November 2000

Views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily of the AFSC.

Masculinity as a Foreign Policy Issue

Cynthia Enloe is a leading feminist scholar and a professor of government and women's studies at Clark University. She is indebted to Carol Cohn, Mary Katzenstein, and Linda Yarr for their suggestions regarding this brief which is a part of a new Foreign Policy in Focus series on women and foreign policy which can be found along with related briefs at <www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/topics/ifwo.html>

Many observers have remarked on the peculiar American contemporary political culture that equates military experience and/or military expertise with political leadership. It is this cultural inclination that has made it very risky for any American public figure to appear less "manly" than a uniformed senior military male officer. It is a culture--too often unchallenged by ordinary voters--that has given individuals with alleged military knowledge a disproportionate advantage in foreign policy debates.

Such a masculinized and militarized culture pressures nervous civilian candidates into appearing "tough" on military issues. The thought of not embracing a parade of militarized policy positions--that increase the defense budget, make NATO the primary institution for building a new European security, expand Junior ROTC programs in high schools, insure American male soldiers access to prostitutes overseas, invest in destabilizing antimissile technology, maintain crippling but politically ineffectual economic sanctions and bombing raids against Iraq, accept the Pentagon's flawed policy of "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue," and finance a military-driven antidrug policy--would leave most American public officials (women and men) feeling uncomfortably vulnerable in the political culture that assigns high value to masculinized toughness. The result: a political competition to appear "tough" has produced US foreign policies that severely limit the American capacity to play a useful role in creating a more genuinely secure international community. That is, America's conventional, masculinized political culture makes it unlikely that Washington policymakers will either come to grips with a realistic analysis of potential global threats or act to strengthen those multilateral institutions most effective in preventing and ending conflicts.

A feminist analysis turns the political spotlight on the conventional notion of manliness as a major factor shaping US foreign policy choices. It demonstrates that popular gender presumptions are not just the stuff of sociology texts. Every official who has tried not to appear "soft" knows this. For example, early in his administration, Bill Clinton made known his abhorrence of landmines and his determination to ban them. But by 1998, he had caved in to military pressure and stated, instead, that the US would not sign the widely endorsed international landmines treaty until the Defense Department came up with an "alternative."

Feminist questioning also produces a more realistic accounting of the consequences of macho policies. Despite slight increases in the number of women in policy positions, US militarized policies in the post-cold war era have served to strengthen the privileged positions of men in decisionmaking, both in the United States and in other countries. For instance, the US government is currently promoting NATO as the central bastion of Western security. Although it is true that there are now women soldiers in all NATO governments' armed forces (the Italians were the most recent to enlist women), NATO remains a masculinized political organization. The alliance's policies are hammered out by a virtually all-male elite in which the roles of masculinity are silently accepted, when they should be openly questioned. Thus, to the extent that the US succeeds in pressing NATO to wield more political influence than the European Parliament (where women have won an increasing proportion of seats), not only American women but also European women will be shunted to the wings of the political stage.

Consider what feminist analysis reveals about the consequences of militarizing antidrug policy. The American government's new billion-dollar-plus aid package to the Colombian military will, as its critics have noted [See FPIF brief "Colombia in Crisis," v 5, n 5], further intensify the civil war and human rights abuses. But less discussed is the fact that this policy will serve to marginalize women of all classes in Colombia's political life. This--the obsession of America's politicians and senior appointees with not appearing "soft" on drugs--militarizes drug prevention efforts and, in so doing, disempowers women both in the US and in the drug producing countries. Women--both as grassroots urban activists in American cities and as mobilizers of a broad, cross-class peace movement in Colombia--have offered alternative analyses and solutions to the problems of drug addiction and drug trade. However, their valuable ideas are drowned out by the sounds of helicopter engines and M-16 rifles.

This example illustrates a more general phenomenon. When any policy approach is militarized, one of the first things that happens is that women's voices are silenced. We find that when the US touts any military institution as the best hope for stability, security, and development, the result is deeply gendered: the politics of masculinity are made to seem "natural," the male grasp on political influence is tightened, and most women's access to real political influence shrinks dramatically.

Previous Article    Next Article