One of the recurring themes in La Femme Nikita is the conflict between Section One administration (Madeline and Operations) and Nikita and Michael in that Michael and Nikita would like a relationship, but Section policy frowns on … well operatives having any personal ties at all. With the recent SCOTUS decision (FAIR v Rumsfeld) service of homosexuals in the military is again “in the news”. It occurred to me that some of the issues the scriptwriters of La Femme deal with in their somewhat imaginary world have some bearing on this issue.
A little background first. Section One is beyond a para-military organization, it is pretty much a hyper-military one. Small drops in performance are dealt with by putting the affected agent on “abeyance”. Abeyance operatives are those operatives slated to perform the disposable or beyond recovery parts of missions. They are used as intentional sacrifices in the silent war on terror waged by Section One. At the same time, any and all signs that an agent has loyalties to anything else than section is dealt with not in a casual way such as abeyance, but by being “canceled”, the euphimism for summary execution. In this environment, outside relationships are hard or impossible because they mean you must lie to your loved one. Interpersonal relationships between agents are equally frowned upon because that causes “performance to drop” or worse for an operative to stop “following the mission profile” (plan) when his or her partner is put into harms way or hurt. Michael starts the series as Nikita’s trainer and handler. Over the first three seasons (all I’ve seen) they slowly develop and commit to a relationship.
Some of the consdierations involving allowing (openly) homosexual persons (especially males) in the military are as follows (some reasons are of course better than others) and to review these options in the light of the “wisdom” of La Femme:
- That this will “poison” the comraderie in the foxhole.
In La Femme, this is never a problem. The “zeks” or the operatives captive to the organ that is Section One have such stifled existences regarding their freedoms that they view with awe and envy and glimmer of happiness any among them can glean. On the front and in wartime, perhaps similar notions would hold. Life is so hard, grim, and cheap that happiness is not envied but admired. La Femme has little to say about peacetime, for that is not in the cards for their organization.
- that the strong emotional ties acommpanying sexual relationships will cause discipline to break when one or the other partner is put into immanent danger, is wounded, or killed.
This is a definite problem according to the writers which is an unresolved issue. On the other hand, while one is asked to give up your life for your unit, the lovers tend while not willing to give up the life of their other, they are even more willing to sacrifice their life for the other instead. On the one hand, relationships between other agents are seen to cause problems when they arise, on several occaisions Nikita or Michael’s unwillingness to accept the sacrifice of the other results in heroism which saves the other. Heroism is usually a good thing in combat.
- In a military organization, chain of command must be respected or chaos results. However, sexual relationships form bonds which don’t respect the chain of command forming ties that sometimes would supercede or corrupt that chain.
This problem is the crux of why I think Operations feels the relationship of Nikita and Michael must be halted. The writers of La Femme syjmpathise with the societal romatic ideal as a unquestioned good. But this issue would bring a new can of worms into non single sex “non-homosexual” armed force. As we’ve admitted women to a lot of roles in the armed forces at this point, the argument against same sex relationships becomes less compelling (at best).
- However, homosexuals can be patriots just as much as the next man (or woman). Denying them their chance to offer their life for their polis gives them an explicit exemption from military service which they might not seek. This is a point not addressed by the “wisdom of La Femme” but nevertheless I thought should be said.
Some other commenters to note on this subject.
- Dafydd at Big Lizards thinks gays serving in the military would be bully by him, but that he notes that it is Congress not the military itself which lays down the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy. Often we blame the military, but they aren’t “in charge” in this situation.
- Kevin Drum (on the other side of the aisle) asks a disengenuous question, “What I’m curious about is this: if Congress could have simply forced universities to provide access to military recruiters, why didn’t they do it? Why bother with all the federal funding cutoff folderol? Seems pretty inefficient, no?” Mr Drum is not so dense I think that he can’t answer that simple question. Rephrase it, can you imagine our elected Legislators passing legislation which doesn’t directly put their position in black and white on a charged issue? Seems … perhaps cowardly or cautious but “why bother?” I think that answer is pretty obvious.
- Eric at Classical Values also has an excellent post on this. He poses a more interesting question than Mr Drum, that is, if Mr Bush had ordered by fiat that gays might serve, then how would the Academy react. Would they then embrace military recruitment? He thinks, “I have no way of knowing, but based on what I’ve seen, I have my suspicions.” Exactly right.
0 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.