Camouflage Isn't Only for Combat

Gender, Sexuality, and Women in the Military

Melissa S. Herbert

• Publisher: NYU Press
• Year: 1998
• ISBN:
  9780814737385
• Topic: Ciencias sociales
• Subtopic: Estudios de género

Drawing on surveys and interviews with almost 300 female military personnel, Melissa Herbert explores how women's everyday actions, such as choice of uniform, hobby, or social activity, involve the creation and re-creation of what it means to be a woman, and particularly a woman soldier. Do women feel pressured to be "more masculine," to convey that they are not a threat to men's jobs or status and to avoid being perceived as lesbians? She also examines the role of gender and sexuality in the maintenance of the male-defined military institution, proposing that, more than sexual harassment or individual discrimination, it is the military's masculine ideology--which views military service as the domain of men and as a mechanism for the achievement of manhood--which serves to limit women's participation in the military has increased dramatically. In the wake of armed conflict involving female military personnel and several sexual misconduct scandals, much attention has focused on what life is like for women in the armed services. Few, however, have examined how these women negotiate an environment that has been structured and defined as masculine.

1

INTRODUCTION

I was ashamed to admit that I’d been in the service because I knew what the assumptions about my character would be. There was certainly no pride felt in my family about my service. There was grief when I went in, and I think some embarrassment. “Nice” girls didn’t join the Army.

—Major, Army, heterosexual

Since the 1940s, when women began to enter the military in significant numbers, questions have been raised about their intent, their ability, and, perhaps most frequently, their character. It was believed that a woman who would place herself in an environment that was both numerically and ideologically “male” must either be looking for a husband or for multiple sexual partners or must wish that she were, in fact, male. But, while the focus on the military may have been new, questions about women’s participation in domains previously defined as male were not. When women first sought to attend college, it was widely believed that education might damage a woman’s reproductive system. When women sought to participate in sport, similar fears were expressed. In addition, as with the military, concern was voiced about what kind of women might want to participate in such activities in the first place.

When women seek to enter male domains, they are often confronted by societal expectations concerning what constitutes a “real woman.” Surely a “real woman” doesn’t want to carry a weapon, sleep in a foxhole, or go for weeks without a shower. A “real woman” doesn’t want to do “men things.” Sociocultural notions of what constitutes femininity and masculinity are used to insure that women who push the boundaries of gender are censured for such behaviors. While one mechanism is the threat that they are somehow less than “real women,” another is the threat of labeling them “lesbian.” A “real woman” does not do that most manly of “men things,” sleep with women. Gender and sexuality are intertwined in such a way that notions of appropriateness in one are used to reinforce the other.

Many women who have entered the military have done so with the disapproval of friends and family. While this is certainly not the case for all women, and is less the case today, the perception that women who would enter the military were not “nice girls” was at one time quite widespread.

In 1942, shortly before the establishment of the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps, civilian and military personnel alike expressed concern over the type of women who might join such an organization. Many believed that women who would be interested in the military would be either fierce, masculine women wishing to act like men or delicate, feminine women who, presumably, were unfit for such service. In response, Mrs. Oveta Culp Hobby, chief of the women’s interests section of the War Department’s Bureau of Public Relations, said that the members of the proposed corps would be neither “Amazons rushing into battle” nor “butterflies fluttering free” (“Freedom of Press” 1942). Yet, it seemed impossible for the corps’s critics to imagine that reality might lay somewhere between these two extremes.¹

The confusion over what women doing “men’s” work meant prompted a full-scale campaign to assure women, their families, and men, as well, that, “though the economy required that women assume male roles, don functional clothing, and engage in physically demanding dirty work … these new roles did not signify fundamental changes in the sexual orientation of women themselves or in their customary image as sex objects” (Honey 1984: 114). A memo from the Office of Emergency Management addressed these fears, as well:

There is an unwholesomely large number of girls who refrain from even contemplating enlistment because of male opinion. An educative program needs to be done among the male population to overcome this problem. Men—both civilian and military personnel—should be specifically informed that it is fitting for girls to be in the service. This would call for copy … which shows that the services increase, rather than detract from, desirable feminine characteristics. (Honey 1984: 113)

Interestingly, the military—or at least the folks who handle advertising for the Army—are aware that such conflicts about female and male roles continue and may affect recruiting. A recent recruiting advertisement shows a woman in front of a helicopter, wearing her flight helmet, lipstick, and mascara. The emphasized text, larger and boxed, is a phrase that the Army has been using for a while now: “There’s something about a soldier.” The text surrounding this statement reads:

Especially if you’re a woman. Because you’ll find yourself doing the most amazing things. Like being a flight Crew Chief or a Topographic Surveyor, or any one of nearly 200 skills the Army offers. You’ll also find yourself doing some very familiar things. Like getting into aerobics, going to the movies or just being with friends. The point is, a woman in the Army is still a woman [italics mine]. (Rolling Stone 26 January 1995)

A smaller photo at the bottom of the page shows the same woman wearing civilian clothes, large hoop earrings, and a large ring and with a young man with his arm around her. Clearly, this advertisement is trying to reassure women that they can do “male” things like being a flight crew chief or a topographic surveyor and still “be a woman.”

During the last decade, and particularly in the wake of armed conflict involving female military personnel, interest in the role of women in the military has increased dramatically. Issues concerning women in the military have been the subject of both academic and governmental inquiry, as well as the object of media attention. These issues range from whether women veterans experience a pay premium as a result of military service to the role of women in combat. Scholarly works have been written around these issues, some providing a general overview of the experience of women in the military, others focusing on specific experiences such as attendance at West Point, being a lesbian in the military, or serving in Vietnam, to provide a glimpse into the lives of those women.

While these works do capture what life is like for many women in the military, few have examined how women in the military negotiate an environment that has been both structured and defined as “masculine.” The emphasis has been on what the women experience, rather than how they manage that experience. This book focuses on this latter question, examining how gender and sexuality interact to shape how women manage life in the military.

Women currently constitute about 13 percent of the United States military. There is little question that women have made inroads into the military hierarchy that would have been difficult to imagine even a decade ago. In 1993, Sheila Widnall became the first woman appointed to head one of the branches of the military. Although the position of secretary of the Air Force is a civilian post, this appointment may reflect a new wave of acceptance of women in military leadership. It was also during 1993 that women first attended combat pilot training, and in 1994 women received their first permanent assignments to Navy warships. And, in June 1997, Claudia J. Kennedy became the first woman in the Army to be promoted to the rank of lieutenant general. Nonetheless, for reasons that are both institutional and interpersonal, women remain marginalized within all military settings.

Debate over women’s marginalization in the military has often centered on institutional factors such as restrictions on women in nontraditional occupations within the military, including combat exclusion policies. Examination of the possibility that interpersonal barriers exist have, for the most part, focused on issues such as sexual harassment and individual discrimination.

The existence of institutional constraints can be confirmed by examining military regulations, while interpersonal constraints can be observed in women’s continued experiences of sexual harassment and discrimination at the individual level. Recent cases of harassment involving personnel ranging from recruits at training facilities to the sergeant major of the army are evidence enough that the problem remains. Both institutional and interpersonal barriers derive at least in part from a gender ideology that views military service as the domain of men and that affirms masculinity as one mechanism by which men become soldiers. I believe that it is this broader ideology that is much more effective in limiting the participation of women in the military than either specific institutional or interpersonal constraints.

A lengthy history associates men with the public sphere of paid work, or production, and women with the private sphere of nonpaid work, or reproduction. Whether by consigning them to “female” jobs or fighting their access to “male” jobs, women have been confronted with challenges to their “right” to participate in the labor force on an equal basis with men. Rather than look to neoclassical arguments about how women make different choices from men or about the illogic of discrimination, I posit that much of this confrontation is situated in a conflict over gender ideology and the “appropriateness” of certain jobs for women. Nowhere does this issue seem to generate as much debate as in the military.

We have seen attempts to change the regulations or improve the enforcement of existing policies on harassment and discrimination. I believe, however, that women in the military face a much more difficult task than changing regulations or policies. Even with changes that now make it possible for women to fly fighter aircraft or serve on warships, women continue to face harassment and discrimination at the individual level. Much as in the case of eliminating racism, there is what we might call the “de facto” response (e.g., ignoring the formal penalties), as well as the “de jure” response (e.g., formalizing penalties for sexual harassment).

In her essay on “gendered institutions,” Joan Acker writes that this term “means that gender is present in the processes, practice, images and ideologies, and distributions of power in the various sectors of social life” (1992: 567). The military is a “gendered institution” because soldiering has been about not only war, but being “a man.” On a more practical level, the military is gendered in that rules about who can hold what jobs and serve in what areas are structured along the lines of gender, not age, race, or physical fitness. Elsewhere, Acker writes that “organizations are one arena in which widely disseminated cultural images of gender are invented and reproduced” (1990: 140). This, I argue, is the case with the military and constructions of gender.

Organizations are gendered in that they both reflect and contribute to the gendered nature of the broader social structure. Women and men in the military, not unlike those in other organizations, are certain to experience organizational life differently. Although the military is in many ways unique, it is certainly not immune to the processes I have described.

In fact, there appears to be little dispute over the tradition of soldiering as a male bastion. The complex weaving together of the achievement of manhood or masculinity with military service offers us insight into the way in which the notion of soldiering has historically been so central a part of male identity. It makes sense that the reverse would be true, that maleness is so central a part of soldiering.

Prior to the elimination of the draft, the military represented a part of traditional sex-role identity for American men, as well as a primary socialization agent for this identity. Even with the advent of the all-volunteer force and the integration of women into the military, this connection was not entirely broken. A video used by the Selective Service System to brief new members contains a theme song whose refrain is, “I want to call you mister, but I can’t until you register.” This lyric highlights the relationship between manhood and military service. It should, however, be acknowledged that such beliefs developed throughout history when, with few exceptions, soldiers were all men, and most men became soldiers.

Proclamation of sexual prowess is also evident in the military, specifically in settings that are predominantly male. Not only does the “locker room” talk of high school continue, but cadences that brag about the sexual conquering of women can still be heard in all male settings. And, songs, riddles, and rituals that denigrate women continue (Burke 1996). It is not enough to simply be male; one must be “more male” than the men in the next squad, platoon, and so forth.

Neither is it enough to rely on sexual prowess and physical ability to establish one’s masculinity and, thus, one’s status as a soldier. Much of the strategy seems to rely on being that which is not feminine and, taking this one step further, denigrating that which is feminine. Erving Goffman notes, “A considerable amount of what persons who are men do in affirmation of their sense of identity requires their doing something that can be seen as what a woman by her nature could not do, or at least could not do well” (1977: 326). Even in the absence of the draft and with the increased participation of women in the military, it seems clear that, for many, the military continues to be viewed as one option for the expression of masculinity and the achievement of manhood.

Although the stated goal of basic training is to transform civilians into soldiers, another objective, as I have suggested, has been to transform boys into men. The literature, fictitious (e.g., The Red Badge of Courage) as well as scholarly, is rife with examples of military service as a means by which one’s masculinity is confirmed.

The process of basic training is one of depersonalization and deindividuation in which the military, in the form of drill sergeants, must strip the individual of all previous self-definition. While basic training is intended to teach one the skills needed to perform as a soldier, it is also intended to vest each participant with a clear notion of what it means to be a soldier, a Marine, and so forth.² In the case of military training, these images are characteristically male. As almost all young men throughout the first three-quarters of the twentieth century had to complete some form of military service, basic training can be seen as having been the male equivalent of “finishing school.”

One of the most common ways to bolster masculinity by denigrating femininity is the use of slang descriptors of females or female anatomy (e.g., “skirt,” “pussy”) and non-slang descriptors (e.g., women, girls) to characterize and belittle males. The best challenge to one’s masculinity is the “accusation” of femininity.

Clearly, masculinity in military men not only is rewarded but is the primary construct around which resocialization as a soldier takes place. It is not, then, surprising that femininity, or characteristics believed to be associated with femininity, would be discouraged. On the other hand, the military, reflecting the broader society, may find that maintaining women’s femininity serves to reinforce notions of what it means to be “a man.” That is, by requiring women to maintain a degree of femininity, perceptions of masculinity remain intact. This may be well illustrated by the old Navy and Marine Corps policies in which female recruits received makeup and etiquette training.

The military is a highly traditional, primarily conservative institution in which we may expect the expression, “men are men and women are women” to be taken seriously. Exactly how are women in the military supposed to “be women”? The integration of women into an institution defined by its association with masculinity has posed an interesting dilemma for military women. Can one truly be a soldier and a woman and not be viewed as deviating either from what it means to be a soldier or from what it means to be a woman?

In their article “Doing Gender,” Candace West and Don Zimmerman “propose an ethnomethodologically informed … understanding of gender³ as a routine, methodical, and recurring accomplishment” (1987: 126). Rather than a state of being—e.g., you are feminine, you are masculine—gender is performed. We enact femininity and masculinity; we don’t simply become feminine or masculine. They also maintain that “gender itself is constituted through interaction” (1987: 129). It is the actions that are socially defined as feminine or masculine, others’ responses to those actions and the actor’s response to those responses—interaction—that assigns meaning to our behaviors. This framing of the concept of “doing gender” as both ethnomethodologically informed and interactional in nature draws upon two theoretical traditions: “ethnomethodology” and “symbolic interactionism.”

Ethnomethodology has its roots in phenomenology, the idea that we can never know more about something than what we can experience through our senses. Ethnomethodology⁴ can be defined as social actors’ methods for making sense of the world around them. Key to this approach is “to treat as problematic what is taken for granted in order to understand the commonsense everyday world” (Wallace and Wolf 1991: 295). This method is particularly appropriate for any inquiry into gender. Because of its perceived relation to biology (i.e., whether one is identified as female or male), gender, as traditionally conceived, is often seen as fixed. That is, females are feminine, males are masculine. By constructing gender as problematic, by questioning the social “facts” of gender, we employ an ethnomethodological perspective.

Although it has been said that Erving Goffman did not consider himself a symbolic interactionist, his work is very much a part of that perspective. In his study of mental institutions, Goffman found that “inmates invented many ingenious strategies to preserve their own selfhood rather than surrender to an acceptance of the role and the self that the institution prescribes” (Wallace and Wolf 1991: 274). The ability of the actor to not only adjust to the demands of the situation but to preserve the self is of particular interest when we look at women in the military. Not only is the military a total institution whose members undergo a process of deindividuation, but, for women, there is the question of whether they are somehow “de-gendered.” Women may not only “do gender” to reconcile conflicting roles but may do so to help maintain a sense of self in an otherwise alienating, and sometimes hostile, setting.

Gender, then, is something we “do” rather than something we simply “are.” If we wish to examine gender as interactional, as an active process rather than a passive acquisition, then it is helpful to understand the contributions of symbolic interactionism to the development of such a perspective. West and Zimmerman’s conception of gender is not strictly symbolic interactionist, yet it draws heavily on notions of interaction and the work of Goffman. As such, this perspective is critical to any approach in which gender is viewed as an interactional accomplishment.

Actions are undertaken, among other reasons, “with an eye to how they might be assessed (e.g., as ‘womanly’ or ‘manly’ behaviors)” (West and Fenstermaker 1995: 21). Accountability is important to our ability to make sense not only to ourselves, but to those around us. Women are likely involved in creating gender not simply “for gender’s sake” but to show that they are women, that they are adhering to normative conceptions of femaleness. When the issue is gender, it is not simply whether we are, for example, female and our actions viewed as appropriate for females, but whether the action is viewed as appropriate to the setting in which we are observed. For women, this may provide the ultimate contradiction. Given the masculine nature of the military, female soldiers may be accountable not only as women but as soldiers/pseudomen. How do women make sense of this apparent contradiction? How do women maintain a sense of order in a world in which the expectations placed upon them may be seen by many as contradicting one another?

Where ethnomethodology addresses the broad question of making sense of the world around us, “doing gender” addresses the more focus...