The repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is official now, signed by the President and a celebration of what is, by most accounts, an incredibly productive lame-duck Congressional session. It is certainly, in my mind, high time that this both on-face ridiculous and insidiously discriminatory policy make its way out of United States law and military practice. It is also, in my mind, just plain stupid the ways in which the United States does not recognize people it perceives to be homosexual as full citizens of the state; the repeal of one of them is a sign that maybe that will be (if slowly) changing.
So why am I, as a feminist and a queer theorist, not throwing a party for the repeal of this terrible policy? Is it because I just like to be contrary?
That too, but there’s more to it. In celebrating the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the (important and well-deserved) removal of obstacles to gay people serving in the military, there’s a lot of entrenchment of (masculinist) militarism as a standard for citizenship. In Derrick Bell’s words, militarization has made exactly the concession to deconstructing sex/gender hierarchies that it needs to to maintain its dominance in United States political culture, no less, and no more.
Since I don’t know how to link to tweets, I’ll copy a couple of Obama’s:
“We are a nation that welcomes the service of every patriot and believes all are created equal. Those are the ideals we upheld today. #DADT”
“By ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” no longer will patriotic Americans be asked to live a lie in order to serve the country they love.”
In the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, there is a quote (repeated in several press conferences this week) from a GI when asked if they “cared” if someone was gay in their unit. The GI said: “We have a gay guy. He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay.”
They did, however, care that he was masculine. Like women, gay people can now be full participants in the US military (well, okay, more than women, for gay men, since there are not combat restrictions on gay men). But, like women, they will continue to participate in a military that has not changed its standards of what counts as good soldiering because it has become inclusive of a broader range of faces, bodies, and lifestyles. That the military now includes gay people and (kind of) women openly does not mean that it is some how gender-equal or gender neutral. Instead, masculinity remains the standard of good soldiering in the United States military. A woman soldier, then, is a woman who can make it as a man; a gay male soldier is a gay man who can make it as a straight man. Each must portray characteristics of a dominant, hegemonic, heterosexual masculinity in training and in combat. For example, in a recent release on the Marine Corps website honoring soldiers’ heroism, a soldier is praised for reminding observers of Rambo on the battlefield. In this context, (heterosexist) militarized masculinity is a group of behaviors and norms; the more people permitted to emulate it, the less we notice it remains the standard. While the US military of the 21st century is, in many ways, “not your father’s military,” it remains heavily masculinist in its values, performances, and practices. Celebrating the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell the way it has been celebrated, I think, may obscure that point.
It also obscures a long tradition in Western political systems of defining full citizenship by military participation/bravery. Most of those political systems have (formal or informal) rules counting people as full citizens when and only when they are eligible to engage in military service, and hold military experience as a key political factor. While those times may too be changing, they have not entirely changed – the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell(again, though wonderful) affects many fewer lives than adding sexual preference as a protected class under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (for a short explanation, see this or even settling this (silly, ridiculous) “gay marriage” debate once and for all. So why Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell first? Because the military is still a symbol of full citizenship in the (patriarchal, patriotic) state, and our gendered nationalisms remain the discourses through which we talk about, think about, and see life in the United States.
Would I have voted for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell were I in the Senate? Absolutely. Every day of the week. But I would have done it advocating that we critically rethink the gendered nature of and gendered hierarchies within the (theory and) practices of the United States and its military/ies.
So I wonder what a non-masculinist military would actually look like. Starfleet? Probably not. Do we have any models?
I think this post misinterprets the “he's big, he's mean, etc.” quote. I read this quote as having more to do with effectiveness in combat than masculinity. In other words, the concern of the soldier being quoted is neither sexual orientation nor masculinity, but effectiveness and contribution to the unit. “Big” and “mean” here are primarily shorthand for 'he gets the job done,' not for 'he's masculine'. That's how I read it. More generally, I think it's arguable that this whole post inaccurately conflates masculinity and heterosexuality, thus insisting on precisely the equation that the soldier being quoted is denying.
Certainly not the Colonial fleet. Starbuck is heavily masculinized, and is totally badass, which is why I adore her so. But really, folks, a big part of the job description in the military is “kill the bad guys” or at the very least, enable other people to kill the bad guys. It's not about deconstructing anything (except by means of explosives).
It doesn't “conflate” masculinity and heterosexuality, it argues that the hegemonic masculinity in the United States military remains a heterosexual one, even with the inclusion of non-heterosexual “men.” The argument (had there been a 10000 word article rather than a short blog post) would have been made using feminist readings of the non-combatant immunity principle as both gendered and foundational to our justificatory logics of war – “just warriors” (defined by a dominant, heterosexual masculinity even when they are not “men”) protect feminized “beautiful soul” others (even with they are not “women”) and thereby are motivated to fight and justified in fighting wars.
And the fact that “big” and “mean” are shorthand for “getting the job done” _shows_ that “the job,” whatever it is, is one that selects for, and values, characteristics associated with masculinity.
@ PTJ – I certainly don't think there are any models of militarisms/militaries/nationalisms that eschew masculinities as founding and core logics; though there are some (like the one in Israel) that are more comprehensively sex-and-gender inclusive in soldiering than the US, and others (like the one in Sweden) that explicitly mainstream gender in their missions/decisions/ideas. That said, it is not just militaries, but militarism (and by extension militaristic culture) that would need to radically change operations in order to see any real “change” in the gendering of strategic cultures.
@MAG – Nancy Huston actually wrote about this in an edited volume that Judith Stiehm did in the early 1980s called “Women in Men's Wars,” or something like that. Huston talks about precisely how the (gendered) war narrative of the “good guys” killing the “bad guys” through “the good fight” in order to gain honor/glory/protection “back home” is a narrative that is interdependent with gendered tropes about what it means to be state, nation, and citizen.
Laura: war is about killing people. In reality, not theory.
Narratives of war generally involve sorting people into “good guys” and “bad guys”, because otherizing the opposition is the only way to make sense out of what you are doing. If you aren't “fighting the good fight”, then what the hell are you doing with that gun in your hand? Nothing short of murder. The job fundamentally is killing other people while operating under conditions of extreme stress and duress. Toughness is a necessary virtue. You can define it as a masculine quality, or you can simply define it as a human quality that anyone, male or femaie, gay or straight, is capable of, assuming they have the appropriate mindset and the physical capacity.
I read the quote above as saying that the gay soldier is as tough enough to get the job done, and his sexuality is irrelevant. I think this is becoming more typical as a viewpoint held by the current generation of teens and 20-somethings, who have grown up with out gay people all around them, and are very much aware that not lesbian don't simply wear Birkenstocks, and gay men are not simply “swishy”.
@MAG … Yes, war _is_ about killing people.
But the nature, rules, and concepts of war weren't inflicted from (insert deity here). They are socially constructed, socially negotiated, and constantly changing. And you have missed my point – I am not arguing that masculinity is not necessary to do “the job” of being combat personnel in the United States well. I am arguing that this means “the job” and the United States military need to change fundamentally.
How you write shows we're speaking past each other, though, since you say “you can define it [toughness] as a masculine quality, or you can simply define it as a human quality that anyone, male or female, gay or straight, is capable of, assuming they have the appropriate mindset and the physical capacity.”
What's wrong with this sentence? First, “masculine quality” doesn't mean something that men have innately, or something that is unique to men. It means that it is one of the qualities inexorably associated with masculinities (men must be tough, and tough people are manly) in the gender tropes which influence (and are influenced by) our social and political life. Therefore “anyone, male or female, gay, or straight” can have it “assuming they have the appropriate mindset” – striving towards a characteristic inexorably associated with masculinity. Second, of course, it is not that “I” defined it as either, it is that it is a part of the discourses and inherited notions of hierarchical understandings of gender in our lives and in global politics. Third, of course, uncritically accepting the “war and militarism = bloody; requires toughness” idea just leaves off the (here invisible but always there) predicate that “therefore requires masculinity.” Fourth and finally, then, yes, the person is saying that the gay soldier is tough enough to get the job done, and his sexuality is irrelevant. But he's re-entrenching the (hegemonic, heterosexual) masculinity that soldiering requires in the process (if unknowingly).
None of that has anything to do with “swishy” and wearing Birkenstocks :)
@Laura – I'm interested in your critical imagining of what a de-masculinized way of killing people would entail, and why that would be preferable to the kind of de-gendering of biological sex implied by allowing non-heterosexual men into the role of “masculine solider.”
Why should toughness be intrinsically masculine? Women (in general) have a higher pain threshold than men. In fact, women are capable of tremendous feats of endurance, despite doubts that have been cast on their capability (women were, for example, barred from distance running events in the Olympics until fairly recently).
@MAG, one more time, “masculinity” and “femininity” do not map one-to-one onto (“biological”) “men” and “women” (if such categories were really meaningful). Instead, masculinity is the characteristics socially/culturally expected of/performed by those assumed to be a part of the sex category “men” and femininity is the characteristics socially/culturally expected of/performed by those assumed to be a part of the sex category “women.” “Toughness” is not an inherent characteristic of “men,” but rather a trait usually associated with masculinity along the gendered binaries of social/cultural characteristics that we assign on the basis of “gender” (used as a shorthand for “sex” in those contexts). Tough/tender is one of many gendered dichotomies – rational/emotional, aggressive/passive, paternal/maternal, independent/interdependent, autonomous/relational, dominant/submissive, protector/protected, etc.
It is (therefore, again) not about what “men” and “women” are capable of, but what is expected of people that are perceived to be “men” and “women,” thus the relevant part being how people perceive men's and women's relative capacities, rather than men's and women's relative capacities (should such a thing even make sense, which it doesn't).
Further, I (of course) was not argument that toughness “should” be intrinsically masculine, my normative argument problematizes the idea of masculinity/ies at all. I am arguing that there isa fixed association in cultural symbolism between masculinity and various dimensions of toughness (including provider-ability, protector-ability, and warrior-ability).
@Dan, I don't entirely (yet) know the answer to your question, except to start with that it is the wrong question. Critique/deconstruction/rethinking/reconstruction can't start with a small portion of the war system, but the whole thing. One of the forthcoming feminist IR 101 posts is my take on feminism/pacifism – I don't think that the two are necessary bedfellows, and I do think that killing/dying can be separated from gendered representations/glorifications of it. How …is a complicated question. Hopefully, the book I've just finished will be a useful start.
I am quite aware that masculine and feminine do not map neatly onto biological sex, which really is the point of this entire discussion. The quote in your original post, I think, demonstrates that these binaries are *not* fixed and in fact can be challenged and undermined via lived experience. Cultural symbolisms are *never* fixed, but rather are constantly shifting over time, most often minutely but sometimes in wholesale sea-change shifts.
“Toughness” is a quality of physical endurance and tolerance for adverse conditions (which is, I think, inherently necessary for effective soldiering), and while it may have a cultural association with masculinity, there is no reason for it to be fixed as such. Expectation often becomes capability, which in turn redefines expectation. It's a hard line to walk, nevertheless, to redefine “feminine” without completely devalorizing it in favor of the masculine as norm.
I think this tells us why no one will publish feminist articles.
@Guest, that's just patently not true – there are some (backwards) journals and book publishers that still aren't interested in gender/global politics, but they are a small (and shrinking) minority in the discipline, as great journals and top-notch book publishers seek the work out. While generally a trolling comment like yours is not worth responding to, I thought it was important to let readers who wouldn't know otherwise know … you're off the mark.
@MAG … perhaps you'd like to argue against something I _actually_ claimed. I didn't claim that gender tropes were fixed. Reading my work (like actual articles and books instead of just blog posts) would show you that in fact the changes in gender tropes over time, space, and culture are of significant intellectual and normative interest to me.
Social theorists who write and think seriously about gender tropes, though, will tell you that the changes are slow and recognizable rather than “wholesale sea-change” (see, for example, the great work of R. W. Connell on masculinities over the last 30 years). Even, however, if they changed by “wholesale sea-change” – the repeal of #DADT doesn't do that. First, it doesn't change the relationship between masculinities and femininities in the US military, even if it changes the relationships between its various (heterosexual and homosexual) masculinities. Second, it doesn't change the relationships between its various (heterosexual and homosexual) masculinities, because US militarized masculinity is fundamentally reliant on the motivation of protecting the innocent (feminized) other “back home” (see the “seminal” work in Joshua Goldstein's _War and Gender_ on this point). The trope of just warrior protecting feminized other is heteronormative, in narrative and in practice. Third, of course, I'm questioning the appropriateness of current definitions of and standards for “effective soldiering,” a debate with which you are not willing to engage, but a fundamental part of my argument.
Further, you're putting words in my mouth when you assume I am interested in redefining “feminine.” I am absolutely not interested in doing so. I'm interested in 1) divorcing “masculine” and “feminine” from a perceived one-to-one mapping to “men” and “women” 2) valuing femininities as much as (if not more than) masculinities in social/political life 3) questioning the (falsely) dichotomized nature of gender coming from the (falsely) dichotomized nature of sex and finally 4) revealing where (formal, legal) “gender equality” (qua misguided liberal feminism) hides discursive, performed, and lived gender subordination.
I am quite interested in an answer to Dan's question. I think the really fundamental point in this comment thread is whether killing can be 'de-masculinized'. Given the problems I, PTJ, Dan and others are having imagining what on earth this would look like, it would be really helpful to have some suggestions, even if this means that you have to zoom out a little. What would a de-gendered war system look like? If you've just finished a book on the subject, can you give us a precis? It doesn't have to be your last word on the subject, but I understand your hesitancy to stake a position in the face of the knee-jerk bile you seem to encounter.
I would also love to have a more precise, if speculative, picture of a de-mascuiinized war system. I have no issues with the (true!) claim that contemporary military socialization practices, at least in the US, are masculinized and heteronormative; one of my Ph.D. students (shout-out to Jesse Crane-Seeber here) finished a fantastic dissertation a couple of years ago on the ways that everyday practices of soldering reinforce a certain hyper-masculinized conception of “the soldier,” not in the least through condemning behaviors as “gay” or calling people “fags” in the course of informal disciplinary maintenance of the military social order. (And like Laura, I wonder what the end of DADT means for such interpersonal policing.) But for my part I can't imagine a de-masculinized military as anything but not a military, i.e. no longer what Weber once sardonically called a big bureaucracy that kills people. So while I can easily think my way from a feminist analysis of the masculinized military to a call to replace the military and end the war system, I can't quite think my way from that critique to an alternative military. That failure of imagination itself probably says a lot about the poverty of our current cultural resources, or at least underscores the basic feminist point about the masculinized character of the modern military, but in any event it's a conceptual stumbling-block for me.
And I am well aware that this is not an issue that one solves in a comments thread on a blog ;) so if the conclusion of this conversation were “that's something we have to think about” that would not bother me.
@Talleyrand and PTJ …
Many people who know me know I'm a reluctant blogger, actually, and why is less about getting attacked constantly (though I appreciate the sympathy) and more about the silliness of (or my weakness at) expressing what are essentially book and article length ideas in short blog posts, especially given people's tendency/desire to read in the worst possible light. So my hesitance about engaging in this conversation about alternatives is that one can't possibly do justice to the constellation of ideas in a blog post/comment, and a tiny part doesn't work without the constellation of ideas.
That said, of course, some people who know me know that what sent me packing to graduate school was not a burning desire to be an academic (in fact, I didn't think I would even consider staying in academia at the time) but a puzzle: how could you take the awesome theoretical innovations of feminist IR and turn them into policy advice (when policymakers would be unwilling to make radical changes, or even if they were willing – how would you tell them how to?) …I was interested in the question because I was intrigued by, impressed by, and interested in feminist IR theory and ultimately had(/have) an interest in being involved in the policy world – and wanted to put the two together.
My first thinking about these questions was to rethink the ethics of war(s) and war decision-making (i.e., just war theorizing) through feminist lenses – that was my dissertation and the subject of my first book. A principle in that work that I think might advance this particular discussion is the use of (Christine Sylvester's concept of) empathetic cooperation to transform the non-combatant immunity principle from an “absolution-from” to a “responsibility-for” principle – that is, rather than saying that (in bello) civilians (when they can be identified) should be protected from harm (when possible) or accounted for in the principle of double effect (when protection is impossible); ethical theorizing about war should classify who the war will ultimately affect as an ad bellum principle, where wars are impermissible if they will not mainly impact the parties against whom the just cause is held, and primary accountability for who dies lays not on the ground in battle but at the decision-making level. This turns the “civilian” from the devalued (but justificatory) other to the war-fighting parties to a primary unit of analysis in whether or not a war is permissible – which, as I argue in that book, may serve not only to change how wars are fought but also the gendered nature of the “civilian” as either justification for or casualty of war(s).
That said, I'm beginning to believe that perhaps revisions of/reformulations (rather than radical rejections/rewritings of) just war theorizing is both too indirect and too conservative a path to get on these things – because it really only gets at the most explicit, visible, admitted parts of militarized masculinities (even as they are used in symbolically subtle ways). What it doesn't get at is the masculinization/feminization of weaponry by military cultures (see the work of Eric Blanchard and Lauren Wilcox), or the ways in which gender tropes are used in military training (which you refer to above), military interrogation (see Melanie Richter-Montpetit's work on Abu Ghraib), military recruiting (see Melissa Brown's work), and the like to capitalize on, shift, or exploit (gendered) power relations among nations, states, cultures, and religions (see Spike Peterson's chapter in the Gender, War, and Militarism book, or the article its based on).
So I've come to think that, @PTJ, you're right that a de-masculinized military is radically different […]
As I said before, there's a long history in feminisms of pacifism and/or anti-militarism, and I am in a distinct minority taking neither position wholly. But I think there's a risk to equating violence with masculinity that is greater than the risk of not knowing what hybrid or feminized (I don't think “de-gendered” makes sense as a term) violence would look like. Joshua Goldstein suggests (and I tend to agree) that calling on gender tropes is a key way not only to justify war but also to motivate individual soldiers to fight in it, which is often against their “rational self-interest” even when that accounts for patriotism/nationalism.
Certainly, taking account of feminist critiques and reformulations of militarized gender tropes would make war something radically different than as it is. Deconstructing the self/other dichotomy (and masculine “rational man”) would mean that one would have to value “the enemy” as much as one values oneself; deconstructing the public/private dichotomy (and therefore the “citizen-soldier”) would mean that our ideas about civilians and soldiers in war(s) would basically have to be thrown out the window and rewritten; deconstructing the rational/emotional dichotomy would question all of our assumptions about strategic/tactical calculation; seeing people/states/nations as relationally autonomous would encourage unprecedented reflexivity and self-reference in decisions to attack “others”; taking away feminization as a tool of discipline/abuse would change military function from basic training to combat missions …there is very little (if anything) that would be somehow the same.
That said, none of that guarantees (or even necessarily leads to) a non-violent world. So what would (the ethical rules for and/or the performance of) violence look like in such a world? (@PTJ) That's something we have to think about. I think I've got my head around the level of “what would you do if you were (insert-decision-maker-here) and had to make x call,” and “what are the fundamental principles by which you'd reform the war system” — but haven't drawn the path in between.
BTW – I use “the war system” out of Betty Reardon's 1985 book “Sexism and the War System,” which actually does a pretty decent job arguing that the links between sexism and war(s) are immutable. Despite disagreeing with the conclusion, I think she does a good job of accounting for war as a system, so I use it as a reference fairly frequently.
I thought for quite a while about how to put this exactly, so I hope it's taken in the spirit of engagement: “Yes, but…” That about sums up my reaction to a lot of “ism”-based theorizing in IR and elsewhere. Not because I don't think isms are powerful and do important theoretical and practical work, but because analyses that are based on them seem to get trapped in the admittedly coercive logics that they are they are trying to disrupt. For instance: I agree with you that the gendered logic of militarism has to do with social and cultural expectations, and not with anything essential about or proper to “men” or “women” as such. Which means, I gather, that we ought to be trying to challenge and change those expectations. YES! But: Then you talk (appreciatively, I think) about “mainstreaming gender”, and what the heck does that mean, exactly? It can't mean “moving beyond” gender, since I think we both think that's not really possible. So what is it? You point approvingly to Israel as an example of a society who's military is not “gendered” in that includes men and women in combat roles. But how is that evidence of getting beyond masculinity, rather than evidence of the masculinization of women (according to a masculinist military logic)? And, if Israel *is* a good example, then why isn't the repeal of DADT? Again, I'm not just trying to pick a fight here. An earnest question from a like-minded fellow-traveler…
I didn't “talk approvingly” of Israel, FWIW – in fact, I explicitly said – I don't think there are any militaries that eschew masculinities as a founding/fundamental logic, e.g., I don't think there are any militaries even approximate what I'm talking about – including militaries (like the one in Israel) that are more sex-and-gender-inclusive and militaries (like the one in Sweden) which “mainstream” gender. So, no, I wasn't talking supportively about either thing. The Israeli military (like the United States military) remains highly masculinized despite the increasing inclusion of women and gay men; the Swedish military continues to have serious gender problems (despite gender mainstreaming). FWIW, “gender mainstreaming” (which will be the topic of yet another forthcoming post) is the idea that one has to think about the gender implications of each policy decision as a part of the calculus of making it. There are pros and cons.
I also didn't say the repeal of DADT wasn't a good thing – I in fact said that I thought DADT was a dumb policy, and its repeal long overdue. What I said is that the way that the left (broadly speaking) has been celebrating it obscures the lack of progress being made towards deconstructing gender hierarchies in the US military, and (along with the policy emphasis put on this as a first goal in gay rights in the US) reaffirms the primary relationship between military service and citizenship. And that, I stand by …
Laura,
Can you post a specific description of what a non-masculine and/or gender-free military would actually look like, how it would be different from what we have now, and how/why it would be more effective – in less than 100 words? Don't refer to feminist IR or deconstruct history through feminist/progressive/whichever perspective – just answer the question.
I'm sure you have a vision of what this better, more gender-neutral military would be like, but it's not evident from your long comments. So: briefly and to the point, how exactly would it be different, better and stronger?
If it could be written in 100 words or less, I sure wouldn't be devoting my career to trying to figure it out, now would I? And if I were accustomed to obeying rules, I likely wouldn't be asking these questions to begin with …
Some things I do know: 1) there's no such thing as “gender-neutral” or “gender-free” – I never claimed there was (and, actually, at many points, have noted that there's not 2) (and therefore) its about recognizing the operation of/altering the order of/deconstructing (ha!) gender hierarchies 3) that is not a quick or easy process but a long, detailed, drawn out one 4) that long, detailed, drawn out process involves, in my mind (and only speaking for myself here, where I speak for other feminisms in IR sometimes): a) breaking associations between biological sex(es) and social gender(s) and recognizing that neither is binary and the relationship between them is non-linear b) explicitly valuing traits associated with femininities and subordinated masculinities as much as (if not more than) traits associated with dominant masculinities c) using that as a basis to (re)build a dialogical/hermeneutic ethic for communicative action in global politics based on empathy, care, and trust (even when it is unidirectional and d) building an ethic of justice (and therefore violence on its behalf) based on those characteristics, rather than pride, conquering, chivalry, aggression, and the like which serve the current bases for fundamental justification of war-making and war-fighting in global politics.
There is no simple answer. Which might be why I didn't give one. But you seem to want something to pick on, so here you go. I know parts of the answer now, but nowhere near all of it; I wouldn't want the responsibility of being in charge of this (yet). But if tomorrow you said – do whatever you think is right with the US military – what would I do? Make it a glorified welfare system a la some cross between the peace corps and a chain gang. Pay people for community service (and weapons metal recycling). Soundbyte enough for you?
I'm not looking for something to pick on – just trying to understand your thesis without having to dive into an unfamiliar school of thought (feminist IR, in this case). I guess the real question I have here is this: for what goal or profit? How will this make our military more efficient? Unless you can prove that the military will become stronger or more efficient, this will remain a thought exercise.
My 99-word response to ProfPTJ, Dan, Tallyrand and Grigory Lukin:
“A demasculinized war-peace system would be recognizable not just by who gets to fight, when, why, how and authorized by whom, but also by the balance of valorization in a nation's political culture between killing-work and caring work. In such a system, not only would a variety of warrior femininities co-exist alongside warrior-masculinities, but integrating men as men into child-care, elder care, teaching and social work would be seen as important a national priority as integrating women and gender minorities into the military, because those roles would be treated as equally important qualifers for civic life and political leadership.”
Not only can one imagine this world, there are clear policy proposals already out there that would take us further in this direction than we've already gone. My 100-words-plus elaboration will be online in the next few hours.
@MAG: I don't agree Starbuck is heavily masculinized in the archetypical sense. The character begins that way and her role as a gender archetype becomes increasingly destablized as the series goes on, beginning with about the third episode when it turns out she's vulnerable, flawed and willing to put her love for a man over her professional duties. It gets more complex in Season 3 when she grows her hair out, experiences sexual assault, grapples with motherhood, and becomes a wife. You see a similar gender complexity with nearly all of the other characters.
@Charli – what you're describing is textbook degendering of biological sex, and it is entirely compatible with women in combat and repeal of DADT.
Read the longer version and tell me if you still don't see the difference I'm trying to articulate.
@Charli – this is a very interesting proposition/idea actually; paradigmatically and normatively different than what I was thinking (of course), but well-articulated and (perhaps) a middle ground worth thinking about/foiling from/arguing about. More when not on the road …
I am so happy for this discussion! So much great work out there on military masculinities and so few opportunities to think or talk about it.
One of the many, many fundamental links between the military and normative masculinity is the valorization of heroes. Heroic imagery plays an important role in recruitment, identifying positive military practices, and retrospective reflection on the value of military actors or actions (including the post-war physical decomposition of human bodies, as nicely documented by Susie Kilshaw.) The heroic narrative is an inescapably black-and-white one, with clear “good guys” and “bad guys” (though those bad “guys” are oftentimes feminized – foppish, weak – which puts them in their properly gendered subordinate role.) Laura, I hadn't heard of the Huston work – I'm looking forward to checking it out. There's lots of great English/classical lit work out there on the masculine identification of the hero role, and the incompleteness of the “heroine” role – Joan Fayer and Lee Edwards come to mind. The public confusion about how to understand the Jessica Lynch case is another full and interesting example of this.
Here's my two cents on the demasculinized military: peacekeepers. No first strike ability, no individualized/nationalized identity, no war to win, even. Humanitarian objectives. Working on behalf of an organization with no clear mission besides maintaining a slightly progressive version of the status quo – and also, unabashedly, for a paycheck.
Interesting piece. Having read it and the comments let me suggest something radical. I think this analysis switches the cart and the horse. Its not the military which is masculine, but masculinity which is militaristic. Said another way, if there was a magical country with an entirely female military it would look exactly like our “masculine” military today. Because historically men have done the soldiering, masculinity incorporated and became associated with many military traits. These military traits though–strength, fraternity, valor–were products of combat. These characteristics are highly valued because they determine the outcome of wars. Had women historically staffed armies they undoubtedly would've struck upon the same set of success factors.
To take one example of this consider the “Us vs Them” mentality. When your life depends on the security/well being of your “brothers/sisters in arms” its hard to consider even the non-militants among your enemies as friends or allies, hence the de-humanization that accompanies wars. In this sense war is inherently anti-feminist. (Which is not to say that combat cannot be just or appropriate, merely that its inconsistent with what would generally be considered feminist values).
Perhaps the best way to think about it is that masculinity/ies and militarization/s are co-constituted?
@Emily, its a nice idea, actually, but unfortunately has its own problems in practice. So far, most peacekeepers are actually “regular” soldiers hired into roles that have expectations opposite their (gendered) training, or are PMC-employees-for-hire. The result has often been high levels of sexual violence from peacekeepers, peacekeeper participation in (goods and human) trafficking, and militarization of the civil societies being “peacekept.” But I do like the theory behind the idea, anyway. On another note (I don't know how to link in comments), I wrote an article on militarized femininity/Jessica Lynch in the December 2007 issue of International Feminist Journal of Politics.