Marines Charged With Assaulting Gay Man

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by leekohler, Jun 15, 2010.

  1. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #1
    WTF is wrong with people? A**holes.

    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/06/14/Two_Marines_Charged_With_Assaulting_Gay_Man/
    http://www.ajc.com/news/marines-charged-in-assault-548110.html
     
  2. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #2
    At least they were apprehended for the crime, and the witnesses are coming out for the poor guy. Sad thing is, that's progress.
     
  3. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #3
    It's ridiculous that it happened at all. These guys should be kicked out of the military for attacking a civilian. If they can't control themselves on the street, what makes anyone think they can on the job?
     
  4. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #4
    Leaving aside how he probably wasn't flirting with them (seriously, stupid much?) I certainly hope the next woman these marines hit on takes to heart what they have established as the appropriate means to communicate a lack of interest. Not being a burly marine type she'll have to grab a beer bottle or something, but it's the thought that counts.
     
  5. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #5
    It would be appropriate, that's for sure.
     
  6. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #6
    In addition to the very real hate-crime aspect of this, I think this is a big issue that the Armed Forces has been dealing with, and must deal with much better, especially over this past decade with the extended deployments. They take people who are already predisposed to problems with anger and then they train them and they put them in situations that make the violent response more prepotent.

    Then, when the Armed Forces aren't able to keep track of which soldiers are handling the stress okay and which ones are walking time bombs, they deal with this (and Ft Hood, and the rapes in Okinawa, and all the other acts of violence committed against civilians or fellow service members by soldiers).

    My point is just that all the talk of women in bars slinging beer bottles and throwing these two hooligans out of the Marines and into a jail is all fine and good, but this is part of an ongoing problem that is systemic in the military and needs systemic management and risk reduction.
     
  7. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #7
    You know, facetiousness aside, step one of that would be allowing gays to serve openly in the military so that other soldiers would know them and understand them as ordinary human beings instead of some weird alien monster.

    Facetiousness still aside, my previous post set me thinking: I'd bet a big part of this kind of homophobic reaction has less to do with the homosexuality in itself and more with a subconscious terror over their own concepts of masculinity: If there are men out there that hit on men, then that opens up the possibility that they might be treated the same way they treat women. Catcalls, unsolicited drinks from strangers with unstated strings attached, being treated like a prize to be won and your objections like some sort of puzzle to be solved, having to think about what you wear and what strangers on the street might think you're offering them as a result -- frankly I don't think most men are up to taking what too many of them dish out, and even a hint of that possibility is going to be scary as hell.
     
  8. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #8
    You're right. This is an issue. But it's too late for these two. What do you think they'll do next time?

    Yep.
     
  9. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #9
    I suspect that this is what the GOP are actually meaning when they say the Pentagon needs to finish their impact review. With the amount to which Christianity is institutionalized in the military, it's no wonder that homophobia is too.
     
  10. Dmac77 macrumors 68020

    Dmac77

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Location:
    Michigan
    #10
    This just disgusts me. Actions like this put a bad face on all of the military. Believe me, not everyone in the military (especially the Marines) are bigots. My cousin, who served in the Marines, is gay, and according to him, almost his entire platoon knew that he's gay and they treated him just like any other Marine. He decided to leave, because he was tired of having to closet himself from the higher ups; but he want's to reenlist once DADT is repealed.

    Hopefully these guys will get the book thrown at them.

    -Don
     
  11. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #11
    The problem with this kind of analysis of the problem is that the actual base rates of hate crimes and violence are very low. I'm a man, as are many of the other people in this thread, and many of us have ever committed a violent crime, let alone a hate crime. And I haven't done that in spite of certainly having been hit on by people whose advances are unwelcome (male and female). My masculinity has not caused me to engage in uncontrollable acts of rage. This kind of generalization is not only insulting to us as men, and inaccurate, but also, even if it were true, what does it accomplish?

    These two should face the strictest available penalties, either in military court and/or in civilian criminal court. And personally, shame on Georgia, I'm all for Georgia getting hate crime laws, too. But mostly, I'm interested in the next Daly and maybe trying to prevent his/her brain from getting bruised (or worse).

    I'm honestly skeptical this has much to do with it... First, the issue of "sexual" or sexualized violence is already a major problem in the military in the sense of women civilians as well as servicewomen being victims of violence, as well as a number of gays already in the military already being the victims of violence. Second, violence against civilians and fellow service member is an endemic problem with having standing armed forces (or having them during prolonged wars) to begin with. It's not limited to the US military or to the militaries of "Christian" nations. We know all of this already... continued studying is fine, but the military has to be doing more about it, and it has to start yesterday.

    To me, a big part of this is developing aggression / anger management monitoring tools that help the military identify dangerous soldiers, instituting processes that allow their CO's to take appropriate action to keep people safe, and providing resources to do aggressive interventions to prevent acts of violent crime by soldiers, as well as keep soldiers emotionally healthy. Some soldiers are lost causes, and the military needs to get better at identifying them and getting rid of them as soon as possible, if not preventing them from joining in the first place. Others are people that might have been reached and in whom these kinds of behaviors might be preventable. There's the human cost, there's the fact that the military gets a bad rep, and there's even the (substantial) costs of wasting training on a soldier who can't do his or her job that are all good motivations for this.
     
  12. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #12
    Well, isn't the timing of this suspicious? I'm wondering if these two have actually been wound up into doing this, so a point can be "proved" to Congress.
     
  13. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #13
    I don't think so. A more strong case could be made for doing away with DADT than keeping it because of this.
     
  14. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #14
    Not really even close to what I was getting at, but if I wasn't sufficiently clear the first time, it probably means my own position is half-baked, and attempting to explain would just get us much further off topic than the original ill-advised observation anyway. Never mind.
     
  15. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #15
  16. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #16
    I don't see a hate crime aspect to this at all, ive seen guys get knocked out for looking at someone wrong.
     
  17. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #17
    I completely agree.

    For what it's worth:

    Source.
     
  18. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #18
    But it was against a gay man so it has to be a hate crime.

    That being said I too have seen people get hit for looking at some one wrong. The people who do it are still ass holes but not hate crime. I would say at the very least have them nailed for assualt.

    The problem we have with out milatry is not the people in them but the fact that we train them to kill. Problem is that switch can not just be turned off when they are back in civilian life. This goes double for the grunts who been in combat.
     
  19. CaptMurdock macrumors 6502a

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #19
    Please tell me you are not doing a half-assed "post-combat stress afflicting Our Men In Uniform so we have to give 'em a pass" defense.
     
  20. Dany M macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Location:
    Earth
    #20
    What the ****!?!?!?
     
  21. abijnk macrumors 68040

    abijnk

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #21
    He wasn't talking about violence or rage being dished out but rather the stereotypical (and, whether you like to admit it or not, common) way men treat women. He was saying that he thinks men are, subconsciously or otherwise, afraid that if men hitting on other men becomes socially acceptable that they might have to adjust themselves to being treated the way they treat women (as in the example of purchasing a drink with unstated strings attached).

    I know you said never mind, Gelfin, but I think you are at least partly correct.
     
  22. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #22
    Corrected that for you ;), but +1 nonetheless.

    Do you think this might have something to do with the recent practice of the military lowering their standards for whom they allow to enlist, or would you characterize it as something that's gone on for years and years and is only just now coming to light?
     
  23. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #23
    Perhaps... but the link between all of this and acts of violence like this is still tenuous at best. If you claim (and I agree for the sake of argument) that these underlying thoughts or emotional reactions are very common, it doesn't explain the vast number of men who don't engage in violence, who do fine hanging out with people of various sexual orientations, etc. Supposedly there is something seriously wrong with me and 99% of other men that causes some smaller percentage, 1%, or whatever, of men, myself not included, to act violently, right (presumably, it is my "inappropriate" dislike for ladies night, but that's a side issue)? I don't buy that, especially in the absence of any evidence that I even "have" the problem I am accused of having in the first place, let alone a history of violence.

    That's an interesting question. I don't know. I mean, things like the Okinawa rape and child molestation issues go back decades, before the series of wars in the Middle East, right? I think it's worse, now, because the military does probably enlist people who are unstable, who they would previously have declined, and it probably does re-enlist people who are in no psychological condition to continue on active duty.
     
  24. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #24
    No I am not saying that we give them a past. These guys need to be punished to the full extent of the law.
    I was more pointing out that a lot of problems we have is the military does a poor job at addressing that issues that the men are trained to kill. They need to go about having a way to help deal with those issues when they are in civilian life. It not a switch that can be turn on and off at will.
     
  25. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #25
    Who said anything about you, M? I frankly would not have thought to lump you in with "most men" in a very large number of ways.

    Let's deal with the violence aspect first, because you keep trying to connect this back to an attempt to explain why everyone in this thread with a penis might be inclined towards violence, and honestly I have a hard time figuring out how to dislodge that interpretation from your head because I am not fully understanding how you got it in the first place. You are clearly reading something very different from what I (or abijnk -- thanks) wrote.

    There exists a certain stereotype of men, and here I am charitably calling it a stereotype instead of something stronger, that they are walking around all the time with a sort of Terminator-vision, and whenever a woman walks into the frame, a little outline appears around her along with statistics about her potential as a sexual conquest, and then a list of potential strategies for tilting those odds in his favor starts scrolling up the screen: Make eye contact. Do something conspicuously cool. Compliment her. Ask her what she's reading. Strike up a conversation in an enclosed space like an elevator or a subway car where she can't politely excuse herself. Be persistent. Be charming. Be confident.

    You can say you don't do that, and I will totally concede the point, but it's such an overwhelmingly common feature of women's experience that it's also an entirely reasonable thing to assume as a fact of life. Honestly, the second-best thing ever about being the proud owner of a penis is that I don't have to deal with that every day. I get to choose when I am just a person and not a potential mate, or part of the scenery, or part of the entertainment. And frankly if I felt regularly deprived of that choice, I would be a little hostile. Not violent, and not a lot, but just a little, hostile. "I'm sorry, but could you back off? I'm just trying to read and enjoy the park." I would be a total bitch to guys who would swear, both to me and to themselves, that they were "just being friendly."

    And, yeah, I think that maybe is part of what goes through a homophobe's head, whatever stupid thing he does (or doesn't) as a reaction notwithstanding. Surely you have noticed how nothing makes a homophobe feel attractive like finding out there's a gay man in the room. Suddenly he develops the utter conviction that his doughy fish-belly ass is completely irresistible. It may be entirely subconscious, but I think the completely unjustifiable level of anxiety homophobes feel is, in part, that for that one brief moment they have a glimpse of what it's like to be sized up in Terminator-vision, even if that's only happening in their own imagination, and it's more than a little bit creepy.

    I did warn you this whole line of thinking is pretty OT.
     

Share This Page