According to the U.K.'s Telegraph:
The Royal Air Force has called in a gay pressure group to help solve its recruitment crisis. The Service will take advice from Stonewall on how to make itself more attractive to homosexual and bisexual men and women, and is aiming to spend tens of thousands of pounds on advertising in the "pink" media.
It can, and eventually will, happen here. As with civil partnerships/marriage, I'd say we're about a decade behind-and maybe less, if the GOP ticket in 2008 is fiscally conservative but socially tolerant, reaching out to the broad center rather than seeking to solidify its support from the religious right.
More. Gen. John Shalikashvili, who was Joint Chiefs chairman when the Pentagon adopted its "don't ask, don't tell" policy, says he's changed his mind. More on that here.
8 Comments for “From Britain: Royal Air Force Seeks Gay Recruits.”
posted by Greg Capaldini on
Perhaps the RAF will dig up the Monty Python sketch about the mincing regiment for their ad campaign. The Royal Navy might follow suit and run the “Ship of Men” number. Farfetched? With all due respect, the chances for sweeping changes in the military culture during a time of war seems equally implausible. The only way the outcome of the 2008 election will make a difference is if it first brings an end to the Iraq fiasco.
posted by Michael Safdiah on
Few military men look as delicious as the Brits, and I always knew anyway there had to be a few of us in there. It’s high time they did invite us in, but I don’t like the deceptive way they recruit soldiers. I wonder what would happen if they told the truth about war: men blown into pieces, lives ruined, families destitute. One saving grace of mankind is that the gay gene generally does not support war.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
You’re counting on the GOP to bring about change?
Excuse me while I laugh uncontrollably.
Incidentally, the fact that the short-staffed British military is seeking gay recruits is indicative not of progress, but of the rigid class system in the United Kingdom. In most of British society, gays are “tolerated” publically, but have difficulty advancing to high jobs or high office. Most British gay business executives are thus entrepreneurs or people who operate outside of the system.
The British government is simply short on cannon fodder and thus “willing to lower itself to gays” in its own eyes. You will see very few British gay recruits rising to the senior command (which is mostly patronage jobs in that country too).
I have no doubt that after the US government continues ignoring the voters who demanded an end to the Iraq War by sending an extra 50,000 troops to Iraq, it will begin to further “relax” its criteria as well, and try and reap political hay by claiming that they’ve brought a new age of tolerance to the world.
Oh yeah, that reminds me — attention Democratic shills (Hi, RR!) — Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats who claim to have ridden into office on an anti-war mandate fully support Bush’s demands for more troops and deeper involvement in Iraq. So much for your “glorious revolution” — the American people have spoken, and the old parties, as usual, have ignored them.
posted by Gary on
“I wonder what would happen if they told the truth about war: men blown into pieces, lives ruined, families destitute.”
—That’s a lie. First of all, their families get a pension. Secondly, not everyone dies in war, plenty of people get to be heroes, or most importantly, promoted to sargent, captain, and all that good stuff.
Just because some people hate guns and military discipline doesn’t mean the army isn’t a good place for a patriot.
“One saving grace of mankind is that the gay gene generally does not support war.”
—I’m very offended by that. I’m gay and I support war. So do plenty of gay soldiers, and historical figures from Alexander the Great, to the old “army of lovers” and even bisexual Roman Emperors.
You think war is bad? Puh-leeze. There’s a lot of things worse than war, like being homeless, starving, picking iron from garbage dumps, being a victim of human trafficking. War is a picnic compared to that.
As for Cindy Sheehan, her son must be turning in his grave as he sees his mother turn into a goddamm commie. She’s a shameful woman, her son was a patriot who enlisted 3 TIMES in the military. Ask the rest of Sheehan’s family about it, Cindy is nothing more than a media whore seeking attention. Maybe liberals like you celebrate her, but most of our men in the military see her as a traitor, and even if she apologizes someday, like Jane Fonda did, she will not be forgiven. Fucking bitch, I wish someone would kill her.
posted by Zach on
Gary…I was listening to you with an open mind until you called Mrs. Sheehan a “goddamm commie” and expressed your desire that “someone would kill her.” First of all, if you’re going to insult her, at least spell correctly. And please: calling someone a “whore?” What is this, eighth grade?Second, isn’t it “commies” who favor killing people for expressing their opinions? I thought we had a Constitution protecting free speech here?Buy a dictionary, learn some manners, and go somewhere else to advocate murder for people who don’t agree with you.
posted by Gary on
First of all, it was “commies” in Cambodia who killed lots of people, stole their property, banned religion, banned television, and forced them to work in rice fields. It’s commies in Cuba who kill people for expressing their opinions everyday. Commies in Vietnam, China, and North Korea who do the same thing.
So while my manners may be lacking, my anger towards Sheehan is justified. And I’m tired of the liberal media treating her like a hero.
And please, why should I respect Sheehan when she calls the president a murderer? Why is it that conservatives always have to respect liberals but liberals never respect us? That is bullcrap.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
And while you rant against the communists, you ostensibly support a Republican party that’s delivering a socialist medicine system in California and Massachusetts, launching foreign wars under false pretenses for the personal profit of the politicians at the top and associated interests, and which claims an absolute right to invade one’s personal affairs and communications in a clandestine fashion for any reason.
Sounds awfully Soviet to me. You’ve become what you claim to despise.
posted by Willie Dunlop on
Gays should not be allowed in the armed forces. END OF STORY!!!