You’re in the Army Now, by Martha Thomases – Brilliant Disguise | @MDWorld
With all the kerfuffle about the presidential campaign (which has been covered extremely well on this site here and here, just for example), another political milestone has gone less noticed.
One year ago, President Obama abolished “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and thereby allowed gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, transgendered and other non-straight people to serve openly in the military. Despite the dire predictions of those opposed to this action, there have not been mass defections from the armed forces, nor have there been increases in the number of anal rapes in military showers.
If anything, there have been an increase in heart-warming stories like this, which makes one’s heart go pitter-pat with patriotism.
I don’t know how I feel about this.
On the one hand, queer Americans should have the same opportunities as every other American, including the opportunity to serve in the armed forces, if that’s what they want. Military service offers excellent benefits, including medical care and the respect of a grateful nation. Throughout our history, the armed forces have been a tool for social change, including racial desegregation when Truman was commander-in-chief.
On the other hand, there’s the killing.
Killing is not the only thing that the military does. Just as a police officer can go through an entire career without firing a shot, a soldier can go through an entire career without serving in combat. Military personnel guard our embassies, aide our allies, help people around the world during natural disasters, and lots of other good things.
My personal favorite thing that they do is the Marine Corps Marathon. Years ago, I ran it as part of the War Resisters League track club. Unlike every other race I ever ran, this one was superbly organized. As a runner who was never very fast, I had seen races that weren’t that great. With this, there were always people at the water stations. There was always toilet paper int he porto-sans. It was a fantastic experience. This was the proper use of the military.
But also, in times of war, they kill people. And also, they get killed, which is worse.
During the Viet Nam war, when there was a draft, there was a debate about whether or not women should be drafted. After all, feminists were demanding that women have equal rights, and, with equal rights come equal responsibilities. People who were opposed to equal rights for women argued that, if women were drafted into the army, they might be killed, or even raped (which was somehow worse, in these arguments). Do you want your daughters in such situations, they would ask.
I didn’t really understand why a daughter being killed was more tragic than the loss of a son. I thought both were plenty horrible. And, as a feminist, I thought that men and women should be treated equally.
My solution? Don’t draft anybody.
I’d like to take a similar approach to the issue of GLBTQ people in the military. If that is something you wish to do, you should have every right to do so. But before you do, I would hope you would also seek out another way to serve your country, with honor and respect, that lets you do good things without the threat of violence hanging over your head.
You are too beautiful to get shot. And you are too glorious to shoot anyone else.
—-
Martha Thomases, Media Goddess, used to want to go through basic training because she thought it would help her lose weight.
![[Facebook]](http://mdwp.malibulist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[MySpace]](http://mdwp.malibulist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Twitter]](http://mdwp.malibulist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Email]](http://mdwp.malibulist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
September 22nd, 2012 at 7:47 am
I have similar mixed feelings, Martha, though they start even before the killing does. I understand the importance of equality in all areas of American life, but it still bothers me that LGBTQ peoples can now openly lay down their lives and kill to defend a country that still refuses them basic human rights, where it’s still acceptable to use our rights as a political football. Of course, service is one way LGBTQ peoples get to show our value to society, but irks me that that lesson still needs to be taught.
September 22nd, 2012 at 8:51 am
You’re right, of course. It seems to be the American pattern. African-Americans could kill and be killed in the armed forces long before they could participate fully in society. The military was integrated before buses, or swimming pools, or restaurants, or Vegas, just for a few examples.
September 22nd, 2012 at 10:25 am
We’ve always had gay men in combat, and we’ve always had women serving in war time… just not in combat. Equal rights are just that: EQUAL rights. There’s no “except” in that concept.
I assume all the Objectives agree with this position.
The only response to the draft is that the way to deal with equal wrongs is to get rid of ‘em for all. Every six months or so somebody in a position of authority suggests we reinstate the draft. Maybe this will slow down if we ever leave Afghanistan. But we really don’t have the need for as many boots on the ground anymore — we have need for nerds in the Nebraska bunkers.
Ergo: draft nerds. That’ll put Anonymous in their place!
September 22nd, 2012 at 10:28 am
Martha, I have one correction for your otherwise fine column that is important and illustrates a common line in the sand, or Afgan hillsides: DADT does not include transgender servicewomen and servicemen.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/22/dont-ask-dont-tell-transgender-dadt_n_1904157.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
September 22nd, 2012 at 10:47 am
Nobody asked me — or any of the other lgbt people I know — whether allowing us into the armed forces was my top gay-liberation priority. For that matter, very few of my friends thought marriage was item No. 1. Not when we still didn’t — and still don’t — have federal civil rights protections on employment, housing, and public accommodations. But then, do you remember the Pinto, the automobile that would explode when rear-ended? I wouldn’t buy one, but if they said homosexuals weren’t allowed to own them, I’d have to fight for the right to have one if I wanted. And meanwhile, the blood banks still can’t take gay male blood.
September 22nd, 2012 at 11:35 am
[...] leaving her post at DC Martha has been most visible to the world as a columnist at ComicMix and Michael Davis World. But right now it’s not Martha I want to write about; it’s her husband [...]
September 22nd, 2012 at 11:50 am
Me, I’m rooting for a mandatory period of public service when one reaches drafting age that can include the military option if that’s what one really wants to do but that also includes peaceful activities that one doesn’t have to jump through hoops as a conscientious objector to opt for. Although I very much did NOT want to engage in warfare when I turned 18, I couldn’t quite feel good about the easy out I had (saying I was gay) that allowed me to avoid giving a couple of good years of my life to a country that was providing me with so many benefits.
September 22nd, 2012 at 12:40 pm
Ed, I can’t help but think that the DADT discussion aided the same-sex marriage initiative, and vice versa. They both became very visible elements of the political bouillabaisse of the past several years. The fact that there have always been gay men in combat was an ephaniny to many, particularly to guys who fought in Korea and Nam and who, now that we mentioned it, knew gay guys with whom they already trusted their lives. Every point of discrimination you noted is valid and important and hostility towards LGBT folks will not be eliminated a long as our society is in the thrall of organized religion. But it’s remarkable how attitudes have changed in just the past five years — astonishing, in my eyes — and that portends well for the future…
As long as we continue the fight against bigotry.
September 22nd, 2012 at 6:33 pm
I’m mostly liberal, but I’m not a pacifist. I do think sometimes a violent response is what is needed, even military violent response, though obviously I’d like to restrict them to a minimum.
The repeal of DADT is most important because it helps to dispel some very poisonous myths about gays. That gays are cowards, or weak, or unpatriotic, or only worried about themselves and their “hedonistic” lives, or worse of all, that openly gay people can’t be “trusted” in the company of straight people.
You know, all the myths that many social conservatives have always been so fond of.
September 22nd, 2012 at 11:55 pm
Thanks Rene. I was trying to figure out what I was going to write, but you said pretty much what I wanted to say; and said it better.
September 23rd, 2012 at 4:39 am
I may be getting too old to ever see the day when equality means equality for everyone in ever way not just the ones who see themselves as chosen. Still, every little step we take towards that makes me feel better, Tod Akins and his like aside.
September 23rd, 2012 at 8:11 am
The American military spends a great deal of our money perpetuating its own practices. When the utility of having a mass of solidiers ready to board ships and planes to go fight in those conflicts deemed too hopeless for negotiation fades in importance, the “war dividend” will transform the country more than any policy shift towards equality.
September 24th, 2012 at 10:04 am
Howard wrote: “Me, I’m rooting for a mandatory period of public service when one reaches drafting age that can include the military option if that’s what one really wants to do but that also includes peaceful activities that one doesn’t have to jump through hoops as a conscientious objector to opt for.”
Ditto. I also think every American (especially anyone remotely interested in pursuing politics at some future date) should work somewhere overseas for a year or so. Too many people here are clueless about life in other countries.
Rene wrote: “I’m mostly liberal, but I’m not a pacifist.”
I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again: It’s easy to be a pacifist when living in a society that shelters and protects you. How long to you think the Amish would last in the Sudan, or Pol Pot’s Cambodia, or Stalin’s Russia?
If Ghandi tried his non-violent protests in, say, Germany in 1936, the world would have ever heard of him because he would have vanished faster than you could say “Third Reich.”
Diplomacy should always be the first option — even against an aggressor nation. But if diplomacy fails, a country had better be willing and able to take the next step if necessary. Neville Chamberlain found that out the hard way. Chamberlain thought he could make a deal with Hitler, but during several meetings with Chamberlain and other European leaders, Hitler sensed much weakness (he called the leaders he met with “worms”), and this actually emboldened him.
Which is we’d better be careful in the Middle East, because the radical elements there do not respect any sign of weakness.
September 24th, 2012 at 10:41 am
Russ said…”Which is we’d better be careful in the Middle East, because the radical elements there do not respect any sign of weakness.”
That is unfortunately a pretty accurate assessment. Which is made all the more concerning by the seriously muted response of the moderates when it comes to speaking out against extremist acts and policies.
“Diplomacy should always be the first option — even against an aggressor nation. But if diplomacy fails, a country had better be willing and able to take the next step if necessary.”
“Too many people here are clueless about life in other countries.”
Cosign.
September 24th, 2012 at 10:58 am
For once, I agree with you, Russ.
I think pacifism most often comes from the notion that all human lives have the same value. So violence is always wrong, even when you’re considering shooting a nazi that is killing a jew, or a pedophile that is about to rape a kid. Because the lives of the nazi and the pedophile are equally as valuable as the lives of the jew and the kid.
It’s a moral position that I’m unable to partake of. Yes, I judge. And pacifists often say people like me are setting themselves as God, because I shouldn’t judge who should die and who should live, but I’d respond and say that pacifists are the ones that want to be like God, considering all life precious, no matter how wicked the person.
I don’t have in me the mercy to see value in a pedophile’s life, for instance.
And yes, another problem with Liberals is that, for all their talk of cultural relativism, they fail to understand that other cultures are, well, DIFFERENT. There are radical elements in Middle East cultures that are far more war-like and unable to compromise than Liberals give them credit for.
The West must be adamant in its defense of freedom of the press. But I also must point that, for me, that is being consistent. While some Conservatives look funny when they defend freedom of speech, and women’s rights, when they’re not too keen on those things back home.
September 24th, 2012 at 11:32 am
Russ said “Too many people here are clueless about life in other countries” and that’s possibly the greatest truth expressed in public all year. Not only are Americans clueless, but as a nation we couldn’t care less. It was sort of cute back in the isolationist “America First” days, but those great oceans haven’t offered us much protection since the first Pearl Harbor Day. Even less since the development of what we used to call “the long-range missile” (now we call them “bombs”).
And Rene also expressed another Great Truth that is very much in keeping with Russ’s statement. “Other cultures are different.” We think that democracy is a no-brainer; nope, it’s a foreign concept and one that isn’t in keeping with some cultures and most organized religions. I can respect other cultures’ mores to a considerable extent, but I tend to draw the line on racial, cultural, religious, tribal and sexual aggression. If women want to wear hajibs that’s no skin off of my ass. If men feel justice is gang raping women who offend their standards, that’s another matter.
Does this give America the right to invade? No. Absolutely not. We’ve been engaging the world in cultural domination for the better part of a century, and that has made some significant inroads and will continue to do so with technological advances. But that does not justify our initiating violence. Being threatened requires a more sublime response, starting with diplomacy. But our imposing our values at the point of a gun is merely imposing another value, and not one of our best.
September 24th, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Mike, I am extremely skeptical of any government claiming to do anything for reasons of promoting freedom or democracy or human rights.
All governments play a game of geopolitical chess. They will support what they claim to ideologically oppose, if it’s in their own base interests.
So yeah, I call “rubbish” when neo-cons say they want to export democracy via preventive wars.
I believe individuals can be moral. Governments, on the other hand, as agents in the international stage, are amoral entities looking after their own interests.
September 24th, 2012 at 2:21 pm
As I pacifist, I can’t say that there aren’t times when I wouldn’t want to kill someone — violently. However, as a pacifist, I try to prevent these situations from occurring. Therefore, I would work to create a society where a Hitler or a Pol Pot can’t come to power because people are wise to their hooey.
September 24th, 2012 at 2:51 pm
We all would want to create such a society, Martha.
But here is my disagreement with pacifists and anti-punishment folks: one thing doesn’t exclude the other.
Many people criticize the death penalty on the grounds that much violent crime is caused by societal conditions, and we should instead focus on remedying such conditions.
Can’t we do both? Can’t we work to eradicate poverty and at the same time punish harshly people who hurt other people? Can’t we strive to create a better society and at the same time be ready to defend it by force of arms?
I don’t think it’s an either/or proposition.
September 24th, 2012 at 3:09 pm
My opposition toothed watch penalty stemsfrommy opposition to murder. I don’t want the state killing anyone in my name. Also, until the system is perfect (not likely as long as humans are involved), there is too much chance to kill an innocent person.
September 25th, 2012 at 3:38 am
Martha, the way I see it, having the death penalty means that injustice is likely, while not having the death penalty means that injustice is certain. Because you’re forcing taxpayers to pay good money to mantain the very people that have killed their loved ones.
Another thing that has shifted my views to a pro-death penalty stance is psychological research that shows that most killers do not have remorse for what they did. They already passed a sort of moral threshold that enabled them to kill another human being. Doing it again is far more likely than another person doing the deed for the first time. Worse, there are some killers that NEVER felt remorse in their lives, and never will: the clinical psychopaths. There is no redeeming these guys.
The death penalty is also more honest than people rooting for the police to shoot the real rotten bastards while they resist arrest. Or taking pleasure in knowing prison rape will happen in certain cases, because prison by itself doesn’t seem like enough punishment.
And speaking of rapists, it’s another crowd I wouldn’t mind seeing the world get rid of.