From: JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Gays in the military: last chance [taken]
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:49:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt391567@drew.edu>, ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET writes:
>>From: JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
>
>>The big problem in the gay in the military issue is showers, and fear
>>that conduct will come to play that will be a problem.

[none of the rest of my post is answered, which leads to problems in
that argue the above contention in it]

> No.  The big problem here is NOT conduct.  The issue is sexual harrassment.  I
> posted on this yesterday, but no one responded so I'll repeat it

I didn't see it since I'm a bit tired of looking at so many posts, but
I'll respond to it.

> If any private employer in the country forced women to live in close quarters
> with men, the EEOC would be all over them in a heartbeat.  Even though no man
> is necesarily sexually attracted to any particular woman, such living
> arrangements violate any sense of personal privacy and dignity.

something is missing to link this with the below.  Besides the fact
that the military isn't a private employer and is treated very
differently in several cases, women _are_ forced to live in close
quarters.  Part of the stuff you deleted from my post is that in the
Gulf War women were in close quarters, and had to expose themselves to
much less privacy than they may desire.  This leads to some problems
when men harass women, but as with blacks, this is now seen (at least
not in combat) as an evil to be conquered by means other than a ban of
women in the military.
   Also sexual harassment is conduct.  If it wasn't conduct, one can't
outlaw it for we have first amendment rights to think about.  Sexual
harrassment is the act of discrimination -- just being racist or
sexist isn't harassment.

> In the case of gays, however, this line of argument gets conveniently
> forgotten.

nope

> Now, all of the sudden, mere leering isn't enough to disqualify a
> policy.

nope. leering is conduct, and conduct that is not militarily proper is
prohibited. For example, you can't flaunt your sexuality by wearing tokens
of it such as long hair or earrings (we are dealing with stereotypes here
since most homosexuals wouldn't be seen as such or they wouldn't be
any there now).

>  Instead, proponents of letting gays into the military say "hey, as
> long as everybody keeps their hands to themselves, there's no problem."  Some

nope.  I wonder how stupid you think gays and CLinton really are.
Gays already are saying how naive Clinton is for thinking he could
rescind the ban without much problems; they aren't going to support
such a statement, even if they believe it.  Of course it is a good
sterotypes, and as in the ERA, good stereotypes are good ammunition.

> even go so far as to lay the blame for any problems on straight solidiers (the
> equivalent of "blaming the victim," but I won't get into that).

part of the blame is on straight soldiers and societal fears and
misconceptions of homosexuals.  I really wonder how big this supposed
contingent of servicepeople who will flaunt their sexuality will be.
Such people shouldn't be in the service.  Next we have the people who
will be more comfortable saying they are gay in quiet ways that might
come out into the open and have people feel uncomfortable with them.
Such cases esp. in peacetime will be a problem to conquer, but it's
conquerable.  Other NATO nations manage it, as Isreal manages to have
women in combat.  Perhaps we aren't up to snuff with them; not
something I personally would feel so  pround about.

> Anyway, I'm still waiting for someone to explain why forcing straight men

and women I presume

> to live with openly gay men in the Army is any different from what would
> ordinarily be considered sexual harrassment.  It seems to me that many of the
> people on the "pro-gay" side of this issue are being inconsistent in this
> regard.  Anyone?
>
> JasonZ

I don't see your problem.  If a man sexually harasses a woman in the
service, she can fight back via the law.  Heterosexuals can do the
same with homosexuals that do this.  Did I miss something?  I also
note you deleted the part of my post on sports and gym.  Can openly
gay people serve in sports (apparently in women Tennis this is a
sterotypical norm [see "Sudden Death" by Rita Mae Brown])?  A big can
of worms can be open here for there is any number of areas where
nudity is present.  Is anything else besides nudity a problem?
behavior -- leering, etc.  So, the two fears is conduct and showers.
I therefore seem to be correct.  Am I being inconsistent in this
regard. Anyone?  Anyone?

    -Joe

P.S. Again, we have the possiblity of using stereotypes and
misrepresentation to complicate an already problematic action.  This
means the real concerns are clouded by -to be blunt-garbage. Colorado
passed a ballot issue against giving homosexuals extra rights, or so
many thought.  57% of the people in this country will say that people
can be homosexuals, but 38% support a "homosexual lifestyle", whatever
that is.  Sterotypes clouding discourse strikes again, which is a
major problem in this country.  [statistics which disagree with a
figure offered elsewhere on this list were in the NYT some time last
week]
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU