Login Here
The horrors of the Bush administration are truly a universal experience, but it really is, as they say, different for girls. No Bush, no David Hager, who advised the Bush administration on women’s issues despite his history of marital rape. No Bush, no return to the global gag-rule on reproductive rights. No Bush, no Iraq war, no female Iraqi suicide bombers.
But it’s legacy time. And so here comes W to stand for women in uniform:
President Bush today nominated Army Lt. Gen. Ann E. Dunwoody for promotion, which, pending Senate approval, would make her the first woman to be a four-star officer in U.S. history.
Congrats to Gen. Dunwoody, who certainly doesn’t deserve to be associated with the Bush administration. But her promotion would be less bittersweet were it not for this:
The Army and Air Force discharged a disproportionate number of women in 2007 under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that prohibits openly gay people from serving in the military, according to Pentagon statistics gathered by an advocacy group.
The FDL crew boasts a murderer’s row of lawyers, so I’m not going to front, but how is this not the stuff that gender-discrimination lawsuits are made of? A fitting end to the Bush era. And we might even get justice!
4 Comments
Spotlight
Trackback
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
it’s apparently okay if they’re lesbians.
And welcome to the Lake, dude! Nice ink.
Good morning, SA. Been reading you over @ Think Progress for quite a while, & it’s great to see you here @ FDL now. Welcome!
IANAL, but in civilian life these are indeed taylor-made grounds for gender discrimination suits.
There’s some other possibilities, equally vile. Likely, women don’t get opportunities to specialize at the rate men do, so their skills are less valuable when they are “discovered” to be lesbian. Also likely, “discovered” gay men are protected for their new skill set, acquired in a gender-discriminatory environment to begin with. Finally, women may see around them protected gay servicemen, and expect their command to operate similarly with regard to their own “discovery.”
All in all, it’s rotten in the extreme.
And welcome, Attackerman!
like teddy p. said, lotsa possibilities.
remember, among other things, that the vast majority of the army in iraq right now would love to get out, and those on leave don’t want to go back.
some are hiring hit-men to knee-cap them. some are jumping off roofs in order to injure their backs.
being discharged under ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ is another way to get out of iraq, or keep from going back.
it may be that more guys would rather take a bullet to the knee than be permanently marked as gay (bad choice, guys), whereas women predict they’re not going to suffer from the label to the same extent. so there are more women saying ‘hey sarge, look at me and susie in bed’ than there are guys saying ‘hey sarge, look at me and freddy in bed’.
i mean–beats me, this is all speculation. and i’d love to see someone file the suit.
but i don’t think that the situation here is comparable to the question of why more men than women are ceo’s of major corporations. being ceo is a highly desirable gravy train, and everybody wants in. being in iraq right now, not so much.