Can someone assist with argumentative essay on Gender Integration?

Article

Fighting Stereotypes: Public Discourse About Women in Combat

Julie Collins-Dogrul 1

and Jaimis Rebecca Ulrich 1

Abstract This study examines reader responses to opinion editorials about women in combat and contributes to the literature on women in the military by explaining how contests over sex–gender essentialism and diversity underlie public debates about individual rights and military effectiveness. Comments in favor of women’s ground combat exclusion use a logic of averages to promote essentialist thinking about men and women. They categorize women as inferior soldiers and argue that deseg- regation puts individual soldiers and the nation at risk. Conversely, comments in favor of integration advance a view of sex–gender diversity that places men and women along a continuum with overlapping qualities, suggesting further that giving exceptional women the freedom to serve in ground combat will advance both equality and military readiness. We argue that public commentary about women in combat concerns more than the military, underlying this discourse are distinct conceptions and expectations of men and women.

Keywords gender, military, work, segregation, inequality, combat

In 1994, the U.S. Secretary of Defense prohibited women from serving in ground

combat roles, ensuring sex segregation in some occupations and positions in the

military services. In 2013, the Secretary of Defense rescinded the ban, and full

implementation was confirmed in 2016. Scholars disagree about whether access

1 Whittier College, Whittier, CA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Julie Collins-Dogrul, Whittier College, 13406 Philadelphia, Whittier, CA 90608, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Armed Forces & Society 2018, Vol. 44(3) 436-459

ª The Author(s) 2017 Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0095327X17715650

journals.sagepub.com/home/afs

to ground combat roles will improve women’s experiences (King, 2015) or do little

to challenge entrenched, sex–gender inequalities (MacKenzie, 2015). A majority of

the public think desegregation will make opportunities for women in the military

better, but more than 1 out of 10 worry that women serving in ground combat will

harm military effectiveness, and one fourth believe women should be prohibited

from ground combat completely (Pew Research Center, 2013). We analyze online

reader comments written in response to opinion editorials about lifting the ban on

women in ground combat roles. Our findings contribute to the literature on public

attitudes about women in the military in two primary ways: First, we find that the

women’s rights and military effectiveness themes that scholars identified decades

ago persist (Peach, 1994; Segal & Hansen, 1992); second, we identify and explain

the sex–gender ideological and logical frameworks that underlie these themes.

Those who support segregation promote a sex–gender essentialist ideology that

depends on a logic of averages. They view women as a class of people that have

inferior warrior skills and argue that women in combat will reduce military effec-

tiveness and result in more dead and wounded soldiers. Those who support integra-

tion promote a sex–gender diversity ideology, with a logic of distribution where

abilities, regardless of sex, fall on a continuum. Supporters of ground combat inte-

gration argue that desegregation strengthens the nation’s military readiness while

simultaneously advancing military and democratic ideals.

The article proceeds as follows. The literature review synthesizes research on

public attitudes about women in the military and explains how sociological strati-

fication theories shed light on debates about sex–gender inequality in the armed

forces literature. The method section details our procedures and explains the utility

of using public discussions in online newspaper forums to flesh out the ideologies

and logics that underlie public opinion. In the Results section, we present the com-

peting essentialist and diversity sex–gender frameworks that we argue underlie

public discussions of “average” men and “exceptional” women and show how these

frameworks shape perceptions of the potential consequences of desegregation, spe-

cifically military effectiveness, the dangers of war, and selective service obligations.

Literature Review

There is extensive research on women in the military. Early groundbreaking efforts,

like the scholarship presented in Goldman’s (1982) edited volume, documented

historical and international cases of female soldiers as well as debates about whether

women in combat improve or harm military effectiveness. Other pioneering scholars

advanced theories that identified and explained how particular social and institu-

tional changes in the armed forces, and in society, can increase female participation

and integration (Moskos, 1988; Segal, 1995). In this literature review, we present

research on public attitudes about women in the military and then synthesize socio-

logical theories of social stratification and research on sex–gender inequality in the

armed forces. This dual strategy is useful, as our research analyzes public

Collins-Dogrul and Ulrich 437

discussions about women in ground combat roles and identifies discourse in these

discussions that either challenges or reinforces sex–gender inequality.

Attitudes About Women in the Military

Research on public attitudes about women in the military includes expert and gen-

eral public studies. Segal and Hansen (1992) studied expert testimony about women

in the military in congress from the 1940s through the 1980s, finding two primary

themes: first, an idea of military effectiveness emphasizing the impact of women on

warfare; and second, an idea of the rights of citizenship emphasizing opportunities

for women. Subsequent research on debates about women in combat by Peach

(1994) also identified effectiveness and rights to be central in expert discussions

about women in the military. Over time, experts supporting expanded roles for

women in the military, including combat roles, began to craft arguments that com-

bined both military effectiveness and individual rights (Segal & Hansen, 1992). This

is exemplified by McSally (2007) in her argument that “effectiveness is degraded

when women and men are accessed, evaluated, inculcated, conditioned, trained and

assigned differently because of gender” (p. 1053).

Rights and effectiveness themes have also shaped the design of survey research

that measures public support or resistance to women entering combat roles. In the

1980s, the General Social Survey (GSS) asked questions about general public atti-

tudes about women’s roles in the military and in combat in particular. Researchers

who analyzed the GSS data found that younger age, better education, White racial

identification, and low levels of religiosity were associated with support for

expanded roles for women in the military (Wilcox, 1992) and views on women’s

rights were more important than views on national defense in predicting support for

or against expanded roles (Herbert, 1994). Analysis of the overall sample, however,

revealed limited support for assigning women to ground combat roles, with 35% supporting integration (Wilcox, 1992). By 1992, a Roper Poll found that 45% of the public thought that women should be able to volunteer for ground combat

(M. McSally, 2007). Two decades later, a Pew Research Center (2013) survey found

broad support for ground combat roles for women: 66% supported lifting the ban and 26% opposed. Most respondents said the policy would not harm military effective- ness: 49% said it would not make much difference, 29% said that it would improve, and 15% said it would make it worse. When asked if allowing women to serve in ground units that engage in close combat would make opportunities for women in

the military better: 58% agreed, while only 7% said it would make opportunities for women worse, and 30% said it would not make much difference either way. The measure of public attitudes over time suggest a growing support for women in

combat, but the numbers also show that integration remains contested. Our analysis

fleshes out the ideologies and logics that underlie these numbers.

Historically, researchers interested in understanding attitudes about women in the

military had to either study archives containing expert testimony (Peach, 1994;

438 Armed Forces & Society 44(3)

Segal & Hansen, 1992) or rely on rare, nationally representative surveys that

included relevant questions (Herbert, 1994; Wilcox, 1992). Today, the Internet gives

the public the opportunity to express their views in online newspaper hosted forums

and researchers the opportunity to analyze their comments. Researchers interested in

understanding public views of sex, gender and the military have just begun to tap

into online reader forums in response to newspaper editorials, with MacKenzie

(2015) leading the way. We push this effort forward with our analysis of an

expansive sample of reader commentary.

Sex and Gender, Categorical Thinking, and Inequality

The difference between sex and gender are often explained as the distinction

between biology and culture. Biological sex includes primary sex characteristics

like genitalia and secondary sex characteristics like height and muscle mass, while

culture shapes gender ideals, norms, and performance (Chanter, 2000). Distinguish-

ing between the two concepts has helped feminist theorists explain that most

distinctions between men and women are not biologically determined by sex, but

instead reflect socially constructed systems of difference, thus inequality is not

inevitable due to biology, but created and sustained through culture (Deutsch,

2007). New theories have worked to explain the relationship between sex and

gender, arguing that it is dynamic and malleable (Chanter, 2000; Udry, 2000), a

view we identify by hyphenating sex and gender. To illustrate, muscle mass, which

we identify as a secondary sex characteristic, demonstrates a relationship between

sex and gender, as gender norms for men can push them to work harder to increase

their muscle size, while gender norms for women can push them to exercise to stay

slim, rather than get strong. Thus, the body is shaped simultaneously by culture and

biology. Because discussions of ground combat often emphasize the importance of

the body, a sex–gender conceptualization is useful. Also, useful is the concept of

sex–gender essentialism.

Sex–gender essentialism illuminates how a socially constructed sex–gender

binary defines and categorizes men and women, condensing human variety into

core masculine and feminine characteristics (Crompton & Lyonette, 2005). Lin-

stead and Pullen (2006) argue that the sex–gender binary has always “relied more

on categories than bodies for its warrant” (p. 1288) and Sjoberg and Gentry (2007)

explain that essentialism relies on a “social construction of simplicity where com-

plexity exists” (p. 5). In contrast to essentialism, is sex–gender diversity a concept

we constructed from our data using inductive reasoning. Sex–gender diversity

focuses on distribution on a continuum rather than categorical averages, bringing

attention to exceptional men and women who cross boundaries and challenge

sex–gender stereotypes.

Sex–gender categories, essentialism, and diversity inform recent debates in the

literature on women in the military. In a provocative Armed Forces & Society article,

Brownson (2014) argues that equivalency, not equality, is the path toward full

Collins-Dogrul and Ulrich 439

acceptance of women in the military. Equivalency, Brownson posits, “acknowledges

without prejudice the differences of physical biology and socially constructed gen-

der” (p. 767). In this article, and the monograph Lady Leathernecks (2015), Brown-

son argues that men and women bring distinct physicality, skills, and behaviors to

the military and that success should not rest on transcending their “biological or

social nature” (2014, p. 784). Brownson states that she inductively developed her

theory of equivalency from interviews with female marines—her respondents con-

sistently highlighted the unique, but equally valuable contributions men and women

make in their field. Brownson’s findings, that military women see distinctions

between male and female soldiers, resonates with earlier interview research con-

ducted by Miller (1998).

Miller’s interviews with army women revealed that many saw men and women as

having key differences, specifically upper body strength, which put women at a

disadvantage in combat positions. Both Miller and Brownson take their respondents’

views and experiences seriously, following the ethos of qualitative interview

research. Both also credibly advance the argument that biological sex, along with

socially produced gender, can have an effect on choices and performance. Where

Miller and Brownson differ is their categorical thinking. While Miller acknowledges

sex and gender diversity, writing that “some percentage of women will always

outperform some percentage of men” (p. 51), Brownson promotes essentialist

thinking by, for example, stating in this powerfully simple sentence “Females are

not physiologically equal to males” (p. 767). Further demonstrating her essentialist

views is another short sentence about sexuality on the job. Brownson succinctly

writes, “Human males and females want to have sex with each other” (p. 780)—a

sentence which discursively erases nonheterosexual identities and practices.

Brownson’s equivalency argument is built on categorical thinking about men and

women drawn from theories of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology that

argue that sex differentiation is innate and important for human harmony and

cooperation. The problem with this line of reasoning, according to the preeminent

stratification theorists in sociology Tilly (1999), author of Durable Inequality , and

Massey (2007), author of Categorically Unequal, is that categorical thinking is the

foundation of inequality.

The problem is that categorical thinking can lead to stereotypes or “highly over-

simplified, exaggerated views of reality” where people make sharp and judgmental

distinctions between those inside and outside of the category, which can then over-

shadow everything else that makes up an individual (Charon, 2009, p. 306). Domi-

nant groups may then act on this stereotypical thinking to exclude, exploit, and

discriminate, and shore up their own advantages (Massey, 2007). Maintaining these

categorical boundaries, then, is how people acquire status and monopolize resources

(Lamont & Molnar, 2002, p. 168).

These processes are clearly shown by sociological studies of inequality at work,

where sex differentiation, or classifying people into categories based on their sex, is

the first step toward gender stratification (Padavic & Reskin, 2002). Sex

440 Armed Forces & Society 44(3)

differentiation begets gender essentialism, that is, the belief that men and women are

fundamentally different, and therefore better suited for distinct occupations and jobs

based on those differences (Crompton & Lyonette, 2005; Egnell, 2013). What fol-

lows is sex segregation, where men and women are concentrated in distinct jobs and

occupations (Reskin, 1993). As Reskin (1993) writes, “the characteristics on which

groups are sorted symbolize dominant or subordinate status and become the basis for

differential treatment” (p. 241). Reskin goes on to explain that segregation ensures

groups’ mutual ignorance of their contributions in the workplace, creating an illu-

sion of equal—although separate—treatment. This creates a system of inequality

based on a sex–gender hierarchy. Because masculine traits are favored, the social

construction of gender rewards men for the masculine qualities they are thought to

bring into the workplace (Acker, 1990; Williams, 1995).

Sex–Gender Segregation and Inequality in the Military

In the history of the U.S. military services, women have faced numerous occupa-

tional restrictions and served primarily in medical support and clerical roles, but

since the 1960s, access to the full range of work opportunities in the military has

improved steadily (Kamarck, 2015). By the 1980s, the U.S. military had less occu-

pational segregation than the civilian labor force (Firestone, 1992). Then, in the early

1990s, the U.S. Secretary of Defense opened air and naval combat units to women

but restricted ground combat roles. Ground combat restriction policies prevented

women from being assigned to units below brigade level if the unit’s primary

mission was to engage directly in ground combat. This meant that women could

not serve as infantry, artillery, armor, combat engineers, and special operations in

units of battalion size or smaller, thus hundreds of thousands of positions were

closed to women (Kamarck, 2015, p. 12).

Why would the armed services bar women from these positions? Many research-

ers argue that the armed services, and the public, see men as the ideal soldier, a view

which privileges men and subordinates women (Egnell, 2013; Lundquist, 2008;

MacKenzie, 2015; Rollins, 2012; Silva, 2008). This male soldier ideal celebrates

the male body and masculinity and easily associates manhood with violence on the

battlefield. A female soldier, on the other hand, challenges common understandings

of what it means to be a woman. As Sjoberg and Gentry (2007) explain, violence

contradicts the nurturing, emotional sensitivity, and domesticity associated with

femininity. 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

(Knowles, 2014; M. E. McSally, 2011; Rollins, 2012). The current debate among

scholars is if women’s entry into combat roles will improve women’s experiences in

the military overall.

King (2015) asserts that the integration of women into the combat arms is a

“profound transformation of gender relations not only in the armed forces but in

Collins-Dogrul and Ulrich 441

civil society” (p. 385). MacKenzie (2015) disagrees, arguing that “the removal of the

combat exclusion does not indicate a marked shift in military culture, or a move

away from the historic valorization of male bodies, male bonding, and male honor”

(p. 196). For MacKenzie, the fact that only exceptional women will fill combat roles

because few will pass testing and training requirements, suggests the uselessness of

the policy change in combating entrenched inequality. King, on the other hand,

views the entrance of exceptional women into the combat arms and their acceptance

by their male peers as challenging negative and constraining stereotypes about

women. King argues that being accepted as an “honorary man” is one route for

women to prove that professionalism, skills, and physical fitness are more important

than ascribed status in the military (2015). Arguably, this may challenge gender

stereotypes that constrain individual women but does not necessarily challenge the

military as a masculine institution. As Sjoberg and Gentry (2007) explain,

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. 10)

In our reader response data set, commenters who support women in ground

combat, like King, see exceptional women who transcend feminine stereotypes and

average female physical fitness as standard bearers for integration and equality. On

the other hand, commenters opposed to women in combat roles thought in catego-

rical ways that condensed men and women into unidimensional stereotypes. For

them, exceptional women were exceptions that did not challenge the general rule

that women, as a class, are inferior soldiers.

In sum, the sociological literature on sex and gender and stratification explains

how thinking categorically and acting on this type of thinking create inequality. Sex–

gender essentialism, diversity, and inequality help us make sense of public discourse

about women’s prior exclusion from, and new access to, combat roles. As we

demonstrate, public comments that support continued sex segregation show a deep

commitment to sorting people into sex–gender categories in order to create a world

where only men do warrior work, which they argue is essential for military effec-

tiveness. Public commenters who support lifting the ban on women in combat see the

policy change as a win in the fight for equality in the military and in society. Their

sex–gender diversity framework gives women the opportunity to be measured by

their abilities, rather than stereotyped by their sex and gender, which they argue

expands the pool of talent that can contribute to the military services.

Method

To understand public views on women in combat, we qualitatively analyzed a

systematic sample of publicly accessible reader comments in major U.S. newspa-

pers. While the survey is the most common form of public opinion research, Internet

442 Armed Forces & Society 44(3)

commentary is a novel and useful data source (Bachner & Hill, 2014). Readers who

comment in newspaper forums can contribute perspectives, opinions, and/or exper-

tise with minimal censorship, providing a diversity of perspectives (Manosevitch &

Walker, 2009). These forums can be a place where opinions, attitudes, and values are

more easily expressed because people can participate from the privacy of their own

homes while maintaining anonymity (Hughey, 2012). While social media can create

an echo chamber of similar views (Sunstein, 2008), the reader forums in our data set

provided venues for people with divergent political views and wide-ranging civilian

and military backgrounds to express themselves and interact online.

Critics of Internet public discourse have identified some problems with this

form of communication. Anonymity and limited editorial oversight in online

commentary can create conditions that foster hate speech (Santana, 2015) as well

as trolls that lure and trick readers into “pointless and time consuming discussions”

(Herring, Job-Sluder, Scheckler, & Barab, 2002, p. 372). Our data, in contrast,

come from prominent newspapers that monitor reader comments for hate speech

and trolls. Reader comments may also represent fringe viewpoints rather than

common public sentiments. This problem is addressed by researchers identifying

if comments connect to mainstream, ideological spheres (Kelly, Fisher, & Smith,

2006). The themes we discovered resonate with conservative and reform positions

in the popular and scholarly literature, demonstrating that the comments both for

and against integration are part of mainstream discourse.

To get our sample, we searched for “women in combat” in editorial and opinion

articles in the U.S. newspapers that are listed as major world publications in Lexis

Nexis from January (when the end of the ban was announced) to June 2013. We

accessed reader comments to the articles from the newspaper websites, collecting

4,090 comments and then used systematic sampling to select every 10th comment

resulting in a 10% sampling ratio. The final sample included 409 reader comments from the Washington Post, the New York Times, the New York Daily News, and the

Washington Times published in January, February, and April 2013.

We used qualitative coding practices to identify themes. We open coded to create

a code list, then to improve intercoder reliability, we used a subsample of reader

commentary to norm the coding process to ensure that we had common understand-

ings of the codes. We then divided the sample and coded individually with the code

list and finally regrouped to identify the most prominent themes. From these themes,

we chose representative and succinct examples. Although reader comments are

public, to ensure privacy, we used pseudonyms.

The research has limitations. We are gender scholars and have not served in the

military, both of which influenced the research design and analysis. In addition,

reader comments come from East Coast newspapers and are not a representative

sample of the U.S. population. Newspaper readers tend to be older, more educated,

and higher income than the general population (Newspaper Organization of Amer-

ica, 2014) and readers who post commentary to articles may have well characteris-

tics that distinguish them from general readers. Reader comments are often

Collins-Dogrul and Ulrich 443

anonymous and have missing and/or unreliable demographic information, thus

researchers cannot analyze writer characteristics like gender, class, or race (Bachner

& Hill, 2014). Thus, we avoided gendered pronouns like he or she. In this type of

research, the microlevel context of the comment for the individual commenter is

unknown, thus researchers cannot know how strong, temporary or long-standing a

belief is and cannot verify reader accounts of their own experiences (Dowd, 2017).

We did not quantify comments for or against desegregation; instead, the goal of this

qualitative study was to identify and elucidate the ideologies and supporting logics

that provide interpretive frameworks for or against the combat ban. When reading

comments that support segregation readers should remember that this is a minority

viewpoint, as the Pew Research Center (2013) poll data covered in the literature

review find that only 26% of the U.S. population support combat exclusion and only 15% think women in ground combat would harm military effectiveness.

Results

The 2013 elimination of the law that prohibited women from serving in ground

combat roles and subsequent public discourse about this change unfolded within a

particular context. President Obama was in his second term, and during his presi-

dency, he advanced gender as well as sexual orientation equality across the nation

and in the military (Alexander, 2013; Stephens, 2013). Through analyzing online

commentary, we found that disagreements over the consequences of the new ground

combat policy were part of a broader battle over how to conceptualize men and

women. Table 1 presents the analytical framework.

We argue that the essentialist and diversity ideologies we identify are supported

by particular logics, which shape how people understand the contributions men and

women make in the armed forces and the consequences of integration on military

effectiveness and citizenship rights.

Average Men and Exceptional Women

Commenters who wish to preclude women from combat roles often argued that men

and women are essentially different. As Rush73 states,

Table 1. Conceptualizations of Sex and Gender and the Consequences of Integration in Arguments About Women in Combat.

Policy Position Ideology Logic Military Effectiveness

Soldier Safety

Citizenship Rights

Segregation Essentialist Averages Preserves Protects No change Integration Diversity Distribution Improves No change Expands

444 Armed Forces & Society 44(3)

God made men and women DIFFERENT for a reason. Each gender has roles and tasks

that it was specifically designed for. As a man, I have no qualms about the fact there are

some things that a woman is better equipped for because of her DNA make up. And

there are some tasks in life that we men are better equipped mentally and physically

for . . . . Combat is harsh nasty unforgiving environment, the average man is almost not

suited for it, and it would take an exceptional woman to handle it. I believe fighting

battles is warrior work, and men are better suited for that task.

This response suggests that essentialism is God’s plan and biology dictates

what roles and jobs men and women excel at. “Warrior work” is best suited for

men, and women are better at other, nonspecified “things.” At first glance, the

commenter supports a well-defined sex–gender binary but then suggests some

gray areas as Rush73 writes, “it would take an exceptional woman to handle” the

“harsh nasty unforgiving environment” of combat and “the average man is almost

not suited for it.”

While references to God’s plan were rare in our sample, distinctions between

average men and exceptional women were common. Commenters supporting

women in combat roles drew attention to a logic of distribution, where men and

women fall on a continuum, and those against the policy change appealed to a logic

of averages that accentuated categorical differences between men and women. For

example, Mikepimzo asks fellow commenters, “What do you predict would be the

outcome of a close-combat infantry battle between a company of average male

special forces and a company of average female special forces? Be honest, here . . . .” In another post–Huntsman, who notes 26 years of military experience with two tours

downrange states, “Fact: Females have only half the upper-body strength as males—

no small point in the field . . . . Women AREN’T men.” In our sample of reader comments, those who asserted sex–gender essentialism almost always supported sex

segregation as SacTown6003 writes, “Frontline infantry is no place for women, not

even as volunteers. There are other military jobs that women can do without putting

their lives in aggravated danger due to their sex.” According to the U.S. government,

however, those “other military jobs” are also dangerous (Kamarck, 2015). By 2015,

the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in women receiving 9,000 Army Combat

Action Badges for “actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy” (Kamarck,

2015, p. 1). However, these numbers are a small fraction of the total, the U.S. Army

Human Resources Command (2016) notes 121,237 recipients of the badge between

2001 and October 2015.

Commenters in support of giving women the right to fight countered sex–gender

essentialism by asserting a sex–gender diversity view, supported by a logic of

distribution. For example, Alisa reasons,

Many of the comments point out the obvious differences in the capabilities of strength

between men and women. However, there is a spectrum, as with all things . . . for

example, not all men in the army are going to have the muscles and physique of

Collins-Dogrul and Ulrich 445

someone like [the actor] Channing Tatum, to use one example. For every man like that,

there will be another with a different body type, perhaps not as muscular/athletic. I

would guess that the women in the upper spectrum of athleticism would be stronger/

faster than the men at the lower or even middle spectrum of men’s capabilities. I have

seen some women with very big muscles, others who have great speed, others who are

generally very athletic . . . . I have no doubt that these type of women can hold their own

on the battlefield, if they choose to do so.

Alisa’s spectrum language encourages readers to move beyond the sex–gender

binary by suggesting that men and women’s physical capacities overlap, because

they are each distributed across a range of values.

The commenter edejkepner succinctly adds to the sex–gender diversity view by

sharing personal experience in war writing, “There are women who can carry the

load of an infantryman—I have seen them. There are women who can be as tough

and as rugged as an infantryman—I have seen them.” For edejkepner, strong women

are not hypothetical, they are real. Continuing the theme of standard bearers, many

commenters wrote about women in combat in other countries, like Vietnam, Russia,

and Israel, to counter the notion that women would be poor fighters. These com-

menters rarely provided historical context or analyzed how women’s roles vary in

offensive or defensive military actions, but scholars have, with research document-

ing historical and internationally comparative cases of women in combat roles in

nonstate armed opposition groups (Mazurana, 2013) as well as state military forces

(Mathers, 2013).

On the whole, those wishing to keep women out of combat roles promoted sex–

gender essentialism based on a logic of averages, where women are weak and men

are strong. Those in support of repealing the ban appealed to a logic of distribution,

noting a diversity of male and female bodies and overlapping capacities. Discourse

about the physical capacity of individual and average bodies is especially important

in the work contexts of the military services, where service in these institutions is

often understood as “intensely physical” (Brownson, 2014, p. 767). Importantly,

though sex–gender diversity discourse challenges binary thinking about men and

women, it does not challenge the military as an institution that privileges masculi-

nity, strength, and thus the male soldier. An “exceptional” woman, who is as strong

and masculine as the average man, may be accepted as an “honorary man” (King,

2015), but she is a token. “Unexceptional” women, those who display normative

femininity and average strength, are marked as inferior and unfit to be a combat

soldier (MacKenzie, 2015; Silva, 2008).

Standards

Commenters often speculated about the consequences of women in combat roles.

Those opposed to women in ground combat asserted that sex segregation keeps

everyone safe. The primary fear was that the military services would lower the

446 Armed Forces & Society 44(3)

standards required for ground combat, which would result in dead men and lost wars.

Many wrote that standards have already been reduced as Akjarta states,

Standards for combat have been dropped, and people who should not have been passed

as qualified were passed for the sake of political correctness . . . . I have seen those

standards perverted and ignored too often . . . the result is that regular GIs are the ones

that pay the price, not liberal ideologues.

In another example, zzz5421 writes,

The point of a military is to defend its country. All its actions should be directed towards

that end. It is not a tool to ensure gender sensitivity. The military will become a less

efficient fighting power. To ensure quotas, standards must necessarily be lowered,

putting all who fight at greater risk. This is a stupid, PC decision.

For zzz5421 and Akjarta, and many more in our sample, fights for equality in the

military put the United States at risk in armed conflict. Some books and articles have

similar views, with a diverse set of authors arguing that a feminist equal opportunity

agenda undermines military effectiveness (Browne, 2007; Maginnis, 2013; Mitchell,

1998; van Creveld, 2000). Opponents also thought that allowing women in combat

put individual men at risk as Reality301 writes, “Let’s just hope their inadequate

physical strength and durability doesn’t get more male soldiers killed trying to

protect them . . . .” Reality301 argues that women who adopt the nontraditional combat soldier role force men into the traditional role of protector. A male soldier’s

death in this case would be the fault of the female soldier, not the enemy, since he

died to protect her.

Those supporting women in ground combat fought sex–gender stereotypes that

characterized women as unidimensional and inferior. Most of the commenters

supporting women in combat roles stated that standards would not be lowered.

As PB angrily writes,

I recently retired from the U.S. Army after 38 years. The idea that women only gain

jobs or rank due to “political correctness” or “lowered standards” is in a word, stupid. I

have deployed on more than six combat tours and women Soldiers served alongside

[sic] me and my male comrades. The true measure of worth is in the individual not that

person’s sex, cultural background or where they lived. I valued the dedication and

hardworking attitude displayed by Soldiers and did not worry about their sex.

PB takes the critique that military leadership is more concerned with political

correctness personally, as an insult to military professionalism, which PB argues is

gender neutral. PB offers the view that dedication and hard work are what matters,

not sex or other ascribed statuses, thus reasserting professional values. Research in

military cohesion suggests, like PB asserts, that hard work and task success override

Collins-Dogrul and Ulrich 447

social differences like gender (Miller & Harrell, 1997). Other researchers find that

women, in particular black women, have succeeded in a military culture that pro-

motes egalitarian treatment and rewards merit (Titunik, 2000).

While most of those in favor of women in combat roles argued that standards

would not be lowered, and many noted that their support of the policy hinged on this,

others delved into whether current standards actually measure what is required to do

the job. As Clevertip writes,

The DOD is already working on lighter more ergonomic gear. As for fitness, the

selection of pushups, sit ups, and a timed run is kind of arbitrary . . . . Remember both

strength and endurance have value on the battlefield. The former may be men’s par-

ticular strong point but the [latter] is women’s. Winning isn’t simply about brute

strength but also who, after many a sleepless night, has the best situational awareness

and can make the best decisions.

Clevertip notes three issues: Standards should change as technology changes,

standards should truly reflect capacities required for the job, and assumptions of

men’s superiority and women’s inferiority rely on an oversimplification of

combat jobs.

Those supporting desegregation also used rhetoric that decouples being a man and

being a soldier. Nonyo777, for example, uses the shock value of genitalia, a primary

sex characteristic, to argue that male sex should not be a prerequisite for combat,

If you can tell me which military occupational specialty (MOS) is performed with a p-

n-s, I will agree that no woman could possibly perform that role. If the job is not

performed with a p-n-s, then having one should not be a qualification.

Others made the case that secondary sex characteristics like muscle strength are a

way to keep women out of combat, when exclusions based on sex are no longer

legal. For example, Balputz states, “ . . . let’s not exaggerate a soldier’s necessary qualifications for the sake of excluding women.” The issue is determining what

training and abilities are actually necessary, and what are just, in Snyder’s (2003)

language, leftovers from a time when only men were soldiers, or in Balputz more

radical view, efforts to protect male privilege rather than the country. Our com-

menters challenged the assumptions that only women who can equal or match male

strength are fit for combat duty by asserting that a wider range of skills and abilities

might be necessary for the job. In contrast, MacKenzie (2015), found little criti-

cism in her sample of reader comments on the inclination to hold male bodies as

the standard.

In preparation for removing gender-based restrictions on military service, the

military services have taken steps to make sure that standards reflect what is required

for the job. For example, the army developed new physical fitness tests and require-

ments. The new gender neutral Army Occupational Physical Assessment Test

448 Armed Forces & Society 44(3)

(OPAT), which went into effect in January 2017, assesses muscular strength but also

muscular endurance, cardiorespiratory endurance, explosive power, and speed. It is

used to assess fitness for MOSs for all recruits and some soldiers seeking to change

jobs (Vergun, 2017). A minimum level of physical fitness is required for all recruits

but MOSs in the combat arms have a higher bar, which both men and women have to

meet because the army has determined that these jobs are more physically demand-

ing (Vergun, 2017).

Gender neutral testing like the OPAT could assist integration. Research on sol-

diers finds that different standards for men and women can undermine women’s

credibility and generate hostility from men (Miller & Harrell, 1997) and finds that

female service members are frustrated and embarrassed by their perceived inferior-

ity (Brownson, 2015). With this in mind, leaders in the military services assert that

determining objective standards required for particular MOSs is important not only

for ideal placement of talent but also to promote morale (Cone, 2015). Determining

what is required for a job, and then assuring 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.

A sex–gender essentialist ideology with its logic of averages and the contrasting

sex–gender diversity ideology with its logic of distribution shape arguments about

whether the integration of women represents a threat to military standards. Those

opposed to women in combat believed women to be a category of people with

substandard abilities compared to men, thus making women incapable of succeeding

on their own merit, making their integration depend on lowering standards to “let”

women in. Those supporting women in combat considered women to fall along a

spectrum of abilities that overlap with men, thus some women may succeed on their

merits because they are as “good” as men, allowing for integration without lowering

standards. Both groups think standards are important, but those against integration

see a change to standards as a negative and a politically motivated agenda by those

whose primary concern is gender equality and not winning wars, while those for

integration view the change to standards as useful, reflecting the changing nature of

the work, and a way to improve job placement and military effectiveness.

Unit Cohesion

Less common than concerns over the lowering of physical standards, but still a

prominent theme, was the fear that military readiness would be harmed by integrat-

ing women because it would damage unit cohesion. In this view, there is a vision of

male bonding and camaraderie that only exists because women are excluded (MacK-

enzie, 2015). One concern was that desegregation would create sexual tensions. As

Tim McDonfry writes,

Having sexual relationships in, say, a rifle platoon, will lead to one or a few men

enjoying such relationships, while the majority will be frozen out. Jealousies will

Collins-Dogrul and Ulrich 449

result, and “unit cohesion” will be damaged, mutual trust will suffer, and the platoon’s

combat effectiveness will also suffer.

Research in military personnel also suggests that soldiers view dating as disrup-

tive to unit cohesion and that integration can exacerbate this problem (Brownson,

2014, 2015; Miller & Harrell, 1997). However, the commenter and the researchers

assume heterosexuality, of both men and women soldiers, which is common in a sex/

gender/sexuality system where all bodies are presumed heterosexual, making seg-

regated spaces seem like sexuality-free zones (Westbrook & Schilt, 2014). Thus,

essentialist thinking about sex–gender and sexuality underlies these views. The

comment also assumes that sexual relationships trump core values of the military

services like the army’s “loyalty to bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. con-

stitution, the Army, your unit, and other soldiers” (U.S. Army Public Affairs).

Importantly, these values are gender neutral.

Other commenters worried that women would become too important to the unit.

As Canbis writes,

. . . . The issue is unit cohesion and casualties. I have literally seen peacetime units

become not combat ready because of the death of a single member. If that person is also

everyone’s favorite “little sister” the unit really does become combat ineffective . . . .

Society isn’t really ready to see its daughters come home in a body bag. And a unit

certainly isn’t ready to see them leave that way.

Here, we see a vision of bonding and unit cohesion that harms, rather than

improves military effectiveness because ties between men and women are assumed

to be more emotional than strategic. With “little sister,” Canbis subordinates women

soldiers; little sisters need protection and thus would not be equals on the battlefield.

Sisters, then damage the unit, in contrast to brothers, fictive kin celebrated in the

band of brothers ethos, which Mackenzie (2015) argues has long been used to make

the case that women harm the military.

For commenters with an essentialist sex–gender ideology, segregation preserves

unit cohesion because it keeps sexual tensions out of combat and protects same-sex

bonding, but they miss human sexual diversity and gender–neutral bonding. Com-

menters with a diversity ideology, on the other hand, point to gender neutral unit

cohesion based on professionalism and military values, but they tend to underex-

amine consensual heterosexuality as well as the salience of sex and gender.

The Dangers of War

While critics wrote hypothetical scenarios about women dying in war, supporters

made it clear that women have been at risk throughout the War on Terror conflicts.

Thus, they, like MacKenzie (2015), assert that the exclusion of women from the

450 Armed Forces & Society 44(3)

dangers of war has been more myth than reality. As Elizabeth responds to Canbis’s

fears about little sisters,

Over 100 American women have, in fact, come home in body bags from our wars in

Afghanistan and Iraq. Claiming that “society isn’t really ready” for this is not only

disrespectful to the women who died in the service of their country, it is disrespectful to

the thousands of American men who have died in the service of this country, devaluing

them and considering them as less important than women.

Here Elizabeth creates a critique where the problem is the invisibility of women

and the devaluation of men. In fact, despite combat exclusion, by April, 2015, 161

women had been killed and 1,015 had been wounded in action in Iraq and Afghani-

stan (Kamarck, 2015, p. 1), but this is a fraction of the number of killed and injured

men. By 2015, over 3,482 soldiers died hostile deaths and 31,949 soldiers had been

wounded in action in Operation Iraqi Freedom alone (DeBruyne & Leland, 2015).

In addition to fears about death, injury, and lost wars, those opposing women in

combat feared for the rape of female soldiers, arguing that separate spheres protect

women. Some commenters suggested that allowing men and women to serve side by

side would give male soldiers more opportunities to rape their female peers and

subordinates, a concern brought to the public in 2012 by The Invisible War (Dick,

2012), the Academy Award–nominated documentary on sexual assault in the mil-

itary, which likely spurred discussions of soldier to soldier rape in our 2013 data set.

Others worried about the enemy. The 2003 capture and sexual assault of Jessica

Lynch in Iraq is probably the most publically known instance of rape in the War on

Terror conflicts (Bragg, 2003). Fears about rape fit an ideology of womanhood,

where women are weaker than men and as a result are always at (hetero)sexual risk

(Westbrook & Schilt, 2014). As Pilot9 writes, “The idea of a woman being gang

raped by a bunch of bearded extremist[s] that are more comfortable having sex with

goats is what bothers me.” Allusions to rape by the enemy were often implied, with

vague references to what might happen if women were captured. To this type of

concern, dane7 replied, “Same old same old. Protect the helpless women from the

evil physical world and ESPECIALLY from the evil rapists who are hiding under

every bush. Don’t risk letting them go out in the workplace, or anywhere, in fact.”

Dane7 identifies paternalism as the problem and suggests that those who promote

protecting women from the “evil physical world” really are just after the subordina-

tion of women and a reversal to a time when a woman’s “place” was in the home.

Supporting Dane7’s contention, some commenters against women in combat

argued that women’s service to society was pregnancy, birth, and motherhood, thus

military service should not be required of them. Commenters like Mirrorlooker riled

against this separate spheres logic stating that,

Thousands of young women are bored with society’s picket fence scenario for them:

husband (check), baby (check), home with super kitchen and hardwood floors (check),

Collins-Dogrul and Ulrich 451

part-time job to help pay for floors . . . (check, check, check). Let women be who they

want to be. Parents, spouses and columnists, get out of the way . . . .

In response to equal opportunity themes, commenters like Balputz write, “The

forces should not be just another McJob on the battlefield of womens [sic] rights.

The enemy plays for keeps . . . .” Here, as MacKenzie (2015) has also found, is the assertion that feminists concerned with equal rights are ignorant about the

realities of war.

For those in support of segregation, allowing women into combat increases risks

for the male majority and the female minority and reduces military effectiveness as a

whole. This provides the basis for arguments that feminist concern for women’s

rights threatens the welfare of all. Those supporting desegregation interpreted argu-

ments about protecting women from the risks of war as attacks on women’s rights

and justifications for their subordination. They also argued for men’s rights to be

protected from harm, conceiving of men as vulnerable, which challenges sex–gender

essentialist ideology and its notions of tough and invincible manhood. As we will

show next, commenters mobilized arguments about rights and harm in debates about

potential changes to selective service as well.

Sex–Gendered Citizenship: Rights, Obligations, and Selective Service

Many commenters supporting women in combat roles appealed to American values,

specifically equal rights, which was often expressed as individual freedom of choice.

For example, Samantha writes, “A woman’s role should be whatever she wants it to

be. Period. All opportunities should be open to her. Then it’s up to her to meet the

challenges herself.” For Samantha, equal opportunity is paramount, with fairness

depending on a functioning, military meritocracy that assesses people based on

capabilities not sex. Importantly, for many, rights did not come with obligations.

For example, Daily Speculation responds to other commenters’ fears that all Amer-

ican young women would be marched off to war, “If women want to join, they can.

They don’t have to. No one will be marching them down to the recruiter’s office at

gun point.” For many, their support for repealing the ban on women in combat rested

squarely on choice—it was important to them that woman could choose to fight but

that no woman would be obligated to do so.

For others, choice was a contradiction. Some used the idea that “no one will be

marching them down to the recruiter’s office at gun point” to assert that there will

not be equality in the military services as long as men, but not women, are required

to sign up for selective service. Many saw this as a double standard. As War Vet

writes, “‘All male U.S. citizens, and male aliens living in the U.S., who are 18

through 25, are required to register with Selective Service.’ The word male needs

to be dropped from this law. It’s discriminatory.” While it is unclear whether War

Vet actually wants the government to require young women to register for selective

service, or whether the writer is simply asserting an argument, Andrew31Pyle’s

452 Armed Forces & Society 44(3)

more emotional plea suggests a real concern for men’s rights and unfair male

obligations to serve in the military if called. The comment reads,

Pretty much every man you’re speaking to on this thread is or was registered for

selective service. We can be called up, against our will, at any time and sent to use

our bodies to stop red hot pieces of sharp flying metal for the good of the Republic.

There is no draft now and I hope we won’t have one but this world is a very dangerous

and unpredictable place, which is why every young man is required to register for

selective service whether there’s an active draft or not. If women want equal rights, and

they should have them, then they must also shoulder equal responsibility, including the

personal responsibility to have one’s body on tap from the ages of 18–25 just in case we

need that body to stop bullets. We can’t have it both ways and still call [it] “equality.”

The commenter makes the case that equality in the military services is piecemeal,

with laws that give women and men fundamentally different obligations to the

country. For women, choice trumps duty; they serve if they individually decide this

is the right path for them, the nation does not obligate them to do so. This reflects a

liberal individualism, where individual rights and liberties are sacrosanct but duty

and civic responsibility are optional (Snyder, 2003). Men, on the other hand, must

sign up for selective service. Failing to register is a felony punishable by a fine of up

to US$250,000, a prison term of up to 5 years, or a combination of both (Selective

Service System, 2016). In addition, men must register to be eligible for benefits

including federal student financial aid, state-funded student financial aid in many

states, most federal employment, some state employment, security clearance for

contractors, job training under the Workforce Investment Act, and U.S. citizenship

for immigrant men (Selective Service System, 2016). The Supreme Court has upheld

the constitutionality of requiring men, but not women to register for selective service

because the U.S. Department of Defense restricted women from serving in ground

combat roles, with the argument that the purpose of registration is to create a pool of

potential combat soldiers (U. S. General Accounting Office, 1998). With the repeal

of female combat exclusion, the argument no longer stands.

The debate over selective service and combat duty reveals that sex and gender

both limit and define U.S. citizenship. The U.S. government states that members

of the nation are bound by the shared values of freedom, liberty, and equality

(U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2015), but only men are obligated to

be combat soldiers if called to do so. Conversely, up until ground combat jobs

were opened to women in 2016, individual women, who felt they had this calling,

were denied the opportunity to volunteer for this role regardless of ability. Iro-

nically, many supporters of ending the ban on women in combat found different

citizenship obligations for men and women unproblematic, even though the exclu-

sion of women from selective service obligations supports the notion that women

and men are fundamentally different, fitting the essentialist ideology. Selective

service has become the next policy battleground, and we expect more men to

Collins-Dogrul and Ulrich 453

make the case that selective service is a form of sex–gender discrimination that

puts men at unfair risk.

Conclusion

The repeal of the ban on women in ground combat roles and continued media

coverage of the policy change have ignited public interest in sex, gender, and the

military. While quantitative public opinion surveys usefully measure the level of

public support and opposition to the policy change, the contribution of this qualita-

tive analysis of online reader comments is its identification and explanation of the

ideologies and logics that underlie public views on the issue. Our sample of com-

menters included active military and civilians, men and women, supporters and

critics, and people with variant political orientations. What is clear from all the

comments is the saliency of sex and gender in U.S. society.

Those against ground combat roles for women contend that women are phy-

sically weaker, that integration will harm unit cohesion, and that leaders will

lower standards to be “politically correct,” all of which endangers individual

soldiers and damages military effectiveness. Categorical stereotypes, where

women are inherently different and inferior to men, underlie these views, which

are supported by an essentialist ideology and a logic of averages. In contrast,

those in support of women in combat argue that women are already exposed to the

violence of war and that military jobs should be determined based on meeting

objective standards that are necessary for job success not ascribed status. These

supporters have a diversity ideology and use a logic of distribution. They argue

that integration improves military effectiveness, because it expands the pool of

talented people that can make valuable contributions on the battlefield. They also

believe that ground combat exclusion has prevented women from serving their

country and being rewarded for it, thus the new policy change expands citizenship

rights for women.

The question remains, will access to ground combat roles improve women’s

experiences, or will it do little to change the entrenched sex–gender inequalities

in the military services? We contend that ending formal sex segregation is important,

because it terminates a policy structure that emphasized categorical distinctions over

individual competencies. As such, the policy change challenges the ideologies and

supporting structures that reinforce the view that men and women are fundamentally

different, which sociologists of stratification argue justifies inequitable treatment

(Massey, 2007; Tilly, 1999).

However, while a change in the law is important, nonlegal forces that create sex–

gender segregation in the military remain strong. Identifying the skills necessary for

MOSs, developing standards based on these skills, and administering tests that

measure them, will enable some women to enter the combat arms. Nevertheless,

average physiological differences between men and women, in particular strength,

will ensure that women will remain a small numerical minority, making ground

454 Armed Forces & Society 44(3)

combat primarily a place for men. This is underexamined by commenters with a

diversity ideology.

Despite the military services efforts to craft policies and procedures that attempt

to transform men and women into gender–neutral talent, sex and gender will remain

salient for the public and soldiers. Women who work in male-identified and male-

dominated occupations are commonly marginalized by men as well as organiza-

tional structures (Acker, 1990). As long as men are seen as the ideal soldier, formal

and informal processes will privilege men and subordinate women (MacKenzie,

2015). We, like King (2015), expect that women who succeed in the combat arms

will be exceptional, with their acceptance hinging on their ability to function and be

accepted as honorary men. Those with a diversity ideology will herald them, point-

ing to their contributions while those with an essentialist ideology will dismiss them

as rare exceptions, who do more harm than good.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Vicki Smith, whose teaching inspired the “Gender and Work” course at

Whittier College which prompted this research. We thank the students enrolled in the course

and especially Melanie Molinaro, who assisted with the project in its early stages. We also

thank the blind reviewers for their helpful suggestions.

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.

References

Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender and

Society, 4, 139–158.

Alexander, D. (2013, February 4). Panetta, a reluctant defense secretary, left Pentagon mark.

Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pentagon-panetta-

idUSBRE91D09A20130214

Bachner, J., & Hill, K. W. (2014). Advances in public opinion and policy attitudes research.

Policy Studies Journal, 42, S51–S70.

Bragg, R. (2003). I am a soldier, too: The Jessica Lynch story. New York, NY: Vintage.

Browne, K. (2007). Co-ed combat: The new evidence that women shouldn’t fight the nation’s

wars. New York, NY: Penguin Group.

Brownson, C. (2014). The battle for equivalency: Female U.S. Marines discuss sexuality,

physical fitness, and military leadership. Armed Forces & Society, 40, 765–788.

Brownson, C. (2015). Lady leathernecks. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.

Chanter, T. (2000). Gender aporias. Signs, 25, 1237–1241.

Collins-Dogrul and Ulrich 455

Charon, J. M. (2009). Ten questions: A sociological perspective. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Cone, R. (2015). Women on the battlefield: Integrating women into the U.S. Military. Paper

presented at the American Sociological Association, Chicago, IL.

Crompton, R., & Lyonette, C. (2005). The new gender essentialism—Domestic and family

‘choices’ and their relation to attitudes. The British Journal of Sociology, 56, 601–620.

DeBruyne, N. F., & Leland, A. (2015). American war and military operations casualties: Lists

and statistics (7-5700 RL32492). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

Deutsch, F. M. (2007). Undoing gender. Gender & Society, 21, 106–127.

Dick, K. (Writer). (2012). The invisible war [Motion Picture]. Sausalito, CA: Roco Films

Educational.

Dowd, J. (2017). Racial discourse and partisan blogs. Sociological Perspectives, 60, 33–51.

doi:10.1177/0731121415596082

Egnell, R. (2013). Women in battle: Gender perspectives and fighting. Parameters, 43,

33–41.

Firestone, J. (1992). Occupational segregation: Comparing the civilian and military work

force. Armed Forces & Society, 19, 363–381.

Goldman, N. L. (1982). Female soldiers—Combatants or noncombatants? Historical and

contemporary perspectives (Vol. 3). Westport, CT: Praeger Pub Text.

Herbert, M. S. (1994). Feminism, militarism, and attitudes toward the role of women in the

military. Feminist Issues, 14, 25–48.

Herring, S., Job-Sluder, K., Scheckler, R., & Barab, S. (2002). Searching for safety online:

Managing “trolling” in a feminist forum. The Information Society, 18, 371–384.

Hughey, M. (2012). Show me your papers! Obama’s birth and the whiteness of belonging.

Qualitative Sociology, 35, 163–181.

Kamarck, K. N. (2015). Women in combat: Issues for congress (7-5700 R42075). Washing-

ton, DC: Congressional Research Service.

Kelly, J. W., Fisher, D., & Smith, M. (2006). Friends, foes, and fringe: Norms and structure in

political discussion networks. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2006 International

Conference on Digital Government Research, San Diego, CA.

King, A. C. (2015). Women warriors: Female accession to ground combat. Armed Forces &

Society, 41, 379–387.

Knowles, R. (2014). The intertwined fates of affirmative action and the military. Loyola

University Chicago Law Journal, 45, 1027–1084.

Lamont, M., & Molnar, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual

Review of Sociology, 28, 167–195.

Linstead, S., & Pullen, A. (2006). Gender as multiplicity: Desire, displacement, difference

and dispersion. Human Relations, 59, 1287–1310.

Lundquist, J. H. (2008). Ethnic and gender satisfaction in the military: The effect of a

meritocratic institution. American Sociological Review, 73, 477–496.

MacKenzie, M. (2015). Beyond the band of brothers: The U.S. military and the myth that

women can’t fight. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Maginnis, R. L. (2013). Deadly consequences: How cowards are pushing women into combat.

Washington, DC: Regnery.

456 Armed Forces & Society 44(3)

Manosevitch, E., & Walker, D. (2009). Reader comments to online opinion journalism: A

space of public deliberation. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Online

Journalism.

Massey, D. S. (2007). Categorically unequal: The American stratification system. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Russell Sage Foundation.

Mathers, J. G. (2013). Women and state military forces. In C. Cohn (Ed.), Women and wars

(pp. 124–145). Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Mazurana, D. (2013). Women, girls, and non-state armed opposition groups. In C. Cohn (Ed.),

Women and wars (pp. 146–168). Malden, MA: Polity Press.

McSally, M. (2007). Women in combat: Is the current policy obsolete? Duke J. Gender L. &

Pol’y, 14, 1011.

McSally, M. E. (2011). Defending America in mixed company: Gender in the U.S. Armed

Forces. Daedalus, 140, 148–164.

Miller, L. L. (1998). Feminism and the exclusion of army women from combat. Gender

Issues, 16 (3), 33–64.

Miller, L. L., & Harrell, M. (1997). New opportunities for military women: Effects upon

readiness, cohesion, and morale. Retrieved from Santa Monica, http://www.rand.org/

pubs/monograph_reports/MR896.html

Mitchell, B. (1998). Women in the military: Flirting with disaster. Washington, DC: Regnery.

Moskos, C. C. (1988). Institutional and occupational trends in Armed Forces. In F. R. W.

Charles & C. Moskos (Ed.), The military, more than just a job (pp. 15–26). Washington,

DC: Pergamon-Brassey’s.

Newspaper Organization of America. (2014). Readership trends and numbers. Retrieved from

http://www.naa.org/Trends-and-Numbers/Readership.aspx

Padavic, I., & Reskin, b. F. (2002). Women and men at work (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Peach, L. J. (1994). Women at war: The ethics of women in combat. Hamline J. Pub. L. &

Pol’y, 15, 199.

Pew Research Center. (2013). Broad support for combat roles for women. Retrieved from

http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/29/broad-support-for-combat-roles-for-women/

Reskin, B. (1993). Sex segregation in the workplace. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 241–270.

Rollins, A. (2012). Act like a lady! Reconsidering gender stereotypes and the exclusion of

women from combat in the light of challenges to “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Southern Illinois

University of Law Journal, 36, 355–365.

Santana, A. D. (2015). Incivility dominates online comments on immigration. Newspaper

Research Journal, 36, 92–107.

Segal, M. W. (1995). Women’s military roles cross-nationally past, present, and future.

Gender & Society, 9, 757–775.

Segal, M. W., & Hansen, A. F. (1992). Value rationales in policy debates on women in the

military: A content analysis of congressional testimony, 1941-1985. Social Science

Quarterly, 73, 296–309.

Selective Service System. (2016). Benefits and penalties. Retrieved from https://www.sss.

gov/Registration/Why-Register/Benefits-and-Penalties

Collins-Dogrul and Ulrich 457

Silva, J. M. (2008). A new generation of women? How female ROTC cadets negotiate the

tension between masculine military culture and traditional femininity. Social Forces, 87,

937–960.

Sjoberg, L., & Gentry, C. E. (2007). Mothers, monsters, whores: Women’s violence in global

politics. London, England: Zed Books.

Snyder, R. C. (2003). The citizen-soldier tradition and gender integration of the U.S. Military.

Armed Forces & Society, 29, 185–204.

Stephens, S. M. (2013). What happens next? Will protection against gender identity and

sexual orientation workplace discrimination expand during President Obama’s

second term? Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice, 19,

365–396.

Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Neither Hayek nor Habermas. Public Choice, 134, 87–95.

Tilly, C. (1999). Durable inequality. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

Titunik, R. F. (2000). The first wave: Gender integration and military culture. Armed Forces

& Society, 26, 229–257.

Udry, R. (2000). Biological limits of gender construction. American Sociological Review, 65,

443–457.

U.S. Army Human Resources Command. (2016, October 26). Awards and decorations sta-

tistics by conflict. Retrieved from https://www.hrc.army.mil/content/Awards%20and

%20Decorations%20Statistics%20by%20Conflict

U.S. Army Public Affairs. (2016). The army values. Retrieved from http://www.army.mil/

values/

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (2015). Citizenship rights and responsibilities.

Retrieved from http://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learners/citizenship-rights-and-

responsibilities

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1998). Gender issues: Changes would be needed to expand

selective service to women (GAO/NSIAD-98-199). Washington, DC: Author.

van Creveld, M. (2000). The great illusion: Women in the military. Millennium: Journal of

International Studies, 29, 429–442.

Vergun, D. (2017). Army implements new fitness standards for recruits and MOS transfers.

Retrieved from https://www.army.mil/article/180199/army_implements_new_fitness_

standards_for_recruits_and_mos_transfers

Westbrook, L., & Schilt, k. (2014). Transgender people, gender panics, and the maintenance

of the sex/gender/sexuality system. Gender and Society, 28, 32–57.

Wilcox, C. (1992). Race, gender, and support for women in the military. Social Science

Quarterly, 73, 310–323.

Williams, C. (1995). Still a man’s world: Men who do women’s work. Los Angeles, CA:

University of California Press.

Author Biographies

Julie Collins-Dogrul is an associate professor of sociology at Whittier College. She

received her BA in international relations and PhD in sociology at the University of

458 Armed Forces & Society 44(3)

California, Davis. She has published numerous articles on the organization and

politics of public health cooperation on the U.S.–Mexico border. Her current

projects include research on gender and work, transnational environmental

governance, Latinx health disparities, day laborers, and pedagogy.

Jaimis Rebecca Ulrich is an admission counselor and advocate at Whittier College.

She received her BA in anthropology/sociology with a minor in religious studies.

The population she specializes in consists of nontraditional transfer students and

U.S. veterans. She is currently pursuing a master’s degree in organizational leader-

ship. Her research interests include culture, gender, and religion and the way these

social constructs contribute to social structures.

Collins-Dogrul and Ulrich 459