Teething After the End of DADT

[villanelle]

I am suggesting that as a whole the DoD makes this stuff into issues. Pretty sure that discriminating against any person because of "race, color, creed, sex, age, disability, or national origin" has and still does prohibit your use of those facilities. The easy solution would be for that unit/base/whatever to tell it's spouses club that they are no longer allowed to utilize base facilities if that is in fact their stance. Instead we have an open public statement about something that everyone should already know, just so that someone can say "see, we made this public statement, we aren't doing anything wrong, look at how open and accepting we are." This is the same mentality that brings about knee jerk curfew/driving/drinking restrictions en masse following a DUI/public incident. Someone always feels the need to CYA by doing something just to say they did something.

Obviously they don't already know it, and it did need to be said, given that the statement was made in response to a group that did disallow membership by a same-sex spouse. So it seems like public clarification about the policy was necessary. The DoD didn't make this into an issue; the spouses club made it into an issue and the DoD is trying to nip that in the bud by making sure that the policy is clear and well-known. If it was an issue once, it would be an issue again, so I don't see the issue with making a statement outlining the policy. That's a lot different than adding a curfew in response to a DUI. To be comparable, it would have to be issuing a statement about DUI's being unacceptable when that was still very new policy and there was room for misunderstanding.

 

[pourts]

Obviously they don't already know it, and it did need to be said, given that the statement was made in response to a group that did disallow membership by a same-sex spouse. So it seems like public clarification about the policy was necessary. The DoD didn't make this into an issue; the spouses club made it into an issue and the DoD is trying to nip that in the bud by making sure that the policy is clear and well-known. If it was an issue once, it would be an issue again, so I don't see the issue with making a statement outlining the policy. That's a lot different than adding a curfew in response to a DUI. To be comparable, it would have to be issuing a statement about DUI's being unacceptable when that was still very new policy and there was room for misunderstanding.

If I show up naked to the chow hall, does the DOD need to release a statement that it doesn't condone sexual harassment/ assault and that its not ok to show up to chow halls naked? Does it also need to forward that on to CNN to make sure it gets airtime? I think not.

"So there's gays in the military now? Well we are the Marines, and we are the best. So we are going to be the gayest most accepting of gays of all the services. Just look at how fucking gay accepting we can be." --> Thats what's going on here

 

[phrogdriver]

If I show up naked to the chow hall, does the DOD need to release a statement that it doesn't condone sexual harassment/ assault and that its not ok to show up to chow halls naked? Does it also need to forward that on to CNN to make sure it gets airtime? I think not.

"So there's gays in the military now? Well we are the Marines, and we are the best. So we are going to be the gayest most accepting of gays of all the services. Just look at how fucking gay accepting we can be." --> Thats what's going on here

If you're going to do it, do it right--the Corps never does anything halfway!

Seriously, have you ever seen the lunacy and cattiness in some knives' clubs? All it would take is one "high ranking" (though we all know spouses don't have rank, right?) c**t to decide she doesn't like gays in her OSC, and the unit, base, DoD, etc would look like an even bigger bunch of fools than they usually do. "Clarifying" the DoD's position was exactly the right call from the institution's POV, and surprisingly my POV is actually in line with theirs on this one. Now that we have (rightly, IMO) repealed DADT, we have to act like it. To harken back to an earlier time, once blacks were integrated, the O-Clubs weren't allowed to segregate anymore, even in the states where that was still in vogue. Same thing here.

 

[PenguinGal]

If you're going to do it, do it right--the Corps never does anything halfway!

Seriously, have you ever seen the lunacy and cattiness in some knives' clubs? All it would take is one "high ranking" (though we all know spouses don't have rank, right?) c**t to decide she doesn't like gays in her OSC, and the unit, base, DoD, etc would look like an even bigger bunch of fools than they usually do. "Clarifying" the DoD's position was exactly the right call from the institution's POV, and surprisingly my POV is actually in line with theirs on this one. Now that we have (rightly, IMO) repealed DADT, we have to act like it. To harken back to an earlier time, once blacks were integrated, the O-Clubs weren't allowed to segregate anymore, even in the states where that was still in vogue. Same thing here.

This. I have made many friends at OSC functions but at the same time it is appalling how catty, petty, and downright mean some of the spouses can be. Sometimes it makes me ashamed to be a member of these groups...Admittedly, this assessment should not be confined to OSC. There are a lot of command and base family support groups could also use a kick in the pants to get them back in line about this and other topics.

 

[KBayDog]

If you're going to do it, do it right--the Corps never does anything halfway!

Note: Not to be confused with "half-assed."

(In fact, the only thing the Corps is not half-assed about is doing things half-assed. )

 

[BusyBee604]

There are a lot of command and base family support groups could also use a kick in the pants to get them back in line about this and other topics.

Consider (before responding)... maybe, just maybe, this approach detracts from the solution, more than it adds? The goal is fine, this angry method.. not so much.
BzB

 

[PenguinGal]

Consider (before responding)... maybe, just maybe, this approach detracts from the solution, more than it adds? The goal is fine, this angry method.. not so much.
BzB

It looks like that sentiment came out far angrier than it was intended! Perhaps a better turn of phrase would have been "wake up call".

I am working on a more detailed response but a client meeting is about to begin. Hold that thought!

 

[SkywardET]

If I show up naked to the chow hall, does the DOD need to release a statement that it doesn't condone sexual harassment/ assault and that its not ok to show up to chow halls naked? Does it also need to forward that on to CNN to make sure it gets airtime? I think not.

"So there's gays in the military now? Well we are the Marines, and we are the best. So we are going to be the gayest most accepting of gays of all the services. Just look at how fucking gay accepting we can be." --> Thats what's going on here

Nailed it.

Reminds me of a story about some LGBT event in some gay city somewhere. It took place right after the repeal of DADT was in effect and the event organizers had invited all the services to set up booths there to recruit. Only the Marine Corps came.

 

[PenguinGal]

OK, I wasn't able to make the client happy. I could have if the person in my position 2 iterations ago would have done his job properly! lol Anyway, I have been thinking longer and harder about this than I probably should have. I'm still not 100% happy with my response to this but it is a start.

As both personal and anecdotal experience indicate, there are a number of spouse/family groups are behaving in a way that is contradictory to both their mission/vision and the vision of the groups under whose 'command' they exist. This is clearly evident in the exclusionary attitudes, cattiness, and even fiscal mismanagement that happens within the groups. The aforementioned experiences indicate that the misbehaviour generally occurs when spouses of a certain ilk find themselves in a position of power and start tripping on it. The atmosphere of the groups is then tainted by that attitude which results in only those with similar traits being willing to participate which perpetuates the cycle. In order to stop such behaviour, it sometimes takes drastic actions, such as firing the entire board or shutting the group down. However, for non-command based organizations it often becomes unclear who even has the authority to take those actions which results in no action being taken. Though not all clubs are guilty of such egregious behaviour, it behooves all involved to find a means remind everyone that the groups are still held accountable for their actions by a larger and far more powerful body.

While I do not believe that it is the responsibility of the Corps or any other branch to micromanage the affiliated spouse groups, following a large change in policy such as DADT, I think an action like this is quite necessary. So far I have yet to see or hear of anything being done to provide the necessary wake up call to the spouse groups. If the Corps releasing the statement that they did results in any positive changes to spouse/family groups then I feel that it is a step in the right direction and perhaps should be used as a starting point to find a solution to the issues at hand in these groups.

 

[BusyBee604]

...find themselves in a position of power and start tripping on it.

Agree, sounds much like Homeowners Assn's.

While I do not believe that it is the responsibility of the Corps or any other branch to micromanage the affiliated spouse groups, following a large change in policy such as DADT, I think an action like this is quite necessary.

It is a HUGE change of long held/beliefs/biases. When I was a JO nugget in my first feet Sqdn, my CAG, a well respected leader & outstanding Crusader driver, on cruise (in port), was apprehended by ONI for investigation of a gay liaison ashore. Returned to the ship and confined to his quarters temporarily. Unfortunately, the first evening security precautions were lax, and he used his issued .38 from his safe & ended his life in his stateroom. What a waste, but that was the the horror & shame of being 'outed' back in the '60s.

Fortunately, things have changed and the change in attitudes continue, too fast for some... too slow for others. Not unlike a biga$$ CVA: changing course on that huge mass is agonizingly slow (especially when low state awaiting 'charley'), but eventually it straightens out on course, and proceeds ahead & onward. So also, will this!
BzB

 

[Swanee]

Agree, sounds much like Homeowners Assn's.

It is a HUGE change of long held/beliefs/biases. When I was a JO nugget in my first feet Sqdn, my CAG, a well respected leader & outstanding Crusader driver, on cruise (in port), was apprehended by ONI for investigation of a gay liaison ashore. Returned to the ship and confined to his quarters temporarily. Unfortunately, the first evening security precautions were lax, and he used his issued .38 from his safe & ended his life in his stateroom. What a waste, but that was the the horror & shame of being 'outed' back in the '60s.

Fortunately, things have changed and the change in attitudes continue, too fast for some... too slow for others. Not unlike a biga$$ CVA: changing course on that huge mass is agonizingly slow (especially when low state awaiting 'charley'), but eventually it straightens out on course, and proceeds ahead & onward. So also, will this!
BzB

Indeed. The loss of "a well respected leader and outstanding Crusader driver" in a wartime mission would be misfortunate to say the least. To lose him because of what he did behind closed doors with a consenting adult... I'm glad those days are gone.

For everything that I hear around here that says the military has gone down the shitter I still see a few things that we are finally getting right.