By This is just another reason why many people don’t like these gay activist groups because instead of allowing the Pentagon to implement the policy change on a planned time line they rather just have an activist judge ram it through:
A federal appeals court on Wednesday temporarily granted the U.S. government’s request for a freeze on a judge’s order requiring the military to allow openly gay troops.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals instructed lawyers for the gay rights group that brought the lawsuit successfully challenging the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy to file arguments in response by Monday.
The judges would then decide whether to extend the temporary stay while it considers the government’s appeal of U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips’ ruling that the policy was unconstitutional.
It was unclear what effect the temporary freeze would have on the Pentagon, which has already informed recruiters to accept openly gay recruits and has suspended discharge proceedings for gay service members.
Cynthia Smith, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said “for the reasons stated in the government’s submission, we believe a stay is appropriate.”
She declined to say whether the Defense Department would roll back its guidance to military lawyers and recruiters that they must abide by last week’s injunction. It has been assumed, however, that the Pentagon would revert to its previous policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” if a stay were to be granted throughout the appeals process. [Associated Press]
What I am wondering is when is it going to be considered unconstitutional for the military to deny criminals, obese, and handicapped people from joining the military? I am also wondering why did it take 17 years to find a judge to declare Don’t Ask Don’t Tell unconstitutional?
3:08 pm on October 22nd, 2010 1
Clarification: This is why *you* don't like gay activist groups. Or could it just be because you don't like gay people?
Considering the fact that criminals have shown that they're not able to follow rules (which could prove dangerous in a combat situation), and obese/disabled people can't complete the physical requirements necessary for serving, what's your justification for comparing them to gay people in this situation? Last time I checked, the abilities to participate in and enjoy heterosexual sex and/or engage in an opposite gender relationship were not required for soldiers to successfully perform their duties.
Oh right. You're a bigot; you don't need any justification.
3:35 pm on October 22nd, 2010 2
TW,
Very big words from someone not in the military. You look at the short game while professionals are worried about the second and third order effects.
Many of your comments are way off. Over two platoons and two company commands I chaptered 10 people out of the Army. Five were for conduct, one for Psychological issues, and four for being overweight. None were for being gay. Each of the four overweight soldiers could easily pass their PT test and were good at their jobs by the way, military regulations have relaxed somewhat since that time thank goodness.
If you actually read what GI Korea wrote you would understand that the tactics and timing used are what he objects to. As for an ability to follow rules, LT Dan Choi was unable. He is a self proclaimed leader of the fight to end DADT by the way.
In multiple forums he showed up in his uniform on national TV which is a gross violation of the UCMJ. He even chained himself to the white house fence. He was also in line yesterday to re-enlist which if allowed will be a travesty, he should be in a military jail.
DADT will end. I don't think anyone has any illusions about that. Why not do it the correct way and wait for the DEC Pentagon recommendation report? It makes us suspect that the promoters are not really interested in military readiness.
Socialization of the concepts, and ensuring protections are in place for homosexual service personnel will take some time.
3:46 pm on October 22nd, 2010 3
Hamilton-
Fair enough. And I'm glad to hear regulations have relaxed about weight. Our culture fixates on it way too much, and many supposedly 'overweight' people are perfectly healthy and fit.
Anyway, I did read what he wrote, and while he mentions doing things through the 'proper channels', it's obvious from his tone that there's more to his opposition than that.
As for LT Choi, if his actions were against military protocol, then he should be held responsible for that. That has nothing to do with him being gay, and the actions of one person don't represent the entire civil rights movement.
It's easy for those of us who are straight and/or who aren't in the military to say, "Why not wait?", but for someone who has to keep their partner a secret or risk losing their job (especially in the current economic situation), waiting a few more years is a huge thing to ask of them. Anyway, my understanding from the CNN report I read was that the Pentagon has now *allowed* recruiters to accept openly gay applicants. It hardly seems like a change that'll cause the entire military-industrial complex to crumble.
Anyway thanks for taking the time to write your response and let me know your perspective. I definitely learned some things I didn't know before.
3:46 pm on October 22nd, 2010 4
Nonsense. The Army should be an egalitarian place where we can get to know each other and feel good about it while embracing diversity.
The fact that most of the soldiers you meet can't differentiate mechanical zero from battlesight zero be damned. This outfit is all about social change and reform.
Now let's hurry up! We have a war to lose!
3:57 pm on October 22nd, 2010 5
Tiffani W #1. I have read & re-read GI Korea's post and I haven't seen anything that he wrote that is bigoted. Just because you may disagree with someone opinion doesn't make the person a bigot. His opinion is that if a change in the DADT policy is going to happen it should be done in an orderly way since right now we are in two wars. Calling someone a bigot, a racist, or a homophobe without evidence seems to me a device to stifle debate. Would you like to be forced to take showers & dress/undress in front of male troops even if they didn't make any crude remarks or oogle you? If your answer is 'no' then I would ask should troops be forced to shower & dress/undress in front of homosexual troops even if they didn't make any crude remarks or oogle them? If you answer 'just get over it' then I would say to female troops 'just get over it' and shower, dress & undress in front of male troops. There is NO DIFFERENCE. Unless you are willing to say that only straight troops have no right to privacy. I believe GI Korea's comments were based on the idea if change is to be made that is should be made with the people's elected representatives not through some non-elected judge who conjures up novel interpretation of the US Constitution out of thin air.
4:30 pm on October 22nd, 2010 6
Tom, I'm probably not the best person to answer that question because, although I do think there are many women that would feel uncomfortable in that situation, I personally wouldn't give a rat's. In fact, I would probably feel honored that the guys saw me as a member of the team instead of focusing on my gender differences. In addition, you have to be cognizant of the fact that there's a sociocultural power dynamic between men and women that, if anything, is reversed when you're talking about gay and straight men. Finally, I'm personally okay with straight troops feeling slightly uncomfortable (because being in the military is comfortable in every other regard, natch
) if it means gay and bi troops are free to live their lives in line with the values we're supposedly fighting for (liberty, justice, yadda yadda). By framing the question in that way, you're implying that heterosexuals' right to shower privacy trumps bi and gay troops' civil rights to love who they please. Personally I don't think there's a question as to which is more sacred.
As for the original commentary, it's really difficult to explain tone, especially to people who haven't spent a lot of time thinking about pragmatics and discourse analysis, but for example:
"This is just another reason why many people don’t like these gay activist groups."
- "just another reason": This phrase isn't usually used to criticize an idea you generally agree with; it's meant to imply that the reasons are so numerous that the conclusion (here, not liking gay activist groups) is obvious. Someone who was cautiously disapproving of gay activists' tactics – but who otherwise generally agreed with their aims – would be more likely to say something along the lines of, "This is one of the reasons [...]."
- There's no mitigating language involved in describing the negative viewpoint; if I were a fan of gay activist groups but wanted to understand why other people were opposed to them, I would likely insert mitigating language before my hypothesis because there's no way I can understand their motivations for sure. So, for example, "This might be one of the reasons [...]." or even "This is likely/probably one of the reasons [...]." By not using these softeners, the author is implying that he knows for sure the reasoning behind their dislike.
To be fair, men in general, and I would presume men in traditionally 'macho' professions like military work, tend to use stronger and more definitive language than women do. That's a whole other ballpark. So if I knew the author personally, I might be able to write some of these things off as just a facet of a dominant personality that didn't necessarily reflect on his approval or disapproval with the issue at hand. But there are enough markers like that to make me seriously question which side he's on. If you want to test the tone of something, you can also change the matter of discussion while keeping the exact phrasing as similar as possible. So for example, instead of talking about gay activists and DADT, let's talk about orphans…who steal bread for food. And in criticizing their behavior, someone says:
"This is just another reason why many people don’t like these orphans."
Do you see the tone involved there? If someone said that, would you think that they were otherwise generally in favor of handing out bread to hungry orphans?
Anyway, sorry for the essay; I'm a linguist, and discourse analysis is one of my favorite subfields. You issued me a challenge I couldn't refuse. ^^ But I hope I've helped you to understand why I said what I did.
4:57 pm on October 22nd, 2010 7
Tom, I can't speak for Tiffany, who is doing a good job of defending her own points, but I do have to question this:" I have read & re-read GI Korea’s post and I haven’t seen anything that he wrote that is bigoted"
Did you read this in the article:
"What I am wondering is when is it going to be considered unconstitutional for the military to deny criminals, obese, and handicapped people from joining the military?"
Apparently, GI feels that gays are like criminals or unable to perform various tasks as (I guess) some handicapped are. To compare gays to criminals seems a bit much.
I do agree that accommodating openly gay soldiers will be a challenge for the reasons you mention; that is in regards to housing and bathing facilities. I would be shy showering with gay men even though I know I am no prize to be stared at. Indeed, I might hope that no-one scratches their eyes out in horror!
5:33 pm on October 22nd, 2010 8
TW,
It’s a mistake to over analyze comments on this board. You have a mix of ex-pats, Koreans, Chinese agitprops and military, who all exaggerate and are creative of using metaphors for effect. I think I said I would like to kick another Tom’s(not Tom L) teeth in at one point. I do not actually wish to physically harm the other Tom, but I do loath his comments most of the time.
You have focused on “This is just another reason why many people don’t like these gay activist groups.” I think this is actually a fair statement but I do not pretend to speak for GI Korea. There are several reasons at the top of my mind.
Gay activists have claimed that excluding gay members hurts military readiness and will point to a number of Arab linguists discharged or a number of either high performers (Major Witt USAF, who was reinstated by the way) or intelligent activist plants. (Dan Choi, etc).
This is why you hear so much about overweight discharges from active military members. We lose a lot more human capital from overweight discharges than from ones discharged from being gay. Overstating the military loss, at the expense of everything else, and the plants like Dan Choi are one thing that ticks off a lot of vets.
A second and more persuasive tactic is to claim that serving homosexuals are denied basic human rights such as showing up at cookouts with their partner, serving without fear of discrimination or claiming benefits for partners. These are valid concerns but this spills over to protests against recruiting satiations and even major academic institutions banning ROTC or recruiters. This really pisses off many vets and I include myself in this category. We do see many in the gay community as tacitly anti-military. There are clearly patriots in the crowd but there is a decided anti-establishment streak.
Third is the propaganda stance that gays have a magical ability to detect straight people and do not find them attractive, or if they did will not look when in a shower or other compromising position. You touched on this when you said you were okay with having men see you shower. It really doesn’t matter what you feel, it does matter what the rest of the squad thinks. And yes we have had male soldiers sexually assault straight members in the military so the magic theory doesn’t hold water. People are people, gays are not magical although they sometimes have really good fashion sense.
One other tactic is one which you may have inadvertently set off. “If you are against immediate integration of gays then you are a prejudiced bigot.” You didn’t say it that way but that is the way it comes across from many gay activists. Actual concerns from serving military personnel is written off as homophobia and discussion is stifled. As you can imagine, this also pisses people off, and it effectively ends many conversations.
So what does this all mean? It means it is complex, even more so than integration of minorities into the armed services but probably on par with introduction of women. I suspect we will have to spend more money to accommodate homosexuals into the armed forces both for support chains for them and for privacy concerns for everyone regardless of orientation.
This also brings fraternization concerns alone to a whole new level. Can two gay men occupy the same room? We don’t allow men and women to do that even if they swear they don’t like each other except in the most austere locations.
DADT will end, and it can end gracefully or ugly. Right now a lot of the activists are pushing the ugly end. For some military service was never their real goal so the uglier the better. For the rest, they need to look beyond their close friends and consider a Pentagon report that they can’t wait 60 days to read. Color me skeptical.
6:00 pm on October 22nd, 2010 9
Tiffani W. #6. Very interesting post. I did learn something from reading it about the mitigating language and the language softeners. I've been retired for 14 yrs so whatever happens with DADT doesn't effect me personally but I am concerned what will happen with initial enlistments and re-enlistments. Obviously more homosexual troops will join & those already in will be more likely to re-enlist. The question is since the US has an all volunteer force (unlike Israel for instance) will enough heterosexual civilians join the military to begin with & will enough heterosexual troops re-enlist. I think the need to defend the United States of America trumps everything else including the desire of some homosexual troops who want to openly declare their sexual orientation. In my 20 yrs of service I served with a number of homosexual troops in different places. They just kept a low profile. I think your comparison with orphans would have been more accurate if you had referred to 'orphan activist groups.' I wonder if there IS such a thing as an 'orphan activist group', lol. My major disagreement with you is while people can have differing opinions on the repeal of DADT it doesn't make you a 'communist' or 'immoral' for favoring repeal but it also doesn't necessarily mean that DADT supporters are 'homophobes' or 'bigots'. I think a rational discussion without the pejoratives will lead people on both sides to try to understand each other. I enjoy the back & forth. Have a nice day.
7:30 pm on October 22nd, 2010 10
I would like to vote to have Tiffany W replace the other Tom as a continuing guest poster. BTW, defenders of the "bigoted" nature of the original poster replaced "obese" with "overweight" to make a point it is not bigoted. Comparing gays with obese folks is bigoted.
7:39 pm on October 22nd, 2010 11
You guys all bring up really excellent points on such a complex subject. I'm also super impressed by how civil and rational everyone's been. This is actually the first time I've commented on anything here. Maybe I'm just too used to Dave's, hahaha.
For what it's worth, since I'm the only one who actually started the name-calling, I'll take back the personal attack itself and just stick to, "I was offended by the way you talked about the issue," aimed at the original poster. Thanks to everyone who supported *and* challenged me, haha. You guys seem really cool.
8:08 pm on October 22nd, 2010 12
BTW, in case anybody missed it, this particular suit was brought to court by a group called the Log Cabin Republicans. There is a crossing of ideological streams here.
10:30 pm on October 22nd, 2010 13
Jimmie,
I don't think that word means what you think it means. "A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern American English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, various mental disorders, or religion."
Overweight and obsese are technical and medical terms used to describe a level of fat percentage to overall body mass. I used overweight since few soldiers actually qualify as obsese, but if they exceed allowable fat percentages and do not make progress they get chaptered. No bigotry involved, I happen to like my McDs. My current BMI is 25.2 which is overweight, 24.9 is normal. If I gain 35 pounds I will be obese. In the case of being overweight the army will actually test your bodyfat content which lets off a lot of weight lifters. And now you know!
TW, It was great having an actual conversation.
JOE C, I didn't miss it at all. The law suit is actually quite old and has been dragging on for some time.
11:04 pm on October 22nd, 2010 14
From Stripes comment: http://www.stripes.com/opinion/letters-to-the-edi…
"It stands to reason if we are going to allow gays we must provide the same support and benefits to the gay spouses as we do straight couples. Otherwise it is discrimination. We will also need to establish a gay pride or gay history type month in the military just as all the other minorities have. This will help spread awareness and acceptance. Commands should take care of ALL soldiers, regardless of race, creed, color or sexuality. This is just a welcome first (albeit small) step in the right direction." -Joe the Plumber
11:53 pm on October 22nd, 2010 15
After 17 years, why is a federal judge suddenly ruling that DADT is unconstitutional? Probably because everyone wants to be promoted, and a federal judge that makes a landmark ruling for the powerful gay political lobby will be on the fast track to the Supreme Court with the support of the gay lobby. It's the same reason the Obama Administration is trying to dismantle DADT- the raw political fundraising power of the gay lobby. But Obama and the Democrats should be wary of pushing too far too fast for the gay activists. All of that money hasn't translated into votes. They couldn't even carry California in a statewide vote for/against gay marriage. What does that tell you about their ability to win elections based on their issues? The gay lobby may be wealthy and "loud" but they do not speak for even a majority of people in California, and they certainly don't speak for a majority of Americans.
3:58 am on October 23rd, 2010 16
Tiffani W, As has been stated most of the people who post on this blog are active duty military, retired military, ex-pats, and Koreans. I am glad to have you aboard and hope that you will post on other topics that you find of interest. There was a Chinese citizen who posted on a story about a proposed tunnel linking China & South Korea. Not all posters here are conservative or traditionalist. Joe C & Teadrinker who are regular posters for instance agree with your stance on DADT. There is another Tom who is Korean (please don't confuse us) who has made some pretty outrageous statements about different subjects. But I'll say one thing for him, he keeps on coming back for more. If you ever call him a 'bigot' nobody will disagree with you as he has for example said some terrible things about mixed-race Korean-American children. Anyway I am looking forward to your imput.
9:49 am on October 23rd, 2010 17
"If your answer is ‘no’ then I would ask should troops be forced to shower & dress/undress in front of homosexual troops even if they didn’t make any crude remarks or oogle them? If you answer ‘just get over it’ then I would say to female troops ‘just get over it’ and shower, dress & undress in front of male troops. There is NO DIFFERENCE."
I won't get into an argument with you about Judeo-christian mores on nudity, but do you honestly think that by maintaining DADT will prevent you from undressing in front of gays? Dude, just because you don't know someone is gay doesn't make them any less so. Don't mean to alert you, but you've undressed in front of gays all your life if you've been to locker rooms. If anything, removing DADT would make is easier for homophobes like you not to undress around homosexuals.
9:55 am on October 23rd, 2010 18
"After 17 years, why is a federal judge suddenly ruling that DADT is unconstitutional? Probably because everyone wants to be promoted, and a federal judge that makes a landmark ruling for the powerful gay political lobby will be on the fast track to the Supreme Court with the support of the gay lobby."
Nope, it's because the judges were afraid to be demoted; such is the power of the fundamentalist Christian lobby.
9:59 am on October 23rd, 2010 19
Correction to 17
"If anything, removing DADT would make is easier for homophobes not to undress around homosexuals."
I thought I had edited that part out. Sorry.
12:53 pm on October 23rd, 2010 20
"What I am wondering is when is it going to be considered unconstitutional for the military to deny criminals, obese, and handicapped people from joining the military?"
That's not a logical argument.
For one, the US military doesn't deny criminals from service.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/americas/…
Furthermore, obesity, physical handicaps and sexual preference are totally different matters.
2:03 pm on October 23rd, 2010 21
Here you go. If I were still active duty, I wouldn't give two chits if a fag was looking at my asss or my junk. As I am such a beautiful Man. In fact we had one in Basic. He couldn't keep his eyes off most of us. WE locked him in a wall locker after filling it with shaveing cream—in his underwear, untill after the day ended. All day. Stupid Fagget.
The Problem lies in the (special interest) section. Went through it with women. (still a problem) Went through it with blacks. (still a problem) We ALL are going through it with Muslims. 13 DEAD at Fort Hood because of FEAR of that special interest group. (BIG assed problem).
The Militaries Job is not social engineering. It's job is the mission. Whatever that mission may be.
Those that say I'm wrong are full a chit. Simple enough?
2:41 pm on October 23rd, 2010 22
#17 TD, please read up on the case before making crap up. The previous judge had some serious medical conditions and eventually decided to retire. He could have ruled on the case but declined and passed the case to a judge with a liberal reputation. So much for fear of the evil christians. He has retired and outside of that jerk Phelps he has no one to fear.
#20 TD thanks for perpetuating another myth. You are technically correct, the US Army does recruit "criminals" ie., those who have commited crimes. The problem is in the definition of "crime". Here is the quote that explains the process.
"Moral waivers must be approved by an officer of the rank of lieutenant colonel or higher and are required when an Army applicant has been found guilty of committing four or more minor offenses such as littering or disorderly conduct – or two to four misdemeanors such as larcency, trespassing, or vandalism.#
No kidding, we are admitting litterbugs, jaywalkers, and curfew violators…after a LTC or full Colonel reviews their entire file. Many of the "Crimes" that in yesteryear would get you a warning go on your permanent record these days. Some of these guys and gals are actually gangmembers but you would be surprised. Many gangmembers enter the military without waivers! Why you ask? They were never charged with sufficient crimes.
The Army eventually weeds them out or they actually become decent soldiers.
2:53 pm on October 23rd, 2010 23
Teadrinker #18, I don't know about the Canadian judicial system but in the US once a person is confirmed as a federal judge he or she can't be 'demoted'. The appointment is for life. They can only be impeached & removed from office for criminal conduct or incompetence. Surprisesaplenty & Teadrinker, the comparisons that GI Korea made of homosexuals with criminals, the obese, and the handicapped are not 'bigoted' or illogical if he meant that letting criminals, the obese, & the handicapped in the military would be disruptive. I am sure that the most pro-homosexuals in the military people would admit that letting homosexuals in would be disruptive. They feel that the amount of disruption would be relatively small while those of us on the other side think that the disruptions would be much larger. Teadrinker, while you may minimize straight troops having to shower, & dress/undress around homosexuals I think that in the US that alone will be a BIG factor in whether straight civilians enlist to begin with or re-enlist. Remember the US military are in numerous countries (way too many in my opinion) including the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq. If this is going to be done could we at least wait until the f'ing wars are finished? What is next when & if DADT is repealed? Are we going to let male transvestites wear women's dress uniforms to formations & vice-versa? As Retired GI says, let's cut out the social(ist) engineering. The military's function is to protect the nation by killing people & breaking things, PERIOD.
4:09 pm on October 23rd, 2010 24
It's funny, (not ha ha), that some of you are rationalizing the President's actions against DADT as being done to help the soldiers and the military, overall. That's the furthest thing from his mind. This is ALL about raw politics with an eye to the 2012 Democratic Presidential primaries.
8:34 pm on October 23rd, 2010 25
#23,
Gays were allowed in the military when I served in Canada. It never was an issue.
The thought that removing DADT will turn the showers into a giant orgy overnight is only fantasy. If anything, gays who currently serve in the US military are very discrete and professional. Removing DADT won't change that.
8:43 pm on October 23rd, 2010 26
Before you start freaking out…I meant discreet, not discrete.
8:47 pm on October 23rd, 2010 27
", I don’t know about the Canadian judicial system but in the US once a person is confirmed as a federal judge he or she can’t be ‘demoted’. The appointment is for life. They can only be impeached & removed from office for criminal conduct or incompetence. "
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2…
8:59 pm on October 23rd, 2010 28
TD,
The US like Canada is an all volunteer force but the scale is very different. In Canada there are 2 Active Duty members for every 1000 per capita, in the US it is 5.1. When calculating reserves the difference is even greater at 3.1 for Canada and 7.9 for the US. What works with no problem in Canada does not equate to what will work well in the US or would have been better introduced during peacetime. You also have health care that works better per capita than US Medicare, why would you assume a model that works in one country would be a perfect fit for another? Very simplistic.
As you previously mentioned the US admits "criminals" but I suspect a greater number of personnel who would feel uncomfortable getting naked in front of a gay person. The Pentagon to this effort is working a service wide survey and mitigation plan which no gay activist can aparently be bothered to wait for. This is disturbing.
I haven't heard anyone state that they thought gay orgies were going to break out with the end of DADT. This is a strawman, you need to drop the Phelps strategy, he HATES the US military and we hate him.
DADT will end but as I stated before how it is done could effect the stability of the military. I am very concerned with re-enlistment rates which is the secret to the US military manpower.
10:19 am on October 24th, 2010 29
I agree with GI on this one. I couldn't care less the sexual orientation of the people I work around provided they get the job done. These days everything is a political statement, "gay activists" are lining up at recruiting stations to join the US Military. Are they lining up to serve their country? I highly doubt it, they are lining up to make a damn political statement. Once enlisted they will do everything possible to create political statements about all sorts of bull sh!t. The US Military has neither the time nor the prerogative to deal with crap like that. Its too busy trying to win the fool wars we got ourselves into while having as fell of our soldiers die as possible. Plus I'm not an expert on constitutional law, but how exactly would a federal judge be able to control a military regulation? Its my understanding the Military has its own legal system with the President being the one granted power to run and regulate it.
11:34 am on October 24th, 2010 30
Teadrinker #27, The USA Today article that you linked to was talking about STATE judges. The judge that ruled DADT violated the US Constitution was a FEDERAL judge. The political pressures that were described in the article do not apply since once a FEDERAL judge is appointed & confirmed the appointment is for LIFE.
1:48 pm on October 24th, 2010 31
Well they already let obese people in the army, they let retarded people in and have let them in for a long time(they are the officers and some and all but a lot of the ones who have stayed in for so long), and they have always let criminals in. Remember the old go to jail or join the military? They don't do that anymore but the bottom line is the Army will take anything and everyone including these people.
3:35 pm on October 24th, 2010 32
#31 I can't decide if you are Tom or just an idiot, I guess it doesn't matter. Every point you made is easily disproved go peddle your wares on Huffpo where you can mingle with pretentious like minded people who don't read either.
Catagory 4s do not include either the obese or retarded but may include overweight which if you check your BMI includes just about everyone the right side of a skeleton. Also US military recruits are better educated than the US general population. You won't read it but here you go:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/todays-ar…
7:43 pm on October 24th, 2010 33
"The US like Canada is an all volunteer force but the scale is very different. In Canada there are 2 Active Duty members for every 1000 per capita, in the US it is 5.1. When calculating reserves the difference is even greater at 3.1 for Canada and 7.9 for the US. What works with no problem in Canada does not equate to what will work well in the US or would have been better introduced during peacetime."
What will work? DADT is institutionalized discrimination. Please tell me how discharging trained personnel on something as trivial as sexual orientation a wise decision?
PS. Here are numbers I'm sure Tom will like:
71% of the US Armed Forces personnel is white, yet 45% of those fired for DADT are not. Furthermore, women (who make up 15% of all enlisted) make up 1/3 of those fired under DADT. Yup, institutionalized discrimination.
8:10 pm on October 24th, 2010 34
Tom Langley #23 "Surprisesaplenty & Teadrinker, the comparisons that GI Korea made of homosexuals with criminals, the obese, and the handicapped are not ‘bigoted’ or illogical if he meant that letting criminals, the obese, & the handicapped in the military would be disruptive. I am sure that the most pro-homosexuals in the military people would admit that letting homosexuals in would be disruptive. They feel that the amount of disruption would be relatively small while those of us on the other side think that the disruptions would be much larger."
I suspect that letting blacks into the military was, at least briefly, disruptive. Yet it was done. It was done, I guess, because it was the right thing to do and there was no legal way to prevent it.
Being gay does not make you untrustworthy, as being a criminal might, nor does it mean you are incapable of certain tasks, as being obese or handicapped might. Just as with race, one does not have a choice of their sexual orientation. It should be done because it is the right thing to do and there is no legal way to stop it.
8:14 pm on October 24th, 2010 35
#34,
Exactly.
8:29 pm on October 24th, 2010 36
#32 Well well it seems im retarded, so i changed the name to make it fit. For starters I am on active duty, and that is why I can make the claim that after serving on a staff section and in a line unit. That is why I say I have met some really really retarded officers. One of them has even given me knowledge of knowing that a child with Autism can make it though college, ranger school, and become and army officer. I have also met the many SGMs and PSGs who have only been in the army their entire lives and gets weird when someone who uses common sense, this tells me that they are to retarded to think of easier ways to do things and in a sense feel scared of those who are smarter. So by experience I can that the Army does have retards in it. I am not saying all officers and senior NCOs are but a lot of them are. Cause alot of the previous mentioned people don't know any other life, and a lot of them would get fired with a wuickness because they have no idea how to do things.
On top of that I read the link you sent me and I found it strange with the photo that was chosen. I have been to that palace. Anyways with the less waivers for criminals statement I haven't seen that to much as most new recruits I have met have a documented criminal background. About half of the new soldiers that come to my unit at each duty station I have been at. Not to mention that several people who attended AIT with me with a felony background were even granted TS security clearances. I can assure you I am not an idiot cause everything I am saying comes from what has been seen firsthand. I have seen Majors who could not even accomplish a task and had a COL tell me at the rank of E4 at the time to make sure he didn't screw up. How sad is that for a SPC to have to babysit and watch over a MAJ who I had to spellcheck and proof read all of his papers and slides. There are quite a few of those in the Army.
Oh also the reason I mentioned the photo being strange is that the educated people that are taking over the army that get degrees while on active duty. Look at the school most people get their degrees from, a lot of them get them from schools like AMU or University of Phoenix. While some schools offered are legit the previously mentioned ones are joke schools and only good for checking the box on promotion points. Neither of those schools are respected in the educated field. So it isn't fair to say that there are more educated people since you have to break that down more by who got degrees from real schools and not publicly traded schools. I mean I have seen the coursework from those schools and those previously mentioned schools are pathetic. They are easy ways to a degree that won't get you anything except promotion points and a lack of income in the outside world.
I am more than willing to be civil about this as I have not by any means tried to denote your intelligenceas you did by calling me an idiot. I am much more civil than that. Well thank you for your time and have a good day.
9:04 pm on October 24th, 2010 37
Retard- Use BLUF when you try to make your points. Looks like you could use a basic composition course because you can't articulate whatever points you are trying to make.
The only thing I can get out of your posts is that you are intellectually superior to those around you, officer, NCO, and rank/file enlisted personnel.
On another note, I really think it would be great if people could just join the Army and do whatever they wanted to do whenever they wanted to do it. That ought to satisfy everyone.
9:24 pm on October 24th, 2010 38
Not sure if that will satisfy everyone, and sorry about the long post but I do tend to rant from time to time. I know my flaws and am willing to admit them. Thank you
11:27 pm on October 24th, 2010 39
TD,
"71% of the US Armed Forces personnel is white, yet 45% of those fired for DADT are not. Furthermore, women (who make up 15% of all enlisted) make up 1/3 of those fired under DADT. Yup, institutionalized discrimination."
It might mean that and it might not, there may be a higher percentage of minorities and women who join who are gay and feel a need to come out of the closet.
I'm pretty sure LT Dan Choi outing himself on National TV several times and then chaining himself to the White House fence in uniform contributed slightly more to his getting kicked out than being a minority. In fact in that famous photo are six gay service members, three male and three female. Two males are minorities leaving one white male. This in itself like your jump to conclusions doesn't prove anything but it does make you think. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Xn_O-mM2sFk/S87-Ujt1NHI…
A rumor strictly for thought is that a very high percentage of females feel the need to self report their gayness just prior to deployment. This worked like a charm in the past, easy honorable exit from the military with no deployment. Now, not so much.
TD "What will work? DADT is institutionalized discrimination. Please tell me how discharging trained personnel on something as trivial as sexual orientation a wise decision?"
That really depends on if the number of trained personnel lost due to DADT is expected to be higher or lower than losses from other trained personnel who feel their privacy is violated or have a personal moral issue with it. Ramming the decision through while we are knee deep in two wars is not wise, I do know that much and so would the activists if they really cared. Pentagon Report is due out in a little more than a month, oh well.
12:30 am on October 25th, 2010 40
"It might mean that and it might not, there may be a higher percentage of minorities and women who join who are gay and feel a need to come out of the closet. "
Given that DADT itself is a symptom of endemic bigotry, I think we all know that's the likeliest scenario.
"That really depends on if the number of trained personnel lost due to DADT is expected to be higher or lower than losses from other trained personnel who feel their privacy is violated or have a personal moral issue with it."
You gotta be kidding me.
2:28 am on October 25th, 2010 41
"I think we all know that’s the likeliest scenario." Actually we don't, the data is incomplete. How many of each ethnic group or male versus female outed themselves? What is the percentage of women and minorities versus white males that are gay in the military? No one knows the answers to these questions and neither do you.
"You gotta be kidding me." Why would I? If I think I will lose two brigades of infantry but save 140 personnel from a spectrum of specialties then I would try to minimize the chance of losing the infantry. This is also unknowable, I only know that we lose about 140 per year to DADT. There is no way to know how many will not reenlist or enlist due to an end of the program.
However we might want to think about more private rooms, more emphasis on education, team building exercises, shower curtains and a few other ideas before we just jump in and repeal the ban without any considerations for how serving troops feel.
10:24 am on October 25th, 2010 42
DADT was a policy designed to maintain the force as it transformed from the cold war era Vietnam mindset to a more modern mentality. Please remember that you don't hire SGM's / MSG's / COL's or even SGT's, you must first grow them. The SGM's of today were the ones who enlisted during the early to mid 90's, same thing with the COL's and other senior leaders. The leaders of the 90's were the ones enlisted in the 70's and 80's so quite a bit homophobic. DADT was designed to allow homosexuals to serve without causing homophobes to go nuts or otherwise disrupt the force.
Its been long enough and the Military as a whole is more comfortable with homosexuals then they were a decade or two ago. DADT will be removed and homosexuals will be able to serve openly. Secretary of Defense Gates has said he strongly believed DADT will be removed but that he'd prefer congress to do it as they were the ones to put it there. Also he stated the DoD report due in December isn't on whether to remove it or not but is a study on the most effective method to go about removing it while causing the least disruption to the force structure. All the mouth-frothers can just chill on this, it will happen but it will take time to do properly.
As I said before, the last thing you want is a bunch of "gay activists" enlisting to make some sort of political statement and using the Military as a pro-gay platform. The second to last thing you want is some sort of *special* status conferred to homosexual soldiers as was done to soldiers of the Muslim faith. Don't think it will happen, just look at the Fort Hood scenario where the officer was plainly an extremest but was otherwise ignored because his seniors were afraid to be labeled "anti-muslim".
3:17 pm on October 25th, 2010 43
Surprisesaplenty #34 & Teadrinker #33. Whether repealing DADT is the right or wrong thing to do is I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree but as to whether there is no way to legally stop it just consider this. The US Constitution in article 1, section 8 under "Powers of Congress" gives Congress the power to "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." The rights & responsibilities of military members are not exactly the same as for a civilian. For example recently in ROK drop there was a story about a pick up truck which had an "Impeach Obama" or some similar bumper sticker on it on Ft Hood. If this truck belonged to a civilian nothing could or should be done about it but if it was active duty military the troop could be court martialed under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice(UCMJ). With the current make up of the US Supreme Court I believe that DADT will be upheld. Teadrinker you believe that sexual orientation is 'trvial'. Well the commander of the US Marine Corp said that over 90% of Marine opposed changing the policy so I don't think sexual orientation is so trivial if a large amount of troops won't re-enlist or heterosexual civilians won't join to begin with. As I & other posters have stated we are in the middle of TWO F'ING WARS including the longest war(Afghanistan) in US history. If this policy is going to change can we at least wait for the wars to significantly wind down or end first so that if the change does result in a big F'up then modifications can be made if needed?
5:53 pm on October 25th, 2010 44
TL, the counter arguments are all emotion and a few talking points scrabbled together that mostly don't hold up to scrutiny.
The one in my mind legitimate complaint is drown out by the BS, which is protecting patriotic gay servicemembers. This should be supported, much of the rest is getting rammed forward by people who couldn't care less about the military.
I think activists like Dan Choi have done more harm to the cause than any ammount of bigots. How many service members have said to themselves "Wow, if they are all like that assclown violating the UCMJ, wearing uniforms to rallies, slandering their commanders and always dying for attention then maybe ending DADT isn't a great idea." Meanwhile real professionals like USAF Major Witt get almost no attention.
1:37 am on October 26th, 2010 45
I live about 30 miles away from Ft. Cartoon, and know a few people stationed there. I myself did 4 years active duty in the late 70's (2 tours at the JSA – Panmunjom and the ax murder incident). On top of that, I did 11 years in the Reserves. My oldest son did 6 years active duty, was part of the initial invasion of Iraq, and was kicked out for PTSD and the meds the Army Dr. prsecribed him, which the VA Dr. subsequently dropped as being a bullshit medication for PTSD.
So, with that out of the way, I myself personally saw queers making out in the showers on several occasions, and reported it. Nothing was ever done, even with numerous complaints to both the Chaplain and everybody in the chain of command, other than one guy being transferred to another battalion. I was also initially bunked with a self-professed queer while at Ft. Riley, KS, who was already "out" and very blatant about his orientation, and who also would not take "NO!" as an answer.
I was also in when the Army started making huge strides towards integrating women into the military. At first, women and men had different PT standards. With the women's movement calling for equality, the Army was forced to have the same set of PT standards for both sexes. Well, after that the women's movement started complaining even more about discrimination, since many women were getting kicked out for failure to meet the same PT standards as men. So, once again the Army made changes, and wound up lowering the PT standards almost to the level that women used to have before they stated raising a ruckus. This resulted in the removal of the horizontal ladder and the crabwalk, as very few women could pass those in the alloted time.
None of the folks I know down at Ft. Cartoon have ever seen the questionairre supposedly being sent to all military service members about how they feel about a repeal of DADT. But, all of them have also said that if it happens, they will NOT re-enlist. Talking with my youngest son and his high school friends, they have all said that while they don't care if someone is gay or not, they would not join the military if they were going to forced to 'live' (shit, shower, and shave) with a queer, unless they also were completely allowed to have the same arrangement with women (living with a female roommate). They ardently feel that if the military has to make changes to accomodate one small percentage of the population, and then are forced to 'live' with them, that the military should also completely remove all sexual gender oriented obstructions, so there is only one Basic or AIT for everybody, only one shower area for everybody, etc. Anything other would make them decide to not enlist as that would perpetuate an even greater form of discrimination, while providing a small subset of society with 'advantages' that most of the population would not have.
And, if DADT is such a big issue, how have all of the queers from previous years, decades, and wars been able to serve their full time and retire (20 or more years) while being queer?
2:11 am on October 26th, 2010 46
As I pointed out in post 14 (from S&S) it's not gays in and of themselves; it is the special treatment they will demand that is most odious. I can't wait to see Southern Baptist Colonels and Evangelical Generals singing the praises of gays in the military during (mandatory) speeches!
2:31 am on October 26th, 2010 47
Top Differences Between an Insurgent and Your Queer Army Buddy
Your queer Army buddy doesn't need a vest packed with C4 and ball bearings to blow you.
The insurgent doesn't squeal and squirt on your hand when you whack him in the field.
Rather than coming apart in a pool of blood, your queer Army buddy just licks his lips after you unload on him.
When you scream "backup", the insurgent runs away. Your queer Army buddy drops his pants and actually backs into you.
Unless you are taking turns or it is a 69, your queer Army buddy will generally shoot away from you.
You get a purple heart instead of ridicule if an insurgent blast you in the face.
The insurgent opens fire and your queer Army buddy starts licking if there is an accidental discharge.
The insurgent doesn't like it when you approach from the rear.
When the insurgent goes down, you STOP shooting.
The insurgent doesn't get a woody when hog-tied naked on an American base.
If you drop a bomb on an insurgent, he vanishes in a red mist. Your queer Army buddy wipes his face and wants to give you a rim job.
…and…
The insurgent is way too busy fighting a war to give a funk about DADT.
3:40 am on October 26th, 2010 48
Had to read thru a few comments to get to one that hit the nail on the head. The
notion that the military is an occupation like any other is crazy. It is male
oriented and the bond between soldier's whose mission is to kill and results include being killed. It has long been established that those who have been in
combat feel they are motivated to fight and survive is dependent upon their brothers. Join perhaps for patriotic reasons but when the crap hits the fan that
takes a back seat to watching each others back.
Majority of men do not find homosexuality normal. It is not. The idea of
putting something in where only a distasteful matter comes out is repugnant. That
fact causes a substantial impediment to bonding and cohesion in an organization.
Regardless of MOS, everyone is combat soldier first.
3:42 am on October 26th, 2010 49
Chickenhead #47, As always you're hilarious. Bill #45, Great post! WTF are they going to do if and when DADT is repealed & the whole thing F's up, bring back the draft? The pro-homosexuals in the military people cite Israel as an example of a military power with open homosexuals allowed in. The big difference is that Israel has a draft so if the majority of straight troops don't like it who cares? In the American volunteer military you have to entice heterosexual civilians to enlist & later to have heterosexual troops re-enlist. That's a big F'ing difference! Leon LaPorte #46, knowing all the a$$kissers that were in the military when I was in it can be guaranteed that a lot of single commissioned & non-commissioned officers will say that they are homosexual just to get promoted because there is no doubt in my mind that there will be a 'queer quota' to be met. Some pro-DADT repeal person PLEASE answer this question: If this repeal is going to be done why can't we wait until the TWO WARS that we are fighting NOW are OVER before we experiment with this repeal??? Can we worry about the defense of the United States of America & quit trying to kiss the a$$ of every special interest group that you can try to wring votes or campaign contributions out of?
3:44 am on October 26th, 2010 50
I forgot to add that those of us who are old enough to remember the violence in the streets during the Vietnam war DO NOT want a return to the draft.
4:09 am on October 26th, 2010 51
To cmt#31 The statement that criminals are allowed in the military is an ignorant
statement. True if a misdemeanor depending for what it was and in all those would
require a wavier. NO felons can enlist. If lie and enlist, when a national agency
background check is completed they get the boot–never waived or allowed to stay.
I was a recruiter/retention NCO for 15 years.
5:15 am on October 26th, 2010 52
Off topic, but I inject it here because of the tie in with the repeal of DADT and the fact we are fighting two wars.
If you listen to the campaigns for the elections next week, there is almost no mention of those wars. Americans have lost interest.
No matter how much progress those two governments make in getting their acts together, we will soon be done with them. We have given them more than enough time and opportunity to do so. It seems obvious that they are still dysfunctional because our presence allows them to be.
In these these economic times, there isn't much appetite for pouring more dollars into those money pits.
There will also be a resulting draw down on military funding, resources and manning that won't have anything to do with whether there are gays allowed to serve openly or not.
11:01 am on October 26th, 2010 53
@Joec
I can see your very anti-war / anti-military, why are you posting on a military orientated blog?
Local National Economy > Distance foreign war. This is pretty much a no brainier. Because the politicians are looking towards their own a$$'s right now their all focusing on issues that will get them elected / re-elected. And while the average American is extremely pissed at the government, we're talking 20 ~ 30% approval ratings for both democrats and republicans, the population vastly approves of our military forces at 80%+ rating. Trying to use the wars as a political platform is fail for both sides currently, thus their ignoring it completely.
You are correct that we've spent enough time and money in both those countries, if they can't get their sh!t together its on them not us. Your wrong to think our presence is preventing them from doing so. If we weren't there then Iran would definitely be and would remake those countries into puppet states. In the end a democracy must come from the people not from the government. If the people demand democracy then it will work, if they are apathetic then it'll never take off.
11:35 am on October 26th, 2010 54
#53
So what part of what I wrote do you judge to be anti-military?
11:46 am on October 26th, 2010 55
#51, Hi Jeff. Thanks for the (tool box) pocket knife when I re-uped. I knew my true value to the Military that day in Bosnia. But of course I did get what I wanted at last. Retirement from a Fag loving, Politically Correct Organization that was losing it's way.
Don't take that the wrong way. I'm glad to have served. It was good for many years before it was bad. But I was counting the days in Iraq to drop my retirement request.
Still have the pocket knife. I put it in a frame. Good conversation starter.
I was once told that their are two types of Retired Military. Those whose eyes grew wet when they remembered the ole days and those that gritted their teeth.
10:03 pm on October 26th, 2010 56
Is everyone ready for the next round of issues following the repeal of DADT?
1) Recognition of gay spouses. (Pay, COLA, Housing, medical, dental, moving expenses etc)
2) Claims of promotion bias.
For #1 I think this has always been a backdoor tactic for the gay activits that actually don't give a rat's ass about the military. For the genuine patriotic it will be a challenge. Aside from a national referendum I think we may see the end of more money for married soldiers and a relaxing on the JFTR for who you can move. What's good for Jack and Bill may be bad for big families but will likely streamline some inconsistencies we currently have.
For #2 either pray you get a professional homosexual subordinate and pray you don't get Dan Choi. He will probably chain himself to your desk and have you demoted. We might even get quotas for gay servicemember promotions.
11:01 pm on October 26th, 2010 57
Hamilton,
#3 Under the current climate of unfailing submission to political correctness and frenzied sexual harassment witch hunts, a male servicemember DARES not find himself alone with a female servicemember under any circumstances.
The end of DADT is going to make for some fantastically distracting yet wonderfully interesting, he said/he said scenarios.
The days of the Battle Buddy are limited… it's gonna have to be Troop Group (or something even more stupid) so you don't get accused of anything alone in the dark with another man in an alcohol-related incident.
#4 Poor Sgt. Leng Sok… he was a man ahead of his time.
11:09 pm on October 26th, 2010 58
To RETIRED GI. You made a good point. The Army of today is different from when I
hung up my BDUs Feb 88". I fondly think of Army at some point every day. My hero
was president Reagon, he raised our pay, built up the forces, set the stage for
the defeat of USSR and defeated the worst pres in my life time–Carter. The gov.
has gone down the path of political correctness and the ramification of it on
the military have had a negative effect in many ways. So goes the gov'mt, so goes
the military. Passing comment: Iraq/Afganistan can never be democratized. The
benefits provided by a military retirement are great, you are a wise person for
staying in. You think you could have made out better in a civilian job? Think
the civ. job would have given you a super knife like the Army did for staying around?
12:16 am on October 27th, 2010 59
Jeff, I agree with all the points you made. I had only been in for three years when you hung up your BDUs. Your "passing comment" I am in total agreement with!
But with one exception. A "tool box" pocket knife was so useless that it was only used for inventory purpose. Fingernail clippers with a cool Army logo would have been better and even cheaper.
Passing comment: I still cannot believe that 53% of Americans were stupid enough to vote for an unknown "hope and change" from a Community Organizer with Zero Military experience when the country was involved in two wars. Just sad.
Saw a picture of a smiling Carter the other day. The caption was: At least I'm not the worst President any longer.
Both Democrates. Makes a "thinking" man wonder.
But I'll say this for Obama: He sure is Pretty. Guess that is why he was elected.
Best entertainment on tv these days is watching the Liberals freak out.
4:00 am on October 27th, 2010 60
Retired GI, thanks for the comments. Looking back retrospect that moron Carter was
was quite innocuous compared to Obama. The damage he has done to this nation in
such a short time is breathtaking. The 53% may have not happened if "ACORN" fraud,
felons, illegals, idealistic young folks and the unusual large turnout of the black vote(very understandable). McCain, the Repub in name only was a total putz
as a campaigner. Hillery must have nightmares every night from the shock of losing to such a nobody when she was a lock in from early on. Amazing, just f___ing amazing. Those give-aways in Recruiting/ReUp such as that knife sure ingratiated me in tight with a lot of HS Guidance Counselors, CSM's and Cdr"s.
Always was surprised at how someone would so pleased to get something for nothing.
Ended up with 4 ARCOM's, 2 MSMs. while in that MOS. Made E-8 early on. Can't
help but think those gestures helped out. Hoorah! jfisher1946@gmail.com
11:41 am on October 27th, 2010 61
Hey wouldn't it be hillarious if Korea somehow figures this thing out faster than the US which had a big head start?
Korea's own gay rights in the military decision
http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2010/10/2…
Changes happen in Korea much faster than the US.
11:59 am on October 27th, 2010 62
"Changes happen in korea much faster than the US."
That's because korea has been playing catch up forever. Still behind, they must make changes quickly if they are going to be excepted by other nations. Korea is so NEEDED for approval form other nations. How is the importation of Philippine women going? With all the gay korean men I'm sure demand is down.
True, they are a-head in the Fag department. Difficult to tell the males are really male sometimes.
But the Chineses know all about that. Right Beijing Betty?
Sorry, I couldn't resist Betty.
1:55 pm on October 27th, 2010 63
#61
Shouldn't be a problem, EXCEPT, I don't think the discipline and safeguards are there to prevent outright physical abuse.
A number of homosexual sexual assaults in the Korean military have made the news over the years. They are alluded to right there in the article.
"There were 176 cases of homosexuality in the military between 2004 and 2007. Four of the cases were involved in consensual homosexual acts, while gay soldiers in three of the four cases were convicted of violating the code."
Little more that 3% of the discovered homosexual acts were consensual. Very likely for the same reason they are hesitant to allow women in the enlisted ranks. And fears of physical abuses are more than likely the reason for keeping mixed race Koreans out of the military.
For the time being, homosexuals in the Korean military will be much safer remaining in the closet.
2:52 pm on October 27th, 2010 64
Tom #61, The times they are a'changin. When I was stationed in Korea in '79-'80 I can't even imagine a homosexual ROK soldier or a least one 'coming out'. The ROK Army even had their own brothels which no GI would ever have been stupid enough to go to. Jeff Fisher #58. Hoorah to your comments about President Reagan. The whole military was so proud, even soldiers that I knew who were Democrats liked President Reagan. I'm afraid that we'll never see a leader like him again, at least in our lifetime. We could sure use a leader like that in these times.
10:48 pm on October 27th, 2010 65
#61, Korea likely will pull-a-head in the Fag department. Whats the differience between a male and female anyway. Yep, something to be proud of. GO GAY KOREA — FIGHTING!
3:49 am on October 28th, 2010 66
My lovely and gracious wife is Korean. We reside now in the US but get Korean TV.
I am downright appalled to see
young guys dressing and parading
around in a feminine manner on the TV shows. Too many to write off as an anomaly. The hair styles, some have female makeup. What to hell is up with that? Going to
go back in Jun 11". Get the impression when I get to Seoul I will think I am
San Francisco. What say you commentators on this site that live there.
11:25 am on October 28th, 2010 67
Jeff Fisher,
I wouldn't read too much into it.
Despite the metrosexual window dressing, I don't think Korea suddenly went gay.
I think it is more of the current generation differentiating themselves from the previous generations.
Check out some of the late 60s and 70s fashions in the USA as the conservative 50s were left behind.
There was a brief resurgence of feline masculinity in the 80s as men's makeup and pink suits became popular… look at any of the pop bands… and a few metal bands.
For that matter, the current trends of global haute couture seem to be leaning towards femininity in masculine style.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080629200…
In the end, if given the choice, I'd rather see all the men look like ladyboys than repeat the 90s where all the combat boot/flannel shirt-wearing women tried to look (and act) like men… a trend that, sadly, still exists way too much two decades later.
10:59 pm on October 28th, 2010 68
CHICKEN HEAD #64: Great insightful explanation. When re-running the mental tapes
(I'm 64) I clearly remember those periodic social changes. Your comments make
perfect sense to me. Thank you.
11:05 pm on October 28th, 2010 69
Correction to my comment #68, I meant to comment on Chicken Head's #67 cmt. not
#64