Another thing I wanted to bring up is about the recent talk about repealing (finally) DADT, or "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". For those who don't know, it's the policy in the military service that you are not allowed to disclose your sexuality to others, and others are not allowed to ask about it. I can kind of see why it would possibly work, in order to avoid any situations; however having a person hide something about themselves for the sake of those around them really bothered me. However, there have been some recent problems with the policy and the military's generally evident homophobic belief. First example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/14/sara-isaacson-rotc-cadet_n_576401.html. If you don't want to read the article, basically, the woman (who is a lesbian) may possibly have to repay back her $80,000 ROTC scholarship because she came out as gay. Second example: http://www.sldn.org/blog/archives/stories-from-the-frontlines-former-army-sgt.-tracey-l.-cooper-harris/. In this article, the woman who also is a lesbian was "found out" by some other men in the service, whom forced her to perform sexual favors at the age of 19 in order to protect her secret. It really bothered me when she said that "homosexuality is treated worse than sexual harassment in the military", because going to complain about the harassment would lead to her discharge because of her being a lesbian.
I found these two examples very shocking to read, and it actually angered me. We have people who are willing to serve our military out of love for their country, but to be denied and kicked out because of being gay, something they CAN'T control, is ridiculous. I for one really hope that President Obama does decide to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", because this is just unfair.
--Cameron
This is a very powerful response and I appreciate your honesty and passion in regards to these issues.
ReplyDeleteI'm interested in hearing more as to why your classmate from your Dynamics of Leadership course came up with the "Man Card" exercise. Was it in response to a specific assignment for the course? Was he suggesting that in order to be a good leader one must be conventionally "manly"? Wouldn't this also suggest that, according to his definition, women couldn't be good leaders? Thank you for sharing this example.
It started off as a joke, and it turned into something way worse. There were basically two or three guys who took it really far and made it so literal. The woman in charge of our program and class was pretty furious when she found out, because we had just talked about diversity and minorities as leaders (whether it was women, racial minorities, homosexuals, or any "minority" basically). I don't want to group the kids who took it to far together, but they were the typical jock and football guys. A lot of the other guys just played along, but it was those who took it too seriously that bothered me. It ended up fading out after everyone realized it was a really insensitive and hurtful thing for a large chunk of the students in the program.
ReplyDeleteOn that topic of "minorities as leaders", I think comparisons could be drawn to some of the articles we read, especially those about racism and white privilege. When you think about it, there are very few minorities holding high office positions, which is why I think 2008 was such a monumental year in the elections since on one party we had an African American for president, and on the other we had a woman vice president, both relatively new things. I realize it's an article assigned for this weekend, so I hope this can count, but in Peggy McIntosh's "White Privilege" article, one of the ones she mentions is: "18. I can be pretty sure that if I talk to "the person in charge," I will be facing a person of my race" (179). (Again, old edition page number.)
This something, I feel, may go unnoticed. I know that for myself in my own job (an office on campus), all of the higher ups are white, and there are very few minorities in the office at all. In Tatum's essay, she mentions a definition of racism as a "system of advantage based on race", which makes me wonder that while many workplaces offer an array of diversity, I feel like very few have minority leaders, maybe giving white people a sort of advantage that may be hidden by the fact that there are minorities working there, regardless of what their position is. (That makes sense in my head, but looks kind of confusing in words, so I don't know if that makes sense).
This also makes me think about the whole "race card" that I hear a lot about. One of my coworkers mentions often how one of the African American workers plays the "race card" often to get out of trouble or sticky situations. I have never seen her use this so-called "race card", but there have been multiple instances where I have heard of it. It almost sounds like a sort of "anti-white privilege" because it's a "privilege" that whites can't use.
--Cameron
(Can I use this as my second blog post? If not, I'll type another one, it's no big deal.)