Gay recruit complains about being called a fag in USMC

[Galloism]

Right. Motivation. In USMC terms that means building an esprit de corps through shared suffering. Shared means everyone can related to it, meaning that everyone goes through the same miles-long runs, obstacle courses, and general in-your-face belittiling that uses vulgar but generally non-specific phrasing.

When somebody devolves into using specifically denigrating slurs like "fag" or "nigger" or "spic" or "chink" or "dago" or etc. etc., even if the person isn't being directly targeted by those words if they're of that specific minority they still take note of that language. Those slurs are specifically intended to single somebody out and make them the freak and apart from the rest IE "You're a fag, you're not one of us, you're subhuman and not welcome here.". That in turn can have a crippling effect on unit cohesion because inevitably there will be people on both sides if and when it becomes a problem.
The fact of the matter is DI's and DS' have a responsibility to instil that esprit de corps and train the next generation of marines. Not only is the motivation and discipline their responsibility but so is their well-being and sense of community, and creating a situation where people are specifically singled out for something beyond their control such as their skin color or sexual orientation does not serve that end. Therefore any DI using such slurs instead of thinking laterally and coming up with a better way to motivate through yelling and vulgarity isn't worthy of wearing the campaign hat and the ribbon on their chest.

And before you try and hand-wave it off as just "another word" in an effort to motivate, answer this; are you gay? Are you that person that the word specifically targets? If not then you really have no solid justification for sanctioning the use of the word do you?

If the mean and nasty instructor calls you a faggot, and you are not a homosexual, you will strive to prove him wrong about you being weak and effeminate like faggots supposedly are. If you are actually a homosexual, you will still strive to prove him wrong about homosexuals being weak and effeminate. And in the end, when you do prove yourself, your actual sexual preference will no longer matter neither to you, your comrades or the instructor that used it as a word of abuse.

The purpose of such brutal training is to deconstruct one's civilian identity and reforge it into a new one - into a soldier. Only in the civilian world does trivialities like your skin colour, your genitals or the sex you prefer to fuck matter. In the army, the only thing that matters is how well you do your job, i.e., keeping yourself and your comrades from dying for your country and making the other bastards die for theirs. Hence, your only acceptable identity is that of a soldier, the one thing you share with everyone from a rookie fresh out of the boot all the way up to the general/admiral commanding your branch of service. As a soldier, you aren't a man or a woman, gay or straight, Black or White - you are a soldier and just that. The sooner a recruit realizes and accepts that, the better.

Well that's a frightening synopsis.

"The military, where you go to lose your identity and humanity. "

[Ifreann]

Women Marines serve in the Corps with distinction and honor, as both enlisted and officers, in all MOS's up to 0300's. To my knowledge there are no currently serving Women Marines in the MOS 0311 Infantry but that is not to say that they are incapable of doing so. Young American women step up to the challenge of becoming Marines every day and they EARN the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor same as every other Marine. They serve our Nation all over the world, often directly in harms way, and they do so voluntarily because they have the heart and the guts to be Marines. Women Marines are in NO WAY inferior to male Marines............. dark green Marines are in NO WAY inferior to light green Marines................. WE ARE ALL MARINES. SEMPER FI

I'm not sure if this is really just masturbatory dreck now or some kind of weird Tourettes triggered by people mentioning the Corps.

[The UK in Exile]

If the mean and nasty instructor calls you a faggot, and you are not a homosexual, you will strive to prove him wrong about you being weak and effeminate like faggots supposedly are. If you are actually a homosexual, you will still strive to prove him wrong about homosexuals being weak and effeminate. And in the end, when you do prove yourself, your actual sexual preference will no longer matter neither to you, your comrades or the instructor that used it as a word of abuse.

The purpose of such brutal training is to deconstruct one's civilian identity and reforge it into a new one - into a soldier. Only in the civilian world does trivialities like your skin colour, your genitals or the sex you prefer to fuck matter. In the army, the only thing that matters is how well you do your job, i.e., keeping yourself and your comrades from dying for your country and making the other bastards die for theirs. Hence, your only acceptable identity is that of a soldier, the one thing you share with everyone from a rookie fresh out of the boot all the way up to the general/admiral commanding your branch of service. As a soldier, you aren't a man or a woman, gay or straight, Black or White - you are a soldier and just that. The sooner a recruit realizes and accepts that, the better.

Well that's a frightening synopsis.

"The military, where you go to lose your identity and humanity. "

well it helps if you remember that identities aren't always positive and humanity isn't universal for people who join the army.

[Northern Dominus]

Right. Motivation. In USMC terms that means building an esprit de corps through shared suffering. Shared means everyone can related to it, meaning that everyone goes through the same miles-long runs, obstacle courses, and general in-your-face belittiling that uses vulgar but generally non-specific phrasing.

When somebody devolves into using specifically denigrating slurs like "fag" or "nigger" or "spic" or "chink" or "dago" or etc. etc., even if the person isn't being directly targeted by those words if they're of that specific minority they still take note of that language. Those slurs are specifically intended to single somebody out and make them the freak and apart from the rest IE "You're a fag, you're not one of us, you're subhuman and not welcome here.". That in turn can have a crippling effect on unit cohesion because inevitably there will be people on both sides if and when it becomes a problem.
The fact of the matter is DI's and DS' have a responsibility to instil that esprit de corps and train the next generation of marines. Not only is the motivation and discipline their responsibility but so is their well-being and sense of community, and creating a situation where people are specifically singled out for something beyond their control such as their skin color or sexual orientation does not serve that end. Therefore any DI using such slurs instead of thinking laterally and coming up with a better way to motivate through yelling and vulgarity isn't worthy of wearing the campaign hat and the ribbon on their chest.

And before you try and hand-wave it off as just "another word" in an effort to motivate, answer this; are you gay? Are you that person that the word specifically targets? If not then you really have no solid justification for sanctioning the use of the word do you?

If the mean and nasty instructor calls you a faggot, and you are not a homosexual, you will strive to prove him wrong about you being weak and effeminate like faggots supposedly are. If you are actually a homosexual, you will still strive to prove him wrong about homosexuals being weak and effeminate. And in the end, when you do prove yourself, your actual sexual preference will no longer matter neither to you, your comrades or the instructor that used it as a word of abuse.

The purpose of such brutal training is to deconstruct one's civilian identity and reforge it into a new one - into a soldier. Only in the civilian world does trivialities like your skin colour, your genitals or the sex you prefer to fuck matter. In the army, the only thing that matters is how well you do your job, i.e., keeping yourself and your comrades from dying for your country and making the other bastards die for theirs. Hence, your only acceptable identity is that of a soldier, the one thing you share with everyone from a rookie fresh out of the boot all the way up to the general/admiral commanding your branch of service. As a soldier, you aren't a man or a woman, gay or straight, Black or White - you are a soldier and just that. The sooner a recruit realizes and accepts that, the better.

Alright then, so if the only thing that matters in the military is capability (which is mostly true), then why delve into divisive slurs rather than not run the risk of alienating somebody?

What exactly is the matter with calling somebody a "worthless weak sack of shit!" when they don't do the prescribed amount of pushups instead of "fag!"? Why can't somebody be a "lazy incompetent fuckstick" when they don't clear an obstacle instead of a "fag!"?

There are plenty of other options to go to without devolving into biased and divisive slurs when training recruits, and devolving to that point speaks to either somebody who passed by the skin of their teeth or a program that isn't selecting the very best.

[Petrovsegratsk]

Ignore him, he's one of those ignorant bigots you always see on TV.

First of all, I am not a "him" and a "he". Secondly, I am not an "ignorant bigot". I am much more informed than you an ever be. The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy was enacted for some reason and this was exactly what it meant to prevent. If you are gay fine, don't shout in the whole world about it.

If gays want to scream into the Heavens that they're gay and they don't want to be discriminated, then they are allowed to do so.

Freedom of Speech.

And yes, you are a ignorant bigot for stating that gays can't do physical exercises, which is not only a prejudiced comment, but a ignorant one as well, sexual preference has nothing to do with physical limitations, and you're ignroant for thinking so.

[Ovisterra]

First of all, I am not a "him" and a "he". Secondly, I am not an "ignorant bigot". I am much more informed than you an ever be. The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy was enacted for some reason and this was exactly what it meant to prevent. If you are gay fine, don't shout in the whole world about it.

If gays want to scream into the Heavens that they're gay and they don't want to be discriminated, then they are allowed to do so.

Freedom of Speech.

And yes, you are a ignorant bigot for stating that gays can't do physical exercises, which is not only a prejudiced comment, but a ignorant one as well, sexual preference has nothing to do with physical limitations, and you're ignroant for thinking so.

I like you. You're cool. You're sensible.

[Delmonte]

First of all, I am not a "him" and a "he". Secondly, I am not an "ignorant bigot". I am much more informed than you an ever be. The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy was enacted for some reason and this was exactly what it meant to prevent. If you are gay fine, don't shout in the whole world about it.

If gays want to scream into the Heavens that they're gay and they don't want to be discriminated, then they are allowed to do so.

Freedom of Speech.

And yes, you are a ignorant bigot for stating that gays can't do physical exercises, which is not only a prejudiced comment, but a ignorant one as well, sexual preference has nothing to do with physical limitations, and you're ignroant for thinking so.

First of all, he's right in that Don't Ask; Don't Tell had a valid purpose. Second, he's wrong as to what that purpose was. Or she. Or whatever.

DADT's purpose was to allow homosexuals to serve in the military. There are bylaws in the military prohibiting discrimination against race and creed etc. as well as discrimination against sexual orientation. The problem with the latter is that there's really no definitive way to know for certain if someone is homosexual (and my gaydar's pretty good, just ask all the gay guys I've had sex with). So the only way to make sure nobody can get in trouble for it was to make it so that the act of telling (if you're a subordinate) or asking (if you're an officer) about it was a violation of military code. That way if the CO knew about it at ALL then someone had broken the code. When the repealed DADT the fear was that CO's would be less inclined to punish subordinates because the subordinate could then pretend that they were gay and the CO knew the whole time and take retribution in a tribunal. While those fears were largely unfounded, it was still completely valid and I recognize that DADT was not, in fact, discrimination against homosexuals. In many ways, it was the exact opposite. It made it criminal for an officer to inquire as to a soldier's sexuality. Its design was to prevent discrimination.

[Ovisterra]

If gays want to scream into the Heavens that they're gay and they don't want to be discriminated, then they are allowed to do so.

Freedom of Speech.

And yes, you are a ignorant bigot for stating that gays can't do physical exercises, which is not only a prejudiced comment, but a ignorant one as well, sexual preference has nothing to do with physical limitations, and you're ignroant for thinking so.

First of all, he's right in that Don't Ask; Don't Tell had a valid purpose. Second, he's wrong as to what that purpose was. Or she. Or whatever.

DADT's purpose was to allow homosexuals to serve in the military. There are bylaws in the military prohibiting discrimination against race and creed etc. as well as discrimination against sexual orientation. The problem with the latter is that there's really no definitive way to know for certain if someone is homosexual. So the only way to make sure nobody can get in trouble for it was to make it so that the act of telling (if you're a subordinate) or asking (if you're an officer) about it was a violation of military code. That way if the CO knew about it at ALL then someone had broken the code. When the repealed DADT the fear was that CO's would be less inclined to punish subordinates because the subordinate could then pretend that they were gay and the CO knew the whole time and take retribution in a tribunal. While those fears were largely unfounded, it was still completely valid and I recognize that DADT was not, in fact, discrimination against homosexuals. In many ways, it was the exact opposite.

This is the biggest crock of bullshit I've ever head.

"We're not discriminating against them, but if we find out they're here, we're throwing them out because of a completely arbitrary characteristic they possess."

[Delmonte]

First of all, he's right in that Don't Ask; Don't Tell had a valid purpose. Second, he's wrong as to what that purpose was. Or she. Or whatever.

DADT's purpose was to allow homosexuals to serve in the military. There are bylaws in the military prohibiting discrimination against race and creed etc. as well as discrimination against sexual orientation. The problem with the latter is that there's really no definitive way to know for certain if someone is homosexual. So the only way to make sure nobody can get in trouble for it was to make it so that the act of telling (if you're a subordinate) or asking (if you're an officer) about it was a violation of military code. That way if the CO knew about it at ALL then someone had broken the code. When the repealed DADT the fear was that CO's would be less inclined to punish subordinates because the subordinate could then pretend that they were gay and the CO knew the whole time and take retribution in a tribunal. While those fears were largely unfounded, it was still completely valid and I recognize that DADT was not, in fact, discrimination against homosexuals. In many ways, it was the exact opposite.

This is the biggest crock of bullshit I've ever head.

"We're not discriminating against them, but if we find out they're here, we're throwing them out because of a completely arbitrary characteristic they possess."

No. Under DADT if a gay guy in the military didn't tell anyone he was gay, never volunteered the information, but somebody pried into their personal life and invaded their privacy and found out that they were gay, THAT person would get kicked out of the military. And if a CO inquired into a person's sexuality HE would be kicked out of the military. The idea behind DADT was to prevent discrimination by making it so that there was no way a CO COULD discriminate against homosexuals because he or she should have no idea who WAS homosexual.

Discrimination against homosexuals just runs into problems that discrimination against other things, like race and gender, does not run into. Namely, proving that someone is homosexual and that the other guy KNEW he or she was. And DADT was designed to deal with that.

[Galloism]

Well that's a frightening synopsis.

"The military, where you go to lose your identity and humanity. "

well it helps if you remember that identities aren't always positive and humanity isn't universal for people who join the army.

Not really.

[Ovisterra]

This is the biggest crock of bullshit I've ever head.

"We're not discriminating against them, but if we find out they're here, we're throwing them out because of a completely arbitrary characteristic they possess."

No. Under DADT if a gay guy in the military didn't tell anyone he was gay, never volunteered the information, but somebody pried into their personal life and invaded their privacy and found out that they were gay, THAT person would get kicked out of the military. And if a CO inquired into a person's sexuality HE would be kicked out of the military. The idea behind DADT was to prevent discrimination by making it so that there was no way a CO COULD discriminate against homosexuals because he or she should have no idea who WAS homosexual.

Wouldn't it have been easier and, you know, less discriminatory to just allow gays to serve openly in the military and kick out the idiots that discriminate against them?

[Delmonte]

No. Under DADT if a gay guy in the military didn't tell anyone he was gay, never volunteered the information, but somebody pried into their personal life and invaded their privacy and found out that they were gay, THAT person would get kicked out of the military. And if a CO inquired into a person's sexuality HE would be kicked out of the military. The idea behind DADT was to prevent discrimination by making it so that there was no way a CO COULD discriminate against homosexuals because he or she should have no idea who WAS homosexual.

Wouldn't it have been easier and, you know, less discriminatory to just allow gays to serve openly in the military and kick out the idiots that discriminate against them?

How do you prove that someone is gay? And how do you prove that the other person knew they were? I'm gay and I could lie my ass off and say I'm straight, so I don't see how it would be hard for a straight person to lie and say they're gay.

[L Ron Cupboard]

"The military, where you go to lose your identity and humanity. "

The USMC do seem to be operating a system not unlike a sixties cult leader brainwashing new recruits.

[Ifreann]

Wouldn't it have been easier and, you know, less discriminatory to just allow gays to serve openly in the military and kick out the idiots that discriminate against them?

How do you prove that someone is gay? And how do you prove that the other person knew they were?

Do they not take testimony in courts martial?

[Czechanada]

And here I thought that homosexuality was being weaponized.

[The UK in Exile]

Wouldn't it have been easier and, you know, less discriminatory to just allow gays to serve openly in the military and kick out the idiots that discriminate against them?

How do you prove that someone is gay? And how do you prove that the other person knew they were?

This thread illustrates a fairly obvious method. if you keep calling them a fag. doesn't seem complicated.

[Ovisterra]

Wouldn't it have been easier and, you know, less discriminatory to just allow gays to serve openly in the military and kick out the idiots that discriminate against them?

How do you prove that someone is gay?

Ask them.

And how do you prove that the other person knew they were?

If they were discriminating against someone else for being gay, they probably knew that someone else was gay. Just guessing.

[Galloism]

"The military, where you go to lose your identity and humanity. "

The USMC do seem to be operating a system not unlike a sixties cult leader brainwashing new recruits.

I don't know about that, but Sidhae feels they do, and, moreover, that this is a positive thing. That's frightening.

[Helicthon]

Not to be obstructively cynical, but it seems that we're recapitulating the same arguments over and over again. Except on one side it's the same people repeating themselves, and on the other it's a slow but steady influx of people with the same tired, wrong ideas who can't be fucked reading the thread and have to be proven wrong just like their predecessors.

And then there's the wannabe jarhead (I fervently hope, because the alternative is that they actually let this guy point a gun at people) in his corner laying out an unsettling little wall of text every now and again.

Is this thread really achieving anything anymore? Honest question.

[Delmonte]

How do you prove that someone is gay? And how do you prove that the other person knew they were?

Do they not take testimony in courts martial?

What the hell are you saying? That you interview people they'd allegedly slept with? What if they haven't had sex with anyone? They could still be gay? And even if a guy HAS had sex with men it's no guarantee he's gay. There's just no way to prove it.

[Northern Dominus]

And here I thought that homosexuality was being weaponized.

Sorry, the Eddie Izzard battalion is still in development.

[Yankee Empire]

First of all, I am not a "him" and a "he". Secondly, I am not an "ignorant bigot". I am much more informed than you an ever be. The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy was enacted for some reason and this was exactly what it meant to prevent. If you are gay fine, don't shout in the whole world about it.

If gays want to scream into the Heavens that they're gay and they don't want to be discriminated, then they are allowed to do so.

Freedom of Speech.

And yes, you are a ignorant bigot for stating that gays can't do physical exercises, which is not only a prejudiced comment, but a ignorant one as well, sexual preference has nothing to do with physical limitations, and you're ignroant for thinking so.

If Gay people want to scream about how their so gay they should expect to be discriminated against, nor becaue their gay but because they won't shut up about it.

[Sidhae]

If the mean and nasty instructor calls you a faggot, and you are not a homosexual, you will strive to prove him wrong about you being weak and effeminate like faggots supposedly are. If you are actually a homosexual, you will still strive to prove him wrong about homosexuals being weak and effeminate. And in the end, when you do prove yourself, your actual sexual preference will no longer matter neither to you, your comrades or the instructor that used it as a word of abuse.

The purpose of such brutal training is to deconstruct one's civilian identity and reforge it into a new one - into a soldier. Only in the civilian world does trivialities like your skin colour, your genitals or the sex you prefer to fuck matter. In the army, the only thing that matters is how well you do your job, i.e., keeping yourself and your comrades from dying for your country and making the other bastards die for theirs. Hence, your only acceptable identity is that of a soldier, the one thing you share with everyone from a rookie fresh out of the boot all the way up to the general/admiral commanding your branch of service. As a soldier, you aren't a man or a woman, gay or straight, Black or White - you are a soldier and just that. The sooner a recruit realizes and accepts that, the better.

Alright then, so if the only thing that matters in the military is capability (which is mostly true), then why delve into divisive slurs rather than not run the risk of alienating somebody?

What exactly is the matter with calling somebody a "worthless weak sack of shit!" when they don't do the prescribed amount of pushups instead of "fag!"? Why can't somebody be a "lazy incompetent fuckstick" when they don't clear an obstacle instead of a "fag!"?

There are plenty of other options to go to without devolving into biased and divisive slurs when training recruits, and devolving to that point speaks to either somebody who passed by the skin of their teeth or a program that isn't selecting the very best.

Ever tried yelling for a whole day at raw recruits who don't know shit about warfare and yet dare to get uppity about your choice of words? Even though there are plenty of imaginative ways you can express yourself as an instructor, I doubt you'd be very picky about your vocabulary at the end of the day just for the sake of political correctness.

As for the dehumanization part, that is precisely what military training is for. War is something where you will face horrors that would drive an unprepared man insane on a daily basis. It's an affair where every second runs the risk of you getting killed, or your comrades getting killed if you get sloppy even for an instant. Hence the training must ensure that you are able to overcome the urge to shit your pants, sit down in the mud and cry for mommy when the bullets start flying, and somehow retain your sanity while scraping the guts of your best buddy off your helmet while just seconds ago you were sharing a smoke and a lewd joke before a mortar shell reduced him to his basic components. It must ensure that you will still be able to stand up and fight afterwards and not drop the ball so that more of your buddies don't end up like that poor bastard who got hit by that shell. War isn't an affair where you can afford to be John Travis, a heterosexual Black guy, or Jane Traynor, a White homosexual lass, because all that is irrelevant to your current purpose. You may only be Sgt. Travis - a soldier or Pvt. Traynor - a soldier. The faceless persona of "Soldier" is your shield from insanity and from failure. And only when you are done fighting, you and your buddies asses are safe again, may you again return to your civilian self.

That is what all this training is really for.

[Yankee Empire]

"The military, where you go to lose your identity and humanity. "

The USMC do seem to be operating a system not unlike a sixties cult leader brainwashing new recruits.

How so?

[Ifreann]

Not to be obstructively cynical, but it seems that we're recapitulating the same arguments over and over again. Except on one side it's the same people repeating themselves, and on the other it's a slow but steady influx of people with the same tired, wrong ideas who can't be fucked reading the thread and have to be proven wrong just like their predecessors.

And then there's the wannabe jarhead (I fervently hope, because the alternative is that they actually let this guy point a gun at people) in his corner laying out an unsettling little wall of text every now and again.

Is this thread really achieving anything anymore? Honest question.

Welcome to NSG. Threads here tend towards looping.