During the Gulf conflict there was hardly a female face to be seen on the television screens. The daily diet of soldiers, politicians and military experts served to re-assert the importance of men, and to reinforce masculine values as once again the world faced another catastrophe designed and orchestrated by men. With the world once again suffering a human and ecological disaster as a result of the Gulf war, the need for men to explore and undermine traditional concepts of masculinity is more critical than ever.
The Gulf war generated a climate of conflict and aggression and gave fresh impetus to the bastions of red-blooded masculinity. This climate prepared the ground for renewed attacks on anyone seen as undermining traditional masculinity, such as gay men and anti-war protesters.
The promotion of Clause 25, proposing increased suppression of gay and lesbian rights, has been one example of the way in which 'unmanly' qualities have become the target for suppression. Clause 25 seeks to place consenting homosexual behaviour on a par with child abuse or indecent assault. Consensual gay activities are included amongst a list of serious sex crimes, representing a renewed crusade to criminalise consenting gay relationships. Examples of these activities are affectionate contact between gay men outside the privacy of their own home, and introducing two men who fancy each other and subsequently have sex. Any form of homosexual activity involving men aged between 16 and 21 is likely to result in a prison sentence.
The vigour with which vehemently homophobic politicians have promoted clause 25 raises the question - why are consensual gay activities perceived as such threats to society? Perhaps it is to do with stereotypical attitudes towards homosexual sex. Men who consent to being fucked by other men are seen as lowering themselves to the level of women. Homosexuality is seen as a threat to institutionalised models of masculine power. Men are conditioned to be agents of force and to experience their power and sense of being through fucking others - either literally in relation to women or metaphorically, for example through killing and maiming people with their bombs.
Traditional models of masculinity are once again held high what with revelling in waging and winning 'battles' and expressing morbid fascination for images of devastation produced by modern weaponry. The Gulf war encouraged aggressive attitudes amongst men by providing another opportunity for men to playing out 'battles'. Watching the latest technology 'zapping' enemy cities fed male fantasies like an inter-continental video game.
Most men get a kick out of watching fights, whether they be boxing matches or full scale wars. But, to get this kick we need to be desensitised - not able to feel empathy for the victims or see them as real. And we need the moral hierarchy of 'good guys' and 'bad guys', which creates justification for the destruction which the 'bad guys' are made to suffer. In the Gulf war, the media finished the job by censoring the worst atrocities.
Most men consume images of war and marvel at the destruction meted out by the 'good guys'. In the same way, men consume images of violence against women in pornographic films and literature. It was reported that US airmen were psychologically prepared for their bombing runs against the Iraqis by being shown pornographic films. Many men transfer aggressive desires and fantasies by identifying with those engaged in military operations and those men depicted in pornography. In this way, we can transpose ourselves into the role of the aggressor.
Another way in which conflicts like the Gulf war reinforced traditional masculinity was by providing 'boys' talk' agendas. It was difficult to venture anywhere without tripping over groups of men - commuting or in locker-rooms - re-enacting military scenarios portrayed in the media.
Conflicts like the Gulf create a climate of aggression which many men get sucked into. We feel obliged to act and talk in aggressive terms to gain acceptance from our peers. Those who do not support the war are seen as 'ponces' or 'wimps'.
However, the Gulf conflict with its consequent human and ecological catastrophe demonstrated the importance of challenging traditional masculinity and its propagation of aggressive attitudes amongst men. In a climate of hostility it is all too easy for reactionary elements on the domestic front to attempt to reassert the primacy of the male heterosexist fuck - reinforcing the 'natural behaviour of men. Clause 25 is evidence of this.
It is more important than ever for anti-sexist men to work towards defining an alternative model of male behaviour. Unassertiveness and the absence of our arguments from the political sphere do not help to challenge the traditional models of masculinity, and do nothing to break down the aggressive and oppressive attitudes of men. We need to express confidently our alternative vision of masculinity in both actions and words.
Copyright © Achilles Heel Collective
