Perhaps we should have a ban on idiots in the military. Specifically, idiots who write such things as this "working group report" on making heterosexual troops shower, change, and bunk with homosexual troops.
You see, all discomfort about these things is based on a "stereotype" that the homosexuals will behave "inappropriately." So, it's okay as long as the homosexuals don't hit on the heterosexuals.
Gee, by this logic, men and women should be forced to shower together as long as they are straitly charged not to make passes at each other or behave "inappropriately." Why not?
Privacy, shmivacy. Not wanting to be looked at undressed by people who desire you sexually? What's the matter with you, are you some kind of racist or something?
I guess if we had any doubts about where the repeal on the ban of homosexuals in the military is going to go, this tells us. Because we never did have a ban on idiots, so they'll be running the show.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I was watching PBS' Carrier documentary which persuaded me that men and women serving together is a rather dumb idea. Now we are going to add another powderkeg to the mix?
Did some research a couple days ago. At the American Spectator, a conservative site, a couple of their bloggers were supporting the repeal. At NR I found one article. Just one.
Yep, Scott, the feminization of the military has been a huge disaster, with constant bullying of anyone who dares to dissent--a huge experiment in social engineering and thuggish punishment of those who dare to speak up. And, of course, plenty of assaults on privacy.
But at least they usually maintain the intent (which becomes something of a semi-fiction in the combat-type contexts in which men and women are now thrown together) that men and women do not directly have to bunk together, shower together, use latrines together without dividers, etc. There is the overall idea that people are separated from those who are likely to sexually desire them, of some modicum of physical privacy in that respect. The homosexualization of the military removes this completely, and this unutterably stupid report implies that _behavior_ in such contexts is the only thing that matters, that being _seen_ and _watched_ by someone who desires you sexually is completely irrelevant as long as the person does not do or say anything. That is a new step for the military but I suppose should not be surprising.
Bill, I know, it's depressing, isn't it. To his real credit, Auster has been reporting on this as a disaster of the first order on a nearly daily basis.
Yes...but homosexuals have always been in the military.
They have always been there, whether they have outed themselves or not. They have always been showering with heterosexuals whether the heterosexuals have known, or not.
It's silly to think otherwise. What you seem to think is that known homosexuals will automatically start hitting on heterosexual men all of a sudden. Yet sexual harassment rules will still be in place.
This is more of a psychological adjustment on the part of heterosexuals rather than something new that has never occurred before.
On the contrary: I think it's more than silly--I think it's idiotic--to say that whether or not someone "hits on" the other guy in the shower is the only legitimate reason for a normal man not to want to shower with a homosexual man.
But no doubt the requisite "psychological adjustment" (i.e., the suppression of these normal instincts and concerns) will be carried out ruthlessly in the army, to the detriment of the careers of any who dare to dissent.
Welcome to the brave new totalitarian homosexual world.
Post a Comment