Men’s Rights Activists regularly complain that it is mostly men who serve in the armed forces, and that it is mostly male soldiers who are killed and injured in service to their country in wartime. MRAs also complain that, in the United States, only men have to sign up for the draft – though this is more of a formality than anything else, as the draft has been dead for decades and there is virtually no chance of it being resurrected any time soon.
MRAs love to cite the dominance of men in the armed forces as a prime example of what they call “male disposability,” and somehow manage to blame feminists for it all.
But it’s not feminists who are trying to keep women from becoming soldiers, or serving in combat. While some MRAs support the idea of women serving in the army, and having to register for the draft the same as men do, many others scoff at the very notion of women as soldiers, mocking their alleged female “weakness” and in some cases denigrating the service of women now in the armed forces as being equivalent to attending “day care camp.” (Not exactly.) These MRAs may complain that men bear the brunt of the costs of war. But they don’t actually want women to serve.
Not that it makes much of a difference, because the MRAs who do supposedly want women to share the same responsibilities as men aren’t doing shit about it. You know who is? Feminists. The National Organization for Women, while opposing the draft, has long argued that if registration is required of men, it should also be required of women. NOW has also opposed the ban on female soliders serving in combat. (Not that it’s easy to draw a clear line between combat and non-combat positions on the contemporary battlefields.)
Meanwhile, a group called the Molly Pitcher Project, made up of University of Virginia law students and headed by feminist law professor Anne Coughlin, is assisting two female soldiers who are now suing the Pentagon in an attempt to lift the combat ban.
Do you want to know who is opposing them – aside from the Pentagon’s lawyers? Take a look at some of the comments posted in response to a Los Angeles Times article on the lawsuit. Note: The quotes below are pretty egregious; some deal with military rape in a really offensive way. (Thanks to Pecunium for pointing me to them.)
These aren’t “cherry-picked” from hundreds of comments; these are the bulk of the comments that were left on the article.
Are any of these commenters MRAs? Maybe, maybe not, but certainly their misogynistic “logic” is virtually identical to that I’ve seen from misogynist MRAs opposed to women serving in combat. One thing they are clearly not is feminist.
If MRAs, or at least some of them, truly want a world in which men and women share equally in the responsibilities of military service (and both have equal opportunties for military leadership), they need to challenge the misogynists — within their movement and without — who argue that women simply aren’t fit for the battlefield. And they need to support the feminists who are actually trying to make a difference — instead of standing on the sidelines crying foul.
I don’t hold out much hope that this will ever happen. MRAs are much too enamored with their fantasies of male martyrhood.
You are being one, and it’s irrelevant when a law is primarily used to target gay people.
And anti-illegal immigration efforts are totally racially non-biased..
I am rolling my eyes so hard you right now pecunium. Woww just fucking wow.
Can’t say that’s much of a life, all things considered.
This is hair splitting. It’s like saying that being trans isn’t the problem, it’s people transitioning. Hey it’s totally possible to transition and be cis if you really wanted to! See! Totally not transphobia!
…Can I interrupt the argument to make fun of Troll.David?
Ami: It’s not hairsplitting. It’s one of the problems of Art. 125. It actually does hang over everyone. It’s shitty.
Context matters. I said that Nameless was being stupid with his “pregnancy should lead to a dishonorable discharge”, and DCS said that being queer was grounds for one.
It’s not true. It’s never been true. DADT (which I have said, in public, while an active member of the Army; in public writings), made it worse, because it made being queer something for which one could be discharged, because it made, “propensity” the justification, not actual violations of the UCMJ.
The thing is, I lived in that world, which is something none of the people who are saying my perspective on this is wrong, fucked up and, so it seems, evil, have.
It’s an important distinction, because the outside perceptions of military law are, more often than not, colored by people who haven’t lived in it. Who don’t appreciate how those “hairsplitting” differences actually matter.
I knew, when I pointed that out, that it was going to be met with hostility. I said it because, for all that people think it’s apologist, and worthy of eye-rolling, and all the rest, it matters that it’s not the case.
So people can be angry with me. They can think me clueless, and insensitive, and all the rest. But they haven’t been there, and they don’t know, because it’s not the same as civll life and it’s not the same as civil law.
MollyRen: Being queer and having a non-PIV sex life could, but being just being queer can’t, as a matter of law, and never could
Can’t say that’s much of a life, all things considered.
Nope I agree and it’s something that makes life in the Army hard. But as with joining the priesthood, it’s not a big secret. Keeping to the letter of the law was a hardship, even when (for most of my career) I didn’t have to worry about it (because in the Reserves, and the Guard, Art. 125 only applies on drill weekends, Annual Training, and periods of Active Duty under Titles 10 and 32).
DSC: No, just being known to have engaged in queer fucking. Huge fucking difference you heterosexist ass.
Nope. You have to be provably known to have engaged in non-PIV sex while a member of the service.
Also, fuck you with that condescending bullshit about me studying the law. If you think my goal in studying the law is to swallow down and excuse unjust and oppressive laws and tell oppressed people to stop fussing about them, you are absolutely fucking mistaken.
It was meant to sting, just as you meant to sting when you called me an apoolgist; because the point was the law. You are studying it. You want to make changes (and I agree with you, more than you know, that change is needed), you have to look at the law as it’s written.
Congratulations, that’s one of the most ridiculous bits of homophobic hetero splainin I have ever seen in my life. You think the idea that only PiV is not an abomination is detachable from anti-queer oppression? HAFUCKINGHA. Do you even think before you write this total and utter bullshit?
Yes, I did think. Did you pay attention to what I said about knowing two cases where straights were cashiered for violations of Art. 125, which you said would be all you needed to make my comments worthy of discussion?
Apparently not.
In other words, it made it possible to be discharged for being queer? Isn’t this what people have been saying? I really don’t understand why you’re doubling down on this.
Here’s the thing… the repeal of DADT is actually based on it not being an actual violation of any part of the UCMJ to be queer.
But, (and this is the fucked up part), Art. 125 makes it illegal for anyone to engage in non-PIV sex. Still. Technically if one is having oral, or anal, one is subject to the threat of discharge.
Which means Art. 125 is either invalidated, or anyone who engages in non-PIV sex is at risk of being kicked out (probably with a General but in theory with as much as a Dishonorable.and a a federal felony conviction). That hasn’t, as a matter of law, changed.
And (this is the shittiest part of it), it will take an actual change in the law, Congress and the President acting in concert (or the SCOTUS handing down a ruling). As a practical matter, under this administration, it’s not an issue, but Art. 125 is the elephant in the room, and it needs to go.
I never said that the enforcement wasn’t fucked up, and massively skewed (overwhelmingly. In my personal experience the numbers are 12-2 for queer vs. straight discharges, and the only reason it’s not 12-1 is because I got around a lot, and was playing with people from all the services, and the Coast Guard).
But the statement was that being queer was, ipso facto grounds for a dishonorable discharge; and that’s not true, which I cited; and supported with the jurisdictional issues (disregarding the procedural issues of convening authorities, Art. 32 investigations, etc.).
Yes, the DoD’s treatment of non-straights is fucked up, but that’s wasn’t in dispute, a point of the law, as written, was.
Done hetsplain’ yet?
Snowy: In other words, it made it possible to be discharged for being queer? Isn’t this what people have been saying?
No. What was said was that being queer was something one could be Dishonorably Discharged for.
A DD requires a General Court Martial. DADT doesn’t require that. DADT, in fact, was Clinton making a huge betrayal of a campaign promise, because it made it easier for a queer servicemember to be discharged, because no violation of the law was required.
Was it? Reading back in the comments I don’t see people talking about dishonorable discharge, but that these laws were (and are) used against queer people in the military. I don’t understand why you feel the need to make excuses for these homophobic laws. This in particular
is very hard for me to understand.
Snowy — yeah it was, here — the LA Times article specifically says DADT => dishonorable discharge. Considering they go on to points like — “And if their loved ones die, no one will come knocking at their doors to notify them.” — it seems important to note the specifics of DADT and wtf is left now.
Wtf I’m trying to say here is that Pecunium’s got a point with things like this — “But, (and this is the fucked up part), Art. 125 makes it illegal for anyone to engage in non-PIV sex. Still. Technically if one is having oral, or anal, one is subject to the threat of discharge.” — that’s still fucked up and worth noting because it’s more likely to affect queer people. (Eh, are we just using queer here for short and inclusive? I’ve never much liked it…but whatever)
Snowy: DSC said, “Up until extremely recently, being queer was legally grounds for a dishonorable discharge,
Which isn’t true.
I don’t understand why you feel the need to make excuses for these homophobic laws.
I didn’t. What I did was say that a specific thing was factually incorrect.
I didn’t say it wasn’t disproportionately applied. I didn’t say it wasn’t stupid, or wrong. What I said was the UCMJ didn’t allow for a Dishonorable Discharge (which is a very specific thing, and requires a lot of work: It’s not the same as not getting an Honorable Discharge).
You did, by implying that in effect these things target heteros just as much or more.
No, you said it technically allowed it but in practice it was not used as such, prior. You also said that ‘being straight is no excuse’, as though it were fucking relevant; the majority has suffered collateral damage before, it does not cease being an issue that is almost entirely centered on the marginalized. Just fuck off on this count, dude.
Rutee: This is what I said:
dsc: Yes I know that non-PIV sex was grounds for a dishonorable discharge. I also know that, even under DADT it was almost never done. The cost, and embarrassment was too great when any number of administrative measures; or lesser courts-martial, would serve.
Merely being queer (or gay) isn’t grounds for a charge, and being straight is no defense…. [elision of citations of the relevant portions of the UCMJ]
A Dishonorable Discharge requires a general court martial. It can’t be given to someone administratively.
It is completely possible, through some complicated hoop jumping, that a commander might try to discharge someone by using Art. 134 (the catch all) to argue that a pregnancy “prejudiced the good order and discipline of the service” and discharge someone, but I don’t think a General Court Martial could be successfully convened; esp. with the somewhat greater protections afforded accused military members than civilians (military “grand juries” have defense counsel with subpoena powers and the right to cross-examine).
How many people have been given a Dishonorable Discharge for being queer? None in my lifetime. A General Discharge, yes (one of my best friends was kicked out of the AF in 1984 because of it). But a General Discharge isn’t a criminal record. It’s not a Felony. It’s not a bar to benefits. It’s not a thing one has to declare at all. A Dishonorable Discharge is.
So it’s not disproportionate. DADT was a different thing, and discharges prior to it for violating 125 were disproportionate, and I never denied it. I could have pointed out that I know of straights who have been charged with violations of 125,far more than gays, because 125 is almost always included in rape cases, and almost all rape cases against service members are male/female rape.
But, because that would have been clouding the issue I didn’t bring it up; not even when I when I mentioned knowing people who were punished for 125 violations who were straight.
So we are going to disagree, in part because you are arguing about something I didn’t say.
It is true, and it has been true. Punishing queerness makes being queer grounds for dishonorable discharge. Did you take a look at the actual queer stats? DADT reduced the number of less than honorable discharges given to queer people, significantly. Also, queer people where traditionally discharged for being mentally unfit as well up until the past few decades too, and people were asked on forms before DADT and refused for saying yes, and the anti-queer witchhunts with interrogations. But you can’t be expected to actually deal with the fucking oppression of queer people and targeting us, because what about the heteros??? and denying that things designed to be used against us that were used against us make queerness the grounds for punishment.
No, you fucking haven’t lived it. You are a cis hetero. You have never lived as a queer person in the army, or as a queer person under sodomy laws. I was 14 when about a third of the country still applied sodomy laws to queer people, and some of the queer people on this forum are older than I am, and lived in those states at the time. So fuck you trying to act like you are an authority on living under sodomy laws over queer people.
It’s not a secret that the military hates and punishes queers, what did they expect? Victim blaming fuckface.
I am curious just how you think most queer people fuck. Not that queer PiV never happens, but come the fuck on.
I called you an apologist because that’s what you are fucking doing, not as an irrelevant attempt to try and condescend and splain at you. Also, this is a deeply fucked up view of the law you have in general. The law as is written, interpreted, and applied. Trying to argue, for example, that the anti-Communist provisions of immigration law only affect the Communist Party, not socialists, would be absolutely wrong. Courts typically even refused to entertain the notion that any socialist group with Marxist members was not communist, and groups like the SWP were hit just as hard. Laws can’t be divorced from their context and interpretations, or the social meanings attached.
Funny, how you didn’t quote me there. I told you to fuck right the fuck off and not even try to bring the line again unless you could (and even then, all we have is your anecdote vs. queer documentation of…oh, about 100,000 cases), not that I would fucking respect your bullshit if you did.
Oh, please, save me your fucking false concern. This is like MRAs whining about not being sexist. Of course rape is bad…[insert rape apology and victim blaming here]. This is the SECOND FUCKING TIME you have defended rules that punished queer people for any expression of queer sexuality and claimed they were not homophobic and not punishing queerness.
This a lie, you have already claimed to know at least twelve charged with violations personally, you homophobic fuck. And tens of thousands of queer people have been less than honorably discharged since the WW2 era alone.
Fuck off. Fuck off you homophobic asshole.
Oh, the punishments for and numbers of punishments of consensual queer sex is no worse than rape, it’s nice to meet you NWO #2.
Oh, so it’s clouding the issue to not mention it’s the rapists being treated like the queers? Queers, rapists, same general ballpark? There aren’t swear words emphatic enough to express how fucking much of a piece of shit fuckface you are.
The same line.
If you can’t even split hairs meaningful enough for you to consistently do so FUCK RIGHT THE HELL OFF. Actually, fuck off anyway, I don’t think any of us wants to hear “Nah, gay people didn’t have it so tough because the letter of the law can be applied to some straights too”.
Jesus fuck you do realize what ‘disproportionate’ means don’t you? It doesn’t even necessitate being the majority of 125 cases. Fuck you.
Pecunium — What. The. Fuck. Is. That? Either you meant rape victims get charged with violations of 125, or you seriously just compared consensual oral or anal sex (homosexuals in context) with rapists — if your point was just that DADT discharges were general discharges, not dishonorable, you really aren’t helping your case any.
darksidecat — idfk about that but I’d thought all Pecunium meant was that yes “And tens of thousands of queer people have been less than honorably discharged since the WW2 era alone.” but that they were general discharges (or medical, or whatever) but not dishonorable — a pedantic military point to be sure. No fucking clue on that “analogy” if the original point was just pedantry though >..< )
Shit, I lost a paragraph saying basically what Rutee said.
Wtf is not disproportionate if DADT and 125 both are?
Oh please, the “oh but you see, you have to prove that you were ACTING on being queer, not just being queer, that is a totally separate thing that is worth arguing about” because what? Because clearly the biggest problem faced by the military when discussing queer service members is that maybe people are confused about whether they mean just happening to have the passing thought about sex with someone of the same sex versus telling someone you are gay versus actually having sex with someone? (Oh oh, maybe we can start arguing that being queer requires experience with sex! That is also a fun academic exercise argument that in no way makes people feel condescended to!) Was the whole “no, it really isn’t okay to have a separate ‘you can be queer but not act on it’ approach?” Oh wait, apparently we did, because it was never said that it wasn’t evil, just that it was factual. Important. Additionally, the hill you want to die on is making sure that everyone differentiates between dishonorable and other than honorable.
Numbers are not particularly easy to come by in terms of who, either before or after DADT was honorably, generally, other than honorably or dishonorably discharged for acting sort of queer, telling someone they were, or engaging in sodomy. The thing is, going on and on about how it is really hard to get that specific a discharge under that act or that people are getting the terminology wrong or that one should understand the particulars if they want to serve/be a lawyer/have this argument (haha, because they did, right?) is really really makes it sounds like those are the issues more important than those lives ruined by the discrimination. No matter how many times you re-explain, it is overwhelmingly coming off as “the military isn’t THAT discriminatory” which doesn’t only fly in the face of others experiences, it is never going to not come off as condescending and dismissive.
What are people doing even asking Pecunium about anything? When he explains something, he’ll be accused of defending it…
…and if he explains in detail, he’ll be accused of pedantry.
He just said that rapists get charged with violations of 125. He didn’t say that he believes homosexual intercourse to be like rape. That is nowhere in what he wrote.
He’s not saying “the military isn’t that discriminatory,” he’s explaining how it discriminates.