all along have subconsciously known that they are just less competent around women, like that recent study by Johan C. Karremans ( of Radboud University in the Netherlands) proves, and they assume gay men would also lose a “cog” in their cognitive functions too. Maybe gays and women should be put in units together exclusively, and the argument would be to protect them from homophobes and rapists. Then everyone would be happy.

Log in for notification options
Comments RSS

Post Your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment

Log in with your True/Slant account.

Previously logged in with Facebook?

Create an account to join True/Slant now.

Facebook users:
Create T/S account with Facebook

My T/S Activity Feed


    About Me

    I'm an academic who does not believe in abstract knowledge. Like Marx, I think the point isn't just to describe the world, but to change it. Unlike Marx I don't have Engels sending me my monthly rent. So I have a day job teaching sociology at Middlebury College. In my real life, I'm a fighter (taekwondo) and a writer

    (Salon, Legal Affairs, NPR's "All Things Considered") and now this blog. My second book, American Plastic: Boob Jobs, Credit Cards, and the Spirit of Our Time, is a critique of neoliberal capitalism through cosmetic surgery. American Plastic will be published by Beacon in 2010.

    See my profile »
    Followers: 221
    Contributor Since: December 2008
    Location:Montreal, QC & Burlington, VT

    What I'm Up To

    Buy the book

    If you want to buy my book now and avoid the holiday rush (obviously it will be a hot hot item come December- kinda like an i-Pad or maybe more like a Cabbage Patch Doll?) you can do it here.