From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:26:38 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <daj20.724527276@junkers> daj20@amdahl.com (Daniel A Jatnieks) writes:
]	I was trying to say that whether or not gays are allowed into
]	the military should have nothing to do with the fact that some
]	people will be afraid of them (which you had mentioned several
]	times in the paragraph I original responded to).  I was trying
]	to make that point to counter the potential argument that 
]	because these guys will be afraid that gays shouldn't be allowed
]	in the military (Note, I'm not saying that was what you were
]	saying at all, only that what you wrote seemed to be leading in
]	that direction (well to me)).

My contention is that this is an ivory tower argument that fails to meet
the test of practicality. To take this to its extreme, we would have
to discharge everyone with any level of homophobia, but that would be
okay because we have already decided a priori to allow gays in the
military. In a case like this (where we are not dealing with
constitutionally protected or even traditional natural rights), it
isn't as simple as divining a right and then asserting it.

]>You may not realize this, but in the military women are SEGREGATED from
]>men in their sleeping and showering and pooping quarters. As I have said
]>before, that would be one solution to the gays-in-the-military issue.
]
]	I do realize that.  And segregation would be one solution to
]	the level of acceptance gays should get in the military (I'm
]	not saying I agree with this particular solution).  However,
]	to get to the point of talking about solutions to the 
]	acceptance issue, we must first agree that gays should be
]	allowed in the military (note that i'm distinguishing betweeen
]	the decision to allow them in and what happens after that).
]
]	Personally, I feel that gays should be allowed into the
]	military.  However, I feel that once that decision is made
]	there are more to be made about how, and to what extent, it
]	should be carried out.  About that I am still wondering...

I strongly disagree with this logic, because what it reduces to is:
"we will do X, REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES," and what it assumes
is that the consequences are worth the action. This is typical of
what I label "social engineering" - an oxymoron if there ever was
one :-) I claim that we should consider the effects of this action
on the military, and the costs of ameliorating these effects, before
we take the action!

]>]
]>]	I think you have brought out the most basic reason that 
]>]	motivates many who are against gays in the military, and that
]>]	is simply fear.  As you put it: fear of sexual interest from
]>]	gays, fear of unwanted passes, even fear of rape.  All I can
]>]	say is that the proper way to deal with fear IS NOT to try
]>]	to make it go away; it doesn't work that way.
]>
]>THat's nice. Now why don't you go down to San Diego and tell that to
]>the tough dudes in Seal Team One. Good luck! Then go to the Recruit Training
]>Depot and explain it to the street toughs who are being processed into
]>the military.
]
]	I don't understand what you mean (sorry i'm not trying to be
]	difficult here).
]
]	Are you saying that because these dudes are tough seal team
]	members or street toughs that they wouldn't exactly welcome
]	such a message?  I never said they would, or that any of this
]	would be easy to do, just that it should be done.  I feel that
]	you are saying, "well, yea, we should do that, but i reality
]	it too hard".

No, I am saying that whether or not we should do that, reality is too
hard. I am also saying that I have no faith in using attitude engineering
techniques to successfully alter homophobia in the military.
]
]
]>If all the touchie-feelie social engineering stuff worked, we would have
]>a lot fewer social problems. In fact, it ain't that simple. Modification
]>of behavior is difficult even in people who want to modify their
]>behavior.  
]
]
]	I agree, it is most difficult.  But without trying at all
]	even fewer social problems would get worked out.

But, I don't think that gays in the military is a significant social
problem. Yes, some number of gays will be denied military service
(unless they stay "in the closet"). That is too bad, but is not IMHO
a major social problem. Lots of people are denied the opportunity
for military service for other reasons, but we are not forcing
them (or me) on the military. I see this whole issue as primarily one
more way for gay activists to maintain their visibility - by exciting
their constituents (political gays) and ticking off everyone else. It
is just one more example of political correctness - forcing a solution
to a minor problem on society as a whole without regard for the costs.
]
]	I think it's a promising that society is opening up so many
]	previous taboo subjects to discussion.  In a way, that's more
]	important right now than everyone agreeing on the solutions.

I frankly am getting tired of the topic. Every time I turn on the TV,
read a newpaper or news magazine, or turn on the radio, I hear about yet
one more activis, politically correct cause... this week its gays in
the military; next week its giving out condoms in schools; the week after
that it's ... well, you get the idea. Our society is SATURATED with
sex and sexual orientation issues... it's like the media can't find anything
else to do. This is not a previously taboo subject, it is just a previously
not interesting one.

]
]>Schools are finding that the huge amount of PC instruction
]>that now passes for education at some institutions is resulting in
]>anti-PC students. Funny, but people are just not clay that you can
]>mold to your idealistic model.
]
]	I'm not familiar with what you mean here exactly.  I don't
]	know what kinds of PC instruction is taking place in today's
]	schools.

Read Horowitz and Collier's most recent issue of Heterodoxy, where
college students and professors describe the emphasis on Politically
Correct issues that supplant more useful education at universities.
These issues are things like: white males are oppressors, and this should
be pointed out at all times; blacks cannot be racist; sexual preference
creates special protections; all lifestyles are equally valid; traditional
wisdom is bad (not wrong, but BAD), because it was mostly handed down
by Dead White Males; there are no absolute values; groupism is preferential
to individualism - people are judged by which group they belong to,
not their individual merit.

]	However, you are right about students not just letting themselves
]	be molded to whatever they are told.  That's what makes this
]	country so great.  These PC pushers should take a lesson from
]	the Religion pushers, or visa versa even.  Americans want to
]	think for themselves and will do so no matter which group is
]	currently pushing their ideas on us.  Education should be
]	apolitical as well as secular (non-religious).
Yep. Unfortunately, the technique of the "big lie" does work. When people
get most of their information about their culture from the mass media,
and the mass media consistently presents a highly politicized view,
some of that seeps in. 
]
]
]>]>I see no difference between an irrational fear of skin color and
]>]>irrational fear of getting fucked in the ass.
]>
]>Obviously. However, these days of AIDS an undesired ass-fucking is something
]>that is fearful indeed. However, realistically, as far as I can tell
]>homophobia (used in a more correct sense - FEAR of homosexuals or
]>homosexual activities) seems to be based on an insecurity about
]>one's masculinity - not uncommon among adolescents (such as the
]>folks joining the military) - and apparently especially common among
]>the more "macho" folks (such as those who want to join the combat arms).
]
]	Just a note that you are responding to the previous poster
]	here, not me.
Yes, I know. Sorry.
]
]	My point again is that fear should be confronted, not avoided.

And my point is that this is a "touchie-feelie" position that ignores
both the rights of those with the fears, and the reality of dealing with
them. That is why I gave you the challenge above of trying your
psychological technology on the Seals and Navy Recruits. It is one thing
to make the assertion that fear should be confronted (even though
some recent research  shows that denial often results in more successful
and happier life than confrontation of unpleasant facts), and another
to either justify it or implement it.
]
]	I would imagine that a pretty typical fear in the military is
]	that of death.  I would bet the military trains their soldiers
]	to somehow confront and come to grips with this fear, yes?
No, as a matter of fact, they do not. The simply condition them to
obey orders in spite of that fear. This conditioning takes a long
time, and only works in some individuals - even though it is one of the
most important training/indoctrination issues in the military.

]	But with a fear of gays this cannot be done?  Because these
]	guys are too tough?  Granted it would be a lot harder than
]	dealing with fear of death - death being the one thing even
]	a tough man might be persuaded to admit he is afraid of.

More like the fact that a lot of soldiers would not WANT it done. Don't
forget that a lot of people have religious and moral beliefs that
homosexuality is wrong (I do not share those beliefs, BTW). Are we going
to have the government force those people to accept what they believe
is wrong? 
]
]
]>Now, you can spend all day arguing about how irrational that fear is.
]>I don't deny it's irrationality, and, in spite of the assertions of the
]>homophiles on the net,  I don't share that fear - at 44 years of
]>age I know who I am - even if you folks don't. 
]
]	Okay, good, we agree it is irrational, just as any other fear
]	is.  Now I propose that this fear needs to be confronted
]	knowing full well that this is not a trivial task (for the
]	military or for any other group for that matter).

Again, WHY?
]
]
]>However, the moment you take the leap of logic from "the fear is irrational" 
]>to "therefore we should bring gays into the military" - we part company
]>in our views. You leap from what is to what you wish should be, assuming
]>that what you wish should be is something that can simply be created.
]>That is typical logic of the social engineer, and the failures of the
]>resulting policies are legion.
]
]
]	No, no, no.  That's not what I'm doing.  I agree with you that the
]	leap of logic you state is incorrect.  What I was trying to do
]	was to point out that the opposite is also an incorrect leap
]	of faith;  that is from "soldiers fear gays" to "therefore gays
]	should be kept out of the military".

Well, in isolation you are right. However, there is a lot more context
to that argument: soldiers fear gays; soldiers will react adversely
to the presence of gays; soldiers cannot be easily changed in this
regard; therefore gays should be kept out of the military. Is closer
to this chain of logic.
]
]	So, what I am saying then, in summary, is that this fear of gays
]	has nothing to do with the issue of whether gays should be allowed
]	into the militay.  Okay, now, I do think it has a lot to do with
]	what must be done after gays are allowed in - that is this fear
]	should be dealt with somehow.  And, yes, it won't be easy at all.
And I say again.... it is important to consider the behavior of people
when trying to change a social situation - BEFORE you change things.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
"Modern liberals are the termites in the structure of our society."
  John Moore
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh