DADT Unravels Further
Chicago Free Press
November 22, 2005
By Paul Varnell
SLOWLY, VERY SLOWLY, the pressure is building to overturn
the military's "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT)
policy.
"I think it's going to end."
That is Charles Moskos
talking. Moskos, a professor of military sociology at
Northwestern University, is generally
regarded as the principal author and staunchest proponent
of DADT.
Moskos told the magazine "Lingua Franca" he
thinks the policy will be gone in five or ten years.
It would be
easy to cite several reasons for its demise, from the
increasing acceptance of gays and lesbians in
civil society to the growing importance of the gay vote
to both political parties.
But just as important, the arguments
supporting the policy are unraveling and there is increasing
awareness
that its
rationale is built on sand.
The reason most often cited
for barring gays is "unit
cohesion," the idea that the presence of openly gay
or lesbian personnel would harm a unit's ability to work
effectively.
But an excellent article in the October issue
of "Lingua
Franca" summarizes the evidence for and against the "unit
cohesion" argument-and leaves the rationale in tatters.
Briefly
put, the evidence shows that:
-
Cohesion is a result or by-product of working together,
not a pre-condition for doing so;
- Successful performance
is due to agreement on the importance of the task,
not social closeness or group pride;
- There is no evidence
that more cohesive military units perform better in combat
situations.
- Surprisingly, Moskos himself seems to dismiss
the "unit
cohesion" argument as unimportant.
"Fuck unit cohesion. I don't care about that," he told "Lingua
Franca."
Moskos' own argument is that gays and lesbians
should be barred because of "modesty rights for straights." That
is, people (heterosexuals) have the right not to be looked
at as objects of sexual desire.
"I should not be forced to shower with a woman. I
should not be forced to shower with a gay [man]," Moskos
says.
During the 1993 controversy over DADT, Sen. Sam Nunn,
D-Ga., appealed to the same idea in his famous televised
visit
to a submarine, showing the close quarters the crew lived
and worked in.
But Moskos' argument seems very "Old
World," prudish,
and distant from the realities of recent decades.
Even if we accepted Moskos'
parallel between male-female and gay-heterosexual situations:
- Nowadays people of both
sexes seem comfortable looking at each other's bodies
and having their own bodies assessed,
comfortable even being viewed as possible objects of
sexual desire. They seem to welcome it.
- This is an era
of bikini swimsuits, Lycra sportswear,
revealing underwear and lingerie ads in mainstream newspapers.
Men
and women both work out a health clubs with little purpose
other than to look appealing, as if to say, "Hey,
look at me."
But Moskos' parallel itself breaks down
at crucial points.
One
argument against including women fully in the military
has been the fear that the mutual attraction of men and
women would create problems of improper fraternization
and sexual intimacy. In short, men and women might too
much welcome being viewed with sexual desire rather than
being offended or upset by it.
But now exactly the opposite
argument is being promoted to keep gays and lesbians
out: The concern that heterosexuals
would not want to be viewed with desire, i.e., the desire
would not be mutual. This seems inconsistent.
Another reason
Moskos' parallel does not work is that in our society,
as in most societies, women are much more
encouraged to feel modest about their bodies than men
are. Men are hardly encouraged to feel modesty at all.
On the
contrary, men are generally expected to feel pride in
their body and its attributes, and to welcome,
even
expect, being viewed with sexual desire as a validation
of their attractiveness and manhood, whether they feel
desire in return or not.
Thus, for instance, gay men are
typically comfortable, even pleased, if a heterosexual
woman finds them sexually
attractive, even if they do not think of her sexually at
all. So the "modesty" argument seems implausible.
Further,
if the "modesty" argument had merit,
women, as the more modest sex, should oppose the presence
of lesbians, who might view them with desire, more than
heterosexual men should oppose the presence of gay men.
But
just the opposite is true. A small survey of army personnel
conducted by Moskos himself in 1998 found that
more than
half of military women (52 percent) supported letting
open gays and lesbians service. Fewer than one-fourth of
the
women (22 percent) actually opposed gays and lesbians
serving.
So
the modesty argument breaks down at the one point where
it can be tested empirically.
In fact, of course, there
has long been a disproportionate presence of lesbians
in the military. Objections to them
seldom come from heterosexual women who fear being viewed
as sexually desirable. Instead the objections come from
heterosexual males distressed that the lesbians do not
regard them as sexually desirable.
But if gays are a threat
neither to unit cohesion nor modesty, there is no rationale
remaining for the gay ban
except
sheer homophobia. And prejudice is not a reason.
 || 
|
