Women and the Culture of the Military

As I've been reading about Pfc. LaVena Johnson's suspicious death and the situation for female troops in Iraq,

(from the Salon article on the matter) I have talked to more than 20 female veterans of the Iraq war in the past few months, interviewing them for up to 10 hours each for a book I am writing on the topic, and every one of them said the danger of rape by other soldiers is so widely recognized in Iraq that their officers routinely told them not to go to the latrines or showers without another woman for protection.

it has taken me back a couple years to my time teaching at the United States Naval Academy. After a some high profile scandals, the Academy decided to create a mandatory ethics course for all midshipmen (even the women there are called midshipmen).

Architecturally, the class (at least as it was taught then) was the pedagogical version of the Hindenburg. It is a Monday, Wednesday, Friday class with Monday being a large lecture hall lecture from a philosopher on the moral system of the week, Aristotle's virtue ethics, Kant's deontological approach, utilitarianism, the usual stuff. Wednesday and Friday were smaller "breakout sections" led by naval officers whose training in the material was a one hour meeting earlier in the week in an instructor's group session led by the philosopher. That means that someone with one hour's worth of training was leading two hours worth of discussion about some tricky philosophy he or she had no background in and in many cases was openly hostile towards because this course was new and anything that wasn't there "when I was at the Academy" is surely bullshit designed only make things easier than I had it. So you had the least successful means of teaching philosophy, the large hall lecture paired with unqualified, sometimes hostile lecturers for the majority of the class.

I was brought in over the summer to try to develop some auxiliary materials for the course -- case studies, role playing exercises, film clips with discussion questions -- activities for the officers to help them set up their sections. My natural inclination, of course, was to tie the theoretical questions to issues that would be more easily grasped. Illustrate the conflicts in action and then allow the step to the more abstract level. So in my search for issues around rights-based ethics, I took a clip from the film The People vs. Larry Flint. It seemed a good way to begin an obvious discussion around the possible limits of even very desirable rights like free speech. A colleague vetoed it quickly telling me that they were told in no uncertain terms that pornography was not an issue that they could discuss in moral terms. It was off-limits. Why? Because they had a bunch of eighteen to twenty-one year olds with hormones shooting through the roof and no constructive way to express their sexuality. As a result, there were unhealthy ways and they weren't to be mentioned.

So you take a situation where you have a hyper-charged testosterone-laden culture that is still bitter about having to make the Academy co-ed and protect the sort of male dominant picture of sexuality present in porn and then wonder how these things happen. Those at the Academy, after all, are not just ordinary members of the service, they will be officers on the track towards high leadership. These are the people who shape and enforce the culture.

The conservative reply to the report out of Iraq will no doubt be just like the ones I heard at the Academy around the time of the Tailhook scandal (also something that was not to be discussed -- the head of the Leadership, Ethics, and Law section at the time was an aviator) -- will be the "few bad apples" line, the same approach we saw in response to Abu Ghraib, Enron, and every other major ethical scandal of the last several years.

Now, on the one hand, it is perfectly true that not every male in the service is part of this problem and it is further absolutely correct that those culpable ought to be held responsible. But what we are seeing here again is an example of the classic conservative rhetorical move to restrict the scope of the discussion. By focusing only on the most immediate actors, it keeps us from asking about the larger social causes because they would then require larger social fixes. It is a simple fact that people conform their behavior to cultural expectations and every group has cultural norms. This fact does not excuse people when they act in a way that is immoral, but encouraged by the culture, but it does mean that we ought to do our best to change the social expectations operative in the culture. Sociology is a real study and social effects are real.

This problem is certainly a problem with a subset of the troops, but the behavior of these members of the military occurs in a context where they believe that their behavior is protected, where they believe that their status as dominant is deserved and safe, where the underlying presuppositions about women are actively reinforced. There is a hostile ENVIRONMENT and that environment is not only the result of the acts of individuals, but a result of a culture that has been fostered, a culture that can, and must, change.

Crossposted at Philosophers' Playground

•  How to go about changing a massive culture

  infected with sexism?  I wish I knew.  The military prides itself on having integrated racially before the rest of society, but that case seems different on a number of levels.

  by SteveG on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 04:20:35 AM PDT

  •  Our myths and legends tell us

    that from the earliest days of making war, men have raped women.

    Men who might otherwise always be gentle. It may be the war and the effects of war, not just a sexist culture.

    That said, RAPE IS WRONG. But maybe there's more going on here, and what that might be is important to understand.

    by zic on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 06:05:25 AM PDT

  •  It'll change

    The numbers for females entering the service and the number of opportunities for women have increased substantially and as women start to attain positions of power I think we will see some serious discussion on females in the military. Unfortunately change in any culture(and that is basically what the military is)takes time especially since we are a society that tends to cling to tradition.

    by cwaltz on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:41:18 PM PDT

    •  It'll CHANGE???????????????????????

      The numbers for females entering the service and the number of opportunities for women have increased substantially and as women start to attain positions of power I think we will see some serious discussion on females in the military. Unfortunately change in any culture(and that is basically what the military is)takes time especially since we are a society that tends to cling to tradition.

      No, It should have changed by now.
      How do I know?
      34 years ago I was in the first group of 4 (four) Females to be given "Men's" job in the USAF.

      It was during the Vietnam war, it was during the Peace movement and every other movement at the time.

      But we did our jobs and the guys learned we were able to do them just as well as them.
      The only "war stories" I have are over the war to get them to allow me to do my job.

      Then we went out into civilian life, trained and experienced and went through the entire process again.

      There is no logical reason why the military is still allowing any form of behavior consistant to rape mentality to exist what-so-ever!

      It should have been banished decades ago.

      The idea that  hyper-charged testosterone-laden males have no control over their "condition", as well as actions is an overwhelmingly sexually descriminitory attitude to those Male Military Members, and should be treated as such,as it is as bad as the way we Female Military members (as well as were Blacks)were back in my days in service.

      I believe that if the  Academy is treating them as if they are and expects them to behave as hyper-charged testosterone-laden juviniles, they will not dissapoint.
      But should they treat them as they deserve to be treated, as young adult males in control of and responsable for their actions, the negative social stigma of acting like a dog in heat would be enough to prevent most, and weed out the rest who may be ignorant and stupid enough to try to impose themselves on others (male or female) sexually.
      As such standards should be set and applied to the Female Members.

      Sigh.....

      by Mulkum on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 08:25:00 AM PDT

•  We need a draft?

  If we had a draft we could really be indignant about this.

  by breezeview on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 04:28:04 AM PDT

•  An initial reaction..

  ...of mine when I read about issues like these - Tailhook, the goings-on at the Air Force Academy, and the like is to issue side arms with hollow-tipped bullets to all female cadets or plebes with instructions to blow the whatevers off of any male that messes with her.
   The issue here is POWER.  Rape is not just about sexuality, it is about power of one over another.  By equalizing the power equation - rank, size, muscle mass and testosterone on the one hand - and match it up with a 9 MM pistol with hollow-points, perhaps that would make any male think twice or three times about trying to overpower a lower-ranking or weaker female.
   That's not the answer, of course, and I am not sure that there is a civilized way to get through this issue.  Accountability?  In the military?  I don't know.

  by drchelo on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 05:14:37 AM PDT

  •  Re: An Initial Reaction

    My thoughts were the same.  However, don't the women soldiers in Iraq carry weapons ?  Why aren't they using them ?   I think the message that is being conveyed through physical power is that the women may be outfitted as 'warriors,' however if they are not capable of defending themselves from the most personal attack, then they are not viewed as being soldiers on equal rank.  It seems to me that the answer would be shooting a rapist in the act in order to change the psychology of the predators.  I don't know military rules, but shooting someone in self-defense from a rape is certainly justified from a civilian perspective.

    by Grand Poobah on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 06:02:05 AM PDT

    •  ah...

      despite the best training and the most expensive side arms, being in a rape situation is not about who is better armed or better trained.

      Each rape situation is different, unique, and just providing guns doesn't solve the problem, as it could be a matter of suprise, being out gunned, overpowered-(read the part where one woman was being raped, and the men held the door shut, and one went in to rape her all over again? explain to me how a gun armed with a hollow tipped bullets would have helped.

      More later.

      by rowanleigh on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 06:26:05 AM PDT

    •  But then

      the woman in question would have to stand court-martial and prove attempted rape. If she fails, she faces, at minimum, 25 years in Leavenworth. And the stance for soldiers who may be involved in same-sex rape is even more complex.

      So the options are bad all around.

      by Jank2112 on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 06:57:35 AM PDT

  •  I am in agreement.

    Since power is what the men in these positions seem to understand, women will be able to become equal when they exhibit power, and since we are mostly smaller and less massive than males, hollow points may be the way to go. During the three rape attempts I have experienced, one was thwarted with a swift kick in the nutsack and the other two by talking my way out of it. If I'd have had a gun, I would have blown the bastards to bits.

    by crose on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 08:59:02 PM PDT

•  not just in Iraq

  http://www.wnep.com/...

  if this is really the first reported rape in 17 years, as the story claims, it should raise questions about how the larger military culture is pervading the reserves through misuse and mistreatment of the Ntl Guard.

  by draftchrisheinz on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 05:44:25 AM PDT

•  Women and Militarism

  from: Women and Militarism

  quote:

  Despite the military's promises of equality and challenging non-traditional careers, women who join are concentrated in clerical and other service jobs which reflect the job ghettos of civilian women. The United States army proudly proclaims that only 28 of 348 occupational specialties are closed to women, however, these positions comprise 42% of all army jobs and are often prerequisites for advancement. Military women face levels of sexual harassment and rape which are much higher than in civilian life. The 1991 Tailhook scandal in the United States, where scores of women were assaulted by naval aviators at a convention, was the catalyst for the investigation of the widespread sexual harassment throughout the military which is tolerated and covered-up. Although women in the military are challenging gender roles by becoming soldiers, they are still judged by them. Military women are labelled either lesbians or prostitutes and are sexually harassed and slandered by their male colleagues. Although most militaries routinely purge homosexuals and lesbians from their ranks, women are much more likely to be targeted and discharged for this reason. This widespread sexual harassment (which affects women in armed forces all over the world) bolsters male egos which have been threatened by female competition and invasion of their previously male-only domain. The exclusion of women from combat (which must constantly be redefined in an era of nuclear and high tech combat) is essential to preserving the masculine identity of the military and to justifying the continued male dominant position in the social order

  .

  the article is from Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. It includes a wide overview on the various issues concerning Women and Military.

  by jeff3 on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 06:39:36 AM PDT

•  This is an American Military Cultural phenomeon.

  as other militaries with women in high profile almost combat and combat positions don't have this problem, or at least until the militarism of society started to take place and a culture of war started to dominate Israeli society.

  This happens because it is tolerated from the top down by a sexist army command. Coercisive sex from the time a woman before she enters the military-Recruiters-to people in command raping the woman is tolerated, covered up, and at its very worst condoned.

  Add to the fact that-statiscally speaking-the Army is made up of kids who don't have the educational opportunities others do-(college, well funded schools from "white" suburbs).  And also add to the fact that the Army has lowered its standards and accepts Criminals. As my cousin in the military contemptously said to me-"once a piece of shit, always a piece of shit" about one of his army colleagues who had a criminal background and was dishonorably discharged.

  What made intergration work was that the Military command decided that they would no longer tolerate racism in any shape or form. The same needs to happen within the ranks. Once the top level command gets over their arrogance, and makes a commitment to not tolerating sexism and rape in any form, by anybody, then we will see the "intergration of troops".

  as a personal story, I worked for several years a firefighter/medic in an all male station. there was good natured ribbing, and teasing on both sides that if a diversity teacher had been there, I am sure would have gotten us all suspended and in sensitivity training. Most of it didnt' offend me, as I used to say to my husband-"going into the testrone fog for the day, teflon coating over my feminism is now in place".  However, everyone knew the line, such as not having "girly" magazines and calenders up, and not pushing the boundaries too far. One day a newbie straight out of the military showed up and he constantly pushed the boundaries with me, which I did my best to deflect. The last straw was when we were sitting around on the apron discussing AIDs which morphed into something a little more than that, and this guy flipped a condom in my lap-saying I should learn how to use it.
  The dead silence that followed from my other colleagues was well deafening when they realized then and there that military guy was a sexist misygonist. But more suprising was the hammer that came down on this guy without me having to "lift a finger" My captain told me that my entire squad came to him and demanded action be taken. Not only that they  made military guy's life a living hell in our station. My commanding officers acted with a swift supension, diversity training and at our next training drill, Military guy had to write and read a letter of apology to me in front of several other houses. The message was sent by my crew and my commanding officers that in this station that there was a line and that anyone who dared cross it with "our women" was in for a world of shit.

  I was watching a Rome episode last night where Vorenus brings his children back and says "You will treat them with respect or I will know the reason why." Or as one of the Salon letter writers put it-"During Vietnam, if anyone raped a woman service member, he would have been sent back stateside in a full body cast".

  We need to demand that our military commanders have the same attitude.

  by rowanleigh on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 06:57:58 AM PDT

  •  p.s.

    the phrase "our women" may rankle a bit and be seen as sexist and patararichical. All I can say is that was a quote from one of my 'battle buddies" and he was phrasing his desire to "take a bullet for one of his own" in a framework he could understand.

    Of course I gave him good natured shit and what I hope was an education about being felt like I was owned. I stopped short of leaving old Ms. Magazines on his bunk though.

    by rowanleigh on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 07:06:34 AM PDT

  •  There's a lesson in here somewhere, and

    I'd love to see a sociologist do a study and figure out what is was about the dynamics of your situation that made it work so well.  The truth is that in most situations where there's a sole woman in a traditional male domain, the woman is not treated with such respect.  I wonder what it was about the way you handled it or about the men involved or the situation itself or the hierarchy that made your situation work.  Maybe it could be carried into some others.

    by gustynpip on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 07:30:50 AM PDT

    •  it was that

      we had a pretty progressive Lt. and Captain who basically before I showed up told all the crews that I was coming, that this was the future, and that they wouldn't tolerate any sexist bullshit. The first day I arrived, the captain and Lt. both pulled me aside, and told me that any problems I had were to be brought to them immediately. I think that the male crews just took that it was either accord me respect or lose their jobs.

      I also knew that I had to be better than the best man in the crew, and that everyday I would have to prove myself over again. That any weakness on my part would lose the respect of the crew. So, while they were watching TV in the evening, I was strapping on full turnout gear and SCBA pack and running the stairs. While they ate lunch, I excused myself a little early to go read up on fire supression techniques...
      This stuff went a long way, and the first fire we went on when I saved my partner's life in a flashover, I had earned their respect. They knew that they could count on me physically, emotionally and mentally to handle any situation.

      So, I think my willingness to be more anthropological about going in this group setting and willing to challenge myself and tolerate some things, (hearingis  about how one guys girlfriend gave her two ups for down over breakfast last night, was stuff I just let slide) and probably the willingness of the Lt. and Captain's views is what made all the difference.

      by rowanleigh on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 07:49:19 AM PDT

      •  EXACTLY!

        Thank you for showing what I was trying to say up thread!

        I recognized what you did as it was what I did 34 years ago.
        
        I had earned their respect
        
        Especially working so hard to prove yourself.

        I remember a decade and 1/2 later where I refused to ask for help, trying to prove I could do something, when a co-worker said "but why not ask for help, you don't have anything to prove to anyone".
        It had finally become unneccessary.
        What a relief.

        You proved the point I was trying to  make in my post above, if certain actions are considered unacceptable, they will be met with the appropriate negative reaction by all.
        Personally I believe the guys are proud not to be  one of the "assholes"

        by Mulkum on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 08:45:19 AM PDT

•  Yes, we must fight the "bad apple" theory.

  The OP makes an excellent point:

  By focusing only on the most immediate actors, it keeps us from asking about the larger social causes because they would then require larger social fixes. It is a simple fact that people conform their behavior to cultural expectations and every group has cultural norms. This fact does not excuse people when they act in a way that is immoral, but encouraged by the culture, but it does mean that we ought to do our best to change the social expectations operative in the culture. Sociology is a real study and social effects are real.

  I just did my social psychology lecture on Friday of last week, and I can tell you, it really shocks the college freshmen!  And I also make a big deal of changing the social milieu--and that the social milieu can be changed.

  (I just had an uncharitable thought--would someone on "Red State" use the word "milieu"?  If so, would the readers there understand it?)

  by Dar Nirron on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 07:36:42 AM PDT

  •  I had to look it up myself

    But what I got kind of makes your statement a little weird.

    a person's social environment: he grew up in a military milieu.

    Wouldn't that make calling it a social milieu redundant? Sorry to nitpick, I'd just never actually bothered to look up that word.

    by Hannibal on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 10:26:00 PM PDT

    •  Hannibal, I looked up milieu

      at http://www.dictionary.com .

      There, it gives "milieu" the definition of an environment in general, with the typical use as a social environment (although not necessarily).  Therefore, a milieu could be a physical environment, also, such as a marshland.  So, "social milieu" is correct as a way of being specific about which particular environment one is talking about.

      But thank you for inspiring me to look it up to be sure!

      by Dar Nirron on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 07:21:17 AM PDT

•  Apparently, command attitudes are key.

  The Salon article points out that in groups where the leadership makes known that they will not tolerate abuse of women, the situation is much better.

  Officers need to be trained on this.

  by Simpletonian on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 07:58:06 AM PDT

•  sounds familiar

  good diary. All this sounds very much like what I observed when I taught at the Naval Academy, probably just before your time. I played a role in a little revolution among faculty at USNA (I'm told it was nicknamed after me), which forced the Board of Visitors to shake up the Academy in several ways, including creating the ethics courses you were brought in for.

  In several years teaching there, I perceived that women midshipmen managed to survive the hostile atmosphere essentially by adopting the male culture as their own.

  It was always painfully difficult to get a group of mids to discuss any kind of intellectual material candidly. None of the mids wanted to stand out in any way, and very few were willing to be seen by fellow mids to care about any aspect of the life of the mind. In many ways, it was extremely sterile ground, and the Academy culture enforced that in multiple ways.

  by smintheus on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 08:47:24 PM PDT