Abstract
This article is a response to Anthony King’s “Women Warriors: Female Accession to Ground Combat.” King rightly asserts that the accession of women to combat roles is a notable historical departure in warfighting. He critiques Brownson’s conceptual ideal of “equivalency” as a potentially profound force of transformation of gender relations in the military. While conceptually progressive, he errs in framing the potential transformation within the concept of “patriarchy.” Further, King is unable to recast binary gendered language to acknowledge fully the concept of “kinship.” For females to maximally succeed in the military, and particularly in combat roles, patriarchy as the defining explanation for male–female interaction must be discarded and the enabling concepts of equivalency and kinship must be embraced. The continued strength of military organizations and the individuals within them emerges from the reciprocity of these two concepts.
In direct contrast to traditional, quantitative analyses of gender relations in the military, “The Battle for Equivalency” encapsulates an in-depth qualitative research methodology, analysis, and interpretation. The article (1) establishes the concept of “equivalency” as an innovative framework for more meaningful discussions of, and the potential for, resolution of gender disparity in the US military; (2) defines what is personally and occupationally challenging, as well as meaningful and fulfilling, to females as sentient actors within the Marine Corps; (3) identifies, in terms of operational readiness and effectiveness, the gender relations challenges and strengths of a gender-integrated military; and (4) proposes equitable recognition, acceptance, and success of females who meet and/or exceed minimum United States Marine Corps (USMC) physical, occupational, and leadership standards. To further inform the scholarly literature and expand understanding of the concepts explored in “The Battle for Equivalency,” I am honored and pleased to address a number of challenges and interpretations Anthony King expresses in “Women Warriors: Female Accession to Ground Combat.”
My overarching and vexing concern is that King cites Cynthia Enloe to frame his response to “The Battle for Equivalency,” apparently to reestablish “patriarchy” as the fundamental barrier to females’ full integration into the military. 1 I did not once include the word “patriarchy” in my article simply because the historically feminist construction and usage is divisive and implies the exclusive, inequitable, and restrictive possession and exercise of power by males. Power, however, is relative and enacted in the military on macro- and micro-scales throughout the rank structure as well as through individual personal and leadership decisions made and actions taken. Regarding power and domination, sociologist Max Weber asserted, “ … every genuine form of domination implies a minimum of voluntary compliance, that is, an interest (based on ulterior motives or genuine acceptance) in obedience” 2 [emphasis in the original]. If Weber’s assertion is accepted, one must assume that complicity in one’s own subjugation through voluntary agency is not unlikely and, often, is even mutually advantageous. Evolutionary psychologist David Buss states, “Members of each sex, in essence, become willing victims to the whims and desires of the opposite sex.” 3 It is not surprising that societies have adapted social practices over the course of human history to ensure at least some practical forms of domination and submission. This does not mean, however, that the processes of adaptation completely overcome and negate basic biological imperatives nor the enactment of free will. 4 The presumption that power possession was held and wielded exclusively by males without females’ overt or covert consent throughout American history is inherently false. 5 The historical reality often reflects a give-and-take exchange for mutual benefit. 6
King is right to assert that the accession of women into ground combat specializations represents a profound historical transformation of the armed forces. 7 The USMC, as a microcosmic example, is an organization comprised of tens of thousands of actors from an extensive and complex mix of ethnic, social, religious, geographic, and economic backgrounds interacting over numerous generations since 1775 as a cohesive warfighting force. Each generation reflects evolving external social, economic, and political phenomena. Late in the last century alone, for example, the Civil Rights Movement, the Women’s Rights Movement, and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” all exerted significant pressure on the military to coevolve with dramatic external societal changes. This will continue simply because the American military remains subject to control by civilian authority while maintaining a delicate balance of enacting politics and national defense strategy. 8 The military is subject to numerous complex and often confounding variables. “Patriarchy” as an explanation of the phenomena of perceived inequity in sex/gender relations in the US military is no longer grounded in reality nor substantiated by contemporary theory. It is best simply and absolutely discarded.
King states that I overlook some of the complex cultural processes of definition.
9
I disagree, however, and attest that I adopted a truly transdisciplinary approach to this research.
10
My data definitively support my assertion that the complex interplay of physiology (biologically) and personal agency (socially) contribute to continued misperceptions and unrealities of gender inequity in the USMC.
11
In my experience and research, women have to be different, simply because they are different.
12
This does not negate the potential for their equitable contribution to the organization, their assigned military occupations, and the myriad interpersonal relationship they negotiate. Thus, I argue that framing historical and contemporary discussions and realities of gender equity in the military soundly in the realm of sex/gender “equivalency,” rather than “equality,” provides insight into the larger social context in which wars are fought, peace kept, and standing armies maintained. It is not misogyny at play, but the negotiation of constantly evolving sex/gender realities, roles, and expectations in the military microcosm as well as in the society from which it emerges. Pragmatism should be the guiding tradition for continued, transdisciplinary research of this phenomenon. Pioneering evolutionary psychologist Matt Ridley states: No moral conclusions of any kind can be drawn from evolution. The asymmetry in prenatal sexual investment between the genders [sexes!] is a fact of life, not a moral outrage. It is “natural.” … Nature is not inflexible but malleable. Moreover, the most natural thing of all about evolution is that some natures will be pitted against others. Evolution does not lead to Utopia.
13
If I cry, it doesn’t mean I’m weak. I’m just releasing pressure that a guy might release by punching a wall. Is he “weak” by doing that? Oh, hell, no. The difference, though, is that he’s breaking something, and violence implies power. Tears aren’t destructive so they’re viewed as passive and weak, and that’s just a wrong way to look at these behaviors … I’ve seen plenty of male Marines cry and it sure as hell ain’t because they’re weak. It’s because they care, and that’s why I love them. We’re all in this together, and we honestly love each other as brothers and sisters.
15
Not all succeed in this framework of equity and kinship, which is true of male as well as female Marines. W. E. B. DuBois astutely summarizes leadership qualification, “Finally authority means the recognition of the fact that all cannot lead because all are not fit to lead, but we must listen to the noblest not to the loudest ….” 19 In the Marine Corps, this is an achievable status regardless of sex/gender. Due to page limitations, this is addressed much too briefly in the section “Loudership” versus “Inspiration” although the data support this reality in the Marine Corps. 20
Although King challenges me extensively on this issue and embraces it as a potential category to supersede equivalency, 21 competent female Marines are not “honorary men” in the USMC. “Maleness,” genetically achieved via a Y chromosome, physically via a penis, or as a title bestowed by one’s peer group, is simply not required to participate or be successful. My data and findings reject this as a new category or label for females in the military. Such a designator would only perpetuate the negative stereotyping, labeling, and inequity. Again, females would be relegated to a not quite a man and, therefore, not good enough status. King justifies this new category by referencing the interview quotes, such as the usage of identifying with the numerically larger group (male) and sex/gender labeling one’s self as “one of the guys” or similar phrases used by interviewees. To address this, I must refer wholly to the work of Judith Butler whose pioneering gender research and feminist theory confirm that, as a society, we simply do not yet employ viable alternatives to gendered language, a compulsory binary. 22 Unlike other branches of the American military, however, the title “Marine” has no suffix of “man” (e.g., Airman, Seaman, etc.) to identify its members. This, in itself, alleviates one hurdle to female Marines’ equivalency with their male peers. The elimination of “dark green Marine” to identify African American Marines as well as the elimination of the descriptor “Woman Marine” 23 further exhibit the commitment to eliminating race- and sex-specific discriminatory language in the Marine Corps. When Marines acknowledge one another exclusively as fellow Marines without the gender intrusion, as King states, gender would become irrelevant, 24 and the equivalency and kinship ideals will be realized.
King implies that the sexual availability of female Marines might be part of their equivalence. This is horrific! Although perhaps attributed exclusively to Enloe, it is as completely incorrect as the next dichotomous assertion that successful female Marines have to avoid all sexual contact with their fellows. 25 He does not cite this from my article because it does not exist there stated nor implied. I must, therefore, clarify that the female Marines interviewed exercise their sexual agency as they choose. 26 They also insist that sex should not be in the workplace. 27 To summarize, I specifically state, “Equivalency related to sexual behavior requires both males and females in the military accept responsibility for their sexual actions as peers and not as an exchange of power or submission.” 28 This is equivalence, yes. However, it is equivalence of character, not equivalence of sexual availability or promiscuity.
Similarly, and in contrast to King’s assertion that I “seem to underestimate” the extent of categorization of high-performing, competent females who are denigrated because of their competence, 29 I must assert that none of the female Marines I interviewed stated that they were denigrated for performing well. I also remind him that all females I interviewed 30 expressed dismay at the blanket negative stereotypes they initially experience. However, all of them also expressed that the choice was theirs, through personal agency, limited somewhat by their physical and/or leadership capabilities, to either self-fulfill the negative stereotypes or break them. Stereotypes, as a “cultural resource for men” are only as powerful as the group, females as well as males, allow. As I state before my conclusion, when Marine Corps’s core values, traits, and principles are embodied, women have a greater likelihood of inspiring their peers and earning their respect as equivalents. 31 “Denigration” and its alleged pervasiveness are apparently evident in Carol Burke’s work. Nothing, however, in my data reflects this finding.
Objective, nongendered, and nonnegotiable standards for complete equivalence presently exist in the USMC in the form of leadership traits and principles and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). After recruit training, female Marines will continue to enter voluntarily the Infantry Training Battalion at Camp Geiger, North Carolina, although they do not receive the 0311 infantry military occupational specialty (MOS) upon completion. Until combat roles are open to them, they will do it simply for the challenge. 32 In the near future, female Marine officers will succeed in completing the combat Infantry Officer Course (IOC) at Quantico, Virginia. Female Marines who possess the requisite physical and leadership capacity are marching down the road to full equivalency with their male peers. 33 To ensure their continued advancement, the antiquated and divisive notion of patriarchy and its ancillary baggage must be cast away and the enabling concepts of equivalency and kinship embraced.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.