Fugitivus Discussion Forum

When I saw that DADT had been repealed, I thought of this:



Redacted ableist language above.

I also thought of Sweatshop-Produced Rainbow Flags and Participatory Patriarchy (warning for some ableist language.)

Uh, so rejecting assimilation is a strong part of queer history, although currently we seem to be in the middle of a backlash against it.

I'm wondering how to respond in a nuanced way to a repeal that allows US citizens to choose to kill mostly brown people in other countries so that they can go to college. I don't really believe the DADT repeal is a step toward radical victories, but at the same time, there is some room for me to be happy about it just based on the real relief to some people in the military. It occurs to me that it could function as a liberal distraction from the cut to Social Security funding.

Anyway, so. Where do we find the good, if any, in assimilationist victories? When do we support the use of oppressive structures (in this case, the US government) to seek justice (could tie in with the Assange case.) How do we make room for complicating liberal assimilationist goals? How might people who care about queer justice respond to the DADT repeal? Where is there room in these conversations for queers who oppose the DADT repeal?

Wherever you/they feel like pulling up a chair, as far as I'm concerned.

The thing is, even if getting gay folks into the US military is fucked up, there are gay folks in the US military and what happens to them there is already fucked up. So whether getting rid of DADT is ultimately a step forward, back, or sideways, I feel okay celebrating the fact that it's on its way out. In other words, what you said. Except I'm not sure where I stand on the "forward, back, or sideways" question in the first place.

EDIT: I apologize for my assumption that the DADT was equally applied to trans* service members (or really, to anyone not GLB). It is not.

Warning, rambling thoughts lie ahead.

So here's kinda how I feel about those ideas at this moment. At my campus's Feminist Alliance meeting a couple of months ago, the topic of the draft came up. Apparently some people want to change the laws so that women are part of the draft. I reject this idea. It's a step backwards, in my opinion. Yes, it would be more "equal" in the particular context of US military recruitment. But it would not advance any of the other causes I believe in, like pushing towards a world without war. It is MUCH more vital and important, in my opinion, to change the laws so that there is no draft at all. I think a truly volunteer military sends the message that NOT everyone thinks it's appropriate to go to war, even some of the time (I like to loudly tell people, when the subject comes up, that if I were drafted I would leave and go to Canada, or wherever, because to me even living in America and having American citizenship isn't worth fighting a war - though I make an exception in my personal philosophy for the unlikely case if we were actually defending ourselves on our own soil - essentially the opposite of the kind of war we're fighting right now).

Anyway. If we were changing the law to legalize the draft for queer-identified GBL people, I would oppose that. But since this is for the volunteer aspect of the military, I'm more or less in support. A) Some TBQLIG BLG folk may feel that the existence of the military is right, and now they can express that by joining, if they want. B) Those who don't want to join still don't have to, and now that can be a rejection with a bit more oomph (or at least what I perceive as more oomph). For example, I *could* join the military. There is nothing preventing me at this time - except for my vocal objection to the existence of militaries/violence-promoting-organizations (well, that and the fact that I hate running...). And I think rejecting something that I have a legal right to do is more powerful than rejecting something I've been excluded from - the latter option sounds like sour grapes, in my ears. Maybe others don't see things that way.

There's also the semi-bright side of being subversive from within. From being with me and learning through me about issues about violence against women, my partner doesn't just side with his soldier automatically when there is a domestic disturbance case in front of him (I use the term "disturbance" because I'm talking about all manner of family issues, not just violent ones). But there's definitely a culture of believing wives/girlfriends with complaints are all harpies, and rejecting that culture is non-negligible on the activist spectrum. So if a soldier is, now, at the very least not legally afraid of having someone guess ze is queer LBG, then that person is free to take more progressive action within the military community (because ze can't get kicked out for it, losing their livelihood, anymore). Since I really don't see prospects for ridding ourselves of the military in a lifetime, or even ten lifetimes, I'll settle for making it less conservative. But that's just me and I know that approach isn't acceptable to everyone. I don't know how to approach that, though, other than to engage in general peace-activism.

These ideas are all sort of half-formed and nebulous, I know. And I don't think these are the end-all of my thoughts on the matter. Quixotess, when I read your original post, my heart sank a bit, because I agree with a lot of those ideas/questions, and I was kind of sad that I can no longer support the repeal of DADT with a whole heart. So I second Hex's statement, "Wherever you/they feel like pulling up a chair." I guess my previous paragraphs were sort of trying to answer the question of where to find good in assimilationist victories.

On the bright(?) side, the whole Western lifestyle will probably collapse here in the next century and all this will be moot! Whee!

I know it can sometimes be a little touchy drawing comparisons between struggles, but I see it as being comparable to the gay marriage struggle. I have heard many people argue that marriage is such a problematic, patriarchal institution, that there shouldn't be a struggle to extend it to same sex couples. I think the military is arguably even more problematic, (had to try out the new strikeout instead of just deleting - yay!) with its history of mass slaughter and all that.

I think it is the key difference between radical movements (which seek to overthrow systems) and non radical movements. I have a strong but often quiet radical side and a, well, for lack of a better term, more pragmatic side. I would love to be some sort of guerrilla activist in a lot of aspects of my life. I think all money should be abolished, for example. Don't get me started on the medical system here in the US, but I am going to be licensed in it in a year and a half. But, I am definitely operating within many systems because overthrowing all of the problematic institutions simultaneously seems like too much of a gargantuan and unrealistic task. Doesn't mean I won't agree that these institutions are problematic and, if I ruled the world, I would abolish them.

So, long story short (too late), I think incremental improvements in problematic systems are better than no improvements in problematic institutions. In fact, I can even rejoice in improvements such as the repeal of DADT. I still loathe our military-industrial complex, and will continue to do so. But, at least some categories of queer people who do choose to serve can do so with less fear of reprisal, and some that have been fired may get their jobs and income back.

I wrote a significantly longer response, but I couldn't seem to make it work, so I'm shortening it:

I think it's tempting to celebrate small victories, but dangerous to become complacent with imperfect advances.

Sorry for making this thread and taking such a long time to respond to it D: christmas busy, work busy, family busy. I fully intend to respond better, hopefully some time tonight?

This is kind of...hm. I think it ties in to what I'm talking about. One cannot even say that the DADT repeal allowed all non-hets to join the military openly, since it only does for cis non-hets.

I know it's popular in feminist circles to say that activism isn't a zero-sum game and we're capable of focusing on multiple things, but honestly how many blogs that covered every twist and turn in the DADT repeal saga (or same-sex marriage legislation) have covered, say, every twist and turn of prison abolition? Honestly how many of them have covered homeless ppl or sex worker justice or even fuckin ENDA in that amount of detail even though these are things that affect queers who are on average least able to assimilate into places like the military or the marriage institution. Theoretically it doesn't seem like supporting DADT repeal means you don't also support the radical stuff, but in reality the people with the biggest platforms are covering issues that make sense to them as wanting to assimilate into the power structures as they are, not overthrowing those power structures. I'm not saying people here are doing that, I'm just saying it feels a lot like an effort to dupe the least-privileged of us into supporting reform measures that will do nothing to feed starving people, end wars, or provide housing.

It's like the radical manifesto in the OP says--isn't this condoning a war machine that can be used against us? Sure, none of us can opt out of the system, but to create movements around refining the military-industrial complex...I dunno.


Interesting. The way you put this made me think of defectors from feminism--mostly women who would have been all too glad to join the "sisterhood" but who were systematically excluded, attacked and (just for insult) appropriated from. Then they created something different. : ) That's powerful.

BTW, Llencelyn, I noticed you said you don't think the military will be gone in "ten lifetimes," but you do think the Western lifestyle will collapse within 100 years. An interesting juxtaposition!


I think that's a very appropriate comparison.


I haven't read enough to be sure of my footing on this particular issue, but I've seen too much lately of the liberal/middle class functioning as a tool for elites to oppress the people to be anything but...disquieted. Yeah, I'm disquieted.

Quixotess, I am happy you picked out that quote from Llencelyn. We have been talking about reading comprehension on this post. I didn't mention (admit?) it on there, but I have been doing a lot of skimming lately. I have been feeling a little, well, sketchy, for lack of a better term, and I feel guilty participating in in depth conversations when I don't read and focus on every phrase. And, apparently that is the case here. Llencelyn...powerful. Also, Eirwyn...powerful.

I am watching the Rachel Maddow "Leadership" special right now, and she had a group of DADT activists on. One said (paraphrased) "The military makes everyone better. No matter what kind of family you come from, it makes you a better person. DADT was an exception to that." Ugh, shudder. With proselytizing in the Air Force Academy to civilian casualties in the Middle East to torture of prisoners to swaths of combat veterans coming back dead, or seriously injured, or with PTSD, or committing suicide, I find that unlikely .

Quixotess, you also made a good point about how mainstream Feminism likes to pick and choose their issues. I am hardly a bellweather on mainstream feminism anymore. I don't follow many of those sources - I gave up on Feministing, don't have time to read Feministe or Bitch blogs, and...where else does mainstream feminism lurk? I try to catch up on Tiger Beatdown occasionally, and am appalled / relieved by Sady's activism on the Assange / WikiLeaks rape accusations. I glance at the headlines on RH Reality Check's site, and I am happy issues like contraception and abortion are still being discussed, at least somewhere.

You're right. I didn't think of it in that way (I was thinking more in terms of the draft, and how I can't be drafted, and so I sound "weak" in my own ears when I argue against the draft for men), but you are definitely right.



Well, militaries in general have been around much longer than "Western lifestyle" as it is currently understood. So yeah, "the" military as it exists today would no longer exist if our infrastructure collapses, but there will likely still be something that can be identified as "a" military. If that makes sense? (And my parting line was meant to be sort of tongue-in-cheek, whereas the rest of my post was a little more serious than that, so I probably should have made more clear that I don't necessarily think things will collapse.) Still, those two ideas didn't really work together. (And I probably shouldn't have brought up the collapse of society at all, since that's a whole 'nother can of worms.)



I definitely feel like this is a really big topic. I am a physicist by training...can I have a spherical cow in a frictionless vacuum to analyze, instead of the complicated mess that is reality?

Edited to add: I just re-read my original response, and in the light of a new day, I sound like I am grasping at straws to justify being pleased by the repeal of DADT. I'm sorry about that. I mean, at the time I wrote it, that's exactly what I was doing. I wanted to be happy like all the things I was reading. But today, a day when I'm angry at the Army on a personal level for unrelated reasons, I am having trouble finding the upside to a more inclusive military - like a veneer of progressivism can hide the fact that the military is a killing machine? Sigh.

I don't know. It is a victory, but it's a small victory, and it's not a radical victory at all.

As a parallel, I've been following Sady these past 6 days over the #mooreandme issue. The big "victory" was that Michael Moore went on stage, on Maddow, and said people should take any rape accusation seriously. It's a big victory for the twitter movement, because we'd been fighting for him to say it for 6 days. But... that's it. Sady's taking about it today, and I haven't gotten a chance to read it, yet, but watching the Maddow show today, and reading the tweets last night, it feels so hollow. Yeah, they (I shouldn't say we...) got a public figure to actually acknowledge that rape victims deserve to be recognized and taken seriously. But... really? that's a victory? To acknowledge that they should be taken seriously? Fuck, that's depressing. that should be like common fucking knowledge. An unsaid assumption that everyone takes for granted. But, it isn't. Which sucks. Also, he didn't mention the fact that he didn't recognize them at first, or that Keith Olbermann still won't admit he spread false information.

Same thing (kind of) for DADT. Sure, it's a big step forward - the government is finally accepting they can't just fire people from the military for being gay. But... it's not like other countries have that kind of policy. in fact, Canada recently put in place some new transfriendly policies regarding our military, and are currently working on a bill to add gender identity and expression to the charter, as a protected group. It's like a huge step for those who have been working on this fight, and it is a big change for the states. But, it's not a big step overall. It's just the military, with all the still good and bad of that organization.

I don't know. Sometimes it's nice to see the mainstream fight take a mainstream step. But, those battles are always within the system. They're not addressing actual issues about the system, and they (seem to) require people buying into the system to get anything done. Like, the people who benefit from this are not at all working to deal with systemic problems of society. They're just fighting their little fight to go shoot people. Will they keep fighting afterward for other people to shoot people? Will they work on the dream act for example? What about trans inclusion?

Argh.

it's really hard sometimes.