Feminism and the Military

Developments in the Unietd States of America

INTRODUCTION

There can be little doubt that the issue of affirmative action, also that of women, will feature prominently in any future South African National Defence Force. This crucial issue revolves around the balance that will have to be struck between a commitment to affirmative action, including that of gender integration, and combat readiness.

Few issues in the areas of civil rights and civil-military relations are as value-laden or as controversial as those involving the role of women in the armed forces. What exactly is the relationship between the twin priorities of maximum combat readiness in terms of the mission of the armed forces and maximum opportunity for women?

This article follows the earlier contribution by Prof. Jacklyn Cock with the title Feminism and Militarism - some questions raised by the Gulf War which was published in issue no 6 of the South African Defence Review. It also follows a very useful article on the subject by Richard D. Hooker, Jr., Affirmative Action and Combat Exclusion: Gender Roles in the US Army, which appeared in the US Army War College journal Parameters during December 1989.

Cock provided a sound overview of the ideology and politics which underpin the various feminist perspectives. Moving this debate into the realm of both socially justifiable and practical choices is indeed difficult. As Cock indicated in her article, there does appears a leaf or two that we could take from the USA on this issue, where the attempt to remove sexual discrimination in the armed forces is probably ahead of that achieved in many other institutions. This reflects the remarkable progress that has been made in recent decades to make the US military an example of equal opportunities within the larger US society. The steady and at times even rapid changes that were made on opening up combat roles for women in the US does however appear to have tapered off for the time being.

THE US EXPERIENCE

Following an often heated debate in the US Army, a temporary leveling-off of female accessions at 65 000 (the so-called 'Women Pause') was implemented in May 1981 to permit a review of policies and programs and to determine the effect the use of women had on combat effectiveness and force readiness. The subsequent appointment of a policy review group resulted in the establishment of the Direct Combat Probability Coding (DCPC) system. The DCPC process assigned each position in the Army a ranking from P1 to P7 based on the probability of routine engagement in direct combat. Only those positions coded P1 were not available to women. This system is informally known as the 'combat exclusion' rule. As a result 87% of enlisted military positions, 91% of warrant officer and 96% of officer specialties are open to women (as opposed to the figure of 50% of military jobs quoted by Cock, p. 14) who are represented in every career management field except infantry, armour and special operations.

As pointed out by Cock (p. 13), eleven percent of those currently serving in the US military are women, an increase from approximately two percent in 1967. At that time women were restricted to what were often characterized as 'traditional' occupations in the services such as administrative and medical positions. More general occupations became available to women in 1977. But, as Cock points out (p. 14) the recent advances must be questioned on the basis that the traditional distinctions between combat and non-combat or combat support roles have become blurred with the introduction of the deep battlefield and over-the-horizon weaponry.

COMMISSION ON WOMEN IN COMBAT

Following discussion of a law repealing a prohibition on the utilization of women in air combat roles, the US Congress called for the establishment of a commission to study the issue of women in the military in the 1992-93 defense authorization bill. The Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women subsequently issued its report on 15 November 1992. Its 15-member bipartisan commission, composed of nine men and six women, spent 7 months soliciting comments from more than 3 000 retired officers, heard testimony from 300 witnesses, examined 11 000 letters and statements and visited 22 military installations. Invariably the composition of the Commission was not without controversy and stood accused of being weighted in favour of conservative factions opposed to relaxing the combat exclusion rule for women.

In its final report the Commission reversed many of the changes that had occurred as a result of agitation by women combat inclusion proponents. To a large degree these proponents had sought leverage from the successful examples of women soldiers deployed during the Gulf War. The final recommendations of the Commission included the following:

the retention of existing policies which did not allow for the assignment of service women to Special Operations Forces apart from service in a medical, linguistic or civil affairs capacity;



that the military services adopt 'gender-neutral assignment policies' to ensure that no-one is denied access to a post open to both men and women on the basis of gender;



urging the Pentagon to consider adopting policies that would disallow assignments that would separate single parents from children too young for school or take more than one parent in a dual-military service family away from home;



acknowledging the physiological differences between men and women, and calling on services to 'retain gender-specific physical fitness tests and standards to promote the highest level of general fitness and wellness.' In a military well-known for its quantification of every aspect of military duties this is bound to result in a large number of specific physical, mental and moral standards for every conceivable military job open to both genders.



a new law banning women from air combat positions (18 months after Congress repealed an identical law) as well as urging legislation to exclude women from ground combat assignments in the infantry, artillery and armour, as well as certain assignments in air defence and combat engineers;



opening non-flying jobs to women on Navy combat ships while disqualifying women from service in submarines and landing aircraft

Armed with the cudgel of a 'rigged composition', proponents of women in combat are already urging the appointment of a new commission and the rejection of the findings of the Bush-appointed Commission. Any such new commission will, once again, be faced with controversy and bias, but if appointed, would find no small solace in the precedent set by President Clinton's recent ruling which formally allowing homosexuals to serve in the US military.

The dilemma and controversy are clear. Affirmative action in its broadest sense commits the armed forces to policies that will ultimately collide with any combat exclusion rule.

THE DEBATE FOR AND AGAINST

Proponents of a gender-neutral military establishment envisage the participation of women in all phases of military life, including membership and command of combat units, vehicles and ships. They rely heavily on legal arguments borrowed from the civil rights and feminist movements to attack gender distinctions as inherently discriminatory or violative of fundamental constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. They insist that the right of individual women to pursue fulfilling and rewarding careers in the military cannot be abridged by 'traditional' views of sexual roles which over-emphasize sex differences and devalue female strengths and capabilities. Differences in physical capacity or behaviour patterns are believed to be largely irrelevant or distorted by bias in the structure of test instruments or interpretation of test data. Sexual issues that do not lend themselves easily to this interpretation can be resolved, it is argued, by the application of better, more equitable leadership and training programs. Often the impression is made that advocates of gender neutrality in the military posit an irrefutable presumption that opposition to their views is proof of sexual bias.

Opponents of combat roles for women in the United States and elsewhere focus on two essential themes. The first is the effect on readiness and efficiency of sexually integrated combat units and the impact of a female presence in the 'fighting' components. The second is the social impact of female mass casualties which would follow commitment of a fully integrated military force to conventional military combat. Both are also issues to which Cock referred.

Those opposing combat roles for women reject the argument that physical, psychological or social/cultural differences are irrelevant to military efficiency and cite medical evidence that documents male advantages in upper body strength, cardiovascular capacity, lean muscle mass, and leg strength to demonstrate significant differences in physical capacity. They stress physiological research which suggests a higher incidence of injury in training for women than for men. For while the physical capacity (primarily a factor in tasks requiring heavy lifting or stamina) of individual females may equal or exceed that of males, for women it is generally lower. Logically, they appear to have a point, for the assignment of female soldiers (without regard to their physical ability) to jobs more suited to males (and vice versa) can only degrade unit readiness and damage both self-esteem and successful integration of the female (or male) soldier affected.

Put simply, combat exclusion proponents argue that sexual behaviour traits, whether genetic (inherited) or learned, cannot be ignored. As a result, they argue, the potential impact of these traits on the performance of combat units must be considered. The most commonly employed argument is that of crime, a male-dominated activity virtually throughout the world, which implies much higher levels of aggression for men than for women. This, and various biomedical and genetic research, support possibly the most strongly held normative assumption of all: that on average, females lack the male's aggressiveness and psychological resistance to combat-generated stress and are therefore less suited for the rigours and demands of extended combat.

Other arguments relate to the effect of female presence on the fragile psychological basis that is the foundation of cohesion and esprit in traditionally all-male combat units. Thus it is argued that sexual integration of these units, even with females screened for physical capacity, would destroy or impair fighting efficiency by introducing elements such as protectiveness, sexual attraction, social role inversion, and leader/follower conflict based on gender stereotypes, among others.

Combat exclusion opponents dismiss these arguments as sexist, or at most curable with good leadership and proper training. But combat veterans in the United States, and I venture in South Africa, argue that the psychological 'chemistry' of combat units is regulated and defined by adherence to and reinforcement of the traditional sex roles of warrior and protector. To disturb this crucial but delicate balance, the argument goes, by employing females merely to promote feminist values of full equality, would destroy the sexual identity at the root of the combat ethos.

There are also other, more practical arguments, including pregnancy, fraternization, sole parenting, sexual harassment, privacy and field hygiene issues. Where First World armies deployed for a limited period for a specific mission, such as happened in the Gulf War, can readily meet these requirements, it is arguable whether even the British military could have done so during the circumstances present during the ground campaign of the war in the Falklands.

CONCLUSION

There does not appear to be a bright line where fairness and equity gives way to prudence and necessity. Rather, the resolution of competing claims involving constitutionally protected rights appear to be an exercise in line-drawing. The first imperative for any armed force - the maximum level of combat readiness and efficiency - stands in potential conflict with bona fide institutional desires for equal opportunity. Dismissing all gender-related issues as irrelevant to military efficiency and the result of male bias is an impractical approach which may compound rather than facilitate serious policy choices. At the same time there can be little excuse for restricting female participation where sexual integration and overall combat efficiency are found to be in harmony.

The differences between men and women can be muted, compensated for, and even exploited to enhance military performance - up to a point. But at our present level of social development and technology it may be disingenuous to assume that physiological, psychological, cultural, and social distinctions rooted in gender are irrelevant on what is often still a bloody and primitive battlefield. Combat units which by task designation stand to suffer heavy casualties, place the greatest demands on the physical abilities of soldiers and endure the highest levels of psychological trauma and stress. It is here that gender differentiation is thrown into its sharpest focus.

In a country such as the United States the institution of the all-volunteer force resulted in a rapid expansion of the role of women in the forces. This will possibly also be the case in South Africa, although there are obvious differences, not least of all a South African male-dominated society more conservative in these matters than the American one. But, at present, there appears little consensus in South Africa on including women in direct combat assignments in our armed forces of the immediate future.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

R. D. Hooker, Jr., Affirmative Action and Combat Exclusion: Gender Roles in the US Army, Parameters, December 1989

J. S Porth, Limited Combat Roles proposed for US Service Women, The Washington Post, 1 December 1992.

B. Gellman, Panel Asks Women Held From Combat: Presidential Commission Divided, The Washington Post, 4 November 1992.

Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, Report to the President, 15 November 1992.

J. Cock, Feminism and Militarism: some questions raised by the Gulf War, in South African Defence Review, No 6, 1992.