Soldiers, Women

Historically, masculine and feminine identities in America have been associated with specific gender performances and stereotypes. Specifically, women were supposed to be fragile, nurturing and emotional while men were supposed to be strong, aggressive and unemotional. Yet many of these traditional stereotypes and expectations regarding femininity and women are being transformed literally on the battle field. The New York Times article “Living and Fighting Alongside Men, and Fitting In” describes the increasing importance of women in the Army, and how their experiences in such environments have challenged many gender performance stereotypes. Women today are now fighting and killing on America’s battlefields, and women now hold many high rank front line officer positions. These experiences will do doubt lead to new ideas of femininity and womanhood in America in the future.
In the article, Steven Myers explains how America’s most recent wars have created “a new generation of women with a warrior’s ethos — and combat experience — that for millennia was almost exclusively the preserve of men”. The most obvious challenge facing women in the Army is America’s stereotypes regarding women and femininity. This is encapsulated by Sgt. Theresa Flannery’s retelling of her first combat experience.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/08/16/us/20090816_women_feature.html

Sgt. Flannery recalls a superior asking her “do you know how to use that [her weapon]”. Theresa explains how she was at first shocked by this question because she was a woman, and didn’t expect the men to accept her in a combat situation. Theresa said she thought “Is he serious? Because I am a girl. But he just saw a soldier”. Theresa later killed an enemy soldier during a heated 10 hours gun battle. Experiences like these challenge every aspect of traditional American gender roles. Soldiers are expected to be aggressive, to be unemotional in battle, and to kill. These values are in contradiction with the traditional view of women. Furthermore, with more and more women experiencing combat and earning medals, the belief that women do not belong in the battlefield is quickly fading.
Other fears regarding women’s role in the Army have also been allayed in the last decade. The traditional army rhetoric claimed that if units were to be fully integrated, the functionality of the unit would be compromised not only by relationships among soldiers in a unit, but also because sexual relationships between soldiers would result in pregnancies and general disorder. Yet this has not proven to be a serious problem during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as “good leadership and mentorship” (pg. 2) has been shown to be more than adequate to keep such issues from becoming a problem. While few women have had to be evacuated from war zones due to unwanted pregnancies, sexual harassment and sexual assault are still concerns on American bases. Yet women who have fought in integrated units report that they feel safe with their fellow soldiers. Thus, perhaps by separating women from front line combat units and keeping them in rear echelon bases, the military was inadvertently making them an “other” in military facilities, creating conditions that may lead to sexual harassment that would otherwise be absent if women were active members of front line combat units and thus more integral parts of the Army community.



Another important development is the rising number of women in leadership positions within the army. In “Hormonal Hurricanes: Menstruation, Menopause, and Female Behavior”, Anna Fausto-Sterling notes a huge array of quotes and research which indicating that many men believe that the emotional effects of the menstrual cycle prove that women should not be given important positions of power. Fausto-Sterling says that these prejudices result in the belief that women are “by nature emotionally erratic, [and] cannot be trusted in positions of power” (pg 91). These sentiments are clearly a reflection of the patriarchal system which seeks to keep women out of important positions. Yet there are few positions more stressful and important than that of an officer leading soldiers in battle, and women have been proving their mettle as officers and as soldiers. As one male retired army colonel noted, “They [women] have earned the confidence and respect of male colleagues” (pg 1). In fact they have been so successful that over the past decade the number of women in high ranking positions in the Army and Navy has doubled. Once again women have proved under the most stressful conditions imaginable that yet another bias against their gender has been proven to be completely unsubstantial given the outstanding record of female commanders during the past decade.
Johnson’s essay on the patriarchal system notes that a foundation of the patriarchal system is men’s sense of masculinity, which is bounded by a certain set of behaviors and activities which “make” a man masculine. This sense of “male” identity in opposition to “feminine” traits makes the woman an “other”. Through this men distance themselves from women and create a power structure which inherently favors males exhibiting traditional masculine qualities. War making is the pinnacle of “masculine” activities, a place where men feel they can prove their manhood. Yet with hundreds of thousands women in the Army, and with thousands coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan today with combat experience, war making is no longer only the job of men. Furthermore, the women who have fought in these wars have proven themselves to be just as strong, decisive, and brave as their male peers. Their exploits in war mark them as equals or in some cases superior to men in war, which for thousands of years has been fought exclusively by men. These female soldiers are eroding the masculine identity which men use to differentiate themselves from women, and are doing so in a highly visible manner. A male identity which prides its self on being the stronger of the two sexes is severely undermined as women continue to prove that they are, in fact, just as capable as men at performing “masculine” activities and exhibiting “masculine” qualities. These women are showing that these qualities are not inherently male and that social programming has more to do with how we act than any biological effects. Thus, these qualities are only “masculine” because American’s say they are, not because they are inherently so.
As these women take their experiences home, they will help deconstruct other parts of the patriarchal system as well. Johnson explains the important of socially reinforcing actions, and the link between the individual and the system. People tend to act in a way that will gain them acceptance with their peers. Behaviors which do not result in negative reception ensure that such behavior will continue. Furthermore, when others view behavior that is not received negatively, they are informed that such behavior is acceptable. Yet it seems clear that female war veterans are much different woman than those described in Ariel Levy’s chapter in which she describes the behavior and mentality of women on Girls Gone Wild. Instead of asserting their equality by attempting to match men in a sexual sense, they have done so by excelling in an important culturally male activity. They challenge the idea of “masculine” not because they are trying to emulate their male peers, but because the nature of their work has made them cultivate those qualities out of necessity. The battlefield seems to be a great equalizer. It would be hypocrisy for men to view women as weak and inferior if those same women are fighting along side men and saving their lives. Furthermore, the respect women have gained among their male peers in the Army will likely affect the way their male peers view and respond to negative comments about women in both the military and civilian world. The intense and highly stressful situations which occur in war naturally engender strong feelings. There is no doubt that a man who has served with women in war and maybe had his life saved by one would respond negatively to social interactions which belittle women. In this way, the war has affected both men and women in way that will affect social norms and expectations regarding gender, which in turn will result in system wide changes as individuals interact with one another.
Finally, feminists may have overlooked the Army as a place where they need to focus on creating reform. By campaigning for front line combat roles for women and perhaps even participation in the draft, women may further break down gender roles and expectations, especially among conservative citizens whose views on gender would clearly be challenged by female soldiers. Additionally, by participating in war, an activity which has had such a strong link to men and western concepts of masculinity for thousands of years, women may have found the best way to fundamentally challenge the patriarchal system.