Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Keep Your Underpants On and STFU

...Huge long discussion (er...) over at Atomic Nerds about repealing the military's DADT policy. While the argument is forming along predictable lines, I am appalled by a factiod mentioned in the comments: very high pregnancy rate among Naval personnel serving about ship. (Er, female sailors, let us be clear they're not puttin' any weird meds in the Navy joe* or nuthin').

My thought on that? Bring back flogging. Add mandatory paternity testing and make 'em two-fers. And ditto for the other services.

I do not care what sex you are, nor even what sex(es) you go for; my hard-earned tax dollars are not there to pay for you to play hide-the-salami aboard ship, in a combat zone or anywhere of the sort and especially not on Uncle Sam's time. Even if you don't use a salami to do it. Get a room next time you get leave! (I'm not sure what the deal is for married couples but I'm bettin' there is some demarcation between "home" and "everywhere else on base"). Knock it off! I'm bettin' there is a rule against it already --And I'm bettin' "DADT" is the actual thing done in such cases, too.

Srsly, you're worried about gay lesbian bisexuals "ogling" and "gettin' it on?" There is entirely too much of it bein' done amongst all soldiers, sailors, airmen (airpersons?) and Marines already. Doggone it, I thought the guys (and gals) were supposed to ride the camel into town -- or do without. Gads. Have they all lost the use of their hands?

(On the original subject, see Abby. Actual, you know, soldier, who would be in a position to know).
________________________________
* Navy coffee: nicknamed after a former Secretary of the Navy, who made 'em stop serving wine. Widely rumored at the time to be having saltpeter added to the coffee to cut down on on, ahem, what was I just on about already? Yeah.

13 comments:

Bob said...

In my day (1980's) female sailors were only allowed on support ships in the Navy, submarine tenders and the like. One of them, USS L.Y.Spear, was sarcastically referred to as "The Love Boat" due to the large number of pregnant female sailors on board at the end of each cruise.

While most pregnancies among young female sailors are unintended and due to negligence (just as in the civilian world) there are occasions that pregnancy is used as a means of avoiding unpleasant duty and/or duty stations; men end up doing more sea duty because pregnant females take up coveted shore billets.

What's the answer? In Iraq, an Army general got in trouble for suggesting that female soldiers who became pregnant be subject to court-martial. It may come to compulsory birth control methods such as Norplant or Depo-Provera being required for female personnel (or men, if a male equivalent is ever developed).

Tam said...

"It may come to compulsory birth control methods such as Norplant or Depo-Provera being required for female personnel (or men, if a male equivalent is ever developed)."

I'd have no problem with that if it was made mandatory for any deployment outside CONUS.

Linoge said...

I only served on ships with females within the officer sections of the crew (completely female-izing pre-females-in-the-military ships is time-consuming, space-consuming, and expensive, and both the ships I served on were older than me, were supposed to have already been decomissioned, and no one wanted to be bothered, but allowing female officers onboard is not that hard), so I never had to got through this first-hand... However, I cannot think of a carrier in recent history who did not have at least one woman sent home from deployment due to pregnancy - hell, I am pretty sure our carrier-sized amphib we deployed with had a couple. (This is not to say female officers are "immune", just that the probabilities diminish considerably.)

Bob beat me to the rest of my comment, though - General Cucolo got himself in a world of (public opinion) hurt by penning a lawful order banning pregnancy - with the caveat being that disobeying a lawful order is punishable by courts martial. Me, I have no problems with that - adultery is already verboten according to the UCMJ, but for the single guys on deployment, the UCMJ is a little more fuzzy - unless the incident was assisted by force, or was done without permission, options become limited (hence the General's order).

I will say this much, though, Bob's mention of pregnant women getting the choice shore billets was a constant complaint among sailors - I have no idea how prevalent the problem was, but it was definitely a bone of contention, especially if those women were sent home from deployment.

Anonymous said...

"I do not care what sex you are, nor even what sex(es) you go for; my hard-earned tax dollars are not there to pay for you to play hide-the-salami aboard ship, in a combat zone or anywhere of the sort and especially not on Uncle Sam's time. Even if you don't use a salami to do it. Get a room next time you get leave! (I'm not sure what the deal is for married couples but I'm bettin' there is some demarcation between "home" and "everywhere else on base"). Knock it off! I'm bettin' there is a rule against it already --"

The United States Armed Forces would not be the premier fighting force it is today if not for the smart people constantly exercising the correct social experiments on a bunch of 18-25 adolescents away from home for the first time in their life, in an environment in which tomorrow is a distant concern. Definately a situation best solved from an armchair stateside.


"get a room" HA! The broom closet in the mess hall, during KP duty, is a "room". When's the last time _you_ took a teenager off the street and instilled a lasting moral character?
eli

Comrade E.B. Misfit said...

Bob, I recall a few guys coming down with sudden cases of broken legs a few days before deployments.

Roberta X said...

"Instilled a moral character?" Heck wi' that. Eli, it is my bounden intent that they should have the fear of officers -- commissioned, non- and warrant -- instilled in them in such wise as to ensure they lay off gettin' laid on the taxpayer's time.

In re "social experiments," I got news for ya: any military setup is a "social experiment." It ain't nacheral. You want "natural" human fighting organizations, look to the youth gangs.

They are there to fight (or, at about ten-to-one, enable others to fight), not to get laid and way not to be laying one another. Whatever "social experiment" it takes make that happen, I'm in favor of. The Romans had some sharp methods of inculcating discipline, for instance.

Or take the Thebans. You may find 'em a bit difficult to take but there's no denying success, or anyway success right up until they found out that size matters.

Anonymous said...

Hi all~ the way i figure it, that black idiot in the Whitehouse has as much business telling me to tolerate queers as he does telling me whether I can own a gun or not.

The people to make the decision on this are the ones with their feet on the ground, not some idiot lefty ivory tower politicians. If the queers insist on being unpopular in the military as they are at home, they may be endangering themselves as much as thei r squaddies and they should take care o f that intrnally.

Leave it to the democruds to shove a revolting non-issue like this up our asses.

Rusty

Roberta X said...

Y'know, Rusty, there are some homosexual-type people who self-label as "queer" but the overlap between them and LGB folk who choose military service is very likely a lot smaller than you think.

Generally, "queer" is right up there with "nigger" as a fighting word; and I am sure you're not after starting fights, are you?

If you served, you served with someone who was gay, lesbian, or a switch-hitter. And who knew how to keep his or her private life private. It'd be a damn sight better world if more than some fraction of 10 percent of it could be that circumspect.

LabRat said...

Rusty is ordinarily Marko's troll, and he is openly proud of being a raging homophobe and thinks the less of us that we are not.

I do not think he will last long here.

Borepatch said...

Like it's even possible for this country to have an open an honest discussion over this. Between the "A Woman's Place Is In The Home" types and the "Down The Patriarchy" types, this discussion goes from zero to crazy in 3.9 seconds.

God save this Honorable Republic.

Roberta X said...

Compromise? "A woman's place is in the home...plotting to overthrow the Patriarchy." Martha Stawart's mint-scented Molotov cocktails: it's a good thing!

No, wait, that just sucks for everybody. Ain't that the way of the world?

Anonymous said...

I certainly don't run from a good fight Roberta, any more than you will.

That's why the 'Don't ask, don't tell' is a good idea - it's not relevant to the job.

I am not up to date on Newspeak, I am told that now they get mad if we call them 'negroes' now too. When I was yo ur age calling a feller a nigger was like calling a horse an appaloosa , there wasn't any harm meant in it - people can and will take offence to anything if they want a fight.

But if you prefer - then I think the aim of the homos is to start a fight and no, I am not at all concerned if they are offended by my willingness to oblige em.

Rusty

Roberta X said...

In which case, Rusty, you'd let FedGov run the experiment, then?

Remember, it's the .mil; "damaging unit cohesiveness" is a chargable offense and under some circumstances, might even be a capital one. And for the more informal situation, well, there are a number of ancient and recent traditions in the services.

We've already fought a war with disaffected, unruly troops, and we darn near won it, too: the loss in Vietnam wasn't caused by U. S. soldiers. I think the dire predictions don't take into account a couple of basics: most people don't want trouble and the folks that do look for fights, find them, often rather more than they expected. Either way, over time it selects for "does not excessively annoy others" and rather harshly.