Sovereign Masculinity- Gender Lessons from the War on Terror; A Lecture by Professor Mann of the University of Oregon

            How do you distinguish acts of war from acts of sovereign masculinity? Professor Mann asks her audience this question and uses this point as the basis of her argument. President Obama made a joke threatening the Jonas Brothers with predator drones because his daughters had crushes on them. Professor Mann states that drone strikes often kill young children in Yemen and Pakistan, among other places. She uses this terrible truth to expose the inconsiderate nature of Obama’s poor joke, and relates this to his position on drone warfare.

Obama approves of drone strikes; his reasoning is that there are fewer civilian casualties due to drone warfare than by other means of violence. In Pakistan, one third of the deaths caused by drone attacks are of civilians. Where is getting Obama getting his information? The statistics that Obama follows claim that individuals have to posthumously prove that they were not security threats. These statistics do not account for the actual number of civilian deaths. Professor Mann states that the US’s adoption of drone warfare was an attempt to express American masculinity after the collapse of the Twin Towers challenged the American masculine complex.

            Professor Mann included a clip of an interview of Elder George in her presentation, a man who claims that within five weeks of 9/11 many people came to him saying that, “the phallic symbol of America was cut off.” After the events of 9/11, America encountered a great amount of propaganda involving gender and sexual violation and gender revenge. Examples include bumper stickers with the word “fag” and others with images of missiles pointed at soldiers who are bent over with a message that says that the war is hurting them. President Bush said “Bring it on” in response to the attacks. In this case, President Bush represented the American view of male heroes who are “arrogant, simple-minded, and infallible,” in Professor Mann’s words. Prisoners of war were punished by homosexual activities as a form of attack on their masculinity and pride. Pictures of women torturing men in prisons signify this attack on masculinity. One such victim claimed that he felt his “manhood was taken away” by the sexual humiliation and torture he encountered. Is manhood something that can be taken away from an individual? This is a question that we have to ask ourselves. My impression is that Professor Mann leans towards the idea of masculinity as a socially constructed idea that cannot be taken away from an individual.

Professor Mann claims that Americans are, on average, ignorant of foreign affairs due to their view of national masculinity. There is, in fact, more than one kind of masculinity in leadership. President Bush dressed in combat gear and declared an end to a war that we now realize had just barely started at the time.  This is an example of President Bush representing the valiant, undefeatable soldier figure that is associated with one form of masculine leadership. On the other hand, President Obama emphasizes his role as a father in a 1950’s-esque vision of masculine leadership. President Obama claims that he can’t go out to dinner with colleagues due to his responsibilities to his family, and Obama’s website even has a “Fatherhood Pledge” for visitors to sign. Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton present their own representations of masculinity in their positions of leadership as well. America expects leaders to present themselves according to traditional masculine values of strength, courage, and heroism, and the public respects leaders who do so effectively.

Professor Mann references the work of Harvey C. Mansfield, who said, “to be manly is to justify the way you rule…nothing else has meaning unless the man supplies it.” Manliness is linked to the Greek word θυμός which is related to the spirited courage and strength of heroes. Professor Mann suggests that this logic has influenced the decisions of many leaders. Obama stated that America doesn’t attack other nations for the prospect of gaining territories or resources, but because these actions are morally justified. Professor Mann pleads with us to not believe Obama here; he is creating an image of masculinity by formulating a myth.

Any figure may become the symbol of a nation’s “manhood.” In this year’s presidential debate on foreign policy, the candidates presented themselves as hyperbolic agents who are capable of doing more than they are actually capable. The two candidates were competing for a position as one of the most powerful men on Earth; in order to achieve this job they both tried to prove their masculinity through presentations of egotistical power. Obama’s joke concerning the Jonas Brothers from the beginning of the lecture is a classic example of a leader’s flaunting of masculinity. It appears from Professor Mann’s points that leadership can’t be genuinely trusted as long as American views of masculinity continue to directly influence the decisions of leaders.

This lecture opened my eyes to the masculinity of American foreign policy, specifically post-9/11. Now I have a much more skeptical lens with which I view foreign affairs and their relatedness to gender issues. The masculinity of violence and leadership is a startling topic with great merit and relevance in many societies throughout history. Professor Mann inspired me to do more research into the masculinity of violence and the implications of the social view of masculinity on the decisions of individuals, including leaders, military personnel, and civilians. I used this inspiration to write my earlier blog post on the relatedness of social concepts of masculinity to gang and military membership, and the conflict of gang members enlisting in the military. I would recommend that students who did not have the chance to listen to Professor Mann speak look up the background of her argument.