So what if US soldiers are so gay? The Army is still straight

Have you seen this video put out by a bunch of American soldiers in Afghanistan? [youtubevid id="ya9iFYmdYp4"] That's right, some seriously hot boy soldiers took some time to have some fun being super gay with Ke$ha's "Blah Blah Blah."  The video is funny, but it's also kinda serious because the soldiers chose this particular song, performed gayness to it, and then overlaid it with their own disavowal of gayness-- a cultural enactment of the military's own conflicted relationship to masculinity and homoeroticism. Let's consider some of Ke$ha's lyrics to get an idea of the "serious play" at work here:

Coming out your mouth with your blah blah blah. Just zip your lips like a padlock and meet me at the back with the jack and the jukebox. I dont really care where you live at just turn around boy and let me hit that. Dont be a little bitch with your chit chat just show me where your dicks at... So just hush baby shut up Heard enough Stop stop stop talking that... If you keep talking that blah blah blah blah blah. Boy come on now "

These lyrics are, of course, a perfect summary of the military's "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" policy.  Just don't name it, don't speak it, stop with your blah blah blah.  The soldiers also end the video by assuring us that "no one is this video is gay... that we know of."  Which of course they must, because no one is allowed to be openly gay under the DADT policy. All of which is extremely interesting in terms of timing since both the House and the Senate will vote on the repeal of the DADT policy within the next few weeks, but with midterm elections looming AND a recent letter from Secretary of Defense Gates stating that he would like to wait till a report is complete in December before changing the policy, it is possible that Congress will not have the carrot nor the stick to repeal DADT this year. All of which leads to the real question: what  are  we to make of a bunch of shirtless male soldiers dancing to bad pop music in a variety of ways that are meant to elicit homoerotic desire? Obviously, this is NOT what the military will look like if DADT is ended and yet we are left with some lingering questions.  Would allowing queers of various sorts to serve openly and even flamboyantly in the military actually change what the military is?  Would the military be less homophobic, less racist, less misogynist as a result? Personally, I'd love to believe that the military could be saved from its historical role of "making men" - men who primarily kill poor and brown people to show not just that they are men, but straight American men. But if masculinity were removed from the equation, what would possibly motivate men- or women for that matter- to join?  In other words, the military can entice a variety of people- men, women, queers and straights- to sign up in order to "prove themselves" as tough, invulnerable, courageous, and willing to sacrifice- all qualities generally assigned to masculinity.  The military does not use traditionally feminine qualities like cooperation, communication, or nuturing to recruit. As long as those are the qualities that are mobilized to get people to go through boot camp, end all signs of individuality, and then go off to war, the military will remain a masculinist space, regardless of the sorts of individuals who serve.  Female soldiers did not fundamentally change this about the army.  In fact, female soldiers often say they want to prove they are "not typical females" (i.e. that they are masculine women).  Here's what an American female soldier said of her time in Afghanistan recently:

They view American women as the 'third gender,'" she said. "They hold respect for us. They treat us like men.

Respect comes, in masculinist institutions, from behaving in ways that are marked as masculine.  Disrespect comes from being a "pussy" or a "fag."  The military will remain masculinist and the people who serve in it, regardless of gender expression or sexual identity, will have to man-up if they want to succeed. So sadly, Blah Blah Blah is all that queers in the military will mean, even when they're finally allowed to serve openly.

Comments

[Michael Peck]

Laurie, is your beef with military culture, or that the military exists at all?

What qualities would the military need for it to be acceptable to you?

[Laurie Essig]

Both. I don't like our highly militarized economy or culture, the effects of Empire, or war. I also think that much of this world gone wrong- from unjustified invasion to Wall St. greed- has happened because of highly masculinized institutions like the military (not to be confused with men per se, but a sort of value system that values the traits we associate with masculinity-- one only need think of Condi Rice's role in getting this country into these wars).

Don't get me wrong- I can be as manly as the next girl- and believe what we call "masculinity" is useful and necessary- in moderation and when balanced with other values. Otherwise, the result is a highly aggressive and violent state/State.

In my dreamworld, I would like to see a return to humanist values- neither feminine nor masculine- but ones that represent something that is better than both.

[Michael Peck]

It sounds like you want the military to be independent of gender and sexual preference. But you also sound disappointed that the presence of gay soldiers won't soften military culture. That should be a good thing from your standpoint, because you wouldn't want change to be generated by sexual preference.

Be careful with the gender terms. Successful armies need "masculine" qualities like aggression. But armies that win wars, rather than just look macho on parade, also tend to have "feminine" qualities like cooperation and communications. We need to get away from words like "masculine" and "feminine."

[Laurie Essig]

Win wars? Seems as oxymoronic as army intelligence or feminine soldier to me.

As for the terms- well, we have to name them for what they are in our culture if we want to get away from forcing certain bodies to conform to them.

[inmyhumbleopinion]

"...(they) overlaid it with their own disavowal of gayness– a cultural enactment of the military’s own conflicted relationship to masculinity and homoeroticism."

Call me crazy, but I didn't read malicious intent in this video. In fact, I think it's rather incredible (and perhaps a step in the right direction?) that they performed in this video at all and then posted it on YouTube for the whole world to see, not just for their own frat-like amusement. There was no violence, there were no disparaging subtitles, and no one seemed the least bit concerned about what this might do to their "rep". Perhaps I'm viewing this with rose-colored glasses, but is the real message here "what's the big, freakin' deal" about gays in the military? If straight guys can spoof gay guys, clearly the world does not come to an end and military life goes on.