Sigh* Ignore my post below. Are Americans hated in other countries?

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't assume they are predatory. But I do know a whole lot of individuals who would refuse to shower with someone who they knew looked upon them in a sexual manner rather than just another guy/girl. Can you imagine asking a woman to shower with a group of men? My husband isn't a predator, but if he was showering with women I know he would be terribly uncomfortable, I would be uncomfortable and there would be a whole world of harrassment that could be avoided.

 

Like I said, I'm not sure there is an answer to that situation.

 

*Generally* there are no more open shower rooms where everyone showers together. Even at most FOBs they have trailers with individual shower stalls. Sort of like this, this or this (on page 7). Just adding this because I'm not sure what people are imagining.

[lovemyboys]

The same exact argument was made against integrating the armed forces.

 

Human rights can't be denied because bigots are "in a majority." If a soldier can't protect and defend the Constitution they have not business being in the military.

 

Bill

 

Actually, IIRC, we have Wilson to thank for this -- segregating what had been a somewhat integrated military 100 years ago. Segregating many areas of government and industry that was naturally integregating. :glare:

 

 

*Generally* there are no more open shower rooms where everyone showers together. ...... Just adding this because I'm not sure what people are imagining.

 

As you say, "generally," because the equalizing portions of military life like boot camp and more rugged areas have shower/bathroom situations that are open. It's just the way it is. Some of that is by design.

 

When the situation becomes "sexualized" it changes the dynamic. Yes, there are homosexuals in the military. I know a few. But you can't deny that it changes the "atmosphere" of close living arrangements if there is someone who may be sexually aware of you, even if you're not gay. Trust me, I've had this experience.

 

There's a reason that Sec. of Defense recently came out with a policy to deter fraternization resulting in pregnancy. Putting women and men together "sexualizes" the environment. It just can't be helped. But the Sec. of Defense is right -- many of these women are key in their units with the skills and jobs they have, losing them to pregnancy is a waste, poor management and bad for morale. It's a tough issue, and tougher if people deny the complexity.

[Mrs Mungo]

Actually, IIRC, we have Wilson to thank for this -- segregating what had been a somewhat integrated military 100 years ago. Segregating many areas of government and industry that was naturally integregating. :glare:

 

Very true.

 

As you say, "generally," because the equalizing portions of military life like boot camp and more rugged areas have shower/bathroom situations that are open. It's just the way it is. Some of that is by design.

 

Again, they currently deal with women in situations like this, even in mixed sex units. It may present a logistical challenge but I think it's something that could be worked out.

 

When the situation becomes "sexualized" it changes the dynamic. Yes, there are homosexuals in the military. I know a few. But you can't deny that it changes the "atmosphere" of close living arrangements if there is someone who may be sexually aware of you, even if you're not gay. Trust me, I've had this experience.

 

Sure, that's true but it could happen already. Homosexuals can currently serve and people know who they are, they just can't serve openly.

 

There's a reason that Sec. of Defense recently came out with a policy to deter fraternization resulting in pregnancy. Putting women and men together "sexualizes" the environment.

 

Agree and disagree. It makes sex possible, sure. Does it make it inevitable? No. Does working in a mixed-sex environment always make it a "charged" environment? No.

 

But the Sec. of Defense is right -- many of these women are key in their units with the skills and jobs they have, losing them to pregnancy is a waste, poor management and bad for morale. It's a tough issue, and tougher if people deny the complexity.

 

I agree that it's a complex issue. I thought the policy was fine. There are lots and lots and lots of issues surrounding this piece of the discussion that don't even remotely belong in this thread.

[TXMomof4]

Actually, IIRC, we have Wilson to thank for this -- segregating what had been a somewhat integrated military 100 years ago. Segregating many areas of government and industry that was naturally integregating. :glare:

 

 

 

 

As you say, "generally," because the equalizing portions of military life like boot camp and more rugged areas have shower/bathroom situations that are open. It's just the way it is. Some of that is by design.

 

When the situation becomes "sexualized" it changes the dynamic. Yes, there are homosexuals in the military. I know a few. But you can't deny that it changes the "atmosphere" of close living arrangements if there is someone who may be sexually aware of you, even if you're not gay. Trust me, I've had this experience.

 

There's a reason that Sec. of Defense recently came out with a policy to deter fraternization resulting in pregnancy. Putting women and men together "sexualizes" the environment. It just can't be helped. But the Sec. of Defense is right -- many of these women are key in their units with the skills and jobs they have, losing them to pregnancy is a waste, poor management and bad for morale. It's a tough issue, and tougher if people deny the complexity.

 

You said it much better than I was. Thank you!

[Rosie_0801]

Unfortunately the folks in one of these episodes accosted a total stranger (me) in a restaurant to express their opinion and displeasure with the voting habits of Americans. That is rude yet they saw it as their duty. I'm not sure that as the citizen of one country I should have any expectation of effecting the voting habits of the citizens of any other country. Nor do I have such a right. Yet, it seems that Americans have (in the opinion of citizens of other countries) a greater duty to the rest of the world than we do to our own internal affairs. I would argue that each country is responsible to itself for whom it elects.

 

That was terribly rude behaviour on their part and no, I don't think you have any responsibility to vote based on anything other than what you believe to be best for your country. We might like it if you voted according to what would be best for the rest of the world, but of course you are not obliged. I don't think of East Timor when I vote either, but I'm sure they'd like it if I did. I was only explaining a non-American point of view, that's all.

 

I am still waiting for you to answer which nation offers more freedoms? Which nation has done more to preserve freedom on this planet? Which nation has donated more to helping others? From what nation may someone claim a superiority to the US in these areas?

 

Could be that we remember the last time you engaged in this particular conversation. I imagine most witnesses would not be inclined to repeat the experience.

 

 

Rosie

Edited January 8, 2010 by Rosie_0801

[Laura Corin]

I don't assume they are predatory. But I do know a whole lot of individuals who would refuse to shower with someone who they knew looked upon them in a sexual manner rather than just another guy/girl. Can you imagine asking a woman to shower with a group of men?

 

I would not feel embarrassed about showering with a lesbian. I think it's because I would not (currently) have any sexual feelings about her, even if she might about me. I don't know how others would feel.

 

Laura

[pqr]

Eg I have heard that many citizens in the US value the right to bear arms. However many other people would consider this not a 'freedom' worth having, in light of the number of shooting deaths, including the tragic school shootings. (…I would find it hard to feel safe in a country where people have guns everywhere.)

 

By all means avoid Finland, Switzerland and Sweden where people "have guns everywhere."

 

The safest regions of our nation are also those where there are the highest percentages of legally owned firearms.

 

 

The head of the Australian Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, said "There has been a more specific … problem with handguns, which rose up quite rapidly and then declined. The decline appears to have more to do with the arrest of those responsible than the new laws. As soon as the heroin shortage hit, the armed robbery rate came down. I don't think it was anything to do with the tougher firearm laws." -alas, it looks like you gave up a vital and inherent right for no gain. Well Done!

 

Nevertheless your draconian gun bans follow in the heels of a list of others who also though that this freedom was not worth having.

 

 

Benito Mussolini: “The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. ... They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.†(address to the Italian Senate, 1931)

 

Adolf Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition.

 

V.I. Lenin: "A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie".

 

Mao Tse Tung: "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." (Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938, published in "Selected Works of Mao Zedong," 1965)

 

You are in good company!

 

However, let us not forget what others have said on the topic.

 

Mohandas K. Gandhi: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn." Mohandas K. Gandhi, Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, Chapter XXVII.

 

John F. Kennedy: "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."

-By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia, ''the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy

 

George Orwell:"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."

 

Israeli Police Inspector General Shlomo Aharonisky: “There's no question that weapons in the hands of the public have prevented acts of terror or stopped them.â€

 

Malcolm X: The Constitution of the United States of America clearly affirms the right of every American citizen to bear arms. And as Americans, we will not give up a single right guaranteed under the Constitution

 

While I do not always agree with the above, on this issue I am in complete agreement.

 

Perhaps you should think on the words of one of our Founding Fathers.

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither- Ben Franklin

 

African Americans also appear to have less freedom, looking at the stats for executions (and as for capital punishment, I won't even go there) and long term imprisonment.

 

Criminals belong is prison. Murders deserve to pay with their lives. What is your issue here? If you are arguing that a disproportionate number of blacks are executed, stop looking at race, perhaps a disproportionate number of the poorer classes commit crimes and thereby pay for them. Throwing race into the equation especially in a nation where the majority of whites voted for a black president simply does not hold water. It is a weak argument.

 

 

But on foreign aid, the US has a demonstrably poor record. It does donate large amounts (and is the largest contributor in raw $ terms), that is true, however these amounts are not so good in proportion to the size of its economy (aid as a percentage of GNP is usually lower than all OECD countries), and it has repeatedly failed to meet agreed targets .... In addition, much of its foreign aid is tied to its own interests, eg trade protectionism, supplying arms to selected nations, and is therefore useless or even harmful.

 

NGO charitable work is not accounted for in the above, only official aid programs. Unsurprisingly, the poorer people are consistently more generous donors across developed nations, including the US. There is also as large amount of foreign work carried out by churches, although the effectiveness varies, and some continue to undertake missionary type activities as well as humanitarian work.

 

NGO work demonstrates the charity of the people. Foreign aid, which I usually oppose, is money taken from the people. When I asked about donation it was about what people given their freedom to choose decided to give. Arguing that some foreign aid is a tool of foreign policy is pointless….. of course it is. That there are strings attached.....common sense would require this. Given the billions stolen or wasted in Africa I would have surmised that you would agree. That foreign aid also helps US interests is also reasonable.

[asta]

I would say that the majority of people we know 30-35 and under who are in the military (not short-termers) have known someone in their unit who was a homosexual and it wasn't actually a big deal. It's discussed often in our circles. I would say the career soldiers who are truly anti-gays-in-the-military are the same ones who are anti-women-in-the-military.

 

:iagree:

 

As you say, "generally," because the equalizing portions of military life like boot camp and more rugged areas have shower/bathroom situations that are open. It's just the way it is. Some of that is by design.

 

When the situation becomes "sexualized" it changes the dynamic. Yes, there are homosexuals in the military. I know a few. But you can't deny that it changes the "atmosphere" of close living arrangements if there is someone who may be sexually aware of you, even if you're not gay. Trust me, I've had this experience.

 

There's a reason that Sec. of Defense recently came out with a policy to deter fraternization resulting in pregnancy. Putting women and men together "sexualizes" the environment. It just can't be helped. But the Sec. of Defense is right -- many of these women are key in their units with the skills and jobs they have, losing them to pregnancy is a waste, poor management and bad for morale. It's a tough issue, and tougher if people deny the complexity.

 

<buzzer>

 

This is something that has always gotten under my skin. I find it to be incredibly vain on the part of ANYONE, gay or straight to assume that another person automatically is attracted to them because of their gender.

 

I mean, what an incredible ego one must have to assume that simply because a man is a homosexual, he is going to fall all over himself for your husband? Or that a woman will? And frankly, if one's spouse can't control themselves in a work environment around members of the opposite sex, then perhaps they either need some serious counseling, or they need to stay home.

 

Second, the pregnancy policy that was in the press was not introduced by the US Secretary of Defense, it was introduced by Major General Anthony Cucolo, who is currently commanding the Third Infantry Division in Iraq. He was legally allowed to do it, and he was being kind. Under AR 600-20, a soldier can get put out of the Army for not having a family care plan in place - and being pregnant in a war zone is pretty much as *anti* having a family care plan in place as you can get.

 

On a final note:

 

I believe when you are not permitted to practice your religion that would entail to me that you do not have religious freedom.

 

Wearing head covering is a religious practice to some.

 

And when people who are practicing their religions in France who are *not* wearing headcoverings start burning down banlieues, attacking the police and torching their cars -- perhaps their clothing will be restricted as well.

 

 

a

[pqr]

 

 

 

 

This is something that has always gotten under my skin. I find it to be incredibly vain on the part of ANYONE, gay or straight to assume that another person automatically is attracted to them because of their gender.

 

I mean, what an incredible ego one must have to assume that simply because a man is a homosexual, he is going to fall all over himself for your husband? Or that a woman will? And frankly, if one's spouse can't control themselves in a work environment around members of the opposite sex, then perhaps they either need some serious counseling, or they need to stay home.

 

 

 

 

You completely miss the point. No one is talking about falling in love or anything of the kind.

 

Would you feel comfortable showering in an open bay with 30 men? If you would can you not understand why other women might not?

 

If you knew that these 30 men were decent and would NEVER touch you, but being typical young men some certainly would look (and possibly dream), would this change anything?

 

Can you not understand why people do not want to shower with people who would look and (possibly dream)?

 

I have several friends who are in the Navy. They tell me that they live in 30 man compartments where each has a bed and little else. Can you not understand why these men would not want an open homosexual living with them? Sharing an open shower area with them?

Edited January 8, 2010 by pqr

[Slartibartfast]

 

And when people who are practicing their religions in France who are *not* wearing headcoverings start burning down banlieues, attacking the police and torching their cars -- perhaps their clothing will be restricted as well.

 

 

a

 

We were being conversational. France's policy is a valid point. It isn't something that I would agree with, no matter who was burning what. From what I read it wasn't only Muslims involved.

 

And hasn't there been an issue with Mosques being burned?

Edited January 8, 2010 by Sis

[asta]

You completely miss the point. No one is talking about falling in love or anything of the kind.

 

Would you feel comfortable showering in an open bay with 30 men? If you would can you not understand why other women might not?

 

If you knew that these 30 men were decent and would NEVER touch you, but being typical young men some certainly would look (and possibly dream), would this change anything?

 

Can you not understand why people do not want to shower with people who would look and (possibly dream)?

 

I have several friends who are in the Navy. They tell me that they live in 30 man compartments where each has a bed and little else. Can you not understand why these men would not want an open homosexual living with them? Sharing an open shower area with them?

 

You're talking to the wrong gal.

 

We all used to double up in our sleeping bags to keep warm in sub-feezing temperatures.

 

Real soldiers have a different mindset.

 

 

a

[asta]

We were being conversational. France's policy is a valid point. It isn't something that I would agree with, no matter who was burning what. From what I read it wasn't only Muslims involved.

 

And hasn't there been an issue with Mosques being burned?

 

Source?

[SquirrellyMama]

I studied in Spain for a semester when I was in college. One of the classes I had to take was a film class. It was awful with scenes in every single film that would be considered pornographic here. The prevailing opinion seemed to be that American films were inferior because they were "lightweight." That was the only negative stereotype that I encountered, and as I pointed out, I was equally unimpressed with their movies. So, to each his own.

 

My sister and her husband have been living in Spain for the past 3 1/2 years. They have some Spanish friends, but their circle is mostly comprised of various expats from other English speaking countries. A few of the more outspoken ones have criticized America in general. One of the big things is energy usage. Energy is VERY expensive there and most people don't use a drier much even if they have one. They don't think it is fair of Americans to dry their clothes in a drier. I think at least some of this is due to jealousy at our cheaper energy, because some of them in particular would love the convenience of a drier. A lot of the Europeans (but definately not all) that she knows did not like Bush. But when I was in Spain, most didn't like Clinton. They probably won't like Obama either.

 

I also studied in Spain during Clinton years and found that we were very unliked. We were pushed off sidewalks, punched, called names, and thought of as very easy. I'm not sure why because I have also watched Spanish films and found a whole lot of sex and nudity. It is possible that their characters aren't as stupid as some of ours.

 

I was told we were unliked because we were all rich, and because we didn't give Spain money after WWII and now they were behind. I did hear something about energy costs also and how it is so expensive there and we use too much.

 

I lived in Central Spain but visited Southern Spain and found that the people in the south were so different. They loved us but I'm sure it was because we were spending money. Actually though, they seem to have an entirely different outlook on life than those in Central Spain.

[WishboneDawn]

You're talking to the wrong gal.

 

We all used to double up in our sleeping bags to keep warm in sub-feezing temperatures.

 

Real soldiers have a different mindset.

 

 

a

 

I sort of chuckled at pqr's "feel comfortable" comment. I was sort of under the impression that the luxury to "feel comfortable" was one of the first things to get tossed when you joined the forces. :D

[Parrothead]

I don't assume they are predatory. But I do know a whole lot of individuals who would refuse to shower with someone who they knew looked upon them in a sexual manner rather than just another guy/girl. Can you imagine asking a woman to shower with a group of men? My husband isn't a predator, but if he was showering with women I know he would be terribly uncomfortable, I would be uncomfortable and there would be a whole world of harrassment that could be avoided.

 

Like I said, I'm not sure there is an answer to that situation.

Do you look at every man you see in a sexual manner? Why would you assume that every homosexual looks at others of their sex (male or female) and automatically thinks sex or becomes aroused?

 

Thinking that gay men are looking at every man they see in a sexual way is so wrong.

[pqr]

You're talking to the wrong gal.

 

We all used to double up in our sleeping bags to keep warm in sub-feezing temperatures.

 

Real soldiers have a different mindset.

 

 

a

 

Well obviously given polls of active duty REAL soldiers they disagree with you as they, by a large majority, oppose open service by homosexuals.

 

Lots of servicemen spoon when in the field, yet another reason to disallow open service. You made my point, many thanks.

[Laura Corin]

Well obviously given polls of active duty REAL soldiers they disagree with you as they, by a large majority, oppose open service by homosexuals.

 

Lots of servicemen spoon when in the field, yet another reason to disallow open service. You made my point, many thanks.

 

I posted an article earlier. I know little about the subject, so I'd be glad to hear your views based on another country's experience. My understanding is that there was a lot of opposition in advance, but that the reality has been much easier than everyone expected.

 

Laura

Edited January 8, 2010 by Laura Corin

[TXMomof4]

Do you look at every man you see in a sexual manner? Why would you assume that every homosexual looks at others of their sex (male or female) and automatically thinks sex or becomes aroused?

 

Thinking that gay men are looking at every man they see in a sexual way is so wrong.

 

If I were to be showering in a group of men, in a stressful environment, were not married - it would be easy to see that something sexual would develop that otherwise might not. It's dishonest to say otherwise. Dh had several soldiers that were good, honest, hardworking men who Still had fidelity issues as a result of the close working quarters, distance from family, high-stress nature of the job.

 

We aren't talking about a typical 9-5 job. Haven't you seen the reports about the increase in pregnancies increasing in Iraq? THe incidence is much higher in that environment than when these same soldiers are at home working their "regular" job.

 

I don't know. I'm not saying gays couldn't serve well and proudly. I obviously am not expressing my concerns clearly.

[pqr]

I posted an article earlier. I know little about the subject, so I'd be glad to hear your views based on another country's experience. My understanding is that there was a lot of opposition in advance, but that the reality has been much easier than everyone expected.

 

Laura

 

 

Here is an article from the Military Times, a paper that I understand serves the military but is not run by the military. (Put www. at the start)

 

militarytimes.com/news/2008/12/122908_military_poll_DADT/

[Mrs Mungo]

You're talking to the wrong gal.

 

We all used to double up in our sleeping bags to keep warm in sub-feezing temperatures.

 

Real soldiers have a different mindset.

 

 

I agree, especially in the field.

 

Well obviously given polls of active duty REAL soldiers they disagree with you as they, by a large majority, oppose open service by homosexuals.

 

First, that poll was taken in 2007. Two years may not seem like a long time but it *is* in terms of how soldiers are seeing this issue. More and more people in our acquaintance are TIRED, their units are short-handed. The military needs more personnel and people we know don't like good, able bodied soldiers thrown out of the military for what they do in their free time. Sex isn't allowed downrange and I think a lot of people have a skewed idea of what it means to be an open homosexual in terms of what it would mean for military service.

 

As far as the rest, every single one of your arguments has been made to try and keep women out of military service. Women are now serving on submarines because not enough men qualify to be submariners and the needs of the military trumps comfort.

 

That's where I believe we are now. We're putting some people's comfort over national security and the needs of the military. We're putting out skilled Arabic translators because they're homosexual. That's just ridiculous at this stage.

 

Lots of servicemen spoon when in the field, yet another reason to disallow open service. You made my point, many thanks.

 

So, again, women should not be allowed to serve? Is that also your contention? If it isn't, you're going to need to explain the difference. Especially to asta, a former service member.

 

I posted an article earlier. I know little about the subject, so I'd be glad to hear your views based on another country's experience. My understanding is that there was a lot of opposition in advance, but that the reality has been much easier than everyone expected.

 

 

I agree that this is similar to what would happen in the US military. Women already serve. Homosexuals already serve and soldiers often know who they are, even if it's not technically out in the open.

 

If I were to be showering in a group of men, in a stressful environment, were not married - it would be easy to see that something sexual would develop that otherwise might not. It's dishonest to say otherwise. Dh had several soldiers that were good, honest, hardworking men who Still had fidelity issues as a result of the close working quarters, distance from family, high-stress nature of the job.

 

We aren't talking about a typical 9-5 job. Haven't you seen the reports about the increase in pregnancies increasing in Iraq? The incidence is much higher in that environment than when these same soldiers are at home working their "regular" job.

 

This is all *very* true. I disagree that good, honest and hardworking automatically=faithful. But, I do agree that our current deployment schedule has been very hard on families. Deployments are too long, they are too uncertain, dwell time is too short and often filled with FTXes.

 

I don't know. I'm not saying gays couldn't serve well and proudly. I obviously am not expressing my concerns clearly.

 

It's a tricky issue. I agree that there are issues to be dealt with.

[Peri]

I have relatives in Holland that will take any opportunity they can to down America and I have talked to someone from the UK who very openly said that he thinks American kids are stupid.

 

One example that really annoyed me was when Presdient Obama bent over to pick up something from the ground but he was kind of blocked so it looked like he was bowing down to the kind of Saudi Arabia. My cousins in Holland refused to believe that he was picking something up. What bothered me the most was that if he had left the trash on the ground then they probably would have said that the American president littered. :glare:

[lovemyboys]

I also studied in Spain during Clinton years and found that we were very unliked. We were pushed off sidewalks, punched, called names, and thought of as very easy. I'm not sure why because I have also watched Spanish films and found a whole lot of sex and nudity. It is possible that their characters aren't as stupid as some of ours.

 

I was told we were unliked because we were all rich, and because we didn't give Spain money after WWII and now they were behind. I did hear something about energy costs also and how it is so expensive there and we use too much.

 

I lived in Central Spain but visited Southern Spain and found that the people in the south were so different. They loved us but I'm sure it was because we were spending money. Actually though, they seem to have an entirely different outlook on life than those in Central Spain.

 

Isn't that an interesting dichotomy -- we are at once puritanical and slutty. :001_huh:

 

Actually they'd probably just call us repressed and too stupid to figure it out.

 

Yes, the people around the Med. are a lot more open and fun-loving in general than the progressive urbanites, ime. But that's true in many countries.

[asta]

So, again, women should not be allowed to serve? Is that also your contention? If it isn't, you're going to need to explain the difference. Especially to asta, a former service member.

 

 

Aw, thanks Mrs. M.

 

Besides, it wasn't the sex between consenting adults (hetero or homo) that was the problem when I served, it was the rapes because they didn't want us "little women" there in the first place.

 

Intolerance is intolerance - it doesn't matter what form it takes - and we all have it in some arena, if we're honest with ourselves.

 

 

asta

[Laura Corin]

Here is an article from the Military Times, a paper that I understand serves the military but is not run by the military. (Put www. at the start)

 

militarytimes.com/news/2008/12/122908_military_poll_DADT/

 

“None of the dire consequences that were expected occurred,†Segal said. “My sense is, and this is just impressionistic, it was more peaceful than the gender integration of the military.â€

 

Laura

[lovemyboys]

<buzzer>

What? Inside joke?

 

This is something that has always gotten under my skin. I find it to be incredibly vain on the part of ANYONE, gay or straight to assume that another person automatically is attracted to them because of their gender.

 

I mean, what an incredible ego one must have to assume that simply because a man is a homosexual, he is going to fall all over himself for your husband? Or that a woman will? And frankly, if one's spouse can't control themselves in a work environment around members of the opposite sex, then perhaps they either need some serious counseling, or they need to stay home.

 

Sounds like you've been fortunate not to have received unwanted attention from either sex in your life, regardless of which you're attracted to.

 

Not everyone is. And when you're young and pretty naive, as I was, it is really uncomfortable to deal with -- again, regardless of which sex is involved.

 

Does it involve everyone I run into? Of course not. Have I showered in open bays with other women? Sure. Did that ever cause problems? No.

 

But, when and if someone of the same sex is interested in you, it does alter the situation that prior to that had just been a "collegial" sort of situation.

 

And, frankly, I think it's pretty naive for anyone to dismiss the issue out-of-hand, because it doesn't fit into a neat worldview.

 

Many of the folks serving in the military are in their peak sexual years (late teens-late twenties), they're in top physical condition, far from home, life alternating between boredom and extremely stressful situations. Sex is a natural outlet and fun activity to boot. But the complications that result are myriad.

 

 

Second, the pregnancy policy that was in the press was not introduced by the US Secretary of Defense, it was introduced by Major General Anthony Cucolo, who is currently commanding the Third Infantry Division in Iraq. He was legally allowed to do it, and he was being kind. Under AR 600-20, a soldier can get put out of the Army for not having a family care plan in place - and being pregnant in a war zone is pretty much as *anti* having a family care plan in place as you can get.

 

 

 

You are right. That's what I get for not checking that when SecDef didn't sound right, typing too late.

 

Not only can one be "put out" as you say, but also some have used the pregnancy option as a device to "opt out" of an unwanted duty station. Overall, it just makes a mess. Kind of like the military had to address the issue of drug use eons ago; with so many mixed units and the don't-ask-don't-tell policy, they have to address the issue of sexuality these days.

 

 

But as often happens here, this original post has ranged far and wide.

 

Ime, Americans aren't hated overseas. But I am skeptical of trying too hard to get everyone to like us too.

[asta]

What? Inside joke?

 

No. I just sometimes feel the urge to say a noise that sounds like an anthropomorphized buzzer, but how do you write that?

 

Sounds like you've been fortunate not to have received unwanted attention from either sex in your life, regardless of which you're attracted to.

 

 

 

I think perhaps you should read my last post.

[Jill- OK]

I've heard rather negative things about the US military from people in the Australian armed forces.

 

...how big of a sampling we're talking about? Across how many branches of the armed forces?

 

My husband's experience has been somewhat different. (There's an Aussie contingent here (OK base), working with a particular subset of the Air Force, and folks in this field work closely with the Australians).

 

Would you mind elaborating?

[Mrs Mungo]

BTW, pqr, although I'm not going to directly address each point (because too much of it has nothing to do with the rest of the thread), I will say that your post #108 of this thread is a classic example of why many people in the rest of the world find Americans arrogant and ethnocentric. It also classic example of someone who (perhaps willfully?) misunderstands of the social structure within the US and real history of the US.

 

I also think you win the ultimate Godwin for putting a fellow forumite in the company of Mao Tse Tung, Hitler, Mussolini and Lenin while placing yourself in the company of Ghandi (laughable), Orwell, Malcom X (hilarious) and JFK.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[pqr]

 

 

First, that poll was taken in 2007. Two years may not seem like a long time but it *is* in terms of how soldiers are seeing this issue. More and more people in our acquaintance are TIRED, their units are short-handed. The military needs more personnel and people we know don't like good, able bodied soldiers thrown out of the military for what they do in their free time. Sex isn't allowed downrange and I think a lot of people have a skewed idea of what it means to be an open homosexual in terms of what it would mean for military service.

 

The poll was taken in 2008 not 2007. A military times article in Dec 2008 referenced the poll. What more recent poll do you have to show that attitudes have changed? What are you basing your opinions on? We both have military friends mine strongly oppose lifting the ban....yours appear not to....what does this tell us?

 

If even 25 percent of those who stated they would not reenlist if forced to serve with homosexuals actually followed through on their statements then the issue of manpower shortages you reference would be exacerbated not remedied.

 

We're putting some people's comfort over national security and the needs of the military

 

It seems that given the hardships that our servicemen face we might be careful about reducing their comfort in order to push a political view. Again if we loose servicemen over this issue then that is not in the interest of national security

 

Do we, in time of war, want to sew dissention in the ranks? Make servicemen look at not reenlisting over this?

 

As far as the rest, every single one of your arguments has been made to try and keep women out of military service. Women are now serving on submarines because not enough men qualify to be submariners and the needs of the military trumps comfort.

 

Women are NOT serving on subs. the issue is being examined and the ban may be lifted but as far as I have read women are NOT on subs yet.

 

Referencing Asta's comments about the field. The chaps I know who serve state that women do "spoon" in the field and that men do so as well but it is rare for men and women to do so together. After your post I asked a military guy about this and he said that other than the fact that his wife would have an issue with it he would spoon with a female but when asked about with a homosexual his answer was very different.

 

You make much of your husband's service and you should. He is serving our nation and all Americans should appreciate and honor his service but your comments on military perceptions simply do not match those of servicemen who I know they do not match military polling.

 

 

 

So, again, women should not be allowed to serve? Is that also your contention? If it isn't, you're going to need to explain the difference. Especially to asta, a former service member.

 

 

I never said that, and do not believe that, but you are comparing apples and armchairs. Opposition to women's service may have used similar arguments, but that does not equate women's service and homosexual service.

 

Women are still segregated in sleeping quarters. In the Navy berthing areas are segregated. Where are you going to berth homosexuals?

[Slartibartfast]

Source?

 

Well according to this the headcovering ban was BEFORE the riots

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4414684.stm

 

He rejected claims that the law banning Islamic headscarves had contributed to the current problems affecting French Muslims

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/07/international/europe/07france.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&ei=5094&en=573c9c6c59c15188&hp&ex=1131426000&partner=homepage

 

Though a majority of the youths committing the acts are Muslim, and of African or North African origin, the mayhem has yet to take on any ideological or religious overtones. Youths in the neighborhoods say second-generation Portuguese immigrants and even some children of native French have taken part.

 

 

[Mrs Mungo]

The poll was taken in 2008 not 2007. A military times article in Dec 2008 referenced the poll. What more recent poll do you have to show that attitudes have changed? What are you basing your opinions on? We both have military friends mine strongly oppose lifting the ban....yours appear not to....what does this tell us?

 

The ARMY Times article (the website is military times, it encompasses the newspapers: Army Times, Air Force Times and Navy Times).

 

I didn't suggest that there are people of my acquaintance who in favor of keeping Don't Ask, Don't Tell (there is no ban on homosexuals serving in the military). I stated many of those same people oppose women serving in the military. I brought up the FACT that there is currently a lot of discussion here on Oahu (with its Navy bases and the submarines stationed here) on women serving on submarines. Over the course of my husband's career I have known THOUSANDS of members of the military with diverse opinions. Most of those people in our circle of friends are career military.

 

I'm basing my opinion on what I know from deep discussions with a diverse group of people. That tends to give you more information about people's opinions than a poll.

 

If even 25 percent of those who stated they would not reenlist if forced to serve with homosexuals actually followed through on their statements then the issue of manpower shortages you reference would be exacerbated not remedied.

I don't think that's an accurate reflection of what *would* happen.

 

Women are NOT serving on subs. the issue is being examined and the ban may be lifted but as far as I have read women are NOT on subs yet.

No, they are not on subs yet, that is true. But, in this case, it's practically inevitable. They *do not have enough men* to fill the slots.

 

Referencing Asta's comments about the field. The chaps I know who serve state that women do "spoon" in the field and that men do so as well but it is rare for men and women to do so together. After your post I asked a military guy about this and he said that other than the fact that his wife would have an issue with it he would spoon with a female but when asked about with a homosexual his answer was very different.

And if it were a life or death situation? I'm sure his answer would again be different.

 

You make much of your husband's service and you should. He is serving our nation and all Americans should appreciate and honor his service but your comments on military perceptions simply do not match those of servicemen who I know they do not match military polling.

 

I bring up his service, in this case, because it's relevant. I bring it up at other times because there are too many on this board who say "IF you were PATRIOTIC you would believe the way I do..." or other such tripe.

You're all too quick to dismiss the opinions of military wives and prior-service females here. It really smacks of patting us good little girls on the head and telling us you know better.

 

 

I never said that, and do not believe that, but you are comparing apples and armchairs. Opposition to women's service may have used similar arguments, but that does not equate women's service and homosexual service.

 

Women are still segregated in sleeping quarters. In the Navy berthing areas are segregated. Where are you going to berth homosexuals?

Right now, the arguments regarding women on subs has to more to do with berthing than anything else. Maybe, seeing discussions on this around dinner tables, right now, as these two debates develop, I see more commonality than you. Edited January 8, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[pqr]

BTW, pqr, although I'm not going to directly address each point (because too much of it has nothing to do with the rest of the thread), I will say that your post #108 of this thread is a classic example of why many people in the rest of the world find Americans arrogant and ethnocentric. It also classic example of someone who (perhaps willfully?) misunderstands of the social structure within the US and real history of the US.

 

I also think you win the ultimate Godwin for putting a fellow forumite in the company of Mao Tse Tung, Hitler, Mussolini and Lenin while placing yourself in the company of Ghandi (laughable), Orwell, Malcom X (hilarious) and JFK.

 

 

The quotes stand for themselves. What part of US history am I willfully ignoring? The poster made statements, I challenged them. This is not a gun control thread but our right to keep and bear arms is part of our freedoms and has long been part of our nation's history. Am I wrong?

 

The post is relevent to the thread as it directly answered an earlier posters statements on Americans. You may not like it but the quotes reference views held by those I quoted.

 

How is my post ethnocentric? I quoted Americans (including a Black American), an Indian, a Chinese man, a Russian and Englishmen. Seems a pretty wide spectrum there.

 

The only arrogant statement is when you accused me of possibly willfully ignoring US history simply because you do not like my argument.

[Slartibartfast]

 

You make much of your husband's service and you should. He is serving our nation and all Americans should appreciate and honor his service but your comments on military perceptions simply do not match those of servicemen who I know they do not match military polling.

 

 

 

How long have *you* served in the military?

[Mrs Mungo]

How is my post ethnocentric? I quoted Americans (including a Black American), an Indian, a Chinese man, a Russian and Englishmen. Seems a pretty wide spectrum there.

 

The only arrogant statement is when you accused me of possibly willfully ignoring US history simply because you do not like my argument.

 

I was referring to your statements regarding the number of African Americans in prison. Your arguments assume that everyone has the same opportunities in the US. That isn't the case.

[lovemyboys]

 

I think perhaps you should read my last post.

 

Ah. I haven't been around here much lately.

 

That's despicable. It's one of the ugly undersides of many institutions where women have made inroads into male-dominated environments, like union worksites.

 

Like I said in one of my posts, it's similar to the issues with drugs that had to be addressed decades ago.

 

And fortunately, unlike in those other environments, the military has had women in leadership (up to top ranks for over 40 years now) to be involved in directing these issues and policies.

 

At the same time, war and being on the battlefront can be tough ugly places to be. Many women are not interested in that particular aspect of the military. The recent changes that have brought women to these designations bring additional issues of close quarters, limited facilities, stress. It's inevitable that unforeseen issues and consequences will result. As we've been saying it's complex.

 

Your response didn't address what I'd said, but your original post "buzzing" mine sounded like you were assuming that there were only a couple people here who could speak with any reference to the military, homosexuals and/or harassment issues. It sounded dismissive like I'd just been buzzed off the game show. jftr. :001_smile:

[ciyates]

*Generally* there are no more open shower rooms where everyone showers together. Even at most FOBs they have trailers with individual shower stalls. Sort of like this, this or this (on page 7). Just adding this because I'm not sure what people are imagining.

 

My DH served as a US Seabee for 22 years. He recently retired. On a deployment he never had individual shower stalls. I can comment on the barracks I have personally seen and of the 9 bases we have lived on only one had rooms with private bathrooms. The rooms are broken into quads and 20 men share one bathroom (of course it set up for 20 men). None of them have private shower stalls either. I know there is a big difference in the living standards of the different branches. My son was born on an Air Force base and I thought I was in the lap of luxury! :001_smile:

 

I am not sure how this conversation went so far off track but as military members we have lived overseas for many years and lived on different bases.

 

To the original topic I have been treated wonderfully by most Europeans (that is where we spent most of our time). I go in with a humble attitude and do my best to adapt to their culture. Sometime they laugh at my mistakes and it could be very embarrassing however that is likely to happen in the US as well. I am a patriot but do not speak for the US as a whole and don't really care how other countries perceive the US. I do my best to be a decent person and not offend ANYONE. When I was in Europe no one liked Clint or Bush. My friends call me from Europe and ridicule the current president. I don't see that ever changing.

[pqr]

Right now, the arguments regarding women on subs has to more to do with berthing than anything else. Maybe, seeing discussions on this around dinner tables, right now, as these two debates develop, I see more commonality than you.

 

Actually it is not simply berthing. One of the big concerns is if a female sailor delivers a child that has defects. Given that subs are nuclear powered, if the Navy is accused of providing the radiation that led to a defect (this despite the fact that subs emit less radiation than a day on the beach) it becomes a case of trying to prove a negative.

 

Women are also removed from ships when they become pregnant (due to chemicals etc) how do you do this from a SSBN patrol?

 

 

You're all too quick to dismiss the opinions of military wives and prior-service females here. It really smacks of patting us good little girls on the head and telling us you know better.

 

 

 

First a rather unnecessary comment don't you think.

Second I do not dismiss them, it is just that I too have military members as friends and family so you do not hold a monopoly and your views are not in line with those military members that I know. You are not the voice of the US military.

[Mrs Mungo]

My DH served as a US Seabee for 22 years. He recently retired. On a deployment he never had individual shower stalls. I can comment on the barracks I have personally seen and of the 9 bases we have lived on only one had rooms with private bathrooms. The rooms are broken into quads and 20 men share one bathroom (of course it set up for 20 men). None of them have private shower stalls either. I know there is a big difference in the living standards of the different branches. My son was born on an Air Force base and I thought I was in the lap of luxury! :001_smile:

 

In the Army, my husband has usually (with the exception of certain firebases, which may be where your husband spends more time! ;) ) had individual shower stalls. BUT, the point is not "what is part standard" but "is this issue insurmountable?" Given the fact that many services already use individual stalls, I'd say the answer is no. The soldiers in my husband's units have usually had dorm-style-suite rooms. They are four-man suites, two people sharing a room, 4 sharing a bathroom.

 

I am not sure how this conversation went so far off track but as military members we have lived overseas for many years and lived on different bases.

 

To the original topic I have been treated wonderfully by most Europeans (that is where we spent most of our time). I go in with a humble attitude and do my best to adapt to their culture. Sometime they laugh at my mistakes and it could be very embarrassing however that is likely to happen in the US as well. I am a patriot but do not speak for the US as a whole and don't really care how other countries perceive the US. I do my best to be a decent person and not offend ANYONE. When I was in Europe no one liked Clint or Bush. My friends call me from Europe and ridicule the current president. I don't see that ever changing.

 

We lived overseas for 5 years, 2 different places in Germany and traveled widely. I would agree that as individuals we were never treated badly because we were Americans, never. I was speaking more to the general perceptions involved, kwim?

[pqr]

How long have *you* served in the military?

 

 

If you must know, I did my bit in uniform, but refuse to use that to justify opinions. This does not make me the voice of the military and I will not use it to add weight to my arguments.

[Mrs Mungo]

Actually it is not simply berthing. One of the big concerns is if a female sailor delivers a child that has defects. Given that subs are nuclear powered, if the Navy is accused of providing the radiation that led to a defect (this despite the fact that subs emit less radiation than a day on the beach) it becomes a case of trying to prove a negative.

 

Women are also removed from ships when they become pregnant (due to chemicals etc) how do you do this from a SSBN patrol?

 

The same way they do in the Army. Yes, by all means, ship them home. I'm totally on board with giving them an Article 15 as well. There are resupply ships and birds involved.

 

First a rather unnecessary comment don't you think.

Second I do not dismiss them, it is just that I too have military members as friends and family so you do not hold a monopoly and your views are not in line with those military members that I know. You are not the voice of the US military.

 

You seemed dismissive. Claiming "there is diverse opinion on this matter" and claiming "the majority of military members believe THIS way because that's the opinion of those I know" are two very different things. I never claimed to be the "voice of the military." I'm simply saying that I don't think polls give enough information or depth. I'm saying there ARE opinions that go the other way. I see a *lot* of real life debate both on the "women in combat" issue and "gays in the military" issue.

[pqr]

I was referring to your statements regarding the number of African Americans in prison. Your arguments assume that everyone has the same opportunities in the US. That isn't the case.

 

My arguments assume nothing of the sort. If a larger percentage of blacks are in prison I would argue that that has nothing to do with their color but rather as I said "stop looking at race, perhaps a disproportionate number of the poorer classes commit crimes and thereby pay for them. Throwing race into the equation especially in a nation where the majority of whites voted for a black president simply does not hold water. It is a weak argument."

 

How is this ethnocentric? Crime has nothing to do with race it has to do with behavior.

Edited January 8, 2010 by pqr

[Garga]

I'm not so sure that saying that people in other countries don't like "Americans as a whole, but like us individually" is such a good thing.

 

I also don't think it's such a good thing that they "like" us because we spend money in their country.

 

My grandfather, who is a raging racist, hates black people, but when he's face-to-face with a black person he will admit that "that" black person is ok. So, even though he knows and likes a lot of black people as individuals, he still is a horrible racist.

 

So, sure, other people from other countries can say, "Oh, now that I've met you, I like you," but at the same time they can still have prejudices and racism against Americans.

 

And liking Americans because they spend money could mean they're puting on their game face and are being nice to the money. Sort of like when you're extra nice to your boss (who is a real jerk) because you need the job, even if you can't stand the boss.

 

Anyway--I have no idea what people from other nations think about Americans. But the argument that "they like us when they get to know individuals" or "they like us sooo much because we're giving them money" doesn't necessarily equate to them really liking us.

[pqr]

I'm simply saying that I don't think polls give enough information or depth. I'm saying there ARE opinions that go the other way. I see a *lot* of real life debate both on the "women in combat" issue and "gays in the military" issue.

 

But you have nothing to support this other than over dinner table conversations. While I may believe you, I do (I would never accuse you of misrepresentation or willfully ignoring facts). I know the issue is divisive, but you can not use a few personal conversations in Hawaii to dismiss polls and the views of others.

 

You support it, I oppose it. It seems (for now) that polling data is on my side. We may call it a wash on anecdotal data, though while you have seen "debate" I generally have seen near uninamity but you have not demonstrated a need. This, especially in time of war.

Edited January 8, 2010 by pqr

[Mrs Mungo]

Crime has nothing to do with race it has to do with behavior.

 

ie-sociology and history are meaningless.

[pqr]

ie-sociology and history are meaningless.

 

 

No and I do not see your point. Are you justifying murder and crime. Obviously history plays a part, but that is history NOT race. Sociology plays a part but that is sociology NOT race.

 

Again, crime has nothing to do with race it has to do with behavior.

[Garga]

QUOTE=pqr;1417389]

 

How is this ethnocentric. Crime has nothing to do with race it has to do with behavior.

 

Racism against black people is very real and very alive in America. Even among poor people, the black ones still get treated the worst. It's just unfortunate fact. I don't have specific studies in front of me and I'm not going to look for them, but there have been lots of studies done on this sort of thing (like sending the exact same resume into businesses, one with a "white" person's name at the top (Bill Smith), and one with a "black" person's name (Jamaal Johnson). The black person's resume rarely leads to a job interview.)

 

I have no idea why you posted that: I'm thinking there was an argument going on so maybe I'm stepping into the middle of a fight, but I didn't know if you know how active racism is in America--even with a black president.

 

The cops in my tiny little neighborhood still will stop a black person on the street and ask what they're doing, for no other reason than they're black. (My current area is 92% white, next is Hispanic at 6%, so the black people are very noticeable.)

 

I've had colleagues who were hired to do Tolerance Training in certain places in the south who had to be escorted in and out with armed guards because the people didn't want to be taught how to tolerate (tolerate black people or gay people.)

 

And the big, bad wolf of them all, the KKK is still active. They had a little meeting at Gettysburg (just up the road from me) last July for whatever reason. I guess to mourn the fact that during the American Civil War, the south (who wanted to keep slavery legal) lost a huge battle at Gettysburg.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Garga

[Mrs Mungo]

But you have nothing to support this other than over dinner table conversations. While I may believe you, I do (I would never accuse you of misrepresentation or willfully ignoring facts). I know the issue is divisive, but you can not use a few personal conversations in Hawaii to dismiss polls and the views of others.

 

Conversations in California, Germany, Virginia, Germany again and North Carolina don't count?

 

You support it, I oppose it. It seems (for now) that polling data is on my side. We may call it a wash on anecdotal data, though while you have seen "debate" I generally have seen near uninamity

 

I gave a very specific category of people that I have seen been supportive of homosexuals actively serving, go back and look if you need to. Career soldiers who are 35 or so and under. Non-career soldiers? They have a different outlook? Those who are much older? Different outlook.

 

but you have not demonstrated a need. This, especially in time of war.

 

What does this even mean? Was it wrong to have racially integrated the military if it was opposed by a majority? Was it wrong to allow women to serve if it was opposed by a majority? Was it wrong to allow women to serve in combat positions (granted, there's a ban on that too but that doesn't stop it)?

[Sahamamama]

I find this sentiment curious. You suggest healthcare is better there, but if you needed an operation would you look locally? What if it was a big operation or an aggressive treatment? I mean, what if you were *really* sick, would you be happy to stay local? And, what if your kids were sick (and I don't mean a cold), would you want to bring them back to the US?

 

There is a lot of negativity about American healthcare, but when the wealthy of the world gets sick, they don't go to Malaysia (just pickin' on you since that's where you are, but insert any other place in the world if you'd rather....)

 

Actually, it's AMERICANS who now have to go overseas for surgeries, because they don't have adequate coverage here.

[Mrs Mungo]

No and I do not see your point. Are you justifying murder and crime. Obviously history plays a part, but that is history NOT race. Sociology plays a part but that is sociology NOT race.

 

Again, crime has nothing to do with race it has to do with behavior.

 

Justifying and saying "there are reasons for this that we can work on" are two different things. Saying one has nothing to do with the other IS to ignore history and sociology. It is saying "this is a character issue, it has nothing to do with me, it's not a problem I need to worry about or fix."

[pqr]

Conversations in California, Germany, Virginia, Germany again and North Carolina don't count?

 

 

 

No more than conversations that I have had all over the world.

I gave a very specific category of people that I have seen been supportive of homosexuals actively serving, go back and look if you need to. Career soldiers who are 35 or so and under.

 

Give me something in the form of a poll, an internal study, something.

 

 

What does this even mean? Was it wrong to have racially integrated the military if it was opposed by a majority? Was it wrong to allow women to serve if it was opposed by a majority? Was it wrong to allow women to serve in combat positions (granted, there's a ban on that too but that doesn't stop it)?

 

It means that when you take a major culturally changing and divisive step in the middle of a war you need to have a strong justification.