Unequal soldiers: Gendered discourses and the British military © Angela Clare 2007
CONCLUSIONS
SUMMARY OF RESEARCH
In looking at various representations, policies and sources of information, especially the WITAF report, it is clear that deep-rooted beliefs based on traditional gendered discourses of war and the military still resonate today. Even to the extent of impacting military policies, shown in the very need for the MOD to “test” women’s capabilities in the WITAF report and this is also seen clearly in the public sphere though media representations of female military personnel. Despite women’s integration and increasing numbers in military spheres and roles, when things go wrong, historical ideologies are quick to re-surface and there is clear division in media coverage in the way male and female personnel are portrayed. The reluctance of the British military to change and continued exclusions based on gender divisions, create and maintain social and cultural uncertainly about women’s roles and their level of involvement in combat.
There is more transgression of gendered military discourses today with women in frontline and combat roles, but gendered ideals can overshadow such changes and advances. The gendering of warfare is most exacerbated within the exclusively male sphere of “close-combat” roles. Underneath the military’s own testing lies a strongly fixed discourse of war and the military as male, which, unless continually challenged, will remain a barrier to women’s full acceptance on equal terms with men and maintains that men are better suited to and generally better than women at both “combat” and military life.
In bringing together sources of information on women’s integration into the military and military policies of excluding women, I have created an overview of women’s roles and level of acceptance while revealing underlying ideologies and discourses, all of which evidently impact greatly women’s acceptance in the military. The issues that were raised over women’s integration and arguments for and against their inclusion can be divided into fears of and fears for women in the military, especially those in “combat”. Advances towards equality in the military are shown to be tentative in light of recent media accounts drawing heavily on fears for women, overshadowing the experiences of their supposedly equal male counterparts.
FEARS OF WOMEN: FEMALE THREAT TO THE MASCULINITY OF THE MILITARY
As outlined in Chapter One, British history has been (mis )interpreted for various social reasons and thus the relationship of women to combat, warfare and the military have been mis-represented, ignored or overshadowed. There has been a denial of women’s historical involvement and a use of history to validate arguments against women’s inclusion. This is further compounded by a lack of research into women’s history, especially in relationship to combat, warfare and militaries. The discourse of the British military as both male-only and highly masculine present an instant barrier to women’s acceptance, as well as specific restraints on women’s applications which continue today. The masculinized British military sphere has been slow and reluctant to change and fears of a feminization (weakening) of the forces persist; evident in exclusions of women from the most masculine roles, however unfounded these might be. The MOD’s “testing” and Defence Committee and EOC debates surrounding the women’s access to certain job roles reveal the underlying discourses maintaining military policies, as well as wider social perceptions and acceptance. Throughout women’s integration into the British military the MOD has consistently dragged its feet on reform. Although various boundaries were put up and mostly, in time, overcome, the underlying reason for this reluctance to change appears to stem from the military’s own traditional masculine ethos. The military has prided itself on a rigid structure, hierarchy and central notions of elite masculinity and the strength it gained from such a masculine ethos and there was clearly a lack of enthusiasm for female presence, which could well undermine the very core of their identity. Both military personnel and scholars (see, for instance, Keegan, 1993; Goldman, 1983) have outlined protests against women’s inclusion by citing that women may cause a “feminization” of the forces and that women’s presence may “weaken” military forces causing a reduction in capabilities for combat. ‘Many fear that the presence of women would undermine the masculinity of the military itself and that the armed forces would, by opening to women, lose some essential characteristic, held necessary to fulfill their purpose’ (Addis et al., 1994: p.xii). The association of maleness with combat is tilted on its axis with women’s involvement; ‘ combat was the ultimate signifier of manliness: women would symbolically castrate the armed forces’ (Bourke, 1999: p.338). These fears may well disguise other real fears that women’s entry actually weakens the male superiority and elite-ness that the military sphere creates for men. On this point, t he discussion over whether women should be given weapons in the Second World War could be seen as an issue not of women’s safety, but of equipping women with the ultimate signifier of masculinity- the gun. Giving women weapons was a threat to the masculinity of male forces that always carried weapons, even those further removed from fighting than many women. There is also the threat to hegemonic masculinity if women are allowed into soldier roles and to be allowed to be “officially” violent and armed and this will undoubtedly affect the concepts of masculinity and male aggressors, created in opposition to non-violent females. Fears of empowering the “weaker sex” were (poorly) hidden beneath paternal worries of putting women in danger. Women also impact on the masculine phallic symbolism of weapons; fears were that women would symbolically castrate the male forces by their presence is exemplified by women now training with and using guns, driving tanks, dropping bombs etc., all with masculine connotations (Halberstam, 1998).
As with other industries that have seen an integration of women during the 20 th century, women’s presence must surely create an environment reflecting wider social practices and Equal Opportunities policies. Women’s presence will undoubtedly have an effect on the military and its dynamics and ethos, but fears of the negative impact of women’s presence in the forces have not been substantiated. In fact, the MOD’s WITAF report found a beneficial effect of women’s inclusion. ‘Directors of those Army arms and Services that employ women directly, expressed a generally positive view of the impact on standards of behaviour and discipline’ (MOD, 2002a: p.9), and ‘the presence of women has been welcomed in most areas and is felt to contribute to a more mature and civilized environment’ (MOD, 2002a: p.11). However, women’s presence is evidently more problematic within the military sphere than some other male-only spheres in Britain . Not only has the military been male-only for a considerable time, but it also relies heavily on patriarchal structures and “male bonding” and ‘studies have shown that some military groupings derive their group identity from a set of masculine values’ (MOD, 2002a: p.5). The findings of WITAF report clearly showed it was not that women themselves were less capable of “close-combat” roles, but that female presence was assumed to cause negative effects on men.
UNEQUAL SOLDIERS: DIFFICULTIES FOR WOMEN IN GAINING ACCEPTANCE
All military personnel, both male and female, may consider themselves soldiers but their roles may be far removed from the business of “soldiering” as it is often portrayed. Whilst men can freely gain acceptance as soldiers based upon their biological sex alone, women continue to have to earn acceptance by proving their capabilities, as well as negotiating the identity of a soldier. ‘While the male in logistics may share the status of his fighting counterpart because of sharing his gender, women’s contributions are often made within or are rewarded by relegation to the civilian sphere’ (DeGroot & Peniston-Bird, 2000: p.178 ). It is interesting to note that the most extreme soldier roles which remains off-limits to women, that of the “close-combat” soldier, is held in the highest esteem, despite requiring less education and lower technical ability than many other military jobs. In addition, within the British military a relatively small number of personnel are involved in direct ground combat and face-to-face killing i.e. as soldiers. There is a vast array of jobs and careers open to women, but the ideology of the soldier in khakis wielding a weapon is still exclusively male. This ideology alone can cause problems by overshadowing the many other military jobs. The unclear division between the combat jobs (open to women) and “close-combat” jobs and the fact that men and women are both being killed in combat, challenges uninformed public assumptions that women are only in “safe” roles.
Entry into the majority of job roles may be unproblematic for many female personnel. However, for those within the most idealised masculine roles, i.e. combat and soldier roles, to be accepted as equal to men proves difficult. This is especially the case when the roles are tied to a tradition of masculine ideals.
Of all the sites where masculinities are constructed, reproduced and deployed, those associated with war and the military are some of the most direct. Despite far reaching political, social, and technological changes, the warrior still seems to be a key symbol of masculinity.
Morgan, 1994: p.165.
The male soldier ideal discussed in this thesis leaves little room for female imposters or even “exceptional” women, and it is also easier for men rather than women to achieve this idealized masculine identity, and thus an accepted place within the military, when these masculine characteristics co-inside with biological maleness. The female soldier identity raises question about the normative boundaries of male and female gender and sexuality and challenges essentialist notions of both masculinity and femininity in relation to war and combat, as well as more broadly in society. There is also a stark contrast between masculinity, which needs to be earned, and the ideology of womanhood that apparently comes naturally and does not need to be earned by the passing of rituals and tests. As Halberstam states, the many ‘myths and fantasies about masculinity’ have ‘ensured that masculinity and maleness are profoundly difficult to pry apart’ (Halberstam, 1998 p.2), making female acceptance within the military, not just as soldiers but also within all previously male-only military roles, much harder to achieve.
The biological association of women with motherhood roles ties into the ideology of women’s lives and their “function” as more important than men’s, based upon women’s assumed capabilities for motherhood. This ideology raises several issues discussed previously such as the criticism of soldier-mothers like Faye Turney while ignoring male fathers. The idea that mothers should not leave their children is manifested in this criticism of female personnel and does not fall on men. This condemnation based on traditional assumptions of women as mothers with responsibility to their children first and foremost, removes female agency in other aspects of their lives and hinders acceptance of women and their experiences of a military career. A further complexity, stemming from the ideology of women as mothers is the assumption of women as naturally nurturing and non-violent; namely, women should not kill, they should give life and nurture it. This was shown in the case of Lynndie England whose deviance was not only of female as abuser, but also as mother to be, as she was pregnant when the scandal unfolded, making her actions all the more shocking and open to criticism. Her actions were deemed as “monstrous” rather than “unprofessional” (Creed, 1993). All of these factors add to the unequal experience of women in the military which need further investigation to see what can be done to overcome them. Also, the continued ban on women entering “close-combat” roles not only maintains a division between male and female roles and acceptance and may still have an effect on women’s careers. The Equal Opportunities Commission report of 2000 stated that ‘the EOC remains convinced that if the ban on women in combat is not lifted there is a limit to women’s progression within the Armed Services since they will not have the opportunity to gain experience of the full range of duties’ (EOC, 2000: Section 3.4).
FEARS FOR WOMEN IN COMBAT: VULNERABILITY OF WOMEN
Of the many moral issues outlined above one must assume that death, torture, abuse and rape do occur within the military environment. It is important to note that the British military is voluntary and personnel have accepted some degree of risk. Despite this, media coverage still focuses on female deaths and captors more than men (for example Hastings, 2006; Anderson 2005) and there has been little decrease in the level of coverage and focus on a female hostage since the (apparently) first female soldiers taken hostage over fifteen years ago in 1991. However, less visible is the occurrence of internal harassment and rape within the military. Figures for this show a very unequal and unfair experience to women with high numbers subject to sexual harassment and assault. The Equal Opportunities Commission is working with the MOD towards eliminating this so that women can experience military life without fear from their own side (MOD, 2006c; MOD, 2006c; EOC, 2006).
FUTURE CHANGES
Challenges to the traditional ideology of the soldier and the military as a masculine discourse does not just affect dynamics within the military sphere:
The existence of women soldiers and the image of them filtering through the media has important consequences for the construction of femininity, that is, for the collective image of what a women is and what is appropriate for her to be, and for the image that each woman may have of herself.
(Addis et el., 1994: p.xv).
There are many avenues for further questioning that could strive towards making a military career fairer and more equal (as far as possible) for both women and men. Whether supporting of women’s involvement, opposing it or ambivalent, it is important to continue to contest the normative boundaries of male and female, gender and sexuality and to question essentialist notions of both masculinity and femininity. These are reflected in the tensions between the sexes in society as a whole and especially within the highly gendered military sphere. Feminist research has often avoided the thorny issue of the military until more recently (including Woodward & Winter, 2004 & 2006; Herbert, 1998; Herbst, 2005) but there is a great need for all aspects of gendered warfare and military discourses to be challenged and unpacked to further deconstruct warfare and violence as inevitable and necessary human actions and to understand better its cause and effects. It is important to continue to contest wars that affect human lives in such a drastic, destructive and violent way, and (de)gendering the military may contribute to this questioning and understanding. The issues raised by women’s involvement both within the military, and in combat roles as aggressors, are not just about women within the military but also have greater impact on public attitudes to gender and violence and the transition from old to new ways of thinking. Dombrowski also raises questions at the core of the complexities surrounding women’s involvement in combat and modern warfare: ‘what happens to our standard ideals of “feminine,” “masculine,” family, and country, when women fight?’ and ‘more importantly, how is the category of woman, itself a social construction, further modified when women become warriors?’ (1999: p3).
The main difficulty for such research, especially on the lived experiences of British military personnel, is the dearth of first hand accounts from British sources, and the barrier between military and civilian life is maintained and military personnel remain as the “other” and in many ways far removed from the rest of British society.
The impact of changes within the military and the roles available to women could be seen as isolated within the voluntary military forces or even as having no impact on the rest of society. However, the far-reaching effects of changes to include women in the military, and the further consequences if “close-combat” roles are opened to women, could well mean a great deal for all British women in the instance of a World War, and circumstances requiring all civilians to be called upon for military service. If this were to occur and the military no longer be a voluntary force, I believe the public may be surprised at the extent of women’s involvement and level of danger, and whilst this has caused no public concerns or protests for a “voluntary” force, if all women are suddenly conscripted to take part in all levels “combat” roles along with men there may be some objections. Also, as the ideas and constructions of male and female roles and responsibilities continue to alter, if women were allowed finally to enter all male-only military roles then it could be seen as the final step towards complete civil equality for women, which we do not currently have.
My research was spurred by my own belief that whether or not people agree that women should be in the military, their treatment and experiences should be as equal as possible. While jobs remain off-limits to women on the basis of an improvable and un-testable argument, the equality of opportunity the MOD states it strives for can not be accomplished. What I have addressed is how and why military experience may be different and unequal for women than men. My research has shown that while traditional ideologies and military discourses remain strongly held both within the military and in the public sphere they will continue to impede acceptance of women on equal terms with men. The level of women’s military involvement has not yet been enough to destabilize the assumed masculinity of the soldier and warrior. While women remain a minority they cannot have great effect on traditional gendered discourses until a critical mass is reached, at which point the military and social constructs of masculinity and the military can be undermined and reevaluated. How little the public sees women soldiers and their negative media portrayals have also not helped to create a strong image of a female “heroic soldier” and maintains the notion of women in the military as both a minority and having little influence.
Despite all the above difficulties women are still appearing in higher and more influential ranks in the British military, which certainly shows that females are capable, and is also inspiring for new female recruits to see they have opportunities for good career advancement, technically to the highest level in each force, (though still in small numbers at high levels in any of the military forces). In the MOD’s website figures (Appendix 2) there are just three women at Captain and above in the Navy, just two female Brigadiers in the Army and no women above Group Captain in the RAF. Women only make up tiny percentages of the top levels in each of the forces and so, even now, jobs and career advancement are open to them, it suggests that it will be a long time yet before women make these high ranks and in enough numbers to make a difference. There is also still a dearth of women in higher official levels both in military and government who are actively involved in negotiations of policies and war making and the British military remains male-dominated, not only in numbers but in its culture and hierarchy. Not until woman make up greater numbers and higher ranks will they begin to really challenge and change the central ethos and culture of the military. There is a continual need in all areas of society for more women’s access to economic and political influence as well as within the military to offer alternative analyses and solutions, rather than a traditional “military” approach (Enloe, 2000).