06/30/2008
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Sexist As Well As Homophobic
The Houston Chronicle points out that Pentagon statistics show 46% of those expelled from the Army and 49% expelled from the Air Force under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in 2007 were women—even though only 14% of the Army and 20% of the Air Force is female, respectively:
"The military did not volunteer these data. They were compiled under a Freedom of Information Act request by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a military advocacy group. The Pentagon had no explanation for the sharp disparity, nor did it seem inclined to pursue the matter. 'At this time,' Pentagon spokesperson Elaine Lainez e-mailed the Chronicle, 'there is no plan to investigate the discharges.'"
Posted 4:53 PM EST by Andy Towle in Don't Ask, Don't Tell | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Interesting statistics. One could make a lot of assumptions based on this information. But it is no surprise to see this unjust policy used to advance unjustified personal or group interests.
Posted by: Rafael | Jun 30, 2008 5:43:28 PM
Actually, this is just further evidence that sexism is the root of homophobia. While there have been military witchhunts on various bases over the years to try to purge gay males [the infamous 1919 Newport, Rhode Island, "sting" is the most famous], many military homophobes also oppose the inclusion of women, gay or nongay, in the military, adding to the fury with which they attempt to identify and kick out gay women. Many automatically assume that any woman who would want to be involved in such a "man thing" as the military MUST be gay.
One of THE biggest card carrying cunts on the planet [if you think such terms are themselves sexist, you're wrong] is Elaine Donnelly. In addition to being one of the fascists who fought most ferociously against Pres. Clinton's efforts to open the military to out gays, she is a tireless and ruthless anti-feminist, too, who has already extended her claws to begin organizing opposition to Obama's efforts to repeal DADT even before the election.
Check out her loony lair...er Website at http://cmrlink.org/ where behind her toothy grin you'll find fangs on:
"Tax-funded feminist activism in the Pentagon; Radical 'equal opportunity' agenda for women in combat ...Co-ed Basic Training ... ...the homosexual agenda for the military" blah blah blah.
But DON'T confuse craziness for powerlessness, and understand that repealing DADT or DOMA or any other gay-positive advance at the federal level is going to take far more than Obama's goodwill. It's going to take GRASSROOTS anger and action to offset the multimillion dollar-funded Homohating Agenda of civilians like Donnelly and those military brass who agree with her.
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Jun 30, 2008 5:44:02 PM
I have to agree with every word Michael Bedwell stated here. Having spent most of my adult life in the Air Force I can personally attest to the subterfuge female personnel faced when trying to succeed in my unit, a Special Ops Unit. It was a boys-club atmosphere and when we had female officers or enlisted assigned to our squadron they were harangued non-stop or relegated to secretarial work. They also suffered when it came time for promotions.
I recall, in BMT at Lackland AFB, a TI (Technical Instructor) once remarked, as an all female flight passed us on a march, that women who joined the military were either whores or dykes and the Air Force would be better without either. Has that for a misogynistic environment? Most of my female friends in the military usually married and became pregnant, at which point the military gave then the option to process out of the military with full veteran's benefits.
With this kind of mentality one can see Mr. Bedwell's point when he speaks of the kind of effort needed to overturn such deep-rooted, institutionalized ignorance.
Posted by: JerzeeMike | Jun 30, 2008 6:29:26 PM
I'm not so sure that these discharge data reflect sexism in homophobia. The numbers may reflect the possibility that there is a much higher proportion of lesbians out of the total pool of women than there is gay men out of the total pool of men. In such circumstances, the proportion of lesbians discharged as compared to gay men discharged may be roughly 50:50 (as the data show) without it necessarily reflecting sexism.
In any case, "don't ask don't tell" is a travesty any way you look at it. And we've got Bill Clinton to thank for it.
Posted by: jason | Jun 30, 2008 7:22:38 PM
Sorry, Jason. Historical fact supports neither your analysis regarding an absence of sexism intertwined with homophobia in such discharges nor your assertion re President Clinton.
We owe thanks to him for TRYING to open gays to the military and owe hatred to Colon [sic] Powell and Sam Nunn for nuking it. It passed Congress by huge margins and there is no way Pres. Clinton could have stopped it.
"Ending his truce with the White House, Nunn announced that he would introduce legislation to codify a strict interpretation of "Don't ask, don't tell"—one that would preserve the policy that declares "Homosexuality is incompatible with military service."
The search for a compromise was ill-fated from the start. The Joint Chiefs had always been dead set against change. And they remained so throughout days of intense negotiations in windowless rooms in the Pentagon. Indeed, they treated the entire debate like a national emergency. Amid discussions with Aspin, they met three times on July 2, more than anyone remembers their convening in one day during the entire Vietnam War. One chief referred to homosexuals as "fags," and the Marine Corps Commandant, General Carl Mundy, passed out antigay video tapes at meetings. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Colin Powell, while talking cooperation with the White House, instigated behind-the-scenes opposition to the President. In a speech in Annapolis, he had told sailors he would understand if they chose to resign in the event that they ultimately disagreed with the President's decision. ...
... the Georgia Senator surprised even sympathetic colleagues by announcing on the Senate floor that Congress would have to pass a law on the gay ban—no matter what Clinton decided. His language was tough and restrictive. "There should be no change in the current grounds for discharge for homosexual acts or statements and marriages." He included among his targets anyone who "demonstrates a propensity to engage in homosexual acts." These were fighting words, since one point of the six-month study was to give Nunn his time in the sun, days of televised hearings in which he could assert his authority over the process. Out of this came a willingness on Nunn's part to live with "Don't ask, don't tell"—and, it was assumed, to keep lawmakers from tinkering with the policy. All seemed well until Nunn's speech, which came across as a pre-emptive rebuke to Clinton." - Time, July 26, 1993.
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Jun 30, 2008 8:27:46 PM
This same sexism was well documented and explained in Randy Shilts's Conduct Unbecoming in 1995. For women, DADT is like a blackmailer's charter (to paraphrase comments about British laws): you can prove you're not a dyke by sleeping with me! Or else. I doubt many men are put in that position.
I suspect that gender stereotypes also contribute to a proportionately higher percentage of lesbians than gay men in the service to begin with (like, say, softball teams). So there may be more to begin with AND more pressured out.
And once again, we do NOT have Bill Clinton to thank for DADT, even if it happened on his watch. He promised (on MTV, no less) to change the policy to allow gay men & lesbians to serve openly. The Republicans saw their chance and forced his hand very early, knowing that the majority of the public and the military would be against him. As I recall, we have Barney Frank to thank for the compromise, flawed as it is.
Posted by: Kevinvt | Jun 30, 2008 8:31:53 PM
sexism doubtless exists in the military but without knowing the actual fraction of lesbians per X# of females or gay men per X# of males enlisted, there is insufficient evidence to claim the policy is sexist. more reason for the abolition of secrecy and dadt.
Posted by: blake | Jun 30, 2008 10:20:47 PM
@ MICHAEL BEDWELL: it's pretty clear that sexism/misogyny is ONE of the roots of homophobia, but not the only one. You should also add: non-procreative, so "against nature" and the "ick factor".
Both of these issues are easily debunked, however. [1. Even heterosexuals have non-procreative sex (except within certain religious sex) and homosex occurs throughout nature; 2. lots of other peoples hot sex is icky, that of your parents, for instance.]
Of course, it should come to no one's surprise that today's American military is sexist, viz.: women are deemed too weak to engage in combat (although my cousin, a medic in Iraq, used her own body to shield a wounded soldier from gunfire and was awarded a silver star by the VP (shiver)).
Posted by: David R. | Jun 30, 2008 11:14:39 PM
Ack, typos: should be "religions sects" (a perfect Freudian slip though) and "other people's hot sex".
dr
Posted by: David R. | Jun 30, 2008 11:56:36 PM
Blake,
You mirror my thoughts exactly.
I'm against DADT as much as anyone, but I think it's a bit rich for anyone to draw firm conclusions about sexism in homophobia based on the data in the original article. A lot of people don't think clearly about this before spouting off.
Posted by: jason | Jul 1, 2008 2:34:14 AM
God, the Clinton hate is never ending on gay blogs. "Bill Clinton did this, thus, we should not vote for his wife! Bill gave us DADT!"... ... ...
Never mind the fact that Hillary has vowed to immediatly start working towards repealing DADT should she come into office (which she won't be anymore)! DADT was never supposed to be a permanent solution. The situation for gays in the army was much, much, MUCH worse before DADT.
DADT was just supposed to be temporary and its purpose was not homophobic. The homophobes in the army, however, have chosen to employ it in a homophobic way and it has yet to be repealed.
It's not like Bill set out to make life for gays in the army hell. Stop chanting "Bill gave us... Bill gave us...!".
Posted by: Philip Wester | Jul 1, 2008 8:09:30 AM
God, the Clinton hate is never ending on gay blogs. "Bill Clinton did this, thus, we should not vote for his wife! Bill gave us DADT!"... ... ...
Never mind the fact that Hillary has vowed to immediatly start working towards repealing DADT should she come into office (which she won't be anymore)! DADT was never supposed to be a permanent solution. The situation for gays in the army was much, much, MUCH worse before DADT.
DADT was just supposed to be temporary and its purpose was not homophobic. The homophobes in the army, however, have chosen to employ it in a homophobic way and it has yet to be repealed.
It's not like Bill set out to make life for gays in the army hell. Stop chanting "Bill gave us... Bill gave us...!".
Posted by: Philip Wester | Jul 1, 2008 8:10:39 AM
Hey Philip, you heard that Hillary is no longer in the running for POTUS, right?
I know lots of ladies, straight and gay - and the lesbians are the only ones who in any real numbers have ever expressed a desire to be in the military. Of course there are exemptions to every generalization (and I realize that this is one) but lesbians are typically more interested in things that a "girly girl" would not be interested in. Take motorcycles. Lesbians love 'em. Few straight women outside of leather faced biker bar sluts like them at all.
Statistically speaking, however, Blake is 100% correct. without knowing proportions of lesbians to straight women in the military and the same figures for men, there is no way to make a claim for DADT being sexist.
Posted by: Dan B | Jul 1, 2008 1:19:15 PM
Jason: "A lot of people don't think clearly about this before spouting off." Right back at you.
Read Conduct Unbecoming, a very well-researched book.
Yes, there are proportionately more lesbians than gay men in the military. But do not underestimate the effect of other kinds of sexism: the possibility of blackmail/harassment.
And what about the fact that the men in the military are more likely to be hypermasculine -- even the gay ones -- while the women in the military are more likely to be -- wait for it -- masculine as well. Who is more likely to come under scrutiny?
It doesn't mean the policy is effectively gender-blind, which some of you apparently would like it to be for some reason.
Posted by: Kevinvt | Jul 1, 2008 1:34:27 PM
Dan B: Yes. I did say "which she won't be anymore" (for this term, at least). But she DID promise to repeal DADT when she was still in the race.
Posted by: Philip Wester | Jul 2, 2008 1:05:48 AM