What Some Don't Understand

In recent years, bullying has become a major issue within American education.  This past week, it has dominated headlines in America’s number one sport – professional football.  Miami Dolphins’ offensive lineman Jonathan Martin left the team without explanation and over this last week, it has been determined that teammate Richie Incognito was the reason.  Evidence emerged that Mr. Incognito sent some pretty vile texts and tweets to his teammate.  This seems to have been done with the acknowledgement of the coaching staff in order to toughen up Mr. Martin.  While outsiders have jumped to the defense of the offended, there is a dynamic with which few critics are familiar. 

One of the developments is the near complete lack of support for Mr. Martin coming from his former teammates.  I believe this to be the product of team, not individual, thinking.  Mr. Martin has taken something in-house out into the public – a public that neither can or wants to consider the team context.  A team works on the basis of trust.  A part of that trust is an understanding that the internal conflicts do not become public fodder.  Critics might suggest that people like Mr. Incognito thrive on that type of culture but it is that type of culture which creates the fidelity and fraternity that are instrumental toward team success.  

Then, there is the issue of hazing or initiation that is often present in group or team dynamics.  Such things are quite common and serve a group purpose.  A newcomer into a group must quickly understand the values of the group and integrate into the relationships.  Doing this shows a commitment to the group, the people within and the goals of the group.  Typically, everyone has done something that serves as an initiation and they oversee the process for newcomers.  As a member of the military, I went through various traditions and I’ve doled them out as well.  The purpose is never to hurt necessarily but to ascertain the character of the person seeking entrance into our team.  This is not a capricious concern but one that could determine our future success or failure.  If one has never been a part of this type of relationship, it might seem strange, even sadistic, but it serves a purpose.   

The other feature to all of this is the proposed racism involved.  When I was in the military (certainly a team environment), the teasing and needling was part of the bonding.  It is too early to tell if this is really racism or not.  I would suggest it is not always racism but the absence of racism.  Race meant nothing to my platoon – everyone was called everything.  As a Jew, I was called a kike and Heb and Holocaust jokes were slipped in frequently.  Whether you were a redneck, Asian, Hispanic or black, there was not a label or slander not heard.  In these types of environments, race means nothing and therefore the words mean nothing.  One’s worth is based simply on what one contributes to the group.  Words based off this were the ones that hurt – if you were called a slacker or weak.  People outside these groups cannot understand but that is the reality.  When the individual no longer matters, one’s ability to fit into and work within the group is all important. 

There is a good chance that Mr. Incognito is just a jerk and a racist (the kind that typically gets weeded out in a true team environment).  This article is not in defense of him or what he allegedly has done.  What I do defend is the group/team culture.  This can sometimes include things considered unacceptable in the outside world.  I cannot make “civilians” understand because they never will unless in that position.  Yet a system cannot be punished simply because others do not understand.  There is value here and such teams or groups have changed the world (or brightened an occasional weekend).  We would all do well to reflect on that. 

The Sudden Attention to Breastfeeding

Over the last couple of weeks, several stories have emerged on breastfeeding.  The recent controversies began with a Time Magazine cover showing a woman rather defiantly breastfeeding a boy old enough to ask for it.  Earlier this week, a photo showing two women in military uniform breastfeeding sparked similar outrage.  I’m left with two questions.  One, who are these outraged people?  Second, why are they outraged?  After reading one of these articles, I wonder when people will start treating “outrages” like adults.

First, let’s address the Time Magazine cover.  There seems to be two schools of thought on the cover.  It shows a woman staring into the camera while her son, who looks to be three or four, sucks on her breast while standing on a chair to reach it.  There have been two major objections to the cover.  One, the woman’s cold appearance seems to belie the rather nurturing act being shown.  The photo was one of many taken of the mother and son, some of which showed her “properly” caring and motherly.  The editors at Time chose this one but since I don’t have an problem with stern-looking breastfeeders, I’m not moved in one way or the other on the cover. 

The other issue about the cover was the woman herself.  She belongs to a group of parents who follow the attachment parenting method in which a child is seldom if ever separated from a parent during the first few years of their life.  As a result, the woman in the article and many others who follow this technique breastfeed well past what others might consider wise or appropriate.  This can include children as old as five or six.  I must tread a little lightly here because I understand my natural deficiencies – I’m a male and I’m childless.  However, it would seem that once a child can ask for the breast and belly-up themselves, that seems a bit odd.  However, these parents also make the point that humans are the only species to feed other animals’ milk to their young.  It is more natural and beneficial to give the child the mother’s milk than that of a cow.  This seems logical but I’m not sure this means it must come from the “tap” as it were. 

The second story involves a group of military women who were photographed breastfeeding their babies while in uniform.  For those who do not know, military members are restricted in the behaviors while in uniform.  Restrictions include any display of affection, from holding hands to kissing.  One Air Force spokesperson (smartly enough, they choose a woman) suggested that while the military does not have any specific regulation against breastfeeding, it would seem logical it would not be allowed while in uniform.  However, one of the women photographed retorted that when confronted with a crying, hungry child, why would you take the time to completely change clothes?  I must say I side with the mothers on this one.  I’m not sure why the act had to be the subject of a photo shoot but the act itself seems harmless.

Of those women who breastfeed, they range in their actions.  Some are shy and go to great lengths to sequester themselves for the act.  Some are defiant and basically dare anyone, particularly a male, to look in her direction while she is breastfeeding.  They seem to actually scan the room, seeking anyone who would turn this into a side show.  The third group performs it as a natural act of motherhood.  They are completely oblivious and unconcerned to those who would object.  I don’t understand the objections.  With all due respect, I think people need to get over their problems with breastfeeding.  Of all the things happening in public that should be featured in a major news magazine article and made the point of critical commentary, this is not one of them. 

A Military Case of Free Speech

One of the downsides of social media forums like Facebook (and blogs for that matter) is that it gives people the opportunity to give their opinion, where in their actual lives, they would have neither a forum nor an audience. Some see this as the ultimate expression of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. However, it often serves as a transcript that can indict people who step over the line. Enter stage left Marine Corps Sergeant Gary Stein whose Facebook page, entitled Armed Forces Tea Party, included his statement that he would not follow orders from the president that violated the constitutional rights of fellow American citizens. As innocuous as that might seem to the average reader, there is an inherent danger as well.

Since the time of the Civil War, it has been an unofficial policy that military members have a reduced expectation of certain rights. Key among these is the freedom of speech. It should be said that, if his views are conducive to some of the fiscally conservative ideas of the Tea Party, I am sympathetic towards his goals. However, no civilian-controlled military can permit military members to express objections to the president’s authority. We are assuming that many other government and legal machinations would prevent the president from violating American’s constitutional rights. In that case, Sgt. Stein has no grounds for disobeying a presidential order. It does not matter whether he political agrees with the president or not, world history is replete with examples of what happens when military members move to protest or object to civilian policy.

What is most troublesome, not unlike the woman who went to a Catholic university and then demanded contraception, when one goes into the military, it is said and said often the relationship between their freedom of speech and the presidency. The president of the United States is the commander-in-chief of all armed forces and in that sense is Sgt. Stein’s boss. From the beginning of his enlistment and throughout his career (as a sergeant, it can be assumed he has been in at least six years), he has been told that he cannot criticize the president or his policies openly. I’m not sure if Sgt. Stein is challenging his dismissal from the Marine Corps as a protest to the policy but it cannot be from a position of ignorance. He knew the military policy on such political writings and to that degree, he must face the consequences.

It might seem odd that a conservative take this point of view but this is not about politics or the current administration. This is about sound military order and discipline and as president, Barack Obama cannot ask his military to do something, he must be able to order and expect immediate and dutiful compliance with the same. Anything short of that and the country runs the risk of a military that can pick and choose the orders they follow. As we’ve seen in so many other countries, that never works out.

Update: Late yesterday, a military board ruled in favor of dismissing Sgt. Stein from the Marine Corps. If I remember my Uniformed Code of Military Justice correctly, the decision goes before a general who can either sign off on it or reject it. Afterwards, we will have to wait and see. The sergeant's lawyers expressed shock at the verdict. ("I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here.") Hard to know how to respond to that one.