Skip to main content

View Diary: DADT hurts women and minorities at higher rates than anyone else (59 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It doesn't make a stronger case to say (0+ / 0-)

    that it affects women and minorities more than any other group.  

    If the policy is bad then breaking it down into race and gender is pointless.

    Keith David Halloran - You think it he says it.

    by mim5677 on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 11:15:22 AM PDT

    •  You think so? (5+ / 0-)

      I think that many people here who criticize the mainstream LGBT rights movement do so on the grounds that they do not sufficiently take into account the interests of women, people of color and the poor.  But in this case, we have an example of an anti-gay policy that disproportionately affects all three classes.  So these same people should be arguing that DADT represents an unusual nexus, and should in fact be a top priority.  

      Strangely, I do not see these advocates of intersectionality in this diary right now, but I am sure that they will be along to discuss it soon.

      "All along the watchtower, princes kept the view..."

      by Alec82 on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 11:28:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bingo! (5+ / 0-)

        We get all kinds of guff because gay white men allegedly control the entire LGBT rights movement.  We're constantly criticized for not dealing with racism within the LGBT community.  Now, indie writes a diary that points up the whole problem of "intersectionality" (grad-school-speak if ever I heard it), and someone comes to dump on it.  

        Personally, I think this issue merits a lot more discussion.  If female servicemembers are being coerced into having sex with men out of fears of being accused of lesbianism, that's a big problem for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that it shows that DADT can affect servicemembers who aren't LGB.  A straight woman might feel pressured to have sex with a male soldier just to avoid an unwanted accusation.  Randy Shilts made this point in Conduct Unbecoming.  It demonstrates that DADT has a potentially adverse effect on straight troops as well.

        Maladie d'Amour, Où l'on meurt d'Aimer, Seul et sans Amour, Sid'abandonné

        by FogCityJohn on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 12:22:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Or (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Predictor, Alec82, FogCityJohn

          and someone comes to dump on it.  

          ignores it. It's pretty funny how all but a few (awesome) people are part of the LGBT crowd here at dkos. Nobody is interested in this message I guess.

          'Normal' has always been collaborating with injustice. - Tim Wise

          by indiemcemopants on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 12:28:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're not on message (3+ / 0-)

            If you believe this diary, then one of the primary aims of the mainstream LGBT civil rights movement will have a disproportionate impact on LGBT people of color and women, for the better.  The message is that white gay men are the primary beneficiaries of LGBT civil rights, and the focus of LGBT organizations reflects their privilege and interests over those of LGBT people of color and women.

            The same, by the way, is true of marriage and relationship protection, largely because women and people of color who are LGBT have a disproportionate share of the children being raised by LGBT parents.  Again, though, that isn't consistent with the message of the intersectionality ideologues, and so you will not see it discussed here.  

            "All along the watchtower, princes kept the view..."

            by Alec82 on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 01:19:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Uhhh (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not a part of the GLBT community and I am not dumping on this diary. I don't get the nuances of GLBT issues nor do I care, but I do know that breaking this down into itty bitty pieces doesn't serve as many people as it could.  

          If the policy is shitty then it is.  Knowing who it affects more doesn't make the case for repeal any stronger.  I would challenge you to tell me how it does.  

          Keith David Halloran - You think it he says it.

          by mim5677 on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 02:17:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Because it's not (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Predictor, Alec82, FogCityJohn

            just "the case for repeal" it's "the case for making everyone's lives better." It's a shitty policy but it's a monumentally horrifying policy for those not fortunate enough to be white.

            If we don't start looking at this in terms of how it disproportionately hurts some people worse then we can't truly work to make everyone more equal.

            'Normal' has always been collaborating with injustice. - Tim Wise

            by indiemcemopants on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 02:35:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's bullshit (0+ / 0-)

              You have no idea whatsoever the level to which this policy affects individuals.  This article is about numbers from a quantitative stance.  

              We don't have to look at how it affects blacks, mexicans, or women if we know it is a bad policy, breaking it down into race and gender only makes it more difficult to get through.  

              A white person and a black person and a woman could all be affected the same way by this policy.   The numbers may be uneven but the impact is not something you can speak to.

              Keith David Halloran - You think it he says it.

              by mim5677 on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 07:43:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Well, since you . . . (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            indiemcemopants, Predictor, Alec82

            don't get the nuances of GLBT issues nor do [you] care,

            maybe you'd be better off not commenting on them.  

            If you were attuned to the "nuances" of this issue, you would appreciate the point I made upthread about how women are disproportionately affected by this policy.  DADT is being used to pressure women into having sex just to prove they aren't lesbians.  That certainly does make the argument for repeal stronger, as it shows that the adverse effect of the policy isn't limited to LGB servicemembers.  The more people harmed, the greater the need to put a stop to the harm.

            Maladie d'Amour, Où l'on meurt d'Aimer, Seul et sans Amour, Sid'abandonné

            by FogCityJohn on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:04:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This article didn't show more people were harmed. (0+ / 0-)

              All it did was break down the racial and ethnic difference between who was harmed.  

              We already had a broad idea of who this policy hurts, as in the military as a whole.  You can't get much bigger than that.

              What you are telling me is that somehow by narrowing the group of people that get focused on somehow it is going to prove that there are more people being affected.  

              How does breaking it down make the case stronger?  It doesn't show there are increased numbers of people being affected it only breaks them down by race and gender.  It won't help make a stronger case.

              Keith David Halloran - You think it he says it.

              by mim5677 on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 07:40:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  That still doesn't (0+ / 0-)

        answer how the case is made stronger.  Since DADT is a shitty policy in the first place, I don't see how the fact that it affects a sect within a sect makes the case for repealing it any stronger.  

        I actually think it makes the case weaker. To me here to have a bad policy that affects the military in a negative way by not allowing the most qualified people to serve.  You narrow that down to gay people as they are the ones getting the boot.  

        When you go further than that into minorities which make up a large chunk of the service, well then you are splitting minorities in to sects, so it's not just gay and straight an almost necessary distinction considering the policy, it is now minority gay, minority straight, lesbian and non-lesbian.  

        The information may be interesting but the more you narrow down the groups, the more you divide people into these stupid groups, the less impactful it will seem in the bigger picture and I see this as a bigger picture issue.  

        You see it doesn't matter so much who it affects beyond the most broad sense, it negatively affects the military, which I can only assume is a top priority for all involved.  Service to country first, breaking us down into groups and genders and races is next.  

        I say stay big picture and not worry so much about the color or gender of who is affected.  It's bad policy and the policy is bad enough that demographics don't matter so much.

        Keith David Halloran - You think it he says it.

        by mim5677 on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 02:15:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But the color or gender (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Predictor

          someone has makes them susceptible to even more problems and it makes this policy WORSE for them.

          'Normal' has always been collaborating with injustice. - Tim Wise

          by indiemcemopants on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 02:36:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  How does one color or gender of a person (0+ / 0-)

            make the case for changing the law any stronger than it already is?

            Would the case be made stronger if it affected white people more than others?

            Keith David Halloran - You think it he says it.

            by mim5677 on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 07:35:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site