Over the past week we have heard the events of 9/11 described in many ways. One of the most significant "spins" on the events comes from the government: initially the events were described as "a terrorist attack," but not long after they became an "act of war". We have been told that what occurred is not a crime to be addressed by punishing the perpetrators, but an attack on a nation-state which requires us to take up arms against the enemy. Why does this shift in conceptualizing the events matter? Acts of war as opposed to acts of crime call for different responses: in war procedural safeguards (e.g., innocent until proven guilty) are suspended, civil liberties are curtailed, the death of innocents is justified. Crimes against humanity unite us as human beings in response to the horrific acts of individuals; in contrast, attacks on nation-states call for an identification of "the enemy" as other nation-states. I've been asked: does anything about this have to do with gender?

The United States is a proud country. National pride is a good thing. The attacks not only wounded people, it wounded our national pride: how could "they" have done this to "us"? How dare they? Men and women learn to respond to affronts differently, however. Women often have their pride wounded by those who hold more power, so they are not in a position to respond with a display of greater power to prove their worth. Those in subordinate positions have to look for other ways to restore their pride, e.g., they turn inward to re-establish their own intrinsic worthiness, they look for ways in which they may have provoked the affront, they seek more effective ways of communicating with those in power to establish a better and more respectful relationship. Men, when positioned as powerful, can simply demand respect and threaten those who hesitate. Demanding respect in this way is seen as a sign of (masculine) strength. But those of us who have lived on the receiving end of these demands know that they may generate fear and even cooperation, but this is not the same thing as respect. Demands backed by force may be effective but they are shallow; they are grounded in sheer power and not in a demonstration of what deserves respect.

Terrorism may be effective in generating fear, but it is shallow in that it does not demonstrate the value of the cause. Threats of war may be effective in generating cooperation from other nations, but people who already suspect that the United States is a bully intent upon controlling the Arab world will have their suspicions confirmed. Those threatened by war may understandably coalesce into an "enemy" in self-defense. In order to restore our pride, our self-respect and the respect of others, we should ask: Are the values of democracy and freedom made manifest in our actions? Are we demonstrating the power of law and reason and the value of the individual? Is it our values that we are acting on, or are we simply reacting to a threat in its own terms? Such concerns may seem naïve when dealing with others who are willing to resort to atrocities. But even in the face of atrocious criminals weshould respond in a way guided by principle that accords them humanity. The rhetoric of today, however, directs us to prove our power against the "barbarians". Is this not a kind of masculine response?

Of course, to say that it is a "masculine" response is not to say that it is a response that all men will endorse, just as to say that something is feminine is not to say that all women exhibit it. Nor is it to say that this sort of response is "natural" for men, or is biologically determined in some way. Quite the contrary. As we all know, some men are quite feminine, some women masculine. Yet, in their daily lives, men and women are guided by very different social codes and negotiate very different social pressures. As previously suggested, in a social context where men tend to be more powerful than women and where women are expected to be deferential, women have had to develop different strategies for dealing with wounded pride than men. It is important to note that others in subordinate positions, e.g., people of color of both sexes also employ the strategies I've been casting as "womanly" (as have wise people throughout history). Yet it is common to associate strategies employed by the vulnerable with women and to regard the accompanying traits as "feminine" even if they are exhibited by both men and women; men of color, also being vulnerable, are sometimes lumped with women and are regarded as "feminine" too. What we have to consider is whether because those in power are men, they resort to masculine strategies even when these are not the most appropriate, and whether women's strategies offer us valuable resources for building new global alliances.

It may seem ironic that calling for a response that upholds the values of law, reason, and the humanity of each individual is being cast here as more "feminine" than "masculine". After all, aren't reason and individualism masculine? What this demonstrates, I think, is that masculinity and femininity symbolize opposing values, but exactly what values are being opposed depends on context. How exactly the oppositions shift is complicated. But it appears that masculinity often tracks the mechanisms of power. In a context where the status quo is secure, the rules that define the structure of social relations are imposed on individuals: reason/masculinity governs, and emotion/femininity is the threat that must be controlled. In a context where the status quo is insecure, the masculine response is not to talk, consider alternatives, to understand and move beyond the conflict, but to exert force to reassert dominance. Masculinity calls for patriotic identification that eclipses the individual and overrides democratic institutions and rational debate (so much so that death in battle is honorable); it is feminine, then, to consider the individuals who may suffer, the points of view of the "enemy", to govern one's actions by the values of democracy and freedom.

There are many things that Americans can be proud of in the aftermath of the attacks: the heroism, the compassion, the dedication of so many people. As I see it, there is nothing intrinsically masculine or feminine about the values we hold dear. Some things we regard as masculine are good, some not so good; and the same holds for the things we regard as feminine. I hope there will be a day when it makes no sense to interpret a particular response as masculine or feminine. But my worry is that the judgements and decisions of our leaders are clouded by gender expectations and gender insecurities, and that in these difficult times a masculine show of force will lead us to betray our own ideals. Instead, keeping in mind the humanity of even the worst criminals and the goal of a world governed by mutual respect, we should take what might ironically be considered in this context the more feminine or womanly approach: rather than resorting to war and violent attempts to destroy the enemy (be they individuals or states), we should rely on international judicial institutions and international human rights law as far as possible to bring those responsible for the attacks to justice.

Are our leaders strong enough to respond to the attacks in a way that might be considered feminine? To cast an approach as feminine is, typically, to devalue it. But how we understand both the content and the value of masculinity and femininity can be changed. Can we refuse the devaluation of women's responses, expose the hollowness of the masculine, and find a space where we can affirm justice for all of us-not retaliation, not justice for "us" in the United States, but truly justice for all?

Back to interpretations