Masculinity, Women and the British Army: How societal conceptions of masculinity affect women in the British Army Kayleigh Kehoe
Download 141.83 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
ConclusionThere are a number of problems that occur when women engage in masculinity or as Baigent (2008) describes, acting out a masculinity. Negative views of female soldiers are consequently generated from the perception that women ‘lack’ physical presence and tough physique (masculinity), rather than from real life examples of women who have ‘chosen’ to be physically tough. The perception, as well as the reality, that soldiering involves action, danger, male fellowship, agility and strength, follows this masculine discourse that soldiering is men’s work, as this involves acting out masculine ‘attributes’ and behaviour that is only socially deemed appropriate to a male. However, this depends on who the male is, as the essentialist view of the innate abilities of the sexes has stemmed down throughout the Army via tradition and culture. It can be seen that the reasoning surrounding the existence of sexual harassment, the exclusion of women from combat roles within the Army and the attitudes of both the formal and informal cultures can be related to the patriarchal society in which the Army is serving within. “Masculinity in the infantry is a variation of the near hegemonic masculinity prevalent in Western industrialised societies” (Hockey, 1986:24 cited in Williams, 1977). The fact that jobs within the Army are free from equal opportunities legislation, is in itself, hypercritical to the notion of equality of opportunity, which is what the Army is aiming to achieve through its policies, particularly in the ‘Equality and Diversity Directive’ (CGS, 2000). Further to this, the nature of modern warfare has consequently caused complications when attempting to determine the difference between direct combat and combat “support” roles (Febbraro, 2002). It can therefore be concluded, that it is impossible for women soldiers in the British Army to be accepted as equal to their male counterparts if they are excluded from particular roles due to their ‘inabilities’. This demeans women in all aspects, making them and emphasising that they are a lower class citizen, therefore highlighting the real power of the hegemony of masculinity within the Army. The Army’s exclusion of women from direct combat roles merely confirms which of the sexes the Army sees masculinity as belonging to. CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONThere is a considerable body of evidence to indicate that the idea that women should be excluded from the front line has become outdated. The changing nature of modern warfare has consequently meant that no clearly defined frontline exists. The continuation and preservation of hegemonic masculinity can be seen to be heavily present within the Army. Women do not ‘fit in’ with this norm due to their biological sex and the hegemonic view that masculinity is exclusively for men. Therefore, (as examined in Chapter 3), this forces them to be onlookers, on the edge looking in (Baigent, 2009) which can be related to Foucault’s (1977) notion of actors being watched on a stage. Further to this, Chapter 4 explained that collective thought about masculinity, thus the norms of the informal military culture, can lead to sexual harassment. Soldiers learn to ‘fit in’ following their enactment of carrying out a role (see Goffman, 1959) and are thus socialised into fitting into the practices and norms that are enacted by employees of the service, using sexist ideologies and fundamental ideas of sex differences in order to defend their jobs and image. The traditionally gendered/patriarchal society (Walby, 1990) in which we live, has created gender roles for women that are difficult for them to break away from. Conceptions of masculine and feminine are traditionally seen by our society, as well as by members of the Army, to evolve from sex types (Kimmel, 2008). The full integration of women into all sectors of the British Army, would most likely demolish mass cultural assumptions of masculinity being male, thus destroying the hegemony that it sustains. This paper does not dispute the fact that this may consequently have detrimental effects in terms of combat effectiveness and be damaging to the Army ethos. It is true that biological factors cannot be simply ignored in the debate. However, is it morally just to exclude women from particular jobs on biological grounds? The hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1995) that is displayed by the organisational culture of the Army follows the argument provided by biology. Therefore, maybe it is time that the implications of sociological thought and theory should be considered by Army in this debate. Most significantly, the patriarchal social system (Walby, 1990) in which our society revolves around marginalises women through the protection of male interests. Conceptions of masculinity within the Army, as well as wider society, align with the traditionally historical, conventional and societal devaluing of women of which social control presents. Unfortunately, for women who enter the Army or who are part of the Army, or any other male dominated arenas, it is a no-win preposition (Kimmel, 2008). Masculinity in such arenas is sustained through the hegemony that seeks to reproduce and protect it (Connell, 1987). In order to succeed, women must become ‘like men’, sacrificing their femininity. However when they do depart from their femininity, they are consequently punished, being labelled as non-heterosexual, as ‘dykes’. It can therefore be seen that gender inequality forms a double blind for women (Kimmel, 2008), established through assumptions of gender difference and ‘institutional gender neutrality’ (Kimmel, 2008:16). The Army, as with many other workplaces, is gendered and criteria’s for success are often customized for the ‘other’ sex. Sex and gender difference and domination is therefore unfortunately reproduced and reinforced. Until men, society and consequently the British Army and the MoD recognise that masculinity is socially constructed and until conceptions of masculinity are universally seen as varying and multiple in their form, societal norms will allow the Army’s conceptions of masculinity to be of hindrance to women in their organisation. Therefore, it can be concluded that mass societal conceptions of masculinity affect women in the Army through; generating a military culture where sexual harassment is the norm, being replicated in Army policies whereby a sexual division of labour is formed and therefore ultimately limiting their participation in combat roles through exclusion on biological grounds. The hegemony of masculinity in the British Army and in society is insidious by its nature and automatically practiced by individuals whether subconsciously or not. Finally, until these conceptions of masculinity are questioned and significantly re-evaluated by society as a whole, they will continue to plague the general progression, integration and performance that female soldiers in the British Army may deserve. Masculinity is for women as much as men, it is a social construction, not a biologically innate quality. Therefore, it is surely time for its historical relations with the male sex to be questioned and thus removed in order to destroy men’s hegemony. BIBLIOGRAPHYAdult Learning Inspectorate, (2005) Safer Training: Managing Risks to the Welfare of Recruits in the Britsih Armed Services, Coventry: ALI. Alexandrou, A., Bartle, R., Holmes, R. (2001) Human Resource Management in the British Armed Forces, Investing in the Future, London: Frank Cass. Alexandrou, A. (2002) New people strategies for the British armed forces, London: Frank Cass. Army Individual Training Directive 10 (2001) Equal Opportunities. Army, (2002a), ‘The Values and Standards of the British Army: A Guide for Soldiers’, British Army document. Army, (2002b), Equality and Diversity: Newsletter for Equal Opportunities Advisors, Shrivenham: Tri-Service Equal Opportunities Training Centre. Army, (2003), Equality & Diversity in the British Army booklet, British Army document. Army, (2007a) Equality and Diversity, http://www.army.mod.uk/servingsoldier/usefulinfo/equality/ss_hrpers_eq_w.html accessed on 12.10.07, accessed on 12/01/09. Army, (2007b) Equality and Diversity Newsletter, http://www.army.mod.uk/linkedfiles/servingsoldier/usefulinfo/equality/ss_hrpers_eq_w/12918_end_sept07_4web.pdf , accessed on 15/12/08. Baigent, D. (2001) One More Last Working Class Hero: a cultural audit of the UK fire service, Cambridge: Fitting-in. downloaded from www.fitting-in.com/baigent.pdf on 10-01-09. Baigent, D. (2008a) Work in progress on Culture, available at http://web.anglia.ac.uk/publicservice/studentsnotes/culture.doc, accessed on 10-01-0. Baigent, D. (2008b) Heroes and Masculinity work in progress, Cambridge: Fitting in. Baigent, D. (2009) Stopping the Drip: using academic theory and analysis to improve equality for women in the fire service, work in progress, Cambridge: Fitting-in. Baldi, K. (1981) “An Overview of Physical Fitness of Female Cadets at the Military Academies,” Military Medicine, Vol. 156(10), pp. 537–539. Bednarik, K. (1965) The Male in Crisis iwr. von Krafft-Ebing, Psychopathia Sexualis (New York: Paperback Library, 1965 Bilton, T. et al. (2002). Introductory Sociology, 4th Edition: Palgrave MacMillan. Brittan, A. (1989) Masculinity and Power, Oxford: Blackwell. Brod, H. (1987) The Making of Masculinities: The New Men’s Studies, Boston: Allen & Unwin. Carrigan, T., Connell, B. and Lee, J. (1985) ‘Towards a New Sociology of Masculinity’, Theory and Society, 14 (5): 551-604. CGS, (Chief of the General Staff), (2000) Equality and Diversity Directive, British Army document. Chodrow, N. (1978) The Reproduction of Mothering, Berkeley: Univerity of California Press. Cockburn, C. (1991) In the way of women; men’s resistance to sex equality in organizations, Basingstoke: Macmillan. Connell, R. (1987) Gender and Power, Cambridge: Polity Press. Connell, R. (1995) Masculinities, Cambridge: Polity Press. Connell, R. (2000). The Men and The Boys. Cambridge: Polity. Connell, R (2002) Gender, Cambridge: Polity Press. Dandeker, C. and Segal, M. (1996) ‘Gender Integration in the Armed Forces Recent Policy Developments in the United Kingdom’, Armed Forces and Society, vol. 23, no.1. Dandeker, C. (1999) ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and Don’t Pursue’, RUSI Journal. Dawkins, R. (1976) The Selfish Gene, New York: Oxford University Press. Devilbis, M. (1985) ‘Gender integration and Unit Deployment: A study of GI Joe’, in Armed Forces and Society, Vol 11, No 4. Ehrhardt, D. A. (1969) ‘Early androgen stimulation and aggressive behaviour in amle and female mice’, in Physiology and Behaviour no. 4. Equal Opportunities Commission (1998), Equality in the 21st Century: A new sex equality law for Britain. Manchester: Equal Opportunities Commission. Febbraro, A. and McCann, C. (2002) Demystifying the ‘Feminine Mythtique’: Or, Women and Combat Can Mix. Canada, Toronto: US Marine Corps Gazette On the Net. Fine, G. (1987) With the Boys: Little League Baseball and Preadolescent Culture, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: the birth of the prison. London: Penguin. Freud, S. (1933) Femininity. In New Introductory Lectures on Pyscho- Analysis. S.E., 22: 112-35. Frost, G. (1999) ‘The Frolly of Imposing a Liberal Vision on a Necessarily Illiberal Society’, cited in Alexandrou, A., Bartle, R., Holmes, R. (2001) Human Resource Management in the British Armed Forces, Investing in the Future, London: Frank Cass. Fuller, G. (2007) Army fails to attract Muslims in £90 million recruitment drive, http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2007/01/10/38812/army-fails-to-attract-muslims-in-90m-diversity-recuitment.html accessed on 12.11.07. Giddens, A. (1979) Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis, London: Macmillan. Giddens, A. (1993) Sociology, 2nd Edition, Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddens, A., Held, D. (1982). Class structuration and class consciousness. Classes, Power, and Conflict, London and Basingstoke, MacMillan. Goffman, I. (1961) The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books. Goldstein, J.S., (2001) War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa, New York: Cambridge University Press. Haralambos and Holborn, (1995). Sociology Themes and Perspectives, 4th Edition: Collins Educational. Hartmann, H. (1981) ‘The unhappy marriage of Marxism and feminism: toward a more progressive union’, in L. Sargent (ed.), Women and Revolution: A Discussion of the unhappy marriage of Marxism and feminism, London: Pluto Press. Hearn, J. and Morgan, D. (eds) (1990) Men and Masculinities and Social Theory, London: Unwin Hyman. Hearn, J. (1994) Research in men and masculinities: some sociological issues and possibilities. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology 30, 1, 40-60. Heuser, L. (1977) “Sex Typing in Daycare: A Preliminary View.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Pacific Sociological Association, April; Sacramento, Cal. Hewes, W. (2002) “The Feminine Mythtique”, United States Marine Corps, Gazette on the Net, 15 May. Higate, P. (2003) Military Masculinities, Identity and the State, Westport: Praeger. Hochschild, A. (1983) The Managed Heart, Commercialisation of Human Feeling, Berkeley: University of California Press. Hockey, J. (1986) Squaddies: Portrait of a Subculture. Exeter: Exeter University Press. Hodson, S.E. and J.S. Salter, (2002). “Attitudes Towards the Combat-Related Employment of Women,” Australian Army Psychological Research Unit Report AR–009–044. Jackson, D. (1990) Unmasking Masculinity, London: Unwin Hyman. Janis, I. (1972) (1972) Victims of Groupthink. Houghton: Mifflin Company. Jewson, N. & Mason, D. (1986) The theory and practice of equal opportunities policies: liberal and radical approaches, in Sociological Review, Vol. 34, No. 2 pp. 307-334. Johnson, B. (2002) The Feminist Difference: Literature, Psychoanalysis, Race and Gender. Harvard University Press. pp. 224. Karner, T. (1998). 'Engendering Violent Men: Oral Histories of Military Masculinity', Masculinities and Violence. L. Bowker. London: Sage: 197-232. Kimmel, M (2008) The Gendered Society, 3rd Edition, New York, Oxford University Press. Kirton, G. and Greene, A. (2005) The Dynamics of Managing Diversity Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford. Mac an Ghaill, M. (ed.), (1996) Understanding Masculinities, Buckingham: Open University Press. MacInnes, J. (1998) The End of Masculinity, Buckingham: Open University Press. Maslow, A. (1987) Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row. May, T. (1993) Social Research, Buckingham: Open University Press. McNeill, P. (1990) Research Methods, London: Routledge. Millett, K. (1970) Sexual Politics, New York: Doubleday. Mirande, A. (1997). Hombres y Machos: Masculinity and Latino Culture, ISBN. MoD (Ministry of Defence) (1999). Defence White Paper, cited in, Alexandrou, A., Bartle, R., Holmes, R. (2001) Human Resource Management in the British Armed Forces, Investing in the Future, London: Frank Cass. MoD (Ministry of Defence) (2002) Women in the Armed Forces: A Report by the Employment of Women in the Armed Forces Steering Group. London: Ministry of Defence. MoD (Ministry of Defence) (2006) Women in the Armed Forces, Public Information factsheet. Available at: http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/WomenInTheArmedForces.htm, accessed on 12/12/08. Morgan, D. (1992) Discovering Men, London: Routledge. Moskos, C., J. Williams, and D. Segal, (1999) The Postmodern Military: Armed Forces After the Cold War, Oxford University Press. Myers, S. (1997) ‘Why diversity is a smokescreen for affirmative action’, Change, 29 (July/August), pp.24-32. Nantais, C. and Lee, M. (1999) ‘Women in the United States Military: protectors or protected? The Case of prisoner of war Melissa Rathbun-Nealy’ in Journal of Gender Studies, Vol. 8, No.2, pp. 183-191. Natzio, G. (1995). ‘Homosexuality- Can the Armed Services Survive It?’ , cited in Alexandrou, A., Bartle, R., Holmes, R. (2001) Human Resource Management in the British Armed Forces, Investing in the Future, London: Frank Cass. Oakley, A. (1972) Sex, Gender and Society, London: Templesmith. Payne, G. (2000) Social divisions, Basingstoke: Macmillan press. Pleck, J. (1981) The Myth of Masculiniy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rabinow, P. (1986) The Foucault Reader, London: Penguin. Ramazanoglu, C. (2002) Feminist Methodology: Challenges and Choices, London: Sage Publications. Reinharz, S. (1992) Feminist Methods in Social Research, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. Robinson, V. and Richardson, D. (2008) Introducing Gender and Women’s Studies 3rd edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Rose, M. (1997), ‘How Soon Could Our Army Lose a War?’, cited in, Alexandrou, A., Bartle, R., Holmes, R. (2001) Human Resource Management in the British Armed Forces, Investing in the Future, London: Frank Cass. Rutherford, S., Schneider, R and Walmsley, A. (2006), Ministry of Defence/Equal Opportunities Commission Agreement on Preventing and Dealing Effectively with Sexual Harassment: Quantitative and Qualitative Research into Sexual Harassment in the Armed forces, London: Schneider Ross. Schein. E. H. (1992), Organisational Culture and Leadership, cited in Alexandrou, A., Bartle, R., Holmes, R. (2001) Human Resource Management in the British Armed Forces, Investing in the Future, London: Frank Cass. Segal, L. (1990) Slow Motion: Changing Masculinities, Changing Men, London: Virago. Seidler, V. (1997) Man Enough: Embodying Masculinities, London: Sage. Sir Herman Ouseley, (1999) Chairman of the CRE. “Into Leadership” Conference, cited in Alexandrou, A., Bartle, R., Holmes, R. (2001) Human Resource Management in the British Armed Forces, Investing in the Future, London: Frank Cass. Stockard, J., Johnson, M. (1992) Sex and Gender In Society 2nd Ed, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Thomas, W. (1909) Source book for Social Origins. Ethnographic materials, psychological standpoint, classified and annotated bibliographies for interpretation of savage society, Chicago: Chicago University Press. Thomas, P and Thomas, M. (1993) “Mothers in Uniform,” in F.W. Kaslow (Ed.), The Military Family in Peace and War, New York: Springer. Tolson, A. (1977) The Limits of Masculinity, London: Tavistock. Van Creveld, M. (2001) Men, Women and War; do women belong on the frontline? London: Cassell and Co. Walby, S. (1986) Patriarchy at Work, Cambridge: Polity Press. Walby, S. (1990) Theorizing Patriarchy, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Weber, M. (1971) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, London: Unwin University Books. Whalen, S. (1980) It Takes A Man To Cry, London: Arlington Books. Wharton, A. (2005) The Sociology of gender, Oxford: Blackwell publishing. Whitworth, S. (2004) Men, militarism and UN peacekeeping: A Gendered Analysis, Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner. Williams, R. (1977) Marxism and Literature, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilson, E. (1978) On Human Nature, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wilson, E. (1983) I’ll Climb the Stairway to Heaven: Lesbianism in the Seventies. In S. Cartledge and J. Ryan (eds) Sex and Love: New thoughts on Old Contradictions. London: The Women’s Press. Wilson, J. (2002) “First Female Green Beret Still Can’t Be a Marine,” The Globe and Mail, 1 June. Womack, S. (2003) Army accused of sexism for using the term ‘manning’, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/05/narmy05.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/02/05/ixhome.html accessed on 12.11.07 Women and Equality Unit, (2007) Discrimination, www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/legislation/discrimination_act.htm accessed on 04.12.07. Woodward, R. (1998) “‘It’s a Man’s Life!’: Soldiers, Masculinity and the Countryside.” Gender, Place and Culture 5 (3), 277-300. Woodward, R., Winter, P., (2006) ‘Gender and the Limits to Diversity in the Contemporary British Army’, Gender, Work and Organisation. Woodward, R. Winter, P., (2007) Sexing the Soldier: The politics of Gender and the Contemporary British Army, London: Routledge. 1 Physical conduct of a sexual nature includes “unwanted physical contact ranging from unnecessary touching, patting or pinching or brushing against another employee’s body, to assault and coercing sexual intercourse”. Verbal conduct of a sexual nature is denied as being: “unwelcome sexual advances, propositions or pressure for sexual activity; continued suggestions for social activity outside the workplace after it has been made clear that such suggestions are unwelcome; offensive flirtations; suggestive remarks, innuendoes or lewd comments”. Non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature has been defined as constituting, “the display of pornographic or sexually suggestive pictures, objects or written materials; leering, whistling, or making sexually suggestive gestures”. See Employment Equality (Sex Discrimination) Regulations, (2005). Download 141.83 Kb. Share with your friends:
|