05/21/2007
NYT Article Suggests U.S. Military Considering End of Gay Ban
John Aravosis at AmericaBlog appropriately takes the NYT to task for accompanying a forward-looking article on gays in the military with a photo that seems to reinforce plenty of stereotypes. Says Aravosis: "I wonder how many straight people who find themselves in the middle on gay issues, or even those slightly (or majorly) predisposed against us (especially on the gay-ban), will have their subtle prejudices reinforced by a photo that pretty much makes gay people look like effete fools. Because, you know, nudge nudge wink wink, the women are butch and everything, so maybe they're okay in the military, but the guys are all men who just yearn to put up on women's make-up and wigs - hardly the manly men you'd want fighting the terrorists, let alone sleeping in the cot next to you."
The article reports: "Since the British military began allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces in 2000, none of its fears — about harassment, discord, blackmail, bullying or an erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness — have come to pass, according to the Ministry of Defense, current and former members of the services and academics specializing in the military. The biggest news about the policy, they say, is that there is no news. It has for the most part become a nonissue."
And perhaps a hopeful note for the future, according to one British official: “We’re not looking to have quotes taken out of context in a way to imply that we’re trying to influence the debate in the United States. There are some sensitivities over the timing of this. We have had communications from our counterparts in the United States, and they have asked us questions about how we’ve handled it and how it’s gone on the ground. There does seem to be some debate going on over how long the current policy will be sustainable.”
Gay Britons Serve in Military With Little Fuss, as Predicted Discord Does Not Occur [nyt]
US military talking to Brits about how long gay-ban should be continued [americablog]
Posted 4:45 PM EST by Andy in Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Drag Queens, Great Britain, Military, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Great Liberace's Ghost! Is Carson Kressley the photo editor at the Times now? So much for enlightened New York.
Posted by: Leland | May 21, 2007 4:52:34 PM
JOHN ARAVOSIS IS ABSURD: he is arguing that in order to be accepted (not just in the military but in all facets of life) gays have to conform to straight perceptions of masculinity. John is pretty much arguing for sweeping butch dykes and effeminate gay men under the rug. Which of course will defeat the whole purpose of acceptance. I am sorry he is so sensitive to the full range of gay society. Towleroad appears to be lapping up his argument. Shame on TOWLEROAD. Then again Towleroad has been the most dedicated publicist Fred Phelps ever had, reporting on his every protest.
Posted by: tony | May 21, 2007 5:12:38 PM
Sorry, Tony, I strongly disagree. What Avarosis is pointing out is that the photo that the NYT used to accompany its article may, for some people, reinforce the negative stereotype of gay men they already have.
And no, Avarosis is not "sweeping butch dykes and effeminate gay men under the rug." Now THAT is "ABSURD".
May I humbly point out that if you don't like the range of reporting, etc. on Towleroad that there are many, many other blogs for you to visit. Google can help you identify them.
Andy does a terrific job and Towleroad is my favorite blog. I applaud Andy for keeping us up to date on what Fred Phelps and the other moonbats out there are up to.
Keep up the great work, Andy. You do a STELLAR job with this blog.
Posted by: Jonathon | May 21, 2007 5:30:29 PM
Is that Lance Bass towards the center? Wow, he is butch!
Posted by: Mike | May 21, 2007 5:49:25 PM
i imagine that someone at the NYT thought this was some sort of snarky humor. after all, they are all so enlightened in the 'big apple' that the issue of gay civil rights is just oh so silly in the post-ironic, post-retro, post up your butt (tee hee) world of sophistication in which they live. ugh.
Posted by: el polacko | May 21, 2007 5:59:52 PM
Although I agree that the NYT choice of photos was thoughtless at best we should point out that the men are not wearing women's make-up.
Posted by: Daniel | May 21, 2007 6:10:09 PM
Arvosis is totally right, of the millions of archival images they get to choose from they go with this one ? It's a really cheap shot, given the tone of the article, but consistent for a publication that generally relegates it's gay coverage to the "Style" ( Read "Lifestyle") section. We can at least be thankful they didn't place it there.
Posted by: aidanc | May 21, 2007 6:13:45 PM
Not sure I totally agree with Aravosis. When this photo was taken it was a big deal for the Army to be out there openly recrtuiting gays. I was a steward on the parade and saw this picture being taken. Everyone wanted to be photographed with the women from the Army - their presence was celebrated as another step forward.
I suppose in the American context it can be seen as an offensive juxtaposition. But this photo has been used in UK papers to illustrate the same issue and nobody gave a damn.
Posted by: mark C | May 21, 2007 7:54:47 PM
Nobody really believes anything in the New York Times, anyway. The once-reliable paper gradually became an unreliable tabloid rag. Reading the Times would be as boring as a conversation with someone you know is a born liar.
Posted by: Joe T. | May 21, 2007 10:22:22 PM
Photo shmoto! To be, the big news in the Times article is the fact that the British government and military is afraid to say too much because it does not want to upset the Bushies or General Pace. Why in hell the defense office in Great Britain would give one damn about what the U.S. defense department thinks of their acceptance of gays in their military is beyond me. The program is totally successful, and that is not something that should be kept secret so as not to make Peter Pace look like the bigot he is.
Posted by: Michael D | May 21, 2007 10:24:19 PM
Mark C., that just goes to show you the difference between a retrograde United States and a progressive United Kingdom.
We have people here who still believe that the Earth was created in 6 literal days, little more than 5000 years ago. We have people here who still believe the Earth is flat. We have people who think that evolution is "just a theory". We have people who would rather stick their heads in the sand and ignore reality than to face up to the truth.
And the saddest part is that these same, backward, regressive people have a stranglehold on power right now. God help us.
Posted by: Jonathon | May 22, 2007 8:38:20 AM
Tony:
I just think it is absurd that you can be offended by Aravosis' point. You are being overly earthly-goddess-"lets everyone come as they are" politically correct about this issue.
This isnt about inclusitivity, its about packaging information that would be palatable to American public. Putting a drag queen and butch girls onto the article is not going to help NYTimes create inclusivity.
Btw, I think you are the closeted Chelsea boy/man (on this forum) who, incidentally, don't understand american politics.
Posted by: Landis | May 22, 2007 9:32:26 AM
I never post responses on blogs until yesterday when Landis (the fellow who left the most recent post) made a VERY disparaging remark about people suffering from HIV in which he effectively said he wished they would just all go away. He also inferred that by reporting that there may be more effective HIV treatment in the pipeline it would lead gay people to practice unsafe sex. The whole thing implied that the only people fighting HIV were club hopping Chelsea boys. As a medical doctor with both gay and straight patients fighting HIV I was deeply offended so I posted a response. Then today when I saw how you were all so upset by some humorous picture of proud gay women at a gay pride parade I felt compelled to respond again. (The whole point of that article in the NYT was that the British military is so comfortable with homosexuality that it even recruits at gay pride events so it made perfect sense for them to niclude a picture from a gay pride event.) Meanwhile you guys are worried that your grandma in Peoria and your co-workers are going to think you are too poofy because the NYT shows a picture of men in drag in the NYT? While other working class gay men are losing their jobs and getting beaten up in the street?
WORSE STILL: Landis, the guy who made the nasty remark yesterday, accuses me of being a Chelsea boy? I would be PROUD to be a Chelsea boy or anything else. He is so stuck on labels it is hilarious! I am a doctor in a working class neighborhood of Newark. Dear lord. I won't be back on this site again.
Posted by: tony | May 22, 2007 11:55:19 AM
Tony:
Re: Treatment on HIV
1) Excuse me - I was not being disparaging. I am very disappointed that you have interpreted it as such. My issue here is that there is no fear about getting a disease. It is an honest question – why getting a potentially very debilitating disease should not raise the alarm levels in individuals? The post is specific to LGBT, because, again, that is the premise of this blog. You are taking this out of context.
2) What is wrong about taking responsibilities for their action? I am a Canadian liberal – I am more liberal than a typical American democrats. But I think that people who willingly risk themselves and each other should bear responsibilities for their actions. i.e the recent Canadian court cases that put people who willingly infect others with hiv behind bars. I am not encouraging the kind of Reaganesque denial of hiv patients.
Re: Comment on Chelsea boy – “I think Landis may be living in a bubble because he seems to think a bunch of club hopping Chelsea boys are the only people suffering in this epidemic.”
1) Don’t start it then, if you don’t want to be attacked. No, I am not proud to be associated with Chelsea boy. From my experience, I think the fact is that I am from a younger generation probably makes this a divide. I think that there should be life, an identity, and achievements outside of LGBT labels.
2) America, at the end of the day, is all about selling ideas to the American public. Fox News (and Republicans) is successful, not because of its ideology necessarily, but very largely because of the way information is packaged. Americans are not looking for high-minded, politically correct rhetoric. They want something that is easy to swallow. If you want to sell diversity to Americans, sell them an image that will be easy for them to digest. The religious right is marching on LGBT attacks similar by selling to its constituents that they are all perverts with unwholesome practices. And it is working. And will keep on working until a credible answer comes from the left.
Which brings me to the last point – the politics that brought GWB is here to stay. If you think that just because democrats won 2006 and everything is changing – I am sad to inform you that democrats will have a tough 2008, 2010, and so on until they understand the need to communicate with every day Americans using simple, easy to swallow sound bites and images.
Posted by: Landis | May 22, 2007 2:48:16 PM
Tony: Btw, I just think you've really just invited the responses you get.
1) "JOHN ARAVOSIS IS ABSURD" - Sorry, don't shout when you post.
2) "Shame on TOWLEROAD. Then again Towleroad has been the most dedicated publicist Fred Phelps ever had, reporting on his every protest." - Don't flame your host, Towleroad. It's not polite. And since when is letting the community know about Phelps a problem?
3) "Meanwhile you guys are worried that your grandma in Peoria and your co-workers are going to think you are too poofy because the NYT shows a picture of men in drag in the NYT?" - More flaming.
4) "I am a doctor in a working class neighborhood of Newark. Dear lord. I won't be back on this site again." - Don't let the *melodrama please exit here* door hit you on the way out. If you are a doctor, I would expect a bit more class and rationality in your post.
Sorry, I know its dumb to point out all this - slow work day with extra cycles.
Posted by: Landis | May 22, 2007 5:19:16 PM
LANDIS, AMEN!
Posted by: Zeke | May 23, 2007 10:38:39 PM