But at least it’s been recognized as being REALLY INAPPROPRIATE.

See, the professor was giving a lecture about Machiavelli’s “views on leadership and insurgency and counterinsurgency.” And Machiavelli, his language on this topic is, for us modern readers, often pretty offensive. I haven’t read The Prince since very early on in college, so excuse me while I use the internet to do the dirty work for me. Machiavelli uses the word/name “Fortuna” to refer to “the enemy of political order, the ultimate threat to the safety and security of the state.” Fortuna is actually the name of the Greek goddess of luck and fate, and as such is in fact a very interesting philosophical foil in an argument about imposing political order (overcoming/making your own fortune, etc). However, Fortuna has been obviously gendered, allowing Machiavelli to make really unfortunate analogies and statements, like these:

Machiavelli reinforces the association of Fortuna with the blind strength of nature by explaining that political success depends upon appreciation of the operational principles of Fortuna. His own experience has taught him that “it is better to be impetuous than cautious, because Fortuna is a woman and it is necessary, in order to keep her under, to beat and maul her.” In other words, Fortuna demands a violent response of those who would control her. “She more often lets herself be overcome by men using such methods than by those who proceed coldly,” Machiavelli continues, “therefore always, like a woman, she is the friend of young men, because they are less cautious, more spirited, and with more boldness master her” (Machiavelli 1965, 92). The wanton behavior of Fortuna demands an aggressive, even violent response, lest she take advantage of those men who are too retiring or “effeminate” to dominate her.

In other words, to effectively exercize political power, you must rape Fortuna.

So, when it’s 2010 and you’re a professor, how do you teach The Prince, which was written in 1513? Answer: not like this:

And then, paraphrasing again, Walling used what the Navy called an offensive metaphor to explain Machiavelli’s belief that real leaders will take Fortuna when they want to whether or not the goddess likes it.

“What does a leader do when the b—- won’t put out? I do not mean to be vulgar, but rather to get to the heart of the matter from Machiavelli,” Walling said in the lecture. “If Fortuna will not cooperate, then make her do so. Real men, real leaders do not take no for an answer. Fortuna, said Machiavelli, is a woman, and when it is necessary if one wants to hold her down, to beat her down, moreover, she will like it.”

I don’t mean to be vulgar, but c’mon guys, we’ve all been there right, when the bitch won’t put out? AmIRight or AmIRight? LOL JK.

Look, if you’ve gotta paraphrase Machiavelli, you’ve gotta paraphrase Machiavelli, and there’s no way of getting around the fact that you’re paraphrasing material that basically promotes some incredibly gross stuff. And I don’t fault the man for simply paraphrasing at all (and he actually did go on to refute Machiavelli’s points, making it clear that he wasn’t, in fact, “supporting rape” as some critics have claimed). I do, however, take issue with making it into one big rape joke. If you watch the video, below, that’s how it’s delivered and that’s how its treated, with hearty laughs from the audience.Yes, the strategy behind saying “the bitch won’t put out” is “let me put this into terms you’d understand, students” but this is so ill-conceived and unnecessary. For one thing, it’s not like the concept is difficult to grasp on its own, since Machiavelli is so explicit. For another thing, you’re a professor who put a lot of time into writing a lecture and seriously never thought that referring to a woman as a “bitch who won’t put out” (even a metaphorical woman) in front of a room of college students is inappropriate and offensive and bound to make some of your students feel really uncomfortable? Finally: it’s not funny. Please, professors, don’t try and elicit chuckles from your audience by using derogatory language about women no matter what the context is, thanks.

Anyway, the Navy wasn’t happy, the professor apologized and was sanctioned, and all moves on at Naval War College. But to me this is a reminder about how despite the reputation of academics as being super liberal PC  thought-fascists, there are still a lot of blind spots among professors about how to talk about sex and gender (not to mention race and a number of other identities, but for now…) I’m reminded of the professor I had who repeatedly referred to the woman who Willy Loman (from Death of a Salesman) had an affair with as a hussy, and other such antiquated terms for slut. He called her this simply because she’s the mistress, the other woman. Willy Loman, of course, wasn’t given the same moral judgment. Excellent lesson, prof.

Edit: more on this and how youtube comes into play here. I want to be very clear that I don’t think this professor was promoting any of Machiavelli’s language, I just have a problem with his “update” of the language and its use as a punchline.