Casiana Warfield
Honors 201
For many women, it seems the military has become an
alternate world where doors are opened based on personal achievement and gender
barriers have been eliminated. In a study examining the progression of
previously excluded groups within the institution, authors Quester and Gilroy
claim, “that [military structure] actually helped women and minorities because
(1) the advancement process is both well defined and based on merit and (2) the
promotion process looks at everyone (Quester & Gilroy, 111).” Since the
creation of the all-volunteer force (AVF) in 1973, women’s involvement in the
military has increased. Some say, it has also become an occupational safe haven
for females, as the ability to rise in the ranks is not hindered by lateral
entry, which tends to favor males. Jennifer Hickes Lundquist, author of “Ethnic
and Gender Satisfaction in the Military: The Effect of a Meritocratic Institution,”
claims that in the civilian world, a paradox occurs for females in the
workplace. Though women consistently make less than men and are faced with sex
discrimination, they report higher levels of work satisfaction than their
privileged counterparts. This is either because occupational sex segregation
hides gender inequality from women’s awareness or maternal roles and gender
socialization cause women to be more accepting of their disadvantages. Her
argument is that the environment of the military eliminates these barriers with
little gender inequality in pay and equal opportunities to ascend the ranks.
This produces more comparable satisfaction across demographics in the military
(Lundquist, 2008).
 |
| A graph from Quester & Gilroy showing women's representation in the military. |
While
opportunity may be a common aspect of military service, I believe, from my
research, that it is being squashed by the effect of self-fulfilling prophecies
created by a hostile work environment where the subordination of women is
maintained. A self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when, “expectations…make expected
events come true,” and have “showed that they can have powerful and lasting
effects (Crawford, 33).” One significant way that these are generated is
through the constant occurrence of sexual harassment. Even within her argument
that the military promotes gender equality, Lundquist admits that 67% of
servicewomen studied reported experiencing sexual harassment of some kind
(Lundquist, 2008). In a meta-analysis by Firestone and Harris, they found in
one study that 73% of women reported sexual harassment within their last year
of service (Firestone & Harris, 1994). They say further that, “In 1988, the
task Force on Women in the Military reported that ‘sexual harassment remains a
significant problem in all Services… institutional efforts to prevent sexual
harassment have been vigorous and sincere, but not totally effective (Firestone
& Harris, 1994).’” More importantly, women outnumber men more than two-fold
in reported instances of sexual harassment and their perpetrators are most
often men. Interestingly, the same meta-analysis found that, “During their
first term, enlistees (whether male or female) were far more likely than their
higher ranking enlisted and officer counterparts to report all forms of
harassment (Firestone & Harris, 1994).” This finding could demonstrate that
sexual harassment is a statement of power that the perpetrator holds over a
victim (Firestone & Harris, 1994). The important question this poses is
what does it mean that women experience sexual harassment much more frequently
than and usually from men? I propose that this is yet another illustration of
power inequalities embedded in a society that has been from its conception
androcentric.
Lundquist
claims that, “Higher wages…offset otherwise negative experiences of military
service for women (Lundquist, 481).” I disagree as those “negative experiences”
perpetuate the idea that women are to be treated as sexual objects, which
female servicewomen internalize with unfortunate consequences. Because they
internalize the idea that they are only useful for their bodies, they model
incompetency and fail to be representative of their abilities and within the
higher ranks of the military and within the institution overall making up only
14% of personnel (Firestone & Harris, 1994). Also, from a cultural
standpoint, what kind of message is the military service sending if it, as the
collection of some of the smartest people in our country, fails to respect and
promote equal treatment of half of our population? For instance, in the highly
publicized “Tailhook incident” where several servicemen sexually harassed both
their fellow servicewomen and female civilians at a convention in Las Vegas,
Nevada, the perpetrators reportedly used language characteristic of Naval
practices to organize the assault. One serviceman also stated that he formerly
believed “many of the excesses that occurred there were condoned by the Navy
(Kempster, 1993).” These findings suggest that sexist ideals had become part of
the system, a problem that may be much more difficult to solve. Despite these
findings, it seems that there is hope for reform as between 1988 and 1993, the
official military stance on sexual harassment has switched from an acceptance
of harassment as a part of the institution to the understanding that it is
unacceptable behavior to be eradicated. This is to be taken with a grain of
salt because intentions do not always equate with change, illustrated by cases
put forth by former servicewomen claiming that sexual assault and harassment is
commonly ignored by officials, possibly skewing data (Risen, 2012).
Works
Cited
Crawford, M. (2011). Transformations: Women, gender and
psychology. (2 ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social
Sciences/Languages.
Firestone,
J. J. (1994). Sexual Harassment in the U.S. Military: Individualized and
Environmental Contexts. Armed Forces & Society (0095327X), 21(1),
25-43.
Kempster, N. (1993, April 24). What really happened at
tailhook convention: Scandal. Los angeles times. Retrieved from
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-04-24/news/mn-26672_1_tailhook-convention
Lundquist,
J. H. (2008). Ethnic and gender satisfaction in the military: The effect of a
meritocratic institution. American Sociological Review, 73(3),
477-496. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25472538
Quester, A. O., & Gilroy, C. L. (2008). Women and
minorities in america's volunteer army. Contemporary economic policy, 20(2),
111-121. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1093/cep/20.2.111/pdf
Risen, J. (2012, November 02). Military has not solved
problem of sexual assault, women say. The new york times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/us/women-in-air-force-say-sexual-misconduct-still-rampant.html?pagewanted=all
No comments:
Post a Comment