Just when you think the Weekly Standard's institutionalized contempt for gay people could not get any worse, along comes James Bowman's defense of barring openly gay men from military service:
Facing enemy bullets--is inextricably bound up with ideas of masculinity. We also know that most heterosexual males' ideas of masculinity are inextricably bound up with what we now call sexual orientation. In other words, "being a man" typically does mean for soldiers both being brave, stoic, etc.--and being heterosexual. Another way to put this is to say that honor, which is by the testimony of soldiers throughout the ages of the essence of military service, includes the honor of being known for heterosexuality, and that, for most heterosexual males, shame attends a reputation as much for homosexuality as for weakness or cowardice.
Sullivan rips him a new on in the polite way that only Sullivan can do it.
I have a very short response to Bowman's fact-challenged fantasy: The Sacred Band of Thebes. To anyone who knows anything about military history, that name is still up there as one of the most shining examples of courage, determination, and sacrifice ever known. And for those who don't know, the Sacred Band was a group of three hundred warriors composed of pairs of lovers, all men, who were one of the most feared fighting forces in the ancient Greek world. They were finally annihilated by Alexander at Cheironaea: he offered them terms and they refused to surrender to overwhelming odds because to do so would sully their honor.
Bowman is obviously really reaching here -- I mean, come on: the "honor" of being known for heterosexuality? Give me a break.
Read Sullivan's piece. It's choice.
Update: I did read Bowman's whole piece. Believe it or not, the quote that Sullivan uses is probably the most cogent and realistic part of it. The rest is even more a fantasy. Bowman trots out all the old, worn-out talking points of the right, from the "unique nature" of the love between man and woman to the "moral" aspect of having gays serve openly to the "unit cohesion" of the "band of brothers" one serves with. Lord. Love. A. Duck. (He also hauls out the Military Times poll that's been pointed out as biased, but doesn't acknowledge any of the other polls that show that most active service-members don't really care -- they're much more interested in whether the guy covering their back can do the job than in who he's sleeping with.)
Bowman also seems to have a problem with gay service-members being honest about their orientation -- oh, wait, honesty is in very bad odor on the right these days, isn't it? It's OK to have gays in the military (or should we call them "hommosectionals" to keep in line with the right-wing's normal idea of civility) as long as they're firmly in the closet.
The funniest part is where Bowman refers to "unbigoted" reasons for opposing repeal of DADT. Pity he couldn't come up with any.
Update II: Timothy Kincaid also takes a look at Bowman's "unbigoted" reasons to continue DADT -- and finds them just as specious as I did:
So in summary, Bowman’s “unbigoted” argument is based on the following:
1. “Being a man” means experiencing contempt for gay men.
2. Robust heterosexuals fear any relationship that might be too close – just a matter of degree – to a homosexual relationship.
In other words, Bowman’s “unbigoted” argument is based on the assumption that heterosexual men – those who are robust and take pride in being a man – rightly fear and hold contempt for gay men.
And those are Bowman’s “sound reasons–unbigoted ones–for our policy on gays in the military”.
Bowman's problem is not that he can fool some of the people some of the time, but that he can't fool anyone at all. Except maybe himself.
No comments:
Post a Comment