Posting #11: The story of women in the US military

The Story

It has been a long road since the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act of 1948 that formally legitimized, in a very limited way, women being able to permanently serve in the US Armed Forces.  Finally, 75 years later, the story of women in the US military says that the United States has nearly achieved gender parity. As of 1976, women have been admitted to the military service academies.  As of 1978, the Women’s Army Corps was disestablished and women were permitted to join the Regular (i.e. Men’s) Army.  Since 2011, women who identify as lesbian or bisexual have been permitted to serve openly in the military.  As of 2016, women have been permitted to serve in combat, ostensibly the last barrier to their being treated impartially.  And since 2016 and again in 2021, transgender women have been permitted to serve in the armed forces.  Surely, the story concludes, this means sex and gender discrimination in the military is a thing of the past and only glory days are ahead.

But I would argue that the military’s systematic discrimination has not been alleviated, just as American culture’s sexual discriminatory practices did not end with Affirmative Action, Title IX, the #MeToo movement, or the ongoing failure to pass the Equal Rights Amendment.  In fact, with the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the apparent national desire to cut accommodations to women and mothers (like the expanded child tax credit), it could be argued that social conditions in the United States are worse than when I was a new intelligence officer about 45 years ago. 

Then I was in a tactical unit stationed in West Germany, and so among two handfuls of women amid thousands of men.  To mitigate my femaleness and perform masculinity—a performance it was clear I was expected to enact—I made it a priority to excel in physical fitness and in professional demeanor, both activities that were recognized as superior in my annual performance ratings (aka Officer Evaluation Report/OER).  To my face, I was saluted by junior officers and enlisted men because my rank demanded that sign of respect.  But I always could feel the disrespect of leering eyes once my back was to the male saluter, epitomizing to me the conditions for women in the military.

Moreover: I was expected to wear men’s uniforms that were not designed for even the slightest of curves; an enlisted woman confided to me that she had been raped in the barracks and nothing was done about it; a male Military Police officer deduced I was a “lady of the night” as I stood outside the Bachelor’s Officers Quarters where I was staying, talking with a male Army colleague; I was propositioned by another male officer in front of that same BOQ; should I have children, I was urged to deliver by Caesarean section by a male, military OB/GYN who thought such birth-giving would be less traumatic for the infant (but not for me); and I was discouraged from pursuing a military career by a male, senior officer, who assumed that having children was my priority and told me that pregnancy and having children were not compatible with my continuing to be an intelligence officer. Being a mother was my ultimate calling, he implied.  Clearly, and as much as I tried to perform masculinity, I and my female compatriots were not welcome.

It doesn’t sound like much has changed.

While the proportion of female servicemembers has increased in that near-half century, it has not quite doubled, from 8.5 percent to 16 percent.  One might ask why.  This proportion varies dramatically by service, so that women constitute 19 percent of the Air Force but only 8 percent of the Marines.  But in a so-called meritocratic institution, women face policies and a military culture that obstruct their efforts to be promoted, a necessity in an “up-or-out” system that traditionally promotes men who have served in combat over those who haven’t.  Certainly, there are exceptions to this rule for women: the first fighter pilot, the first submariner, the first four-star general, pull-up-your-bootstraps/I-can-do-anything-I-set-my-mind-to stories used to induce women to join up.  After all, given the volunteer military and a recruiting crisis (see Posting #3), the female more-than-half of the US population has since 1973 been needed to fill the services.  But in what is acknowledged to be a “masculine-warrior military culture,” military women continue—as so many of us Regular Army pioneers were—to be stigmatized, ostracized, and assaulted by their male counterparts, even when the women attempt to abide by the touted masculine norms.

For instance, a professor in Organizational Studies at the US Army War College (where senior officers earn a Masters degree in preparation for senior leadership roles) outlines in a 2022 article the gendered obstacles facing military women in a masculinist institution, obstacles that prevent women officers and enlisted from staying in the Army.  The professor frames her argument in terms of stereotypically gendered behaviors: competence as masculine and likability as feminine. “Men are often perceived as both likable and competent at the same time, but women are more typically perceived in either-or terms. A warm and likable woman struggles to be respected, whereas a competent and respected woman is often disliked, even by other women,” the professor explains.

Professional military women, then, are in a no-win situation.  If they behave in stereotypically feminine ways, they will be seen as weak leaders; if they behave in stereotypically masculine ways, they will be punished for their gender-crossing. Says the professor:

Backlash for acting in ways that challenge gender stereotypes takes multiple forms.  Sexual harassment is a particularly direct and harmful form. But research has also documented less direct forms, including social isolation, discrimination, and the tendency for subordinates to sabotage female leaders who demonstrate agency and initiative. …Among women who had experienced gender discrimination, many indicated that they had been told women were not suited for the job they held, or women should be barred from having that job.

And though these women may not have experienced the leering I did, the discrimination they report echoes what I experienced nearly five decades ago.

Women’s assuming that their behavior is responsible for the masculinist discrimination of others is wearing and futile. Again, the professor:

Constantly monitoring and calibrating one’s behavior is effortful, and it imposes additional demands on female officers in an already-demanding profession. Navigating narrow or conflicting expectations contributes to role conflict, which has been associated with occupational burnout. These demands may not manifest in lower job performance, as women tend to receive similar or slightly higher performance ratings than men. … Instead, controlling self-presentation may be one more source of occupational stress for female officers, and women may ultimately assess that the costs are simply not worth it.  This pressure may be one of many factors contributing to female officers’ lower retention.

This occupational burnout means women have less of a chance to be promoted to higher ranks, women at higher ranks being a key factor in encouraging other women to volunteer.

The pressure of these stereotypes isn’t just a figment of women’s imagination.  In the 2015 Gender Integration Study conducted by the US Army as the Department of Defense prepared to open Combat Arms to women, several barriers to integrating the services emerged from surveys, focus groups, and interviews with active duty men and women.  The obstacles clearly involve stereotypes that pre-existed women being in combat, so they are not a function of mixed-gender combat units. 

First, in “Stereotypes about Women,” “Study results show that women are perceived to be emotionally weaker, less mentally resilient, and more ‘hormonal’ than men. Some Soldiers believe that women have a lower breaking point and may not be able to handle stressful training and combat situations. Additionally, there is a perception among many Soldiers that women expect/receive special treatment.”  In “Differences in Leadership Styles,” “Combat arms [male] Soldiers report concern about what they perceive as ‘weaknesses’ in female leadership styles. Stereotypes about a so-called ‘feminine’ leadership style include the following descriptions: collaborative, consensus-building, caring, indecisive, etc. Combat arms [male] Soldiers consider these traits as incompatible with the leadership style that may be more familiar to their community: aggressive, decisive, and direct.” Finally, “Men as Protectors (Paternalism)” indicts the view that originates in American society writ large: “Many [male] Soldiers have traditional views on the ‘chivalrous duty’ of men to watch over women. These male Soldiers view female Soldiers as ‘women’ first, and ‘Soldiers’ second. This attitude is primarily the result of male Soldier upbringing prior to their entrance in the Army.”  This combination—of viewing women to be emotionally weaker than men, of thinking of leadership in terms of “strong” and “weak,” and of imagining that men have a duty to protect women—creates a hostile environment for women officers and enlisted, even if they abide by all of the masculine norms.

These three obstacles weren’t even the “Major Factors” impacting the integration of women into combat units.  Among the study’s “Major Factors” impacting gender integration of the combat arms includes a majority of men fearing that women will not be able to meet the “Physical Standards” expected of people in combat, and that women will use “Pregnancy” as an excuse to avoid deploying to war.  Meanwhile, the majority of women expect “Sexual Harassment” to increase were they in a Combat Arms unit, whereas men fear that “what is currently acceptable behavior/language in all-male units will probably not be acceptable in mixed gender units.”

Finally, the 2015 study found that the greatest challenge to integrating combat units is “Sexual Assault.”  The majority of women expect sexual assault incidents by their comrades to increase following integration and this threat will deter women from seeking combat arms positions.  The men, however, are less concerned about the assaults on their comrades—women and men both—and more that they will somehow be blamed for unintended assault, that sexual assault allegations will be used maliciously against them, or that they will have to guard women against other rapacious US servicepeople.  This attitude speaks volumes about an institution that allegedly is based on cooperation, collaboration, and having one another’s backs.  So much for that if you don’t have the right reproductive organs.

Contrary to popular belief, however, increased sexual harassment and assault have not been caused by many more females volunteering to serve in combat units since 2016.  Instead, the intra-military assaults seem to be a constant in US military life.

A 2016 Veteran’s Administration (VA) study finds that American military women have been mistreated and assaulted—what DoD terms “military sexual trauma”—by American military men since at least World War II.  According to the study, “90 percent of women experienced some form of military sexual trauma (MST) while serving in the U.S. military.”  One of the two authors adds that “The most frustrating and disappointing finding is how little has changed over time both in terms of cultural shifts and what survivors of MST have experienced and continue to experience with people they need to be able to trust and rely on.”  Reportedly, more than 103,000 veterans, of all genders, are now formally recognized by the VA as having been sexually traumatized during their service.

Another study, “This Man’s Military: Masculine Culture’s Role in Sexual Violence” (2016), suggests that the US military is a patriarchal, authoritarian culture with “organizational disdain for everything other than masculine.”  Therefore, it must change its culture if it expects to encourage more than half of the US population to volunteer.  The Air Force officer author states that:

The traditional view of military service is predominantly a masculine narrative and, subconsciously, so are the values held so dear by military and civilian culture. The masculine military complex is self-perpetuating and comes with the risk of attracting individuals who are (1) demographically at risk of sexually assaulting and, more controversially, (2) psychologically more at risk of crime and victimization.”  

But regardless of who is likely to populate the services, he claims, the military

must acknowledge that the [military] cultural problem may be very real. The military must not only manage the change to promote a nonaggressive sexual environment but also be combat effective. The military mission demands violence, but leaders must manage the second-order effects of a culture that exists to execute that mission at all times.

The likelihood of being sexually assaulted by comrades is one of the greatest inhibitors to women joining the services.  To populate its ranks, the All-volunteer US military relies on what is called “propensity” to serve, or an interest in joining the military.  Propensity is low already among American youths, but it is especially so among women.  In a Spring 2022 DoD survey of young people between the ages of 16 and 21, not only is the top reason for both men and women considering joining “Pay/money,” one of the top ten reasons for not considering joining is “Possibility of sexual harassment/assault.”  In the study, since 1989, women expressed a propensity to join at about half the rate of men: at most, ten percent of women versus, at most, 26 percent of men. In the Spring of 2022, the overall propensity among men and women in this age group is about 10 percent—alarmingly low.  

So what?

Though I knew sexual assault in the military was an issue when I was on active duty so long ago, it became most spectacularly obvious in the 1991 Tailhook Association Symposium scandal, when male Navy and Marine Corps “Top Gun” aviators—officers—in public and as a group, sexually assaulted 83 women and 7 men, some of whom were also military officers.  Though it took the years-long persistence (and loss of her career) of helicopter pilot Lieutenant Paula Coughlin, who feared she was going to be gang-raped, to have the men punished, “None were charged with sexual assault, instead facing charges of indecent exposure, conduct unbecoming an officer and making false official statements.”  Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), military commanders—most of whom are unlikely to have education in sexual assault or the law—have decided whether to investigate and pursue legal action, responsibilities that in the civilian world are overseen by dedicated law enforcement.  Consequently, few survivors report their assaults and, when they do, most commanders elect not to pursue the case.  This was the experience of Coughlin, whose direct supervisor blamed her for the men’s violence: “Well, that's what you get for going down a hallway of a bunch of drunken aviators.” Boys will be (hormonal) boys, eh?

Only in the last decade has sexual assault and how the military treats it been publicly acknowledged as a problem and legislated in the halls of Congress.  Inspired by The Invisible War, a 2012 film about sexual assault in the military before women were allowed to formally serve in combat roles, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand sought to overhaul military sexual assault policies, including how assault cases are initially adjudicated. As long as unit commanders are responsible for deciding whether to pursue a sexual assault case, Gillibrand has contended, assault survivors cannot expect justice and are unlikely to report their assaults. In April 2021, the Gillibrand-sponsored bipartisan “Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act” was introduced and to a great extent was included in the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  There was still a problem, the same one that Lt. Paula Coughlin faced in the early 1990s and that made Gillibrand livid.

Under that law, a military officer in the chain of command of the accused still would be the public face of the court-martial and retain what the military calls the convening authority. That officer would still have the power to select juries (or ‘members’ of the court-martial). The commander also could discharge an accused person instead of going to trial, or could grant the accused immunity from prosecution. 

President Biden’s July 2023 Executive Order tries to remedy that situation.  Although it’s not a law, as the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act of 1948 is, the Executive Order carries the full force of law in the Executive branch.  According to the Department of Defense, the Order makes changes to the Manual for Courts-Martial, or how courts martial are to be conducted. “The changes, among other things, move responsibility for the handling of such crimes [e.g. sexual assault] away from military commanders to independent military prosecutors, who are outside the military chain of command.”  Some details include: 

First, the order establishes rules to govern the new special trial counsels, who will serve as the independent military prosecutors. They will decide, in place of military commanders, whether to prosecute allegations of sexual assault, domestic violence, and certain other serious offenses.

The order also:

·       Establishes that prosecutorial decisions made by the special trial counsel are binding and are fully independent from the military chain of command.

·       Clearly delineates the relationship and authorized interactions between special trial counsel and commanders to protect the independence of the special trial counsel.

·       Updates the procedures necessary to protect victims and the accused before, during and after court[s]-martial proceedings.

The administration official also said the executive order reforms the sentencing system to promote uniformity and fairness, as recommended by the commission to reduce disparities in sentencing in cases of rape and sexual assault.

This is certainly a step toward providing an equitable and just playing field for military women as the “epidemic” of sexual assault by male soldiers on their female and male comrades rampages through the US military. 

But how about stopping these crimes in the first place? 

According to Cynthia Enloe in Twelve Feminist Lessons of War (2023), to answer that question, we Americans must ask ourselves an additional few:

First, are sexually abusive military men using violence to signal to women that they do not belong in a privileged masculinist space?...part of what seems to be fueling their sexualized aggression is their resentment towards women for “invading” a space those men imagined they owned.   

Second,…, what is behind the systematic refusal by so many senior male officers—and their civilian superiors—to take violence against women inside their militaries seriously?  To get at the roots of sexual harassment and assault in any organization, we need to investigate the senior enablers. An enabler is anyone who could pay attention and doesn’t.

Third, … how should [Americans] go about listening to the [abused] women—of all ranks, of different sexual and racial identities—in order to devise the most effective and fair strategies of response? (59-60).

As Enloe suggests, this situation is the proverbial canary in the coalmine. 

The epidemic levels of military women being sexually assaulted by the very men they are expected to fight with, not against, indicates to me not just the threat to a sustainable US military but more, a larger American culture crisis.  As more than half of the US population, women are essential to the viability of the US military.  But as the majority, they threaten the minority rule of American patriarchy.  Can a military—nay, a society—survive when the ruling minority seems unable to abide the majority claiming equitable protections?