Week 2, Day 2

 The Importance of Rhetoric

Throughout all the readings, they all seemed to critique the usage of rhetoric during xyz situations. In Jaspir K. Paur and Amit S. Raur’s work, Monster, Terrorist, Fag: The War on Terrorism and the Production of Docile Patriots, they mention how the rhetoric surrounding terrorism can be extremely harmful in making the people out to be “monsters.” Additionally, Eric Fasson’s work, National Identities and Transnational Intimacies: Sexual Democracy and the Politics of Immigration of Europe, critiques how their wording can make certain virtues masculine or feminine. All of the ideas stemming from this rhetoric feeds into this heteronormative framing that places the cis, white male as the pinnacle of humanity. Simultaneously, it creates the other as less than and can often make them out to be monsters. Thus, in this way, the rhetoric is weaponized in these transnational discussions and politics.

         These ideas reminded me of one of my earlier research projects which used a feminist framework to critique nuclear weapons. Within this paper, I outlined how straight masculine ideas were projected in professional settings. They would practically fetishize other countries and the bomb with their rhetoric. Researchers and leaders alike would connect this idea of the bomb to larger male genitalia. In similar terms, the more bombs one had, the bigger their projected penis was. Thereby, they created this juxtaposition between sex and romance with the destructive nature of the bomb. The National Security Council once called for “releasing 70 to 80 percent of or megatonnage in one orgasmic whump.”1 The obvious critique of this statement set aside, the idea of a pleasurable orgasm connected with this destructive weapon creates a problematic framework. Firstly, it completely offsets the actual destruction of the weapon and dehumanizes the lives being lost when a country is bombed by such. Secondly, the sexual innuendos would create a sense of renewal and procreation with the idea of sex. Thus, people would get this idea that if a country were to be bombed, it would merely create the groundwork for a better place to be made. A place that would follow these continual masculine ideas of destruction. For instance, the countries that were to be bombed were referred to as “virgin targets.”2 And so, when these countries would insert their projected genitalia onto these “virgin” countries, it would symbolize this idea of male conquest. Which inherently reflects this societal expectation that men ought to take many women’s virginity in order to seem more manly. Moreover, that rhetoric translated over to the public sphere as songs, films, and other artworks were made to praise the bomb. In fact, the bikini’s name can be attributed to the nuclear bomb. As Louis Réard once mentioned, “…like the bomb, the bikini is small and devasting.”3 For more context, the United States had used Bikini Atoll as a site for nuclear testing. The French designer was inspired by the event and thus decided to name his latest invention after it. And so, once again the nuclear bomb was liked with fun summertime memories with a more scandalous nature to it.

All of which is not to say that none of this was not critiqued during this period. There were quite a few artworks that came out in order to play on these sexual ideas. This idea also reflects our readings since they were also forms of critique and show how satire and speaking to the public can bring about a structural change. For instance, the movie Doctor Strangelove used satire to call out the fetishization of the nuclear bomb. The previously mentioned idea of more bombs meaning more inches were especially showcased within this film. Critiques of this nature showcase how much of our society, especially politics, have been following this male standard. The same male standard was reinforced by this problematic rhetoric. All of which is to say that when one lets these gendered ideas into these seemingly professional settings, then the laws and societal expectations that come about thus reflect them. In other words, gendered ideas of masculinity are projected into seemingly every aspect of society. And they can reinforce problematic issues like excessive military. And this excessive military can somehow be backed and linked to this idea of showing off a country’s “guns” and their “inches.”  

All of which can be linked back to this idea of the protection of the domestic life. An important term to reference here would be “Manifest Domesticity,” a play on the term “Manifest Destiny.” It practically extends this idea of expanding the private sphere and protecting it… And how exactly do they do so? Through women and children. Again, they connected to the nuclear bomb to renewal and protection through the idea of more feminine items that seemingly cannot protect themselves. Instead, they must rely on these destructive weapons that reflect this heteropatriarchal framework. And so, they have a similar effect as the rhetoric turning people into monsters or used to turn people away. That is to say that it inspired white America or heterosexual America to work hard to project the homelife, to protect this private sphere that supposedly cannot protect itself. And is in turn able to warrant biased policies made for the heteropatriarchy.