Somehow, I’ll make a man out of you.
Accusations of weakness and femininity are rampant throughout the military system.
This culture, one of “masculinity,” prevails in the military system.
It takes many to combat this culture, to change it, and to find an alternative.
At the end of last month, students of Carnegie Global Oregon had the chance to meet with David Reese, a graduate student of philosophy at the University of Oregon. Among other concentrations, Mr. Reese is researching masculinity and gender studies, addressing how ideas of masculinity in military service contribute to the treatment of violence and the “soldier persona.”
A United States Army veteran himself, Mr. Reese first joined the military after the attacks of September 11, 2001. While he was compelled to give back to a world that is much more complicated than it seems, his decision is not to be simplified to patriotism alone–Mr. Reese says that after graduating from the University of Florida, he had been considering joining the Army for a while, in part to find himself, and the 9/11 attacks provided the push he needed to make his commitment. Upon returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, his four years of experience in the 82nd Airborne Division allowed him to give a firsthand perspective when teaching courses in philosophy and ethics to middle and high school students of the Miami Charter School. In addition, Mr. Reese says, his relatively recent choice of veganism–in relation to food choice’s connotations to masculinity–allows him now to “look at things with a more ethical heart.”
While Mr. Reese was studying feminist philosophy in the University of Oregon’s department last year, the U.S. lifted its frontline combat restrictions. Mr. Reese proceeded to research the different views and justifications of this action, which led him further into studies of masculinity. Focusing on the link between gender construction and the training of soldiers, Mr. Reese gave us a variety of examples of insults thrown at soldiers in training, which are directly linked to “feminine” or “gay” attributions of weak soldiery and failure.
Keeping this information in mind, however, from a long-term standpoint, how does the way in which soldiers are currently trained lead to their eventual difficulty in reintegrating into society? Is it possible to train soldiers to “desensitize, fight, and still be able to reintegrate?”
In response to this question from Morgan Murphy, ’17, Mr. Reese came to the conclusion that most post-combat help that soldiers are offered only comes if the soldier him/herself asks for help. However, asking for help is discouraged as “weak” and “effeminate” during the training process. This not only makes asking for help afterwards more difficult, but also takes away whatever little equality exists between men and women in the forces. When it comes to desensitization, however, there is an integral difficulty in programming an “on-off” switch in humans–no matter what, sending people into combat can have traumatic consequences.
In regards to one part of his own reintegration, Mr. Reese shared with us that he does not stand up when veterans are asked to stand and be honored in public places. Partly, this is a personal choice, but Mr. Reese says that the American custom of saying “thank you” to veterans is now just a way for people to “go on” and feel that they have done their part in thanking a group of people who serve the country. In reality, the “veteran experience” is not as generalized or as “open and shut” as the American public thinks it is.
How, though, can such generalizations be fixed? And furthermore, how can these generalizations and stereotypes be broken down so that “toughness” is no longer defined by masculinity and violence? As Jan Raether, ’15, pointed out, this masculine mindset is planted, at least partially, outside of training, in familial and societal settings. People, when painting a picture of a “tough” soldier, do not focus on what he or she is or the qualities the soldier possesses; rather, the focus is on whether he (or she) is “man” enough. Removing the insulting, demoralizing aspect of training, on and off the base, can make reintegration easier, at least to a certain extent.
Each of us creates our identity in several different ways. Likewise, an individual soldier’s identity does not, by any means, have to be based on incomplete gender stereotypes alone. Lili Wagner, hashtag, asked if in the identity vacuum, another aspect of identity would be able to take over once gender classifications are no longer the main criteria. Mr. Reese answered her question, and concluded his talk with us in saying that there are many other aspects of identity that define an individual soldier. She or he is not obligated to primarily identify with any one characteristic or title, and because society has an innate need to create “othering,” as soon as the gender classification disappears, other categories will emerge.
Mr. Reese’s research, about masculinity in the military, can and should be taken into consideration on a broader societal scale as well. As we move into discussions on identity, stereotypes, gender, and sexual violence, the Carnegies will be able to take into account what we learned from Mr. Reese and we thank him very much for taking the time to share with us his unique perspective.
Find more of Mr. Reese’s work on his website, and like his Facebook page for updates:
http://www.thecriticalveteran.com
http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Critical-Veteran/1397902287105468
We were able to work on a Taro farm as well. Taro is a sacred Hawaiian plant that is completely edible and used to make a variety of healthy foods for the island. It is not nearly as prevalent as it used to be and about 40 species of Taro out of the one hundred no longer exist. We cleared some new beds for planting as well as pulled weeds out from beds and tended to them to keep them healthy. We also got to try several types of Taro in different food forms that day.