Prejudice Again

[John Doe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Prejudice Again

13000 posts without evidence of intelligence.. so sad.

So you've read all 14,000 of them, eh?

I can see why it might be a difference in attitude or opinion, but intelligence?

Those kinds of things I've run into before, prejudice of various kinds, not the least of which homophobic. You know what I did? I cowboyed the fuck up and went about my business, or maybe even talked back in a sort of verbal judo that made them shut up and/or go away. You did it differently. You got away from them, which is also a good technique in most cases.

Before you dismiss my suggestion out of hand though, you might want to at least consider it, maybe even try it unless you think you don't have it in you, and most people don't.

In any case, it's partially moot, as it was originally largely intended as a joke. However, your reaction disparaging my intelligence just entrenches me in my position.

 

[kbate]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Prejudice Again

In any case, it's partially moot, as it was originally largely intended as a joke. However, your reaction disparaging my intelligence just entrenches me in my position.

Stup,

I will not become involved in "online" fighting. Lit is my distraction, not my occupation and angry argument is not productive.

Cowboy up is not a very good option for two women whose combined weight does not equal their attackers. Yes, we are both capable of ripping him apart verbally and mentally, but to what end? Perhaps a broken jaw when he lashes out physically?

If I offended you it was intended, but by no means do we have to become "online enemies" I only disparage your definitive remark "cowboy up," hidden in your many posts (and I have read hundreds but not thousands) is ample evidence that you are quite bright, if a little opinionated.

This was just your turn to be offended. Now can we be friends?

Kbate.

 

[Etoile]

Can somebody explain to me what "cowboy up" means, anyway?

 

[Equinoxe]

Can somebody explain to me what "cowboy up" means, anyway?

I'm not positive, but I think it means something along the lines of bear it stoically.

 

[Wolf of Mibu 69]

Sounds like "suck it up," which is what we'd say around here... although certainly not for this situation.

 

[deezire1900]

"An armed society is a polite society." --Robert A. Heinlein

I think that is why they try to keep GLBT people out of the military...wouldn't that be an interesting situation...only GLBT people can carry...or only people who volunteer more then 10 hours a week...how about only those who can pass a test based on brains, acceptance of others, and past history...

ok, i will drop the gun thing now.

 

[deezire1900]

Cowboy or Cowgirl up! in my world and among my friends means something very different then here.

It is the name given to the wonderful position of having a woman sit on your chest or face, while naked and screaming, of course.

 

[kbate]

Cowboy or Cowgirl up! in my world and among my friends means something very different then here.
It is the name given to the wonderful position of having a woman sit on your chest or face, while naked and screaming, of course.

Well I stand in Awe, If only I had known that THAT was what we were supposed to do in this situation... Wow, that might just have shut him up!

 

[deezire1900]

Well I stand in Awe, If only I had known that THAT was what we were supposed to do in this situation... Wow, that might just have shut him up!

Oh yes I agree that would have shut the loser up!

but why give him a free show?

 

[John Doe]

Stup,

I will not become involved in "online" fighting. Lit is my distraction, not my occupation and angry argument is not productive.

Same here, but I don't see where anyone is fighting or angry.

Cowboy up is not a very good option for two women whose combined weight does not equal their attackers. Yes, we are both capable of ripping him apart verbally and mentally, but to what end? Perhaps a broken jaw when he lashes out physically?

It's a perfectly valid option and one which you had already imployed on the spot I beleive. I was suggesting extending it inward though. As Equinoxe pointed out, to cowboy up means to toughen up, bear it stoically, not to resort to violence. Just ignore it, don't let it bother you. If you react either towards them or even in your own mind, then you have given them power to affect you and that's exactly what they want.

If I offended you it was intended, but by no means do we have to become "online enemies" I only diaparage your definitive remark "cowboy up," hidden in your many posts (and I have read hundreds but not thousands) is ample evidence that you are quite bright, if a little opinionated.

That's unfortunate, as I did not take offence, nor do I still.

I'd like to think my brightness isn't that hidden, but touche. And yes, I am opinionated, but that's not unusual on the GLBT board (or the GB for that matter).

This was just your turn to be offended. Now can we be friends?

Kbate.

I'm still not offended and I apologize if I've offended you.

"An armed society is a polite society." --Robert A. Heinlein

I think that is why they try to keep GLBT people out of the military...wouldn't that be an interesting situation...only GLBT people can carry...or only people who volunteer more then 10 hours a week...how about only those who can pass a test based on brains, acceptance of others, and past history...

ok, i will drop the gun thing now.

No, the reason gays were kept out of the Military originally was to avoid situations where fraternization would be more likely to occur. When units were exclusively men, it made sense that they should be heterosexual so they would not even be interested in (certain kinds of) fraternization.

But now with gender integration (such as it is), that's a moot point. the Military however changes more slowly than civilian society, partly because the regimented and highly trained atmosphere lends itself to people not changing thier ways very quickly, but also because almost everything in Military society is governed by legislation and regulation. The trickle-down effect takes time.

In conclusion, I would like to say that Clinton's Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy has been a total Cardassian clusterfuck.

 

[deezire1900]

No, the reason gays were kept out of the Military originally was to avoid situations where fraternization would be more likely to occur. When units were exclusively men, it made sense that they should be heterosexual so they would not even be interested in (certain kinds of) fraternization.

Duh.


Oh, and get off Clinton...I love him.

He did the best he could with a handful of decent politicians, a cigar, and a book to write.

 

[John Doe]

No, the reason gays were kept out of the Military originally was to avoid situations where fraternization would be more likely to occur. When units were exclusively men, it made sense that they should be heterosexual so they would not even be interested in (certain kinds of) fraternization.

Duh.


Oh, and get off Clinton...I love him.

He did the best he could with a handful of decent politicians, a cigar, and a book to write.

I like Clinton too. It's just that this policy in particular was ill-concieved, or at least badly implimented.

 

[Regis2001]

I like Clinton too. It's just that this policy in particular was ill-concieved, or at least badly implimented.

I'm not sure... how did this go wrong?

I don't know anything about the issues in question really, but I don't even see how it could go wrong. You just don't allow your sexuality to interfere with your military work.

 

[John Doe]

I'm not sure... how did this go wrong?

I don't know anything about the issues in question really, but I don't even see how it could go wrong. You just don't allow your sexuality to interfere with your military work.

I guess you don't watch news magazine shows much? There was a big special on 60 Minutes (I think) about this policy. While it seems to work in theory or even in practice on the surface, it turned out that people were being harassed merely on the suspicion of homosexuality, sometimes even discharged on some other trumped up thing. Of course this was because you weren't allowed to ask and you weren't allowed to asnwer. In some cases the victims were strraight and they could've at least pleaded thier case by denying they were gay. I suppose the homosexual victims could've done the same thing too, but no one has any recourse because you can't tell.

 

[Regis2001]

I guess you don't watch news magazine shows much? There was a big special on 60 Minutes (I think) about this policy. While it seems to work in theory or even in practice on the surface, it turned out that people were being harassed merely on the suspicion of homosexuality, sometimes even discharged on some other trumped up thing. Of course this was because you weren't allowed to ask and you weren't allowed to asnwer. In some cases the victims were strraight and they could've at least pleaded thier case by denying they were gay. I suppose the homosexual victims could've done the same thing too, but no one has any recourse because you can't tell.

I do watch the news. The English news.

And it seems to me that any problems with this law are contextual in nature. I mean, are gays not actually allowed in the military at all? Or is it just that sexual harrassment is not allowed, in which case couldn't these cases just be resolved the same way as if a man was harrassing a woman? Or is it the case that many men were being discharged based on false accusations, in which case surely it is the disciplinary system that is flawed, not the law itself?

Have a nice day!

 

[Equinoxe]

I do watch the news. The English news.

And it seems to me that any problems with this law are contextual in nature. I mean, are gays not actually allowed in the military at all? Or is it just that sexual harrassment is not allowed, in which case couldn't these cases just be resolved the same way as if a man was harrassing a woman? Or is it the case that many men were being discharged based on false accusations, in which case surely it is the disciplinary system that is flawed, not the law itself?

Have a nice day!

The premise of the law is inherently discriminatory in that it essentially requires gay individuals to pretend they are straight. The idea is that gay people are allowed in the military provided they are not openly gay, which basically results in gay people being excluded from the military. A number of people have argued that the law protects privacy and thus the soldiers, it does not protect privacy and hardly protects gay or lesbian soldiers. What it does do is ensure that any gay soldier never has a public relationship and publicly pretends to be straight at risk of being fired (which when you're talking about from the military carries a bit more of a stigma). A heterosexual soldier can have an openly acknowledged relationship, be married, have their spouse attend events. The same treatment is not granted to gay or lesbian soldiers. It has likewise been argued that it protects them from those who object to their lifestyle, but that's a fallacious arguement, because the government does not have to accept the prejudices of others. A soldier can be racist, anti-semitic, whatever and they are expected to get along with other soldiers -- the military should have the same policy regarding gays.

That is of course in addition to any problems of implementing the law.

 

[Regis2001]

The premise of the law is inherently discriminatory in that it essentially requires gay individuals to pretend they are straight. The idea is that gay people are allowed in the military provided they are not openly gay, which basically results in gay people being excluded from the military. A number of people have argued that the law protects privacy and thus the soldiers, it does not protect privacy and hardly protects gay or lesbian soldiers. What it does do is ensure that any gay soldier never has a public relationship and publicly pretends to be straight at risk of being fired (which when you're talking about from the military carries a bit more of a stigma). A heterosexual soldier can have an openly acknowledged relationship, be married, have their spouse attend events. The same treatment is not granted to gay or lesbian soldiers. It has likewise been argued that it protects them from those who object to their lifestyle, but that's a fallacious arguement, because the government does not have to accept the prejudices of others. A soldier can be racist, anti-semitic, whatever and they are expected to get along with other soldiers -- the military should have the same policy regarding gays.

That is of course in addition to any problems of implementing the law.

Ah, this makes more sense now. I had heard this issue brought up a few times before, but it makes more sense the way you explain it.

I could understand if the army was kept an entirely asexual environment - straight soldiers keeping their sexuality to themselves as well as gay ones. But of course, in this case the difference of treatment is discriminatory.

It's an arse of a policy. And this is all I will say on the matter.

 

[Equinoxe]

Ah, this makes more sense now. I had heard this issue brought up a few times before, but it makes more sense the way you explain it.

I could understand if the army was kept an entirely asexual environment - straight soldiers keeping their sexuality to themselves as well as gay ones. But of course, in this case the difference of treatment is discriminatory.

Yes, it would be one thing if it were a matter of privacy, but it's not, people simply want to pretend it is. It's not really a matter of privacy when you force one group to be private and accept (even encourage) another group to be public.

It's an arse of a policy. And this is all I will say on the matter.

That's about all there is to say on the matter.

 

[John Doe]

It applies to the entire Armed Forces, not just the Army.

 

[deezire1900]

I have many mixed feelings about the Dont ask Dont tell policy and the military in general, but for me it boils down to a few things.

The current commander and chief - Sucks.

And if anyone GLBT wants to serve your country, due it in another way...if the military isn't even "safe" for our brothers and sisters...stop joining. I know it sounds a bit childish, but why not a boycott? A boycott is one of the most effective ways to make a point. I do understand (or feel) that the joining rate for GL troops is falling, but we have to have someway of protecting the lifers.

:::legal disclaimer - Please note that I am not saying I dont support our troops, I do:::

 

[headstrong69]

a crying shame

kbate, i'm sorry to hear what happened to you

things will probly never be the way they should be for gays, and certainly not within our lives

i'm enlisted, and a proud member of the army, but i also have my boyfriend, and i'm very happy with him

i think the army's policies should have changed long ago, but you can't help it


on the subject of prejudice in general, if someone started something with me about it, especially if my boyfriend was involved, well... all i can say is the guy wouldn't be walking away from it

but of course, violence isn't for everyone

 

[Frimost]

I know many of my lesbian friends say no way. Too violent for them, but which end of the violence stick should i be on? The kill or be killed, raped, tortured end.

Go get a gun, getting training for it, get bullets. But never pull it out to brandish it, only show it to someone (in a confrontation) if you are going to use it on them. Police do not protect you from crime happening to you, they are just the road crew that cleans up the mess afterwards-don't become roadkill hun.

 

[John Doe]

Re: a crying shame

things will probly never be the way they should be for gays, and certainly not within our lives

What makes you say that? People thought the same thing about blacks or women and look how different things are for them now. Or for that matter how different things are for gays.

 

[Etoile]

Go get a gun, getting training for it, get bullets. But never pull it out to brandish it, only show it to someone (in a confrontation) if you are going to use it on them. Police do not protect you from crime happening to you, they are just the road crew that cleans up the mess afterwards-don't become roadkill hun.

For more information: http://www.pinkpistols.org/

 

[headstrong69]

Re: Re: a crying shame

What makes you say that? People thought the same thing about blacks or women and look how different things are for them now. Or for that matter how different things are for gays.

even for women and blacks, it's not the way it should be. at least, not here in the south.

i still see plenty of things happening that shouldn't

plus, on the matter of homosexuality, there's the bible, which many still use as "evidence" that gays are inferior, and even "evil"