Nice Girls Don’t Join the Army

This is a literature review that I did as part of my graduate program in Organizational Psychology at the Harvard Extension School about how all of the (sexist) arguments deployed against women in combat roles actually contribute to lowered Standards, Good Order & Discipline, & Unit Cohesion/Morale. Enjoy.

Nice Girls Don’t Join the Army: The Effects of Sex-Gendered Attitudes on US Army

Standards, Cohesion and Unit Morale

In nearly all countries in the world, militaries are considered to be amongst the most masculine organizations, and as such, have been historically reserved for men (Epstein, 2013). In the United States, there is anecdotal and historical evidence that women have held active roles in every conflict in which the United States of America has been involved since the Revolutionary War, though they have generally not received any formal recognition for combat service until the US military was formally desegregated based on gender in 2016. Much of the secrecy and exclusion was due to a perceived lack of public support for ‘mothers at war’ (Darden, 2015).

During World War I and II, women served in official roles in many parts of the Armed Forces, and by the 1960s, women’s formalized access to the full range of work in military careers began to improve (Epstein, 2013). By the 1980s, the military had less occupational segregation than civilian workplaces (Goldstein, 2018), but in the 1990s, the US Secretary of Defense caved to public pressure, opening air and naval combat units to women, but restricting them from ground combat — closing hundreds of thousands of jobs to women and impacting their ability to both perform to standard or to achieve the highest levels of advancement in their chosen career fields (Collins-Dogrul & Ulrich, 2018, p. 441).

Due to the segregated nature of military service, the restrictions that were placed on women, and the ensuing negative attitudes that developed towards even the idea of femininity in a warzone, women who choose to don the uniform have traditionally been forced to adopt a deep-acting state with regard to their gender identity on a semi-permanent basis for the duration of their service (Doan & Portillo, 2016). Women simply cannot operate effectively within the organizational culture of the US military without constant efforts to ensure that everyone around them forgets that they are female — an impossible feat in a heavy masculinized and dedicated homosocial environment. Out of basic survival instincts as well as any desire they might have for career advancement, women must assume a ‘third gender’, a form of translocational positionality that psychologists found to be unique to women in the military (Doan & Portillo, 2016). They are, in essence, seen as, at once, overly feminine by their male colleagues and as far too masculine by the rest of the world.

Collins-Dogrul and Ulrich (2018) find that “A woman in a man’s job is a ‘woman who can make it as a man’ not because the masculine values required to do that job have been questioned or changed, but because she adopts those values, qualifying as masculine despite her womanhood” (p. 442). Rather than being allowed the freedom to be competitive in their roles, as male soldiers are, or being judged as individuals on their merits, as the US military claims they do, they are forced into being seen as either ‘a bitch, a slut or a dyke’ — a popular turn of phrase in the US Army — and find themselves constantly having to defend their gender’s right to serve. Though the 1993 combat ban was eventually repealed by Secretary of State Leon Panetta in 2013 and all branches of the military were officially desegregated as of 2016 (Goldstein 2018), supporters and detractors of the idea of women in active combat roles remain engaged in virulent debate on the issue.

The literature shows that the very idea of maintaining combat as a protected space is a flawed ideal at best, since for many decades the kinds of combat that the US Army has engaged in has not had well-defined frontlines, nor is ‘combat’ in itself clearly defined (Goldstein, 2018, p.386). Arguments tend to rely heavily on current scientific data that suggests that women have, as a group, lesser upper body strength than their male counterparts (Epstein, 2013), yet fail to address the fact that upper-body strength is barely a fraction of the bone-fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ) of what makes one well-qualified to succeed in the role of a combat soldier. Arguments that oppose military gender integration fall into three general buckets — that allowing women entry will result in the lowering of standards, a reduction in unit cohesion or negative impacts to good order and discipline. This paper will review both academic and military literature to show that the sex-gendered attitudes that oppose women in combat create counterproductive results, causing the opposite of the desired effect — the use of invalid standards, lowered unit cohesion, and negative effects on the good order and discipline of the units in question, as a result of the sexism.

Literature Review

Physical Standards

The most accepted definition of discrimination, as defined by the US courts, is known as ‘adverse impact’, when actions by the dominant group are adversely affecting a minority group or individual in some way (Levy, 2017). One of the best ways for a company or employer to defend against a claim of adverse impact is to show that any gap in hiring, promotion or consideration in the workplace between two groups is based on the bone fide occupational qualifications — in other words, if it can be proven that one group simply does not have the characteristics necessary to fulfil the task requirements of the role in question. While the US Army is generally protected from lawsuits of this nature, Carol Cohn’s research (2000) takes a look at the BFOQ standards for what makes an effective soldier, concluding that “women’s performance in the actual war became the grounds for a renewed push to repeal the military’s combat exclusion law”, thus making the case that there are many things other than physical strength that combine to form the basic qualifications for success in combat.

In fact, research regarding the strict physical standards which the Army extends to be predictive of broader success in role, indicates that the standards in use fail to meet the basic qualifications for validity. In her paper titled, Why Are You Trying to Destroy the Last Good Thing Men Have, Goldstein examines policies of militaries of the US, UK and other NATO countries, looks at public statements from officials, academic articles, interviews with current and former members of the US military, and her own experience as a leader in a US combat unit. Goldstein’s research addresses the fallacies at the heart of the assumption that simply being physically stronger makes men better combat operators — namely that grit, decision-making ability, multitasking and agility are skills that are at least equally necessary in combat, are gender neutral, and in fact, women often tend to score higher in these regards (2000).

What opposition is left boils down to men trying to defend what they see as one of the last sites of untouched masculinity. Indeed, Goldstein (2018) claims, “If war and the military represent one of the major sites where direct links between hegemonic masculinities and men’s bodies are forged then imagining a link between women and lowered standards is a form of protecting masculine identity” (p. 398). Special Forces culture, according to research by Goldstein (2018) “emphasizes capabilities and impact individuals can bring to the team. While the ability to shoot and move in combat and baseline, physical capabilities are required, they are bare minimum qualifications. For enablers, the ability to diffuse a bomb, heal a wound, intercept electronic signals, or gather and analyze intelligence exceeds the importance of doing pullups” (2018, p. 393). This conclusion is echoed by Cohn’s research, focused on male attitudes towards the physical standards, that “the oft cited ‘standards argument’ reveals strong feelings of loss and anger about changes in the way the organization is gendered” (2000, p.131).

There are many ways that social scientists and military professionals alike hypothesize that women’s presence may add to, rather than detract from, the current standards, or, more importantly, may help to create a different understanding of what makes one successful in combat, potentially leading to more valid standards. As early as WWII, a study was commissioned to examine whether women could make it in mixed-gender units, and findings were positive — showing no evidence that women could not handle the requirements of the job, physical or otherwise. But, due to the need for women as clerical assistants, and the perceived lack of support from American Society, General George Marshall ordered the experiment to be terminated (Epstein, 2013).

Baker (2006) conducting his research at the Army War College, concludes that allowing both genders freedom to serve in all capacities is “not an equal rights issue, but one of military effectiveness. If the United States is to remain the world’s most capable and most powerful military power, we need to have the best person in each job, regardless of gender.” (2006, p. 7). Military leaders have begun attempting to address the question of standards and testing validity, with this in mind, leaders in the military services assert that determining objective standards required for particular combat roles is important not only for ideal placement of talent but also to promote morale (Cohn, 2015). Determining what is required for a job, and then ensuring that the people with those capacities are in the job, is an approach where merit is tested in all people rather than assumed to be in certain categories of people. (Collins-Dogrul, 2018, p. 449).

Unit Cohesion and Readiness

Another oft-cited reason for opposing sex-gender integration by those who wish to hang onto their homosocial spaces and male-only units is the argument that the mere presence of someone of the female gender will impact the very cohesion, and underlying mission readiness, of the military unit on which success or failure ultimately rests. In Baker’s War College article, he closely evaluates a plethora of studies, going back as far as 1994, all of which suggest that women not only do not detract from mission readiness or unit cohesion, but may contribute to better cohesion by promoting a ‘more pleasant work environment’, reducing tensions and enhancing communication, amongst other aspects. Baker (2006), comparing to a 1925 study which claimed that social inequality made “close association of blacks and whites in military organizations inimicable (sic) to harmony and efficiency” (2006, pp. 6–7) leading the authors of the study to conclude that blacks were more cowardly than whites, questions whether someday we might look back on the exclusion of women from combat roles with the same questions about the ideas’ validity.

Collins-Dogrul and Ulrich (2018), in their study which examines responses to online editorials about women in combat, find that units are cohesive when everyone is good at their job and engaged, and that gender of unit members have ultimately little to do with unit cohesion. They argue that sex-gender essentialist thinkers use an equivalency argument that is built on categorical thinking, and yet categorical thinking has long been known to lead to stereotypes and exaggerated views of reality, which a dominant group can then use to discriminate against others, as has happened in the Army for centuries. Indeed, “Scholars who study inequality in the armed forces argue that celebrating male, masculine warriors contributes to an environment in which women are viewed as second-class citizens which damages morale, productivity, and cohesion” (2018, p. 441). In his War College article, Baker finds that even in units suffering from low cohesion, gender was not seen as the negatively impacting factor (2006).

In Norway, which has an Armed Forces with many parallels to and influences from the United States military, Sand and Fasting conducted a series of structured interviews with Non-Commissioned Officers in order to investigate attitudes towards women and how ‘masculine’ culture affects each gender and overall unit cohesion. Their findings indicate that while attitudes toward sex-gender integration are increasingly positive, women still have to work harder to prove that they can fit into an overwhelmingly masculine culture, leading to more physical and psychological stress for the women, but also negatively affecting the unit bonding and cohesion as a whole (Sand & Fasting, 2016). In another study out of Norway, Sand and colleagues conducted an empirical study, embedding women into basic training units in order to study whether exposure to women would change views on mixed-gender productivity — long seen by modern militaries as a result of good unit cohesion — and had positive results, finding a 14% increase in men who believed that mixed-gender teams were equally or more effective than homogenous teams (Sand et al, 2018). What both papers agree on is that while gender may not be a valid issue on which unit cohesion rests, sexist and gendered attitudes are shown to be what does have the most defined effect on unit cohesion. In agreement, Collins-Dogrul and Ulrich (2018, pp. 447–448) reference research in military cohesion which suggests that hard work and task success override more obvious social differences like gender.

Good Order and Discipline/Unit Morale

In the US Army, the term “good order and discipline” (GOAD) carries with it a lot of history and tradition, not all of it positive. While academics and soldiers alike agree that a unit in good order, a unit that is well disciplined, and a unit with high levels of morale are all important factors to a unit that can perform well at war, the phrase has also become a catchall for those who wish to oppose any kind of significant change to the Army’s status quo. Historically, ‘good order and discipline’ has been used as an opposition to integration of many kinds, including questions of racial integration in the 1960s, the repeal of the highly discriminatory ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy, the question of allowing transgender individuals who are otherwise qualified to serve openly in the Army, and, of course, allowing women into combat units (Baker, 2006).

In her article, “Becoming a (Virile) Member”, Höpfl (2003) puts forward the view that as women are incorporated into the military body, they must achieve complete cancellation of the feminine in order to maintain good order and discipline. Researching in the aftermath of the Tailhook scandal, where US Navy men of all ranks were involved in a scandal that involved the complete degradation, sexual harassment and sexual assault of dozens of women, Höpfl argues that the traditionally sexist attitudes and exclusion of women from the military has created a culture in which women must not only dis-member themselves but must obtain a metaphorical member — proving themselves to be masculine — if they desire acceptance. The masculine, then, becomes the default way to behave, and women must be willing to sacrifice their own gender identity on the GOAD alter if they wish to continue on in their chosen careers.

The literature does not support the belief that sex-gender integration has any potential negative effect on GOAD, while conversely, segregationist attitudes may well have the negative effect oppositionists believe they are opposing. Baker finds that “there is no evidence that the integration of women into a combat unit would have a significant negative impact on the unit’s readiness, cohesion, or morale…There have been no significant combat failures attributable to the presence or performance of women. Further, those units whose women made the news — the Abu Ghraib Film Festival, the Camp Bucca Mud Wrestling Invitational, etc. — had far greater command and discipline problems than women” (2006, p. 6).

Conclusion

In conclusion, as Goldstein (2018) so eloquently argues, “resistance to women in combat roles is not only inconsistent with operational realities, but is both counterproductive to mission effectiveness, and may even put lives at risk…in an ever-shifting security environment requiring critical thinking, cross-cultural communication, and civil–military collaboration, rethinking gender roles may be advantageous.” (p. 385) In a military paper addressing the advantages and disadvantages the Army experienced by integrating the first women into deliberate combat teams, the aptly named Female Engagement Teams (in which the author of this paper participated as a female combat soldier), Harding states her findings, “Clearly, military women share the risk with their male peers in modern warfare, regardless of location or assignment,
because “the battlefield does not discriminate between genders.” (Harding, 2012, p.3)

In today’s US Army, in a slow but steady change, not only is the presence of women in combat roles coming to be seen as not a threat to current standards, unit cohesion and good order and discipline, but the different perspective that women can bring into an endeavor as serious as warfighting is beginning to be appreciated, even at the Army’s highest levels. As Goldstein (2018), herself a female combat veteran, states “While it cannot be proven that American lives were lost because women were overlooked before FETs, CSTs, and FSTs (Female Engagement Teams, Cultural Support Teams, Female Support Teams) were deployed, lives were undoubtedly saved because of intelligence they gathered (p. 394)”.

Implications for Future Research

Research into gender attitudes and their effects on the standards, unit cohesion and GOAD have many future implications, both internal and external to the military. In addition to the outcomes studied in this paper, female service members also suffer an extreme amount of physical violence, which, while outside the scope of this review, deserves further empirical study to determine the effect of sexist attitudes and violence towards women in uniform. As Doan & Portillo (2016) point out, as roles for women in the US military continue to evolve, traditional constructions of both gender and what organized military forces should look like continue to evolve along with them. As the US military has proven to be an arbiter of social change, often making changes well in advance of the rest of the United States, change in gender roles and attitudes in the US military has the potential to affect our understanding of gender roles in a broader sense across our communities and states.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The reason for focusing on the US military is that the US has been debating and attempting to predict the effects of allowing women into combat for many years, and has recently repealed the 1994 combat ban against women (2013), followed by integration of all combat roles (2016) and there is a large body of research on this topic. Many other countries quickly follow suit after the US makes changes in the military, but the US military doesn’t often change its own policies based on the findings or experiences from other nations.

Additionally, the author of this paper is a female veteran of the United States Army, and was a member of one of the first experimental Female Engagement Teams, the US Army’s first experiments with integrating women into direct combat roles, including participation in several of the large surveys that collected the data that was used in some of the literature referenced here.

References

Baker, I. I. (2006). Women in Combat: A Culture Issue. http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA449305

Cohn C. (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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X00003002001

Collins-Dogrul, J., & Ulrich, J. R. (2018). Fighting Stereotypes: Public Discourse About Women in Combat. Armed Forces & Society, 44(3), 436–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X17715650

Doan, A. E., & Portillo, S. (2016). Not a Woman, but a Soldier: Exploring Identity through Translocational Positionality. Sex Roles, 76(3–4), 236–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0661-7

Epstein, Y., Yanovich, R., Moran, D. S., & Heled, Y. (2012). Physiological employment standards IV: Integration of women in combat units physiological and medical considerations. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 113(11), 2673–2690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-012-2558-7

Goldstein, A. N. (2018). “Why are you trying to destroy the last good thing men have?” Understanding resistance to women in combat jobs. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 20(3), 385–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2018.1451259

Harding, T. A. (2012). Women in Combat Roles: Case Study of Female Engagement Teams. http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA561195

Höpfl, H. J. (2003). Becoming a (Virile) Member: Women and the Military Body. Body & Society, 9(4), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034X0394003

Levy, Paul. Industrial/organizational psychology: understanding the workplace. Worth pub, 2019.

Sand, T. S., & Fasting, K. (2016). Non-Commissioned Officers and Attitudes towards Military Women in the Norwegian Air Force: “It’s always nice when there are girls around.”

Trisko-Darden, J. (2015). Assessing the significance of women in combat roles. International Journal (Toronto), 70(3), 454–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020702015585306

Young, L. M., & Nauta, M. M. (2013). Sexism as a Predictor of Attitudes Toward Women in the Military and in Combat. Military Psychology, 25(2), 166–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0094958

Daniella Mestyanek Young is the author of UNCULTURED, her memoir, coming soon. Daniella has been breaking through barriers and challenging authority figures since her earliest childhood memories growing up in the horrifying Children of God Cult and on through her service and deployment to war twice. Daniella served as part of the first group of women who integrated into deliberate combat arms missions back in 2011 and is now completing a Master’s degree at Harvard, studying group behavior and group think.

Daniella is married to the world’s best special operations helicopter pilot (retired) and speaks primarily in Brazilian Portuguese with her daughter, who sasses her back in three languages. She can be found speaking speaking truth to power, irritating vetbros and stamping out the kyriarchy on Twitter @daniellamyoung. She can be contacted at daniella.m.young@gmail.com