Don't Ask, Don't Tell

The United States Declaration of Independence mandates that "all men are created equal" (U.S. Congress, 1776), but the U.S. military's way of treating homosexuals does not reflect this belief. The policy for homosexuals in the U.S. military is noninterventionalist, at best, but intervention is necessary to repair the prejudiced laws and create equality. In this day of professed equality and desegregation, the amount of official prejudice in this facet of the government definitely surprises me. It suggests that homosexual military officers are not equal to their heterosexual comrades, and it is completely unfair.

The U.S. armed forces blame societal prejudices for the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, which "allows gay and lesbian individuals to serve in the armed forces as long as they do not publicly engage in homosexual behavior...[, and it] also prevents military leaders from asking a service member about his or her sexual orientation" (CNN, 2008). The policy was implemented when some of the senior officers expressed fear "that homosexuals would disrupt unit cohesion and morale" (CNN, 2008). This could be interpreted in two ways. The first interpretation is that heterosexual officers would be uncomfortable (due to societal or personal prejudices) working and living in such close quarters with homosexuals. With this, the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy is theoretically protecting homosexuals from prejudice. The other interpretation is that the military in general, like Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, believes that homosexuals would be "disruptive" to the unit with their "inappropriate passive/agressive actions common in the homosexual community" (CNN, 2008). This explanation is obviously based on stereotypes, and if true, it shows that the U.S. military is the prejudiced group, not society.

Let's give the majority of military officers the benefit of the doubt and say that their intentions were based off of the first interpretation. In that case, society is shown to be uncomfortable (at the least) with homosexuals. "Intolerance for the lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) community is often intensified by a lack of knowledge and understanding between heterosexuals and the LGB community" (Getz & Kirkley, p. 857, 2006). It wasn't too long ago that many United States laws operated off of this lack of understanding, too. Gay people were considered mentally disabled because of their sexual orientation, and two gay men could be arrested for having sex with each other. Recently, however, society has shown its willingness to accept gays by no longer classifying homosexuality as a mental illness and by decriminalizing homosexual acts between consenting adults (Segal, Gade, & Johnson, p. 37, 1993). In addition, "a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 75 percent of respondents supported allowing gays to serve openly in the military, up from 62 percent in 2001 and 44 percent in 1993" (CNN, 2008). This shows that the U.S. military's assumption about society's prejudices is now inaccurate.

As time goes on, new research about homosexuality continues to bring more knowledge and understanding to the country. Prejudiced laws are being reversed, and society is looking at homosexuals more as equals than ever before. The United States armed forces are not following this trend, however, and the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy continues to force homosexuals to hide their true selves, at the threat of being discharged. The policy takes away from a homosexual officer's honor of duty, and it restricts his/her freedom to openly and honestly serve this country. It is ironic, in fact, that some of the men and women who risk their lives to fight to defend the freedom and principles that this country was built upon are not allowed their own freedom of expression while they do this fighting.

References:

CNN. (2008, July 23). House weighs overturning 'don't ask, don't tell' . CNN Politics, Retrieved December 02, 2008, from http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/23/dontask.donttell/

Getz, C.; Kirkley, E. (2006). Shaking Up the Status Quo: Challenging Intolerance of the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Community at a Private Roman Catholic University. College Student Journal. 40(4), 857-869.

Segal, D.R.; Gade, P.A.; Johnson, E.M. (1993). Homosexuals in Western Armed Forces. Society. 31(1), 37-42.

U.S. Congress. (1776). The Declaration of Independence

Women and War

In Western societies, women have been taught what is expected of them from a very young age. Girls in one kindergarten class in New York were given awards for "All-Around Sweetheart, Best Manners, Biggest Heart," and others, while boys in the same class were awarded for being "Very Best Thinker, Most Scientific, Hardest Worker," etc. (Deveny, 1994). Girls are rewarded for their cute personalities, and boys are reinforced to be intellectual. This pattern continues into adulthood, where women have been expected to be maternal, doing housework and emotionally taking care of the family, while men go to work and earn money so that they can provide financial support. Times are changing now, and women go to work and earn livings alongside men in various fields. Despite still present stereotypes, these gender roles are being broken down in several areas. Women's role during wartime, however, is still not clear.

For many women, their role in war is still domestic and maternal. They take care of their families while the men are away fighting, but they also pick up another role: to take care of their country. For the women that remain behind, they support the troops with letters and care packages, like any traditional person would expect. Women are often called upon to be emotionally strong for their families in light of war, and they tend to work more. They work extra jobs or hours in order to make up for the money that was being earned by the men (since the military does not give immediate payment), and they also need to work more in order to keep up the economy. If noone covered the jobs that are left behind by soldiers that go to war, the nation's supply would plummet, and the economy would crumble.

Recently, many American women have started seeing their role in war shift. Instead of staying home and offering support, these women are shipping out. Since the 1970's, "the number of women in the Armed Forces has increased dramatically, from 7,000 in Vietnam (mostly medical personnel) to over 40,000 in the Persian Gulf War to one in seven of our troops in Iraq today" (Vlahos, 2008). When the first women were allowed to enlist in the military, their positions were limited to the stereotypical nurse and other caretaker responsibilities. It was a great achievement for feminists that women were allowed in warzones at all, even if it was only the green zone. That was not enough for long, and women continued to fight for a more integral role in the military.

In the 1990's, there was another change in women's wartime role. "Formerly all-male military academies and basic training programs turned co-ed. Today, tens of thousands of women are flying combat aircraft and serving as military police, gunners operating MK19 grenade launchers, interrogators, and prison guards" (Vlahos, 2008). Women are no longer only kept in the green zone, but they are actively engaged in fighting the enemy. These women, like "the female Chinook pilot, for example, who flew night missions under fire to rescue teams in the mountains of Afghanistan" (Vlahos, 2008), are performing acts of bravery and sacrifice that rival some of the greatest heroism stories of men.

Women are still not officially on the front lines of combat, however. Critics of full military integration believe that women physically and emotionally can not keep up with men. They say that putting women "into armored cavalry squadrons or rifle platoons will threaten unit cohesion, weaken standards, and increase injuries, hurting overall force strength" (Vlahos, 2008). I do not know if these accusations are true, but women have come a long way in establishing their wartime role. It is no longer expected that women have to be "sweethearts" that stay home and keep everything nice for when the men get home. In today's America, women can guard war prisoners, rescue comrades, and bomb enemy camps. They may not be able to stand on the front lines with rifles during attacks, but they can, and are expected to, do a whole lot more than they could 100, or even 20, years ago.

References:

Deveny, K. (1994). Chart of kindergarten awards. The Wall Street Journal, p. B1.

Vlahos, K.B. (2008). Women at War. The American Conservative, Retrieved November 06, 2008, from http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/apr/07/00014/.