Stereotyped Homosexuals in the Military - Assignment Example

Interpersonal discrimination of stereotyped homosexuals in the military from a social psychology perspective The military is one of the sin the American society, specifically those within the realm of public employment that adheres strictly to doctrines that clash with the ideals of democracy and equality. In comparison with the mainstream organizations’ policy of equality for homosexuals, the United States military have semi-ambiguous policies which lean more on allowing gays to serve but in secrecy and celibacy. This paper will discuss the interpersonal discrimination of stereotyped homosexuals in the military in the context of social psychology perspective. Stereotype is used in this paper as the negative judgments of a class of people, often in the absence of any direct experience with members of the class. Unfair Treatment The US employment discrimination laws are characterized by different dimensions. They are seen as enforceable citizens’ rights for citizens where federal, state, and municipal laws offer protection from workplace discrimination. The concept of employment discrimination covers prejudice against minorities, women, the disabled, working parents, and the aged, among others, resulting in the unfair treatment of people in the workplace. (Nielsen & Nelson 2005, p. 3) Through the years this list has expanded in scale and diversity, accommodating a variety of types of discrimination including racial and gender; in hiring and promotion; discriminatory firing; sexual harassment, and so on. Discrimination against homosexuals is said to be prevalent in the military. As mentioned above, the case of the United States’ military policy on homosexuality is ambiguous which is almost tantamount to a state sanction on homosexual prejudice. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell The US military policy on homosexuality is founded on the the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which forbids any member of the United States armed forces from having homosexual bodily contacts and homosexual or bisexual relationships. The current directive is an upshot of a tortured history that most see as a compromise policy due to its highly politicized nature. Here, as long as the gay or bisexual men and women hide their sexual orientation, they and their sexuality cannot be investigated by their superiors. The military’s attitude may be explained by the Department of Defense Directive1332.14 which states that: Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission. The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the armed forces to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among service members; to insure the integrity of the system of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of service members who frequently must live and work in close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the armed forces; to maintain the public acceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches of security. (Scott & Stanley 1994, p. 19) There is very little amount of upheaval in this area because although support for legal equality rights has obtained majority support, most US respondents continue to believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. US Gallup polls from 1973 to 1989 found that approximately 70% of respondents believed that sexual relations between two adults of the same sex are always wrong, with no more than a 4% variation in that rate in any year. (Lott & Maluso, p. 83) Discrimination Louis Damiant argued that attitudes toward same-gender sexual behavior among military service members probably mirror that of the population at large. “These reactions ranged from extreme hostility and punishment through benign neglect or denial to acceptance and support” (Damiant, p. 74) The most fundamental discrimination against homosexual is the fact that homosexuality is still considered an immoral act. Actions and policies discriminating homosexual behavior hence are usually supported or upheld by the courts. For instance, in the case of Bower v. Hardwick, the Supreme Court ruled five-to-four that sodomy laws do not violate the Constitution by accepting the traditional Christian condemnation of gay sex. (Scott & Stanley, p. 7) This has created a hostile environment for homosexual and lesbian armed personnel. We then proceed to the military stereotype that gay men or lesbians might threaten good order and discipline. This has been the grounds why before there had been a pre-screening process for those men and women who wanted to serve in the armed forces. Before the compromise policy of late, those who were found homosexuals or lesbians in these tests were not admitted to the service. Besides discrimination by the official regulations, interpersonal harassment occurs in various forms in the military and violence is the most common of these. A study by the Rand Corporation (1993) has quoted a respondent’s remark that reflects this situation in the armed service: No sane gay person would come out – he would get slipped overboard. [And in its extreme form.] Just give them a ‘blanket party’ over and over until they leave. The drill instructor will not tell you to do it – but you will clean up your own. It’s not that it should happen, but it will happen. (p. 236) A blanket party is a form of collective violence undertaken by a group of servicemen, who first cover the face of the victim with a blanket and then commit the assault in order to teach individuals to conform. (Rand Corporation 1993, p. 236) Lesbian-baiting is also one of the most common discriminatory practices. Here a man will demand sexual relations with women, and if she does not comply, he will turn her in as a lesbian. Ruth Colker (1996) recounted the story of Mary Beth Harrison for us: After Mary Beth Harrison rebuffed a male crew member’s sexual advances, he publicly shouted profanities and accusations that she was a lesbian. When she filed a complaint against this harassment, she was discharged for being a lesbian although she maintained that she was not and had never engaged in lesbian activity. Rather than receive a fair hearing, she was tried and presumed guilty… despite her record of outstanding job performance. (p. 99) Colker stressed that this discrimination characterized the women purges which reflects attempts to keep women in their proper gender role – out of the military. What makes the people prejudiced towards other people? Experts cite several reasons why people are prejudiced towards homosexuals or “homophobic”, and many of them claim to have found that hatred of homosexuals, anti-Semitism and racism are "likely companions," suggesting that it is an abuse of power. Gender theorists, for instance, interpret the fact that male-to-male relationships often incite a stronger reaction in a homophobic person than female-to-female (lesbian). “Homophobia serves as a means of limiting those who they view as displaced in heteronormativity, and also of accenting their male nature, by isolating the threatening concept of their own potential femininity in gay men, and constantly belittling them, as not real males… They regard the reason male homosexuality is treated worse compared to female homosexuality as sexist in its underlying belief that men are superior to women and therefore for a man to "replace" a woman during intercourse with another man is his own subjection to (non-male) inferiority.” (‘Homophobia 2007) The formation of stereotypes can best be understood in the language of social construction. A review of social history makes clear that homosexuality has been rhetorically constituted in different ways at different times. As in the case of any social construction, the construction of homosexuality was created, negotiated, and modified to meet political and social goals. (Herek, Jobe & Carney 1996, p. 178) It would be understandable, therefore, to say that actual tolerance of gay, lesbian and bisexual military personnel may vary by mission, the commander, the local investigative services and period of service. Recommendation “The military has demonstrated neither rational nor empirical basis for its policy of excluding persons of same-gender sexual orientation. Rather, it simply asserts that such a basis exists.” (Diamant 1993, p. 70) It is imperative that homosexual prejudice among other forms like those of race and gender should be addressed. One interesting argument is raised by the social scientist Gordon Allport. He called it the contact hypothesis which “proposed that many forms of prejudice could be reduced by equal status contact between majority and minority groups in the pursuit of common goals. Researchers have found that interpersonal contact between these groups is one of the most productive ways to reduce stereotyping, feelings of prejudice, and discriminatory behavior.” (Perry, p. 472) Direct and indirect contacts alike help to broaden horizons in people. The role of the government, hence, is central to this dilemma. Official regulations that encourage prejudice should be reviewed and revised. This is hoped to reinforce some degree of liberalism in policymaking and tolerance in the courts, military institutions and the servicemen with the armed forces. Changing the homosexual stereotype in the military would be a long process. That is why political activism is essential to achieve this end. It is, however, unfortunate that current movements in this area only reinforce stereotyping – gay pride marches, cross-dressing, the color pink, anti-religious sentiments, promiscuous lifestyle, among others. It is preferable when political activism lean more on challenging stereotypes such as including involvement of, the families and friends of homosexuals as well as liberal religious organizations that support gay rights in the advocacy. A strong political activism could translate to legislations and policymaking that could eradicate homosexual prejudice in the armed service. Considering factors such as the media and its power is significant in its success. References Colker, R. (1996). Hybrid: Bisexuals, Multiracials, and Other Misfits Under american Law. NYU Press Diamant, L. (1993). Homosexual Issues in the Workplace. UK: Taylor Francis Herek, G. Jobe, J. and Carney, R. (1996). Out in Force: Sexual Orientation and the Military. University of Chicago Press Homophobia. (2007). Wikipedia. Retrieved 1 March 2007 Lott, B. and Maluso, D. (1995). The Social Psychology of Interpersonal Discrimination. Guilford Press Nielsen, B. and Nelson, R. (2005). Handbook of Employment Discrimination Research: Rights and Realities. Springer Rand Corporation. (1993) Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessment. Author Perry, B. (2003). Hate and Bias Crime: A Reader. UK: Routledge Scott, W. and Stanley, S. (1994). Gays and Lesbians in the Military. Issues, Concerns, and Contrasts. Aldine Transaction Read More