Women and Gender Perspectives in the Military

An International Comparison

Robert Egnell, Mayesha Alam, Robert Egnell, Mayesha Alam

• Publisher: Georgetown University Press
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781626166271
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: National Security
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Women and Gender Perspectives in the Military compares the integration of women, gender perspectives, and the women, peace, and security agenda into the armed forces of eight countries plus NATO and United Nations peacekeeping operations. This book brings a much-needed crossnational analysis of how militaries have or have not improved gender balance, what has worked and what has not, and who have been the agents for change.

The country cases examined are Sweden, the Netherlands, Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, Australia, and South Africa. Despite increased opportunities for women in the militaries of many countries and wider recognition of the value of including gender perspectives to enhance operational effectiveness, progress has encountered roadblocks even nearly twenty years after United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 kicked off the women, peace, and security agenda. Robert Egnell, Mayesha Alam, and the contributors to this volume conclude that there is no single model for change that can be applied to every country, but the comparative findings reveal many policy-relevant lessons while advancing scholarship about women and gendered perspectives in the military.

1

Introduction

Gender and Women in the Military—Setting the Stage

Robert Egnell and Mayesha Alam

Whether fighting wars or pursuing diplomacy, devising military tactics or developing nuclear strategy, the arena of international security has traditionally been conceived—by both those on the inside and out—as the purview of men. Throughout virtually the entire world, the relationship between gender—as a social construct—and the military has been largely ignored. And yet conceptualizations of gender, of masculinity and femininity, of the roles appropriate for men versus women, matter in international security even if, for far too long, those in the highest echelons of power—whether government or military—have been reluctant to acknowledge this fact. Ideas shape values and judgments, they guide decisions, and they give life to interactions between people, between institutions, and between states. Beyond theory, gendered experiences of war and peace manifest differently for men and women, shaping their needs and abilities to both resolve and perpetuate armed conflicts.

It was not until the turn of the millennium, however, that the UN Security Council—the international body designated with the responsibility of maintaining peace and security—formally recognized that women, not just men, matter to the construction of a safe and stable world. The adoption of UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 in October 2000 brought unprecedented global attention to the plight of women during armed conflict as well as the need to ensure their participation in peace and security processes. UNSCR 1325—by its principles and scope—raised important questions that, in many ways, challenged traditional notions of security: Who is it for? How can it best be achieved?

Since then the UN Security Council has adopted a suite of resolutions that make up the international women, peace, and security agenda.¹ At the national level, some seventy countries have adopted national action plans (NAPs) that detail the priorities and approaches to implementing the framework of UNSCR 1325. Despite these important normative and policy developments, the chasm between vision and reality remains deep. The seminal 2015 Global Study, produced by UN Women to mark the fifteenth anniversary of UNSCR 1325, identifies inconsistent implementation and under-implementation as the most persistent and prevalent challenges. There are myriad explanations for the implementation gap, such as a shortage of political will, institutional paralysis, competition over limited resources, geopolitical realities, conceptual misunderstanding, and other factors, but one that is particularly relevant to this edited volume is the inadequate sharing of best practices and lessons learned between countries and regions.

Military operations—whether war fighting or peacekeeping—is, arguably, the sector in which the least amount of global progress has been made. This volume aims to fill a lacuna in scholarship by investigating, documenting, and analyzing the role of women and gender in military organizations and operations. The scope of the volume, therefore, encompasses (1) the opening up of national armed forces to women, (2) the integration of gender perspectives in military operations, and (3) the implementation of UNSCR 1325 in military organizations at national and international levels. Not all of these dimensions are necessarily addressed in each chapter, but all three are interconnected and important to consider in concert. By “integration of gender perspectives,” we refer to the recognition, acknowledgment, and corresponding assessment of how structures, policies, mission mandates, and institutional culture affect men and women differently. This includes both within military organizations and in the field of operations. Our goal is to advance understanding among scholars and practitioners about the implementation of reforms in military organizations with respect to women and gender, including the inclusion of women and the implementation of gender perspectives at national and international levels. In doing so, we hope to add to the growing body of scholarship in the field pioneered by a range of scholars who have focused on related issues, such as the gendered nature of war fighting, the historical siloing of women to support roles in national militaries, and the sluggish and complicated ways in which considerations of gender have been operationalized in missions.²

To achieve our overarching aim, the book conducts a comparison of the integration processes in eight countries as well as in the UN and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Not only are detailed analyses of the processes in each case provided, but the case studies also zoom in on several common research questions and variables. First, to provide analytical structure for the cases, we rely on a framework first developed by Louise Olsson in a 2008 study of the Nordic Battle Group’s efforts to implement Resolution 1325. She structured her analysis into four different work areas in a classic 2 × 2 matrix that also applies very well to this book.³ The framework is summarized in table 1.1 and captures these four aspects of the implementation of the resolution in two dimensions. The first part of the matrix captures the internal-external dimension, referring to how military organizations are organized internally and how they are externally working to obtain certain outputs in the field of operations. In essence, on the one hand, how the military is organized, and on the other hand, what they do and how they do it. The second part cuts across the first and covers representation-integration. This means looking at male and female participation on the one hand and the integration of the resolution and broader gender perspectives in the policies and operations of the organizations.⁴

Second, in accordance with that framework, the chapters here look more closely at a set of common research questions that are particularly relevant to specific country cases: Where did the pressure and the decisions to change come from? Who, or what department, was put in charge of the process? Was emphasis placed on the integration of women or gender perspectives, and in what ways? Who were the key agents of change? What were the biggest roadblocks? Which processes or decisions turned out to be essential or limiting? Was the aim of the process described as one of increased military effectiveness or gender equality? Were inside or outside change strategies used? How does the timing and tempo of change fit into a broader international normative and political context? The case study chapters address these questions and factors, allowing us to trace common themes and patterns, while at the same time being flexible enough to tell the unique stories of each case. Thus, the volume strikes a balance between structured comparison and coverage of a range of contextual considerations and challenges involved in the implementation of gender perspectives in military affairs.

To be clear, the ten cases included in this volume are noteworthy, but they are not necessarily representative of the experience of every country or region. A detailed global analysis is beyond the scope of our endeavor, but by tracing and comparing the processes in the selected cases, the book highlights some of the approaches adopted and adapted in furtherance of gender mainstreaming and balancing, as well as their limits.

The nature of, and approaches to, the implementation efforts have varied extensively within and across contexts. Some countries are focused on the integration of women throughout the organization, while others are emphasizing the importance of gender perspectives in operations—something that does not necessarily require female participation. Some are justifying the process through rights-based arguments about the importance of women’s empowerment and gender equality, while others stress operational effectiveness as the primary rationale for change. Some armed forces have been subjected to external pressure, while others change as the result of internal drivers. This variation in change processes has yet to be systematically studied and evaluated, meaning we know little about what works and what does not, or what kind of impact the change processes have on the organizations and their conduct in the field of operations. Is it already possible to find evidence that these implementation processes lead to higher numbers of women, an evolution of organizational cultures, or improved operational effectiveness? While effects may be difficult to measure or quantify, understanding not only why but also how change takes place within military organizations is crucial to creating and maintaining effective initiatives and optimizing interventions in future efforts.

Table 1.1: Framework with Four Work Areas for the Implementation of UNSCR 1325

	Representation	Integration
Internal (i.e., the internal aspects of the military organization)	Mapping policies and equal opportunities: •Male and female personnel—all functions and levels •Work environment •Access to resources and material	Work structure of NATO missions and operations: •Training •Analysis •Planning •Reporting •Evaluation and policy development
External (i.e., how the military organization conducts operations and missions)	Liaison, intelligence, and support: •Interaction with local men and women •Cooperation with and promotion of local partners, including women’s organizations	Mandate, interpretation, and execution: •How the main assignments are selected and prioritized •Execution of selected and prioritized assignments •Adaption to local developments

As is apparent in the chapters that follow, many of the developments made to date—especially with respect to the opening up of militaries to women—happened before the adoption of UNSCR 1325. Instead, these processes were the result of broader societal changes that increased gender equality and women’s rights. These changes were codified both internationally, with the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), and nationally with the Swedish Equality Act of 1980, the US Women’s Armed Services Integration Act of 1948, or the Australian Sex Discrimination Act of 1984, as a few examples.

In the last fifteen years, there has been, however, growing recognition that implementation of the women, peace, and security agenda will require not only cooperation between states but also learning from each other and lesson sharing. Accordingly, the authors highlight prevalent organizational hurdles but also potential opportunities for collaboration between institutions and countries. The cases also shine a spotlight on the role and impact of individual change agents in leadership positions within organizations who devised strategies to promote equality and effectiveness and the obstacles they faced in instituting organizational change.

A comparative study, especially an edited volume, requires a framework for analysis to enable case comparison and to produce a coherent volume. To that end, we take an integrated approach to the analysis here by drawing on both feminist and military theories, which, taken together, provide the theoretical grounding for the volume.

Connecting Gender and Military Effectiveness

Gender and military effectiveness may at first glance seem like issues that are worlds apart. In reality, however, military effectiveness is a highly gendered area of research and practice. Feminist international scholarship has long been concerned with the hypermasculinized culture of military organizations and the ways in which war fighting intersects with patriarchy.⁵ It is important to recognize that there are different and sometimes divergent schools of thought under the umbrella of feminist scholarship, just as with military studies. We believe it is important to distinguish between these different perspectives and refrain from painting them with a broad brush of generalizations. Some experts on military effectiveness, for example, may treat concerns related to the inclusion of women, the integration of gender perspectives, and the implementation of UNSCR 1325 as marginal at best and conducive to reducing fighting power at worst, whereas others may recognize this as an area of growth and evolution. Similarly, some feminist scholars may see no need to focus on the role of women and gender in military organizations because they disagree with the existence of militaries and violence as tools of order and stability altogether. Some may approach the set of questions we grapple with in this volume as primarily about rights and equality, while others may take an instrumentalist approach based on strategy and utility.

We argue that zero-sum views are both inaccurate in the research arena and unhelpful in the pursuit of international security and stability. For example, reducing the integration of women into armed forces or the operationalization of gender mainstreaming as little more than forms of affirmative action not only misrepresents the multidimensional vision of UNSCR 1325 but also provides little explanatory power in studying change. At the same time, feminist views that summarily vilify the military, abhor the inclusion of women in armed forces, or dismiss the mainstreaming of gender perspectives in military operations are reductive and unconstructive. In short, unchecked extreme positions—irrespective of their theoretical foundations—do not get us very far. The different sides have much to learn from each other, and there are plenty of synergies to be explored. Let us therefore explore how gender perspectives can enhance operational effectiveness and then look at how military organizations can support the implementation of gender perspectives, women’s rights, and participation as prescribed in the suite of UN Security Council resolutions beginning with 1325 and the NAPs. First, however, it is important to consider what military effectiveness means in the contemporary strategic context and why it matters.

Military Effectiveness and Fighting Power in a Changing World

An effective military organization is one that succeeds in performing the core tasks that the political leadership asks of it.⁶ During the twentieth century, this was generally equated with fighting and winning conventional wars—and thereby defending the nation (or a state’s constitut...