Unclear and Present Danger - GI Jane (feat. Hilary Matfess)

Episode Date: February 19, 2026

On this week's episode of Unclear and Present Danger, Jamelle and John were joined by Hilary Matfess of the University of Denver to discuss G.I. Jane, the 1997 military drama directed by Ridley Scott and starring Demi Moore and Viggo Mortenson. The discussion for this film revolves around the evolving role of women in the military, post-Cold War anxieties about American military readiness, the gender politics of the film, and what the movie might signify today, in the present.Matfess is the author of a new book, "Putting Women in their Place: Gender Power and World Politics," which is available wherever books are sold.For our next episode we are heading into 1998 with U.S. Marshals, the somewhat forgotten sequel to The Fugitive, starring Wesley Snipes and Tommy Lee Jones. And don't forget our Patreon, where we cover the films of the Cold War and do a regular politics show. You can find that at patreon.com/unclearpod.Our producer is Connor Lynch and our artwork is by Rachel Eck.

You have volunteered for the most intensive military training known to men. I'm supposed to fit in with these guys when you've got me set up as an outsider. Move your ass! When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you. Did that pick you off? Yes, ma'am, it did. Let me go! Get your arm! Cut her loose! Let I go! Why don't you quit, O'Neill?

Treat me the same, no better, no worse. Damn, that girl is good. There's a lot of people who don't want to see you finish. I'm gonna go through with this. with this. I thought you ring out in two weeks. Bing bang, it's over? I never expected you to do so damn well.

G. I, Jane. Why don't they just get it over with, calling Joan of Arc? Tell me you didn't sell me out. Welcome to Unclear and Present Danger, the podcast about the political and military thrillers of the 1990s and what they say about the politics of that decade. I'm Jamel Bowie. I'm a columnist for the New York Times opinion section.

I'm John Gans. I'm a columnist for the nation. I write the substack newsletter on popular front and I'm the author of When the Clock Broke, Conmen, Conspiracists, and How America Cracked Up in the Early 1990s, which is now out in paperback and you can find it at any bookstore near you. Nailed it. Yeah, it's kind of the first time I've gotten that all out in a while without stumbling over it.

And we have a guest today. Please welcome Hilary MathFest. She's an assistant professor at the University of Denver's Corbell School of Global and Public Affairs. She's the director of the school with international security degree and works on gender and conflict. In her new book, Putting Women in Their Place, Gender Politics and World Politics is available wherever books are sold. Welcome to the show, Hillary. Hi. Super excited to be here.

And having Hillary as our guest, the subject of her work should be a clue as to what we're discussing in this episode. We're talking about Ridley Scott's 1997 drama, I would call it. it yeah action drama film G.I. Jane starring Demi Moore, Vigel Mortensen, and Anne Bancroft, in addition to a bevy of recognizable character actors. Scott Wilson, Morris Chestnut shows up, Jim Caviziel shows up. So lots of people you will recognize in this cast. G.I. Jane is based on a screenplay by David Tui, who people who watch bad movies will recognize as he, director of pitch black, which actually

is a pretty decent movie to be there. The Chronicles of Riddick, which is a movie I like. Wasn't it a giant flop? It was a huge flop. And is it good? Don't know, but I like it a lot. And then the 2013 sequel

and conclusion to the Riddick trilogy, Riddick, I guess there's a new Riddick movie coming out soon with Vin Diesel as the eponymous Riddick. So that's basically that's Tui's deal.

He does, he's a Riddick guy. He apparently wrote an early draft of Alien 3, a movie that was kind of in a long period of development hell. And he directed a film I've never heard of called a perfect getaway starring Timothy Aliphant

Milo Joveitch and Steve Zahn. which sounds like it might actually be enjoyable. That's a good, those are, those are good actors. So that's him. And what other relevant, uh,

cast and production stuff worth noting? Music by Trevor Jones, cinematography by Hugh Johnson. Um, the movie looks great. I mean, this is, this is,

of course, a Scott, Ridley Scott's picture and really Scott's movies generally look very good. Um, he worked, uh, on, uh,

kingdom of heaven. One of Scott's films. He worked on the duelist, Scott's first feature and worked with Tony Scott as well, Ridley Scott's brother. Johnson passed away in 2015. That's unfortunate. All right. In G.I.J. Demi.

Moore plays Lieutenant Jordan O'Neill, a naval intelligence officer who was chosen to be the first woman to go through seal training. You see, Senator Lillian DeHaven, played by. and Bancroft in a really great performance. I got to say, I enjoyed every minute she was on the screen. Senator Lillian De Haven is critiquing, criticizing the Navy for not being gender neutral. And she strikes a deal with the incoming secretary of the Navy that if women compare favorably with men in a series of test cases,

the military will integrate women fully into all occupation of the Navy, including combat positions. O'Neill was chosen, as I said, she has to survive a grueling program, which about 60% of the candidate to wash out, and she has to deal with the sexism and contempt of her male colleagues and the male command at the training camp.

Leading the training is Master Chief James Ergyle, or John James Ergyll, played by Bego Mortensen, who is somewhat opaque to O'Neill, not quite clear where he stands what he thinks of her and what he thinks of her effort to complete this training. O'Neill ends up being determined and is successfully making it through her training, but it becomes revealed that Senator Dehaven

never expected O'Neill to actually finish. This was just an attempt to get a favorite, bargaining position when it comes when it comes to preventing military base closings in her home state of Texas. To do this, De Haven takes photos suggesting that O'Neill is a lesbian and is fraternizing with women. I guess it's a parenthetical here. This is so, I mean, this is so perfectly mid-90s in terms of its various items, base closures, which I remember quite well, someone who basically grew up in a military base. Don't ask, don't tell, which shows up under Clinton in 93.

And then women in combat positions. My mom was in the military. It was in the Navy specifically. It was in a support position, but this was part of the conversation in, you know, military circles. So all of this is like funny, very familiar to me in a funny way, even though I was a kid when it was happening. Anyway, O'Neill threatens to expose De Haven. She finds out that this has all been a ploy. She's restored to the program.

And then the movie kind of transitions into being an action film. The soldiers at the training camp are sent to retrieve some weapons-grade plutonium that fell into the Libyan Desert by way of an reconnaissance satellite. The U.S. Army Rangers that have been dispatched to retrieve it, did not do so successfully. And so the trainees are sent in to assist the Rangers. We get some action, some combat. The master chief protects O'Neill shooting an Olympian soldier.

O'Neill is injured. I mean, sorry, the master chief is injured. Ergyll is injured. And O'Neill is able to save him despite his injury. And they all, they recover the plutonium and get into the gun shops, get gunships. and escape the combat zone. The film ends with O'Neill having earned her stripes as a Navy seal with Urgile,

giving her his respect in the form of a collection of poetry by D.H. Lawrence and his Navy Cross, and the film ends. The tagline for G.I. Jane was, failure is not an option, which is fine as the taglines go. The film was a modest success, made about twice its budget back. Not the huge success I think they were hoping for, but it was perfectly modest. And yeah, that's it for the film. We're going to check out the New York Times now. So the film came out on August 22nd, 1997. So what was going on in a Clinton America. Well, I wouldn't usually read this, but I remember it, so I am going to read it.

25 million pounds of beef is recalled. Plant is closing over a danger of bacteria. A meat processing company is closing its Nebraska plant indefinitely and is expanding its recall of ground beef to 25 million pounds after federal investigators found evidence that far more meat might be contaminated by a hazardous bacteria than originally suspected last week. Last week, the plant recalled 1.12 million pounds of meat. I remember this happening and being like scared to eat hamburgers and lots of jokes about it and stuff like that. Of course now this deadly bacteria works for the Trump administration. So we've come. It actually, it's head of the FDA now. So, so things have changed a lot. Yeah, there was a big E. coli break out. I just remember this as a kid. It's one of those

things that makes impressions on you. More on the theme of our podcast. There's an interesting thing here, U.S. telling Russia to bar aid to Iran by arms experts, new missile is a worry, help for Tehran did not stop even after Clinton Yeltsin talks. The Clinton administration has been quietly pressing Russia for most of this year to stop Russian scientists and military institutes from helping Iran develop a new ballistic missile that could reach Israel, Saudi Arabia, and American troops in the Persian Gulf. senior administration officials say the Russian scientist's assistance has continued official said even though President Clinton raised the matter with President Boris N. Yeltsin in private meetings in

June at the Denver Economic Summit. Well, Russia has sort of had its own foreign policy agenda even before the tensions really picked up in the era, Putin. It kept its old relationships in the Middle East and had its own ideas of what should be done there. and these tensions are already starting to appear with Yaltz and Clinton. So far as I know, maybe Hillary can answer this one. I guess that missile was developed. I think that that's probably one of the ones that they have now. So I'm not quite certain if that exact one was developed,

but what stood out to me is the extent to which the U.S. reliance on economic sanctions as our primary tool in the toolkit of foreign policy for the past, oh, I don't do public math, but let's say 20 years has created this like parallel world economy, right? And so much of that is led by Russia. So the kind of Venezuelan ties to Russia, India, dabbling its toes in trade with Russia, despite sanctions, like it's really interesting to me to see the kind of like, dart of that, even amidst these high-level bilateral meetings. Yeah, yeah, for sure.

Here's another one that's interesting with the president in mind. With the president of mind, Mid-East alarm button, Arifah and Nittin Yahoo find themselves hemmed in by their hardline posturing. More than three weeks after a suicide bombing shattered a Jerusalem market, the confrontational stance is adopted by Israel and the Palestinians have set in motion a dangerous dynamic. By insisting that the Palestinian authority mount a widespread crackdown on Islamic militants, Prime Minister Benjamin Nittin Yahu has set a high bar for Yasser Arafat, who thinks he cannot afford to make more than a token effort to jump it.

Instead, Mr. Arafat has turned for support to some of the very militants whom Israel wants in prison, make it even less likely that Mr. Nintyahu will modify his demands. With American backing, Mr. Nintyahu has argued that both sides can win if Mr. Arifat begins to combat terrorism earnest, but the very public way in which, Israel has pressed its demand and back them up with economic sanctions against the Palestinians seems to have led Mr. Arafat to conclude that if Israel can claim a victory, he will certainly lose. I mean, this shows the extremely difficult status of the peace negotiations between the Palestinian Authority

or the PLO and Israel and how it was very hard for Arafat to take on the role as Palestinian Authority without making it look like he was just doing the bidding of the Israelis and how he's caught between the growing popularity of Hamas and certain interpretation of this could look like, I don't know, there's a way of reading this from the Israeli point of view that says that Arafat was never negotiating good faith, and there's a way of reading this from the Palestinian point that shows that Ninn Yahoo was never negotiating good faith,

but the political dynamics made it extremely difficult, to, you know, get the resolution done. So, yeah, I mean, this just shows you the kind of whole tragic, terrible dynamic that that conflict has taken since the 1990s. Yep. What else we got here? Oh, this one is really interesting to me. Two are charged in 92, Idaho, shootout. Sorry, Ohio and Idaho are different places. I know that. I'm from New York. Idaho prosecutor Charges two and killing at Ruby Ridge. Five years to the day after the shootout at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, left three people dead and caused a fear over the use of force by the federal government. The prosecutor in the remote county where the killings occurred has filed charges against two men on opposite sides of the shootout.

In electing to file murder charges against a man accused of killing United States Marshal and manslaughter charges against a federal bureau investigation sharpshoot of the prosecutor and boundaries. the prosecutor in Boundary County first elected last fall, has reopened an episode in that federal officials have tried to close. Last week, after a two-year internal investigation, the Justice Department included there was insufficient evidence to press charges against senior FBI officials who were accused of destroying records concerning how the August 21st, 1991 siege and shootout were conducted. But here, officials said the charges were brought in part because the authorities have uncovered new evidence about the 11th day siege at the cabin of Randall C. Weaver, a white separatist.

Denise Woodbury, the county prosecutor would not elaborate on the new evidence by the authorities chose to close the case, said that there was new forensic evidence about the bullet thought to have killed one of the victims. If you've read my book, you'll know that the shootout at Ruby Ridge is a big part of it. It's a big part of it because the Ruby Ridge incident was a big animating moment for the creation or the growth of the American far right. It arguably leads in certain ways to Waco or the response dovetails with the response to Waco. The United States government's behavior, and this was pretty awful.

But, you know, they were trying to serve a warrant, and they got into a shootout with people at, at Weaver's Cabin and the U.S. Marshal was shot and killed. Comparisons have been made recently between this event and the killing of pretty and good. I don't think that the analogy really works because there was a federal warrant in this case for a criminal. And he killed a member of his party killed a federal agent. now a federal sniper was the person they were trying to charge did kill Randy Weaver's wife who was not

a threat. And this was a particular outrage to people. But yeah, I mean, this was a huge moment. And I would argue in the creation of the contemporary United States, which it really shaped the imagination of the far right and their attitude towards the federal government. So I don't know what happened to this local case. I know that the federal prosecution of Weaver fell apart because of the conduct of the FBI during this episode. And the Justice Department internally decided that they really should not have been pursuing him with the aggression that he did. So, yeah, I mean, Ruby Ridge is really fascinating to me. and I'm probably going to return to it considering it's been brought up recently.

Just to jump in, wasn't Weaver's wife holding their child when she was shot? Yeah, she was holding their infant child. And she was armed, but not. I think that what happened or what appears to have happened is that the sniper who became like a cult hate figure on the far right, he was like a second generation Japanese American or third generation Japanese American guy. He shot, he was trying to hit Weaver, and the bullet went through the door jam and killed his wife. But the way the story is told in far right propaganda is that they deliberately targeted and killed the woman. And it didn't help that Heruuchi was also present, the sniper at Waco.

So this created an entire conspiracy theory that this guy, was like a murderer, like a murderer of white Americans, like a specialist murderer of white Americans. I mean, but the, but the behavior of, I don't want to, I don't want to diminish that the behavior of the federal government in this episode was overly aggressive. They argued that some of the things they did were on Constitution. They had a shoot to kill policy. After the federal marshal was killed, they made a shoot to kill a policy, which, which was

ruled, I think, by an internal DOJ lawyer unconstitutional. Federal law enforcement can't just decide to shoot and kill somebody. At least that's what they thought then. So, yeah, that was, it's very fascinating. And I don't want to, obviously, you know, Weaver's politics were abhorrent to me, but the behavior of the federal government was very bad as well. Yeah, just to take it back a little bit some of the themes of G.I.J. And Weaver's wife became this martyr figure. Yeah. In part because it's so easy to kind of drum up that visceral like, well, that was just a mother carrying her child. And, you know, the whole kind of scene between Senator De Haven and O'Neill where it's like Americans don't want to think about their daughters and young mothers going off to war.

Yeah. You know, it's, you know, unfortunately, like from the academic, standpoint, we do see a lot of times very different cultural understandings kind of written into male and female bodies. So there's this whole theory about like, you know, women have to be the beautiful souls that men get to be the just warriors to go out and protect. And it applies across this range of ideological groups from like your weavers, even to your like Marxist-Leninist groups who despite being super gender egalitarian on paper, sometimes really struggle internally. with the process of incorporating women, particularly into combat roles. That's really interesting.

I think we'll get more of that. I mean, yeah, let's move into talking about GIJ then. So, Hillary, have you seen this movie before? This was my first time watching the movie, despite it being, so I was born in 91. So it was very much like a cultural touchstone and in the air, but this was my first time watching it straight through. And John? This is my first time watching it straight through. I are watching it at all.

I wanted to see it when I was a kid because I was just into anything military and war-related, but I was not permitted to. And I think that was wise for my appearance. It was not appropriate. But I was like, I don't know, 12 when this came out. I probably could have watched it. But the, yeah, it was my first time watching it. I've always been kind of curious and never gotten around to it.

And, yeah, I have some thoughts about it. I wasn't super crazy about it. But interesting. I remember what I do remember about the film is the terrific cultural impact it had. It was so much in the news and in public discourse. And in late night talk shows, there were jokes about it. It was very much a movie that was talked about. And I think in a way, it's cultural impact in the discourse it created around it, you know, was,

what was most significant amount of the movie in the time. I know it was a bit of a hit, but I don't think, and it got good reviews. So yeah, I just remember it being a very, not controversial is not the exact,

there was some controversy about it, but it generated a lot of discussion in America. I had never seen this movie before, although it's very much, I think for the same reason you discussed, John, it was a big part of the cultural, it's like a cultural event

and so I do very much remember J.I.J. coming out and being like a topic of discussion, but I'd never seen it before. I am something of a big Ridley Scott apologist. He's very Except the one movie. What one movie?

Blade Runner. Oh yeah. Well, I don't like Blade Runner. Okay. That's that's the one everyone likes. Yeah, the one I like. Yeah. But Ridley Scott is a director who is hit or miss. I think you can fairly say. He has had movies that people I think recognize his masterpieces.

People, I will totally admit to being like a weird exception when it comes to Blade Runner so I'm not going to press that. People love that movie. The duelist, his first picture is terrific. Alien. I've never seen that. It's very good. It's like about like, what if you had the worst hater imaginable is the duelist?

I want to watch that. It's really good. Just like a guy who just like fucking hates you. And there's Sorry, you guys are public figures and you want to watch a movie about having like intense haters. Are you gloves for punishment? I mean, it's something you know you got to think about. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, no, no, no.

I've been a woman online. I'm fine. Thank you. But so aliens are bona fide classic. Delman Louise is a bona fide classic. Gladiator, which is the film that follows G. G.I.J. A classic.

I mean, Black Hawk Down, a film we will cover on this podcast when we get to it. but, you know, just he, and he works a lot. He's, like, constantly cranking out movies. So, in part because I think if he's so prolific, you get, you get the occasional, phenomenal film, and then you get some trash, too. And then you get a lot of stuff that sort of has some great parts, has some weak parts, and so on the like. So this to me, you know, G.I.J falls into a weaker Ridley Scott effort.

I think part of that is because I feel like it's someone muddled. as a film. It's it you know most of the film is this kind of much more psychological um psychological drama about lieutenant O'Neill but then it tries to be like a political thriller at points he tries to be like a military thriller at points and they just don't think it really lands either of those things it also is both simultaneously very heavy-handed like the first five minutes is like women in the military. But then it also doesn't want to just like write, it doesn't want to be a movie about sexism and gender inequality. And so it, which I think explains some of its muddledness. And, you know, I'm not sure that Demi Moore was the right actress for this role.

But they also, they make it clear. I mean, so I took notes because I'm a fucking dork through and through and through. But like, I, the scene, which I thought was actually very well done, where they're kind of piecing through like, okay, what woman are we going to select for this to see how they land on them anymore? I scribbled on like, wow, we hate strong women, right? Because it's like, oh, that woman's simply too athletic to go through this proto seal training. And it's like, my sister in Christ, like, what do you think you need to look? like to survive this training. And it really, that actually irked me.

Like, that was one of the things that I was hung up on the entire time. And it's the same thing. Have you guys seen Sicario? Yes. Yeah. I love that movie. It's great. Emily Blunt is not going to be on a SWAT team, though, because she's 95 pounds soaking wet.

Like, and you have to be able to do like several pull-ups. So kind of, I don't think to me more physically. makes a lot of sense in this movie. And even like with the kind of movie magic suspending disbelief, like I've known people that have trained out for these tier one teams. And like I've gone on a couple of runs with them. It takes months. They're physical specimens.

The whole training montage of Demi Moore, who inexplicably does not own a sports brawl until she's on a submarine apparently. Like it doesn't make sense because in that training, you're already prepared physically. There is no like getting up to speed there. And I think that whole training montage theme actually undermines one of the few clear points the film is trying to make,

which is that when she's there, she can keep up with the guys. And it's like, well, no, none of the other guys are having to like do inexplicably wide-legged push-ups, right? Like there, it really, to me, distracted from it as much as like, her obvious, like, she is not physically built for this work.

And no woman even in the late 90s was, like, unaware that sports brawes existed and that you might want one if you're doing physical activity. It seems to me, yeah. I mean, it's kind of physically. I mean, like, well, big barley men wash out of these programs because it's too hard. I mean, like, and also like, yeah, I just think it's physically, it's, look, first of all, just made being a Navy SEAL look like it fucking sucked for me. Personally, I watched this training. I was like, this sucks, dude, that fucking being in the cold water and rolling those barrels and eating garbage. I was just like, oh, God, thank God I don't have to do this. Yeah. So I turned to my husband after that scene. And like, I've never served. I'm not trying to do solid valor here. But I like looked at it. I was like, that kind of looks fun as hell. That looks like it's a good time. Like you get camaraderie. And my, my husband. was an army infantry officer who like did ranger school did sear all of that stuff and he was like you know unfortunately it took twice as long to watch the movie as it should be because he kept

pausing to be like well here's my experience and i'm like okay i love you so much i simply don't care but yeah i i okay so beyond that okay here's what bugged me about the movie um or what it was interesting to me too about it okay i was called ridley scott has several films that i would call somewhat paradoxically right-wing feminist, right? Like there's Thelma and Louise and Alien in this movie make a trilogy, which contains feminist elements, but also highly reactionary elements, where it shows that the only way to be taken seriously respect as a woman is to, in fact, kind of occupy some kind of extremely violent place in society.

I thought that that was replicated in this movie. And also what I found a little bit disturbing of this movie was what I detected to be a distinct tinge of sadomasochism, which I found to be a little bit, shall we say, fascist. And it was not diminished by the conclusion where, you know, he shares his deal. H. Lawrence poems with her, which shows that there was some kind of erotic undercurrent to the entire torture and all that kind of stuff. I did not like the, the, you know, the sear rescue training, the torturing of people. I just found the entire aesthetics of this movie, even though it was ostensibly feminist to be really reactionary and violent. And I did not like the way it portrayed what it means to be a tough person, so on and so forth. So I, I,

I found that all upsetting. Although I would say that, you know, in retrospect, now it looks relatively progressive because you just see that the status of women in the military has been diminished with this new macho culture that these idiots like, heckset, they're trying to bring in. So, like, yeah, there was something kind of sad about it that, like, this, I would say that G. G.I. Jane's attitudes were kind of, I thought, were the baseline, almost conservative attitudes We're like, well, you know, like women can be tough too.

And the military is for everybody. And there's a certain egalitarianism. Now, is it an egalitarianism that I find particularly good? I don't know. It's not really. But I do think it's sad in a way that even as fucked up and problematic as I find this film, that the small amount of progress in a certain way that it represents has been not entirely reversed, but is under extreme pressure.

So, yeah, I don't know. I found the movie to be disturbing at times, difficult to watch. I did not like the scenes of torture. Other times of it were, you know, exciting and fun and as an action movie. But yeah, that was my feelings watching it. So just to unfortunately put myself in a position of defending parts of this movie, which, yeah, are meant to be hard to watch. my husband amongst a bunch of other friends of mine have been through sear training.

And aside from the fact that they do have limitations on like how hard they can hit you, right? So the scene where O'Neill gets punched in the face so hard that she's going to get up with a broken jaw. I mean, the movie magic is that she's fine and canneal suck my dick and that's, you know, radical for the 90s, I guess. But the simulated rape takes place because what they are trying to do is prepare you for a situation in which you are prisoner of war. And in unfortunate reality is as a woman, if you're captured, you are at a high risk of being sexually assaulted. And I thought one of the things that I wish the movie had picked up on more was actually this little throwaway scene, which I think was meant to almost be played for comedy, but where after the sear training, she's drinking at the bar with the guys and

she's beat to hell. And this southern woman at the bar says, like, oh, my advice, honey, is just leave them. And I wish they had drawn that out more, that DeMe Moore, as this character, has opted into this intense military training to prove she's the best of the best. But so many women in America worldwide face intimate partner abuse, face physical violence at the hands of those that are supposed to care for them. And so we might think, oh, it's so radical. It's so extreme that to me more is going through all of this when you know to paraphrase game of thrones right like why would a woman swoon at the sight of blood women see blood a lot more than men well to me that was kind of what was to just pick up on that I think that that's kind of builds on

what I found disturbing about it because if you if you just look at the movie as kind of like a process of socialization and you kind of make the military aspect of it more men metaphorical or whatever, then you can say, well, what the movie's message is on some level is that in order to exist in society as a woman who is deserving of respect on some sense, you have to endure an enormous amount of violence, which is true to a certain extent, or be it, you know, actually physical or just, it's just enormous amounts of disrespect. What I think that the movie, yeah, what I would call reactionary, feminist is the attitude that it's just like, well, you know what? Like, you're strong enough to put up

with that rather than, you know, like, well, perhaps these, these practices are, are, it just reminds me of like, like, another reactionary feminist theme I would call was like when during Me Too, when there were all these older women often who, who looked at being like, well, honey, like, I went through all this kind of stuff with men and you just kind of learned to deal with it. Like, I just think it shows a process of, like, you know, socialization or or becoming part of society where it takes violence as valorizing and strengthening and tempering. And I just think that that isn't something I particularly admire. Like, and I also just think it's like, I don't know.

Yeah. I think that that is what I was picking up on too. It was just like, okay, this movie kind of takes for granted a certain amount of violence and then says, actually, it's good. Actually, that's going to make you tough. Actually, that's going to make you a person worthy of, you know, participation in all these things. So I just found that to be, I mean, maybe this is just because I don't come from military culture. but I found that, you know, that that presupposition in the movie to be what was bugging me. Well, so that's interesting thing.

Go ahead. No, that's, that's something that like actually I write about in the book, right? Which is like, unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on, I guess, your political persuasion, being at the, the, like, pointy end of the spear, as like the military bros call it, being a practitioner of violence who gets their hands dirty, that's, what's associated with prestige in the military. And so there's a reason that they send to me more, not just to, you know, some version of like the infantry, right? It's they're sending her to the most elite unit that is expected to be in the most direct contact with violence. And I agree with

you that that produces really problematic socialization. But I think we actually need to expand it and consider the effect that it has on men. So like when you talk to these guys who you know, you branch infantry because that's what the toughest guys do. And then once you're in infantry, it's not enough to be infantry, you got to go get your ranger tab and survive ranger school. But it's not enough to survive ranger school because you can get your ranger panties with your little ranger tab. But if you're not in ranger regiment, then you're not a real ranger. Right. So it goes all the way up to this idea of like no matter how tough you are. There is always someone that like to go full academic is performing masculinity better than you are. Because we're

associating masculinity and prestige with the ability to act violently. And in another book I've coming out this spring, which I'm looking at women's participation in rebel groups that went on to be political parties and a lot of fun. But in that book, I like kind of ask people, okay, so what are women supposed to do? Right. It's akin to saying, like, well, air conditioning is bad for climate change, so you should keep your air conditioning off during this heat wave. Well, it doesn't make sense. You're suffering now. If you want prestige, safety, valorization now,

that also means participating in a system that, like, ultimately is stacked against you. And so I don't know. I'm intellectually in alignment with you about all of these kind of problematic ways that we understand power and masculinity and femininity and protection. But at the same time, like, yeah, I get it. If you're a woman that wants to be successful in a militarized society or in the military, specifically, that means finding ways to endure and practice violence. It's supposed to add to this and note that the film, the film takes this kind of culture of violence and acculturation into violence for granted and does present it as something, um, you know, laudable and worthwhile, right? Like the thing that makes, the thing that you are rooting for in G.

in G.I.J. and as a viewer is you are rooting for O'Neill to overcome sexism, overcome the challenge and successfully assimilate into into the program.

You're like rooting for, despite being a movie whose premise is about sort of the gender politics of the movie, part of what you're rooting for is for her to kind of submerge her her gender identity and her entire identity into the Navy SEALs. Like you want her to fully strip away successfully her like other instincts to be kind of the perfect seal.

And that just makes it like an interesting kind of film. I compared it to Top Gun a little bit, I think. But Top Gun is different in the sense that Top Gun is a movie that's like, yeah, being a Navy pilot is cool as hell. It's super fun, right? like it's all about it's propaganda and sort of like the classic sense this is a fun,

exciting thing that you want to be a part of. This isn't that, but then at the same time, I do think the movie functions as being like extreme, like very pro-military in that it presents this kind of environment, this sort of, yes, the pain and the violence,

but also the camaraderie and the dedication as being something laudable and important. And it's worthwhile that O'Neill can finish. her journey here. And one thing I've been thinking about as we've been discussing this and that I was thinking about during the movie

is the context of sort of the American military in the 1990s which was the sort of looking for purpose. The Soviet Union is gone. There's not really the expectation that you're training to fight a land of war in Europe anymore. And so these questions at first like integration

like, okay, can women do more because we're not fighting the same kinds of wars anymore we won't be but second sort of what is what is the purpose of the american military now um what is what is what are the aims uh of of of this institution and giane stands is like this interesting to me this interesting moment for whatever it's merits of the film this interesting moment where you have this kind of very in its own way kind of like pro traditional vision of what the u.s military is pop cultural product um even as it's like coded as something more subversive.

Yeah, you know, I think an interesting part of that is the movie, and this has come to big fruition in present era. But like the beginning of this cultural obsession with operators and with special forces, which I think goes back to the 80s too. And Top Gun is related because it's an elite unit. This is a very different kind of war movie than, and even the title is misleading because GI obviously is something from the world. War II, and it implies being just a regular Joe, a regular soldier, a very different atmosphere

and ideals than the war movies about World War II, which often centered on a, you know, kind of rag-tag group of oddballs being special forces people or just like kind of everyday ordinary guys in the military. And then you have this fixation on special forces, which has really come to dominate so much of, you know, a popular culture about the military and tactical tactical and stuff like that and is now entered into like the domestic law enforcement with everybody all these guys kidded up like their operators and now we have these you know death squads running around so i i also find that this this transfer of interest or obsession with special forces in elite units and there was recently a book about by set harp about um fort brag cartel yeah

fort brag cartel about what this kind of culture has done to the military so i find this to be like obviously a post-cold world transition to the kinds of wars and units that we need to fight these wars. But again, you know, like I think that there is a difference between, you know, this elitism to me, again, brings up things that I find to be less than ideal. I mean, I mean, I'm not a pacifist. I have. I really. the need for militaries. I have grandparents who serve. But I definitely find things about this operator culture to be to be disturbing. And it reminds me of an old saw I heard, which was that the army is communist and the Marines are fascists, which is just the idea that there's a certain

in the regular branches in the military, there's a certain egalitarianism. And then in these delete units that fixate on, you know, being kind of killing machines. There is, there is something that I think is kind of cancerous. And I think that cancerous stuff can be seen running rampant in our society today. So I was at a wedding last year. And it was with a bunch of operator types. And my husband was like a groomsman. And so he went off to go take photos and like left me alone.

So I was waiting in line for a journey. drink and this guy had his like marine reconnaissance pin on his lapel which is just like dude you're at a civilian event like calm down um but i found the absolute best way to take the wind out of their sails is to look at them very wide-eyed and go are you an eagle scout um and just watch the life drain out of them um and then like you know he was like no what i do is But I'm like, I'm fucking with you. I know. But like, why are you wearing that here?

But that's an aside. I guess my biggest problem with the movie was that I don't know if the movie itself knows how it felt about women's participation in combat. Right. And so like you see kind of in the beginning there's all of this like bathtub scene chewing about like, I'm not trying to make a statement. I'm just trying to advance my career. career and even with like the showdown with Senator Van de Haven, it's like, I wanted the choice. And it's like, okay, so is it about this one exceptional, incredible woman? Or is it about the need for these units to be open that that strength doesn't just look one way? And that like her ability to read a map and

think strategically also brought, you know, benefits to bear. And you can see them like flirting a little bit with it where the medic is like you're still in there like good for you why are you even here oh would you ask the men that right like the kind of camaraderie that's built where it's like wow you're making it under really difficult circumstances and that is inspirational and it's made you a part of this you know loving caring community um but it was very frustrating where i'm like okay so is it all women or is it just o'neal and Yeah. There was no successful resolution to that.

I think what you're pointing at is the contradictions, the contradictions of the kind of right-wing feminism of the film, which is that it only, it only confers recognition insofar as the solidarity with other women is not, is deferred. So like only insofar as she declaims being, having any kind of, I'm doing this for other women, and I'm in solidarity with other women, only when she's like, I'm an individual, and this has nothing

to do with that, then you get the male recognition being like, that's cool. And you see that all through cultural production everywhere in society where it's like, well, you know, like you see this, I mean, even with people, I mean, it's a weird comparison to make to GI Jane, but, you know, like, you know, there was a generation of women writers, say, you know, people like, I don't know, even people I deeply admire like Hannah Arendt or Elizabeth Hardwick or people like that who, you know, sort of did not like to play up the fat or Mary McCarthy who were like, look, I am a woman. This has nothing to do with women's liberation. I'm just really good at what I do.

And that's why I've made it successfully among the men. And I don't want to hear any kind of whining about being a woman because I did it. So I think that that attitude is similar to the one that's in the movie. And it's tempting because there is a certain other egalitarianism that it speaks to because then you're like, well, yeah, that's that there's something true about that. Like it should be about the individual's contribution. It should not be about their gender or, you know, but that just gets into an impossible position where as you were pointing out, it can't resolve that contradiction. It's like, well, it needs to be, it needs the feminism a little bit, but it doesn't want to embrace it. It holds it at arm's length.

And I think the way the movie tries to resolve it, which is a little underhanded, is that it implies that the political project of feminism as carried out by the senator is dishonest, right? And the, she's just negotiating. It's just for show. And it hurts the individuals who are making the efforts. I think that that is the way it tries to resolve that contradiction. It's like, well, that's just all for the cameras. And she's really great, but she's not a feminist like that fake woman senator, you know, the fake politician. Yeah. And that's, I mean, the tagline could have been like G.I.J.

Not like other girls, right? Right. Exactly. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. That runs through this. Yeah. We still see this today. It's, you know, like the picnies, the I'm not like other girls.

And, you know, putting my cards on the table. I grow up a tomboy who in the 90s who totally played into this, right? Where it was like, well, I'm not into girly stuff because that's stupid. I'm like, you know, I'll forgive myself because I was 10. Right? And it's like, okay, that social conditioning is strong. But yeah, I mean, the whole kind of ethos of the film is like she's able to overcome these challenges. But it also, ugh.

one thing that again also frustrated me was like the movie except for that one standout moment at the sear school does not deal with the issue of sexual assault sexual harassment and rape um you know either at the hands of your your brothers in arms or at the the hands of enemy forces um i mean it was pretty blasé the scene where she's like, well, I'm going to sleep in the barracks with the men. Like, I understand what that was trying to do in the movie. But back when I was young and dumb, I was working a lot in northeast Nigeria, reporting on Boko Haram. And there was a curfew.

And I went to this party that was hosted by a bunch of Brits, who were living on a military base, doing some partner military training. And I realized I had missed curfew. And I wasn't going to ask my driver to drive after curfew because it would be more dangerous for him. And so I just stayed the night in the military barracks. And everyone was as nice of a gentleman as you could have asked for. But there was like truly just a knot in my stomach where I was like, oh, I am a single unarmed woman in military barracks.

And I need to be clear-eyed about what might happen tonight. So yeah, I mean, I stayed up until like 4 a.m. And I was really frustrated that the closest the movie got was like Sears School and then like this visceral disgust that men had about tampons. Like that was the only like two recognitions. She gets some comments from other people, but really not anything that bad. And she gets. Yeah. And it's also kind of in the context of hazing, right?

Yeah. Yeah. It's all in the context of, well, if she can. survive this, then she can survive anything. It's not. And that's why, like, the figure of the, I don't know, drill sorry, the instructor, um, is that she like, well, it flips everything. And that's why, like the, the kind of ideological work of the movie is like, well, like, it looked like torture, but it was actually training. You know, like he looked like a sadist, but he was actually. You know, like, he was actually doing it for own good, which is obviously the most sadistic possible framing you could have

for something. But, you know, so I think that that was just how it dealt with all those things. It's like, well, all of these trials and tribulations, all of these suffering, all the violence, all of this harassment to the extent that it happened, the threat of sexual violence, it was just to condition her into a stronger individual. And we also know, we of course know that that is nonsense, that, you know, when you're put into situations where you're, you know, harassed and bullied and threatened with violence. It does not make your grow your character. I mean, you may get certain thicker skin about certain things, but it's also, you know, soul destroying and horrible. So I don't think that it showed like the, her capacity to overcome

those things was also a little bit of a lie in the movie. It's just like, yeah. And then he rewards her at the end for not feeling sorry, having no sense of self-pity, which is admirable, I suppose, but it's also like at what points in the movie or what points in even military training or what do you have to like kind of forego self-respect in order to become a member of this group like you have to like in military training you have to like you have to not only do this physically very demanding stuff you have to submit to the humiliation of the instructor right you have to be called names demean so on and so forth and you submit to that humiliation I suppose that has some function of making you obedient.

But yeah, you know, this to me, as a person whose instincts are not authoritarian, like, yeah, I just the idea, the idea. And also like the classic depiction of this is, which is also a reference that came into my head where I was watching this movie is obviously in full metal jacket, which shows the ordeal of military, and this is like an anti-full-metal jacket shows the ordeal of military training as dehumanizing and resulting in the destruction of people. And not in a, oh, this is an upbuilding edifying process of growth or whatever. It is really, so it's interesting. You go from, I think full metal jackets made in the 1980s. You go from full metal jackets, depiction of the military, Stanley Kubrick, I think has a very

different politics than Ridley Scott to this depiction of training, which is training is a great accomplishment. I think I'm more of a film. Full Metal Jack is not one of my favorite movies, not one of my favorite movies, but I think in terms of my politics about what happens in basic training, I'm closer in spirit to Full Metal Jacket. I'm going to ask this with love. Yeah.

Did you play team sports as a kid? No. Okay. So I'm very proudly like a, like a. academia's dumb jock like if if i can get that on my nameplate once i have tenure that would be dope oh god and now i'm like defending this but i actually i played soccer during the summer but i was not a serious athlete no yeah like not to brag but i played girls travel soccer in georgia from ages 10 to 18 um but like i actually do think like shared suffering

creates camarader and shared suffering towards a goal right otherwise, like, what's what's the point of practice? What's the point of training? It's hard. It's not always joyful. And now I'm comparing girls travel soccer to the military. And I think Delta Force is going to love that. But like I do think that like you create a very strong socialization and bond when you are under the authority of another person, forced to cooperate, and forced to share suffering that is not totally physically detrimental, right? And particularly when you're getting people at malleable points in their life, right? So like young people in the military high school soccer players, like that suffering becomes your

identity because you persevered when others didn't. And what you choose to put your suffering towards then becomes a marker of your value. use, right? So, yeah, if you're suffering in the name of, say, becoming a seal, becoming a ranger, becoming a Delta dude, that is a sign of your politics and the suffering that you undergo at the hands of a drill instructor, at the hands of commanding officer, that becomes a part of your identity. That becomes how you kind of bond yourself to other people. So I don't know, that part didn't bother me as much. I actually, wish that they had spent more time looking at how she code switched between like hanging with

the guys, hanging with women, and going back to her life as a naval intel officer, because those are three communities where you have to speak very differently. And I had wished to me more, looked more comfortable, and fluent in like hanging out with the guys, like when they're cracking beers or on the submarine, still felt really stilted to me. And I thought that could be interesting to explore, but was left on the table, which also speaks to like, you know, this film's for me at once depressing because it does feel like we're back in a place where, you know, women's participation in combat roles is now back on the table. It's now debatable. It's now under assault by some of the most powerful people in the U.S. government. That's

frustrating to me. But it was also really interesting how there's two scenes that are like hammered on as being like, wow, so radical. And it's, her shaving her head and her saying suck my dick. And I'm just in 2026, a woman with a shaved head, I'm not blinking at. It was a big deal in the cultural conversation at the time. People constantly commented on the shaved head. It was around the same time, Shannate O'Connor, which was also a big deal for some reason. Right.

And I think like boomers, I think my parents, if they see like a woman walking down the street with a shaved head would be like, interesting. But like no one else is. No. And then like a woman telling a man to suck my dick is just. it's not, I pray to God, it's not radical based on the number of times I've said it. But like I don't think that that's any longer some some huge like breach in social norms that it was then. And so.

Yeah, it comes off as pretty lame, right? Yeah, especially with the like swelling music where it's like, suck my dick. And they're all using it as a chant. And I'm just like, yeah, you're, you're going to need to call him like a like a dried up old cunt for me to. blank. I'm sorry, that would be very odd in the movie. A little catty and gay.

But wouldn't that also be fun? If she was like, in those tiny little khaki shorts, you are serving cump, Master Chief. I think that would be a fun subversion of norms. But yeah. I also, that was the other thing that I couldn't

get over was the extent to which these men were supposed to be like the pinnacle of masculinity and they are in three inch in seams and that is just is that what they wear over there in the in the navy seals is that a real tradition according to my husband yes and he was like about to walk me through because have you seen the the ranger panties they're the little black shorts with a ranger tab on them you know what i haven't okay interesting um great phenomenal i'll send you some photos offline i'm sure you'll love that um but so rangers have the ranger panties, they're very, very short. And apparently seals have those, like, tiny little

khaki boat shorts. And so there is, like, even still today, this, like, you know, skies out, thighs out, ethos that is a little bit out of stuff of how we think about, like, typical Jimbrough masculinity. And I, for one, as a generally heterosexual woman, um, and in support of that. Uh, so we got to bring a, we got to, we got to wrap up. Uh, I, I want to bring, don't say two things. The first is, as a low-key gym pro myself, not really a part of my daily life that's, I put on for public display,

but I do, I am like a gym bro. I also own lots of short shorts for, for working out, obviously. The other thing is that it's worth saying something about this movie in relation to Moore's career, which is that this movie kind of tanked her career a bit. she had done this and what was the what was the movie that came out around this time

strip tease that's right yeah around the same time and both of those basically you know she was criticized for making this kind of stripper movie and then criticized for making this feminist movie um and uh after after after after this she's also criticized for her salary in this film. She made $12.5 million on the movie, which, you know, for comparison's sake, like Tom Cruise and Jim Carrey made $20 million for Jerry McGuire and the cable guy everyone the same time. And Debbie Moore was a huge star, so it's like, what's the big deal? But Moore was in her 30s, somewhat overexposed. And this movie kind of just like, you know, she kind of leaves Hollywood for some time.

She didn't really come back into the early 2000. So I think it's interesting that this film really was a career setback for more. All right. That is our show. Thank you, as always, for listening. You can find this podcast or whatever podcast are found. If you want to leave us a rating or review on the iTunes page, we would appreciate that or the Apple podcast page showing my age there. Now, that would be appreciated as well.

It helps people find the show. You can reach out to us via feedback. our feedback email at unclear and present feedback at fastmail.com. For this week in feedback, we have an email from, feedback inbox from Patrick titled Murder at 1600 versus the West Wing. Hello host, your murder at 1600 discussion made a very convincing argument about the effects of political thrillers and the minds of Americans, both as ordinary folk and people in power. The results of this particular set of media seems,

to reinforce reactionary or conservative worldview ideas and viewers or politically confused conspiracy-mindedness. Meanwhile, the host of Michael and us often described the West Wing as the main source of what politics is or should be in the liberal imagination, charismatic officials making pretty speeches and enacting inacting incoherent or centrist at best policies. Do you think this is the same phenomena or something else going on? Also, I like how you contrasted the perfectly executed movie conspiracy with the improvised awkward real-world conspiracy. You know, any movies or TV that show a more realistic court of conspiracy without fully moving into comedy or is it even possible. Thanks for all your excellent work here and elsewhere. I don't know if I would say the Murder 1600 and West Wing phenomenon are the same thing.

I think they are having like two separate impacts on kind of viewers. And the West Wing, I think it's very much, remember, that's a Bush era show. And so I think a lot of it's a fact is just sort of like Bush era liberal nostalgia for the 90s. And as we get further away from the Bush era and further away from that cultural moment, I think, a lot of the vibe of the West Wing becomes like a little less legible. I would expect that the political show these days that people really glom on to is Veep, which is, you know, a Trump era, early Trump era show that attempts to, I would say kind of some of more realistically show how Washington works from the lens of comedy.

And as far as movie conspiracies that seem more realistic, I don't know. I was just rewatching that movie about the Wansi conference in 19-4-2. That movie's fucking sick. I love that movie. Conspiracy. Yeah. I can't believe it. That's hard to re-watch.

I have re-watched, too, but I'm very impressed that you've watched that one of the once. Yeah, yeah. I watched it more than once because it is just like an accidentally made movie. Yeah, the act is terrific. It's a terrific film. Even though it's about a really horrible thing. All right. Hillary, thank you so much for joining us.

Yeah, thanks Hillary. No, thanks so much for having me. Big fan of the show. Her book, Putting Women in Their Place, Gender Power, and World Politics is, again, available wherever books are sold. And John's book, also available wherever books are sold. My book doesn't exist. Maybe it will one day.

One day. Every journalist has at least one book in them. Yeah. So when that happens, don't worry. I'll be harassing you people into trying into buying copies. All right. For Hillary Mathes and John Gans,

I am Jamel Bowie, and this is unclear in present danger, and we'll see you next time.