I Am a Warrior: An Analysis of the Military Masculine-Warrior Narrative Among U.S. Air Force Officer Candidates

Abstract

This qualitative study examines how cadets at the U.S. Air Force Academy make sense of their experiences, form attitudes and beliefs, construct identities, and how a vocal minority of men create and perpetuate a biased gender norm. Despite an institutional intention of egalitarianism, cadets construct a highly masculinized culture. Focus group and interview analyses show how cadets perpetuate the military masculine-warrior narrative in sensemaking and the construction of gender differences. We argue that the narratives become an acceptable way to express gender biases, overriding the actual reason for the existence of fitness testing. We conclude by addressing the contradiction between policies promoting the inclusion of women in the military and the sexism described above. Acknowledging the lived experience of military personnel would allow for better perceptions of gender equality and suggests potential directions for policy, practice, and future research.

Keywords

officer development masculinity warrior narrative military culture pluralistic ignorance physical fitness gender issues

The Military Masculine-Warrior

Throughout history, many cultures considered military service a rite of passage to adulthood, where men learn toughness, transform bodies, construct masculinities, and eliminate what was considered effeminate (Brown, 2004; Fiala, 2008; Hale, 2012; Hinojosa, 2010; Kimmel, 1994; Klein, 1999). Military training is tough and physically demanding, requiring high fitness levels. Not only is entering the military an opportunity for boys to become men but also a time for the military to make men out of boys (Arkin & Dobrofsky, 1978; Sion, 2007; Woodward & Winter, 2004). Military training exists to put its members through mental and physical hardships, for which the “proper” response is to exhibit a desired masculinity through aggressiveness, courage, and resilience (Barrett, 1996). Men shape military culture and, as a socializing institution, its masculine norms and values are reinforced from the beginning of basic training throughout a military career (Dunivin, 1994).

The paradigm of the masculine-warrior obviously includes combat due to the core activities of training and organizing around combat roles. Images of the military are synonymous with those of combat, uniforms, firearms, and foreign conflicts (Dunivin, 1994). The warrior role, played by personnel engaging in combat, offers a way to prove one’s manhood (Arkin & Dobrofsky, 1978; Dunivin, 1994; Hale, 2012; D. Morgan, 1994; Sion, 2007). Participation in combat constitutes the main test through which personnel achieve military masculinity, providing men the opportunity to demonstrate not only masculinity but also heroism.

The “hero” trope has an ancient history, harkening back to Greek mythology. In more recent terms, heroism is part of our official national narrative, widespread and deeply rooted in popular culture (D. Morgan, 1994). Since 9/11, political speeches, film, and social media regularly socialized this trope and engrained it within our official narrative as Americans (Boyle, 2011). Band of Brothers, Generation Kill, Jarhead, The Hurt Locker, Saving Private Ryan, Red Tails, Top Gun, The Right Stuff, and American Sniper are just several films glorifying military heroism.

Despite the power of warrior and hero tropes, the reality of daily life in the U.S. Air Force poses a dramatic contrast. Military personnel argue the Air Force has far less demanding physical requirements than more traditional combat branches. To be fair, the Air Force participates in combat in a fundamentally different manner than other branches. Most duties involve support to the warfighter, and almost no combat jobs engage an adversary one-on-one. The Air Force makes up 25% of the U.S. Department of Defense, 331,332 personnel in 1.32 million (Defense Manpower Data Center, 2019). When picturing Air Force warfighters, fighter pilots come to mind, yet only about 4% of personnel are pilots, and an even smaller percentage are fighter pilots. Thus, direct hand-to-hand combat is a stretch for almost all career fields: even fighter pilots attack from a distance. Less than 1% (or about 3,000 total personnel) of the Air Force hold an occupational designation for direct combat on the ground.

Sustaining the U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA) Masculine-Warrior Paradigm

The USAFA constitutes what Goffman (1961) calls a “total institution,” a setting that depersonalizes and resocializes individuals. Moreover, USAFA employs an adversative method of training, deliberately introducing emotional and psychological stress to create a mindset conducive to institutional values (Callahan, 2009; Kimmel, 1994). Within this isolated crucible, solidarity among cadets becomes intense and alumni loyalty becomes powerful.

While some first-year cadets come from military families and a few have prior enlisted military experience, most have no military experience. Cadets arrive on their first day and are bombarded with aggressive, screaming cadre who flex muscles under shirts purposely purchased two sizes too small. They enter a basic training program designed, in part, to fundamentally alter their individual sense of identity to create a bond of cohesion among its members (Callahan, 2009). First-years endure 6 weeks of Basic Cadet Training (BCT), which delivers military socialization in a mentally and physically challenging environment of endurance, stress, and combat training.

The first 3 weeks of BCT take place in the cadet area, where first-years learn to be subordinates, relying on the upper classes for their basic military indoctrination including customs and courtesies, dress and appearance, and decorum. After this first phase, cadets enter Second BCT and are transported to an isolated field training complex called Jacks Valley. First-years encounter simulated gunfire, barbed wire, explosions, and smoke as they tackle various obstacle courses. This training site is a construction of masculine work, which includes themes of danger and hardship, where cadets become “hyper-invested” in a warrior identity through training conditions simulating combat including rifle drills, low-crawling through mud, and obstacle courses (Sion, 2007). In practice, few Air Force personnel will ever engage in these activities during their career; however, basic training is designed to socialize new recruits under conditions similar to a laboratory, not train in occupational or combat skills (Arkin & Dobrofsky, 1978). Militarization socializes cadets into what men “should” be.

One combat training scenario during Second BCT involves drills with “rubber ducks.” Many cadets have never held a weapon in their life up to this point. As part of equipment issue, first-years receive nonfunctioning M16 training rifles coated in rubber, learn proper firearm care, and maintain possession of their “rubber duck” at all times. Like clockwork, smoke and explosions go off in the background while first-years make their way through the assault course. This particular course involves hand-to-hand rifle combat, where first-years attack dummies using various strikes. First-years place emphasis on making a “war face” and grimacing as fiercely as possible while screaming and stabbing a human-shaped target with their “rubber duck.”

Militaries introduced bayonet training as a psychological tool to eliminate the reluctance of human beings to kill each other and develop aggressiveness and preparation for close combat (Grossman, 1996). In 2010, the Army eliminated the bayonet assault course from their basic training by reasoning that our armed forces had not launched a bayonet charge since the Korean War in favor of practical combatives based on the martial arts. The irony of the Army dropping this training event, while USAFA cadets continue to run such drills, emphasizes the development of a military masculine-warrior.

Officially, the espoused values listed in the governing document for BCT read: “to develop upper class cadets into responsive, decisive leaders of character and to develop basic cadets into highly trained, disciplined, physically fit and mission–ready fourth class cadets” (USAFA, 2011, p. 6). Yet, cadets perceive the purpose of BCT is to mentally and physically break down the first-years so upper-class cadets can build them back up into leaders. The upper-class cadets regularly pass this common theory-in-use to first-year cadets while remaining unaware of the actual organizational purpose of BCT. This indoctrination initiates cadets into desired cultural norms that reinforce qualities such as power, toughness, dominance, aggressiveness, and competitiveness, resulting in an image of a “combat, masculine warrior” (Dunivin, 1994).

Cadets undergo militarization in other ways. According to institutional policy, USAFA defines the “warrior ethos” as the embodiment of the warrior spirit; tough mindedness, tireless motivation, unceasing vigilance, willingness to sacrifice one’s life for the country, and commitment to be the world’s premier air, space, and cyberspace force are the main aspects of the warrior ethos from an official viewpoint (USAFA, 2009). Daily affirmations and institutional guidance sustain this warrior ethos on a systematic basis. For example, as part of their militarization, first-year cadets memorize quotes about the military. One such piece of knowledge is the Code of Conduct for Members of the Armed Forces of the United States, which guides the behavior of military personnel in combat and captivity. The Code of Conduct begins, “I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.” For first-years, repeated recitations of such quotes are reminders that they are training as warriors and preparing for battle and sacrifice.

Institutional guidance regarding the warrior ethos comes in a variety of forms but most significantly shows up in certain labels used to describe USAFA life. The warrior way of life does not end with BCT; faculty and staff constantly refer to cadets as warriors. Many events and locations incorporate the term, such as the Warrior Run, Warrior Ramp (also known as the Core Values Ramp), Warrior’s Code of the Cadet Wing, Operation Warrior, Polaris Warrior, Warrior March, and Warrior Luncheon. USAFA created these warrior-focused programs and curricula to demonstrate real-world expeditionary skills in tactical warfighting. One USAFA commander was known for swinging a saber during lectures while some cadets cynically placed bets to see how many times he referenced the term “warrior.”

The process of militarization not only socializes cadets into USAFA, it also socializes them into gendered roles based on assumptions about what women and men can and cannot do, especially regarding military jobs. Military rank structure, branch rivalries, and occupations ensure that some men maintain domination over other men and women. Naturally, domination is inherent in a rank hierarchy. Inter- and intra-branch rivalries structure masculine hierarchies by marginalizing groups of men in an effort to negate their power (Hinojosa, 2010). Specific career fields and jobs place certain individuals (men) above others, especially those who are in direct combat fields. Traditionally, combat and military experience separates women from men while binding men to men (D. Morgan, 1994). Prior to the integration of women, this natural separation occurred since only men joined the military. Yet, since women entered the armed forces in 1948 (1976 at USAFA and the other service academies), the military experience continues to separate women from men and even women from other women. Kanter (1977) refers to this phenomenon as “queen bee syndrome,” where token women in a setting dominated by men are rewarded for denigrating other women and actively work to keep other women from joining them.

Competition

USAFA uses a combination of scores—Grade Point Average, Physical Education Average, Military Performance Average, and peer-rankings—to create a ranked hierarchy of cadets. The collective scores factor into a determination of a cadet’s Board Order of Merit, a ranking that affects their choice in available occupations. Cadets will eventually depend on each other, and other personnel, when they graduate and enter active duty; however, competition only intensifies as officers jockey for top stratification marks on performance reports and fight for key positions throughout their careers.

Competitions sustain masculine values and promote and reinforce independence and aggression, allowing men to strive for masculine identity by beating “lesser men” in contests of manhood (Ely & Meyerson, 2010; Kerfoot & Knights, 1993; Kimmel, 1994). Prior to the integration of women, cadets easily participated in contests of manhood since men competed against other men. Following integration, women found that to succeed in the military, they must be considered just as capable of fitting in as men (Hale, 2012). Women also became critical of other women to gain a competitive edge (Ely, 1994).

To compete with men and be taken seriously, women must “have their shit together,” adapt to the hierarchy, and relate to men as “honorary males” (Carreiras, 2008; Ely, 1995), even while diminishing their own status and that of other women by using the term “girls.” Sexism remains subtle and entrenched within the organization, as evidenced by the verbal infantilization of women and how even women adopt and use gendered language to describe themselves. A man’s efforts to prove his manliness are as central to enacting a masculine identity as the particular traits he displays (Ely & Meyerson, 2010). Men who fail tests of masculinity often are discredited as “girls, pussies, weenies, and wimps” (Barrett, 1996, p. 133).

At USAFA, cadets prove their manliness in various contests of manhood. Many of these competitions constitute what Goffman (1967) called “scenes of action,” or “occasions that allow the display of ‘character,’ in the sense of establishing one’s degree of ‘courage, gameness, integrity, and composure’” (p. 229; see also Scheff, 2006). Scenes of action involve risks taken purely for their own sake. Scenes of action “determine which actor has the most character” (Scheff, 2006, p. 2) and thereby establish individual men within the masculine hierarchy. For the sake of tradition, cadets regularly participate in these activities with substantial encouragement from alumni. One scene of action is called First Shirt/First Snow. The First Sergeant, or Shirt, is a third-year cadet who holds the top leadership position among third-years in each cadet squadron. To celebrate the first snowfall of the year, first-years locate the Shirt and drag them out into the snow. Good-natured tussling usually occurs, but in some instances light wrestling turns into all-out brawls. In 2012, 27 cadets were hospitalized for injuries ranging from concussions to bite marks (Handy, 2012). Although unofficial rule-breaking, in the guise of competition, is an entrenched approach to displaying masculinity in USAFA culture, scenes of action hold a controversial status.

Physical fitness tests (PFTs)

Fitness testing is the most visible and contentious scene of action at USAFA. Due to the frequency of testing, cadets readily notice changes in how they rank against peers. Having previously studied gender bias in fitness testing (Do et al., 2013), we were curious to explore the development of cadets’ attitudes and behaviors about fitness testing. According to the USAFA Athletics homepage (2020), the stated purpose of fitness testing includes “promoting maximum fitness among the cadet wing, developing a foundation for a lifetime of fitness, and recognizing cadets who excel in maintaining their personal fitness.” Specific standards of measurement, while equitable, differ for women and men based on physiology. Prior to the admission of women, the USAFA Department of Physical Education adjusted testing and scoring based on the physiological sex differences. The department created and distributed an instructional booklet describing differences of the aerobic and musculature systems of women and men (Stiehm, 1981). USAFA’s goal was to create equitable standards of fitness for women and men unrelated to job performance. That is, because no fundamental physical skills exist to be a “cadet,” the only standard was a general state of fitness.

Completion of the Women’s Integration Research Project resulted in the establishment of new fitness standards (see Table 1) based on physiological differences (Baldi, 1991). Performing well resulted in a higher score and ranking, as well as respect from peers, or as Scheff (2006) stated, the chance to outperform and negate others. Although women at USAFA perform higher than their peers at the national level, they are under constant scrutiny; as the privileged group, men identify and devalue feminine individuals, traits, actions, and objects (Drake, 2006). McCone and Scott (2009) revealed many men seek support for their beliefs that women at USAFA are not “good enough.” A vocal minority interpret of men disparities in standards as favoritism toward women or weakness, which reinforces gender-based resentment.

Table 1.

Minimum and Maximum Limits for Fitness Tests.

Events	Minimum		Maximum
Events	Men	Women	Men	Women
Pull-ups	7	1	21	8
Long jump	7′00′′	5′9′′	8′8′′	7′2′′
Sit-ups	58	58	95	95
Push-ups	35	18	72	48
600-yd run	2:03 min	2:23 min	1:35 min	1:53 min
1.5-mi run^a	12:25 min	14:17 min	7:45 min	8:55 min

Source. USAFA (2014) Catalog. USAFA = U.S. Air Force Academy.

^a The 1.5-mi run for USAFA is called the aerobic fitness test. Cadets take this test separately, on a different day, from the physical fitness test.

Since the integration of women in the military, men have attempted to put women in their place with protests about fitness testing. To many men, lower standards of testing for women purportedly “proved” they were not good enough to make it in the military. Even recently, many cadets ask for equality of standards, implying that women have it easy and cannot keep up with men. Equal standards make sense if fitness testing measured occupational qualification; however, as military leaders admitted during a Congressional hearing, no link exists between fitness tests and occupations (1999). Stiehm (1981) observed that fitness testing “may distinguish men with higher overall strength and endurance and with more positive attitudes from ‘lesser’ men, but the tests make little pretense of relating to professional needs” (p. 152). Despite this official position, theories-in-use perpetuate the attitude that fitness standards must be equal for both women and men.

Method

USAFA is a federal service academy, an accredited 4-year college offering a Bachelor of Science in 32 majors, and accession source of commissioned officers for the USAF, located in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Cadets who attend a service academy, including West Point and the Naval Academy, enter the armed forces as second lieutenants/ensigns upon graduation and serve a minimum of 5 years on active duty. Service academies are unique because their small campuses contain every aspect of education, training, and life within their walls. The USAFA student body, known as the cadet wing, consists of approximately 4,000 cadets who live and work in a perimeter-secured central location called the cadet area. We assigned pseudonyms to individual respondents. The primary investigator (the first author) collected data with a USAF officer and was not in any direct position of authority over the participants. Participants came from a research subject pool consisting of cadets taking psychology and leadership courses required of all freshmen (first year) and juniors (third year), respectively.

The first set of data resulted from semistructured focus groups, which allowed for the negotiation of meaning between peers through collaborative discussion (Kitzinger & Farquhar, 1999). One hundred and eight cadets participated in 23 focus groups in fall 2010. Participants, 75% (81) men and 25% (27) women, roughly represented the gender makeup at USAFA. We organized each focus group to capture a variety of interactions based on group membership: from the introductory psychology course participant pool, first-year women, first-year men, and first-year women and men; and from the leadership course participant pool, third-year women, third-year men, and third-year women and men.

We asked each focus group to discuss their experiences and attitudes about the PFT revolving around themes of standards, performance, perceptions of other cadets about the PFT, and purpose of fitness testing. We used a core set of questions with several follow-ups for clarity and to facilitate discussion (D. L. Morgan, 1996). The size of each focus group was limited to six participants to promote diverse dialogue and achieve balance between discussing individual views with a wide range of potential responses. Participants provided consent prior to participation and used unique numerical identifiers to ensure anonymity. Focus groups took an average of 30 min per session and resulted in 716 total minutes of audio and 236 pages of single-spaced transcriptions.

The second set of data came from unstructured, in-depth, active interviews (Fontana & Frey, 1994). We created and used a freely organized interview guide addressing several themes while providing flexibility. We spoke with 29 cadets and generated 2,000 min of audio, 464 pages of single-spaced transcripts, and 174 pages of single-spaced field notes over a period of 4 months. The interviews represented first-year and third-year cadets from the introductory psychology course and leadership course participant pools. Nine participants were women, roughly a third of participants and a higher representation than in the cadet wing (22% women). The inductive nature of our research allowed us to test categories and concepts in the field as they arose (Charmaz, 2001; Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

We analyzed, coded, and categorized 874 single-spaced pages of transcripts according to emerging themes that were identified following data collection. Based on our experience working at USAFA for more than 35 collective years, we believed certain themes would emerge from this site and its participants. Lengthy analytic memos, on top of transcriptions and field notes, contributed to codes, concepts, and themes that we sorted and summarized repeatedly while generating theory within the process. NVivo Version 10 (for Mac), a qualitative data analysis software package, allowed us to conduct deep levels of analysis on large volumes of data.

Results

The Masculine-Warrior

Men shape military culture and, as a socializing institution, its masculine norms and values are reinforced from the beginning of basic training throughout a military career (Dunivin, 1994). Our interviews with cadets clearly reflect this idea, as Mary (a third-year cadet) deftly picked up:

Sometimes I see things here at the Academy that, it’s just very masculine. Masculinity is associated with power. Feminine stuff you don’t really see here. I can’t really think of anything that shows we’re feminine here. We have more of an idea of what is powerful and those traits and how it relates to masculinity. With feminine stuff, it’s harder to define, I feel. We’re not really surrounded by that.

She mentioned signs of masculinity and their prevalence around the cadet area, especially in the library, including a painting of a man swimming through a sea of naked women and phallic symbols. Mary specifically mentioned the display of military rifles and the Center for Character and Leadership Development glass tower, officially named the Vertical Compass and unofficially dubbed the “Phallus Palace.”

The masculine-warrior ideology also portrays warriors as existing above “ordinary” citizens. In military socialization, this appears in the philosophy that the military differs from civilians. The military sets higher standards for personnel, who are set apart from others by virtue of a higher calling to sacrifice their lives for their country and perform jobs that others cannot. As Jason (first year) put it, “In times of combat, you might have certain situations where you need to be in shape and need to do things that a normal person couldn’t do.” Similarly, Farouk (first year) proudly noted the following about military standards:

It separates us from other colleges, because a lot of other college campuses, a lot of people are walking around who are just students. So, they’re either out of shape or they’re not healthy. It’s just natural, you know that your classmates are at least up to a bare minimum of athletic abilities.

Having a skill set unique to the profession, along with the training and authority to fight and kill other human beings in combat, further separates military from civilian mindset.

This treatment of the military, along with socialization into gender roles, contributes to preconceived notions cadets hold regarding military heroism and masculinity. For example, Monty (third year) claimed he is “not afraid of dying for my country.” “We’re all going to eventually going to die,” he explained, “and it would be pretty honorable to die for your country.” Bill (third year) referred to his bond with his classmates as motivation to act as a hero:

I will gladly, I really do believe this, gladly lay down my life for one of my friends one day if they ask of it from me or if it meant saving ten of my buddies. That’s the really, really cool thing about the military. We’re all part of this really awesome organization where I may have never met you in my entire life but I know you’re going to do the right thing and that if need be, go into that battle with me and we may both lose our lives or you may give your life for me or vice versa.

Thus, a duality exists between warrior-focused training and the lived experience of active duty. Candace (third year) and Mary summarize this duality well. Candace emphasized how “you’ve got gear, you’ve got all of your uniform and heavy boots and sometimes, maybe, you know, you’re going through a creek or whatever and you’re wet.” Mary saw it differently, saying “Some of my friends complain and say that it doesn’t feel like we’re in the military,” continuing:

I wear a uniform but I just go to class all the time and I’m surrounded by people who don’t really show what a warrior is. We’re all just people who work in an office, basically. I feel like we’re people who sit at a desk. Well, the Air Force is not really about kicking down doors and boots on the ground. Sometimes they are and it would be cool if we had that more but I feel like they go about it sometimes in the wrong way with the [basic cadet] training. Nobody really enjoyed it. They don’t do that in the real Air Force.

Similarly, Erica (third year) added,

How many AF officers actually go into combat? The STO/CROs [Special Tactics Officer/Combat Rescue Officer] and ALOs [Air Liaison Officer], they’re going to be there. A lot of people in missiles or computer science, they’re not going to be there.

Despite reality, cadets bring an awareness of the hero trope and expectations of combat readiness to USAFA. BCT builds on this foundation by legitimating connections between masculinity and the warrior. Military socialization at USAFA is unlike what enlistees and other officer accession sources undergo at Officer Training School and Reserve Officer Training Corps. USAFA remains unique because cadets wear uniforms and live and train in the same buildings, and indoctrination and officer development occur daily over the course of 4 years. Moreover, resistance is difficult, as the nature of cadet life and organizational culture of USAFA aim at rapid and thorough socialization.

Sustaining the USAFA Masculine-Warrior Paradigm

Solidarity among cadets attending USAFA becomes intense and Academy alumni loyalty becomes powerful, which contribute to and build upon a unique paradigm. This solidarity and loyalty are introduced in the first year of training and throughout all 4 years, as first-year cadets are subjected to this paradigm. Hans (third year) said he lived in fear during the first year:

I think there is definitely an interaction between freshmen and upperclassmen that is pretty unique. I think there’s an intimidation factor. Do what they say and don’t challenge. I think that’s the scare tactic, but hardship really brought us together, which made freshmen year more enjoyable and beneficial.

In BCT, the assimilation of “warrior culture” and “warrior ethos” is constant. Dominic (first year) described his first encounter with the warrior ethos:

First BCT, we’re taught to be airmen, gentlemen, and officers. Second BCT they try to transform us into warriors and that we can accomplish anything, no matter what was put in our way we would get through it. That’s the warrior ethos.

Logan (third year), who worked in First BCT, said:

I took a bunch of kids that were civilians, yelled at them, put them in their place, taught them the military way. Some of them come in, they talk back and show disrespect when someone tells them what to do because they’re not used to someone telling them what to do. I’m higher ranking and you’re supposed to follow what I say. I just have to tell them that there is a certain order to things.

Mary experienced this warrior culture firsthand through her perspective as a woman, saying, “I’ve noticed that women here do not help other women. I just feel like the teachers [who are women] know what it’s like, so they have higher expectations of cadets who are women.” As Mary discovered, this pecking order extends to the daily activities of cadets in training and the classroom.

Our research revealed other means by which BCT reinforces the masculine-warrior ethos and gender inequality, despite stated intentions to do otherwise. In particular, competition and physical fitness testing stood out as especially strong and enduring mechanisms.

Competition

The competition is real. You see it. You see people trying to get an edge on each other. When you see other kids trying to cutthroat each other, it just makes you wonder why. You’re supposed to be together, a team. We’re all one fight. We’re all doing the same thing. We’re all trying to get out of here and serve the United States. We’re not trying to get a one up on each other. I don’t think you need to backstab each other to get to where you need to go. (Dominic, first-year cadet, describing daily competitiveness)

When cadets compete and are ranked against others, the hierarchy allows them to visualize their subordination to and dominance over peers. In this military hegemony, competition exists to differentiate superordinate cadets from subordinate or “insufficient” or “deviant” cadets. Competition creates boundaries of inclusion around those who exhibit strength, endurance, and competence, signaling that one is capable of toughness and manliness. Bill reflected on the dichotomy of teamwork and competition:

One of the biggest problems I see with the Academy now is it’s such a stratifying process in everything that we do that it almost impedes the ability to have good teamwork in everything we do. I’m constantly trying to foster cohesion and stuff but it’s hard because everyone is out to beat everyone else out. How do you bring people together who are, constantly in the back of their minds, trying to beat other guys out and not having them on my team? I think one of the biggest problems we have is that everybody is out to serve themselves and it’s just really really hard to build good team cohesion when everybody wants the highest grade in the class or to beat everybody else out for that pilot slot or for that intel slot.

Mary complained about the perception of standards between women and men:

To do really well, I have to be better at a guy equivalent. As a girl, you have more of an identity. You’re “that girl.” If you’re a guy, you blend into the mass of cadets more easily, but girls are more noticeable here. There are all kinds [of girls]. You have high-speed girls who have their shit together. You have girls who struggle. You have girls who rely on a lot of people. I don’t really see them as independent. There are different kinds.

When Monty joked with his friends, he says, “‘Man, you’re such a girl.’ I mean, in reality you’re a dude but you’re joking around.” We asked Monty why he called his friend a “girl” and he replied, “To make fun of them. You know what guys do.” He quickly became defensive and said, “I mean, I personally don’t do it but I know people who do. If they do something and pressure them to do something, like going out instead of doing homework, ‘Oh, you’re such a girl!’” As Dominic stated, “Personally, I believe that’s a part of Academy culture. But some people think that if it’s breaking the rules it’s not right, even though people have done it for the past 50 years.” While daily competitiveness at USAFA includes academics, military performance, and peer evaluations, the most significant scene of action is also the most visible and contentious at USAFA—fitness testing.

PFTs

Because fitness testing occurs regularly, cadets readily notice changes in their performance and ranking among peers. Physical fitness testing occurs in the cadet field house, a large indoor training facility housing a running track, basketball arena, and ice hockey rink. Cadets compete side by side and, as their fitness scores tally up across events, an immediate differentiation of position on the hierarchy emerges. Cadets disclosed their thoughts about competition, unfair grading by the faculty and staff, and differences between women and men. Zed (first year) goes straight to the point, stating, “I think it’s another competition between cadets. I think it’s something else to strive for, something else to be the best at. Just like a lot of other things here.” “It’s another way to judge how you go to certain jobs after you graduate from here, another way to rank you,” said Quan (first year).

Michael (third year) complains, “Women are not working as hard for that score, so it needs to be harder for them.” John (third year) chimed in, “The female standards need to be a little bit higher than they are. I feel like they’re geared more toward females doing well.” Mario (third year) said, “I think there’d be a lot less animosity over the situation if it was even.” These men articulate one of the invisible advantages of privilege, namely the ability to define the very foundations of success or failure. The privileged retain their power by creating “fair” standards that marginalized groups have less chances of reaching. For example, Charlie (first year) recounted a conversation with his roommate:

My roommate thinks that female cadets should be held up to the same standard just because we have to be going into the same Air Force. We have to be working in, and especially hand-to-hand combat or something ever occurs the female cadets wouldn’t be able to hold off on their own as well as male cadets.

In another instance, Florian (first year) said, “Why can’t they have standards the same as ours? I’ve heard that comment numerous times.” Aaron (first year) stated that “the standards on the fitness test either should be the same for both genders, but there should be different motivation behind it…it would just be a standard that you have to meet in order to be here or in order to serve in the Air Force.” Johnny (third year) said, “We’re all putting on the same uniform, boy or girl, therefore we should all be held to the same standard.”

In their interviews, women expressed frustration about perceptions of competition and differences in grading standards. Candace (third year) discussed the constant criticism she faced when performing well on the fitness test:

They’re like, oh well, maybe next time you should just try and do the guy’s PFT, just because you know that’s the real standard. Your standards are the same as one of us doing mediocre.

Kelly (first year) felt she was treated differently based on her performance on the fitness test: “I’ve gotten like the same scores as a guy, and they’re like, ‘Oh, well, it’s not really the same’…I have heard, you know, guys give [women] crap about it.” Joanna (third year) responded and said, “I get that crap all the time from guys. Like, ‘Oh, yeah, you can max it because you’re a girl.’ And ‘The standards are so easy.’” Kate (first year) did not experience comments directed toward her but felt it in a general sense: “I don’t think guys walk around with the attitude that girls have it so much easier all the time, but they do acknowledge the fact that the general consensus among guys is that [the fitness tests] are a lot easier for us.” Jane also experienced comments generally directed toward women: “I have a friend that, a male friend, who, whenever they PFT comes up, he always talks about how females should have the same standards as males. But he never, like, uses that negative attitude toward me.”

Helen (third year) gave a more detailed reasoning as to why men have such an issue with the differences in standards and possible justification for their protests: “One of the things I hate that guys do when it’s PFT time and they’re like ‘what did you get?’ and I say 3-whatever. And they’re like, let’s say they got a 320, ‘well, the girls’ standards are way easier’.” She continued to describe these remarks as a defense mechanism used by cadets who struggle with fitness testing and are likely on athletic probation. “I think their defense mechanism is ‘your score is higher than mine but really, I’m in better shape than you’. It’s a bad defense mechanism, but it’s human. It’s kind of my soapbox issue because it happens so often.”

When men view fairness from their own standards, equal rights mean equal standards. Some cadets realize that equality should only apply in certain occupations, while other cadets, such as Charlie’s view on hand-to-hand combat mentioned earlier in this section, are adamant that equality should apply in all situations. Lamar (third year) said:

The only time standards should be equal is when you’re in a hand-to-hand combat environment where you can’t have one person on your team not meeting the same requirements as everyone. But obviously, we’re not in that type of environment. The mission isn’t being hurt because the standards are lower for females than it is for males.

Hans agreed and used a practical approach based on his career aspirations:

Look, I’m not going to be kicking down doors. I want to be a doctor or an acquisitions officer. I don’t need any of this. So, I can see where the disconnect, the dislike toward the PFT and AFT come from because not everyone is going to be kicking down doors and saving children.

Cadets initially understood and supported fitness standards as empirically based and physiologically equitable for both women and men. Candace stated, “I think that the research shows that women and men proportionally perform the same on their given PFTs.” Andrew endorsed that statement by declaring, “Obviously, the bodies of a male and female are pretty different and what they’re expected to do also varies.” A group of first-years came to this understanding:

Nathan:

I believe, just like everyone else said, that it’s pretty equal, because when the scores were initially formulated, they were set to the specifications for females and males. So, it’s not like they just put up random scores up there.

Ivan:

I also agree that if you made them the same, it would put the female cadets at a disadvantage because of biological reasons.

Max:

I agree with everybody else on this one. Guys are prone to having more muscle mass and less fat, and if you change the standards, then women would be at a significant disadvantage.

Ryan:

I agree with everyone as well. I think that people knew what they were doing when they chose the standards for both males and females.

Cadets’ acceptance of empirically based standards arose organically during discussions; however, a few still did not accept certain events like pull-ups and push-ups in which the greatest disparity of scores existed. Earlier in our conversation, Lamar agreed that different standards were fair and would not hinder the mission. When pressed for more information about each event, he said this:

I personally think that for the most part the standards are pretty fair. But I do think the pull-ups for the women should be a little bit higher than what it is now. I think one pull-up minimum to pass is not enough. I don’t know exactly what the numbers should be, but I think that one is not enough.

Will, third year, noted physiological differences but fell back on his belief of unfairness:

It’s understandable that females and males will have different standards for physical fitness due to genetic differences. But this huge difference in pull-up standards should be fixed in order to make it fair for everybody. We know that genetics require different standards for men and women, but we should study that more in depth, you know, what exactly the difference needs to be in order to make these standards fair for everybody.

Cadets assigned measures of fairness subjectively and off-the-cuff, justifying various narratives and beliefs, even after recognizing that the standards resulted from validated methodical testing. Although cadets acknowledged that research resulted in the current standards, a privileged position led to rejections of what they perceived as unfair. Cadets viewed fairness from the standard of men. In fact, “male standards” is redundant: men are the standard.

Many men also switched positions and claimed women had it “easier,” often ascribing this belief to unnamed “other cadets.” This became apparent when the entire focus group consisted of men and the belief that “women having it easier” emerged in a discussion of overall ranking. These groups encouraged stereotyping and accepted sexist pseudo-norms readily. Their straightforward degradation of women met with no protest. For instance, by Zach (first year):

I definitely agree that it is favored toward females, though there is definitely a physiological difference between males and females. So, it is understandable for it to favor them slightly, I just think it’s definitely favored a little too much. I think there needs to be more research into the proper amount of pull-ups that females should be expected to do.

Mario (third year) bluntly said: “If I was a girl, I’d score a 550 every time and probably could do it smoking.” His classmate, Scott, added,

I could literally fall asleep, roll over and fart and get a 450 on the girl’s test, without even trying. That’s what really gets to me because we get racked and stacked on the same scale as far as the [order of merit] points go.

In an environment of peer-to-peer competition, cadets strove to achieve dominance over their classmates and emerge at the top of the hierarchy. Threats to this competition resulted in dismissive comments about physicality.

Discussions about standards gradually turned to occupational qualifications and raised the question of whether women deserve equality if they cannot perform equally with men. Much of the commentary on fitness standards lacked firsthand accounts of men witnessing preferential treatment of women. Often based on hearsay, it usually involved stories about how “they had heard about something that someone else said had happened somewhere else to someone else at some other time” (Cohn, 2000, p. 146). Ivory (first year) said, “it’s common to hear whispering about how unequal it is, but I don’t think there are enough that have the correct information to even call it unequal.” Although lacking in evidence, the power of these stories comes from their ability to condense and symbolize something that people believe is important.

If competition separates the men from boys, what does it mean if a woman succeeds? Women who score similar to men achieve “honorary male” status and are an anomaly among women. Ben (third year) delivered a backhanded compliment, where women are not respected until they reach his standard: “I know several girls, those girls are just monsters and they can easily max either [PFT and AFT]. Everyone has a lot higher respect for the girls that can do just as much or more than the guys.” Ruben (first year) set up a no-win situation where he denigrated women and men, saying, “If you expect a female to be able to, I guess you could say, perform at the same level as a guy, then either she’s got to be a beast to do it or the guy’s got to be a wimp.” Men did not expect women to perform well, but some felt threatened when it happened. Although Isaiah (first year) did well, he always checked his status within the hierarchy:

Only a wimp would express anything toward women because then you also have to think about, like, a male role, a male identity. If you were to say something about women, you would be comparing yourself to them in terms of physical ability and you would look bad. You’d look weak. You don’t want to do that.

The achievement of masculinity in the military is never secured and must be continually confirmed and exhibited (Barrett, 1996). In Isaiah’s case, he would not deign to compare himself to women but placed himself only in competition with other men. Mario and Jason, third- and first-year cadets, subordinate their classmates who are at the bottom:

Mario:

I think you’re kind of worthless as a human being if you can’t pass that. I think that the people that fail would probably feel a lot stronger about the test.

Jason:

What I’ve come to realize is that most people complaining are the weaker of the guys. They get the lower scores and complain that if they had the same standards as girls, they would rank higher.

According to this hierarchy of masculinity and performance on fitness tests, men who perform well are in a privileged position. Women who perform well continue to deal with sexism. This was especially pronounced from a vocal minority and men who were most likely lower in the hierarchy. Steve (first year) can tell, in his experience, that cadets would individually hold similar opinions about testing “but not voice it publicly” with the exception of the vocal minority. If men cannot exclude women from the military, they can exclude women from combat. If men cannot eliminate women from combat, they can make the case women cannot handle combat. Men do this by using a narrative of fitness standards tied to combat performance.

Gender Inequality and the Combat Narrative

Kim admitted that “around the cadet wing, the purpose isn’t very well defined or communicated to the cadets.” In the absence of direct instruction about the purpose of training, cadets created their own reasons based on their military socialization and USAFA culture. As previously mentioned, fitness testing keeps cadets in good health and within standards for active duty service. Almost every focus group used a combat narrative as the reason behind fitness testing. For instance, Kamal (first year) believed:

When you’re out on the battlefield, we’re all going to have to be doing the same thing. When you’re running across an open field trying to avoid enemy fire, the requirement for women isn’t going to be less than males.

James (third year) summarized how many cadets feel about testing, stating “the purpose of fitness testing is to make sure we’re capable of performing in wartime.” In sum, most cadets believed that testing was in preparation for combat, usually referring to hand-to-hand combat which they will most likely never experience during their career. Fitness testing thus supports and is supported by the combat narrative. Differing standards threaten the narrative by compromising images of the masculine-warrior. Under this logic, testing should ensure that women and men will have the requisite strength to carry the wounded to safety. This enabled John to assure his superiority over his classmates:

I mean, if I were put in a position [of] combat on the frontlines, I want to feel comfortable that girl beside me or woman, if you will, is…if I get wounded, is she going to carry me out of there?

Charlie echoed this in saying, “If hand-to-hand combat ever occurs, the females wouldn’t be able to hold off on their own as well as male cadets.” Differing standards, designed to increase overall gender equality by allowing women to succeed in the military, nevertheless serve to legitimate inequality. By giving women lower, albeit physiologically legitimate, expectations, fitness testing supports the notion that women do not belong in the military.

In light of the reality of the “faux warrior,” the combat narrative borders on absurdity. Yet, many cadets, particularly males, cling to a false perception. Ian (first year) illustrated this when he explored an extreme option:

If we do go to war with a larger nation such as China or Russia, we’re going to need more men on the frontlines and they will be coming from offices. So, you need people just to be with the warrior ethos and ready for combat.

For many cadets, testing prepares them to “kill people” and “take out enemies” while “leading in the frontlines.” It allows them to wade through creeks with heavy gear and “do the job when lives are at stake.” By justifying fitness based on nonexistent masculine-heroic actions during combat, cadets create a sexist hierarchy where those who score well (mostly men) rise to the top, while those who score poorly (women and “lesser men”) drift to the bottom. This hierarchy can only be justified if, in fact, everyone participates in hand-to-hand combat and runs across battlefields while carrying the wounded. Although only a miniscule number of USAF personnel might engage in such activities, training perpetuates the masculine-warrior ethos and combat mentality. In reality, the lived experience of active duty could easily sustain gender equality.

The masculine-warrior ethos of USAFA relies on assertions by a vocal minority of sexist men who help create an environment of pluralistic ignorance and construction of a gender bias norm (Do et al., 2013). As Shaun (first year) explained, “there is a small minority, a minority of cadets who do resent the lower standards of the female PFT.” His classmates, Nick and Hannah, agreed and heard from a few cadets who thought women should not be in the military. They stated, “it’s not that prevalent, just a few people here and there” and “a small minority think the standards aren’t fair.” Not only is fitness testing just another competition at USAFA, rather it shows the production and propagation of hegemonic masculinity. It is not actually about combat but about men discounting women in the military. In this view, women do not belong if they cannot perform up to a standard, which exists for one reason—fitness—but is used for another—combat qualification.

Conclusion

In sum, we analyzed socialization, or militarization, as a thorough and complete process and portrayed cadets as adopting wholesale the masculine-warrior ethos and the combat narrative. Our paradigm of cadets constructing and sustaining gender stereotypes ultimately undermines official policies on the inclusion of women in the military and the dignity of actual lived experience of women serving their country in the military. Despite the reality of experiences, military socialization invests cadets in a combat narrative that justifies keeping women out of combat roles and the military itself. Men create justifications for fitness testing based on nonexistent masculine-heroic actions in combat, which elevate them above women without effort. In fact, Do et al. (2013) asked these same vocal men about Air Force waist measurement standards, which are more extreme for women. Not surprisingly, men defended their easier standard based on the factual answer of “women are built differently:” a fact absent from their commentary on push-ups or pull-ups. The specificity of our findings aligns with and advances the literature on gender and military cited throughout this article, as well as a larger literature on gender privilege and marginalization (Ferber et al., 2009; Johnson, 2006).

Although most cadets were not sexist, a few who were extremely vocal with stereotypes about women allowed sexism to reign, maintained by pluralistic ignorance. The focus on pluralistic ignorance contributes to the sociological research on gender bias, particularly in male-dominated settings (e.g., Acker, 1990; Ely, 1995; Hinojosa, 2010; McCone & Scott, 2009; Sasson-Levy, 2003; Segal, 1995).

Samuels and Samuels (2003, 2010) stated that regardless of simple orders by service academy leadership for gender integration to go smoothly, the lack of buy-in by faculty, staff, and cadets led to an awkward and tense integration process. Authentic support from leadership plays a fundamental role in shaping the attitude and behavior of cadets. Without major changes to the culture and training at USAFA, gender integration will continue to meet opposition from men who espouse traditional gender roles. It is difficult to transform attitudes toward women at USAFA, especially when cultural norms of masculinity are passed on to each new generation of cadets. DeFleur et al. (1985) stated that it is possible to transform traditional norms only over a long period of time through a combination of changes in programs. These include efforts to recruit men with diverse social backgrounds, increases in the numbers of women in positions of power, and increases in the numbers of women in the cadet wing. Differences in performance cannot be eradicated. But we should recognize that as men observe and learn that women do not perform identically in some areas (e.g., fitness testing), “there is an immediate decline in favorable orientations toward women” (DeFleur et al., 1985, p. 168).

A concentrated focus on changing attitudes through education is the next step in providing cadets with a diverse and equitable climate. Such focus is paramount with lifting the ban of women in combat, opening critical frontline positions to women, and incorporating them in combat training. As women formally move into previously all-male units, and the Department of Defense eventually opens the remainder of combat positions to women, continuing education and understanding can lead to changing attitudes in support of a diverse and equitable force.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

James J. Do

References

Acker

(1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139–158.

Arkin

Dobrofsky

L. R.

(1978). Military socialization and masculinity. Journal of Social Issues, 34(1), 151–168.

Baldi

K. A.

(1991). An overview of physical fitness of female cadets at the military academies. Military Medicine, 156, 537–539.

Barrett

F. J.

(1996). The organizational construction of hegemonic masculinity: The case of the US Navy. Gender, Work & Organization, 3(3), 129–142.

Boyle

B. M.

(2011). Rescuing masculinity: Captivity, rescue and gender in American war narratives. The Journal of American Culture, 34(2), 149–160.

Brown

M. T.

(2004). Designing GI Joe: Congress, the military, and national identity. In Conference Paper of the International Studies Association’s 2004 Annual Meeting in Montreal, Canada. https://convention2.allacademic.com/one/isa/isa04/index.php?cmd=Download+Document&key=unpublished_manuscript&file_index=2&pop_up=true&no_click_key=true&attachment_style=attachment&PHPSESSID=i7bgfajn44avkcmepp9vf46tba

Callahan

J. L.

(2009). Manifestations of power and control: Training as the catalyst for scandal at the United States Air Force Academy. Violence Against Women, 15(10), 1149–1168.

Carreiras

(2008). From loyalty to dissent: How military women respond to integration dilemmas. In Carreiras

Kümmel

(Eds.), Women in the military and in armed conflict (pp. 161–181). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Charmaz

(2001). Grounded theory. In Emerson

(Ed.), Contemporary field research: Perspectives and formulations (pp. 335–352). Waveland Press.

10.

Cohn

(2000). “How can she claim equal rights when she doesn’t have to do as many push-ups as I do?” The framing of men’s opposition to women’s equality in the military. Men and Masculinities, 3(2), 131–151.

11.

Defense Manpower Data Center. (2019). Active duty military strength by service. https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/dwp_reports.jsp

12.

DeFleur

L. B.

Wood

Harris

Gillman

Marshak

(1985). Four years of sex integration at the United States Air Force Academy: Problems and issues (No. USAFA-TR-85-10). U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado, Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership.

13.

J. J.

Samuels

S. M.

Adkins

D. J.

Clinard

M. E.

Koveleskie

A. J.

(2013). Gender bias and pluralistic ignorance in perceptions of fitness assessment. Military Psychology, 25(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0094754

14.

Drake

M. J.

(2006). Ambivalence at the academies: Attitudes toward women in the military at the federal service academies. Social Thought & Research, 27, 43–68.

15.

Dunivin

K. O.

(1994). Military culture: Change and continuity. Armed Forces & Society, 20(4), 531–547.

16.

Ely

R. J.

(1994). The effects of organizational demographics and social identity on relationships among professional women. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 203–238.

17.

Ely

R. J.

(1995). The power in demography: Women’s social constructions of gender identity at work. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 589–634.

18.

Ely

R. J.

Meyerson

D. E.

(2010). An organizational approach to undoing gender: The unlikely case of offshore oil platforms. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 3–34.

19.

Ferber

Jimenez

O’Reilly Herrera

Samuels

D. R.

(Eds.). (2009). The matrix reader: Examining the dynamics of oppression and privilege. McGraw-Hill.

20.

Fiala

I. J.

(2008). Unsung heroes: Women’s contributions in the military and why their song goes unsung. In Carreiras

Kümmel

(Eds.), Women in the military and in armed conflict (pp. 49–61). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

21.

Fontana

Frey

(1994). Interviewing: The art of science. In Fontana

Frey

J. H.

(Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (pp. 361–376). Sage.

22.

Glaser

Strauss

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Adeline.

23.

Goffman

(1961). Asylums. Penguin.

24.

Goffman

(1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face to face behavior. Doubleday.

25.

Grossman

(1996). On killing: The psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society. Little Brown.

26.

Hale

H. C.

(2012). The role of practice in the development of military masculinities. Gender, Work & Organization, 19(6), 699–722.

27.

Handy

R. M

. (2012, October 31). 27 AFA cadets injured in hazing during first snow. The Gazette. http://www.gazette.com

28.

Hinojosa

(2010). Doing hegemony: Military, men, and constructing a hegemonic masculinity. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 18(2), 179–194.

29.

Johnson

(2006). Privilege, power, and difference (2nd ed.). Mayfield.

30.

Kanter

(1977). Men and women of the corporation. Wiley.

31.

Kerfoot

Knights

(1993). Management, masculinity and manipulation: From paternalism to corporate strategy in financial services in Britain. Journal of Management Studies, 30(4), 659–677.

32.

Kimmel

M. S.

(1994). Fear, shame, and silence in the construction of gender identity. In Brod

Kaufman

(Eds.), Theorizing masculinities (pp. 119–141). Sage.

33.

Kitzinger

Farquhar

(1999). The analytical potential of ‘sensitive moments’ in focus group discussions. In Barbour

Kitzinger

(Eds.), Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice (pp. 156–173). Sage.

34.

Klein

(1999). “Our best boys”: The gendered nature of civil–military relations in Israel. Men and Masculinities, 2(1), 47–65.

35.

McCone

D. R.

Scott

W. J.

(2009). Thirty years of gender integration: Cadet perceptions of women at the US Air Force Academy. In Caforio

(Ed.), Advances in military sociology: Essays in honor of Charles C. Moskos (pp. 213–240). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

36.

Morgan

(1994). Theater of war: Combat, the military and masculinities. In Brod

Kaufman

(Eds.), Theorizing masculinities (pp. 165–182). Sage.

37.

Morgan

D. L.

(1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22(1), 129–152.

38.

Samuels

S. M.

Samuels

D. R.

(2003). Reconstructing culture: Privilege and change at the United States Air Force Academy. Race, Gender & Class, 10(4), 120–144.

39.

Samuels

S. M.

Samuels

D. R.

(2010). Incorporating the concept of privilege into policy and practice: Guidance for leaders who strive to create sustainable change. In Parco

J. E.

Levy

D. A.

Blass

F. R.

(Eds.), Attitudes aren’t free: Thinking deeply about diversity in the U.S. Armed Forces (pp. 321–341). AU Press.

40.

Sasson-Levy

. (2003). Feminism and military gender practices: Israeli women soldiers in “masculine” roles. Sociological Inquiry, 73(3), 440–465.

41.

Scheff

T. J.

(2006). Hypermasculinity and violence as a social system. Universitas, 2(2), 1–10.

42.

Segal

M. W.

(1995). Women’s military roles cross-nationally: Past, present, and future. Gender & Society, 9(6), 757–775.

43.

Sion

(2007). Reinterpreting combat masculinity. Sociologie, 3(1), 95–111.

44.

Stiehm

J. H

. (1981). Bring me men and women: Mandated change at the U.S. Air Force Academy. University of California Press.

45.

U.S. Air Force Academy. (2009). USAFA strategic plan, 2010–2014. http://www.usafa.af.mil/shared/media/document/afd-100322-020.pdf

46.

U.S. Air Force Academy. (2011). Basic Cadet Training (Commandant of Cadets Instruction 36-101). https://www.usafa.edu/cadet-life/military/

47.

U.S. Air Force Academy. (2014). The United States Air Force Academy 2014–2015 catalog. http://usafa.smartcatalogiq.com/en/2014-2015/Catalog

48.

U.S. Air Force Academy. (2020). Athletics. http://usafa.edu/athletics

49.

U.S. Congress. (1999). Congressional Commission on Military Training and Gender-Related Issues (Volume II, Transcripts and Legal Consultants’ Reports). U.S. Government Printing Office.

50.

Woodward

Winter

(2004). Discourses of gender in the contemporary British Army. Armed Forces & Society, 30(2), 279–301.