Humanities desk
< March 3	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 4

Avoiding being sent to fight in Vietnam War by claiming to be gay

Wikipedia's article on draft evasion has the following item in a list of draft evasion methods:

"Claiming to be homosexual, when the military in question excludes homosexuals—this would be considered evasion if the claim was false, but if the potential conscript is in fact a homosexual, it would be the rules of the military body that prevent him from enlisting, even if he wished to do so"

Are there any reliable stories in the US of a man who successfully avoiding being drafted into the Army during the Vietnam era by claiming (either truthfully or falsely) that he was gay? Just wondering how common this was, if at all.--Captain Breakfast (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chevy Chase has stated (in 1989) that he avoided the draft by this method. A biography of Jimi Hendrix published about 10 years ago made the same claim, but Hendrix was actually given an honorable discharge in 1962 (before Vietnam) on the grounds of "unsuitability". Tevildo (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Vietnam War – A Queer Perspective has more details. Apparently there were consequences to this tactic; nobody would employ you afterwards. Alansplodge (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was certainly one of the assumptions in "Draft Dodger Rag". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A doctor who did physicals during WW2 said that the sexua orientation screening consisted of asking the draftee "So, do you like girls?" In the Brian dePalma/Robert DeNiro film Greetings (1968 film) a man wishing to avoid being drafted is counseled by his friend on how to be rejected as gay. He is told to wear his pants high, to wear a mesh shirt (after shaving his chest, since in that era heterosexual men did not generally shave off their body hair), to wear black silky underwear, and to use some flamboyant mannerisms during the interview. As for "no one would employ you afterwards" how would employers know what you said or why you were rejected? People got out for having flat feet, or in one case a toenail fungus. Edison (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Edison: Employers would know why you were discharged from the type of discharge you were given, some more info Sexual orientation and gender identity in the United States military, a "dishonorable", or an "undesirable" discharge would blight your employment prospects. DuncanHill (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If they were rejected during the physical, it doesn't seem likely that they would fall into any kind of discharge category, since they were never in the military in the first place. If it came out after already being inducted, that could be trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"So, why isn't a fit young man like you in the army? You some kind of commie, or queer?" DuncanHill (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Because [I claim] I got a high draft number and didn't get drafted". Loraof (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you failed the physical (psych, bad vision, bad hearing, bad back, sexual orientation, toe fungus, flat feet, obese, high blood pressure, poor vision, severe allergies, asthma) then how would you have a dishonorable discharge, since you had never held up your right hand and been sworn in? Wouldn't you have to be sworn in to be discharged?The physical preceded the induction. If you got 4F or 1Y there was no induction.The 1Y with certain medical issues could be called up only in a larger national emergency such as all-out war. A man I knew failed the physical multiple times because he had this blueish fungus on his toe. He was not sworn in, so was not discharged honorably or otherwise. They did not compel him to treat the toe with an antifungal. He called it his "magic toe." The 4F (or 1Y) did not include a detailed explanation of what the limitation was. He could tell an employer the truth or make something up.The prospective employer did not have access to the military physical and mental exam documents. Lots of people who later got great jobs had medical deferments. Edison (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The website GLBT History claims that "hoaxosexuals" did exist.

During the Vietnam War era, the Pentagon continued to view homosexuality as a “moral defect,” so homosexuals were one of the few groups of able-bodied young men theoretically ineligible for the draft. Anti-war groups even counseled young, straight men to become “hoaxosexuals” as a way of avoiding service. Since working-class and minority draftees were less likely to have student deferments, many pretended to be gay when called up for the draft, but sexuality was only rarely a “deferment” from this war. Enforcement of the ban on gays became strict again only after the war, in the mid-1970s. Ironically, one group of young men and women who didn’t want the military to think that they were homosexuals were gay military personnel proudly serving their country.

I believe a "hoaxosexual" featured briefly in the movie of Hair, but I may be misremembering. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you could say you're gay, and actually be gay, and still be drafted. DuncanHill (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Vietnam era draftee medical records were destroyed in 1973 when the draft ended, so draft age men who for some reason were not drafted ~~avoiders~~ like Trump and Bloomberg have no worries about anything embarrassing emerging from their physicals which kept them out of the war. Trump can now say it was because of "bone spurs in his feet." If they had been rejected for showing the induction sergeant a boner rather than a bone spur, no one could prove it. Edison (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Edison: See WP:BLP and come back if you have any questions about what it means. If you do understand what it means, you'll redact much of what you just said. --Jayron 32 19:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the refs. They do not describe draft-seeking behavior. Struck the implication that they "avoided" it. Maybe they were just lucky with some medical issue showing up. But per Draft evasion "Just as tax avoidance is defined as reducing or eliminating one's tax liability through legal means, draft avoidance is the elimination or mitigation of a potential conscript's military service obligation through some lawful procedure. " Such procedure are stated to include medical reasons as well as seeking a student deferment. I do not see a BLP issue with "draft avoidance." The point about boners is that no one who got out on medical was publicly classified as to what the actual issue was. If you read the text, it does not attribute that behavior to a named person. Edison (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, you seem obsessed with getting an erection in front of a sergeant. DuncanHill (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The proper term, I believe, is "standing at attention". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Making your privates stand at attention?" Edison (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty good, but doesn't cover "don't ask" woodies. Sometimes dudes don't know they're into submission till the right driller pops up (or comes along). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Seriously though, would a young gay man keep company with high-society New York women? Doubtful. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marxism simplified

Could anyone please explain the entire Marxist theory including the concepts of dialectical materialism and historical materialism in a simple way? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the Wikipedia articles titled Marxism, dialectical materialism, and historical materialism? They're fairly well written, and each has a lead section and an overview section that covers the key ideas. If you have specific words or phrases or concepts in those articles you don't understand, we can help you with that. --Jayron 32 16:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try this - a simplified guide for school use. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/sociology/theories-in-sociology/marxist-concepts/ 109.150.174.93 (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand the Marxist class analysis based on the relationship with means of production and stages of history like primitive communism, slave society etc. But I fail to understand dialectical materialism and historical materialism. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which words/phrases/sections/concepts from the Wikipedia articles titled dialectical materialism and historical materialism do you not understand? --Jayron 32 16:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main idea of dialectical materialism lies in the concept of the evolution of the natural world and the emergence of new qualities of being at new stages of evolution. As Z. A. Jordan notes, "Engels made constant use of the metaphysical insight that the higher level of existence emerges from and has its roots in the lower; that the higher level constitutes a new order of being with its irreducible laws; and that this process of evolutionary advance is governed by laws of development which reflect basic properties of 'matter in motion as a whole'."

This whole series of forms (mechanical, physical, chemical, biological and social) is distributed according to complexity from lower to higher. This seriation expresses their mutual bonds in terms of structure and in terms of history. The general laws of the lower forms of the motion of matter keep their validity for all the higher forms but they are subject to the higher laws and do not have a prominent role. They change their activity because of changed circumstances. Laws can be general or specific, depending on their range of applicability. The specific laws fall under the special sciences and the general laws are the province of diamat --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping an open mind, one mind venture over to the Simple English Wikipedia articles for these concepts if a perhaps more streamlined explanation of each concept might be helpful.--67.244.30.139 (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That bit of Marxian gibberish supports what Richard Armour said about Marx's work: "Widely discussed, especially by those who never read it." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slaves inheriting their master's position?

Sultan Selim II was the son of the previous sultan by one of his (former) slaves. This seems to have been fairly common in the East. Did this ever happen in the West, either in the Classical era or in more modern times? I know some children of slaves and their masters could gain important positions (e.g. Thomas-Alexandre Dumas), but did any ever inherit their master's full title / role / estate? Iapetus (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion at Quora is actually really good regarding the inheritance of slaves from their masters. --Jayron 32 18:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding slave castes which later became ruling classes, see Mamluk for the most famous example of such. It should be noted, however, that Selim II is not a good example of a slave inheriting a title or position. His mother was part of the Imperial Harem of Suleiman; which while broadly looking like slavery to modern, western culture, was not the same thing as, say, the agricultural slaves of the Americas during the 18th and 19th centuries. The sons of a Sultan's concubines frequently inherited, indeed Selim II was, if I am not mistaken, one of the first sons of a Sultan's legal wife. Also, the notion of a slave laborer who's children would be slaves is decidedly not part of the equation when looking at the children of the Sultan's harem. It is unwise to draw parallels between the court life of medieval Turkey with plantation life in the American South, let's say. --Jayron 32 18:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I realize now I badly titled the question. It should really have been "children of slaves inheriting their master's position?". Selim II was of course never a slave. But even if we don't consider Imperial concubines to be true slaves, I think it would be fair to consider his mother a "true" slave before she became a concubine (i.e. when captured by Tatars and sold to the Ottomans). I know it was, as you say, common for Sultans (and I'm guessing other nobles) to take slaves as concubines, and make their sons by those concubines their heirs. I also know it was common in the West for slave owners to take slaves as concubines - and treat their children by their slaves as a source of fresh slaves. I had herd of such children sometimes being freed and given a boost by their father, but never of anything like the Ottoman situation, so was wondering if anything like it had occurred. From that Quora article, it seems that the answer would be (at least in the US) "no - because the law prohibited it". Iapetus (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mamluks did not really "inherit" anything though, as much as "depose and execute the ruling sultan" :) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To ring the freedom bell for peace of mind, sometimes you need to let a balalaika sing what a guitar wants to say. But strumming on the old banjo doesn't quite work on a bağlama. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More on topic (if Brazil counts as the West), freed slaves there could take their ex-master's surname. Not as useful as an ox, but it's something like a hereditary title. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article "Slave and Master in Ancient Near Eastern Law" (pp. 1649-50), there was a contract where an Assyrian slave was to be manumitted and given "x. acres of land and one ox" after the deaths of his "father" (owner) and "mother" in exchange for serving them the rest of their lives. Ben-Hur, however, got a better deal. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's the famous example of Dido Elizabeth Belle (1761–1804), who inherited from her uncle and possibly from her father. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was possible in Roman law (and Roman-based medieval law) for a slave to be freed by being named the heir of his master, although I'm not sure if that ever actually happened or if it was just sort of an abstract notion. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]