The 1990s—the Complexity of Gender in the Clinton Era

In chapter 1, Cynthia Enloe’s optimistic prose recalled how progressive New Left feminism could entertain the possibility that the demilitarization of American society and culture after the Cold War might lead to experimentation with gender roles that would mitigate the effects of the security state’s gender-based hierarchy. Indeed, there was reason to believe that much reform might be expected from a liberal president whose ties to Camelot (Clinton had actually met President Kennedy as a youth and, as President, visited JFK’s grave during the Clinton inauguration) and whose rhetoric of hope to an America suffering its worst economic trouble since the Depression (“I feel your pain”) might have some truly progressive agendas waiting in the wings. Indeed, this potential for progress is often cited as part of the legacy of the Clinton era. Looking back, perhaps somewhat nostalgically at the Clinton era during the early years of the 9/11 George Bush security regime, culture critic James Berger in a

PMLA

article wrote these words to contrast the 1990s regime with that of 9/11:

By the mid-1990s significant social movements were organizing industrial and agricultural workers, students and environmentalists to protect political freedom, national sovereignty, and labor and environmental regulations, and to oppose the efforts of corporations and their allies in government to impose on the entire world a new gilded age of outlaw capitalism. [But the] destruction of the World Trade Center stifled much of this multiplicity of voices, as the Bush administration and the corporate powers it represents used this traumatic event to help establish in the world “one single faith,” which would be articulated in a single language of “homeland security.” (“Towers” 342–343)