I read Don't ask, don't tell: The way things 'ought' to be, or the way they 'are'? by Grant Martin, an editorial in the local online edition of the Kansas City Star and it blew me away. Mr. Martin tries to deconstruct good reasons for repealing DADT with the statement:

"Unfortunately for sexual minorities, the majority of big, burly humans that perform well in combat are heterosexual males.

Thus, if the ugly reality is that heterosexual males are physiologically predetermined to perform admirably with each other and detrimentally with others (women, homosexuals, bisexuals, transgendereds, etc.), then we may be wasting our time debating what ought to be. Unless, of course, we are willing to accept a decrease in our combat effectiveness in exchange for an increase in the prevailing social morality of the day."

Seriously? Scare tactics and misinformation abound. Since when did heterosexual males have a lock on the ability to perform well and be part of a team or unit? The argument that if men can't sit around and talk about women all day they have nothing in common and can't work together is absurd! There are so many things wrong with this piece I just want to scream. Am I crazy in this? Your thoughts?

0

You recommended

2 Comments

October 13, 2009 2:17 AM

[0+]  gmartin said:

Believe me, I am not trying to say the above quote IS reality- I just posited it could be a possibility. I fully support the alternative as another possibility as well: that we can change the way groups of people interact with other groups who are physiologically different.

So, for instance, if men "sitting around talking about women all day" is a social phenomenon- then it should follow we can change that. But, I would think we'd have to also acknowledge the opposite: that the way men are wired (and women, for that matter) may make it hard for us to change the average male in order for him to interact the same with women as he would a man. If the latter is true, then it might follow that the same would follow for other different groups- such as gays, etc.

The point on heterosexual males is just a statement of fact: the majority of combat-able people are heterosexual males.

I thought this might stir debate on what IS rather than what OUGHT to be. I fully agree that homosexuals should generally not be discriminated against. I also believe a lot of other things that may never come to pass simply because they are butting heads with nature.

I  Liked  Liked this comment  |  Reply |

October 13, 2009 2:24 AM

[0+]  gmartin said:

I wasn't trying to say the above quote was reality- I was trying to start a debate on what IS rather than what OUGHT to be. I think most rationale people would agree that if we can make things equal- we should. I guess I was just questioning whether in our haste to argue for equality we may be missing reality.

I would think that if you posit that we can change the average male from "sitting around talking about women" to treating women and men the same, then you could also debate the opposite view: that we are hot-wired to act certain ways and that the average male will always treat the average female a certain way, no matter the societal pressures exerted. I think it would be great if the latter theory was wrong, but can we rule it out so assuredly?

Thanks!

I  Liked  Liked this comment  |  Reply |

Leave a comment

Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)