As Julia Adams and Ann Shola Orloff rightly point out, one of the purposes of my essay “The Logic of Masculinist Protection: Reflections on the Current Security State” (2003) is to complicate our understanding of what it means to view events, institutions, and ideas under a gender lens. Our society exhibits multiple logics of gender, that is, in varying ways that “masculinity” and “femininity,” as well as less heterosexual gender ideas, are defined and interpreted. In that essay, I suggest that a traditional meaning of masculinity less noticed recently by feminists, that of the husband/father as loving protector, has been mobilized by the Bush administration to justify both war abroad and the domestic contraction of civil liberties. Part of the lesson I wish to draw for feminist theory is that these varying gender logics may have loose or contradictory relationships to the comportments of actual men and women, especially today. Some women may stand in “masculine” positions, as soldiers or firefighters, and many men may stand in “feminine” positions, as fearful and protected citizens. Gender is better thought of as a set of ideational and social structural relationships that people move through, rather than attributes they have attached to their persons.