Monthly Archives: November 2010

Guest Post: “Feminine” Was Always A Dirty Word

OMG two posts in one day?! The world is ending! But no, this is a guest post, because that’s just how awesome I am: I have friends who can write better than I can, but don’t yet have their own blogs.

Allow me to introduce Allison Choat, light of my life, travel companion extraordinaire, and die-hard Classicist (her full bio at bottom of post). I didn’t edit a single word, because a) she’s an excellent writer, b) I know nothing about Greco-Roman history, and c) I’m supposed to be driving to Wilmington, NC right now for tomorrow’s commissioning of the USS Gravely, but I had to stop for Starbucks, and found this in my email, and, well. Here we are.

____

I’ve been a fan of Diana’s blog since about twenty minutes ago, when I began reading it and was struck afresh by how lucky I am to know someone so articulate, brilliant, and dazzlingly witty. I continue to be amazed that – despite her arsenal of gun knowledge and my predilection for bad puns – Diana has failed to shoot me. I believe this to be a sign of great and enduring friendship – much like, say, guest-posting on someone’s small-arms-proliferation blog.

Today I’m writing in response to Diana and Lauren’s post on the use of “feminine” as a dirty word – especially when that dirtiness is evoked in the public or military sphere. While I know very little of dirt or the public sphere – and for this I thank the Swiffer Company and my own crushing agoraphobia – I do know rather more than average about ancient history, a time when public figures insulted each other with at least as much vigor and enthusiasm than they do now. What I find interesting is that, even though we’ve moved from ancient to (arguably) post-modern, the rhetoric being deployed is really very similar.

In order to cut right to the interesting part of this post, I should warn you that am going to go ahead and make some pretty sweeping generalizations about more than 2,000 years of classical civilization. If you really want to know more about what modern scholars think about Greco-Roman sexuality, try reading Foucault. Now back to calling people names.

In the Greco-Roman world, gender lines were drawn not by biology, but by behavior. Once the togas were off, you could be either an active partner or a passive one. (Don’t look for middle ground, because there isn’t any.) Being “active” meant being the boss in the bedroom – the dominant and penetrating partner. This was a role usually reserved for adult males, who, not coincidentally, were also the main movers and shakers in the political sphere. Being “passive” meant just the opposite – submitting to the sexual desires and penetrative force of your partner. Socially acceptable women were naturally passive, in both the sexual and political spheres.

Now here’s where it gets interesting. If you were a juvenile male (say, a hot young teenager) it was also okay to be passive – but only prior to assuming your rightful place in the socio-political world. In other words, once you started running for office, the wide stance had to go. There are several traditional humorous songs about this in the Roman world. I am not even kidding.

Let’s say you’re a hot young Roman teenager. You’ve had several lovers, some female (you’ve been active) and some male (you’ve been passive). Now you’re getting a little older. Maybe you’re the Roman equivalent of a college grad. It’s time to enroll in the Senate! Time to be politically active! – Which means, inextricably, being sexually “active” too. If you continue to behave passively in the bedroom, and your colleagues find out, expect to have it ruthlessly used against you. If you behave passively on the Senate floor, expect to have your colleagues draw conclusions about your gender and sexual prowess.

The point here is that in the ancient world, masculinity was active, destructive, and penetrative – and if you failed to be any of these things, in many eyes, you failed to be all of them. “Vote for my war against the Gauls, Petronius, or you take it from behind like a wussy little schoolboy GIRL.”

There’s even a Roman term for this: muliebria patior – to “suffer the womanly indignity.” Patiari, by the way, is a word for real and intense suffering. Later on, in Christian Latin, it’s the term used for Christ’s ordeal on the cross (see passus et sepultus est, from the Catholic Credo). In other words, Do Not Get Bent Over.

What does this mean? Well, it’s the deepest source of a lot of my favorite English idioms, for one thing. But it’s also the starting point of a kind of attack rhetoric that is as prevalent today as it was when Julius Caesar was alive. Women take it, men dish it out. In the most extreme versions of this ideology, that makes anything other than downright aggression un-masculine. The Romans would call it “passive,” and the Americans would say it’s “feminine,” but in either case, the equation is still there: if you’re anything less than violent, you’re something less than masculine. And here’s a big surprise: being less than masculine is bad. Some less-than-perfect, but still noteworthy, examples:

When the ancient Athenian Aeschines failed in his duties in the war against Macedon, his colleague Timarchos called him a failure and a fraud. Aeschines’ response? Maybe so, Timarchos, but you’re a woman and a whore. (Unsurprisingly, the oration itself makes fantastic reading). While the circumstances were more complex than I’m making them sound, the takeaway here is that political passivity and sexual passivity were, for practical purposes, interchangeable insults. And in many ways, they still are.

Roman Republican Cicero also used this kind of gender-politicking to try to push Lucius Catilina out of the Senate. Ironically, Catilina, who was reported to wear women’s clothes and sneak into girls-only parties, was also well-known for attempting a bloodthirsty military coup aimed at destroying the Senate itself. In this case, Cicero pointed out Catilina’s passive and feminine behaviors as a way of making him seem utterly insane. It worked, by the way. Everybody in the Senate got up and moved away from Catilina, as if he were the only one of them who hadn’t yet discovered deodorant (in fact, none of them had, as this was ancient times).

There you have it: in the ancient world, being a woman stinks. (Sorry, Diana, please don’t shoot me) [ed. note: of course not! we can go shooting together, though.]. Even over cultural boundaries compassing thousands of years, this same kind of anti-feminine, violent, inflationary rhetoric is really doing quite well. A part of me is glad, because I think it’s hilarious when people make fun of each other. But another part of me is picturing Lucius Catilina in a dress, shouldering a shortsword and plotting, plotting, plotting. Because wearing a dress doesn’t make you a wuss. Not necessarily. And it’s something everybody in politics would do well to remember.

___

Allison Choat‘s chief accomplishment in life is being Diana Wueger’s friend. Other than that, she holds degrees in Latin Language and Literature from Oberlin College and in Opera Directing from Oberlin Conservatory, both earned in 2007. Since then, Allison has made Boston her home base, dividing her time between the exciting worlds of opera and executive travel planning. Her theatrical work has been featured throughout the United States at such venues as the Boston Center for the Arts, Boston Conservatory, Oberlin Conservatory Opera Theatre, Opera North, and the Santa Fe Opera. Her travel planning work has been featured even farther away than that. She has no qualifications for blogging whatsoever, other than a rudimentary knowledge of spelling and ancient Greco-Roman sexual politics.

Posted in War | 2 Comments

It’s The Planned Economy, Stupid

Somehow I forgot to bring a real notebook, so all my event notes were scrawled in the back of my copy of The Gun, which means there might be some factual inaccuracies because sometimes I can’t read my own shorthand. Blogging: It’s Hard, But I Do It Anyway.

As promised, some notes/thoughts on CJ Chivers’ talk at Pol&Prose on Tuesday. I usually can’t stand extended Q&A sessions - too often they’re just a platform for somebody to prattle on for an eternity about something of only tangential interest to everybody else (just get a blog like the rest of us, buddy!) - but the format worked perfectly here. The audience was small, focused, and knew what it was talking about. Chivers opened by reading a passage from the book about an assassination attempt (pgs. 388 - 39?), then took questions for the remaining time.

The conversation ranged over everything from the role of ammo in the AK-47′s spread and popularity to the design flaws of the AK vs. those of the M-16/M-4 to what happens if NATO just leaves Afghanistan. All fascinating if you’re a gun nerd (or just a defense nerd in general, I suppose), and I might revisit some of that in later posts (or, uh, if just you want my typed notes because you suspect I’ll never write anything again, here you go).

Anyway. What I was there for, and what I’m so glad CJ talked about, was the impact of the AK-47 on civilian populations. Yeah, the AK-47 is only so-so in combat (fun fact: it’s basically useless past 300 yards - so just stay 300 yards away and you’re safe!), but what it does excel at is allowing a small group of people to dominate a much larger population. Chivers calls it a weapon of repression, not liberation, despite all the propaganda to the contrary. This is a gun that numerous governments have turned on their own people. Depressing, huh? Thanks, Soviet Union, for flogging these things across the globe. Well done. Gold stars all around.

But let’s not bicker and argue about who killed who. Let’s figure out what we can do about it! Oh, right, that’s also incredibly depressing, because the answer is “not much.” There’s no political will to move forward with any sort of supply-side control on the part of the big players - Russia and China just don’t wanna, and the US is mired in some really stupid domestic politics around guns. Demand’s just not going down anytime soon. The UN’s Small Arms and Light Weapons Treaty, modeled off the ban on land mines, is essentially dead in the water. Gun buybacks have been proven not to work - if you offer $50/gun, you get a whole lot of broken guns and some new money floating around. Nobody wants to destroy their stockpiles of guns, because that’s like destroying fat sacks of cash - these things are always valuable to somebody, after all.

So our options, according to my understanding of CJ’s comments anyway, seem to be 1) have a war and hope they break through use or 2) don’t have a war and hope the guns get trafficked somewhere else (like, uh, Mars?).

I need a drink.

Anyway, that’s the quick and dirty, which is clearly what I go for in this blog. I’m devoting my Thanksgiving break to reading The Gun cover to cover, so more thoughts to come… eventually. Many thanks to CJ for answering all questions so candidly - and sir, if you ever need some free research assistance or somebody to organize your garage, consider this my volunteer application.


Posted in GunsGunsGuns | Comments Off

Can We Stop Acting Like “Feminine” Is A Dirty Word?

This post was co-authored and morally supported by Lauren Jenkins.

Today’s post was going to be about CJ Chivers’ great book talk at Politics and Prose last night, but instead we’re talkin’ gender and language (ooh, bet you didn’t see that one coming!). Our hackles are up, and unsurprisingly, we’re feeling sassy about it.

Some quick background: Bryan Fischer, head honcho of government affairs (read: lobbyist) for the American Family Association, wrote some crap about how the Medal of Honor has been wussified because it’s now awarded for the saving of lives, not for the mass destruction of enemy forces. Of course, he couches this call for death in a whole lot of holy rollin’ later on. Jesus was all about the killin’, apparently - maybe we just have different versions of the New Testament? Anyway! In Mr. Fischer’s words:

But I have noticed a disturbing trend in the awarding of these medals, which few others seem to have recognized.

We have feminized the Medal of Honor.

So the question is this: when are we going to start awarding the Medal of Honor once again for soldiers who kill people and break things so our families can sleep safely at night?

I would suggest our culture has become so feminized that we have become squeamish at the thought of the valor that is expressed in killing enemy soldiers through acts of bravery. We know instinctively that we should honor courage, but shy away from honoring courage if it results in the taking of life rather than in just the saving of life. So we find it safe to honor those who throw themselves on a grenade to save their buddies.

 

How horrible. How weak and girly of us. It’s crucial that we prove how stereotypically manly we are as a country by putting as many bodies on the ground as possible. Isn’t that why we’re at war?

No?

Huh. Okay then. Moving along.

Adam Weinstein makes the excellent counter-argument of “Way to be a Christian, you hypocrite” (we paraphrase). Ink Spots’ Gulliver goes in for a clinical dissection of what heroism is in the modern military. Both make salient points, and they’re both worth reading on this - especially Adam and his poignant shout-out to his battle-buddy, Baskin-Robbins.

But let’s get back to the language used here, which falls under the rubric of “women, and everything to do with them, are inferior.” According to Fischer, “feminizing” the Medal of Honor is So Not Okay.

Too often, this is the subtext of modern discourse (see: here, here, pretty much the entirety of here). Frequently it’s so subtle that it goes unnoticed, but this is a particularly egregious example, done consciously and with the full intent of denigrating women (which Adam points out). Implying that the “feminization” of anything is by default a negative is Really Not Okay.

Fischer uses “feminized” to stand in for what he really means to say: we, as a nation, have lost a Jesus-like willingness to spill our enemies’ blood. Basically, Fischer is just asking for a fragging if he ever comes across either of us playing Call of Duty: Black Ops.

We’ve become weak. Er, “feminine.” We’re all clear that that’s what he’s implying here, right? Because that should make the answers to these next question obvious: Is it “weak” or “feminine” to protect life instead of (or in addition to) taking life? Does weakness have anything to do with gender?

Did you answer “no” and “no”? Congratulations, you’re smarter than Mr. Fischer! If there is a trend here, it has more to do with changing societal norms about how we prosecute wars and exactly nothing to do with anything intrinsic to being a woman. Or a man, for that matter.

Women are not weak. Being female is not an insult. Being female is not incompatible with heroism, duty, and honor. Setting aside the question of whether preserving life is of higher value than taking life, Mr. Fischer sets up a false dichotomy between men and women, implying that preserving life is strictly in the feminine domain, and therefore an unacceptable action for a man. He would prefer to see men engage in the approved-for-men-only action of killing, and to be awarded medals for destruction. It’s patently ridiculous to say that both men and women are incapable of taking life - or of preserving it - when needed. These are not gendered actions, nor should they be. It’s 2010. Let’s move on as a species, and stop pretending men and women are from different planets. Let’s stop using “feminine” as a dirty word.


We are, of course, happy to discuss further, either here in the comments or on Twitter (@dianawueger & @laurenist). However, we’d like to direct your attention to this comic first. Then you may feel free to suggest we make you some sandwiches, at which point we’ll give you a phone number for some great Thai take-out. The end.


Posted in Gender, Military | 1 Comment

What Do Europeans Want From NATO?

We’re skipping the apologies for not blogging, because only Lauren reads this regularly (hi Lauren! look, I blogged!), which is totally fine with me.

Today’s bloggery, however, is not about small arms*. It’s about an event I went to the other day at the Atlantic Council, where I hoped to learn exactly what those mysterious Europeans want out of NATO. Director of the European Union Institute for Security Studies Álvaro de Vasconcelos coordinated a team of prominent Europeans to write “What do Europeans want from NATO?”, which is worth a read-through, though I’m not sure it really clarified for me what the Europeans are looking for.

Fortunately, I’m not the only one who’s a little puzzled. Álvaro began by mentioning the difficulties in coming to any kind of consensus, even among the small group of authors, about what Europe, as an entity, wants from NATO. The quick and dirty takeaway from this event is that apparently the Europeans want something, or should want something, but it’s not clear what, and there’s no unified voice for Europe anyway, and none of this is going to Lisbon, so… uh… what are we doing here again?

Oh, sorry. That was too cynical.

On the one hand, it’s great to have a group of Europeans in conversation about formulating a European position on NATO. While individual countries, particularly the big names, have weighed in on NATO’s future, there is a legitimate need for a Europe-wide conversation on what the role of the European Union should be within and alongside NATO. The European Union as an institution has a valid interest in having a voice in discussions of what NATO should be and do going forward, and that’s been absent thus far. So, good job team!

On the other hand, the European Union is not a superstate, and finding that unified voice will be difficult, if not impossible. Europe remains a collection of individual countries, all of which have varying ideas about their national interests as related to national security and defense. What worries Portugal is not what worries Poland. The list of EU member states don’t overlap neatly with NATO’s list of member states (and, historically, the US said it would walk away from NATO if Europe ever unified its position - obviously off the table now, but it represents a significant shift in US ideas about the EU in recent years), so the idea of a truly unanimous European voice within NATO is far-fetched

Anyway, you should read the report yourself, but I did want to highlight a couple of interesting points brought out in the discussion portion:

  • We, especially the United States, often forget that Turkey is in a rough neighborhood. We demand a lot, get cranky when they don’t do what we want, and fail to remember that Turkey shares borders with Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Turkey has legitimate security concerns that deserve to be taken seriously. The EU needs to stop treating Turkey like the red-headed step-child if they want genuine cooperation going forward, and everybody needs a more sophisticated approach to Iran.
  • The question of timing. Can we possibly determine NATO’s future before we know how Afghanistan turns out? Okay, so NATO should and will stay a regional organization, and out of area operations like Afghanistan will be the rare exception, but does that really mean we expect to be fighting solely on NATO soil?
  • Many NATO members’ defense budgets are being cut, some dramatically, but there’s little coordination between states on what’s being cut. This seems… unsafe, but I can’t claim I know enough about defense budgeting to know precisely how that could turn out. Nobody’s calling for the merging of budgets, which would obviously go nowhere, but it might be nice to know who’s capable of doing what.

* Yeah, yeah, I know, I keep promising and not delivering. I cracked The Gun on Wednesday, got some bad news, and put it back down. I intend to have made a solid start by next Tuesday though, when Chris Chivers will be at Politics and Prose to talk about it.


Posted in EU, NATO, The Acronym Game! | Comments Off