Protected Protectors
Abstract: Even though the military is supposed to be structured around the idea of uniformity of cause and appearance, the institution regularly employs double standards in its dealings with its servicewomen. Although these rules are stated to defend servicewomen, they seem to be little more than a way of emphasizing their position as protected women rather than protective soldiers. Interviews suggest that servicewomen should be given more credit than they have.
The military is a society that prides itself on hierarchical uniformity. Within this rigid structural order, however, special attention is given to female soldiers. Servicewomen train, fight, and die alongside their countrymen in duty to the United States of America. Yet by virtue of their being born female, it seems that extra precautions are taken to protect these women-warriors from the very dangers they signed on to face. Not only do they have extra barriers separating them from their enemy, servicewomen also have obstacles between themselves and the respect their male counterparts enjoy. Some powers would even seek to push women out of the military altogether. Differentially protecting some who are meant to protect the masses presents another front in the battle of the sexes. Instead of working side by side as they should, however, women and men fight together one behind the other.
Conflicting Views on the Female Soldier
The main argument against female involvement in the world of war is that the military really is no place for a woman (D’Amico 1996). This position is taken up not only by anti-feminists, but by a number of what political science professor Francine D’Amico calls “critical feminists,” as well. Anti-feminists perceive female participation in the military as a trifecta of dangers: it destroys the family unit, hampers military efficiency, and, above all, shreds “the fabric of civil society” (D’Amico 1996).
While anti-feminists factor in assumed sex-based differences, critical feminists see more of a gender-based structure that they want women to take no part in. To this group, female soldiers simply fall into the military’s patriarchal structure and become instruments in the government’s war machine. Military participation provides not an equalizing platform for women, but a masculinity-promoting vehicle that militarizes women without offering them real power in return (D’Amico 1996).
Proponents for women’s entry into the military are also divided into two sides, both of which focus on the power that women can gain. Liberal feminists see the military as a chance for women to achieve more equality with men. Beyond being simply empowering, some in this camp see female entry into the armed services as potentially equalizing for the military institution as a whole (D’Amico 1996).
Radical feminists, on the other hand, praise female soldiers as evidence of a whole formerly matriarchal society (D’Amico 1996). Female soldiers act as a shining example of the sisterly solidarity necessary to survive in a male-dominated institution. More than merely empowering, these feminists see female militarization as an escape route from patriarchy or, even more progressively, reversing that hierarchy back into women’s favor.
Whether or not one agrees with any of the aforementioned viewpoints, female activity in the military is a reality. The ideal level of their involvement, however, is still hotly debated. For reasons ranging from their physical ability to their sexuality, armed servicewomen remain under scrutiny from each branch of the military, the federal government, and even the civilian media.
Separating the Men from the Women
There is one branch of the American armed forces that, at the very mention of its name, can inspire awe and respect in any citizen. They are soldiers so precise and elite that even the branch’s slogan reflects the nature of its selectivity. They are the few. They are the proud. They are the Marines. And they are the only armed service that institutes sex-segregated training camps (Moniz 1997).
The first positive of single-sex boot camp that proponents jump to is the reduction of sexual tension and temptation that the separation provides. Not only would allowing co-ed boot camps “water down training” for an entire unit (Moniz 1997), but the women would also break down the unit cohesion necessary for men to win wars (Vejdik 2002), figuratively excluding women from the battlefield entirely. As the Army’s studies found, though, co-ed training not only has no affect on men’s performance, but it also raises the performance of female recruits (Muniz 1997). These results corroborate the Army’s fight-like-it-trains philosophy. Although the other armed services may not be ready to apply the philosophy in this instance, the findings suggest that mixed-sex training is both possible and relatively harmless.
Presumably, such claims stem from a desire to preserve the masculine nature of the military institution. It has been proposed, though, that war is no more a natural compulsion for men than it is for women – that war and masculinity are actually constructed to feed into each other (Vejdik 2002). Nevertheless, women are often relegated to secondary roles in the service, as distant from combat duty as the military brass can get away with.
Some would see this upstaging of servicewomen as an act of protecting them from the enemy. After all, and especially for anti-feminists, the reigning assumption has been that women stay home in order to “justify the actions of the protector” in the name of their country (Lee & Nantais 1999). Placing those protected among the ranks of their protectors would make defending women from the enemy difficult physically and psychologically.
Protecting the Protectors
The recent war on terrorism provides a bold illustration of the double standards the United States military upholds in the name of protecting its fighting daughters. In December of 2001, Air Force Lieutenant-Colonel Martha McSally took the Secretary of Defense to court over a symbolically gender-biased regulation (Vojdik 2002). When she was first stationed in Saudi Arabia, Lieutenant-Colonel McSally, as well as every other female soldier stationed in the area, was notified of a special dress code that would “comply with traditional Muslim gender norms” (Vojdik 2002). The rule stated that any female personnel who wanted to go off-base while off-duty must not only be accompanied by a male (for whom no codes were enforced), but must also don a black, head-to-toe robe called an abaya, which tradition dictates Muslim women wear.
This garment is supposed to protect women from being singled out for assault on the streets of a guerrilla war zone (“an occupational hazard,” as one female soldier put it [Lee & Nantais 1999]). In reality, it strips away the label of “U.S. soldier” and emphasizes the label of “woman.” Under the guise of subordinating “individual desires to the needs of military service” (Vojdik 2002), the military effectively reinforced its gender boundaries in an effort to remind servicewomen that they still act as the protected in a world of protectors.
That philosophy of patriotic subordination fails to translate neatly to the battlefield. Despite having the authority to do otherwise, Army and Marine commands routinely exclude service-women from combat duty (Vojdik 2002). Even though they endure similar conditions as men during basic training, women are still more likely to be placed on guard or kitchen detail than on the front lines, purportedly for their own protection.
Having a woman on the battlefield, despite her status as a soldier, makes the job of protecting the “image of the world back home” (Lee & Nantais 1999) increasingly difficult. In the event that a servicewoman is taken captive by the enemy, rumors will likely circulate around her platoon describing the mutilation and/or rape she suffered at the hands of her captors. Regardless of the accuracy of such claims, these stories motivate feelings of rage and vengeance that these soldiers will take onto the battlefield and use as a focusing lens for their mission.
Less attention is paid to male prisoners of war, of course. Although their capture can demoralize their brothers- and sisters-in-arms, the threat of a woman’s invasion has a more disturbing psychological effect. Martha F. Lee and Cynthia Nantais suggest that, in war, rape is more about the humiliation of one’s enemy and the emphasis of their failure to protect their women like proper men than it is about the sexual act itself (1999). This theory can be expanded to say that war itself revolves around the masculine idea of demeaning the enemy through the violation of his women, be they soldiers in a POW camp or civilians in the enemy’s homeland (Vojdik 2002).
Discussions of Female Soldiers
Three people were selected to be interviewed about women in the military. The first selection was Linda, a 59-year-old widow from Georgia. She was chosen not only for her candid and outspoken personality, but because of the possibility of a more traditionalist view of gender relations in the military. She then referred Scott, a 35-year-old stay-at-home father, as an interview selection. She believed that his non-traditional position would offer some compelling counterpoints. The last two selections were Curtis and Rebecca, university undergrad students. They were chosen for the curiosity of how, as a pair in a long-term romantic relationship, their answers to the questions may vary (they were interviewed separately).
While all of the people interviewed agreed that sexual harassment plays little role in recruiting female soldiers, Linda stood alone in matters of servicewomen in combat duty, stating that they should remain in support roles and out of combat. The other three interviewees believed that, as long as the woman could do it, she should be offered or assigned combat duty. All four agreed that servicewomen should not have to take extra precautions in the field, although the students explicitly stated that pregnancy should be taken into account.
The results concerning family were unexpected. Again, Linda was the only one who thought that both parents should report to duty if called, although Rebecca stated that the age of the children should be taken into account before both parents get called up. But she, along with Curtis and Scott, believe the decision of which parent would stay behind to care for any offspring should remain up to the parents themselves.
As for mixed-sex morale and squad cohesion, the males interviewed both stated that the professionalism earned through training would come into play, negating the possibility of men differentially defending women for one reason or the other. The females, on the other hand, recognized the possibility that at least some servicemen would be unwilling to put up with women on their team. Curtis was the only one who, concerning the female POW question, took into account that different cultures treat female prisoners differently than American society dictates. The other three saw the mere fact of being a captured woman as the reason for concern, with both Linda and Rebecca using the phrase “damsel in distress.”
Conclusion
The issue of gender equality in the military may be cleared up and balanced within generations. As the interviews suggest, the latest group of adults strongly advocate equal treatment of women and men in the armed services. With long-standing masculine traditions and structures built within the military attempting to keep women and men separate in service, however, the fight to equalize gender roles looks to be a tough one. Slowly and almost surely, the liberal feminist view of women as soldiers is becoming a reality. And while there are still gender-based barriers to overcome, women will continue to prove their worth during duty and end gendered military equality.
The military is a society that prides itself on hierarchical uniformity. Within this rigid structural order, however, special attention is given to female soldiers. Servicewomen train, fight, and die alongside their countrymen in duty to the United States of America. Yet by virtue of their being born female, it seems that extra precautions are taken to protect these women-warriors from the very dangers they signed on to face. Not only do they have extra barriers separating them from their enemy, servicewomen also have obstacles between themselves and the respect their male counterparts enjoy. Some powers would even seek to push women out of the military altogether. Differentially protecting some who are meant to protect the masses presents another front in the battle of the sexes. Instead of working side by side as they should, however, women and men fight together one behind the other.
Conflicting Views on the Female Soldier
The main argument against female involvement in the world of war is that the military really is no place for a woman (D’Amico 1996). This position is taken up not only by anti-feminists, but by a number of what political science professor Francine D’Amico calls “critical feminists,” as well. Anti-feminists perceive female participation in the military as a trifecta of dangers: it destroys the family unit, hampers military efficiency, and, above all, shreds “the fabric of civil society” (D’Amico 1996).
While anti-feminists factor in assumed sex-based differences, critical feminists see more of a gender-based structure that they want women to take no part in. To this group, female soldiers simply fall into the military’s patriarchal structure and become instruments in the government’s war machine. Military participation provides not an equalizing platform for women, but a masculinity-promoting vehicle that militarizes women without offering them real power in return (D’Amico 1996).
Proponents for women’s entry into the military are also divided into two sides, both of which focus on the power that women can gain. Liberal feminists see the military as a chance for women to achieve more equality with men. Beyond being simply empowering, some in this camp see female entry into the armed services as potentially equalizing for the military institution as a whole (D’Amico 1996).
Radical feminists, on the other hand, praise female soldiers as evidence of a whole formerly matriarchal society (D’Amico 1996). Female soldiers act as a shining example of the sisterly solidarity necessary to survive in a male-dominated institution. More than merely empowering, these feminists see female militarization as an escape route from patriarchy or, even more progressively, reversing that hierarchy back into women’s favor.
Whether or not one agrees with any of the aforementioned viewpoints, female activity in the military is a reality. The ideal level of their involvement, however, is still hotly debated. For reasons ranging from their physical ability to their sexuality, armed servicewomen remain under scrutiny from each branch of the military, the federal government, and even the civilian media.
Separating the Men from the Women
There is one branch of the American armed forces that, at the very mention of its name, can inspire awe and respect in any citizen. They are soldiers so precise and elite that even the branch’s slogan reflects the nature of its selectivity. They are the few. They are the proud. They are the Marines. And they are the only armed service that institutes sex-segregated training camps (Moniz 1997).
The first positive of single-sex boot camp that proponents jump to is the reduction of sexual tension and temptation that the separation provides. Not only would allowing co-ed boot camps “water down training” for an entire unit (Moniz 1997), but the women would also break down the unit cohesion necessary for men to win wars (Vejdik 2002), figuratively excluding women from the battlefield entirely. As the Army’s studies found, though, co-ed training not only has no affect on men’s performance, but it also raises the performance of female recruits (Muniz 1997). These results corroborate the Army’s fight-like-it-trains philosophy. Although the other armed services may not be ready to apply the philosophy in this instance, the findings suggest that mixed-sex training is both possible and relatively harmless.
Presumably, such claims stem from a desire to preserve the masculine nature of the military institution. It has been proposed, though, that war is no more a natural compulsion for men than it is for women – that war and masculinity are actually constructed to feed into each other (Vejdik 2002). Nevertheless, women are often relegated to secondary roles in the service, as distant from combat duty as the military brass can get away with.
Some would see this upstaging of servicewomen as an act of protecting them from the enemy. After all, and especially for anti-feminists, the reigning assumption has been that women stay home in order to “justify the actions of the protector” in the name of their country (Lee & Nantais 1999). Placing those protected among the ranks of their protectors would make defending women from the enemy difficult physically and psychologically.
Protecting the Protectors
The recent war on terrorism provides a bold illustration of the double standards the United States military upholds in the name of protecting its fighting daughters. In December of 2001, Air Force Lieutenant-Colonel Martha McSally took the Secretary of Defense to court over a symbolically gender-biased regulation (Vojdik 2002). When she was first stationed in Saudi Arabia, Lieutenant-Colonel McSally, as well as every other female soldier stationed in the area, was notified of a special dress code that would “comply with traditional Muslim gender norms” (Vojdik 2002). The rule stated that any female personnel who wanted to go off-base while off-duty must not only be accompanied by a male (for whom no codes were enforced), but must also don a black, head-to-toe robe called an abaya, which tradition dictates Muslim women wear.
This garment is supposed to protect women from being singled out for assault on the streets of a guerrilla war zone (“an occupational hazard,” as one female soldier put it [Lee & Nantais 1999]). In reality, it strips away the label of “U.S. soldier” and emphasizes the label of “woman.” Under the guise of subordinating “individual desires to the needs of military service” (Vojdik 2002), the military effectively reinforced its gender boundaries in an effort to remind servicewomen that they still act as the protected in a world of protectors.
That philosophy of patriotic subordination fails to translate neatly to the battlefield. Despite having the authority to do otherwise, Army and Marine commands routinely exclude service-women from combat duty (Vojdik 2002). Even though they endure similar conditions as men during basic training, women are still more likely to be placed on guard or kitchen detail than on the front lines, purportedly for their own protection.
Having a woman on the battlefield, despite her status as a soldier, makes the job of protecting the “image of the world back home” (Lee & Nantais 1999) increasingly difficult. In the event that a servicewoman is taken captive by the enemy, rumors will likely circulate around her platoon describing the mutilation and/or rape she suffered at the hands of her captors. Regardless of the accuracy of such claims, these stories motivate feelings of rage and vengeance that these soldiers will take onto the battlefield and use as a focusing lens for their mission.
Less attention is paid to male prisoners of war, of course. Although their capture can demoralize their brothers- and sisters-in-arms, the threat of a woman’s invasion has a more disturbing psychological effect. Martha F. Lee and Cynthia Nantais suggest that, in war, rape is more about the humiliation of one’s enemy and the emphasis of their failure to protect their women like proper men than it is about the sexual act itself (1999). This theory can be expanded to say that war itself revolves around the masculine idea of demeaning the enemy through the violation of his women, be they soldiers in a POW camp or civilians in the enemy’s homeland (Vojdik 2002).
Discussions of Female Soldiers
Three people were selected to be interviewed about women in the military. The first selection was Linda, a 59-year-old widow from Georgia. She was chosen not only for her candid and outspoken personality, but because of the possibility of a more traditionalist view of gender relations in the military. She then referred Scott, a 35-year-old stay-at-home father, as an interview selection. She believed that his non-traditional position would offer some compelling counterpoints. The last two selections were Curtis and Rebecca, university undergrad students. They were chosen for the curiosity of how, as a pair in a long-term romantic relationship, their answers to the questions may vary (they were interviewed separately).
While all of the people interviewed agreed that sexual harassment plays little role in recruiting female soldiers, Linda stood alone in matters of servicewomen in combat duty, stating that they should remain in support roles and out of combat. The other three interviewees believed that, as long as the woman could do it, she should be offered or assigned combat duty. All four agreed that servicewomen should not have to take extra precautions in the field, although the students explicitly stated that pregnancy should be taken into account.
The results concerning family were unexpected. Again, Linda was the only one who thought that both parents should report to duty if called, although Rebecca stated that the age of the children should be taken into account before both parents get called up. But she, along with Curtis and Scott, believe the decision of which parent would stay behind to care for any offspring should remain up to the parents themselves.
As for mixed-sex morale and squad cohesion, the males interviewed both stated that the professionalism earned through training would come into play, negating the possibility of men differentially defending women for one reason or the other. The females, on the other hand, recognized the possibility that at least some servicemen would be unwilling to put up with women on their team. Curtis was the only one who, concerning the female POW question, took into account that different cultures treat female prisoners differently than American society dictates. The other three saw the mere fact of being a captured woman as the reason for concern, with both Linda and Rebecca using the phrase “damsel in distress.”
Conclusion
The issue of gender equality in the military may be cleared up and balanced within generations. As the interviews suggest, the latest group of adults strongly advocate equal treatment of women and men in the armed services. With long-standing masculine traditions and structures built within the military attempting to keep women and men separate in service, however, the fight to equalize gender roles looks to be a tough one. Slowly and almost surely, the liberal feminist view of women as soldiers is becoming a reality. And while there are still gender-based barriers to overcome, women will continue to prove their worth during duty and end gendered military equality.
Appendix
Interview Questions:
Interview Questions:
- Why should women (not) be separated from men during basic training?
- Does the possibility of sexual harassment play a role in recruiting female soldiers?
- Should women be force to stay in support roles (cook, medic, guard, etc.)?
- What options should female soldiers have in undertaking combat duty?
- Should women be required to take extra measures for safety unrequired of men?
- How are female POWs more in the spotlight than male POWs?
- How does having women in the squad to “defend” affect squad morale?
- Do you know any (current or retired) servicewomen?
- If both parents are called to duty, should both have to report?
- If no, who should choose which parent should stay?
Works Cited
- D’Amico, F. (1996, September). Feminist perspectives on women warriors. Peace
- Review, 8, 379-385. Retrieved March 10, 2008 from EBSCOhost database.
- Lee, M.F. and Nantais C. (1999). Women in the United States Military: protectors or protected?
- The case of prisoner of war Melissa Rathbun-Nealy. Journal of Gender Studies, 8, 181-191. Retrieved March 8, 2008 from GALILEO database.
- Moniz, D. (1997, June 11). Marine Corps Training Motto: “Semper Fidelis” but Separate. The
- Christian Science Monitor, p. 1. Retrieved March 10, 2008 from ProQuest database.
- Vojdik, V.K. (2002 June). The invisibility of gender in war: women in the U.S. military. Duke
- Journal of Law & Policy, 10, 261-271. Retrieved March 8, 2008 from LexisNexis database.