Twyne: Media Analysis

Matt Twyne

G.I. Jane

When trying to think of an alluring title for my analysis piece, I soon realized it would be hard to come up with anything more inherently catchy or controversial than the existing title of my media selection, G.I. Jane. For those unfamiliar with the film, G.I. Jane is the fictional story of the first woman (Jordan O'Neil) to undergo BUD/S and SQT training, more commonly known as navy SEAL training. SEAL training is generally regarded as the most physically and mentally rigorous form of military training in the world, statistically passing only one in four participants (Sasser). Although the scenario in the film is rather far fetched, the themes explored are applicable to any difficult activity or vocation which society has deemed women unsuitable to perform. Ironically enough, G.I. Jane herself (played by Demi Moore) makes several statements throughout the film about how she is “...not interested in being a poster child for women's rights.” Whether this statement is the result of cheesy script writing or a more subtle ploy to avoid backlash among viewers remains open for interpretation. At any rate, the unavoidable theme of feminism in G.I. Jane is best illustrated by a short dialog between Lt. O'Neil and a superior officer:

"I'm not here to make some sort of a statement," Lt. O'Neil informs the base's commanding officer upon her arrival. "If you were someone else, you wouldn't be making statements about not making some sort of a statement, would you?"

Rather than focus on the obvious “feel good” message of the movie, I intend to compare and contrast both the feminist and the non-feminist messages in G.I. Jane. The positive message in this film is so cliché and flashy Hollywood that it is relatively easy to stop there without further consideration. However, more thorough analysis of G.I. Jane reveals a decidedly anti-feminist message.

Early on in the film we are introduced to Lt. O'Neil, a beautiful, intelligent, single woman who looks like the poster child for third wave feminism. The underlying problem with O'Neil as a protagonist first stems from her physical beauty. When I say beauty, I mean the sort judged in the traditional, patriarchal, heterosexual sense. Lt. O'Neil was selected for her experimental post from a large group of woman, many of whom were arguably better suited physically to the rigors of SEAL training. Adding insult to injury, the final choice was made by a woman, a woman who refused to select some of the faster or stronger candidates because their bodies were not the kind “...you want to see on the cover of Newsweek.” Such a political move could be judged as third wave feminism, insofar as it works within the current system for change (Heywood, Drake). Unfortunately that current system is regressive and unsupportive of women. That raises the question of whether this movie is pro-females in the military, or pro-white, skinny, big breasted females in the military.

The second issue I have with the film from a feminist perspective is the value system it and its characters hold. Prior to SEAL training Lt. O'Neil has a very technical, and most likely high paying, job as a defense intelligence analyst. Not only that, but she is also a tri-athlete and Olympic contender in skeleton racing. Such a woman should hardly have anything to prove, but the remainder of the film centers around forcing O'Neil to earn credibility and respect. Certainly anyone undergoing SEAL training must prove themselves, but it appears to me that Lt. O'Neil is expected to prove herself not as a person, but as a man. In both conscious and subconscious ways, she slowly changes over the course of the film to emulate the men who surround her. What starts out as a long haired, skirt wearing, cigar hater ends the movie bald with a cigar in one hand and straight bourbon in the other. One could argue that this is the result of O'Neil changing as a person, but I find it hard to believe that someone would voluntarily take on the characteristics of their former oppressors. One of the most interesting ways in which Lt. O'Neil changes is somewhat out of her control. Excessive exercise during training lowers O'Neil's body fat to the point that her body ceases to produce hormones normally. As a result, she loses her period. Although I'm sure many women may find such a change convenient, it is also a very symbolic step away from being a women. More important than symbolism are the numerous negative health conditions that women with excessively low body fat may encounter. Decreased hormonal levels can lead to low blood sugar, low blood insulin levels, and my also contribute to low bone mineral density in women (Laughlin). Is it reasonable to expect women to sacrifice their long term health in order to achieve a certain level of physical capability? If they choose to do so voluntarily, then I can personally see nothing wrong with the situation. Essentialists would argue; however, that such a profound change in a woman's reproductive process undermines her basic identity as a female (Fuss). Such viewpoints really highlight the greater question; is Lt. O'Neil a female physically, mentally, or both? What in fact defines a female and which parts of which definition do those in power deem unsuitable for intense combat?

The third instance of distinctly anti-feminist thought occurs when Lt. O'Neil's sponsor, Senator DeHaven, decides that it is no longer politically expedient to support O'Neil. In an effort to prevent Lt. O'Neil from completing her training, DeHaven falsely accuses her of being a lesbian. Why is this considered grounds for court marshal? The specific charge is actually “conduct unbecoming of an officer”. I can think of fewer things more insulting than the insinuation that who I like to kiss in my private time makes me unfit to be an officer in the United States military. Unfortunately the American armed forces' “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” policy does more than insinuate this notion. Under such policy, anyone who openly admits to being non-heterosexual is discharged. We are one of the few NATO countries to still follow such arcane guidelines (Riding). The assumption that being a lesbian would be legitimate grounds for discharge goes completely unchallenged in G.I. Jane, made even more offensive by the way Lt. O'Neil vehemently defends her heterosexuality as if homosexuality were some terrible disease.

After watching what I assumed would be a strongly pro-feminist film, I was surprised to notice so many subtle attitudes and inferences to the contrary. I suppose its still a step in the right direction, but I'm not the sort to make compromises. G.I. Jane is a perfect example of the situation put forth in Peggy McIntosh's essay “White Privilege and Male Privilege”. Many well intentioned people are simply conditioned by society to ignore their own oppressive tendencies. Perhaps my paper will raise a little consciousness...