President Obama’s address to the nation on Tuesday left many questioning the authority of his role as commander in chief. He was criticised for failing to make a clear decision between diplomacy and direct military action in Syria which led to him being branded as ‘muddled’ and ‘uncomfortable’. But, with the crisis in Syria reaching levels of great complexity, can we really expect Obama to make a clear cut decision? As with anyone in a position of great public interest, a lot of the focus was upon how Obama delivered his speech, rather than what he said. The president was very careful to address public concerns about the Syria crisis and explain his reasoning in a simple ordered way. His speech put a lot of emphasis on domestic issues such as the children killed and how this might affect America’s integrity and values. He was calm and dignified, perhaps even relaxed – but is this the approach people expect to see from a commander in chief? As the head of the most powerful military on the planet, Obama’s position should embody the epitome of hegemonic masculinity – so do the public think he’s ‘man’ enough to live up to the role?
usnews.com
press.take88.com
Let’s look at a comparison: George W. Bush’s ‘Mission accomplished’ address in 2003. It exudes manliness, from the jet landing upon the aircraft carrier, to the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner brazenly plastered across the backdrop. It’s as if Bush is trying to say, I’m a military man, a man of action, a man’s man!
Although there are no gender requirements for being President of the United States, historically the position has always been about finding the ‘man for the job’. Is Obama the man for the job? Was Bush the man for job?
Indeed, they are both men, but it also seems that you need to be a specific type of man to be President. Does Obama’s address meet the following requirements of hegemonic masculinity?
- Unfeminine. Because gender binaries must be enforced!
- The warrior. The sportsman. The military man. grr.
- The romantic hero. Think hyper-masculine. Like a cowboy, or superman.
- Heterosexual. We don’t want to confuse those gender binaries now do we?
- The frat boy. Values brotherhood.
- The head of the household. The family man. The patriarch.
eastbayexpress.com
I’d give him 2/6, whereas Bush passes with flying colors! These values of hegemonic masculinity are so often unacknowledged and taken as the norm. That’s why, when Sen. Bob Corker criticised Obama for being ‘uncomfortable’ as commander in chief, he couldn’t pinpoint the exact reason why. It’s just embedded into our psyche.
But are things changing? Bush, the ultimate man’s man, was deeply criticised for the facade of his ‘mission accomplished’ speech, way more so than Obama has been this week. After ‘mission accomplished’ turned out to be far from the truth in the case of Iraq, has the White House taken a U-turn in its macho image?
As Obama himself said in a ABC interview:
Folks here in Washington like to grade on style. And so had we rolled out something that was very smooth and disciplined and linear – they would have graded it well, even if it was a disastrous policy. We know that, ’cause that’s exactly how they graded the Iraq War – until it ended up… blowing up in our face. I’m less concerned about style points. I’m much more concerned about getting the policy right.
Despite the criticism, Obama’s address represents a decided shift from the macho ‘man’s man’ we’ve always expected the president to be. Perhaps this will diminish the requirements of hegemonic masculinity in the future, paving the way for a new kind of president, or perhaps even (gasp!) a woman?
tumblr.
Phoebe Rees JN325 Portfolio 